BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is not relative

Many opinions cannot form the basis of society. Although opinions do matter at times, it cannot matter all the time, especially with crimes. Child molesters cannot be let off the hook just because they say they are sorry for what they did and you feel like they should be given a second chance cause you think they would do the right thing come next time. No. We cannot feel bad because we feel bad. We cannot do things to other innocent people just because we felt like it. We need our laws, our moral codes to let us know what is right and what is wrong. We cannot function without our laws! A lot of people would be let off the hook in court if our jury was to feel bad for the person who committed the crime. Our jury needs to know that our laws cannot let these people commit these crimes, and people need to know what is right and what is wrong. Opinions cannot determine this matter what is right from one. One might think killing is right, and sharing their cookies with someone is wrong. We were raised to know that killing is morally bad, and sharing cookies with someone is morally good. We know this, and plus this is our moral code. Everyone understands that we need these in order to know what is right and what is wrong. Without this we cannot form judgments about things. Our moral code is constantly changing as well. We need them to constantly change, because our way of life is constantly changing as well. We don't act the way we acted 50 years ago, where there was no marriage before sex, and you had to marry at age 30. That has all changed because teenagers are now having sex at young ages, and people are getting married at young ages as well.
Morality is not relative

I see your point of having moral codes as a way of having social progress. Yet, if Ethics is not relative then people would not have different believes. For example, let us use time as a way to see ethics. People from before did not have the same beliefs that we do now. For example, we see the fact that little young boys had sex with older men as something morally wrong. However, for them it was not morally wrong. In addition every society sees the world different. So this is another argument that I have (1)If ethics is relative, then these moral codes do not exist. (2)If these moral codes are not necessary for the progress of society since they believe the action is morally right. (3)If the action is morally right for them then there cannot be any objection to it within the society. (4)If there is not an objection, then society is progressing since all individuals in the society agree with this action as to be morally right. (5)Therefore, ethics is relative since all individuals in that society would agree that an action is morally right. Another question that I might ask is who is to say what is morally right or wrong?(Fallacy) Again, I see your point when you say that we need this moral codes. But, who is going to say what is morally right or wrong. Yet, they do not define if a society would progress or not. We've seen in many cases societies that have progressed without the need of moral codes. There are many societies in the world to say that one is right and the rest is wrong. They believe that their actions are right and therefore, we need to accept it since it is the way they think.
Morality is not relative

If things were based on opinions all the time, then we wouldn"t know what is right from wrong. Not knowing right from wrong is bad because our society cant function properly. Without it functioning properly everyone would feel the need to do anything they please by judging others. One person may see rape as a good thing in their eyes, this person may be a predator. On the other hand someone else may see rape to be a bad thing, as we all see it. If morality is a relative factor, then we wouldn"t need our laws and our court systems. It would be ok to rape a child, it would be ok to kill an innocent person for no reason, it would be ok to just go up to a random person and slap them in the face. We need these moral codes to know these things! We cannot just go out raping children, killing innocent people, and slapping people In the face. We know this to be morally wrong because we were raised this way. If we don"t follow these moral codes, people would consider our society to be a crazy society killing everyone just because we don"t trust one another. Not all societies have all the same moral codes either. All societies are different from one another because they have their own traditions they follow. It may be ok to killing someone out of revenge for killing someone another family member of theirs. In our society it is wrong to do so, and can result in jail time. We have to be open minded with other societies cultures because of this. We cannot jump to conclusions about other societies moral codes, because they need those in order to function, just as much as we need ours in order to function. Morality is not a subjective matter at all. It cannot be based on ones opinions due to the fact that it can cause turmoil. These codes are necessary to create order and peace in the society. Again lets use another example. Eskimo men marry at least 5 different wives. They do this because this is their tradition, and because their moral code allows them to do so. We view this as abnormal because our societal moral code does not allow us to marry many women at the same time. if we were to do so, we would be brought to a court of law and dispute this in court.
Morality is not relative

I disagree with your argument that "Our culture mostly agrees on what is right and wrong". Not all cultures think the same things are morally right or wrong. For example, murder for some cultures is morally wrong but for others is morally right. I do see your point that we value the same things even if we have different beliefs. Yet, the point is that realistically we do not see some things the way others see it. Therefore, my argument is this: (1)Ethics relativism believes that there are many opinions. (2)These opinions should be acceptable because they are what society believes. (3)Therefore, no culture should say that something is morally right or wrong. (4)If they say something is morally right or wrong is according to what they believe in their culture. (5)Therefore, ethics is relative since what is morally right or wrong is different for every society.
Morality is not relative

I understand what you're saying, but an opinion cannot run a society. We need these moral codes in order for our society to function properly. If we base things on opinions, then the society would be in complete chaos. Imagine if killing someone was in the matter of ones opinion, that would never be viewed as morally wrong. I understand that killing someone in self defense can be a good thing, but what if it wasn't self defense? what if this person just killed an innocent person just because? that is why our court system is set up, to determine whether or not it was self defense. If the court system was based on opinions like "I felt like it was self defense, therefore it is ok" then everyone and nayone can get away with murder. That is why we are assigned to our moral codes; to understand why our society functions the way it functions. We need to know that we follow these codes in order to know what is morally right from wrong.
Morality is not relative

The counter argument against ethics is not relative is that ethics is relative. The arguments for this claim are these: (1) If ethics is not not relative, then ethics is relative. (2) If ethics is relative, then what is considered good is what the society believes to be good. (3) If society is decide what is morally right or wrong for the society, then every opinion is acceptable. (4) If everyone's opinion is acceptable, then there would not be any standards that say what is morally wrong or right. (5) Then since these standard does not exist, for one culture something can be morally wrong while it can be morally right for another society. (6) Therefore, ethics is relative since what is morally right or wrong can differ from society.
Morality is not relative

Many people have disputes on morality to be relative or non relative. I would have to agree that is is not relative for many reasons. Our culture mostly agrees on what is right and wrong. For example, murder would be considered morally wrong, because it is considered a bad thing to kill an innocent person. If morals are relative, then it would be ok to do bad things and get away with it, because with morality being relative, then no one can tell us we were wrong for that. If we are to say morality is relative, then no one would accept change in their lives. People would feel more comfortable to stay the way they have been for years, because that"s the way life should be. Moral codes are suppose to constantly change in order to provide a better life for people to live. If these codes were not to change, then racism or slavery would still be happening today. Morality cannot be a subjective matter. We must have this moral code in place in order for our society to function well. Without these moral codes, our society would be in turmoil. Sure, societies have certain moral codes that we would consider unheard of, but they need those in order to function properly. No one society has a better moral code than the other, because every societies moral codes differ from one another. It may be ok for Eskimos to abandon the elderly someone on a street and leave them there to die because they are considered useless. But, our culture would never do such a thing, because it is considered wrong to do so. We must understand that they do that following their cultures traditions, and they follow their moral codes to help their societies to function well.
The Clemson Tigers will win the 2012 ACC Football Championship

Ill keep this short and simple so that i dont scare away voters with too many words.... So let me start by saying this,Clemson lost to West Virginia a whopping 33-70 in the Orange Bowl and West Virginia was ranked 7 pegs lower than them in the BCS rankings, and the current record for most points allowed in a Bowl Game....http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...So right off the back, Clemson can get their a** handed to them by teams barely ranked under them. To be fair to the Pro though, my beloved UM wouldnt do much better......Second off, Clemson went 10-4 in 2011 where they lost to the following teams,Georgia Tech (who they face again this year)North Carolina State (who they face again this year)South Carolina (who they face again this year)and West Virginia, but that was a bowl game. So right off the back, Clemson is going against teams who beat them last year again this year. Who did Clemson lose this year?Daniel Adams = LBAndre Branch = DEKantrell Bown = SSteven Demaras = LBChad Diehl = FBWill Harrison = WRMarquan Jones = WRMansa Joseph = RBAntoine McClain = OGRennie Moore = DTPhilip Price = OTBrandon Thompson = DTDrew Taylor = TEDawson Zimmerman = PClemson lost a LOT of players, on both offense and defense, and some of them were pretty damn good. http://www.clemsontigers.com...Last argument for now, Recruiting classes. All teams lose players from season to season, so how well a team recruits will determine how well they perform next season.....Current College Class Recruiting Rankings for 2012,1) Alabama2) FSU 3) Texas4) UF5) Georgia6) Ohio State7) Michigan8) UM 9) Notre Dame10) Clemsonhttp://insider.espn.go.com...So 2 teams in the ACC recruited better than Clemson, and one of them both the Pro and I admit are a tough challenge to Clemson. Those are the basics, I will expand on my arguments next round so that I dont saturate voters with text to read, but let me recap real quick1) Clemson lost to a lot of teams last year that they will face again this year2) Clemson lost a lot of players this year3) Clemson did not recruit as well as other ACC teams who pose big challenges to Clemson in the ACC
The Clemson Tigers will win the 2012 ACC Football Championship

" I know it's early, but I'd love to hear someone else from an ACC school and hear what they have to say."Well you found him, straight out of the ACC live at the University of Miami I know first hand (unfortunately) what its like to have your beloved football team get sh*t on by other teams in the ACC......I will be arguing simply that Clemson will not win the 2012 ACC Championship in football. Other teams in the ACC:Boston CollegeDukeFSUGeorgia TechMarylandUNIVERRRSITYYYYY OOOOOOOFFFFF MIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAMMMIIIIIIII!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!North Carolina North Carolina StateVirginiaVirginia TechWake ForrestOther than that ............
The Clemson Tigers will win the 2012 ACC Football Championship

The Clemson University Tigers, the 2011 ACC Champions in football, return a very talented team in 2012, including ACC Championship MVP Tajh Boyd, the player who will lead the Tigers' explosive offense from the quarterback position.Also returning is freshman All-American wide receiver, Sammy Watkins, as well as their talented skilled position players such as Andre Ellington and DeAndre "Nuke" Hopkins. Also of note, the Tigers hired new defensive coordinator, Brent Venables, a longtime assistant from Oklahoma. It is early as of now, but I think the Tigers have a very good chance at repeating. They have a decent schedule, with the toughest game being at Florida State. The reason I am picking the Tigers, is that first and foremost, I'm a Clemson student. Second, the Tigers' schedule this year works in their favor, as they have home games against Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, NC State, Maryland, and South Carolina, all teams that could compete with the Tigers for an ACC Title. The strongest case within the division that could beat the Tigers is Florida State, as it is always tough to win in Tallahassee. I know it's early, but I'd love to hear someone else from an ACC school and hear what they have to say.
Disproving evolution is evidence for god

My opponent has failed to offer a third alternative to Creationism and Evolution.I have explained why one directly negates the other and why the other must therefore be true if the other isn't due to a lack of any other alternative.My opponent has failed to negate my argument and has tried to circle around it the entire debate by repeating that I have no evidence that God exists but that's because evolution is proven to be true so it only furthermore proves the resolution.
Disproving evolution is evidence for god

The evidence for evolution is very clear, and as far as I can tell, it is unlikely to be proven wrong, but pretending the proposition is likely, we cannot safely assume that a god is real if evolution is proven wrong. Disproving one claim is not evidence for the other. It increases it's likelihood of being true, but increased likelihood and evidence are different things. Lack of evidence for one possibility is not automatic evidence for another claim. Using the basic scientific hypothesis method of "if, then", you can see this does not make sense. 'If I disprove evolution, then god is the cause of life'. That makes no sense. For a claim to have evidence, there must be something measurable about it. Everything that exists with in the universe that we know exists is measurable in some way. If a god is not from the universe, then even if a god does exist, it has not been able to distinguish itself from something that does not exist, so it makes as much sense to believe in a god as it does to believe in something that does not exist.
Same-sex Marriage should be legalized everywhere

I debated this topic before, however my opponent disregarded most of my contentions. I do not feel that the debate was adequate enough and would like to debate it again. I argue that gay marriage should not be legalized in every country.For clarity I will provide several definitions: same-sex marriage-the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriagelegalized-to give legal validity or sanction toFirst round is acceptance. Thanks and I await my opponent's acceptance! http://www.merriam-webster.com...
burkas should be illegal in the United States

Pro writes, "But if wearing any nonreligious apparel was an obvious threat to national security, we would delightfully ban it."That is not true. I've given examples of other things (like ski masks) which we don't ban, despite being a threat. Nevertheless, the fact that a burqa is protected under religious freedom laws is very relevant to this debate. 1. I've proven that many women appreciate wearing the burqa; Pro dropped it.2. I've proven that Islam is just one of many religions that promotes modest dress.3. I've proven that the burqa is not a security threat; it can be lifted and additional security checks can be used where need-be.4. I've proven that we have free speech and freedom of religious expression that protects religious clothing. Please extend all of my arguments that my opponent has dropped. Thank you.
burkas should be illegal in the United States

Pro's entire last round was citing examples of terrorism where people wore burqas. Just because some people wearing burqas have committed acts of terrorism, doesn't mean we should ban burqas. Extend my arguments on not banning the other types of clothing that are often worn by criminals, especially ski masks [1]. Yankee hats are also popular among criminals for some reason [2]. Another example is that we don't ban spray paint just because people often use it to tag things illegally. We do not inhibit freedom based on some people's abuse of freedom. Furthermore, please extend my arguments on increasing security (and making people lift burqas where need be). In fact extend all of my arguments from the last few rounds, because my opponent has not effectively responded to any of them. [1] http://www.washingtontimes.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...
burkas should be illegal in the United States

Male Taliban fighters were caught wearing burkas concealing automatic weapons and a bomb vest. http://www.frontpagemag.com... A woman wearing a burka was caught with a bomb making kit hidden under her attire. She had been stopped at Liverpool, John Lennon airport, and a device was found after it dropped out when she fiddled with the sleeves of her burka. http://www.thesun.co.uk... A burka clad male terrorist opened fire at a bus stop in Jammu and Kasmir's Pulwama district. His weapon was conceled under the burka. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com... * Ayaan Hirsi Ali, female, ex Muslim- "These defenders of Islam fail to notice that, through their anxious avoidance of criticizing non-Western countries, they trap the people who represent these cultures in a state of backwardness. They may have the best of intentions, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions." * People guilty of a crime can and have slipped on burkas to evade police. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... * A male terrorist used the burka to cover his identity and weapons and killed 15 in Chad. http://m.nydailynews.com... * And guess what the next cry is. They don't think you should be able to show a picture of the Muslim female without the veil for "religious reasons", despite the fact that this would make future terrorists and criminals unidentifiable. They want their cake, to eat it too and to get another piece. They moved here to a democratic country. We did not move to Pakistan. http://toprightnews.com... * And here is just how effective the burka is. British Special forces have used them to kill ISIS militants undetected. British Special forces used the burka in a surprise attack on ISIS. http://www.tpnn.com... The burka has no business in civilized society. * Ayaan Hirsi Ali, female, ex Muslim- "Islam was like a mental cage. At first, when you open the door, the caged bird stays inside: it is frightened. It has internalized its imprisonment. It takes time for the bird to escape, even after someone has opened the doors to its cage. * Egypt, a Muslim country, bans the veil 'because it is NOT Islamic'. Egyptian lawmakers have argued that full face veils are actually un-Islamic and even go against what the Quran advocates. Parliamentarians in the Egypt Support Coalition, loyal to President Abdul Fattah Al Sissi, said the push for a ban is also based on religious and security grounds. www.express.co.uk/news/world/651292/Egypt-BURKA-BAN-politicians-NOT-Islamic-Jewish-veil-full-face-extremism * Walid Shoebat, former PLO terrorist & ex Muslim- "Make no mistake, making peace treaties with the infidels simply for the sake of peace is never the ultimate goal. The only goal of Islam is victory over the whole world."
Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs

What is sport, but entertainment? And what is entertainment, without pain? We don't care when football players experience debilitating injuries as early as high school, and even worse, long-lasting injuries at the professional level. An estimated one in three NFL players experience brain trauma of some sort, with life-long effects [1]. We don't care. We still watch football. From that, it can be concluded that the negative health effects of PEDs are irrelevant to the discussion of whether professional athletes should use them. It could even be argued that these negative side effects are preferable if it prevents brain trauma or other terrible injuries from the dangers of a sport itself. And so now, the only points of contention are the facts that it is unfair to athletes that do not use them, and that it is illegal. The first point may be justified easily enough. Sport is already an unfair sport. While you may practice thousands and thousands of hours, a person who's practiced half that but has a natural biological advantage can still win. Thus, it can be argued that PEDs can be used to actually level the playing field, between those who do not have as much of a natural biological advantage and those that do. It is a good point that the risk of losing their entire career may not be worth the above advantages. However, it is the choice of the athletes to take that risk, and not for us to judge them. As well, if enough athletes begin to use PEDs, it will eventually become legal nevertheless, or else the sport industry will die down. [1] http://www.nytimes.com...
High schools should start at 8:30 am

A later start for high schools, 8 am, will help improve students life and performance. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends teenagers get a daily 8-10 hours of sleep in order to maintain good health (1). The truth is, with sports, extracurricular activities, a social life, and homework, students sleep late and have to wake up too early. Thus, students are sleeping less than what is healthy for their growing bodies and minds causing dangerous results. The American Academy of Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and American Medical Association all recommend that high schools start class no earlier than 8:30 a.m. to allow students to get healthy sleep (2). Sleeping is essential in life. Statistics gotten from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that "more than 4 in 5 (82.3%) of U.S. middle, high, and combined public schools require students to attend class at times earlier than recommended" (3). Furthermore, The CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey in 2015 showed that "73% of U.S. high school students get fewer than 8 hours of sleep on school nights, and 43% get 6 or fewer hours" (3). The risks that can arise from a lack of sleep include becoming overweight, performing poorly, suffering from depression, and engaging in risky health behaviors like drinking and smoking (3). When a student does not adequately sleep, they do not feel alert and cannot retain information (4). Clearly, something is not working out with the current high school starting times and when something does not work, change is needed. Starting school at 8:30 am will allow students to sleep the amount needed, stay healthy, and focus in order to perform at their top potential. https://aasm.org... http://www.startschoollater.net... https://www.cdc.gov... https://sleepfoundation.org...