BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Their is no universal morality, only strength and weakness

ReviewIn any case, Facts Pro claims that men live a subjective live, where everyone follows their own moral of code through their surroundings, which is idealy correct in a sense, but if everyone followed a subjective morality then everything would be of opinion and facts would be of no use. Allow me to evaluate. Facts are informations that cannot be denied of it's truth and are statements that are set to stone. Therefore morals that are facts cannot be denied and are set to stone for truth. For example it is a fact that I am human enabling me to do my daily actions and doing whats right or wrong, its a fact that the strong devour the week, but without the presence of the weak, the strong wouldn't exist. In any case, facts are objective matter in which people tend to use to potray their own subjective morality. Mathematics What is mathematics? Mathematics is a subject in which is used to convey a problem or to solve a problem in an sophisticated order, therefore mathematics is a structured subject that cannot be altered in any shape or form: mathematics is a set to stone solution. For example, a person can do the math 1+1=3 but it is wrong, therefore breaking the principle structure of mathematics. In any case mathematics is like a structured building and if one takes one part of the building off, then the rest tumbles. Subjective Morality = Objective Morality I would like to emphasize that subjecive morality is manifested upon an objective morality, as I have already mentioned this before one cannot prove a subjective morality but one can prove an objective morality because an objective morality is not the case of strength or weakness but rather a path for innovation. Pro states that subjective morality is evolved in evolution, then I ask Pro what subjective morality exists in the beginning of time? The intiation of evolution? It all started from spieces, that's evolution and how did spieces millions of years ago or more even survive this place we call Earth? It's quite simple the only thought and idea needed for survival is ¨Eat, drink, and rest to survive¨ it's not rocket science this is objective morality in which a living organism must follow to live his/her live, it cannot be denied and that's how evolution progressed throughout history and even til this day we use that objective morality to survive. Again Pro has not negated my ¨Facts¨ case and my ¨Mathematic case¨ and pro has only built upon his own claim despite having to negate my essential arguments. (. http://dictionary.reference.com......) (. http://www.livescience.com......) (. http://en.wikipedia.org......)(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Their is no universal morality, only strength and weakness

RebuttalsBefore I begin my rebuttals, I would like to point out that Pro seems to follow one form of subjective morality and no else and relies heavily on that one point of view. (not insulting)¨Subjective Morality, by its very nature, is an individual's objective morality, this is in no way universal.¨Yes pro may be correct in a sense, but that was not the point I was attempt to go at; my point was that there's only two sides one can be on, belief upon objective morality, or subjective morality. Therefore what is the aftermath of the two? Simple: if one believes in subjective morality then those who believe in subjective have the moral code, ¨there is no universal morality¨ which is an objective morality. Therefore everybody who possess some sense of are in one way or another in an objective view.¨What defines strength in individuals also defines strength in the morals of societies, and that is will to power. The will to exert one's power over another individual or society of the individuals. Some systems promote will to power more than others, like the Nazi system which attempted to exert it’s specific principles over other groups of individuals which it would virtually enslave in the thirst for Lebensraum[1] for the German people.¨Here I will just go ahead and assume that this point is to support pro's claim.Will to Power: Belief to be the main driving force in humans: achievement, ambition, and the striving to reach the highest possible position in life.The will to power is just another subjective matter that can also be defined as a principle. Prnciples are another way of defining moral codes, and morals codes exist and no one can deny it. Therefore isn't that an objective matter? I believe I do not need to say more as pro hasn't completely negated all my previous arguments and pro has only been repeating his own points and creating more irrelevent points that are meaningless without full rebutall from pro. Therefore I stand my previous points and my rebuttals.¨An eye for an eye, only makes the world blind.¨ Alt+M Alt+N
Their is no universal morality, only strength and weakness

I am sincerely sorry about last round as my computer seemed to have frozen on me, right as I attemtped to submit my argument. In any case allow us to proceed with this debate.Resolution I would like to remind or clarify that the resolution is for Con (me) to prove that universal morality is of existence or to disprove that subjective morality does apply to everyone, based on what Pro claimed. Facts Pro claims that men live a subjective live, where everyone follows their own moral of code through their surroundings, which is idealy correct in a sense, but if everyone followed a subjective morality then everything would be of opinion and facts would be of no use. Allow me to evaluate. Facts are informations that cannot be denied of it's truth and are statements that are set to stone. Therefore morals that are facts cannot be denied and are set to stone for truth. For example it is a fact that I am human enabling me to do my daily actions and doing whats right or wrong, its a fact that the strong devour the week, but without the presence of the weak, the strong wouldn't exist. In any case, facts are objective matter in which people tend to use to potray their own subjective morality. Mathematics What is mathematics? Mathematics is a subject in which is used to convey a problem or to solve a problem in an sophisticated order, therefore mathematics is a structured subject that cannot be altered in any shape or form: mathematics is a set to stone solution. For example, a person can do the math 1+1=3 but it is wrong, therefore breaking the principle structure of mathematics. In any case mathematics is like a structured building and if one takes one part of the building off, then the rest tumbles. Subjective Morality = Objective Morality I would like to emphasize that subjecive morality is manifested upon an objective morality, as I have already mentioned this before one cannot prove a subjective morality but one can prove an objective morality because an objective morality is not the case of strength or weakness but rather a path for innovation. Pro states that subjective morality is evolved in evolution, then I ask Pro what subjective morality exists in the beginning of time? The intiation of evolution? It all started from spieces, that's evolution and how did spieces millions of years ago or more even survive this place we call Earth? It's quite simple the only thought and idea needed for survival is ¨Eat, drink, and rest to survive¨ it's not rocket science this is objective morality in which a living organism must follow to live his/her live, it cannot be denied and that's how evolution progressed throughout history and even til this day we use that objective morality to survive. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) (http://www.livescience.com...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Alt+M Alt+N
Their is no universal morality, only strength and weakness

We look at the world from our own points of view. This view is influenced and created almost entirely by those around us. These views teach us the difference between right and wrong, which means those views are our morality. These views are innately subjective to our own persons, meaning they are not universal. Views may share similar characteristics, but they are in no way perfectly the same. Morals evolve by standard evolutionary processes, where those that are strong survive while those that are weak fail. They are subjected under the forces of stronger views. We need only look as far as the Nazi system and see how they subjected their morality on those weaker than them. For these reasons Morality is only the result of that which is strong and its defeat of that which is weak, which define the morality of individuals, meaning that the morality isn't universal.
Their is no universal morality, only strength and weakness

I am glad that Pro has brought this debate into matter, so I accept the terms and rules of this debate and goodluckt to Pro.First I would like to like to provide definitions, definitions that will be absolute throughout this debate and must not be altered in anyway way or form once the definitions are accepted.Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Strength: the quality or state of being strong, in particular.Weakness: the state or condition of lacking strength.(http://dictionary.reference.com...) That is all I needed to say in this round.
Euthanasia

I am sorry for the inconvenience. 1. If that were the case they should use that as a point in court 2. Just because someone asks the doctor to help them commit suicide, it is not the doctor's place to help them commit suicide 3. As I've already said you are correct they should be able to do it themselves, as it's not the doctor's job to help someone else commit suicide, also they should have already know that an action like this would have consequences (like him being sent to jail)
Euthanasia

However, when a patient is terminaly ill and a cure in unavailable and the pain is unbearable is it not helping them? Especially if it is done humanely rather than such sings as hanging oneself? 2) You say the doctor should not help people end their lives. Why not? It is their life to do with what they choose. Not yours, not mines, not the doctors. If they have pain that is physical and untreatable they are entitled to their right to die. 3) As to my points, you did not really respond to such ones as isn't it their right to do with their life as they want?
Euthanasia

Firstly, I'd like to say that even though it was the person's own will to ask the doctor to assist them with suicide, the doctor should not have agreed. This is true for the following reasons: 1. The doctor is a doctor for a reason, he is supposed to help the patient medically. Not help them hurt themselves. 2. Suicide is not something that someone should be payed for. The doctor should not help people end their lives. 3. The patient could have just been going through emotional issues that could have been dealt with if they went to a psychologist or another kind of help.
Euthanasia

I would also like to establish what I mean by euthanasia, the assisted suicide of people through medical and humane conditions when the person is of a sound state of mind. Now, lets begin: I would like to start with Dr. Jack Kevorkian. For those who are unfamiliar with him, he was a medical specialist who was known for assisting people in suicide throughout the 60's. He brought questions of medical ethics during the 1900's and also today. His procedure was such: When the patient was of a sound state of mind and accompanied by a witness, they would come to his place of business and the first time they would just talk about what they are wanting to do. The second visit the same thing occurred. On the third visit Dr. Kevorkian would ask them again then administer a numbing concern. When the Doctor was taken to court and placed in jail, I found it to be unlawful. This brings us to the stasis of the debate; Do we, as people, get to control our lives? I say yes and here's why: 1) The government is there to protect us, it is for us and because of us. But, when we no longer want to live, be it pain or other medical stipulation, who, other than ourselves, has the right to force us to live when we would rather die? No one. 2) If the person is of a sound state of mind, as determined by a specialist, then they are fully aware of what they are choosing to do. .. This is what they want. 3) We already have policies such as DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) . By allowing for legal, medical, and human euthanasia we are give the right to live or not to live to the people. As the Deceleration of Independence states, "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", it does not end there, with the right to life comes the right to death.
battle ships vs modern day navy

"There massive size and armor can withstand hits from some of the most powerful anti ship weapons of the modern day era." so can the common support ships such as Cruisers, Destroyers, and Submarines. And Anti-ship weapons designed by rivaling countries would have specifically produced more powerful for that purpose. And The heart of the US fleets are the Aircraft Carriers that still requires a number of support ships. Battleships are obsolete and not required. "they could provide endless artillery support for beach landings on a coastal area." Never going to happen. There will never be an amphibious landing of an invasion force or Large group of Marines or the Army. There is no practical use for it, and the US has no costal enemies, and It would be required that we are at war with a Nation, which is very unlikely. Even if Sea to Ground artillery support is needed, Cruisers, Destroyers and air support would easily provide, along with an array of Missiles and artillery from auxiliary sources.
Replace Voting With Spending

Sorry, completely forgot this was a thing."For CMD we will consider Clinton VS Trump. For a fixed amount of time, spenders would have the opportunity to spend as much money as they wanted on their preferred candidate. After the window of participation closed, the totals would be calculated and revealed. Whichever candidate had the biggest total would be the winner."Like I said, the system is biased for the people who're friends with rich people, or they're forcing the rich to spend on them."You either get your preferred candidate, or you get compensated."The problem is that it wouldn't matter much what your reasons for being president are, it's the money that matters. Just force rich people and you abuse the system. I mea, I'd probably do such."[For BMD] Spenders could use their donations to determine the best order of the candidates. Whichever candidate was at the top when the window of participation had closed would be the winner. The government would keep all the money. So BMD essentially kills two birds with one stone..."But this system could also be abused by blackmailing rich people, right? As long as I've gotten the most funds, I'd be president. Doesn't matter how."With PMD, people would use their tax dollars to determine the best order of the candidates. The candidates would keep all the tax dollars that had been allocated to them."A little different, but it's still possible to trick the system by affilating with people who spend lots of taxes, friendship or otherwise."Your concern with replacing voting with spending is that bias exists in the world. Let's say that right now everybody is biased against robot candidates. In this case, no matter whether we used voting or spending, a robot candidate would not be elected. The next decade 90% of the citizens are biased against robot candidates. If voting was used, it's definitely going to be tyranny of the biased majority and the robot candidate will not be elected. If we used spending though, there's some chance that the robot candidate will be elected."If the robot was tyranical, I'd consider not funding them; boycotting if you will. Though if they tried to kill me, the fear would make me fund a bit for them."It took over 200 years to elect our first black president. We still haven't had a woman president, or an (openly) gay president, or an (openly) atheist president, or... it's a long list. I really don't think that voting in any way, shape or form helps to overcome detrimental biases held by the majority of the citizens. Spending, on the other hand, would facilitate the elimination of detrimental biases."Let's look at it like this. Right now, everyone can vote once for the man/woman of their choosing. You propose we can spend money, let's say $1 = 1 vote. Looking at it like this, $1,000 means 1,000 votes for that man/woman. Therefore, richer people can "vote" much more than the average person. Hopefully the problem is obvious now. People's individual preference doesn't count as much as those who have lots of money and close to the corrupt politician.My point still stands. The funding system can be abused easily.
Replace Voting With Spending

By voting, do you mean deciding the presidents? Bias does exist in this world. If a rich man really liked one president, he'd spend lots of money on that president to heavily support that one, and if the president has ties to many rich people (such as Trump), he'd be winning the election by a landslide just because this president had $50,000,000 on him and only maybe $4,000 for the other guy.You could replace voting with anything, like a business. If Building A has more money than Building B, must Building A be the better one? Another possibility is that rich people were asked to fund Building A and asked to not fund Building B. If I wanted to, I could extend it to they were forced to fund Building A, or deceived into thinking Building A is good but turns out to be really horrible.
Replace Voting With Spending

My opponent has no direct rebuttal to my point that people would blackmail and such to get more funding. The debate was never "Should we have only spending or only voting". My opponent never tried to prove that spending is a way to say what's better. The examples he did give aren't immune to my problems. He also never directly refuted my point that everyone getting one vote is a good way to judge popularity. "Of course people want to cheat. But if you think the cheating and abuse prevents spending from correctly ranking epiphytes, video games, food and clothes, then why haven't you argued that spending should be entirely replaced by voting?" Because that's not how economy works. Resources cost money, resources are used into making a product, the product gets sold to make profit. You're avoiding this argument, trying to force me to say we should replace spending, therefore profit, with voting. But that's another debate. But I believe the reason why money is an object is fairness. Would you like working hard on something, then putting it on a stand for people to just take it? I also don't like the thought that video games, or any product, have some which are more "important" than others. The more appropriate term is "popular". If more people like it, that doesn't make it objectively good, as some don't like watermelons. "Voting either is, or isn't, the best way to determine the importance of things. So please make up your mind. Sit down and decide whether voting truly is the best way to determine the importance of things. Figure out whether society would truly improve if the importance of epiphytes, video games, food and computers was determined by voting." Voting is the fairer way to determine popularity. But people voting that I should get a game? Money is also used for profit, which you're ignoring. But anyways, voting gives people an equal stance to say which thing they like most. A funding system allows for multiple votes which deny the opinions of the poorer, while mainly focusing on richer people. If that's not a problem, then the blackmailing to get more funding certainly would be.
Replace Voting With Spending

"People's individual preference doesn't count as much as those who have lots of money and close to the corrupt politician." It's true that, if voting is replaced by spending, a rich person will have more influence than a poor person. But if it's truly beneficial for everyone to have the same influence, then why have any spending at all? Why not replace all spending with voting? Right now a rich person can donate more money to the Red Cross than a poor person can. Right now a rich person can buy a bigger house than a poor person can. Right now a rich person can buy more food than a poor person can. You seem to think it's harmful that some people can spend more money than other people. But you haven't argued that we should entirely replace spending with voting. Why is that? You think it's detrimental to have inequality in the public sector, so shouldn't you also think it's detrimental to have inequality in the private sector as well? The reason that inequality happens is that people don't spend their money equally. Imagine you harvest some poison oak and take it to the farmer's market to sell. Are people going to give you any money? Are people going to equally divide their limited money with you and the vendors selling artichokes, corn, tomatoes and other beneficial, delicious, nutritious and useful things? Of course not. People aren't crazy. In a market, we all use our money to rank/judge/valuate how other people are using society's limited resources. If people think you are stupidly using (aka "wasting") society's limited resources... then they won't give you any money. This logically and naturally limits the amount of resources that are wasted. Everyday everybody judges how well everybody else is using society's limited resources. You want to disregard the results of this powerful process and give everyone equal influence in the public sector. But if you're so willing to disregard people's evaluations of each other's uses of society's limited resources, then why not do so entirely? Why not replace all markets with democracy? My challenge to you is to supply a coherent story. Supply a story that makes sense.
you are a nigger

you smelly porchmonkey. Im gonna beat your fulckin hands so hard that the top turns white and the palm turns black then you can eat my kfc style breaded anushole with a side of n1gger dandruff and boogers. Also your like so gay that your little black dong will fall off from erecting so hard after eating my a55 that tastes like fouled chicken and sunflower seeds (dandruff).
you are a nigger

OFC your dirty foreskin eating nigger cuck a ss should be enslaved. Fvucking toe munching retard monkeys. F ucking chicken munching crime statistics. I think all minorities(including women) should be enslaved. GO DRINK MUD OBAMBA YOU NIGGER DEMOCRAT INBRED FUC KKK. SIEG HEIL SIEG HEIL SIEG HEIL. FREE 6IX9INE HE WAS WRONGLY ACCUSED BY ANTHONY DELGADO. ANTHONY DELGADO IS THE ANTICHRIST. TREYWAY TREYWAY TREYWAY SCUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMGANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG. GAMERS RISE UP! #FU CKNIGGERS #GAMERSRISEUP #TREYWAY #SCUMGANG #ANTHONYDELGADOISSATAN #OBAMBAISFROMHELL #TRUMPGANG
you are a nigger

no, I am not a nigger. There are many ways that I can prove this to you, But the best way to start this argument is that I have no idea what the first three things on the KFC menu are. Also, Whenever there is watermelon like in the summer or something, I always avoid it because it is for porchmokeys like you. Also, My hair does not stick to Velcro. Believe me I have tried. Also, I am not smelly. That is my argument.
The Appearance of Rifles is their Most Dangerous Aspect.

As the resolution states, this debate is about how the appearance of rifles is their most dangerous aspect. Has the appearance of a rifle ever killed someone? No. Has the ammunition of a rifle being shot out of it ever killed someone? Yes. Has the rifle used as a blunt object ever killed someone? Yes. Clearly then, the mere appearance of rifles is not their most dangerous aspect. The technical uses of a rifle, their functions, are their most dangerous aspect.