BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People ought adhere to Political Correctness.

An Intro To Ethics: The burden of proof in this debate requires I demonstrate a moral obligation. Ethics delves into what ought to be rather than what is. Henry Sidgwick rightly points out a typical flaw made when determining what ought to be done. “we frequently prescribe that this or that `ought' to be done or aimed at without any express reference to an ulterior end,” (1) As John Stuart Mill says “All action is for the sake of some end. ” In order to determine what we ought do we must observe what the results will be from that action. What ends are produced? “all the rules of conduct which men prescribe to one another as moral rules are really---though in part unconsciously---prescribed as a means to the general happiness of mankind,” Henry Sidgwick (2) Any moral code is a means to an end. Thus to affirm the resolution that people ought to adhere to P. C. all I need do is show that by doing so the general happiness of mankind is produced or preserved. The Purpose and Impact of Political Correctness: By being politically correct we, as a society can avoid needlessly offending whole groups of people. Thus, resulting in greater general happiness of mankind. The harm that results from the P. C. inept: Perhaps those reading will recall some of the recent comments made by GOP Presidential Candidate Donald Trump when he announced he was running. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems [with them]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. ” (3) Obviously immigration is an issue in this election, but the crass comments from Donald Trump exemplify the harm that comes from the P. C. Inept. Donald Trump with this short statement effectively insulted and demeaned millions of people. Clearly this type of rhetoric is immoral. Conclusion: We see that the politically inept insult and demean millions of people, this negatively affects the general happiness of mankind. The purpose and impact of political correctness are to avoid such needless offending and results in greater general happiness of mankind. Therefore, we see that people ought to adhere to political correctness. Sources: (1) . http://www.laits.utexas.edu... (2) . http://www.laits.utexas.edu... (3)
People ought adhere to Political Correctness.

What is Political Correctness (P.C.): P.C. “marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology.” (1) In a debate with Imabench, Roylatham used the following examples to illustrate P.C. “Identify the PC term in each pair: waitress or server, Mrs. or Ms., prostitute or sex worker, retarded or mentally challenged, terrorist attack or man-caused disaster… Nearly everyone knows what the PC answers are, even if they don't conform." (2) I assume with the above example and the definition given that there will be little confusion over what P.C. entails in this debate. Burden Analysis: Resolved: People ought adhere to Political Correctness. It is my burden to show that people, on balance, have a moral obligation to adhere to P.C. Whomever accepts will attempt to keep me from meeting this burden. Why this topic: To be honest I have never taken P.C. seriously and the purpose of me debating this is to delve into the topic. Structure: 6,000 Characters/Select Winner/72 Hrs. 1st Round: Acceptance 2nd Round: Opening arguments 3rd Round: Rebuttals 4th Round: Overview This debate is open, only restriction is that three debates must have been completed. Sources: (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://www.debate.org...
Theism vs Anti-Theism

Of the more interesting arguments made in favor of religion/theism are examples of cultures and countries devoid of region/theism in recent history and how they behaved. 1) Nazi Germany 2) Stalin 3) Mao 4) Pol Pot The 20th Century was like a social laboratory experiment for how societies might act and behave when religion and theism are removed and vacuous. An argument of utility can be made in favor of religion rather than an epistemological debate.
Theism vs Anti-Theism

Ok, first let me explain that I do not hate, nor do I think religion is bad in and of itself. But I'd like to focus on Christianity. Christians over time have evolved, and have developed morals other than that of which Christianity forms. Some Christians today now approve of homosexuality, or abortion, or not wearing hats all the time, not killing those who commit adultery. Is it a 'follower's' duty to enforce those morals set for them? Where in the Bible does it say "If thou shalt not approve of thine Holy words, then thou shall pick and choose." And on another level, why would God create Lucifer? If he is all knowing and all powerful, then why would he create Lucifer knowing that he would corrupt the innocent human spirit? Doesn't that seem malevolent? Why is there poverty and pain and disease? If He is Almighty, couldn't he stop that? Is he able but not willing? That's cruel. Is he willing and not able? Then the Bible lies in telling us he is all powerful. Is he neither willing nor able? Then why give Him the name of "God"?
The bible-written by schizophrenics- not the man himself.

This is my last argument for this so-called debate. I urge all to vote for CON since Pro never posted anything after his first outline the entire debate, and its rounds, failed to respond, apparently deactivated his account, and logged out for a week or more after the inception of this debate. After all, consider this a logical syllogism:Premise one (Major): "Forfeits=loss" (1)Premise two (Major): Pro has forfeited four of the five rounds.Conclusion: Pro has lost (by default, due to his own rules).I will not devote my energy to compose an actual argument, since this debate was wasted. I am very sorry that pro is no longer here for us, but his departure has cost me the benefit of a debate and an experience arguing and introducing newcomers to the customs of this debate. Even though I am not qualified to speak as high and mighty as of now, I have already waited, patiently, for my opponent's rebuttal and response. I see that my patience was not worth the time and effort.(1) See pro's opening argument
The bible-written by schizophrenics- not the man himself.

I have decided not to post an argument, since it would be unfair of me to refute a non-existent argument made by the instigator. Please, extend all arguments, and vote CON. Remember, PRO himself wrote [1] "Forfeits=loss". Pro has forfeited three of the rounds. .. Therefore, he has already lost the debate. Thank you for reading my arguments and statements. Have a good day. 1. www. debate.
Should young people be allowed to vote...

There are several reasons why young people should not be allowed to vote. There are many teenagers and even adults who are very immature. Giving them an opportunity to vote is the worst idea. Students, for example, can make poor choices, and voting is a big thing. They should start with something small, such as student council within the school, and then go from there. Even if there are some people under the age of 18 who are mature, we still have to consider the ones that aren't.
Should young people be allowed to vote...

Should young people be allowed to vote Definition of chronological age chronological age : the age of a person as measured from birth to a given date From WEBSTER DICTIONARY "chronological age : the age of a person as measured from birth to a given date "His chronological age is five, but his mental age is three"he thinks and behaves like a three-year-old."> From WEBSTER DICTIONARY The argument for allowing the young citizens to vote has always been that "if the young can serve in the military they should be allowed to vote. But this thought is the same as saying that if you are able to pull a trigger of a gun that you are qualified and entitled to cast a vote. but being entitled to vote using these qualifications doesn't mean that a person is mature and responsible for their decisions, in fact the law makes decisions based on the chronological age of an individual in determining how they are handled in courts of law. The maturity of the individual is judged by their ability to make responsible decisions and are responsible for their own actions and welfare. But the evidence is quite apparent that young people ,on the whole, today are not responsible for their decisions and in more and more cases are dependent on others to provide for them, living with their parents beyond the age of 18. Also from the stand point of being able to have independent thoughts about which political party best represents the interests of the country and casting their votes accordingly is most often swayed and determined by who the parents believe is the best political party to represent the country thus increasing the parents vote from one vote to two votes for the same party. This, in effect is discrimination practiced against citizens who haven't had any children to increase their voice in who runs the country. Noah Webster wanted to raise the voting age to 45 in brief, he wanted to eliminate one of the most naive and irresponsible elements from the body politics: the youth vote." Noah Webster has often been proved right in his assessment of the young.
Should young people be allowed to vote...

lookingattheissues response to Con /Joey888 below To enforce the idea that the young haven't matured enough to make sound judgements and shouldn't be allowed to vote is to just look at the automobile accident statistics for young people behind the wheel driving on America's highways. "In 2013, 2,163 teens in the United States ages 16"19 were killed and 243,243 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes.1 That means that six teens ages 16"19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries. Young people ages 15-24 represent only 14% of the U.S. population. However, they account for 30% ($19 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among males and 28% ($7 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among females.2" Who is most at risk? "The risk of motor vehicle crashes is higher among 16-19-year-olds than among any other age group. In fact, per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are nearly three times more likely than drivers aged 20 and older to be in a fatal crash..." Injury Prevention & Control: Motor Vehicle Safety And yet the young are thought mature enough to be allowed to vote on who should be the best people to be in charge of our government.
Employers should not be legally obliged to accommodate their employees' religious beliefs.

My opponent attacked my (deliberately obtuse) scenarios by suggesting that people don't suddenly become Moslems or Jews. This may or may not be the case, but what about Christianity? People in America are always "finding God". Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons send missionaries out to convert people all the time. Consider, if you will, the following scenario: (Ring, Ring) DF - Hello, Doctor Foster here. HM - Foster – this is the hospital manager. It's ten past nine on Sunday morning. You were supposed to be performing a life-saving operation on a little girl today. Where on earth are you, for God's sake? DF - Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain, lest He shalt smite thee. Hallelujah! HM - What the…? DF - Last night some Jehovah's Witnesses knocked on my door and enlightened me as to the true path to inherit the Kingdom of God. And, lo, I did repent my sins and let Jesus into my heart and the Good Book says people should take Sundays off work, so I won't be coming in today. Praise be to the Lord. Hallelujah! HM - What are you talking about? We all have to work Sundays from time to time. People don't stop being ill at the weekends, you know. Now get your sorry *ss down here right now and bring your scalpel with you. DF - Sorry, no can do, pal; it's against my religion. Amen. HM - But the little girl will die… DF - Stuff her and stuff you too. If she pegs it, it will be the Lord's will. Hallelujah! HM - Right, that's it Foster, consider yourself well and truly sacked, you cretinous Christian crackpot. DF - You can't sack me. I've got extra rights because I'm religious. If you fire me, I'll take you to court and sue you for discrimination. Oh, and by the way, The Bible says: "Only flesh with its soul-its blood-you must not eat" - Genesis 9:3-4, which means I won't be doing any more blood transfusions and since pretty much all my operations involve blood transfusions, there doesn't seem much point in me coming in at all, does there? Never mind, though, you'll still have to pay me and there's nothing you can do about it, ha-ha-ha-ha! Amen. Okay, okay, I know it's an unlikely scenario and people don't suddenly find religion overnight. The point is though, that if that surgeon had become a Jehovah's Witness, which may have taken weeks or month's, he wouldn't be able to perform operations involving blood transfusions or work on Sundays. Now, because his objections are fundamental to his faith, the hospital would be legally required to accommodate his religious beliefs, thus leaving his non-religious colleagues with an extra workload. People with faith should not have special privileges and dispensations just because they are religious. After all, one of the Jehovah's Witnesses' colleagues might follow his football team just as devoutly as someone of faith but he wouldn't be allowed to take every Saturday off to watch them play. Religious practices and beliefs are personal matters and should not be allowed to interfere with an employee's work.
Employers should not be legally obliged to accommodate their employees' religious beliefs.

There have been a number of instances recently where Christian employees wishing to adhere to their faith in the workplace have taken their employers to court over and duly won their respective cases. For example, a devout Christian working as a registrar refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies as she considered them to be contrary to her religious beliefs. Her successful legal action has set the precedent that religious beliefs supersede the rights of lesbians and gays in the workplace. http://news.bbc.co.uk... It is clearly wrong for employers to discriminate against people from certain ethnic backgrounds because nobody chooses to be born into any particular ethnic group, so a company would not be allowed to advertise a job as follows: "Wanted – junior sub-atomic particle physicist to work in nuclear research facility. No experience necessary as full training will be given. Shetland Islanders, Inuits and Icelanders need not apply" However, following a religion is a matter of personal choice, and so companies should not be prosecuted for "discriminating" against people of any given faith, as BA was in the case where a pious Christian won the right to break the company policy on jewellery by insisting on wearing a necklace with a cross. http://news.bbc.co.uk... This is, of course, utter madness. By this logic, you could be offered a job as a matador on a Friday afternoon and on Monday morning turn up for work and announce that you had converted to Hinduism over the weekend and would be happy to do the job of a bullfighter but would not be able to stab any cows as Hindus consider bovines sacred! Similarly, one of the female debaters on this site could be offered a job as a porn actress and turn up on the set and say tell the director that she would happy to do the job but had suddenly decided to become a devout follower of Islam and so would not be able to remove her burqa, or indeed any item of clothing and there could certainly be no intimate physical contact as this would be contrary to her religious beliefs! It's just like a student getting a Saturday job in a pork pie factory and telling the boss on the first day that he is very happy to do the job of a pork pie maker but because he had recently chosen to become an ultra-orthodox Jew he would not be able to deal with any pork products and, as Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath, he wouldn't actually be able to do any work of any description! It seems to me that the judges in the aforementioned court cases were a couple of frothing nutjobs and I therefore affirm that, because religion is a matter of personal choice, companies should not be legally obliged to accommodate their employees' religious practices or beliefs.
Physical Beauty Depends on How Much Effort You Put Into It

MindforThought, I'm glad to see we have come to an agreement on the terms. To clarify things completely, you are using the word "beauty" to mean someone who is aesthetically pleasing to the eye. The problem is, not everyone's eye is identical- we do not all consider the same things aesthetically pleasing. For example, my wife currently wants to paint the insides of our house, which has beige siding, beige. She would consider a "quaint little beige house" beautiful, whereas I find the color appalling. Let's say I'm going to a party. I shave my facial hair, get a very short haircut, put on a nice black suit and blue tie and go to the party. I might appear handsome to someone into clean shaven, short haired, brown eyed guys with blue ties. But what about people who think beards are handsome? What if somebody has a strong dislike for black suits? What if they say oh, you would be pretty handsome, but that blue tie clashes with your eyes. Now, what if I had got up that morning, skipped the haircut, forgotten to shave, went to the party in my pajamas, and then all the people who found my previous look ugly now thought I looked handsome. But those who liked my previous look nolonger found me handsome. Beauty and handsomeness and not objective things. Some may find me handsome without any effort put into my appearance. Some might require a substantial amount. The subjectivity involved invalidates the idea that you cannot be genetically and naturally handsome. I believe I miscommunicated the "body types" point. Let's say that I am an Ectomorph. I am fairly fit, but still skinny and lanky, and that is simply my body type. Now, let's say I think a less lanky and more "meaty" body would be more handsome- no matter how hard I try, how much I eat, or how specialized my workout is, I cannot change my body type. I can adjust it slightly, perhaps, but never fully change it. No matter how much effort I put in, I will not be a mesomorph, or considered handsome by someone who only likes mesomorphs. It simply cannot be done. "I am talking about how anybody has the ability to become beautiful or handsome with the attributes that they are born with, and not about fitting into a certain type of beauty standard that everyone says we all have to conform to." Everyone has the ability to become beautiful of handsome with the attributes the are born with, according to who? Someone who finds them in that outfit handsome. But someone will find that unattractive. I find it a tad ironic that you say not to conform to a certain type of beauty standard, but also that anyone can be beautiful, and long as they put effort into looking like..... A certain type of beauty standard? I'm not trying to be derogatory, just pointing out what appears to be faulty logic. Regards, -Thrill PS I don't know if that first line was a pun, but I liked it. Remind me to use that sometime :)
Physical Beauty Depends on How Much Effort You Put Into It

Hello Thrillogy, I am thrilled to hear your opinion. I agree with the Webster's definition of beauty, but when I mean physical beauty it means giving pleasure to the eyes normally in public with clothes on, and not private such as the bedroom, where it may give rise to romantic or sexual feelings by seeing someone naked. For example, you can even call a child "beautiful" or "handsome," or even your own grandma, mother, or father having physical beauty. When I am talking about physical beauty, I am talking about how anybody has the ability to become beautiful or handsome with the attributes that they are born with, and not about fitting into a certain type of beauty standard that everyone says we all have to conform to. We are all genetically given different body shapes, however if we do not put 'EFFORT' into the type of clothes we wear to best fit our body shape, then it will not be as aesthetically pleasing in public. For example, you believe that an endomorph type may be the shape you want. However, if this endomorph body type wears a 5XL size shirt, it's not going to look that nice. Or if the person chooses to wear a shirt with a fried chicken logo, it may not look as nice compared to a man in a suit and tie. Also, if the man with an endomorph body shape overeats or doesn't exercise, then he will gain weight. On the other hand, if the man keeps his shape by putting effort into what he eats and exercise, then he will stay fit. Therefore, physical beauty depends on how much effort you put into your body. MindforThought
Physical Beauty Depends on How Much Effort You Put Into It

Hello. In order to conduct this debate properly, we must define our terms. Beauty- As defined by Merriam-Webster. Please notify me if you prefer an alternative source, "the quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit." Now, you use the term "physical beauty." What does this mean? I assume you are referring to beauty in relation to the persons body- "a person's or animal's whole physical self." This is a hard subject to debate. How do you define beauty? How do you define it in relation to the body vs the mind? I would prefer the term "attractiveness- : having a pleasing appearance ; especially : having a pleasing appearance that causes romantic or sexual feelings in someone." I believe this is what you are referring to when you say physical beauty. If you have some other meaning, please notify me. Now that I have defined my terms, I will make my argument. You say that beauty is a thing that requires work- that natural beauty does not exist, and that beauty is totally related to effort put into it. The problem is, many people are attracted to things that cannot be changed with effort. It could be height, the way a laugh sounds, or the color of their eyes. While these can be partially changed with makeup and other effects, some cannot, and a large part of this requires that one was born with it. For example, it is widely accepted that there are three general human body types. These have been found to be passed down through genetics. Here are a few descriptions of each type, from bodybuilding.com- ECTOMORPH Narrow hips and clavicles Small joints (wrist/ankles) Thin build Stringy muscle bellies Long limbs MESOMORPH Wide clavicles Narrow waist Thinner joints Long and round muscle bellies ENDOMORPH Blocky Thick rib cage Wide/thicker joints Hips as wide (or wider) than clavicles Shorter limbs I personally am an ectomorph. I am and have always been very skinny and lanky. In fact, I have to work to put on weight, and it is an exceptional difficult task. I might be able to build myself up to the size of a slim mesomorph, but never an endomorph. And even if I could, this would not change how my bones are shaped and sized. I am not bitter about this, for I cannot change it- but if someone considers an endomorph body type beautiful/attractive, it is impossible for me to become this type. No amount of hard work can increase the thickness of my ribs, or make my joints larger. It is simply my natural body type, and something that my effort cannot change. With Regards, Thrillogy.