BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Deontology

TopicThe Categorical Imperative is not an adequate theory of morality.DefinitionsAdequate - capable of explaining and/or qualifying the basic nature of moralityTheory - proposed explanation or viewpoint whose status is still conjecturalMorality - that which is right, virtuous, or proper; standards of right conductThe FrameworkPro will use the following interpretation of the Categorical Imperative (also referred to as Duty Theory, Kantian Ethics, or Deontology) to constructs his/her arguments.The Imperative reads: "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." Below are several core tenets of the Imperative: - The imperative relies on agents having certain ends; for example, because I want to sate my thirst (end), I drink (action), - The imperative applies only to rational, autonomous agents; i.e. we must respect rational agents as ends in themselves, but this is not so for non-rational agents, - Morality is universally valid; i.e. if something is wrong, it is ALWAYS wrong EVERYWHERE, - Morality cannot be determined via empirical analysis; in other words, the consequences of the action are morally irrelevant, - Morality can only be determined through a priori reasoning; in other words, there are certain obvious conclusions that can be made about morality based on universally recognized principles of right conduct, - Finally, moral laws are absolutes. Rules1. No forfeits2. No reinterpretations of the framework; it must be accepted in its entirety3. Con does not have to offer an alternative theory of morality; Con must merely show that Deontology fails4. Pro has the sole BOP5. Sources may be posted in the text of the debate or in the comments; both are acceptable--however, arguments may not be made in the comments6. Violation of these rules, or any aspect of the R1 set-up, constitutes a 7-point lossStructureR1: Pro must present his arguments in round oneR2: ArgumentsR3: ArgumentsR4: ArgumentsR5: Pro may not post arguments in round fiveThanks... in advance to whomever accepts! I look forward to a neat debate.
18 year olds with concealed handguns

Why don't you want a concealed handgun permit so you can carry and be able to protect yourself. There are many cases in which a 18 year old can save their life or somebody else's if they have a concealed handgun. But because of the law they can't have one and said 18 year old dies gets injured or other person dies or gets injured. SO my question is why wouldn't you want 18 year olds to have handguns?
18 year olds with concealed handguns

Alright the first thing I notice about 18 year olds is that they can join the army, get their hands in tons of dangerous weapons. But if there not in the army they can still own a rifle and a shotgun which do even more damage so what's so bad about a concealed handgun for self protection? What if some crazy guy attacks them then what shall they do beat them with a stick? well if they had a concealed weapon this would not be a problem.
Miley Cyrus should not perform her explicit dances on TV without the channel giving a warning

Miley Cyrus's dancing is incredibly vulgar and shows that she does not care that many young kids who are not old enough for this sort of entertainment watch award shows that she has "performed" on. Many parents and teens and children agree that her dance moves are inappropriate and the fact that all of her recent performances and songs have vulgar content ie wrecking ball video and her defense of her actions, "Kids need to know about sexuality. Girls need to be comfortable in that." This shows incredible lack of responsibility for her actions. Because of the nature of her performances they are essentially strip club performances which I hate, to back up my main stance Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action. The VMAs are aired between these times therefore proving that action should be taken against Miley Cyrus or warnings must air before her performances. Also if you don't believe that some people can have greater restrictions then why are there restraining orders? Or terms for parole? To prove that many people are disgusted by her terrible performance... SOURCES: Clearly, Ed"s not a fan of the dance move, and even called out a particular singer who uses it often. "You shouldn"t be encouraging little kids to twerk!" he added. "Stop doing this, Miley Cyrus, please. Stop. Stop. Sing Wrecking Ball. Wrecking Ball is a great song." starmagazine.com/2014/01/28/ed-sheeran-disses-miley-cyrus-twerking/ http://www.mirror.co.uk... Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook
Miley Cyrus should not perform her explicit dances on TV without the channel giving a warning

#1 There is a warning on most televised shows about how some "content of the show may be inappropriate" #2 We all have freedom to do and say what we want, by putting restrictions on that it will only lead to more regulations and government interference. #3 Why should she have anymore regulations than anyone else? Because it may offend someone? Anyone could do anything that could offend someone else, there is no winning what so ever. You can't please everyone.
Miley Cyrus should not perform her explicit dances on TV without the channel giving a warning

Rules: I am arguing that Miley Cyrus should not be able to perform her explicit dances unless the channel posts a warning prior to the airing. Therefore I am pro because i support the fact that her dancing is explicit. Round 1: Acceptance and comments. Round 2: Arguments No Rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals. Break a rule and lose 3 points.
Legal Prostitution in India

I apologise to my Con for not being able to post arguments on time since I have been very busy recently. Here are the counter arguments for first 2 points , rest I ll address in the next round: A1: Although legalising sex work will not guarantee anything , it does not imply that the need to do so or to better enforce the existing laws should be ignored.While starting this debate the most important thing in my mind was how can we reduce the acts of crime against women which rising at a sharp steep curve in present time.Once again I would reassert on my argument about other such laws , although no law guarantees anything but it does not stop the law makers from making stricter and better laws , does it? So I totally disagree with the con that since they don"t guarantee anything laws should not be amended. A2 I think a proof is not needed for this as we all know there is a huge number of sex workers in the country.2.3 million as per this article: http://www.erces.com... The mere existence of so many sex workers signifies that there is equally large clientele.
Legal Prostitution in India

Prostitution is perhaps the oldest practice if not profession but , still our civilisation is not evolved enough to accept it.I am concerned not because I want us to respect sex workers or that the whole profession intrigues me. Our society is in crisis today.Women , young girls , children are being raped , molested , abused and what not.Newspapers and news channels are flooded with incidents which are bound to shake our souls and we the people , the mob , have merely remained a witness.Stricter laws are being framed but I am not convinced they can really have an impact on the rapist mind. In my opinion government and before that the society should build a public opinion to make prostitution legal in the eyes of law.The reason my thought process keeps revolving around this solution to the problem is because this is something that is prevalent already since ages.It is silently accepted by us all.My question to everyone and myself is why cannot we give it a legal recognition.By doing this we present the maniacs with an option to end their lust , frustration , desire or whatever their motive for raping someone is , with someone who is willing and save a life from being ruined.Everyone knows about the Red Light Areas spread across different cities in the country.If we are bold enough to let them perpetuate and we are even bolder to fight for same sex marriages and relationships why not prostitution? A corollary of the above proposition is that it will help in great deal to give better lives to sex workers and prevent them from exploitation at hands of their customers and law.This in turn might help reduce the spread of AIDS as it will definitely lead to better and safer practices among them. Let us have a healthy debate on the topic so we may know what the responsible India thinks about the issue of women safety and measures to achieve the same.Thanks for spending your valuable time on this page. I have also created a blog page about the same: http://legalprostitution.in...
Evolution

True... I understand that evolutionists have confidence in their belief. But is it actually relevant to their case. Faith doesn't define every evolutionists beliefs, most of them believe off the evidence they have. Also there is a difference between confidence and faith, read the response of Mark Barton ( https://www.quora.com... ). Evolution isn't their version of God. The definition of God is , "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being", or "(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity." Evolution doesn't fit those description. Evolution isn't a being, its a idea or a thought. Charles Darwin is not a prophet. The definition of prophet is as follows ,"a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God." Since Evolution is not a supreme being or anything in the sort, just a thought. He can't be a prophet for there is no will from Evolution because Evolution has no way to think.
Evolution

The definition of faith is as follows: "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Evolutionists have complete confidence in Evolution, which does not exist, and Charles Darwin, basically Evolution is in a sense their G-d, and Charles Dsrwin is their prophet. Also, I know there is proof in G-d, it's just that most Christians don't have this proof and say that faith is all you need- You ned to rebuttal all of my case, I worked really hard on that!
Evolution

I will be proving evolution is in fact not a religion. Good luck and may the best debater win. ____ One piece of evidence that supports my position is in the definition of religion as which follows, "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." When looking back on the definition of religion, it states the "belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." In the teachings of evolution, it does not teach anything about a superior being creating animals or humans and religion teaches that a superior being made everything living. Another piece of evidence is that the theory doesn't even explain how the universe began. The theory of evolution explains how all these multitudes of animals exist . It tells us that animals were chosen through natural selection that would go on to macro-evolve or micro-evolve into something else which is its way of explaining how there's so many species of animals. But there is no explanation of the world was created in the first place(The Big Bang is not part the theory of evolution, its separate). How can there be a religion without a beginning, every religion has a way to explain how the universe began. My last piece of evidence is that your evidence is irrelevant(no offence). My religion is Christianity and I don't believe purely on faith, I know there is scientific proof. For example, the laws of physics is perfect for life to exist. Just check out this link:http://www.godandscience.org...
Why is Evolution more popular than Creationism? You have everything to lose, as an Evolutionist.

"The problem which comes up here is this: you quoted Bible verses, but do you believe in the Bible?" No I don't. I was merely using a biblical quote to show why Christians don't have "everything to lose as an evolutionist". They don't believe that believing in evolution will send them to hell because they believe they are saved. I don't believe I will be sent to hell because I don't believe in hell. "These are just little things that prove that you can't believe in the Bible, God and Christianity ALONGSIDE Evolution. That doesn't work." No they don't. As I said many people take Genesis as symbolic. I mean, if this is your reasoning then people have to believe the Earth is flat to be Christian. "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." Revelation 7:1 Here are some examples of macroevolution. (http://examples.yourdictionary.com...) "What if you're wrong about Evolution?" I still won't be wrong about the Bible. Unless you can prove that your God exists this debate is pointless.
Why is Evolution more popular than Creationism? You have everything to lose, as an Evolutionist.

Evidence for evolution. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu..., http://evolution.berkeley.edu..., http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) Etc. etc. "Creationists have actually been around for a much longer period of time than Evolutionists." So what? "You must be a Creationist-type person if you're a Christian and believe the Bible." No you don't. Catholics as I said don't have to. (Yes, Catholics ARE Christian.) Protestants, on the other hand, also don't have to as Genesis is often taken to be mostly or completely symbolic. I assume that you do not take the book of Revelations as completely literal. Why is Genesis any different? If you are arguing that people should all be Christian instead then I am not sure why you brought up evolution at all. Is it not possible that any of the other thousands of religions could be true? As for atheists it's not really a matter of choice. I can't become a Christian right now because I do not believe it. If you told me that half of the worlds population died ten minutes ago I couldn't possibly believe you. It is absurd and you haven't given me any evidence. Christianity is no different-in fact it has the added problem that it has internal contradictions. (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...)
Why is Evolution more popular than Creationism? You have everything to lose, as an Evolutionist.

The problem which comes up here is this: you quoted Bible verses, but do you believe in the Bible? There are many verses that simply state you can't believe in Evolution and God, here are some (ESV): John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. Genesis 2:7 Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, the man became a living creature. Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, those not according to Christ. These are just little things that prove that you can't believe in the Bible, God and Christianity ALONGSIDE Evolution. That doesn't work. I am not Catholic. That is entirely different from the Creationist-type Protestant because of the Popes and extra rules that make Catholic faith a strict religion. When Jesus died it was the Leaders, the Authorities of the Church, who killed Him. My "type" does not obey the religious leaders any more than God, (although we respect them, don't get me wrong), nor are they equal, but instead we conform and look to God for directions and knowledge. Please give me some convincing, and real, evidence that evolution happened. Answer this in your head: does evolution take faith or is it all facts? Give me an example, just one, of evidence that a kind of species you know of turned into a different kind of species. Evidence I can believe because someone actually saw it happen. Now answer the same question as above: are you using faith as you believe in evolution? Also, (more evidence I need), how did life originate? It all doesn't make sense. And that is one place where Creationism is strong and more evident. What if you're wrong about Evolution? You still go to the Judgment Seat, and that Bible verse you quoted doesn't help you there, does it.
Why is Evolution more popular than Creationism? You have everything to lose, as an Evolutionist.

The reasons are quite simple. First of all with Protestants there is no reason not to believe in evolution. The path to heaven in the King James version (One of many verses stating this.) goes as "In whom (Jesus) we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;" Ephesians 1:7 (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...=) This means that even if believing in evolution is a sin you can't be punished for it. So, as there are no consequences. people tend to believe in whatever is more likely. That would be evolution. Whatever your beliefs you can't deny that there is more evidence for evolution than creation. Secondly on the Catholic side. Pius XII, a deeply conservative man, directly addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. The document makes plain the pope"s fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad, and it attacks those persons who "imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution "explains the origin of all things." Nonetheless, Pius XII states that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one specie might evolve into another"even if that specie is man. The Pope declared: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter"for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God." (http://law2.umkc.edu...) So Catholics aren't bound by their Pope not to believe in evolution. This brings you right back to the Protestant side. There is no reason not to.
Why is Evolution more popular than Creationism? You have everything to lose, as an Evolutionist.

Please read all of this before debating so you get my point of view. Thanks! History tells us that over the years, many people have put together, added, and adjusted the theory of Evolution to make it believable and scientific (in a way). But, alongside the theory of Evolution there has always been Christians and other religions that believe in Creationism, and Creationists have actually been around for a much longer period of time than Evolutionists. Creationism, in my opinion, goes along with Christianity because of the belief in God. (You must be a Creationist-type person if you're a Christian and believe the Bible.) Why is it that people, in general, go for Evolution? If you know about the Christian faith you know that they believe in the Rapture: when Jesus is coming again to make a NEW heaven and a new earth. God will separate the ones who haven't repented from the ones that have, and the ones that haven't will suffer in Hell. Not that it's about 'Quick, believe in God or you'll be punished severely,' but say that Christianity is correct. What happens when you die? First they'd be brought to the Judgment Seat. Then, if you're a Christian (assuming the Bible and Christianity is true), you'd go to heaven, and according to how God "judges" you the non-Christians would go to Hell. What's the risk? Why risk it?! Evolution gives you nothing, produces no gifts, and if you were wrong you'd have everything to lose. Responding to this debate you can be an Evolutionist, Atheist, or in-between (not sure yet), but please express how you think of this topic, and why.
Derek Jeter's final home game against the Orioles was rigged so that he would hit a walk off

Ladies and Gentlemen, I, the great Imabench, am temporarily returning to DDO temporarily to debate against Birdlandmemories, who on facebook claimed that Derek Jeter's last game against the Orioles at home in Yankee Stadium, was in fact RIGGED so that it would have a happy ending. I engaged with him on facebook over this topic, admittedly with my usual lack of civility when I see something utterly stupid, and after a while he cowardly blocked me halfway into the argument just so that he could have the last word and falsely claim victory in front of his 'friends'. And so, I have returned to DDO, for one last debate. I will be arguing AGAINST the claim that Jeter's last home game was rigged, he will be arguing FOR the claim that Jeter's last home game was intentionally rigged. If he declines this debate or fails to accept it in 2 weeks time, then he will concede that Jeter's last game was NOT rigged, and concede that the claim that the game was rigged is indeed retarded.
Derek Jeter's final home game against the Orioles was rigged so that he would hit a walk off

HI, BILLY MAYS HERE AND DONT ACT LIKE YOURE NOT READING THIS IN MY VOICE. IM HERE TO OFFER YOU SOMETHING THAT YOU CANT REFUSE $5 DOLLARS FOR FREE ITS AS EASY AS 3 SIMPLE STEPS. ONE, GO SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LIST HERE: http://www.debate.org... TWO, LEAVE A HYSTERICAL RFD ON THIS VERY DEBATE RIGHT HERE WHEN IT ENTERS THE VOTING PERIOD* THREE, WIN! ITS SO EASY THAT REALLY YOU ONLY HAVE TO EXERT EFFORT ON TWO STEPS. HOW F*CKING EASY IS THAT? GO SIGN UP RIGHT NOW, AND WIN! *Warning, side effects include nausea, heartburn, diarrhea, indigestion, liver disease, strokes, pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, AIDS, ebola, cavities, changes in eye color, mood flashes, anxiety, dementia, Asian drivers, ISIS, scrotum neck, and anal leaking
Black Lives Matter does not help blacks nor black should be with BLM.

Police Brutality is more prevalent towards blacks as more of a subconscious bias. The cops that unjustifiably shoot black teens don't consciously think "hey he is black, I should shoot him". They might be scared or nervous and just pull the trigger. BLM more or less just rubs this in their faces, So that they actually think before they decide to shoot. American society doesn't exactly suppress blacks, But seeing as how 'certain people' somehow got in office, I can confidently claim that a decent amount of America is racist. Don't forget that we're the ones that forced blacks to use different washrooms up until the 50s.
The Washington Redskins should change their team name

Thanks to Kbub for agreeing to debate this topic with me! Standard DDO rules apply: first round for acceptance, no new arguments in the final round, no semantics, no trolling, etc. A couple of important notes to make on the resolution. .. -- "Should" implies some sort of obligation, legal, practical, or ethical (or all) -- BOP in this debate is shared; Pro must show that there is some sort of obligation for the Redskins to change their name, and Con must show that there is not. For anyone who wants some general background info on the issue at hand: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Please note that the voter elo limit is 3000.