BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religious Claims to Objective Morality are Might Equals Right Arguments

Happy to think with you today. R1: Acceptance and Basic Arguments. Con can rebut if they wish. R2: Counterargument and Expansion R3: Counterargument and Conclusion. Clarification: The majority of religions will argue that they have an 'objective morality' based on the fact that their God, The supposed creator(s) of our universe, Said so. Their argument looks something like this: 1. My God created the universe. 2. Therefore, He can't be wrong about morality. It is easy for me to refute this along the lines of "Is it unimaginable that something could create the universe and be evil? " The answer to this is no. Others would say: 1. My God created the universe 2. My God, By definition, Is good. Therefore, My God's morality is objectively true. The is-ought distinction plays a big part here. Even if God exists, There is no argument you can use that we ought to accept its morality as objective fact. The only argument you can give is that he is powerful or intelligent. These are might makes right positions. I submit that most religious people should be uncomfortable about this. I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary. To be clear, I'm hoping that a religious person takes up this challenge, If you believe your morality is objective then defend it. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Do you want to live forever

Yes, of course! Why reject the opportunity to accomplish everything you ever wanted?! There are so many things that lead to the conclusion that I want to live forever. Admittingly having to watch the people around me grow old and die, you would get past that, and still have an eternal life to live. The lives that we currently have are simply too short. We have time to raise a family, get a degree, grow old, and then we die. It's as simple as that. But being immortal would allow us to live the life we always dreamed of; and how could you possibly get bored? You can do what you want with your life. Get 5000 doctorates or PhDs, travel to every country in the world, and we won't be on earth forever. Companies are already beginning to study possible ways to live on Mars, and soon that will be a reality. We will be able to go around the universe. Explore black holes. Do things no one could ever dream of. And what about death? No matter what religion you are (or whether you have one at all), everyone is afraid of death in their own way... Some more than others. How would you feel if you didn't have to face death? If death was a shadow-less figure almost like the person in the deathly hallows who had the invisibility cloak and continued to cheat death. If life finally had a meaning and you could finally fit in. Although it would be far nicer to be a vampire (you had speed, mind control, could actually die), even if you weren't one (and you probably wouldn't be), it would still be amazing, and if I were given the choice, I would definitely choose to live forever, and make the most of it. And also, it's not like you would be stuck on a pirate ship only able to go on land every 1000 years (like Pirates of the Caribbean) or anything similar to these fictional, unrealistic and extravagant ideas. Also, everyone who is saying no to wanting to live forever is bringing up the point of having no-one around you, but surely other people will be immortal too, so it's not like you'll be stranded with no-one to talk to. The idea of immortality will either stay a secret or become a common trend, where people have the choice. While it is a simple answer for me and the other (currently) 44% of people on debate.Org, it will be different for other people, and therefore over-population will not be a problem, especially if we are living throughout the entire universe.
Do you want to live forever

First I have a good reason why I think that it will destroy the incentive, which is that the incentive of humans is based on time. People do things because of deadlines whether they are the time you have to hand in an essay or the years in which you are able to do something like climbing mountains. If you now can do it at any time in infinity, there is no incentive to for example go and climb a mountain as you can to it later. This takes into account that the human nature is to a good extend if possible lazy and an infinite life brings just this laziness. I do not see any reason to think that it will give an incentive to do anything and you haven"t given a reason. To the next point I have to say that the thing we are debating is whether an infinite life is a thing to be wished for and what I have explained with both age and illness is that this doesn"t hold for those people. It is important to see that this goes for everyone in the case of illness as we have agreed that nothing but the life span changes. Therefore also the possibility of illness and suffering is still there which means that there will still be people suffering through their illness. It is not clear that you would be able to adapt as again to really stress this point, we are not changing human nature but just the life span and I can"t see any reason to think that the extend of your lifespan has any impact on your ability to adapt to change. It is true that you can still adapt a little but even this decreases with time. Therefore I can say that our human nature doesn"t show any reasons for me to think that I will be well adapted for a society in 100+ years and I can"t see any reason given by you. I again can just refer you to my last remarks where I have explained that due to innate traits of people the common and idealized thought that everyone can achieve everything that just work for is not actually true. If we just take the doctorate as an example we can see directly several traits that are required from a minimum IQ, to some amount of creativity in your research and also to practical abilities that not every human has and that are determined to a great extend by your genes. So you cannot just do everything which limits the number of possible things to do. But now to the obvious thing which is really just a math problem. If you have a finite set of things that can be done and this set is obviously finite even if it changes (it doesn"t even change that fast making it not even that big) and you have an infinite number of years you can now see that if you subtract the two you are left with an infinite number of years where you have nothing to do. This is just math. And if you see that there isn"t actually that much to do it has actual impact. And finally you can see that the number of wishes is finite in counting all things someone wants and see that it is less then infinite. What I and I think you too are arguing for is that a longer life is preferable, but not an infinite.
Do you want to live forever

This moot would clearly not, as you put it, 'destroy both the incentive to do anything as you could just do it later and the value of each action in relation to you and your surroundings'. Because, as I stated before, being able to live forever will give people the incentive to accomplish things with their life, rather than just throwing it away, and making the most of the opportunities that exist all over the world. Also, it is obvious that one wouldn't change their age when having immortality or living forever. I have clearly stated that people do not get older when given immortality, and therefore the point you made surrounding 'old or sick people' is completely pointless. Also, we must presume that those who are given the chance to live forever would be of an age where they actually want to live forever. We are NOT stating that we are suddenly going to make everyone live forever, we are posing the question of 'DO YOU WANT TO LIVE FOREVER' not 'everyone should live forever', and therefore they would be in a favourable state of being. It is clear that if you were immortal you would be able to adapt to new things and changing times. Human nature is admittingly shaped through your early years, but not entirely. As you grow older you continue to shape who you are as a person and what you want to do with your life. The new opportunities that will arise in the future will help you stay busy and will not decrease with time. You will work well in a society 100+ years in the future, and you will be able to adapt it well throughout your 'infinite life.' I have already stated that some people don't have the same traits as others, but that doesn't mean that they're suddenly left with nothing to do except, as you put it, 'sit down with nothing to do for infinity.' May I remind you that you CAN do anything that you set your mind to. As long as you never give up, you will be able to complete a doctorate that the opposition is simply stating as 'impossible', and no, this would NOT lead to 'eternal boredom'. The fact that things are continuously changing means that new opportunities and amazing things will continue to arise for humans. Once again, there is not 'still only a finite number of things you can do'. The world is changing and new jobs are continuously arising. You have stated that there is no evidence in human nature that they want an infinite number of things in their lives. Might I add that there is no evidence in human nature that they do not want an infinite number of things in their lives, and no, you would not be destroying both the incentive to do anything, which is why eternal life is clearly a desirable state of being.
Do you want to live forever

To your first point, while it isn"t necessary that one wouldn"t age and it wasn"t stated in the motion itself, I still assumed it to be the case, which is why we do not disagree here. The same goes for your second remark, that the point about possibility is irrelevant. I just wanted to make sure that we were both of this opinion as I wasn"t sure after your first remarks. I have do disagree with you about your claim that everyone fears death. There are many old or sick people who welcome death. As a normal human existence which is just elongated to eternity wouldn"t prevent those sufferings, there would still be many who would like to set an end to their life and therefore would welcome death, making the infinite elongation of their life not a favorable state of being. Now to your next remark I think that it is still very much possible to get for loss of a better word "boring" and that you won"t be able to adapt to the changing times. Human nature is very much shaped throughout your early years and your ability to adapt also to new things that supposedly should help you stay busy, keeps decreasing with time. You won"t work well in the society that will be there in a hundred years and similarly you wouldn"t be able to adapt well to it throughout your infinite life. I agree that certain things can be accomplished through mere training but you are disregarding the importance of certain traits that people either do or do not possess. There is a good portion of society that won"t be able to get a doctorate unimportant of how long they work for it, and similar things hold for every trait. This together with a finite number of things to do would necessarily from mere logic result in the eternal boredom even if everything changes all the time (and human society and activity by no means even does that) as there is still only a finite number of things it can become. Therefore I also flat out deny your next point as there is no evidence in human nature that they want an infinite number of things in their lifes. This is why I still think that you would destroy both the incentive to do anything as you could just do it later and the value of each action in relation to you and your surroundings which is why I stay with my opinion that eternal life is not a desirable state of being.
Do you want to live forever

Think about every documentary and tv show that has ever been made. The obvious point that the opposing speaker has failed to make is that if you were to live forever you wouldn't grow old. The science would stop you from aging, and we aren't even talking about science, we are talking about the ethical question of do you want to live forever. Not is growing old for an infinite number of years the right thing to do; and the fact here is that yes, being young is a desirable state of being. No one wants to grow old, become all wrinkly and wither away with no one caring. Whether it is possible or not is entirely irrelevant because it is entirely unrelated to the moot, which states 'do you want to live forever' not 'is it possible to live forever.' Who cares if it's possible or not? The fact is that of course people will want to live forever, because, no matter if you believe in an afterlife or not, or want to die, the fact is that, as I stated previously), everyone is afraid of death in their own way. This is just a fact of life whether you are willing to accept this or not. Also, living for an infinite time IS a desirable state, no matter if you have superpowers or not. An infinite life is something to wish for. Boring is not a word in the vocabulary of this context. How could a life possibly become boring? You could do everything. Climb Mt. Everest, get a doctorate in neurology, move to Mars, become an astronaut, it's difficult to name anything that doesn't come under the category of boring. Face the fact that I hate art... therefore I wouldn't become an artist or get an art degree. That doesn't suddenly mean that my life becomes boring. There are only a finite number of things to do now, but that IS CHANGING! Every day new jobs arise. We no longer need housemaids, because we aren't living in the 16th century. The world is a changing place, and we are changing with it. If you are assuming that human ability- both physically and mentally are restricted and that it also restricts the set of things one could possibly do, you are failing to realize that those in the Olympics don't become champions overnight, and by living forever, you could accomplish all of these things throughout time. This couldn't lead to you having done all the things you are able to do, or, as you put it, eternal boredom because you are always finding new hobbies and things that you enjoy. An eternal life will not erode any wish you wish to do anything because you can just do it later because there is an infinite number of things that people want to accomplish in life and having an infinite life will give people the chance to accomplish it. Eternal life is easily desirable. Why not make the most of everything around you without a ticking time bomb following you around everywhere? Being able to accomplish everything in life while still staying young, saying goodbye to the fear of death and seeing the world change around you is the clear reason why I would want to live forever.
Do you want to live forever

Now what we are talking about is the question whether living forever or for an infinite time would be a desirable state of being. It is not the question whether or how something like that is or will be possible (nor the implications of having a body that is getting infinitely old) and also not what elaborate superpowers would be an additional nice thing to have. Therefore I assume that this infinite life would be equipped with normal human abilities as well as a normal human body. I do not think that an infinite life is something to wish for and I will explain why by bringing up two arguments. Firstly: Infinite life would get "boring". Over time especially if this time is infinite you are able to do everything you as a human are able to do. You can go on to do all the positive things Pro described but by definition there are only a finite number of things to do. The number of things you could do are further limited by your ability, meaning that not every human could even if the person would work for say 10000 years achieve all the things he wants. If we assume that human ability both physical and mentally are restricted it also restricts the set of things one could possibly do. This then would over an infinite time span lead necessarily to you having done all the things you are able to do. What happens then (or after repeating everything a certain number of times) is necessarily an undesirable state of being namely eternal boredom. A second point I want to make is that our sense of meaning in the world is based upon a finite life. If a person does anything that they think is important like the things you have mentioned for example doing a PhD, explore the world or for that matter have close friends and maybe a family, it is always in context of a finite life. Each decision a person makes for such a meaning full action is a decision also to not do something else. It is always a decision to not do another thing you want to do and this is the thing making the experience meaning full for you and for others in a society. Therefore if one now just has unlimited time resources doing something has no greater commitment in it as you can just do the next thing some other time. This destroys the meaning of every action you do and therefore also your own life. This can be compared to doing something you have worked for and that was hard for you to achieve in comparison to just be able to do it without any investment. This will also over time erode any wish to do anything. Firstly because you can always just do is later which will lead to a person never standing up in the morning and secondly the lack of meaning in an action makes it lose its appeal. Therefore I do not think that eternal life or for that matter due to the second argument even a really much elongated life, is a positive thing. This is not to say that a longer life at least to some extend would be a really nice thing, but I think it is important to see the implications
Resolved: The United States of America should abolish the Death Penalty

Throughout this debate, my opponent has given very weak rebutalls, that aren't very realistic. When he argues about defending the Death Penalty in America, he can't bring up what other countries do, or what happened before. If that's the case, then the BOP is shared, since he is also making claims that are part of the status quo. For his first rebutall, Con is simply stating it doesn't have to be expensive. This rebutall is very vague, as it doesn't explain how it could be cheaper. He uses examples of what happened in the 18th century, and this is quite ridiculous. We never had extensive judical processes back then. In fact, the number of innocents who were killed were much higher than they were back then. Con doesn't take in factor that 25 cents, is not even adjusted for inflation. We don't even know that, since Con provided 0 sources in this debate. I think Con should know that you need a gun to use the bullet, and a gun does not cost 25 cents. Con seems to believe that a judicial process is very cheap, but I don't understand why he thinks that. In the debate, he provided no source that shows that the death penalty was cheaper in the past, and simply is asumming many things. Con seems to want to sacrafice the judicial procress, just to minimize costs. I'd like to remind Con that excecuting an innocent person is a direction violation of the Constitution. "Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Con says I forfeited morality, but i did not. I argued that the argument has no impact since both sides are justified. Regardless, there is no place in this debate, that Con showed that morality is more important than cost.Throughout this whole debate, Con is simply making assumptions, and has no evidence of his claims. He is arguing based on semantics and fails to provide realistic and civiilized soulutions to adresss the situation.Please vote for Pro. I have given emperical evidence of the DP being expensive, and showing LWP is cheaper. I have shown the DP is not even effective in deterring crime. Con simply relies on blantant assumptions, and has failed to show that the United States should keep the DP. Thank you Con for the debate.
Resolved: The United States of America should abolish the Death Penalty

RebutallsThank you for your responds Con.I believe Con has lost this debate already, and allow me to explain why.For his first rebutalls, Con is simply arguing for the use of Capital Punishment, and not the type the United States uses. Con simply tries to to say the cost's do not have to be this way, but this isn't an argument. This is how DP is applied in the U.S, and Con cannot change that. There is a large process into punishing criminals, and it isn't simply just executing him. So, this cannot even be considered a rebutall, when Con isn't even defending the DP the United States use. Even with arguing for the generic concept of Capital punishment, he doesn't even give us solutions on how it can be cheaper. No where in the world, does it take 25 cents to execute a criminal. This is almost impossible.Con says I never gave any statistics that show that the DP is ineffective, but I did. " North Carolina, it has been realized that the DP does not reduce crime. Yet, according to the N.C. Department of Justice, the state murder rate has declined in the years since executions stopped." The opinions that I provided come from highly respected Criminologists, and their opinions shouldn't be taken lightly.Con concedes that there is no evidence that states criminal behavior deters crime, because his response was off topic. Con says that it would be cheaper in reformed system, but I don't get it. How would you make it cheaper? I also do not know what flaw Con is talking about. This is a moral argument, and this doesn't adress my rebutall, so this is another concession. I'll admit, I still believe the DP is morally correct, but I don't believe the moral argument bears any impact, since both sides will argue that they are the more moral one.I can't consider this to be a serious rebutall. How do you plan on fixing this flaw? It's mathamathically impossible to be 100% accurate in executing the right guy. Unless there is some time machine, then there is no solution. The DP is a flaw system, because there is always the risk of executing the wrong guy. The justice system pretty much fails in giving justice when it kills an innocent person. It's cold-blooded murder. Please vote Pro for the following reasons.- Establishes the DP is too expensive- Establishes most Criminalogists don't believe the DP to deter crime-Establishes the DP hasn't reduced crime statistically in recent years-Establishes the DP has executed innocents (and still risks doing the same)-Establishes LWP is cheaper than the DP Thank you Con for this debate
Resolved: The United States of America should abolish the Death Penalty

=Resolution=This debate will be about whether the United States should abolish the Death Penalty. "The death penalty, i.e. capital punishment, is "execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense." [1. http://www.merriam-webster.com.........] Currently 32 states and the Federal government have a death penalty. [2. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org.........].I will argue that the U.S should abolish the Death Penalty. while Con would argue against it, and support keeping the Death Penalty.No K's
The United States Should Segregate by Race

I am not being racist; I am trying to prevent racism. If you think I am racist, you are very racist. We must segregate the United States by race. The American people have gotten obese and video game addicted and developed a bunch of disorders all because we integrated our public schools and let black people live wherever they want. As a Russian supremacist, I see it necessary to segregate. Let's hear what you gotta say.
The United States Should Segregate by Race

Racism is too big a problem in the United States, but you solve racism by becoming more diverse, not becoming more separate. Segregation is a racist concept and actually increases racism between races. If we can learn to function together, in harmony, the world will be a much better place. People should be able to go wherever they want and do whatever they want. Segregation is the reason that black people finally decided to earn their freedom. We are not going to go back to the repulsive days of Jim Crow. Your idea is garbage.