BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is subjective

1. Morality "morality is something that lies within all human beings." false. People such as psychopaths and sociopaths according to people who "have a moral compass" do not have one. Not to mention that this conflicts when you say that "anyone with a moral compass would tell you that they're morally misguided", thus implying that the perpetrator has no moral compass and therefore no morality. As for your example, the people you are talking about that "have a moral compass" think that doing those things is immoral. This is likely because in your version of morality, doing those things is wrong(as it is in mine). But, there are others(the perpetrator obviously for one), that would say that doing those things are perfectly moral. Since you have no authority to say that they are immoral in any other interpretation but your own since there is no definite moral compass that belongs to everyone, you must conclude that they have their own morality as we have ours. 2. Moral Inconsistency I don't see where I am confused but alright. q1a. yes. q1b. yes. q2. Irrelevant since we haven't proved objective morality is real. q3. yes. CImp. I believe there is one big flaws in these assertions that negates a lot of the rest of it. I also don't see how this prove objective morality but maybe I am just not understanding it. "(4)If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world." This is false. Every action, thought decision, will be irrational and rational and have a contradiction. There are at least two sides to everything. Not to mention that rationality is a human invention. Like morality, no one can absolutely say if something is rational or irrational. Therefore, once again, the rationality of something is up to your own interpretation. Plus, things that are generally thought of as irrational are permitted in the real world all the time.
Its reasonable to have faith in religion

"Reasonable" means that such would stand up to, mentally healthy people, thinking that your thinking is reasonable. "Faith" means that you cannot check your facts. So, the debate sentence is flawed from the start. If you would like to say that you "enjoy" having faith in religion, that would be more reasonable. Since religion has changed, drastically, to suit each generation, then, religion is not what it says that it was and is much more like a fashion of clothing or a style of music. So, although humans are pack animals and seek to copy the rest of the group, it is reasonable to not be ostracized and, therefore, follow a religion so that you don't feel alone and rejected, it is not reasonable to think that an old man lives in the sky. To just keep changing the words of "religion" every time you are shown that you are following pure nonsense does not show "reasonableness". Furthermore, if you are born in India, you are, most likely, to follow the Hindi religion. If you are born in Saudi Arabia, you are, mostly likely to be Muslim. If you are born in Mexico, you are, most likely to be Catholic. Since the above is purely true, it makes any "reasonable faith" not look like any decision at all.
Media Violence is having a negative effect on today's youth

Media violence doesnt affect todays youth. The media just basically recreates it, it doesnt actually happen. If someone sees a violent action take place on tv or on a video game they probably won't copy it, they will just watch it instead. As most kids grow up they learn to control thier anger and aggression even if they do watch violent tv and play violent video games. Kids can be influenced by other violent things in the world instead of media such as other people in real life. Or they could even be influence by their parents in some situations.
Media Violence is having a negative effect on today's youth

But most kids don't get enough attention from their parents. Their parents don't give they the right parenting that they need. And this leads to violence because they think they can get whatever they want in life. But when they don't get what they want they can respond in anger and this can cause problems as they grow up. This would also be known as violence, so in conclusion violence isn't always caused by tv and media. It can be caused by parents and also other people.
Media Violence is having a negative effect on today's youth

Okay, but kids ageing from 3-8 will watch these violent tv shows or movies and video games so young that if they do see in real life or from their parents they could believe what they've viewed is real and may happen to them and their family, creating intensified fear and anxiety. Making this kid grow up violently and misunderstood from the real world because of something they saw when they was a child.
The U.S. should have Universal health care

Universal Healthcare should be established in America for the following reasons. First of all, Universal healthcare provides basic, satisfactory healthcare to those who can least afford it. For example, if a homeless person got stabbed and needed urgent medical help, a country such as England or Canada would give emergency aid and it wouldn't cost a cent. In fact, in Canada, the only thing you have to pay for is perscribed drugs and medical casts. Also in 2001 study in the U.S., up to 46.2 percent of bankruptcies were because of Medical debt. This was when the economy was decent.Does the U.S. really need anymore debt than we're in right now? Medicare helps lower debt since you do not have to pay for the majority of medical expenses. Universal Healthcare works in a number of countries and would help the U.S. socially and economically. Not only that, but it is fair and equitable for everybody.It certainly would help the U.S and I don't see how America's current health care system would be any better than Universal Healthcare.Sources:http://www.livestrong.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
The U.S. should have Universal health care

Before we begin, I would like to define Universal Healthcare. Universal health care — sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage, universal care or social health protection — usually refers to a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all its citizens. It is organized around providing a specified package of benefits to all members of a society with the end goal of providing financial risk protection, improved access to health services, and improved health outcomes. [2] Universal health care is not a one-size-fits-all concept; nor does it imply coverage for all people for everything. Universal health care can be determined by three critical dimensions: who is covered, what services are covered, and how much of the cost is covered.
The U.S. should have Universal health care

No problem my fellow opponent, I realize that everyone has busy schedules, including myself. Nevertheless, I will continue to back up my previous arguments and also introduce new ideas. Universal Health Care ideally works to improve the overall health of a nation by covering everybody. As I mentioned before, Universal health care does not cover eveything such as prescripted drugs in countries such as Canada. In Canada, Universal Healthcare is funded through cash and tax transfers from the provinces and territories to help pay for health services. Therefore, Universal health care would improve the overall health of a nation such as the U.S. and would also help the U.S economically by decreasing medical debt. Universal health care is better than the current health system in the U.S in three fundamental aspects. It covers virtually everybody, covers more services, and covers one hundred percent of the cost for health services. Universal health care is successful in a number of countries, so there is ample evidence that it could work in the United State. Universal Healthcare works in a number of countries, so there is ample evidence that it would work in the U.S. The question I ask to my opponent is: " Why shouldn't the U.S. have Universal Healthcare?"Sources:http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...http://www.livestrong.com...
The Bible condemns homosexual sex

I am aware of no biblical verse which unambiguously condemns homosexual sex. Common citations for text which condemns homosexual sex also includes other elements. Leviticus 18:22 specifies 'as with a woman'. In the time which this book was written, women were inferior to men in society. To treat another man as if he were a woman would be the sin. If a man had sex with another man in a way that would not treat him like a woman, the act would not be condemned by this verse. Likewise, in the story found in Judges 19:16-24, a man was a guest in another man's home. Some strangers kindly asked to rape the guest. The host pleaded with the strangers to not do this saying "No, my brothers, don't do such an evil thing. For this man is a guest in my house, and such a thing would be shameful.". The man then proceeds to let the men rape his daughter (his property) and his guest's girlfriend. This verse reinforces my assertion that it was the gender roles which were not to be violated- not the act of homosexual sex. The verse also implies that it is bad form to let people rape your guest. Additionally, this account is not the direct word of God, nor does it demonstrate a law, but merely tells the story of what happened to a guy who was passing through Gibeah. I would like my opponent to provide a verse from the bible wherein God (or a legitimate authority representing God) unambiguously proclaims homosexual sex to be universally immoral WITHOUT involving other factors such as gender roles. Once again, women were not seen as equal at this time. The act of treating a man like a woman seems to me to be the sinful element. Because we, in modern times, view women as being equal to men we too often read verses like this and mistake the contextual meaning. When we see "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (Leviticus 18:22) We make the assumption that the sex is the offensive part. It is not. If it were, the verse would simply read "Do not have sex with another man". The sinful part of the act is treating a man like a woman. Leviticus is notable for being absolutely riddled with gender-restricting rules. Verses which people think unambiguously condemn homosexual sex are actually just more rules restricting behavior regarding gender. In addition, because my opponent did not specify 'homosexual sex' in the body of their initial post, and instead said the word 'homosexuality', I would like my opponent to find any bible verse wherein God (or a legitimate authority representing God) condemns the state of being attracted to the same sex. Being attracted to someone and engaging in the act of sex are two different things. To preemptively rebut Matthew 5:27-28, Being attracted to someone and thinking about having sex with someone are also two different things. I thank you for your time and look forward to your responses. To re-iterate my expectations, I am wanting my opponent to provide at least two verses- one which condemns homosexual sex specifically and one which condemns homosexuality generally.
The Bible condemns homosexual sex

This debate will be to determine if the Bible, taken in context, condemns homosexuality. I will be arguing that the Bible does condemn homosexuality and that anyone who states a sincere belief in the Bible cannot say that they agree that homosexuality is moral in the eyes of God. We will not be arguing about whether or not homosexuality is the worst sin or what sin it is equivalent to, though those things can be used in your argument. I will not attempt to prove if Christianity is true or not; this debate will be based on the words of the Bible and on necessary resources pertaining to them. There will be three rounds. The first round can be used for acceptance or for the opening argument. I would prefer for the challenger to have an understanding of the Bible's words and the context that they are in. I am an Atheist, and do not care what beliefs the challenger holds. No insults, please. Civilized debate is expected. Thank you!
Indian movie censorboard

"If you do remember something gory and violent, then yes, they are still part of your subconsciousness. They leave an impact in your life, and not for the better. Congrats! You"ve helped me prove my point!" So what if I remember a few action scenes? From Pro's logic, every martial artist, boxer and wrestler should be murderers, which is simply not true. I don't propose that we have no censor board (I don't think there's a country without it, is there?) but that they must change their policies, introduce new policies or change the heads/staff to improve the censorship. While pro may have a few links and case studies, it still shows no evidence that violence or abusive language provokes more violence. We are not copy-pasters in real-life. We have our own choices and our own mind, that can't be easily bended to anyone else's will. From pro's logic if violent scenes cause violence, charity scenes should increase charity, marriage scenes should increase marriages and worship scenes should strengthen religion. Furthermore, pro claims "censoring saves lives", yet I don't see a fundamental drop in crime rate, or murder/assault rates since the new censor board. Pro relies on the data of a controversial study to prove his point, which is invalid. It is invalid as this doesn't justify making the movies A-rated, as while children may "get more influenced", adults are the ones who have the tools and resources for planning out a violent assault. Lots of people have watched action movies, or martial arts training, or boxing/wrestling matches and action games. Not all of them are murderers. Only a small minority of them have showcased violence. This is an attempt to decrease the business of these ventures. Many competitors secretly fund "studies and research" into these topics, and try to discredit the fields. In turn these people fund "studies and research" that credit their fields. This is all a game of propaganda. Good day to you too.
Indian movie censorboard

Good day everyone! The opposition has expressed the frustration many people seem to share. I myself have been victim to it. I have not been able to watch dead pool, to watch this movie or that movie. I missed out on the fun. But look, I"m still here. Breathing and living out my life normally. I may have missed out on a couple of fun scenes, but it spared me from the curses and profane sequences. """""""""""""""""" The opposition continues to bombard us with the remarks that all those influenced by movies are dumb, mentally unstable, and have something already wrong with them. This is an extremely ludicrous assumption that is unfounded and unwarranted. Unlike the opposition"s lack of evidence, I have presented case studies and research work explaining how movies do have a psychological impact in people"s minds. To prove this point further, let"s have a simple exercise that anyone reading can join in on. 1.) Think of the most gory and violent movie that you have watched 2.) What scenes do you remember the most? Are they violent or profane? If they are not violent or if you don"t remember anything, then it shows how you did not need to have watched it in the first place as you would have forgotten it anyways. This shows that even if you have not seen the movie, it won"t really impact your life. Congrats! You"ve helped me prove my point! If you do remember something gory and violent, then yes, they are still part of your subconsciousness. They leave an impact in your life, and not for the better. Congrats! You"ve helped me prove my point! """""""""""""""""" Having a censor board in India is vital for the following reasons: - it adds format and a guideline (You won"t expect curse words to find its way into children movies) - it allows for punishment of violators (If Dora the Explorer suddenly showed a profane scene, the Indian board can press charges) - it safeguards the nation (they allow their people to only see what"s best for them) """""""""""""""""" In the end, it"s really not difficult. We"ve proven that censoring movies saves lives, we"ve proven that censoring movies allows for safeguarding of the nation, we"ve proven censoring movies is vital. Then what difficulty would it be to miss a line from a movie in order to save 10 lives? What difficulty would it be to miss a hit movie in order to save 100 lives? What difficulty would it be to miss out on some fun so that the nation can experience fun? It"s your call. We should not always be so selfish and think of the greater good.
Indian movie censorboard

I believe that those who get motivated to do murder by simple movies are fools and have a screw loose already. Furthermore, foul language can sometimes help express the characters emotions better, and a beep is rather disturbing anyways. I propose that Indian movie censor board should develop more ratings like other countries, such as under 13, under 16, under 18 etc. What we have right now is under 18 or above, no exceptions. It would do good to have a rating above 15 or above 13, as some movies are not designed for small children but they are not the best for adults either. Imagine movies such as Dabang without curse words or action scenes. It is impossible, isn't it? Udta Punjab recently got the A rated certificate despite the intention of promoting drug awareness among all ages. Furthermore, if you argue about violent scenes promoting violence, talk about the avengers. Or batman, for that matter. They got the UA certificate despite a good amount of violence and action stunts. The censor board is biased. Pro argues that we all are sponges and that whatever we see, we do. I argue that this only happens with dumb people or people who are already inclined to violence and abuse, and the movie can't be blamed for that. Now, your Michael Hernandez, did anyone ask him if he had the idea of murder before watching the movie? This could also be an attempt by other producers to attack the producer's reputation. If what we do what we watch, then all we need is a movie about studying. You are saying army men or gangsters in training can watch action movies and become more efficient? No surveys for that, eh?
Indian movie censorboard

Good day! My name is James, and today I will be in favor of the Indian movie censor board. Despite not being Indian myself, I share their beliefs and understand the reasoning behind why it is they censor films. This debate all boils down to one thing: morals, principles, and ethics. Because it is of a subjective nature, I would be forced to rephrase the motion into something that can be objective and provide a reasonable conclusion. The motion of this debate would be that the censorship of films in India bring more good than harm. Once again, good afternoon! """""" Movies and films have the power to influence young minds and motivate adults into action, therefore, as said in Spiderman "with great power, comes great responsibility" (Spiderman, a movie which was available for viewing in India) The thing is, when they censor out a couple of curse words and derogatory phrases, they are not taking anything out of a movie. The essence of the movie is still there, and can still be enjoyed. Now, if the movie cannot be enjoyed without the curse words, maybe you should consider the movie you are watching. It has been proven, time and time again, movies cause people into action. Multiple murders and crimes have been attributed to the viewing of unnecessarily violent scenes and hearing of foul languages. ---> "Michael Hernandez identified with the movie serial killers and pursued a plan to become a serial killer himself. He stabbed friend Jaime Gough in a bathroom at Southwood Middle School. " --->"In 2013, a teen claimed the 2007 version of "Halloween," directed by Rob Zombie, inspired him in the slaying of two members of his family. Evans killed his 48-year-old mother, Jamie Evans, and his 15-year-old sister, Mallory, inside their upscale Aledo, Texas home on October 3, 2012." From these two case studies alone (aside from the countless others), we can establish that a movie can leave long term problems. [SOURCES: http://moviepilot.com..., http://www.oddee.com..., http://listverse.com...] Research has also been made regarding the exposure of people to inappropriate movies. A research team has concluded "Overall, our estimates suggest that in the short-run violent movies deter almost 1,000 assaults on an average weekend." [SOURCES: http://www.nber.org..., http://www.mountsinai.org..., http://www.telegraph.co.uk...] """""" In the end, if you could save one life, just one life, by not being able to watch a violent movie, will it be justified? If you could save 10 children suffering from abuse, would you avoid watching obscene films? If you could potentially save millions of lives, would you allow movies in India to be censored? In the end, nothing outweighs lives, security, and safety. Not a petty curse word in a movie or an obscene act on film. Nothing trumps the lives saved.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Overall I do not believe that this should even be a debate. Evidence has surfaced that homosexuality is generally not even a choice, it can be genetic and/or born with it. It is completely their decision and it does not affect the rest of society. It is not others business and it should stay that way. We have deemed homosexuality as taboo or just disgusting, mostly because of damaging religions, and any men and women alike are afraid to come out and be themselves. This should not be an environment that we should have to live in and it is impeding our rite to the pursuit of happiness. Thank you, TruthHurtsBro
Rap Battle: Ezequielized Odyssey & Beard Face

What's up with your beard, How come you had a mustache inside your pimple? Your size of beard looks like Huge size of Jackson, Michael Ah!!, There's a car accident on your nose, your bleeding Put your hands up and suck Steve Wonder's Vagina, your feeding Look it this rapper, he never want to go Africa That's why he's is the first president of Memorial State of America Your going to the grave like John Lennon Looks like Memorial State Of America has G** Marriage like Nick Cannon This mother****** got bleeding on his nose, he smells rose He never got into rap before since he was too close He can't touch this like MC Beard face and legit to quit He can write notes that rap music does not give a s*** I'm a Mighty Odyssey, AKA for Jay-Z His face just a zit, he screams, shout, and go crazy He was not on the list, he's on dog pile It's Odyssey coming straight a** from 16 mile
There is no significant proof that GW Bush lied to get into Iraq.

You stated that Bush never lied to get us into Iraq. My first point is a lie is anything that is meant to mislead, it does not have to be a complete contradiction. Therefore when Bush ignores the fact that oil could be a possible cause for going into Iraq he is misleading American citizens and lying to them. By not addressing the issue of oil he lets the ordinary American draw their own conclusions which can be misleading depending on the conclusions.