BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
something you do not judge to be imoral is not illegal or imoral

Unfortunately for con the debate is not meant to meen whether or not it is illegal it is more should it under the infact legal concept of mes rea it stipulates you must be able to judge between wrong and right and be able to have some forsight of concequnces if in your example somone was mentaly ill you say that they cant be viewed as innocent they can because they didnt necacarily do it under thier own doing or guilty conscience to commit a crime surely they must do it knowingly of the fact that its considerd in your states community a crime somtimes we must sacrifice for higher values this is why their are so many religious wars throughout history because people are prepared to fight the belief and sacrifice ethics and morale for rights and freedom sorry i must go and so cant complete argument teachers making us leave it suite
something you do not judge to be imoral is not illegal or imoral

I am not sure as to what Pro is arguing in his opening statement so I will give a brief response to the topic of the debate. First, a few of definitions; judg•ment: the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, especially in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment. mo•ral•i•ty: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. Law: the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. Pro suggests that if an individual does not judge that an act is immoral it would follow that it cannot be illegal or looked at as immoral. Unfortunately for Pro this is not how our legal system works seeing how an individual's judgment of morality does not dictate whether or not it is illegal. If it were the case than there could be no conviction and/or consequence for one person harming another or in Pro's example several others. Even if the individual suffers from a mental illness and is able to rationalize or justify that what they are doing is morally sound we would not deem them innocent for their actions or agree that they are morally justified. Laws are in place to prevent disorder. If acts of harm against others are not dealt with it tends to encourage feuding which could potentially lead to more killing and more harm against innocent people. If there is no truth, nothing has transcendent value, including human beings. The death of morality reduces people to the status of mere creatures. When persons are viewed as things, they begin to be treated as things. [1] Moral statements are not preference claims. We do not treat our moral judgments like we do deciding what we want to eat for lunch that day. If we accept an individual's morality to be right because they feel it is so, than the legal system would have a difficult time convicting anyone. A statement made that human trafficking is wrong would instead be stated as; I personally don't care for human trafficking. As you can see this would cause more damage to society than the initial charge if dealt with. We acknowledge critical morality and relevant moral principles as an objective standing. [2] [1] Francis Beckwith, "Relativism: Feet planted firm in thin air" [2] . http://ivr-enc.info...
something you do not judge to be imoral is not illegal or imoral

One must consider the facts of whether or not there is a common morality as there are so many different views, for example christians allow drink though don't promote it. And islam forbid it both of their views are right and therefore something one does not judge to be immoral is not under circumstances such as a man was killing in mass murder you knew he was guilty and so murdered him under the morality one life for hundreds this is and can be viewed as right and for the good of society of which laws protect laws are built to protect moral codes and rights of human if a man were killing many then the rights of those people are being crossed and the man who was killing he had left society by committing acts against it these are why i am for the argument
The Christian God is Comparable to Hitler

Argument: Anybody who believes in a different religion besides Christianity (according to Bible) will burn for all eternity. Jews are a different religion. So how many Jews has the Christian God condemned to this fate? Well, all of them. Including those involved in the holocaust. If you say that damnation is worse or at least comparable to a concentration camp, then the Christian God has sent more Jews to places comparable to concentration camps than Hitler.
The Christian God is Comparable to Hitler

This is where I make my closing remarks. In this debate, the resolution is that the Christian God is comparable to Hitler. My opponent has wasted a good amount of this debate, trying to prove that the Christian God is immoral whereas it is irrelavent to the resolution. My opponent's arguments have summed up to this:P1 Hitler sent Jews to concentration camps to be tortured and exterminatedP2 The Christian God sends people to Hell as eternal punishmentP3 Hitler persecuted the Jews because of their religious beliefsP4 The Christian God punishes people because of their religious beliefsConclusion: The Christian God == HitlerWhile P1 is undisputed and because this debate is held under the assumption that the Christian God is real, P2 is also true. I have disproven P3 in round 2 by showing that Hitler's reason for persecuting the Jews was not religious, but rather race and power driven and Pro has not tried to refute my claims. I have also disproved P4 by stating that the reasoning behind God's decision for sending people to hell. In my case where I try to disprove the resolution I have stayed on topic. My arguments are as follows:1. The Christian God is the creator of life2. He has laid out clear rules and punishments for mankind3. We have broken these rules on many occasions actively rebelling against God (The Jews haven't done anything to deserve their treatment)4. He has a justifiable reason to send us to Hell (unlike Hitler)5. The Christian God does not want us to suffer eternal torture (Hitler and the Nazis sought to extermainate Jews)6.
The Christian God is Comparable to Hitler

I am going to not use a question-chain argument here. Torture is not moral. Period. Anywhere. Infinite punishment is not moral. Period. Anywhere. Infinite torture is not moral. Jigsaw or "The Jigsaw Killer" is the main character in the popular horror series "Saw." By saying you think Infinite torture is moral, you are saying that everything in this series is moral. I personally have never watched more than 5 minutes of it. It simply looks too painful to even watch. In what circumstances would this be moral? I can't think of any. Now you are saying that the minor offense of believing in another religion is punishable by this. Now this seems like a propaganda tactic. I mean no justice for crimes committed in their lifetime. The majority of people in eternal torture will go there for believing in another religion. Of course, the you must be good is another great one for the children. So they can stay up at night tossing and turning wondering if you have to be a saint to get into heaven or just not a murderer. But back to the propaganda tactic, it seems like God is trying to rule with an iron thumb. Following in the footsteps of Stalin and torturing the opposition. Not giving any evidence for his existence instead saying "believe in me or I will torture you" I would say that is comparable to not providing any good things coming from his reign but saying if you dont vote for me you will be in a concentration camp. That's Kim Jong Un. Now to address the "God laid out the punishment for sin." Predetermining a law does not make it moral to enforce. To illustrate I will give you an example. It would not be moral for me to say "If you touch my stuff I will kill you" And then you touch my stuff, does it make it moral for me to kill you? No, the answer is no. The law is flawed and even with the warning, the punishment does not fit the crime. Now to punish any finite sin with infinite punishment can never possibly fit the crime. It is mathematically impossible. I hope I have driven my point in here but here's another contradiction. The Bible says everything God does is perfect. So now eternal torture is the right thing to do. And Christians say agnostics have no morals. When the God they worship has committed atrocities and will be forever #1 on the all time list of time torturing people. Also if you say the Devil is the one torturing, you forget God could save them, with literally no consequence. He is omnipotent. Its like a train is coming and all you have to do to stop someone from dying is raise your hand. It is so easy, you would have to be wanting them to get hit for them to get hit. I think all religious debates need this warning. Please keep an open mind in these debates. If you think you are too far leaning towards one side to give a decently unbiased opinion, I recommend you not vote.
The Christian God is Comparable to Hitler

"Do sinners deserve eternal damnation?" God has laid out punishment for sin which is hell and yet we continue to sin, so yes. "So us imperfect mortals do not condone the use of torture. We believe it is cruel and inhumane. So is God cruel and inhumane?" You are judging God using your own sense of morality which is subjective. Whose sense of morality should be used? In Nazi Germany, the majority's sense of morality was that it was ok to exterminate inferior races off the face of the Earth. "Is God comparable to Kim Jong Un, Adolf Hitler, or Stalin?" That is the topic of this debate. The BOP is on you because you take the affirmative to a positive statement. "Why would a moral God use such inhumane practices, such savage practices? Is God moral? Do you think anyone who uses torture is moral?" You are going off topic here. The topic of this debate is not whether God is a immoral being or not. "Would a moral, practicing person go to heaven?" I've answered this in a previous argument: "However, a person could have been a Christian his/her whole life, gone to church, etc. but the fact remains that that person is still a sinner in the eyes of a perfect God 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.) If that person doesn't accept the salvation that Jesus Christ offers, then no. "So an immoral person would go to hell. Would God pass his own test?" Again off-topic ""You can either say I am your honest loving model, or my friend Jigsaw is going to do exactly what you see him do in the movies to you. Also, thanks to an ingenious breakthrough in medical tech, right before you die, we will revive you and start over again?"" You are going to have to clarify this for me. If this is a reference to something? If so, I don't get it.
The Christian God is Comparable to Hitler

Do sinners deserve eternal damnation? These are the countries that have documented torture: China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, Morocco, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. According to human rights watch. So us imperfect mortals do not condone the use of torture. We believe it is cruel and inhumane. So is God cruel and inhumane? Is God comparable to Kim Jong Un, Adolf Hitler, or Stalin? Why would a moral God use such inhumane practices, such savage practices? Is God moral? Do you think anyone who uses torture is moral? Would a moral, practicing person go to heaven? So an immoral person would go to hell. Would God pass his own test? These are the questions we all must ask, or else your belief can not stand criticism like this. Now lets talk about an infinite punishment. What if I said, "You can either say I am your honest loving model, or my friend Jigsaw is going to do exactly what you see him do in the movies to you. Also, thanks to an ingenious breakthrough in medical tech, right before you die, we will revive you and start over again?" What would you say? Would you think Im an moral loving person, or a sociopathic monster?
The Christian God is Comparable to Hitler

Pro has the false assumption, that the reason why people have to go to hell is because the religion they believe in. However, a person could have been a Christian his/her whole life, gone to church, etc. but the fact remains that that person is still a sinner in the eyes of a perfect God. God has made it explicitly clear that sinners will not inherit the kingdom of heaven 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.) However, he has provided a way to heaven through his son. If God gives a person a way to escape Hell’s punishment and they reject it, what else is God supposed to do? “Moreover, every religion has the same amount of evidence for it. (evidence being eye witness testimony) This makes it easy to see why so many people have all chosen different religions.” --- This statement is irrelevant on which religion is true because this debate is carried out on the assumption that the Christian God is real and his word is truth meaning all other religions and gods are false. Another false assumption set by Pro is that the reason behind Hitler’s prosecution of the Jews is because of the religion they believed in. The real reason is that Jews served as a perfect scapegoat. At a time where Germany is in a financial crisis and faced the disgrace of losing WWI, someone must be blamed. Religion had nothing to do with it. Hitler was also driven by racism believing that the Jews were sub-human whereas the Aryan race was superior. In fact, he takes this inspiration from the AMERICAN eugenics movement. In addition, not only were Jews sent to these concentration camps but also political prisoners, communists, and Jehovah's Witnesses (A Christian group). http://www.ushmm.org... http://www.annefrank.org... I’ll state this again that Hitler had no just reason for killing Jews whereas mankind has actively rebelled against God by sinning so therefore the right to punish them. Source: The Holy Bible
The Christian God is Comparable to Hitler

Thank you for that My main argument is on the properties of an infinite punishment and why any such punishment can never fit a finite crime. But also, the fact that there is any such punishment for such a grey area offense would also not fit the crime. I mean, almost every religion has the same punishment for not following that religion. Moreover, every religion has the same amount of evidence for it. (evidence being eye witness testimony) This makes it easy to see why so many people have all chosen different religions. There is not, simply, enough evidence to conclude which religion is correct with so much pressure on your shoulders. Back to my main argument. Hitler persecuted people for their belief in another deity. He did not just randomly pick people, if you were Jewish you would be put in a concentration camp. My whole point is that the basis of the selection for torture God and Hitler used are alarmingly similar. And add in my first argument and God actually crosses the threshold and tortures Jews for the Deity they believed in infinitely more than Hitler. So I could say that God is not only comparable to Hitler, but if you took Hitler's deeds and multiplied them by a thousand or even a million, they would not even compose the smallest fraction of the amount of torturing for a belief in another deity done by God. That is the nature of infinite punishment.
The Christian God is Comparable to Hitler

The BOP is on Pro. (Note: This debate will be carried out under the presumption that the Christian God is real and his word is true as my opponent uses in his argument) It is rather disingenuous to equate the Christian God to Hitler and I’ll explain why. To begin with, we must first look at why there is death and suffering in this world. When God has first created the world, he has deemed his creation good in the book of Genesis. However, when man has rebelled against God man has brought death and suffering into the world beginning when Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden. Romans 5:12 (Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—). As also seen here, we all fall short of God’s glory and because he has created us and given us rules to follow, he has the right to punish us. Such punishment for sinning against God is death. However, unlike Hitler who actively pursues to wipe Jews off the face of the Earth, God does not want us to burn in hell. He has sent his son Jesus to take on human nature to die on a cross to pay for everyone’s sins. In doing so, he has given a way for everyone to be saved from burning in hell if they accept the gift that he sent us. John 3:16 (For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ) So here are the main points to my argument: God is the creator of life; therefore he has the right to take it away. Hitler had no such right. Man has actively rebelled against God bringing to themselves death and suffering, whereas Hitler had no just reason for killing Jews God is a loving God that does not want people to burn in hell so he sent his son to atone for our sins. Hitler had no such compassion for the Jews. In conclusion: The Christian God is not comparable to Hitler. Source: The Holy Bible
The Great Wall of China is in China. (The one that seperated them from Mongolians.)

Thank you for the debate. =REBUTTALS= 1. I am against your claim and standing on the resolution and stand in firm disagreement with you on all aspects, however, I never called you a liar. Also, your numbers are incorrect, and Wikipedia is NOT a viable source. The information can be changed by users and has been found to be inaccurate due to this cause. I will cite mulitple, viable sources by experts (that can't be changed) to prove my claim. a. http://www.associatedcontent.com... b. http://media.www.lhueagleye.com... c. http://en.wikipedia.org... Heck, Wikipedia itself says, "Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy." (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). So, no it is not a reliable source, because they themselves say it's unreliable. Therefore, your numbers arguement is invalid, and I have won the conention on numerical geography due to a faulty source. 2. "I would argue that MOST missile systems are placed outside of the country." You contradict yourself with you calculator/pocket statement here, in which you say " ...put (the calculator) into the pocket of my jeans pocket, more than half of it remain outside the pocket. But, at the same time, it would still be considered "in" my pocket." So this arguement is invalid and my example still stands. 3. "My opponent's claim is that they DID expand the wall and built it OUTSIDE OF China." My opponent is placing words in my mouth. I never said they did expand it, under *3. of Round 2, that was a direct quote from my opponent, not me. Apparently, my opponent does not seem to remember his own arguements, and no, I'm not being rude, it's the truth (as hurtful as it may seem). I was referring to the construction of buildings, schools, hospitals, anything that needs to be built. 4. "He chose to make the childish argument that an online encyclopedia is an unreliable source." Okay, my opponent, I believe, just lost his conduct point by citing my contentions as "childish arguement(s)". Sir, Wiki is not a valid source, as I have proven with mulitple sources and Wiki's own words stating they are. So, I'd like to ask you not to call names, for that in and of itself is childish, and we are arguing the Great Wall of China, not the Great Walls. 5. I addressed it further. 6. That is a faulty source, my arguement still stands. 7. ??? I know what it looks like from above, I've seen it! =Conclusion= My opponent is a total d*** and a f***ing p***. Conduct's a tie, because I can't stand this stupid a** mother f***er. My opponent is making stupid claims that wikipedia is a good source, which is over half of his, and it's not. Google in any link provided is a search engine, so give the site below the pretty picture, a**hole and you'd get the source. Wiki can be changed by anyone and I won't argue that further, because I've won you lost. Get over it, f***ing p***!
The Great Wall of China is in China. (The one that seperated them from Mongolians.)

Just to refresh China is located between approx. 15 degrees and 60 degrees Latitude North and about 70 and 135 degrees longitude East. The given Latitude of the Great Wall of China is, rounded up for evenness, 120 degrees, and 70 < 120 < 135 Ergo, China is located vertically within China's boundaries. The given Longitude of the Great Wall of China is, rounded as well, 40 degrees, and 15 < 40 < 60 Ergo, China is located horizontally within China's boundaries. The other arguments were just support for my more legitimate contention, which should be enough to win the round alone. But, to refute my opponent's points, ======== Refutation ======== Both of my opponents points can be combined into one idea: that is, since it is a protection meant to keep "out" invaders, everything outside of the wall must be outside of China. So, here are the responses. 1) Using the logic by which my opponent speaks, any defense system that is placed by any country MUST be outside of the country. I. e. if my missile defense system is meant to "keep invaders out", then it must be out. The reason this logic is false is clear. When we refer to the wall, we make two observations. First, the geographical argument (which I've already won). Second, the argument that, if China built the wall outside of China, they would have encountered several problems- they can't build on territory that isn't there's; they would have to send warriors to protect the builders from barbarians (if it was outside of China they would have been building in barbarian territory); it would have been extremely costly to transport the equipment several hundred more miles; they would have encountered more difficult terrain . http://www.google.com... Finally, my opponent assumes that the Great Wall is only one wall. It is actually several "layers" of walls . http://en.wikipedia.org... (see pictures in right column). My opponent agreed to the definitions I provided; "in" meant "used to indicate inclusion within space, a place, or limits". His only refutation against my calculator-in-my-pocket argument was that I am arguing about two different dimensional levels; but he conceded that it doesn't have to be entirely inside. Thus, given the different "parts" of the Great Wall, at least one "part" must be on the inside of another "part" which must be the exterior. I think it's safe to say that the Great Wall of China is in China, prima facie and after close analysis. I would like to stress the geography issue before I end my argument. Note that the geographic limits of China INCLUDE the provided geographic point of the Great Wall of China (which my opponent also agreed to). Given this point, and all the other ones mentioned, I urge the readers to- ==VOTE PRO== The only logical way to vote.