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

People: That class of animals that is capable of free, rational action. Rational animals (i.e. humans) rely on rationality as their essential tool of survival, that is how their rationality comes about, evolution-wise. All rational life is dependent on the actions of the being in question to sustain it. This is the first choice, the first place in any life where any moral choice is required to be made: to live, or to die. This choice is made when a being becomes rational and free, the fact that this choice has been made is the mark of their freedom, the fact of it having been considered is the mark of their rationality. If they choose to die, they no longer exist. They are no longer capable of rational action, and so become excluded from the class. Thus, all remaining people, all remaining rational beings with free will, have made the fundamental choice to live. This is the starting point in their morality. Any moral standards are made, if consistently, in accordance with this choice-- it is the first standard. Any which do not result in it are mistakes. The standard of life is universally applicable to the entire class of those requiring a morality, a code for how to deal with a choice. The beings which do not seek to live face no more such choices, for life is a consequence of actions toward it, it cannot be sustained without them. The only difference between people is, not the standard of right or wrong, but the degree to which they have identified and consistently applied it. The implicit standard, life, remains the same.
Morality is not intersubective

First, good luck whoever accepts this debate. Now this debate topic is simple. I (con) will argue that morality is intersubjective and the pro will argue that there is a moral belief that is universally accepted. My opponent can bring up any moral stance. Morality is defined as a standard that seperates right or wrong. Intersubjective is defined as differing between people. If my opponent wishes to debate these definitions he or she can. However, if he or she does not dispute them in the first round, he/she can not dispute them later. Since I am con, my opponent will have the burden to prove a universal moral stance. Therefore, I will post no arguments this round and wait for my opponent to start.
Morality is not intersubective

"The lack of being rational is how determine what is right and wrong. We do not start off as beings that are fully rational. We must learn what is right or wrong; that knowledge is what makes us become rational." Rationality is the ability to process knowledge, it necessarily precedes knowledge itself. "Such as a baby putting his hand in a fire. Is he being irrational? No," Exactly. Now if said baby tries it again... "So what is rational to one person may be irrational to another." Rationality is a required trait for the ability to choose a fundamental value. Failure to know what follows from that is not a moral difference, but a difference of fact. "Two teenagers may both know the harms. One drinks, the other does not. Both are being rational in their own minds. Therefore rational thinking is also subject. If morality comes from rational thinking, then it is impossible for morality to not be subjective." If they have different judgments, either one is mistaken or their situations are different. Neither result makes rationality subjective. "A differing opinion does not have to be a preservation of death, but simply a lack of proactive action to preserve life as a primary goal." Those who do not act to preserve life, die, this is the nature of life. Life requires continual sustaining action. This is, as I've said, the primary choice to be made, the choice without which no other choices can exist. "As soon as he does not value his life as the ultimate end to any mean, he ceases to have life as his primary goal and moral code. At the moment he is willing to die for his country, he values his country's safety as put's that as his primary goal." A "country" is an ambigous collective. It exists solely as a matter of component parts, there is no meaningful degree of separation of it from their component parts (unlike human life, which is separated from it's components by it's consciousness and free will). Furthermore, other countries exist too. Without egoism (value for one's own life) to set in the distinction, some other distinction would have to be made, some other value you haven't mentioned An abstraction with no real meaning aside from it's components can only be valued in terms of it's components, try again. :D "Why do some consider killing wrong? Society tells us so." Society has no meaning aside from it's component parts either. To hold that something can be wrong SIMPLY because it is said to be such would lead to a contradiction, since things (such as killing) always have someone who can say them in a different way. In sum, none of the exceptions brought up is a valid value. I could do this all day. The rule has reason for it, until there is a valid reason against it it is far more likely to be true than not.
Supply-Side Economics should be used to Revive the American Economy

"Based on your own argument, the Laffer Curve would suggest that taxation at 50% maximizes revenue. I would suggest that the wealthiest earner(s) should be taxed at 50% and then there should be a perfectly progressive taxation curve from 50% on down to the lowest non-poverty-level earner at 0.1%, without any exemptions for children, or different tax rates for the investment class. Every dollar earned should count equally in how we figure taxation.The concept that people - the wealthy - would move their wealth to offshore tax shelters, has little relevance to this argument. Taxation relates to income, not wealth." Incorrect, the image shown above is just an example of how the Laffer curve works, but the rate more maximum effect is debatable. I recently study concludes it do be 33%. This means that the top tax rate should never be over 33% or else if it is you don't get both maximum revenue and maximum economic growth. The primary purpose of taxes is for government to receive revenue, but it must not risk the nation's economy or else it risks losing revenue as time goes on when wealthy individuals seek tax shelters. The reason tax shelters are relevant is because many individuals will hide their money when the rate is too high. [1] "This is true, but mostly for the middle class. The middle class contributes most to the economy in the form of consumption, which would increase if they were not forced to pay more than their fair share of societal beneficence. The wealthy can benefit even more when the middle class has more disposable income because it translates to greater wealth for them as suppliers. Demand incentivizes Supply." My historical examples prove this is not true. Taxes was largely cut for the wealthy as well as the middle class, but the wealthy received a lot of those benefits and started to expand more in the economy. Also, it can hardly be said median income stagnated when in fact it rose during the Reagan years. As said here: Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989, as shown in Figure 2. This improvement was a stark reversal of the income trends in the late 1970s and the 1990s: median family income was unchanged in the eight pre-Reagan years, and incomes have fallen by $1,438 in the anti-supply-side 1990s, following the 1990 and 1993 tax hikes." [2] Conclusion I have refuted all my opponents points and he barely attacked me. He also provided no sources. Sources 1. Romer, Christina and David Romer. "American Economic Review 100 (June 2010): 763""801 Http://www.aeaweb.org... The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks." American Economic Review, June 2010. Web. 2. Niskanen, William A., and Stephen Moore. "Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 261: Supply-Side Tax Cuts and the Truth about the Reagan Economic Record." Cato Institute, 22 Oct. 1996. Web.
Supply-Side Economics should be used to Revive the American Economy

Based on your own argument, the Laffer Curve would suggest that taxation at 50% maximizes revenue. I would suggest that the wealthiest earner(s) should be taxed at 50% and then there should be a perfectly progressive taxation curve from 50% on down to the lowest non-poverty-level earner at 0.1%, without any exemptions for children, or different tax rates for the investment class. Every dollar earned should count equally in how we figure taxation. The concept that people - the wealthy - would move their wealth to offshore tax shelters, has little relevance to this argument. Taxation relates to income, not wealth. "tax cuts create an incentive to increase output, employment, and production" " this is true, but mostly for the middle class. The middle class contributes most to the economy in the form of consumption, which would increase if they were not forced to pay more than their fair share of societal beneficence. The wealthy can benefit even more when the middle class has more disposable income because it translates to greater wealth for them as suppliers. Demand incentivizes Supply. On a side note, if a person were to put their wealth in offshore tax shelters they are avoiding paying the taxes they should pay. They, as citizens of this nation, are not holding up their part of the bargain, a tacit agreement, which is participation in a society. Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a society. "The number (of) people with an income over $1 million went from 5,000 to 35,000 and the number of billionaires rose to over 50 by the end of the 1980s" " and the median income stagnated which meant that the middle class was less well able to pay taxes " lower tax revenue. This proceeded for the next ~34 years to today, where the median income is less than it was in the 1970"s. We now have insufficient revenue because, even while the wealthy were reaping far greater proportional beneficence than they rightly deserved, they were moving their wealth to offshore tax shelters, lobbying for lower tax rates, and investing in foreign industry (rather than in the US) " consider NAFTA and the outsourcing of industry and jobs to China and India. There have been at least two artificial booms in the American economy " such as the internet bubble (if that was what it was called) and the housing bubble. These were both fake in terms of real growth in the economy " Money was funneled and value was artificially inflated. There is in fact no greater revenue seen as a result supply side taxation policy. Supply Side Economics failed. "Middle Out" economics is the more justifiable form.
Supply-Side Economics should be used to Revive the American Economy

Aggregate Demand (the barometer of the health of the economy) is benefited most by a strong middle class. The middle class contributes most to the economy since 70% of the economy is based on consumerism. it is a basic economic principle that supply will work to meet demand. The wealthy consume categorically less than the upper middle, middle, and lower class of American society combined. If aggregate demand is low, supply/production will be low resulting in no hiring/job creation. if aggregate demand is higher, supply/production will match demand. Not focusing on the maximization of the middle class means that there will be slow job creation and limited economic growth. Conversely reducing the tax burden on the wealthy will only result in greater accumulation of wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Given the current global market, ROI (return on investment) is maximized when investment is placed in foreign industry since their labor costs are far lower - maximizing profits. This exportation of investment has been a trend in the activities of the wealthiest 1% of Americans. This is why many manufacturing jobs have been exported to china and India. This trend results in the distribution of wealth to the world economy outside that of the United States. If a person is interested in the growth of the American economy, Supply-Side economics is the equivalent of treason. There is no other way to equivocate the nature of supply side economics other than this. Supply side economics is why during the past 40 years there has been an increase in the national debt, a decrease in median wages, and a resultant deficit spending. All of these problems have occurred while the economic output of American industry has continued to grow at an impressive rate. Supply side economics is at its very core, an illusion constructed for the sole purpose of increasing the share of wealth obtained by the wealthiest 1%. It is counter intuitive that during a period of growth in the US industrial activities that there has been a decline in the degree of beneficence the average US citizen has had. The economic benefit has been increased only for the wealthy - No Trickle Down. Watch the documentary - Inequality for All.
Supply-Side Economics should be used to Revive the American Economy

DebateIn this debate, I will be arguing that supply-side economic policies should be used to revive the American economy. My opponent must argue that the current demand-side stimulus policies should be continued and/or expanded if they feel they need to be.Rules and DefinitionsRound 1 acceptance only. No trolling or semantics. Supply-side economics - An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. Also called tickle-down economics. (Investorwords)Demand-side economics - A theory of economics created by John Maynard Keynes, stating that the economy is driven by total demand from the government, businesses, and households. Demand Side Economics states that recessions can be avoided or fixed by stimulating demand through government actions aimed at boosting investment and spending by consumers and businesses. Also called Keynesianism. (Investorwords)FormatRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Both sides present arguments (no rebuttals)Round 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Defense of arguments and conclusions
Animal abuse

What would you do if you saw someone hurting an animal? Most of you probably would not know what you should REALLY do.Who in their right mind would abuse a poor defenseless cat or dog? Unfortunately, people of all ages abuse animals. This includes senior citizens, adults, teenagers and even children. Sadly, most animal abusers and killers are teenagers. Researchers say that violence against animals often represents displaced hostility and aggression stemming from neglect or abuse by some other family member. What that means is that if a child is abused, they are more likely to be an abuser of animals. Serious or repeated animal cruelty is seen more often in boys than girls. Associated characteristics of a child who abuses animals may include those who do poorly in school, have low self-esteem, few friends, and are bullies who may also be known for skipping school, damaging other peoples" property and have other bad behaviours.Adults who abuse animals may have grown up in an abusive home. Sometimes, during a divorce, one adult may take out their anger on their dog or cat, to get back at the other person. Others do it for no reason. Sadly, teenagers abuse animals for fun, even though there certainly is nothing funny about what they have done. It is the exact opposite " stupidity, irrational and wrong!What should you do if you see someone abusing an animal? Call the police and try and write down as much information as you can, such as what the person looked like, the type of dog, the licence plate of the car, or the address. Do not try and intervene or you could get hurt as well. Always call the police, and they, with the SPCA, will come to help.
Animals should wear clothing

if we cant handle clothing, why cant animals? the government has tons of money, im sure they can afford a few million clothing, besides, children HAVE been affected by animals being naked all the time, have you heard of Furry Porn? humans have armor that can be unpeirced by a tigers claws, and robots that can survive a rhino's charge, plus, some animals dont even have fur, so you can see their genitals as clear as day.
Animals should wear clothing

Wearing clothes will cause undue torment to many animals and is animal abuse. Also clothes tend to get dirty and is a health hazard to the animals and people around. There is no evidence that kids seeing animals with no clothes has caused any harm to children and children have been seeing animals like this for thousands of years and society manages to survive just fine. It is also extremely expensive to cloth every animal around. We will have to hunt down every animal in the wild too and force clothes on them. Many wild animals will be violent and cause harm to those putting the clothes on. Therefore clothes are against animal nature and do not need to be worn.
Stem Cell: TO research or Not TO research that is the question.

org Now, in your proposition you propose that you are pro in "To do [stem cell research] or not to do [stem cell research]", however, in your opening argument you state that "grants and funding [are] blocked " for stem cell research. You did not show anywhere in your opening argument that there have been any efforts to ban stem cell research privately, just "federal[ly] funded stem cell research. You correlated stem cell research with federal funding, so I will focus my argument on 'federally funded stem cell research' as this is your main complaint. I do not deny that stem cell research can be beneficial, I do however deny the idea that it needs to be federally funded. The US Constitution was written by our founding fathers who supported a minimalist government. The founding fathers wrote the constitution to support a minimalist government. Nowhere in the constitution are 'stem cell research' or any federal grants listed. Because of this, the federal government has no authority to fund stem cell research. There are many reasons why we might not want the federal government being involved in research. The federal government is simply not needed- research can be provided by private groups, at the expense of those private groups rather than the taxpayers. Private groups are free from the many restrictions that are put place by government officials, including this sensitive issue- stem cell research. I agree that for some, stem cell research may seem beneficial- but for those who have religious objections to stem cell research- however incorrect they may be- to have to pay for a program that they are morally opposed to is wrong. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion- however, those opposed to such programs are forced to pay for them, they are forced to pay for something that to them goes directly against their religion. If all research were to be private, individuals such as these would have no sway outside of the market. As of now, as it is their money going into the projects they do have the absolute right to complain- it would be a totally different story if it were privately funded. Privately funded research is not tied to all people of the united states, but a few who choose to invest in it. No liberties are violated when people have the freedom to choose- should I contribute to stem cell research, or should I not?
Healthcare for all in the US

I'm going to start off with something short and to the point. No healthcare system is perfect and some models are defiantly better than others. The US healthcare system is far from perfect. I agree with your three main attributes because these are the three things everybody wants in a health care system. The system now in the US as you said has its focus on Quality of care. This Quality has allowed the US to lead research into medicine. Where the debate takes place is U. S healthcare system now vs Universal health care system. As to your first point with Canda, Many people point to them as a model of universal health care. This is simply not the best case of the health care system in action. The wait times are notciuorly long and people have even died in the process if waiting for something urgent. There have even been cases of people having to wait two years. While in the US if you need an MRI as your example you just walk in and get it. The only difference between the two is to pay, How much will this MRI cost you in the US. This is where the chart comes in handy Below is the cost of an MRI in these states. Orlando, FLMRI$2, 229 Dallas, TX - MRI Testing Facility AMRI$3, 624 Dallas, TX - MRI Testing Facility BMRI$2, 172 San Diego, CAMRI$2, 826 Salt Lake City, UTMRI$1, 694 Detroit, MIMRI$3, 461 New York, NY - MRI Testing Facility AMRI$1, 785 New York, NY - MRI Testing Facility BMRI$2, 199 Raleigh, NCMRI$3, 001 Omaha, NEMRI$2, 502 Now take in account the 11. 2% of the US population that doesn't have any health care plan and that full price is a succinct amount of money to pay (source two) In Canada it comes down to are you willing to wait or pay? Now, This can be a huge problem of both cases. Neither is very good, It is a debate over the best of the two evils the price of healthcare in the US is crazy while the wait in Canada is crazy. In short, What is the best evil? http://www. Comparemricost. Com. . . https://www. Cnbc. Com. . . Return to the Debate
We can't be sure that the Universe is actually expanding.

Static Universe: With the discovery that spiral nebula were, in fact, other galaxies external to our own, our concept of a Universe became one of in a Newtonian universe of infinite size and mass, galaxies spread out in infinite space. However, there is a problem with a uniform, static Universe, any density enhancements would become unstable to gravitational collapse. Thus, the whole Universe should have collapsed (or be collapsing) into a giant black hole. In the 1930's, Edwin Hubble discovered that all galaxies have a positive redshift. In other words, all galaxies were receding from the Milky Way. By the Copernican principle (we are not at a special place in the Universe), we deduce that all galaxies are receding from each other, or we live in a dynamic, expanding Universe. This solves the problem for gravitational collapse, only small regions will collapse to form galaxies. The rest of space keeps expanding. The expansion of the Universe is described by a very simple equation called Hubble's law; the velocity of the recession of a galaxy (determined from its redshift, see below) is equal to a constant times its distance (v=Hd). Where the constant is called Hubble's constant and relates distance to velocity in units of megaparsecs (millions of parsecs). Redshift: The key observable in extragalactic studies is the redshift of a distant galaxy. All galaxies are made of stars which emit a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation with particular fingerprint-like patterns corresponding to the quantum shells of the various elements in the star's atmospheres. The lines of hydrogen, magnesium and calcium are particularly prominate in galaxies, and can be identified with telescopes using a special instrument called a spectrograph. A typical galaxy spectrum is shown above where the emission from the galaxy's core (3) is in the center. Also seen in the image are emission lines from the earth's night sky (2), the effects of cosmic rays (5) and a nearby star (6) appear as