BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Are there no right or wrong answer to ethics? Yes there are right and wrong answer to ethics. simply because ethics is knowing right from wrong. therefore we must know what is wrong in order for it to be right. Ethics comes from our values and belief with a mix of what society has established. Our views may be different from each others but at the end of the day we can always fall back on what is right and what is wrong. We must understand that there are two sides to every story. One side is based off truth, while the other is telling some truth mixed with a lie. When we are faced with problems, we must understand that there are two sides to every story. But in that case we will find that a person will be in the wrong and another will be in the right. One side will have a truth to it, while the other side tell some truth but not the whole truth. When viewing this we must look back on our childhood. For example when we fought with our siblings one of use would tell the full truth, while the other sibling create lies. The other sibling who makeup lies because he/she knows that what they had done was wrong. By them knowing what they did was wrong they lie to avoid the consequences. Right and wrong is based off our values and belief. Our parents raised us and taught us right from wrong and if they did not then someone in our life did. If something go against any of our values right off bat its wrong because we do not believe in it. We get our values off out society and our beliefs from our religion. In the Christians and Muslim religion having sex before marriage is consisted a sin. So if they do have sex before marriage then they are in the wrong. Because it is against there religion. Our Values and Beliefs creates the meaning ethics. In the society that we live in today, situation is either right or wrong. How our society is set up, our government establish laws for it citizens to abide by. If any of the citizens do not follow they are in the wrong. For example in our school system teachers set up rules just like the government, only for us to follow then and we can connect this with right and wrong
There is no right or wrong answers in ethics.

In regards to ethics, we base our decisions on whether on what we think is morally satisfying or what we know is wrong. Whether a situation is handeled the wrong way or the right way, who are we to know exactly for sure what is right and what is wrong? Today we have some concept of it based on our cultures and how we exist in this world (nature vs. nurture). The way we were raised also play a role in the way we distinguish our morals. For example, my grandmother feels that it is not okay for guests (male or female) to visit or hang out in your bedroom. That's how she was raised. On the other hand, my mother never had a problem with that. Therefore, I do not agree with that "rule". She feels it is wrong and I feel that it is alright. Now, I ask again, whose to say what is right and what is wrong? That would be like, whose to say yellow is a more beautiful color than pink? Who decides on your actions? Only you can decide on what is right or wrong to you, that is an obvious truth. However, that does not say that what ever you decide to do is the absolute most right thing to do. There are also other factors that play a role in ethics, religion and environmental factors. Some people are more religious than most, and some people do not follow the same rules set forth in the their beliefs, hence catholicism vs. christianity. Peer pressure is a good example of an environmental factor that affect decisions. Pressure from friends can cause you to make bad decisions or good ones. I feel as if, we have no control on what we were taught as children and what we are used to, unless you know a certain decision is wrong but, you choose to go that route anyways. Just the other day, my boyfriend was upset with me because my friend was laying on our bed and we were having a conversation. I could not understand why he was upset, until he told me it was rude for other people to lay on your bed especially with outside clothes. My response to him was that I never was taught that so I could not undersand why it was wrong in his eyes. I felt like he could not be mad at me because in this case I was not wrong nor was I right, because of the fact that I was never introduced to that situation being apart of "morality". Ethics ties in alot with justice and people have their own conceptions on what justice means to them. Some people do not believe in the death penality and some do. Some people believe two wrongs, will make a right and the old concept of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". However, Im not sure if the term "right or wrong" should be used to describe every action when faced to make a decision. There could be true or false, and moral and immoral. We can say a bird is on the Verrazano bridge right now, but that would be neither correct or incorrect because we do not know. Ethics is based on alot of factors that affect who we are today, so therefore, we cannot be judged on the decisions we make, if we did not learn it to be "taboo", unheard of, or wrong.
Evolution disproves creationism

Layout of the debate: Round 1: Intro paragraph, introduce yourself and your position and give a brief opening statement onto why you have chosen your side Round 2: Introduce your points, use EVIDENCE to support your claim. Round 3-4: Rebuttals and counter Rebuttals Round 5: Concluding statement Very simple layout. Evolution itself is accepted by more than 90% of the scientific community. Not only does it make sense and can explain the similarities between different types of animals, but out of the two, evolution has countless amounts of scientific evidence to support it.
Facebook is better than myspace

I think this is an unfair assumption, I absolutely agree with you that face book is more direct and has a better and more efficient way of socializing ect, all the attributes you listed are indeed good and fair however as far as opinion goes it completely depends on your age and what you want exactly. Facebook is a very good find your old high school or childhood friend finder and the social aspect I agree is better. However myspace has a much more diverse way of expressing yourself its basically creating your own website while face book is more along the lines of a forums. I think that it is unfair to just say "facebook is better than myspace" it completely depends on what you want, do you want to socialize and find old friends, or create a page to express exactly who you are and what you like for the world to see.
Facebook is better than myspace

Ok, I know this is an 'opinion' debate, but people, please vote on who is the better arguer, not what you agree with. ( and to my opponent) Let's try to keep our arguments short for the sake of the readers. And to whoever accepts this debate, hopefully you are well endowed in myspace/facebook. Facebook has many attributes that myspace doesn't have. First off, while myspace does allow for a layout which does allow for creativity, it often makes the page difficult to see and makes loading much slower. Facebook has groups and events. While myspace has these, they are much less prominant. Facebook has less spam, usually the people who use facebook are older, college aged or high school aged, and are too mature to add people they don't know PURELY for the sake of appearing to have more friends. Facebook also allows you to tag friends in pictures, so if you don't have a digital camera,you can still get pictures. On facebook, people all use their own name, so it is much easier to find people and recconect with old friends. Facebook also allows for applications, which can be fun, (especially jetman)
Facebook is better than myspace

Just in terms of speed, convenience, etc. facebook is more convenient. You can have events, groups, applications, etc. On myspace, there isn't much to do besides check your comments and send out those oh-so-irritating bulletins. Ignoring safety terms (because I don't see how a website could possibly be unsafe as far as child predators are concerned) facebook is overall more convenient. The page loads faster, it's easier to find people, and you can express yourself through applications like bumper sticker and fruit. Facebook has fun games to play and other things to do. I'm going to end my argument here, sorry I don't have time to post more :(
The 49ers will win Super Bowl XLVII

It is unfortunate that my opponent forfeited round 2. Nevertheless, we will be moving on to comparing these two teams defences. I think the 49ers have a better overall defence for the following reasons. First of all, let's look at these two defence's standing's. The 49ers only allow a miniscule 200.2 passing yards per game, while the Ravens allow an average of 228.1 passing yards per game. Also, the 49ers allow only 94.2 rushing yards per game while the ravens allow 122.8 rushing yards per game. The Ravens also allow more yards per play: 5.2 compared to the 49ers 4.7 yards per play. These two teams have an equal amount of forced turnovers per game. Most importantly, the 49ers give up less points per game with a miniscule 17.1 points per game, whereas the Ravens give up 21.5 points per game.Next, let's look at the linebacking core. The Raven's have 2 good linebackers: Terrell Suggs and Ray Lewis, but the 49ers have a younger, healthier and currently have a better linebacking core. I think that 49er's outside linebacker Aldon Smith is just of an elite skilled player as Terrell Suggs. Aldon's career best sack season is 19.5 where as Terrell Suggs only had 14 last year. Patrick Willis is currently a better middle linebacker than Ray Lewis, as he has more forced fumbles and interceptions than Ray Lewis, and is younger, faster and healthier. However, Lewis provides inspirational support to the Ravens. Navarro Bowman is a better middle linebacker than Dennell Ellerbe as he has more tackles (team-leading) than him. Finally, with Ahmad Brooks, they are a truly unstoppable linebacking core.Now let's look at the secondary. The 49ers have a good secondary, with Dashon Goldson, Daunte Whitner, Tim Brown, and Carlos Rogers. The Ravens secondary is missing premier cornerback Ladarius Webb, as he was a huge part in the secondary. Personally, I think the 49ers have a more experienced secondary and will hold well against the Ravens wide receivers. Ed Reed is still a phenomenal safety, although he is aging. I think Goldson and Whitner are an unstoppable duo that are able to make smart decisions. I think the secondary between these two teams are relatively even.The last is the D-line. Justin Smith and Ray MacDonald will disrupt the Ravens passing and running game by putting pressure on the O-line. They are two great defensive linemen, that are better than the Ravens D-line. In fact, the only good D-lineman is Haloti Ngata, while the 49ers have both Smith and MacDonald.In Conclusion, I think the 49ers defence will hold well against Joe Flacco and company, and will seriosly disrupt the passing and running game, with a great secondary, d-line, and of course their fearsome linebacking core. They have great pass rushers Justin Smith and Aldon Smith, with a stong leader Patrick Willis and their interception team-leading Donte Whitner.Sources:http://www.cbssports.com...http://espn.go.com...;
Sexual abuse already perpetrated by extra-terrestrials during abductions should be forgiven.

My opponent has failed to show support for the argument, "Sexual abuse already perpetrated by extra-terrestrials during abductions should NOT be forgiven. " He has not even attempted to make this argument. At best, my opponent's argument could be construed to support the claim that ETs do not exist, but even if I were to concede this, that would not support the position my opponent was supposed to take.
Sexual abuse already perpetrated by extra-terrestrials during abductions should be forgiven.

I disagree. It is integral to the survival of the human race that we allow the pink unicorns a clean slate. We do not even know whether the unicorns are observing the Golden Rule. If they are, then they may have no idea why we are detaining their pilots. A campaign against pink unicorn sexual abuse might be perceived as an act of war. Surely, we could not withstand such a conflict. Even if the unicorns knew they were victimizing abductees by probing them, this does not mean they will react kindly to our punishment of them. There is still a chance that once we make the pink unicorns aware of our customs, they will cease their sexual misconduct, and perhaps cease abductions altogether. The risk is to great for us to instigate the pink unicorns Their technology is far too superior. Our only hope to be treated with mercy is to obey them.
Sexual abuse already perpetrated by extra-terrestrials during abductions should be forgiven.

It is integral to the survival of the human race that we allow the ETs a clean slate. We do not even know whether the aliens are observing the Golden Rule. If they are, then they may have no idea why we are detaining their pilots. A campaign against ET sexual abuse might be perceived as an act of war. Surely, we could not withstand such a conflict. Even if the aliens knew they were victimizing abductees by probing them, this does not mean they will react kindly to our punishment of them. There is still a chance that once we make the ETs aware of our customs, they will cease their sexual misconduct, and perhaps cease abductions altogether. The risk is to great for us to instigate the ETs. Their technology is far too superior. Our only hope to be treated with mercy is to obey them.
The USFG should have the power to limit citizens freedom of protest if it weakens our military power

Well this debate has been boiled down to whether the resolution will increase military power so I will get right to it. More pro-war 1.First the example that my opponent give it flawed for 2 reasons, 1 because what to say that is what they will use as propaganda, what to say they will not say that this war is to protect the US because if a country is controlled by the enemy then they could attack the US. 2 it will not be seen as bad because people only give up their rights for a short time helping the other forever. 2.This is not hypocritical because as I said we should give up our rights for a short time to help give others these rights forever Anti-war My opponent claims that people will still get the information, but look to what I said in my last round how people watching the news during the Vietnam war caused the protest so if they didn't have this information then there would have been less anti-war action. The next problem with my opponent's argument is that the government can control the things he is talking about, i.e. they can take a blog post down or remove a video of the internet. Now while they can't control each person this will not have a large effect because without the power to act they will not be able to convince other people to join their movement. To overview this round I have show that with out these rights people will not be able to protest or speak negatively about the war and how the government will be able to convince more people to join and make a stronger military.
The USFG should have the power to limit citizens freedom of protest if it weakens our military power

First I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and ask all who vote on this topic to vote on what is presented in the round not what you believe So to clarify this topic, what I am affirming is that the US government (though acts of congress) should have the right to limit citizens rights to freedom of speech and protest against a war if found that it put the US at a military disadvantage during a time of war. To define some words. All come from www.merriam-webster.com Limit- to restrict the bounds. Disadvantage- to place at a disadvantage So I affirm this topic with the values of utilitarianism though the criterion of protection. Contention 1: protest of wars has caused the US to lose military power After WW2 the US military dominance was absolute, but now in the present day the US has lost wars to developing nations of Vietnam and Korea only decades after defeating the military power of Germany. The problem has arose from the fact that people no longer support our military, with the lose of the draft along with drop in military recruitment because protest of wars. Thus because of this weaken military state the US government has lost it power to protect it's citizens. Contention 2: to protect the people the government has the right to limit people's speech The role of a government in a society is to protect the people in this society and maintain order. The fact that government should protect the rights of it citizens requires that these people are free thus implying that the government has to protect people so they can have these rights. So in order to protect the rights of the citizens the government has the to take away these freedoms to protect it's ctizens
Evolution vs Creationism

PART 2 - NO LONGER A THEORY Creationists always say, "Oh well, you can say evolution is a matter of opinion, it's still a theory." Evolution is no longer a theory, but a scientific fact. If you look at the DNA of Chimpanzees to our DNA, they're pretty similar. Besides, I don't see how a magical man living in the sky and making everything is more logical than something that happens 100% of the time. I'm sure you'll argue on how the organisms to kick off evolution got here. Well, how did God get here? Besides, I have a question for you. How did we get different races if we just kept repopulating? Adapting to your climate and surroundings pertains to Evolution. Besides, it's a waste of my time to try to explain to you that Evolution is a fact, it occurs 100% of the time, and there's no getting through to someone who believes in a thousand year old book than in data and observations. The point of this argument is saying that my opponent favors Creationism over Evolution. This is to state how ridiculous it is to believe in a thousand year old book rather than data.
Evolution vs Creationism

Concerning how many people believe Creationism is true is no argument either way, any more than how many people believed evolution in Darwin's day was. I will refute the claim that my opponent made concerning how Cain and Able had children. My opponent has not carefully read the text. He should look at Genesis 5:4: "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. " Obviously Cain married one of his sisters (I can give you more explanation on how this was reasonable if you want). The text (Genesis chp. 4) only mentions the birth of Cain and Able because they were the only ones who played a part in that narrative. So this "contradiction" is not so unexplainable as my opponent would like to believe I will await your opening arguments.
Evolution vs Creationism

I have always viewed Creationism as an insult to our intelligence. Evolution is no longer just a theory that people can be opinionated about, it is a scientific fact. Besides, Creationism contradicts itself all the time in the Bible, and yet people still follow it. Did you know that 40% of Americans believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old? The fact that it's such a large number (Even though not the majority) is disgusting. People need to sit down and pick up a book aside from the Bible, and need to think a little. I have one major contradiction in the Bible that I think may make them think differently. According to Creationism, Adam and Eve had Cane and Able. Cane and Able, both being men, could not repopulate. Some people start making things up on the spot, such as "Well... they might not have been the only ones on the planet you know." If this was true, why did the Bible never mention it? The only way they could repopulate is by incest with their mother. Then, if they had a girl with their mother, they would have some sort of mental deficiency. Then they could continue to perform incest on each other, all being related, leading to mental handicaps. So technically, according to this, we are all literally brother and sister, so everyone would be having handicapped children. I rest my case.
waffles are better then pancakes..

1. My culture point stands despite my opponents nonsensical rebuttal. Pancakes are a universally loved foodstuff, whereas waffles are Western specific. 2. Fluffiness is a trait praised by the culinary community. My opponent does not warrant the superiority of a "rough texture". The remaining argument is nonsensical. 3. Crepes are, in fact, considered pancakes. My definition includes them, and said definition was not refuted. My opponent has, in no way, refuted the benefits of crepes, so these advantages stand. 4. A pancake, being fluffier, absorbs more syrup than a waffle. A pancake is capable of absorbing more than enough syrup, and results in a combination of waffle and pancake. 5. Convenience does not make a foodstuff "better". 6. The two foodstuffs are of similar ease when it comes to consumption. 7. My opponent dropped the variety argument entirely. Pancakes are fluffier, and have greater potential for variety, note the crepes argument. They themselves are more varied, loved by a number of cultures. Thank you for the debate, and thanks for reading. I urge a vote in the Contradiction of this resolution.
waffles are better then pancakes..

Going in your number order.. 1, culture: for centuries many cultures fought wars with swords and arrows this does not make it better then guns and missiles, also.. there's no such thing as a Belgium pancake.] 2, fluffiness: even though this IS still an opinion. waffles are not pancakes, they are meant to be crispy and have a rough texture. This is why they are not called striped pancakes. Also the longer fibers in waffles serve to cleanse your bowels much better then flower heavy pancake batter. 3,we're debating pancakes and waffles not crepes, so this point is mute. 4, Even though optimal syrup was my point, If one in fact does wish for massive amounts of syrup a pancake and a waffle of similar size, will absorb approximately the same amount of syrup. But the waffle can also hold syrup in its cubic hollows. while we're on the subject of toppings, waffles can hold much more butter, jam, marmalade, etc. Due to these same hollows. 5, Toast is irrelevant in this topic. Toast is something to be eaten WITH your breakfast. It is not a meal in itself. The advantage of being able to toast your waffles is that they can be taken directly from your freezer, toasted, topped, and ready to eat within 2 to 3 minutes if not less. This does not require a pan (which must be buttered and then cleaned afterwards), a spatula, or constant attention to keep from burning. This is obviously a time saver. If you do not require a crispy waffle. You can just heat it in the microwave, just as quickly. 6, Waffles are perfectly suited for consumption with utensils. There grid pattern provides guidelines for cutting in symmetrical bite sized portions, and as stated before there ability to stay firm even when saturated makes them less likely to fall apart upon piercing with a fork. My statement easily handling was perhaps vague, but it did pertain to using silverware. But thank you for bringing this to my attention so I could show the waffles superiority in this category as well. As this as my final statement, and I don't know my opponents response I can only point out that waffles equal or beat a pancake in all category's and my opponent has failed to point out any major advantages of the pancake. But has instead relied on opinions of different cultures and the culinary world as a whole. Not quite getting that we are debating 2 different foods, and that there are bound to be differences. opinions aside technologically the waffle is superior, is available in a wider variety of flavors, and can be quicker to the table. I look forward to my opponents response. VOTE P(ed)RO