BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does America have the duty and the right to preserve itself....

Of course not. America is the offspring of a populous who fought to create prosperity and security. The prosperity and security are gone, and they are now fighting to preserve their personal wealth and intrusive opinions. American's are not the nations representatives, nor does the nation represent the citizens. America, is a failed system that is trying to keep everyone together, But factually divides them, and subjugates it's citizens to people whom are the very thing the Founding Forefathers fought to eradicate. Often, the fighters in those wars even, were fighting for money. And the nation they erected is built on arrogance. Much of the demographic of America, whom were boron in America, in no way reflect "American" qualities, and the nation as a whole supplements their weaknesses to create an illusion of prosperity and security which jeopardizes us all. So. No. America does not have any rights what so ever, nor does it have the duty to preserve itself. IN fact, it has the duty to dismantle any form of nation which harbours corrupt [as determined by ethical sciences] behaviour.
Does America have the duty and the right to preserve itself....

Topic by lookinattheissues2 Does America have the duty and the right to preserve itself.... immigration, both the legal and illegal immigration should be halted in America. "The right of a sovereign nation to preserve itself is not merely passive or defensive. Sovereignty also entails a proactive right to eliminate threats." Massive Immigration is such a threat. Does America have the duty and the right to admit only those imigrants who conform to America's laws and agree to adopt the traditions and native language of America. The countries right to permit only those who demonstrate their loyality to it by their patriotic expressions and desires to become Americans and not "hyphenated Americans," with their allegience still held to the country from which they came . "The same principles, which evince the right of a nation to do every thing, which it may lawfully do, for the preservation of itself and its members, evince its right, also, to avoid and prevent, as much as it lawfully may, every thing which would load it with injuries, or threaten it with danger" Quotes From The Article, Titled.......America"s Founders and the Principles of Foreign Policy: Sovereign Independence, National Interests, and the Cause of Liberty in the World By Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. Immigrants flooding this country are a threat to America's sovereignty, and as the constitution is considered "A living constitution,"which needs to be interpreted to be viable to modern times so our views on a America, that welcomes all immigrants from the world to come here needs to be changed. The poem, "The New Colossus,' on the statue of Liberty which says, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.... should be changed with a new poem which reflects the realities of America today which is being over ran with immigrants.
With time anyone can change

At the end of the day: "I think therefore I am. " People are their minds above all else. You can see this in the root of the entire argument. We may forgive people for their actions of the past if they have changed internally. The material form, The actions that they have taken in the past, Is unchanged and can never change. Why we can forgive them and acknowledge their change is entirely in the mind. No matter what you force someone to do, You can"t force someone into changing their mind.
With time anyone can change

Yeah your right. Did not think that this was an absolute statement so that is why I made a debate around it. thinking murder is right- If murder is the only thing you can do then it is right for your survival. An examples of this would be Purge. If your life is in danger then it is okay. Another example of this would be if as a society we become tribalistic. Instead of progressing we regress. An example of this would the video game Fallout (whichever one in the series). The nuclear radiation did make places unhabitable and the ones that did survive were not capable of restoring the areas before the bombs dropped. Another example of this would be if a country becomes an Anarchy state. There are no borders and you are to fend by yourself. No government to tell you off or jail you for bad actions you are not punished with murder apart from death. blackmailed into thinking murder is right. - Just found out this was the entire sentence. I'll still keep that in if you want to read it. This instance I would say thinking is subjective. Even if they think murder is wrong they can speak as though it is right. It doesn't matter what people think it matters what they do.
With time anyone can change

The flaw in the argument is the fact that most people can change, That"s the thing. Most people in most areas of life can, Will, And do change every day. Change is an essential part of being human, And we all do it. Here, Though, Is a differentiation I will make to back up my argument: you can almost always change how someone acts, But not always how they think. Again, My argument is being made within the real world, Assuming for time and direct changes made as the variable. To the POW example: yes, If his country disavowed him, He probably wouldn"t stick by them and would give it up, But this is unlikely. The experiment would then be in if he could be tortured or brainwashed into giving up the information that the other side wants. He may even give up some information out of sheer pain, Though even this is unlikely, But they would not change the way he was essentially processing. This is because "brainwashing" as we know it is a hoax. (One great article about this is at this link, That I think would be good for you to explore: http://skepdic. Com/mindcont. Html) When people enter cults or similar environments, They are brainwashed, But not in the way people think. It is consensual brainwashing, Where by kindness and charisma they implant ideas. The cult plays into what they want in order to brainwash them, Rather than doing it by the direct force that many thought they were experiencing. So what does this mean for our prisoner of war? It means that if committed enough to their country, It is often impossible to break them out of that conditioning. You saw it with Soviet spies during the Cold War as well, Who were completely loyal and undying, Being compared by many to machines. If physical force and pressure is applied, It is a negative: that painful negative may change physical outcomes, But it won"t change the way in which one thinks. Similarly, If one approaches from an angle of positivity and kindness, One will not betray everything they know and hold dear because they are given no reason of force to do so. This is a classic Catch-22. You may even be able to change one"s actions, But you can"t always change the way they think. Someone may be blackmailed into killing someone, But they can"t be blackmailed into thinking murder is right.
With time anyone can change

This argument cannot reasonably be made given the parameters you have noted. Because you are making an effectively "what if" argument, No point I make is one you cannot dispute. No matter how many prisoners of war, Terrorists, Parents, Or others unyielding to the forces of the world, You will find some way around it. Much in the same way, Although almost all people can concede that someone like the Night Stalker was absolutely insane and permanently so, You could say that not all time and effort was exerted. For this reason, I do not believe it is possible to have this debate, As you are making arguments outside of a reasonable plane of doubt and thought.
With time anyone can change

It is hard to find specific scientific studies on this matter, Since this is very complicated to do studies on. - I did not make it any better did I? Sorry. It would not cause all mothers to do so- I require proof, Even then I think my arguments from other rebuttals still hold. More specifically look at the John McCain one and see if you would think he would not betray his principles. It still deals with the fact that we are dealing with a human world, And extremely unlikely matters do not translate very well into the human world. - I beg the differ. Given the circumstances anyone can change. Forcing said change using drugs or through choice in a reasonable discussion. Was it not tailored to humans my discussion? I don't see how it was not self explanatory that it was about humans. Humans have a limited amount of time spent living, And for this reason there is not an unlimited amount of time that we may draw from- My first Round argument states "given enough time anyone can change". This can happen through force or choice. Depending on the individuals willingness and if said way of changing someone's mind does work. McCain spent years in a prison camp- I don't think he would remain loyal to his principles given the correct circumstances. I think he knew he had family waiting for him when he came back. Lets say I kept him prisoner and held his family hostage. I really likely would be able to make Senator John McCain defect and spy on the United States for the promise of one day seeing their children. If I was really good I could make sure he can only get calls with them and when the time comes when his use his over I would kill them off. I from this scenario made John McCain make him lose his prinicples on the false promise that one day he might see his family. Just a thought experiment but I think it would work.
With time anyone can change

It is hard to find specific scientific studies on this matter, Since this is very complicated to do studies on. Additionally, Your argument largely has to do with time, Rather than specifics of the tortment that could be involved. Let us use the example of a mother"s love. If a child raped her and murdered her spouse, That likely would cause most mothers to renounce their love. However, It would not cause all mothers to do so. Whether or not it would, It still deals with the fact that we are dealing with a human world, And extremely unlikely matters do not translate very well into the human world. Humans have a limited amount of time spent living, And for this reason there is not an unlimited amount of time that we may draw from. However, I can give the example of POWs (prisoners of war) to show the positives of unchanging psyche. Specifically, I will refer to the late Senator John McCain. McCain spent years in a prison camp, Being tortured on an almost daily basis. The experience was horrible and horrifying, But the entire time he remained unwaveringly devoted to his country. This is seen again and again, In positive ways like with prisoners of war and negative ways like with terrorists. No matter how much you torture or how much time you give, People generally remain loyal to their principles, Even to their death.
With time anyone can change

Thank you for taking up this debate. Some people just cannot be rehabilitated or become something they are not. - Can you give any examples? serial killer, They often cannot change. - I say then can. Most if not all serial killer are not born that way instead they are conditioned in their environment to be so. Abusive parents etc. Yes they can more aggressive but aggressive people are not serial killers. A serial Killer is a gradual change. Changing a serial killer is also a gradual change. Some people are so mentally disturbed, Violent, And horrific that they just simply cannot change. - I don't see how not. People can and do change. If that was not the case why is the 90s different then the 80s? Once someone's brain is hardwired into a certain line of horrific thinking and actions, It is often the case that they are unable to become anything different. - I require evidence for such a claim. Everything you do makes you a different person then you were before. By you typing today you are now alexstilts which accepted this debate and was typing today. A mother's love to her child is an example, Often unbreakable and unable to be changed. - What if her child kills her husband and rapes her? It is breakable in this instance. If this is true this absolute statement does not apply to every scenario which makes it wrong. This love very often cannot be changed. - Love is a chemical in a brain. I am sure scientist can trigger a hateful response from the mother to her child. This would be either a pill or like you said before torture or brainwashing. Love can change. Not everything is changeable, And not every person can be changed in a big way. - What you said does not prove me otherwise.
With time anyone can change

Most people can change, You are right about this. However, Not anyone can change. No matter what you do, Some people just cannot be rehabilitated or become something they are not. This has both positive and negative views. The most obvious negative is that if someone is a serial killer, They often cannot change. Some people are so mentally disturbed, Violent, And horrific that they just simply cannot change. This is not only a moral judgement, But a scientific fact. Once someone's brain is hardwired into a certain line of horrific thinking and actions, It is often the case that they are unable to become anything different. There are also positive effects of this inability to change. If people's good ethics are ingrained enough into them, They are often unbreakable. A mother's love to her child is an example, Often unbreakable and unable to be changed. No matter how much you hurt or torture or brainwash or try to convince, This love very often cannot be changed. Whatever time and effort is exerted, Good people will not often change to do horribly bad things. There are clearly degrees of change, And everyone is able to be changed in some way. However, Not everything is changeable, And not every person can be changed in a big way.
The True Religion

So here is some open thought what if instead of a simple act of a single bite from the tree of knowledge opened their eyes but rather the slow evolution of man as we later differed from common animals and developed a since of morals thus understand right from wrong. It is these kind of things that propose some many different questions we have scientific evidence that completely disprove the Bible if taken literally but there are other possibilities to point to not so literal paths that the course of human history takes. Now regarding the idea that Christianity is the one true faith, in closing this simply is not possible as we have no clear evidence to prove or disprove any of the world's religions; a "true" religion is not possible to determine in our current time in human history but it is with faith that we find our spiritual path. A Pagan belief that I follow is the idea that there is no one way to worship your god or gods. Don't believe what you yourself don't belief to be true, one size doesn't fit all. In my spiritual searching I found that all religions are centered around being and doing god, so long as you do this you bring honor to yourself, your world, and you divine.
The True Religion

No, he did not create humans as they are today. If you have read the bible, then you should know that, he created the first man, Adam, and out of his side, he took a rib, and created Eve, who was the first woman. God created us in his own image. He created us to be perfect. But, in the Garden of Eden, Satan had tempted Eve. God had instructed both Adam and Eve not to eat of "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil", for if they did, they would die. When Satan tempted Eve, she picked a fruit from the tree, and took a bite. She then proceeded to give some to Adam, who also took a bite. Their eyes were opened, and they then knew right from wrong. They had sinned against God by disobeying his order. Adam (the first man), was cursed to a life of painful toil, as punishment for what he had done. Eve's (the first woman), punishment was increased hardship (pain) in labor (childbirth), and to be ruled over by her husband. We are this way today because, Adam and Eve had sinned. Their sin carried on through generation after generation, and continues to this very day. So my answer to your question is, no. He did not create us as we are today.
The True Religion

Your assumption is false I am a Asatru Pagan this means I worship the old Norse gods, some names you may know are Thor, Odin, or Loki however I have chosen the patron deity Hl"n. I was raised a baptist but one day I decided I could not believe in the Christian god. So I began to read as many religious text as I could find spanning many types of religions. I read the Bible twice ove, the Torah, the Qur'an, the Eddas, the Satanic Bible, and many more. After my research I concluded there was no prof of existence for any deity, that religion is purely based on faith. So I converted to what most aligned with my core values, this being Asatru Paganism. Now regardless of my personal beliefs I understand that there is no religion that has definitive proof that their god is the only God. Now you state that the Christian god created everything including humans, so my question to you is did your god create humans as they are now or did he create the ancestor in which humans evolved from or pherhaps you believe your god created the common ancestor and then guided that species through the ages into what is the modern human.When I read the Bible I found it to be much like the other Abrahamic faith filled with paradoxes and rather coddling in nature. That is why I believe the Abrahamic faiths are those designed to comfort their followers with promises of paradise.
The True Religion

There are many different religions. I am simply stating that Christianity is the only true one. Other religions worship false Gods, and there are are quite a few who worship more than one, when, in actuality, there is only one true and living God. From my perspective, and from what you have told me, you believe there is no religion, as in, you believe there is no God. If that is what you believe, you are wrong, for there is a God. He is a God who created all the Heavens and the Earth. He created the plants, animals, insects, water, air, food, and, most importantly, he created humans. He created EVERYTHING. He is the ruler of the universe.
Drawing Contest.

Rules: - The Drawing must be a Pencil on Paper Portrait. - Each of the contestants will provide a List of 5 persons they wish to draw (in the 1st Round), & each will pick 1 person from the other’s List for the other to draw (in the 2nd). - The List may not contain Marilyn Monroe. - No mature content is allowed. - The contestants will have to authenticate their Drawing by doing the following: > Taking a picture of the Drawing with a sticker/note that reads exactly their DDO respective usernames. > Uploading the Drawing to . http://www.deviantart.com... to an account with the same username, or similar to it (optional). Voting: - Voters must submit their votes based on the following criteria: > Appeal: which of the two Drawings are more pleasant (unbiased personal preference). <<< In the category: ‘Who had better conduct’ (1 point). > Accuracy: correctness & realism of the Drawing. <<< In the category: ‘Had better spelling and grammar’ (1 point). > Proficiency: degree of competence, skill & meticulousness. <<< In the category: ‘Made more convincing arguments’ (3 points). > Resemblance: likeness of the Portrait to the actual person. <<< In the category: ‘Used the most reliable sources’ (2 points). - RFD is required, to a reasonable degree. - Voting period: 1 month. Structure: - 1st Round: Acceptance & List. - 2nd Round: Selection. - 3rd Round: Submission of Drawing. Pro’s List: - Emma Watson. - Kaya Scodelario. - Kristen Stewart. - Amanda Seyfried. - Natalie Portman.
men have a say in abortion

My opponent is being hypocritical by calling some murder “part of nature”, and other killing “unnatural”. My opponent then calls my statement of a fetus being a parasite an opinion, however this is complete fact. The definition of a parasite is “An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.”, and that definition fits a fetus perfectly. People do not think twice about killing tapeworms, so why care about killing a fetus? My opponent’s entire argument is based on the unsubstantiated claim that human life is more valuable than other forms of life. Unless they prove that humans are inherently more valuable than cows, then by saying that killing cows is ok, they have stated that killing fetuses is ok. The opinion that people on life support are similar to fetuses is entirely wrong. The difference here lies with the fact that people on life support do not live inside or on a host organism, whereas a fetus lives inside of the woman. Therefore, men should not have a say in the decision on not to allow abortions, because there is no reason not to allow abortions. As I have shown, the killing of a fetus is the same as killing a tapeworm, and there is no reason for a host not to kill a parasite. Sources: 1. https://www.google.com...
men have a say in abortion

My logic is not saying cows should not be killed. Why do we kill cows? For food. Its nature. Abortion is not a part of nature. And yes, dogs should not be euthanized. Saying it is a parasite is a complete opinion. Here"s a fact. A fetus is alive. It cannot live without its mother, this is true, but that doesn"t mean it doesn"t have the right to live. I can say a fetus is an unborn glorified child and that cancels out you saying "glorified parasite". These are both opinions. Killing an unborn child is just as bad as killing someone on life support because they can"t live on their own. Again do you think that only Jews can have an opinion about the holocaust? Do you think only people on death row can have an opinion about the death penalty? I never quite got an answer. http://www.priestsforlife.org... take a look at this site and see what you are calling "parasites".
men have a say in abortion

My opponent perpetuates 3 logical fallacies by trying to apply general concepts to an individual level. My opponent's resolution would support men having a say in whether or not a victim of rape could have an abortion, something that is irreprehensible. My opponent then tries to argue that because a fetus cannot speak for itself, that it should not be hurt. According to your logic, cows should not be killed because they cannot speak, or dogs should not be euthanized because they cannot speak. A fetus is nothing more than a glorified parasite and because of this, killing a fetus is not murder, nor is it immoral. Therefore Men should not have a say in the legality of abortion, because there is nothing wrong with abortion.
men have a say in abortion

As you can see in round 1, I said "men should have a say". I never said that it was completely up to them. I never said they should be allowed to force one on them. I simply said they should have a say. Also in round 2 I said that a woman should not have the right to abort a child unless her life is in danger. Your conclusion for not making a baby grow up in a terrible situation is to not let it live at all? Who are you saving there? 1. You are not Jewish and I"m sure you are not a Nazi, therefore you have no right in saying if the Holocaust was right or wrong. 2. You are not on death row so you have no right to say if it should be allowed or not. 3. The same goes for gun control if you don"t own a gun or ever had to deal with one, as in being robbed or held hostage etc. As you can see none of these make sense. It doesn"t "affect" you so you have no right in having a say. The same goes for abortion. It may not affect you, but it is hurting a being that can"t speak for itself. A fetus is alive and can feel pain.