BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Divorce should be carefully regulated

If your goal is to make a number on paper look good. ( lower the rate of divorce) than some of what you said make senses but most of this would only serve to further lower the number of people getting married. Divorce and marriage are abstract concepts and morality is a NEGATIVE, in society. Though divorce and marriage maybe important to you, they mean little to me. There in lies the logical problem with such efforts to regulate morality ( you may have misunderstood my position there.) Frankly broad regulations on Divorce have no utilitarian purpose, no utility means its its pointless in law. The exception is when a Child is involved. Children complicated the divorce process and I believe that segments of Divorce should be narrowly regulated to discourage break ups while a dependent is living at home. For the reasons that there is a tangible line that can be easily drawn from divorce to stress on children that cause unnecessary suffering as well as effect social and productive life for a child. In all other instances, marriage is a consensual arrangement between two,competent and capable adults and the consequences for their actions are theirs and theirs alone. No regulation needs be placed on something as subjective as morality. To do so will only produce garbage law after garbage law as each time the laws fail to have their desired moral impact. This is how pointless political bickering is born, over laws with no great utilitarian purpose ( I.E. Sodomy laws) Conservative and "Moral" objectors will always seek to defend such laws even though they amount to the use of force against consensual adult activity. This topic of Divorce falls along the same lines.
Divorce should be carefully regulated

This is my first debate (online), so I apologize in advance for any rookie mistakes. Please feel me to correct any you may notice. That being said, from your opening statement I gathered three main points. 1. Emotion of love makes regulation of divorce difficult. While that truly is an interesting point, we must realize that emotion should not be part of the decision to regulate divorce. It should be strictly the facts. The fact is simply: When you get married, you promise to share your life with another person, fully. Not because you suddenly do not feel the same emotion or the same way you felt in the beginning of the relationship. In that case, marriage becomes simply and extreme dating period because people have a way out. 2. A couple of laws I purpose would be: Minimum marriage limit- by changing marriage laws, you effect divorce rates. A 18 month minimum limit would help people be sure to commit to a relationship. It would require a minimum commitment that you cannot simply escape from. You must live with the decision for at least a year and a half. Divorce investigators- there should be investigators that challenge the institute of a couples marriage. That would help eliminate people getting married for the wrong reasons. Couples that get married to enter the country is a prime example. If found guiltily couples should be subject to legal action. Divorce counseling- If a couple decides to obtain a divorce, they should go through a mandatory divorce counseling. They should be legally obligated to talk to couples that have gone through a divorce and a therapist, so they can fully understand what they are about to get into. 3. I agree that divorce should be granted from a moral standpoint, however the only way to effectively regulate divorce is broadly. The laws should not be limited to any non-moral circumstance. They should be applied to any non-moral situation, regardless of family. These reasons should not dictate the rules for divorce. Conclusion- Marriage is a promise. You should not be able to divorce for non- moral reasons. Divorce should be only in extreme cases.
Divorce should be carefully regulated

Marriage is an instutition that is contractual but also which is based in modern culture on an abstract principle ( an emotion) making regulation difficult. Since we are not arguing for/against a specific set of regulations ( but I encourage you to post some of your general thougts about what regulations should look like. ) We will be debating the broader philisophies about such regulations and what they entail. I am not wholly opposed to the concept of regulationg devorce especially where there is a family involved, but I stand against regulating devorces broadly and on moral basis. I look forward to have an intelligent exhange with you :)
Divorce should be carefully regulated

Too many people are utilizing the escape of divorce. Nearly 50% of today's marriages end in a divorce. An unbelievable statistic for a process in which is basically a contractual obligation. There should be some enforcement that challenges the process of divorce in order to decrease the current percentage. A popular celebrity was married for 55 hours before she got granted a divorce. That alone validates the public opinion that divorce is an acceptable act, when it should not be promoted as such. Accept my challenge not to fight my opinion, but rather to show insight 4 rounds. Your move
morality is not relative

for a relativists, morals are subjective if that is the case there is no objective truth in morality. If it is true that there is no objective "truth" in morality, then it itself cannot be verified and thus this conclude there is some "truth" in morality. Similarly, if it false that there is no objective "truth", then again there is some "truth" in morality which can be verified According to James Rachel, there is no reason to assume that if there is some moral truth, then everyone should know it Thus, right and wrong can be verified in some cases. how would you say that murder is right of an innocent if say so then u must be agreeing with the actions of Hitler- holocaust.
morality is not relative

Relativists affirm that different values are among different cultures. Morality is relative to each society. Morals cannot be universal as the values in one society is not acceptable in a different one. One of the main argument for relativism is tolerance. Relativists believe that saying other societies" morals are wrong because it shows a lack of tolerance. Morals are relative to time, person, place and the situations. For instance, slavery was once considered to be right. However, some time later most of places have abolished slavery and now it is mostly considered to be wrong. When slavery was practiced, those people believed that they were moral just like people now that think of themselves as moral even though they do not practice slavery. This indicates the adjustment in moral standards shows that morals changes over time, therefore, they are relative. A different example to prove the argument is homosexuality in ancient Greece. Homosexuality during this time was accepted and was not looked at as not normal. Some time later homosexuality was not really accepted and it was against the moral code. This again, shows that what is morally acceptable is defined by a society. Another example to prove the argument is the Kwakiutl society. In this culture, when a person dies, whether from natural causes or not, the death had to be wiped out by the death of someone else. The members of this society went out to look for a different tribe where they found some men and children and killed them. This is seen as immoral in England or United States, but in Kwakiutl society this is normal. It cannot be proven that a certain society"s morals are inferior to others. Members of one society cannot judge other members from a different society because this is how they grew up and their morals are what they believe is true. Benedict states that every society tries to combine itself together, while removing the behavior that is not suitable to that society"s taste or needs. This also shows that what one culture might think is right, it does not apply to other cultures. To add to that, a grown person who would start living in a new culture, different from the one that shaped him, would be seen as abnormal in that new culture. And even though in his culture he was as normal as it gets, those instilled morals will hold him back in a different society from his own. 1.What members of one society thinks is right and wrong does not apply to other societies. 2.Morals change according to place, person, time and situation; whatever best fits a certain society. 3. Morals are different among all cultures and they are all equal. 4. There is not one set of morals that that can be applied to every society. 5. Therefore, morals are relative to cultures The main argument is that cultural relativism is right because no set of moral standards in one society can top other society"s values or morals.
morality is not relative

Moral absolutism is another part of philosophy which claims there is only one true and valid moral code for all the mankind which tells what is right and wrong. For absolutists, the universal moral code is the standard which is universal. Moral relativist thinks opposite of what absolutist thinks. Relativist believe that one should not judge morality of culture as there is nothing wrong and right. Absolutists claim, "Morality is not relative" by following statements: (1.)For relativists, different cultures have different moral codes. (2.)For relativists, right and wrong are the matter of opinion of individual or community which varies among cultures. (3.)Thus, morals are subjective for relativist. (4.)If morals are subjective, there is no objective "truth" in morality. (5.)If it is true that there is no objective "truth" in morality, then it itself cannot be verified and thus this conclude there is some "truth" in morality. Similarly, if it false that there is no objective "truth", then again there is some "truth" in morality which can be verified._____________________________________ (6.)According to James Rachel, there is no reason to assume that if there is some moral truth, then everyone should know it._________________________ (7.)Thus, right and wrong can be verified in some cases. (8.)For example, murder is right if you are a relativist and wrong if not lawful for absolutist. (9.)If you don"t believe in absolute morality, moral progress is not possible. (10.)If you believe in moral relativism, then you deny efforts of moral reformers like Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. (11.)If you believe moral reformers like Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King did a good job by bringing change in society, then there is an objective standard which they followed. (12.)If you believe in moral absolutism, you can admit that there is a foundation to morality. (13.)If you believe in moral absolutism, you do not have to rely on the opinion of the majority, and then you have freedom of thought. (14.)If you admit that there is foundation to morality, not need to rely on majority and having freedom of thought is good. (15.)If you are comfortable with the consequences such as sacrifice tolerance, stand up for the right, you fight to be unimpressed by the psychological effect of the anthropological fact of moral variation and would agree with the fact absolutist might not know the basis of morality and not committed to the opinion that their own moral code is true._____________________________ (16.)Then, you should believe that morality is absolute. (17.)If you believe morality is absolute, there is one standard of moral code; there exists a notion of right and wrong.___________________________ (18.)Thus, morality is not relative.
morality is not relative

Thank you. You stated that that some truth can be verified, however, you have not stated any examples where this is true. Relativists have no right to put their judgments on some values where the situations vary greatly. By you stating that there is only some truth that can be verified, does that mean everything else is wrong. Absolutism does not tolerate other societies where there are values that are believed to be wrong. If you haven"t been in that situation, how can you pass your opinion on it. You also stated that murder is right for relativists, but that depends on the society. So for one relativist is might be right, and for another it might be wrong.
morality is not relative

For the relativists, there is no common standard which can be applied to judge various civilizations.The concept of right and wrong should be understood within the social group. Nevertheless, it contradicts its statement because within a social group common standard exists. If this is the case, then everyone will be relatively right. For absolutists, since there is one standard of moral code, there exists a notion of what is right and wrong. It can compare the practices of different culture based on its moral code.Absolutist justifies that certain illegitimate practices like slavery exist in earlier civilization as a matter of ignorance of truth. if there is no standard then we would have no logical right to claim to resist crime because then we should have to consider minority groups of criminals relatively as good as majority innocents. Thus, ethical relativity is a disaster because lack of standards leads to confusion in judging present society because then everyone is right (which is not true) and thus one should believe ethics is absolute. thus, morality is not relative
morality is not relative

thank you for your arguement. "without moral absolutism societies cannot have a foundation of morality does not prove that morality is not relative" yes, it is true I guess you are believing that without moral absolutism ther cannot be any foundation, ok here is my arguement if there is no foundation to a society there will be lot of confusion as anyone can do anything and there will be no ideal standard to look at. So, in order to say a judement of someone's action there has to be a standard morality. secondly, you said "moral progress is possible in reativism." my point is that i think you wanted to say that it is not as I see that a relativist do not judge anyone if one cannot judge there cannot be any progress.
morality is not relative

Thank you for your insight. But I have to argue that the argument that without moral absolutism societies cannot have a foundation of morality does not prove that morality is not relative. Different societies have their foundations of values without having to judge other people"s morals from different countries. Moral progress is possible in relativism. For instance, ancient Greece believed having sexual relations with younger boys was normal and acceptable. Centuries later, Greece does not believe this is normal anymore and considerers this to be an act of abuse. Greeks acknowledged that other societies had different morals. As for your argument that a relativist cannot defend the killing of innocent children, I have to state that even though we have different beliefs, we still have the same values. For instance, Eskimos commit infanticide in order for their society to exist because they are forced to live in a harsh environment and have to do what is right for them to save the members of their society. When a mother has to care for an infant, it takes away valuable time for her to have a son, and males in that society bring valuable resources that are vital to their survival.
Quote debate

Sorry about that, I was on February Break and I use my computer at school for DDO. Global Warming: "The most important thing about global warming is this. Whether humans are responsible for the bulk of climate change is going to be left to the scientists, but it's all of our responsibility to leave this planet in better shape for the future generations than we found it." -Mike Huckabee Donald Trump for President(Pro) "I"m the worst thing that"s ever happened to ISIS." -Donald Trump himself
Quote debate

The premise of this debate is simple. The objective is to use one quote to justify your position. The rebuttal must refute the argument made in that quote. Two topics will be chosen by me, and the other topic will be chosen by my opponent. PM me the topics you wish to accept the debate, along with the topics you would like to choose. I will forfeit round four so my opponent can go first for the last topic. These are the topics I will be using: Gun Control (Con) Regulation of Corporations (Pro)
God Exists. I need a strong atheist to debate with me on the existence of God.

okay so lets say he did create us to worship him?why would he create something that doesnt always worship him and doesnt always obey him but rather does not follow him at all and do horrible things. if he did create us for his worship then why wouldnt he create perfect human beings? and all they do is worship him?or if, by your standards, he created us to worhip him then why dont you all just bow down and worship him all the time. isnt that all you should be doing?you arent really answering my q that why couldnt the universe just create itself?it contradicts nature but many things contradict the laws of nature also this isnt the existance of god but of islam. what do you think of jesus christ?
God Exists. I need a strong atheist to debate with me on the existence of God.

This sounds like your just copying and pasting. well anyways, something can't arise from nothing?why not?why could there just have been nothing and and then something. i think that that statement, that something came from nothing, makes more sense then there is a being that has been around for all eternity and created us. But something coming from nothing contradicts the laws of nature, many things contradict the laws of nature. okay lets say this being(god)did create the universe??why would he do that when he has no need for us at all?god has everything in the world he is everything and yet he wants to create this meager universe. and us humans. why would he ever create something that constantly disobey him, and refuse him, and don't bring him glory.
NSA should continue domestic surveillance

Resolved: the benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the costs. Defining terms: Outweighs... is defined as being more significant than or greater Surveillance..we define as being a close observation Contention 1: Claim: the NSA provides a lot of jobs Warrant: they have a continuous need for people who have skills in everything from Logistics to Law, Collection to Telecommunications, and Research to Security. Prior investigative experience is not required. Impact: we should support the NSA because it employs many Americans who would otherwise be not working. Contention 2: Claim: the NSA prevents future terrorist attacks Warrant: "the is in the front of our Information Assurance, from providing hands-on, real-time support to the development of more secure communications, to operating sensors that detect malicious activity, providing expertise in both building and maintaining secure communication, to being a key national leader on cyber defense." Debora A. Plunkett, Information Assurance Director, National Security Agency. Delivers enhancing cyber security, and services that enable customers and clients to secure their networks; trusted engineering solutions that provide customers with flexible solutions. Impact: our country is much safer because of the monitoring that the NSA does for us... Contention 3: Claim: If you have nothing to hide, then you should not be concerned Warrant: ...most Americans are more worried about their privacy than national security. Those concerns are not as important as protecting the nation from terrorism. If "Big Brother" is watching then it is a good thing. Preventing terrorism in the U.S. is more important than wondering if anyone cares about your internet or cellular phone activities. Impact: terrorists and criminals are the only ones that should be fearful of the NSA's actions with their observations.
NSA should continue domestic surveillance

Pro says it’s ridiculous to think we commit three felonies a day. He says he’s pretty sure he doesn’t. The US law code is very, very thick. You can’t be sure. Pro’s rebuttal here is a bare assertion fallacy. The book was written by civil rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate [1], unless Pro can prove he knows more about law than him, my argument still stands. Furthermore, my second objection to the nothing to hide argument was left untouched. If Pro thinks jobs are a good sole reason for keeping the NSA, then he must be consistent and say the mafia’s actions must be legal. I don’t know how many times I’ve said this, Pro keeps ignoring this objection. Pro then goes to claim the NSA helps collect data for anti-terrorist groups. However, I have disproven this time and time again. The government also has a huge history of abusing data collecting. For example, HTLINGUAL[2] COINTELPRO[3] and Operation CHAOS [4] are just to name a few. Sean Joyce has been shown to have misspoke about cases before. Pro then states Joyce is more reliable than one of the many lawyers. The man I quoted wasn’t a mere lawyer. He was in charge -hired by the white house- of reviewing NSA programs for an official report. He would have had access to all the cases. My position has been justified. As Pro left my argument from the fourth amendment and the second part of my hiding objection untouched. He also ignored my rebuttal to his jobs argument and kept making claims that were shown wrong. Thanks to all, including the NSA for tracking us through this debate. [1] http://kottke.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
NSA should continue domestic surveillance

First on the hide argument. The fact we commit 3 felonies a day is ridiculous. I'm confident that I don't do this along with most of the people I know. On to the jobs argument I actually don't have to prove the agency is good. The topic is that the NSA should continue domestic surveillance. So by providing that it makes jobs I'm proving that it should. The NSA uses the data it collects to help the FBI deal with international terrorist threats, to assist our military in fighting wars, and to help the CIA gain needed information about foreign governments. All of these are critical issues of national security. This proves why it is needed. It saves our lives in many ways while also providing well paying jobs. To prove the necessity of these programs, Sean Joyce, deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, described four of the instances in which, under the authority of either Section 215 or Section 702, an attack was thwarted. Two of the cases were previously undisclosed, according to the Guardian newspaper. The examples show a process whereby the NSA's programs detected a suspicious individual within the U.S., and the FBI then moved to identify and investigate that person. That from ibtimes. So with this I show yet again that the NSA has stopped terror. Also somebody that is in charge off stopping terror is more reliable then one of the many many lawyers in this world.