BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is irrelevant so long as what is done improves society on a whole

Since were talking about a fictional situation, let me take the thought experiment further. Lets say that there was a society where most people, for whatever reason, completely despised redheads, who were only a small minority of the population. Let's say someone decides to murder all the redheads. People are happier, now that the hated redheads are gone. Because people are happier, they become less likely to commit crimes, and they have less stress and live longer. Society, as a whole, is undoubtedly improved by this redhead holocaust. Obviously, almost everyone would consider this mass murder of redheads a horrible crime, even if it did improve the lives of many people. You may counter that the example I gave is an unfair one, because the people of the society whose lives were improved were despicable bigots. Well, what other society would become much happier with the mass murder of millions of people? What other situation could there be where mass murder improved the lives of the rest of society? In addition, in what sense could 'society as a whole' be improved by this mass murder? Value is subjective. Maybe the people who aren't killed feel that the murder was the right decision, that they are better off without those millions of innocent people. What about the people killed? They are a part of society; how can the interests of 'society as a whole' be calculated without considering their interests? Surely, they gain much more from being alive than the rest of society gains from their death. How then could it be in the interests of 'society as a whole' to murder them?
Morality is irrelevant so long as what is done improves society on a whole

Imagine you could push a button and end the lives of a million people, people who were innocent, good and honest. However imagine that if you did this unquestionably horrible act, you improved the lives of billions of people. Crime was lowered, people were happier, lives were greatly improved. Let us say for the sake of debate that the people were undoubtedly happier, the standard of living was increased, and the world was all in all a better place. Is the killing of that million people actually evil? You have improved the lives of billions does this not atone for that action? My argument is that the killing of those people is not evil, it is for the greater good. That since the lives of more people will be improved then the person who is heroic enough to kill that million and have their lives on his conscience is truly just a person who can see the world more clearly than his peers.
Jesus Faked His Death, Became Hitler, Faked His Death Again, And Then Relocated To Vatican City

Jesus never died. He sent in his brother Caillou because he wouldn't stop being a b*tch, Hence why there's a cartoon called Caillou. It's based off of Jesus' annoying @ss brother. Anyway, His brother dies, And once he sees the world turning to dog sh*t and forgetting his teachings, He becomes Hitler to make fat germans throw jews into boxes, Yet everyone blames jesus even though the fatty germans can just quit whenever and not obey orders. So jews drop like flies, And then the americanos come in like "PIZZA TIME! " and jesus is like "OH SH*T! " so he finds his brother, Osama Bin Laden, And uses him as a decoy of a dead body, And once people go "OH SH*T HITLER IS DEAD" Jesus couldn't afford to be spotted, Which is why he now resides in Vatican city. Because if you're on the run from something like mass genocide, Why wouldn't you go to a completely isolated and unknown territory like that?
Jesus Faked His Death, Became Hitler, Faked His Death Again, And Then Relocated To Vatican City

I mean come on motherf*ckers isn't it obvious? There's such a clear resemblance between the two. All jesus did was cut his mustache, Shave his beard, And then cut his hair. And of course he faked his death again after he plotted to kill everyone, And then he relocated to the obscure Vatican City.
Where the states money should go.

Why is it that the state freely awards people that do not have a job and are not looking for a job, but will not help a working citizen who is struggling to take care of their family. I don't agree with the fact of someone sitting around all day not working for their income while so many people are out there harming themselves just to get a pay check that barely gets food into their home for their family. The state is handing money out to people that do not necessarily need it. They get there Food stamps and sell them for money to get alcohol drugs or whatever else besides food. I do understand the disability part, but who is still "disabled" and who is checking on those people and what they spend their money on?
Do after school programs help or hinder students

I also thank Pro for generously stating that the challenger only needs to state that "after school programs hinder students in some way shape or form. "I will now provide a basic definition of hinder for clarity:Hinder: make it difficult for (someone) to do something or for (something) to happen. (I simply typed 'define hinder' in Google. )My argument is that after school programs require time (obviously). That is time that the student could be using for other things. It is hindering that student's ability to spend that time elsewhere, such as playing with friends, at parties, or extracurricular activities such as swimming or tennis. This debate is not about whether such a hinderance is worth the benefits gained from after school programs, it is simply a question of whether after school programs hinder students or not. I have just shown that they do. Thus, the resolution is nulled.
Do after school programs help or hinder students

In this debate, the first person to accept will be my challenger. The challenger will be taking the position of Con, stating that after school programs hinder students in some way shape or form. 1st round, acceptance and opening argument 2nd round rebuttal and closing argument. my opening argument, after school programs help students because they provide extra time and resources to further help the student understand any material he/she is having trouble with. They also help students because they provide some extra time and generally a quiet environment for students to complete their after school work where as at home they may not have that quiet environment. Finally, after school programs help students because they are the clubs that require a little more time to meet in. Students enjoy letting loose in an improv club or democrat/republican club, and take away any unnecessary stress set upon the student from the past 7 hours.
Something created the universe.

I believe the universe had to have been created by something. Logically, something (matter, the universe, anything) could not have come from nothing. At some point there has to be a "creator" that created the universe. The method of creating and what was originally created (e.g. a god particle which caused the big bang) are beside the point in this debate. I seek only to hear an opposing view that the universe could exist without a creator. Specific religious implication are intended to remain absent besides the implications that a creator would, for the most part, be considered a god. There is obviously no direct proof for either side of this debate and that is why it is under philosophy. I wish only to hear considerations for alternatives, not someone to flat-out bash the idea of this debate.
Something created the universe.

Hello, I am going to start off my argument by saying I do not know how the universe was "born" and don't think anyone does in today's society. I am going to be debating using logic, reason, and facts. I hope this is an intense/fun debate! To start off I am going to talk about the universe as we know it to be. The universe goes by certain laws that cannot be broken such as matter cannot be created or destroyed. If we are going by this law then creation doesn't go with the laws of physics and is flawed. Even if the universe was created, what created it? Thinking logically we cannot say that "god" exists because of lack of proof. However, the universe can exist without being created. Something amazing about science as we know it is, something can come from nothing because nothing is something! When we think of nothing we usually think empty, however, this is far from nothing. If there is emptiness that means there is something that is empty and thus there is something. When we look at quantum physics we see that particles do sometimes just pop in and out of existence. Of course these things are very, very small, but so was the universe before the big bang. The explosion of the big bang all came from amounts of energy hundreds of times smaller than the tip of a pen. So a strong theory explaining how the universe was created was simply, the universe appeared and went bang. http://scienceblogs.com... A question that has been said for ages is, Why is there something rather than nothing?" This is a very interesting question that doesn't have a very solid answer. My best answer to this would be, there can't be nothing, if there was nothing then would it truly be nothing? We use the term nothing to mean, not something. If there isn't something this means there is no space which can contain nothing. Even from a religious standpoint the concept of nothing doesn't make since. If there is truly nothing then there can be no god because god is indeed, something. When looking at this from a logical standpoint, maybe nothing can't exist. To clarify I will compare other things to something and nothing. First we will look at the moral terms good and evil. Good will represent something and evil will represent nothing. If there is no such thing as good, how can evil exist? What about the opposite? These two things must coexist with one another for either to make since, they are yin and yang. What about life and death, you can't have death without life that's just obvious. This also means you can't have life without death. When we look at it like this it makes since that nothing and something must coexist, neither can be on their own. It's infinity and zero, they both in a way mean the same thing. The definition of Infinity is something that you can take any amount from yet it will remain the same. Is this not the same for nothing? I can take as much money from an empty vault as I want but there will be the same amount of money in the bank as when I started.
Something created the universe.

My opening remark was pretty clearly made in the first post, but I will restate. The existence of matter, energy, anything, everything had to have a start, it seems almost absurd to think that it could have just been there. A creating force outside our universe had to give birth to something that eventually got us to where we are today. I will give this round over to hearing the opponent's side for why the universe could potentially exist without something creating it.
Communism is a good system

First of all, allow me to apologise for the time it has taken me to respond. I'm sure you can accept that Christmas is a time where family comes first, and online debates second. Currency is required for society to advance. Before the invention of currency, items and goods were bartered with at fluctuating values, and this made it incredibly difficult for people to value what they owned and what they owed. Currency serves as an official 'I.O.U', as in if everyone in society agrees that the currency has value, it can be exchanged for goods and services. Abolishing currency makes no sense to me. Why would you destroy a method of convenience for everybody? Currency makes everything easier, simpler and safer, as everyone knows how much they have. You also mention 'True Communism', and that it would work on a system where the government assigns you a job, you do that job for a period of time, and then somebody else does that job, and you change jobs. This to me, is problematic. Again, with this system you have the problem of highly skilled jobs. How can somebody train to be a doctor, for example, when every week they are changing jobs? How can one individual complete his weekly job to the required standard, when he has only done it for a week? It is impossible. I fail to see why a society would opt for this ridiculous and dis-functioning system, when traditional career paths exist. I don't know about you,but I would much rather have a surgeon perform keyhole surgery,and who has spent seven years training as a surgeon, as opposed to someone who was a plumber last week and had not the slightest medical experience.
Communism is a good system

So, thank you for joining this debate. Responding to your first point and also your second point at the same I disagree that it is immoral and unjust because there would be no need for money at all anyway. The use of money, as Karl Marx stated, would be eliminated. You would work, and the government would in return give you your basic needs and a home. You still work hard and you get what ever you need to live. True Communism, in my opinion, has been seen already, in Israeli Kibbutzim. You would get assigned a job, and you do it. The next week someone else does that job. And from those jobs and the money the owners of the Kibbutzim earn from the livestock, etc they sell it and make a profit, and the people live happy. And as I stated above if you work and do what you do you get basic needs and a home. So I think, responding to your second point that you would get assigned a job, do it, and that's it. People have dreams and aspirations anyway, so maybe people will try to become those jobs either way, it's human nature.
Communism is a good system

Hello there. On the surface, communism appears to be a utopian premise. After all, how can it be argued that equality is a bad thing? However, communism is a very bad system, and I shall be using two main points in my response. (A) Communism is immorale and unjust. (B) Communism can never be successfully implemented. (A) Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor is stealing. The idea that wealth is unjust is ludicrous. Why should somebody work hard their whole life, only to have it given to somebody who doesn't work as hard? That doesn't seem fair to me. Maybe equal, but not fair. But what about a millionaire, who can have anything he wants at the snap of his fingers, while a single mother of three begs on a street corner? Yes the mother is in need, but taking from the millionaire might not be the solution. Maybe one of the millionaire's ancestors was in the same position as the mother, but worked hard until he was rich. You don't know how hard the millionaire works, and the notion that he owes something to society is ludicrous, as at one point in time, his family had to work hard. (B) If everyone earns the same, then where is the incentive to seek higher paying jobs? Why bother training for years to become a heart surgeon if you earn the same pay as a bricklayer? You would not. Therefore there would be no highly-skilled workers, as there is no monetary incentive to work hard and achieve the job. Therefore, this communist society would be packed full of low-skilled workers, and would fail, as there would be nobody doing the higher paid jobs. How can a society survive with no doctors healing people, no politicians making laws, and no scientists advancing humanity? It cannot.
Racial/Religous Profliling

What this debate will revolve around is the idea that racial profiling can help law enforcement reduce crime rates in urban and/or rural areas. In this debate I will take the position of being against racial profiling as it only helps to discriminate against marginalized communities. The following are the definitions to be used in this debate: Racial/Religious profiling: Profiling someone based on their religion or race This debate will center around whether it is rational to profile people based on their race/religion and whether this profiling can be used to monitor certain communities that have a higher proportion of that race/religion. This debate WILL NOT tackle the issue of whether it is rational to use racial/religious profiling to develop immigration policies. If you are interested in debating this issue then I would be happy to do so in another post. Therefore there are 2 main arguments to be debated here: 1) Whether racial profiling is rational and therefore should be pursued 2) Whether religious profiling is rational and therefore should be pursued Structure: First round is acceptance and no new arguments in the last round Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. No trolling 5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
Rap battle

Ahahaha, funny how you tryna be a big boy n' cuss' I beat your pride down, no fuss, hit you with this clean flow like a bus If you could come up with more words of such creativity, that'd be a plus Nonetheless, i beat you with such a pure lyrical style to your brain til i see pus You know what, i'm tired of playin' with Pinocchio I'ma hitta like the italian mob, Godfather, Maurino To win, you must resort to copy my raps, robbin' it like a bank I got so much luxuries within this mindframe, blow you away like a tank bust e'erything in fire, let hope sank, sip it til it drank You come up with a masterpiece, i come up with a museum Come up with an educational system educatin' your ppl, n' free em' Teach them to rap battle a whole lot of haters, i create a whole army If you brought a weapon, i'd disarm em' in case someone try to harm me Could you do that? didn't think so, stop tryin' to beat the inevitable Whether killin' you with my tongue of fire is ethical isn't sensible I'm a big weenie? that sounds so homosexual Maybe you should stop being so directional Did you catch what i mean? Is it digestible? It seems your sexuality is so obsessional
Rap battle

If we rapping on the mic I wouldn't need a beat Because even if you cheat, you can't compare to my heat You'd have more of a chance if you left your turn incomplete Because for you I'm to elite , so I suggest you retreat Your raps are to petite to even compete Dude what does grammar have to do with rap? At least my stuff isn't as bad as your cr@p Because your raps are just weak, and that's you at your peak So I guess that explains your never ending losing streak And just like all your other battles, your fate will be repeated Meaning that in this battle you will be defeated But I don't get it, how can you be so conceited? If in some battles you even retreated I don't need to say much because your nothing And even someone calling you that will leave you blushing You say your the big bad wolf but I'm the one huffing And puffing these raps which to you are crushing I'm brushing off your sh!tty raps and then I'm flushing But my raps to you are knives, your blood is gushing Honestly to me your a big weenie, because beating you is to easy Your raps are so sleazy that they actually make me feel queasy So I better take it easy, to write another masterpiece I don't even have to think because it's comes to me naturally So quit because I have the capacity to make your life a catastrophe
Rap battle

I will be dominated? I never knew that you were a homosexual You couldn't rape me even if you were a police officer or a correctional Man that's such a clique get back away, move your mind back a day Don't be laugh, you wrote to, didn't even write "too" LOL! boy don't swallow more than you can chew If all you can do is shine, how come you based your rap off of my rhymes? Learn how to lyrically be sound n' create a set of musical chimes How many times have i heard this crap about being the best? it's gettin' old I am the wolf, predator stalkin' the prey, you the sheep who slipped away from the sheepfold You talk about my defeat, never actually went through with it, so improvise walk that walk, talk that talk, draw that outline of chalk, change your plan, revise Talkin' a bunch of gibberish, claimin' that it's absolute truth, but it's all lies Quit rappin' n' stick to debatin"? Stop hatin', you overratin' Matter of fact, i take that back, whether i get in a rap battle or debate I can burn you to a crisp like cake, even if i rapped as bad as Drake I'm like Rasputin, i'm straight lootin', i start shootin' Talkin' about you shine, well that's why i'm thuggin' On second thought, these raps are as faker than some plastic, so i'm mean muggin' drop this, cry out ba-humbug, but i leave you with one man's trash is another man's treasure Your raps are so cheap n' trash, even Bill Gates wouldn't use it for leisure to rap battle me under pressure Lil' boy, listen... you couldn't beat me no matta' if you had intellect or alot of phylacteries In fact, you couldn't even defeat me even if you made a thousands salaries money don't buy lyrics, so stop the gimmicks, you better off doin' a set of jigs like the three lil pigs Your raps are so laughable, i'm the big bad wolf, eatin' you alive, breakin' you into lil twigs Ahaha, this guy said he was a higher kind You are who you are within your own mind Not tryin' to diss, i'm simply being truly kind
Rap battle

Using the way I live against me: Man that's pathetic But u guess I can't blame you since it's genetic And saying that your raps are complicated Dude I'm sorry but you will be dominated Man you never stood a chance You were lucky to get a glance At my raps which to you are much to advanced Quit now or raps will be enhanced I have many raps in my brilliant mind In the rap world all I do is shine Me and my raps as so bright they'll leave you blind You can't step to this because I'm a higher kind You better be worried because time is racing And when time runs out I gonna get you and do some proper placing You already feeling defeat so you might as well start embracing I don't think you now what your facing Man just quit rapping and stick to debating
Rap battle

I might not have won a battle, yes i admit to it My rap flow might not be as fluid as you think it is But at least i write complex lyrics, you rap like you in a sing a-long E'erything that you do is so wrong, so i ball up your stuff, go long You rap like a lil' kid, never been an Eminem, copied this from a friend I just wanted to let you know that you had a career, but lost it to the end Beat me on a mic? Sike! i could beat you without one, there's no fight Get on your knees and pray to God for him to make everything right how the heck can you call yourself Eminem? You can't even rap 6-bars Take back your 2 lined rhymes, your a-typical, i'm somethin' from mars Thinkin' you livin' in the 26th century, i'm rappin' like i'm breakin' clay jars I'm rappin' online, typin' this up, while you out there in the streets, stealin' cars to pay for your rent cuz i think you stole my line then expect to be among the stars Before callin' me illiterate, make sure you punctuate right, sound like someone behind barbs
Rap battle

Oh um did you expect me to be rattled How can you think that, when you haven't even won a battle Let's be honest, your a guy that I don't like I just wanna let you know that I would beat you here and on a mic How would you know anything about love if to women your disgusting What really gets me is that you think your actually something Man your nothing but a thing that takes up space If I was you I wouldn't even show my face You and me will never be equivalent We are two people who are completely different I'm sorry to say but in the rap world your ignorant But what should I expect from someone who's illiterate I can actually understand why your a hater Cuz nothing but a sad disgraceful failure You probably some guy who gets paid minimum wage as a waiter So just quit because I'm on a whole different degree It's like I'm eminem while you some f@ggot from glee