BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religious indoctrination of children

My opponent has forfeited his last round and all of my arguments extend forward. As a reminder: 1. There are aspects of culture that are not necessarily founded on fact, but on spiritual faith. 2. There exists an external culture, one that differs from that of the person's ethnic culture, that threatens a child's cultural growth. In other words, there is always bias, no matter what you do. 3. This intrinsic bias already handicaps a parent's intrinsic right to pass down his values onto his children. 4. To further express the need to teach only facts, or to overexpose children to cultures not of his own, is to undermine and violate the rights of a parent to pass on his own culture. 5. My opponent's proposal does more harm than good, as any attempt to eliminate bias only shifts bias towards the generic "culture", and also makes it unfair for the parent. I await my opponent's response. Thank you.
Morality is Objective

Calling you an idiot is not being rude - calling you a retard is being rude. There's a difference between saying you don't know how to be intelligible and saying that you're disabled. Black and white thinking because you fail to understand that there isn't two sides to a picture - but many. You insist that a picture to be either moralistically objective or moralistically subjective - you do not understand how analysis is a form of perception and its the result of an observer being responsible with the information they take in and properly relating that to how the world works. Therefore you know nothing of perception and how objectivity can exist within it along with morality (also based on perception). There's a difference between saying why the water freezes and saying sex with food is better than sex without food. One is universal; the other is personal. The Universe is based on subatomic particles - morality is also based on subatomic particles. The human brain has a built in guilty consciousness, which means we can experience shame and regret, therefore I stand by my words when I say morality is intrinsically objective but idiots toy with it and turn it into a sandbox.
Morality is Objective

I do not need your definitions because you are an idiot and I am a genius. So you can take that distinctionary and throw it into the trash bin. You have already made the mistake of assuming that both are not wrong, rather than both are wrong and not wrong based on the individual parts of their perception. This is not a binary world you fart sniffer. This is a omni-directional Universe that consists of points throughout the entire Universe that form in the same pattern as the pores on your skin. These points are triggered by stimuli through electromagnetic waves where in connections are made. Frankly your stimuli is failing stimulation because your stimuli has blue balls. Morality can be objective only when you are not being stupid and treating it as a black and white system. You should go mate with an old xerox machine because your views are black and white. There are points and parts of a perception - there is no "X here/ X there". It's not 50-50, or 30-70, and all that stupid trite. I'm not okay with this site. This site is a complete joke. But you know, what can you do? Idiots like you are on here wanking off tautologies like you know anything of which you write. It's all trite, my friend. Please evacuate your delusion as soon as possible because the only thing I can imagine right now is this dark little blob inside your head masturbating on your work station.
Morality is Objective

Con Case I define morality as "the code of right and wrong that guides our moral decision making and rationale". I define objective as unchanging in nature and subjective as able to change or dependent on one's view. Sources for my definitions will be provided upon request, but they're fairly common sense so I don't see the need. Morality is subjective for a few simple reasons: First, humans are capable of holding different views on the same subject and not necessarily be wrong. You may believe that gay marriage is wrong and I may believe it isn't wrong and neither one of us has to be wrong. This is because moral thoughts are based upon perception. Take for example color. There are vibrant arrays of colors available for humans to see; from blue seas to green fields of grass to midnight skies, we are able to perceive color via our vision. But those who's vision is marred via being colorblind aren't able to perceive the same things that those who aren't color blind. If I'm looking at a red apple and a colorblind person incapable of seeing the color red is looking at the same red apple, we will both be seeing different things: me red and him not red. That doesn't make me right and him wrong, or vice versa. It means that the realities we are able to perceive are differing. I perceive the apple to be red, so my belief is that the apple is red, while he perceives the apple to be not red, so believes otherwise. Our perceptions of our realities are both true, yet differing. It destiny mean one of us is wrong, it just means that truth is subjective to who is doing the perceiving. Morality functions in the same regards. Let's take the example of abortion. I may perceive a fetus to be a mass of cells, and thus something not worthy of human regard and setting we can kill off without being morally guilty of murdering a human, while another may perceive the fetus to be a person in growth, thus worthy of moral consideration and making it murder to terminate it. Neither one of us is wrong per se, rather our realities that we are able to perceive differ. This means that moral truth is dependent on who is doing the perceiving, thus making it necessarily subjective. Second, in order for morality to be objective then there would be clear cut rights and wrongs and little room for disagreement. This would necessitate that we would all believe the same beliefs and perceive the same realities and truths. Thus, in order for my opponent to prove that morality is objective he must show that everyone believes the same things. There's a clear, laughable problem with this, though, namely that we're ok a debating website, a place where people discuss conflicting views and exchange different ideas. Not everyone here believes the same thing. Hell, the fact that this debate is occurring proves that there is two people who do not believe the same things, thus disproving moral objectivity. I pass the floor over to my opponent.
Post 9/11 security measures

My opponent couldn't make it; this is unfortunate but nothing that can't be taken care of using the power of song: You're on the phone with your girlfriend, She's upsetShe's going off about something that you saidShe doesnt get your humour like I doI'm in the room, its a typical Tuesday nightI'm listening to the kind of music she doesnt likeAnd she'll never know your story like I doBut she wears short skirts, I wear t-shirtsShe's cheer captain and I'm on the bleachersDreaming bout the day when you wake up and findThat what you're lookin for has been here the whole timeIf you could see that I'm the one who understands youBeen here all along so why can't you see?You belong with meYou belong with meWalkin the streets with you in your worn out jeansI cant help thinking this is how it ought to beLaughing on the park bench thinkin to myselfHey isnt this easy?And you've got a smile that could light up this whole townI havent seen it in awhile, since she brought you downYou say you find I know you better than thatHey, Whatcha doing with a girl like that?She wears high heels, I wear sneakersShe's cheer captain and I'm on the bleachersDreaming bout the day when you wake up and findThat what you're looking for has been here the whole timeIf you could see that I'm the one who understands youBeen here all along so why can't you see? You belong with meStandin by, waiting at your back doorAll this time how could you not know that?You belong with meYou belong with meOh I remember you driving to my house in the middle of the nightI'm the one who makes you laugh when you know you're about to cryI know your favorite songs and you tell me about your dreamsI think I know where you belong. I think I know it's with me.Can't you see that I'm the one who understands you?Been here all along so why can't you see?You belong with meStanding by or waiting at your back doorAll this time how could you not know thatYou belong with meYou belong with meHave you ever thought just maybeYou belong with meYou belong with mehttp://www.youtube.com...
Post 9/11 security measures

The resolution is Resolved: The benefits of post-9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedoms. I am negating. A post 9/11 security measure will be defined as a measure enacted after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 with the intention of preventing or mitigating a future attack.Round one is for acceptance. Round two is for constructives, no rebuttals until round three. Debaters are permitted to create a seperate "debate" to place sources in (such as http://www.debate.org...)
Euthanasia should be available for use.

From what I gather from my opponent"s argument, his main focus is how that it is possible for the person to survive their sickness. Which is possible, but let me explain why this would be a bad idea to ban it for all circumstances. I would also like to state that this counter argument will most likely be somewhat short as my response will most likely get straight to the point. I will concede to this statement that my opponent made "My opponent has shown the value of Deontology, the ends justify the means." that is my mind set for a lot of things. The flaw in my opponents hinges on one main point, the fact that his argument hinges on the fact that it is possible for the patient to recover from their treatment. This is possible, but is it reason to get rid of it entirely? We could spend a long time debating the specifics but the question is simply if it should be allowed for use. Meaning instead of debating possible scenarios and requirements, we are simply arguing over weather it should simply be used. As clear cut yes or no stance. So on to the point. To remove euthanasia on the premise of someone being able to save the patient may seem sound, but does it truly make sense? This scenario you focus on is existent yet not a constant concern. Not everybody will ask for euthanasia as a lot of times people will see beyond the immediate pain. So should this scenario you have given take it away from everybody? I would like to bring up the concept of body autonomy for this next part. Body autonomy is the concept that someone has full control over their body and is something I strongly stand with under most circumstances. I bring this up as this is one of the scenarios where bodily autonomy could come in. if a person consents to anything then it lies upon them to accept the responsibility of that decision, often knowing what is to come. When someone gives consent to use euthanasia its them accepting that the will dies yet also knowing it would be painless. So to finish wrap this up. The scenario brought up by my opponent could happen, yet is no where near the majority to most uses of it. So should this minority destroy a persons ability to end their own suffering.
Euthanasia should be available for use.

To start off we all know what euthanasia is, as there are many arguments being made for both sides. One of these arguments I have heard several times is what if the person can be saved but they would have to wait? This can be seen as a problem of rights from one angle and morals from others, I will be trying to do both. To start on the side of rights. Everybody has "Human Rights" rights that everybody should have regardless of differences. This isn"t directly stated I believe but many people also consider the right to life as part of these things, either way it shouldn"t matter for my argument. Everybody having this right would be pointless if they didn"t have the right to choose what they do in their life. Now to dive more specifically into euthanasia and how this all ties in to what I said. There are many people in much pain in suffering from many different things. Since euthanasia is normally associated with the sick, that is where my focus will be. As you should know, there are many painful medical conditions that are not easy to treat at the same time. Then euthanasia would be used to end their suffering as it is their choice. If a person has the right to control their life, why shouldn"t they have the right to end it? Keeping someone of life support can be costly and they might not even be able to save the person. And sometimes the person on that life support, just doesn"t want to burden themselves or the family the entire time. A lot of times people can see that there is no chance and don"t wan to burden their family anymore. So what would banning euthanasia from these people accomplish. In a sense of rights it should make sense and morally no one is getting harmed. I await my opponents main argument.
Euthanasia should be available for use.

I to would like to congratulate my opponent on this debate, a challenge worthwhile and arguments well conducted. I would like to refute my opponent's statement mentioned in her counter argument, "As clear cut as yes or no stance", I would like to state that, in order to give my straight answer, I need a reasoning behind it. I feel the semantics behind every public adjustment should be taken into consideration when making a choice, even if it is as simple as a yes or no question. If euthanasia were to be available for use, then yes, I agree that it would go through an acceptance process. I do not doubt that people would not be properly informed on the matter either. Rather, I look at the negatives such a thing has a possibility of bringing. Medical marijuana is available to cancer patients, yet there will always be ways for such acceptances to be abused. Whose to say that euthanasia could not go through the same process? I can see clearly the benefits of making euthanasia available for use. But it is not being a pessimist that makes me see the negatives, it is being cautious that brings such things to light. Again, I would like to congratulate my opponent and thank her for a debate worthy of record.
Euthanasia should be available for use.

I applaud my opponent for doing a great job in this debate as I hope it was enjoyable for the both of us. Again this round will be short as their isn"t much to type. Again opponent seems to focus his argument around a single point. I gather that my opponent this time focuses on the point of public acceptance. This is a problem that every aspect of society has had to get through. Euthanasia would go through this process and if people are properly informed on it, no body would take the unnecessary use. I enjoyed this debate with my opponent and learning his views.
Respect for Life

My opponent has presented a very nicely framed argument that would sway many. It has certain basic flaws though, especially in his interpretation of my first argument. I would first like to counter his rebuttals before placing new points on the table. -That I give an inferior position to the creations of man: I have to clarify this point, and firmly protest over this interpretation of my argument. I do not give second place to men. I believe that artificial things are as good as natural things, and that is a basic premise for me to say we shouldn't return to the jungles. My issue is really this: While artificial is good, one must not get so engrossed in it that one forgets what it is based on. Build houses and multistory buildings, but do not forget that they rest on the earth. A major preoccupation with artificial things is a problem as it disconnects us from nature, and results in a feeling that natural is inferior to artificial, and this leads sometimes to us not fully appreciating the necessity of nature. -Respect towards nature is irrelevant: While my opponent may have phrased his argument differently, I think the above is what he means. While I agree that conservation is more important and that humanity would exist even without us respecting nature, it would require a lot of political will, and transfer of knowledge at the top of governments, for all time to come. Clearly, that is not possible, and a respect for their role in our lives will not be misplaced. Conservation can be best perpetuated by respect, as evident by the conservation practices prevalent among many communities around the world, as part of their spiritual and religious beliefs. -Life may be inconsequential: While it may be a romantic notion to say nothing is important, one who believes nothing is important would not respond to my challenge. Life is important, to find the purpose of life, if not for anything else. Those who truly believe life isn't important wouldn't care anyways. Over to Con!
Respect for Life

The starting point of wildlife conservation is the understanding that no meaningful conservation can be carried out unless one understands that all life must be respected for what it is, and that we leave our misconception that humans have a better claim to life, or to the earth and what it offers. After so many centuries of intellectual thought and evolution, if we still have people talking casually of clearing forests, or of killing animals, talking of forests and wildlife as if they were living because we have been merciful, or because we let them be, it is something to be ashamed of. We might have progressed scientifically or in making our life superficially more comfortable, bringing more conveniences to us, but we have only bound ourselves in the artificial world we created for ourselves, whether in small settlements, or big cities. Far from nature, from the true beauty of life and from most of creation. We are the proverbial proud rose of the real world, obsessed by ourselves, worth nothing to the earth, making no contribution except in messing it up, and misled by our misconceptions of self worth and farcical progress. I do not deny the importance of progress, nor do I say that we all wear leaves and get back to living in caves. But it is important that while we work towards the betterment of humans, just like any other species, we must not overlook the larger reality that we are not isolated, we cannot live in isolation. We might choose to ignore it while it exists, but if the variety of life-forms we ignore were to go, our basic survival will be doubtful. The next time there is a question of whether there is merit in conservation, remember this- humanity has progressed scientifically and culturally, but it is important to exist in harmony and sync with nature, for however much we may progress, nature is still as untameable, mystifying, and forceful as ever. To conclude on a positive note after a somewhat pessimistic, lecturing essay, I should say that there is still hope, that as long as we spread the word and there still are people reading websites like these, conservation is not an impossible dream. If you like nature, if you think you can work for it, try and make a career out of it. If not, make it a hobby, catch hold of a camera, even a phone will do. Breathe in the fresh air of the natural world; take in the full frame beauty of nature. Go to that park, watch that squirrel running around, and you"ll understand why each life form is as good as any other.
You should follow Stoic principles.

Yes, caring for others is a part of life, but trying to make others care for you is what the Stoics would argue against. You can personally control who you care for and whom you don't. But, you ca not control whether that person cares back. So you can care for whomever you would like, and do things that would earn their affection, but if the do not care for you, you cannot change that, and any minute spent trying to change their judgement of you, is a wasted minute.
You should follow Stoic principles.

while I do agree with the idea of not trying to control things that are out of our control. I do not agree with the view of apathy. if the world all held this view then it would be a cold place. feeling of pain and pleasure are what makes us human. pain helps us to be able to enjoy pleasure that much more. Caring about loved ones while in pain is another thing that makes us human and see no reason for apathy its part of life.
You should follow Stoic principles.

Stoic doctrine states that we should detach ourselves from our emotions and only worry about what we can control. If we follow this school of thought we will not waste our time on things that are futile, but only worry about that things that we have the capacity to control ourselves. By doing this we will live a better life because we will no longer waste time on what is out of our control, and therefore we will use our time concentrating on what we can, which will lead to better use of our time and will lead to a fulfilled life; not a life that we feel has passed us by due to concentrating on futile ventures.
You should follow Stoic principles.

You should accept that death is a part of life, and be prepared for not only yours but those who are around you as well. Grieving over someones death will not bring them back, so there is no reason to waste your time grieving. Instead do what you can to be prepared for their death and accept it when the time comes. By doing this you will not only make it easier on yourself when your wife or child does die, which they will, but you will also be able to move to productive actions when the time does come, in turn repairing you for your own inevitable death.