BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
American Liberals Are on the Wrong Side of Mexican Illegal Immigration

If American liberals understood Mexican politics, there's no way they would support illegal immigration. Mexico is a country with three major political parties: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(Mexico) http://en.wikipedia.org... The IRP is the historical party which has controlled Mexico's social programs, public goods, and welfare programs for the past century. Those programs have been run into ruin due to corruption and a lack of accountability, so many Mexicans seek asylum in the United States to escape how these social programs have been run. This is especially after the Peso crisis and the mishandling of Mexico's oil windfall: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... On the other hand, the PDR which seeks to maintain social programs has opposed the IRP's pursuit of technocracy. That is it prefers a folk community common sense approach to democracy rather than allowing independently educated scientific minds to run things. The irony of this is how the IRP has often been accused of playing favorites, so technocracy was an internal reform movement. The alternative to the IRP and PDR is the conservative NAM that seeks to liquidate and privatize these social programs altogether, but it often gets squished between the two parties, and that squishing results in continued negligence of social programs where the people suffer from poor administration. In turn, those who suffer seek opportunity in America to get away from the failed social program model. If liberals really knew what was going on, they would oppose illegal immigration because they would want Mexicans to deal with their problems and figure out how to make social programs work. Instead, they're allowing Mexicans to run away from problems that liberals believe can and should be solved.
There are no right and wrong answers in ethics

Religion is wrong. Following anything religion says is also wrong. The reason it is wrong is because I believe it is wrong and my upbringing made me think so. This statement may sound utterly shocking to most seeing as how many of the people in today's society are in fact religious and do believe in some kind of higher power. Most people, especially religious individuals, would not agree with the previous statements I made. The fact that I, or anyone else for that matter believes or states something is wrong, does not truly make it so. At most it is just a mere opinion that could be given some consideration, but it is in no way correct or false. In life there are no such things as right and wrong choices. Everything is based on an individual's perspective and how they view things. Through out the time of when we were developing the mind state of having said religions and views that were forced to but put upon the small amount of humans that were in that time period, the sacrifices put upon those who were against any sort of religion or anything that wasn't normal for that matter, would suffer the consequences. At this time, there was no right or wrong at the end of the day. Now that our society is starting to develop a more open mind of excepting the ethics of others, we are starting to realize that our personal views don't affect the ones around us. We are given information all through out our lifetime; our individual minds will make up what we should want to think is right. Our world will never be right; as far as our history goes, striving for the "right" thing, has only lead to the "wrong" decisions made. Therefore, the simple decisions and mind states of what we believe in, cannot be argued. We will grow on our own circumstances, experience everything different at different times than others, and we will only strive for the right for ourselves. We will do what we believe will benefit us; that has always been the case. There are no right and wrong in ethics. There is no right and wrong in people. Only selfishness and ignorance. But even these two traits and the actions that derive from them cannot be considered right or wrong. Ethics are morals that govern a person or people's behaviors, nothing more. They are not a math problem that can be solved with a right or wrong answer. Ethics are subject to the individual's mind state and their state of mind. Even with outrageous things such as murder, abortion, and other such actions, these are also subject to debate over whether they are right or wrong. There may be a hidden society somewhere where murder and abortions could be correct. As ludicrous as this sounds, it may be possible and to these people these actions may be right to them and there is no telling them otherwise. Actions cannot be said to be right or wrong and neither can moral principles. Law may possibly outlaw certain actions, but even this does not make them wrong. Ethics have no right or wrong answers, and nothing can possibly change this.
There are no right and wrong answers in ethics

When you start to believe that religion or God is not a major factor in right and wrong ethics, then why do people follow the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments was made so us humans can abide by them and honor them all the days of our lives. If religion is not the cause or even a small factor of right and wrong, when people are being prosecuted in court they ask them to raise their hand and tell to announce the truth, nothing but the truth, and the whole truth so help me God. I used that quote because even in law, when lawyers prosecute the defendants, they tell them to ask God for help, why? Because they need God to help them make it out of this bad situation whether guilty of wrong doing or not. So even in our criminal justice bureau we use some form of religion and God, because that's who and what we turn to when we evaluate the true meaning of right and wrong ethics. Far as my last post about Fetal Abduction, my point I tried to get across was that it's wrong in our society to do such ritual, but it's not wrong to them, either way you analyze this ritual it's a right and wrong presented. Many people don't believe in a god, or don't have a specific religion and that's ok, but any moment in their life they do ask God for help. For example, "God help me" in any type situation where in and need some sort of blessing or power to help us get through we ask god. This is a human instinct for me, it's many Atheist that ask god for help when scared, or threatened, why? Because it's a human instinct for us to ask God for help. So when you say god and religion does not exist in this topics of right and wrong, why do people call on god when someone or something is presenting a wrong doing towards them. No one cares if someone is acting in the right manner around or towards them, god does not matter nor right and wrong! but when something bad happens! everyone screams out as like a choir for Gods help. You gave me great feedback on going against right and wrong, but I believe your only looking at the issue one sided. I presented social theorists, religion, State of nature, and plenty more factors that have a say so in this right and wrong issue. Wrong doings are meant to be punished right? If not, the world would be more chaotic then it already is. Since were born into sin, we cannot picture this world green grassed full of daisies. We are made to do wrong, we are made too sin, we are suppose to grow from our mistakes. Which brings me to another topic, mistakes. When we make mistakes, they might be wrong doing mistakes and we might feel guilty about them, but we're suppose to learn from our mistakes and grow. If punishment is not a key component of making wrong mistakes then what are we learning, how are we growing. We're born to make a foot print in this world whether following a good path or wrong path, and us humans know the right path from the wrong, why? Because right and wrong ethics does exist and it does exist in today's society, and always will exist until us humans can only do the right thing in this world.
There are no right and wrong answers in ethics

The meaning of the term religion is an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods as per the Merriam-Webster dictionary. As i previously stated in my past arguments, the meaning of ethics is rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad also as per the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The meaning of the terms religion and ethics are not directly correlated even though many people tend to associate the two terms together usually stating that am individual's religion will ultimately govern their ethical code. The variable of a person being religious or not or what higher power they choose to believe in does not determine their ethics or if they believe certain ethics are right or wrong. While religion may instill certain principles in an individual, it will never fully consume someone's moral beliefs and what they believe to be right and wrong actions. Let's take the widely renown religion of Christianity and use it in an example. These people believe in God and Jesus Christ and it would seem that as a whole, this group of people tend to for the most part be against homosexual people and believe being a homosexual is wrong as per their religion. Most people of this religious group believe this, but not all. This is the ultimate difference between ethics and religion and how the power of there being no right or wrong answers in ethics rules above all else. Even though many Christians are against homosexuality and consider it to be an overall wrongdoing, there are some Christians that accept homosexuality, do not mind it at all, and believe in letting people live their lives as they please. Why is it that two people of the same religion, with supposedly the same belief system would think so differently on such a serious topic as sexuality? The clear cut answer is because of their ethics. Even though two people may follow something as powerful as the same religion, ethics will vary no matter what the case may be. Christianity has a book of set rules to follow, yet people will ultimately choose their ethical code and what they believe to be right and wrong in what they believe even if they follow a religions. This, I believe to be is great support of there being no absolute right and wrong answers in ethics. People that follow something as strict as the same religion and abide by the same principles and beliefs, but their ethics will never be exactly the same. This is why there are no right and wrong answers in ethics. I cannot stress enough that no two people will have the same ethics, therefore making it so that there is no such thing as a right or wrong answer. There is no way to prove that there are right or wrong answers in ethics. It is impossible. Until the day comes that it is in some way possible to prove that there are right and wrong answers in ethics, it will stand that ethics has no right or wrong answers.
There are no right and wrong answers in ethics

There is a clear cut difference between what someone's ethics are and what the laws and regulations of the area they live in is. As previously stated in round one of the debate, the official dictionary definition of the word ethics is rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good. The definition for the word law is the whole system or set of rules made by the government of a town, state, or country. The clear cut difference between these two words is that ethics are personal rules of behavior an individual places on themselves with no actual consequence besides possibly guilt if a rule is broken as compared to a law being a set of rules that are enforced and must be followed by all who live in that particular area or they will face punishment depending on what law they do not abide by. While a majority of people's ethical code might be similar to certain laws of their place of residence, such as the act of murdering an individual being wrong, both laws and ethics vary from place to place. Even something as stable as a law is not universal and not everyone in the world follows the same laws. An example of this is the legal views of cannabis in the United States as compared to Amsterdam. While the ethical view of most people in America is that this drug is wrong to use, most people in Amsterdam might see it as a completely normal act that is not frowned upon whatsoever. The law of most states in the United States currently stands as cannabis being illegal to use, possess, or distribute, meanwhile in Amsterdam, the possession of soft drugs such as cannabis has been decriminalized since 1976. It is completely legal for what are referred to as coffee shops to sell this drug to any individual that is eighteen years old or older. The fact that something as strict as a law can vary depending on what part of the world you are in makes it easily conceivable that there is no such thing as right and wrong answers in something as flexible as ethics. Ethics are shaped and molded throughout the course of an individual's entire life and since no one is raised the same way or goes through the same experiences, it is a given that everyone's ethics will be different from the next person's. There is no way to tell someone that their beliefs are wrong or right. Beliefs, what someone believes to be correct choices and incorrect choices are all personal and will vary depending on the person being interacted with. Even with something as strong as religion and the belief of a God, people's choices on whether to believe and follow a certain religion and practice it will vary and there is no telling who's beliefs and actions and wrong and who's are right. It is all based on personal experiences that no one can judge and be correct when they state that someone's ethics are right or wrong.
There are no right and wrong answers in ethics

The official definition for the word ethics according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary currently stands as rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad. An individual's ethics basically mean what they believe to be right and wrong actions. Ethics are not a defined set of rules nor laws that pertain to a city, state, town, country, society, etc. They vary from person to person. No two people share the exact same ethical code. To find this is virtually impossible. The very fact that no two people share the exact same code of ethics is the reason why there are no right and wrong answers in ethics. What may be considered as a good or acceptable action to some, may be seen as outrageous to others. A simple example many people are familiar with deals with religious principle. Muslims believe it is utterly wrong to eat pork. To them, it is a downright sin that should not be done under no circumstance. Meanwhile, the average American eats pork on a regular basis and sees absolutely nothing wrong in doing it. They do not see eating pork as filthy, nor does it break any rule in their ethical code, as it does for someone that is Muslim. This is only one of the possible thousands of examples of how there are no right or wrong answers in ethics. Moving away from a religious example of how there are no right and wrong answers in ethics, ethics will also vary based on cultural beliefs. It is astonishing how different people's values and ethics are depending on what their culture is. A specific example of this the use of money of the average American compared to that of many people of Indian culture. I have seen this from personal experience. I work as a bank teller and on a daily basis I see what people of different cultures choose to do with their money. I have seen a huge difference between American people's transactions and Indian people. Most America people would just cash their checks and put none of it towards a savings account while many Indians do the exact opposite and put nearly all of their earning towards their savings and get back what seems to be only the necessary amount of money for them. From these experiences i have drawn the conclusion that part of many Indian people's ethics is to save most of their money and not spend on what they believe to be unnecessary, while many Americans will spend most of their money and not save. This belief on the right and wrong uses of money is just another example on how there are no right and wrong answers when it comes to the subject of ethics. What some believe to be wrong, others might view as correct. What are right and wrong actions all comes down to a combination of numerous things ranging from age, to race, area of residence, sex, how someone was raised, mind state, and so forth. There is no universal law or belief for there being right or wrong answers in ethics. Everyone will have different ideas of what is right and wrong and no can tell them otherwise because ethics are a personal choice that every individual makes for themselves.
Do you think that watching violence on TV and in films encourages youths to be aggressive and antis

This is an important topic, but sadly not enough research has been done, and those that have been conducted aren't as conclusive as some (such as Pro I'd imagine) would like. Unfortunately, Pro has only provided anecdotal evidence to support their claim that exposing children to violent imagery in television programs and video games induces more violent tendencies among the recipient. This is often the case, as video games and television are an easy scapegoat. It's convenient to be able to point a finger at one particular cause and be done with it. However, the idea that these factors induce violent behavior in children is a post hoc fallacy. The majority of children play video games [1], obviously some of them will be aggressive. The truth is, there are many, many factor in determining violent and/or aggressive behavior in youths [2]. They can include poor parenting/role modeling for your child, mental or physical health issues, your work or school environment, socioeconomic factors, and many others. However, the source I provided fails to mention television and video games as a factor. Therefore, it can't be said with certainty that Pro's resolution is true. "all [children] are learning is to be rebellious, dishonest, disrespectful, bullies, and most of all they show no compassion and love towards others. " Another interesting piece of information is that children these days are more well-behaved and respectful than their parents' generation [3]. The only reason I already know this is because I'm in the middle of a debate with another person that thinks children "these days" are spoiled. I look forward to hearing your rebuttal in Round 2. Best of luck. Sources: [1] . https://techcrunch.com... [2] . http://www.healthline.com... [3] . http://www.independent.co.uk...
Do you think that watching violence on TV and in films encourages youths to be aggressive and antis

I believe that television does offer a window to violence, especially when they watch violent games. I have two grandkids ages 8-9, who used to watch some children's shows. I noticed that after they finish watching the show they run to their room and grab their toy guns, and start shooting at each other. In other occasions, they start hitting each other and fighting just like the show they just watched. I do firmly believe that some children's shows do more harm than good. I do not allow my grandkids to watch shows where bad words, fighting and violent scenes, or shows where a kid, teenager or juvenile disrespect others. Your children are the future, but all they are learning is to be rebellious, dishonest, disrespectful, bullies, and most of all they show no compassion and love towards others. Yes, television does harm children, because they want to just like them.
Why people should allow gay marriages.

There are a lot of reasons that people should allow gay marriages like this one "Marriage is a successful institution and it makes sense to open it to as many people as possible. Since the beginning of history, couples have sought to seal their love and solemnly bind themselves together through marriage. Opening that bond to all will strengthen society. Legalization recognizes reality: there are gay people, they love each other and they want to commit to each other through marriage in the same way as straight couples," that would be a reason to allow gay marriages but there are some bad things like this "Critics argue that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, and to change that would go against natural law and risk undermining both the institution of marriage and the family’s role in holding society together. Legalization denies marriage’s central role as a step towards procreation. There are civil partnerships available for gays, but marriage is a step too far. In the French context, the changes in the law will remove the terms “mother and father” from the civil code weakening the rights of heterosexual families." I may be voting for gay marriages but lots of people say it is only for man and women like this quote has just exlamed for everyone but the quote before gives a good reason to vote for gay marriages instead of against it. Even churches should allow it here is why "Gay marriage should be allowed for anyone who wants to enter into gay marriage. If a member of any church, Catholic or otherwise, is in good standing with the church, they should be able to have their marriage recognized by their church. Times have changed and the Pope could make it happen." That is why people should allow gay marriages.
Why people should allow gay marriages.

Gay/lesbian/homosexual/bi/transgender is a problem and I'll tell you why from my own personal point of view. (I've already debated with two other people in this concept, and they both have fortified. ) The government shouldn't even be legalizing gay marriage or even encouraging it to society. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. And if you don't wanna look at it in a religious point of view, that's how mother nature is; marriage can only be made between a man and a woman, and all these people are doing is disrupting the nature with their sick mentalities. If you're saying that a " civilized society does not discriminate on grounds of race, religion, sex or sexuality and denial of marriage rights is clear discrimination", then what about polygamy? Why does the society allow gay marriage but not polygamy? A civilized society doesn't encourage immoral values. It does bring harm to the society and it will. Do you think it's fair for the younger generations, who will neither have a mother nor a father? Girls who are raised apart from their fathers will more likely be involved with early sexual activity. Children without a mother are deprived of their security and unique advice. That's why two parents from different genders is very important. A 2012 study was made in Texas, found that children who have been raised in a same sex relationship faced more difficulties in life, such as sexual abuse and unemployment later in life. It could even lead to a child being bullied and humiliated in school. Evidence also suggests that children who are raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Now that gay marriage has been legalized in some countries like America and Australia, it advances the homosexuality agenda and unfairly paints opponents as bigots. How are further generations going to know the difference between friendship and love if they're just gonna keep looking at gay couples everywhere. And because of it's legalization, the number of gays and lesbians will increase and the traditional way of marriage will be destroyed. Like common sense its wrong anyways, you can't have sex with the same gender; your genitals don't work like that. And even if you adopt children, as I mentioned before it'll be unfair for the child.