BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no objective morality

Rebuttal:My opponent's argument:P1:morality would need to be based upon empirical data to be objectiveP2: morality is based upon feelingC1: morality is therefore subjectiveWe reject both of his premises here - the idea that there is a transcedental category of moral things and immoral things could easily exist without being perceived by humans. It's not necessary that individuals feel something to be moral or not for it to actually be moral or not. This is very much assuming the conclusion - only if morality is subjective is it the case that morality would need to be based on any data at all.A rather basic argument that falls apart rather quickly.Substantative:First argument: cannot ex post facto determine morality - makes it absurdP1: Morality is a tool for determining for humans whether things are right or wrong in that situationP2: Were morality subjective, one could only determine whether a thing is moral or not after the factP3 : given that humans can't know the consequences (the full ones, that is) of their actionsP4: subjective morality fails at establishing any sort of moral code or justificationC1: Therefore morality is objectiveSecond argument: reason alone can determine moralityP1:We can determine whether things are moral or not to humansP2: by using our reason alone to determine the actionP3: this logical reasoning is common to all humanity and holds up to every exampleC1: therefore morality is objectiveQuick question - is it objectively wrong to enslave someone?
Homeschooling for everybody

I think that children who have home scooling dont have that good marks as other children and the biggest problem about thet is socialization...I mean children at home canot make friends.. And what else i think thet is better for children to lern from people who havegraduated...They no more about this subject...In 1. 3. 4, 5. class it will be ok... but it will get harder and parents will not know everityng. Some kids nede more informations and they will not be able to give them more informations. So i think that home scooling is just for kids whit special needs "They ranged in age from 5 to 10 years, and almost all of them lived with married or partnered adults. "Most had mothers with college degrees (65% for homeschoolers, 54% for public school kids), and kids in public school were more likely to have mothers with graduate degrees (11% for homeschoolers, 30% for public school kids). FROM :http://www.parentingscience.com...
should the death penalty be harsher

tell me, how is someone sitting in an electric chain having 2000 volts happy? the present death trial usually takes around 14 years to finally have them get put to death. that is the most enjoyable thing for them. they live for a extra 14 years and not really feel anything other than a I.V. injected into them before they die. you also said that "life is worth living even when the bad elements of experience are plentiful, and the good ones too meager to outweigh the bad ones on their own." most taxpayers are paying, on average $39 billion. why should we pay for those scum to live their life in prison? we should just get rid of them
should the death penalty be harsher

My opponent makes a major error in not responding to my argument. Since life itself is more important than anything else, the death penalty cannot possibly be harsher than it currently is. So affirming is impossible, which means you must vote neg. There is no defense whatsoever on this argument, it is cold conceded. So that's going to be sufficient reason to vote neg, but here's more. Nagel: (http://dbanach.com...) If death is the unequivocal and permanent end of our existence, (...) it can be said that life is all we have and the loss of it is the greatest loss we can sustain. (...) If death is an evil at all, it cannot be because of its positive features, but only because of what it deprives us of. I shall try to deal with the difficulties surrounding the natural view that death is an evil because it brings to an end{s} all the goods that life contains. (...) They are widely regarded as formidable benefits in themselves, despite the fact that they are conditions of misery as well as of happiness,and that a sufficient quantity of more particular evils can perhaps outweigh them. (...) it is good simply to be alive, even if one is undergoing terrible experiences. (...) There are elements which (...) make life better; there are other elements which (...) make life worse. But what remains when these are set aside is not merely neutral: it is emphatically positive. Therefore life is worth living even when the bad elements of experience are plentiful, and the good ones too meager to outweigh the bad ones on their own. The additional positive weight is supplied by experience itself, rather than by any of its consequences. I shall not discuss the value that one person's life or death may have for others, or its objective value, but only the value that it has for the person who is its subject. (...) this can be multiplied by time: more is better than less. Basically, my opponent isn't even arguing for the affirmative. By prolonging the death penalty victim's life by giving a slow and painful death, you are letting the victim live longer, which automatically means that the victim should be happy. Thus, my opponent is actually making the death penalty more lenient by making it a slow and painful death, so all the arguments flow to my side. I have conceded terminal defense and I have turned the affirmative case. Judge, this is an easy ballot. Vote Neg.
should the death penalty be harsher

say a crazy stalker found and kidnapped your daughter, raped her, molested her, tortured her, then finally killed her by slowly cut her into pieces so she would suffer. he gets caught and is given the death penalty. when he is finally killed, he goes out quickly and painlessly. how is that even close to what he deserves? he deserves a slow and painful death with no mercy. sure that is not humane, but tell me, is what he did to that girl humane? he deserves to regret his decision until his final breath. taxpayers around the world are paying for people to be killed, which a death penalty can cost from $740,000 to $1.26 million for the case. now, how much does it cost for them to use the electric chair? all of $214 dollars. how much does it cost to kill the victim with the firing squad? $514 dollars. the death penalty is ineffective and needs to be updated to this world's new acts of violence. some areas have more crimes because the criminals know that if they do something bad enough, then they get a quick and painless death, that they do not deserve. but on the other side, some people think that the death penalty is too harsh. those people must think like some rioters have seen. to them the penalty is too much, too harsh, too inhumane. those thoughts are a idea that is too outdated for this world new crimes
should the death penalty be harsher

First, should implies can. Source 1: "Many philosophers use the principle "Ought implies can" as a basic test of moral obligation. If something is a moral obligation (a duty), then we ought (should) do it. The importance of this idea might not be obvious. However, by a basic rule of logic called contraposition, we can turn the principle around, into this second principle: "Can't implies ought not." In other words, if you can't do x, then you have no duty to do x. (And "can't" means you really can't do x because x is impossible, not just that you don't like the results of x.) It also means that we should not blame people for failing to do what they cannot possibly do. Seen in this way, the principle tells us that our obligations are restricted to what is humanly possible. The real world puts a limit on ethical responsibility. For example, if a kitten is stuck in a tree, then you would be wrong to insist that Pat has a moral obligation to levitate into the air and rescue the kitten. Being human, Pat cannot levitate, so Pat has no such obligation. (...) One of the reasons that we engage in ethical thinking is to choose among our options. BACKGROUND: Immanuel Kant seems to have been the first philosopher to explicitly formulate the principle: "since reason commands that such actions should take place, it must be possible for them to take place" (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, A807/B835, Kemp Smith translation)" And, since the death penalty ends a person's life, which is a prerequisite to anything else that one can experience, nothing can be harsher than taking one's life. Thus, since affirming is impossible, you have to negate. Thank you. Source 1: http://web.mnstate.edu...
stupid laws

U.S.A (New York)It’s illegal to have a puppet show in your window and a violation can land you in jail for 30 days.U.S.A (Maine)It is illegal to blow one’s nose in public.Europe (England)You may only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside the city walls and after midnight.Europe (Greece)It is legal to strike anyone from Turkey with a Phalanx (small sword) except on alternate Monday. Asia (Thailnd)At the age of thirty unmarried women become the property of the state.Asia (Japan)If an older brother asks to marry your girlfriend by law and honor you, and your girlfriend, must agree.By the way, you repeated one of my round 3 laws in round 4. Sources;http://www.stupidlaws.com... http://www.dumblaws.com... http://blog.hotelclub.com...
stupid laws

America: Whistling underwater is prohibited. (WV) Biting someone with your natural teeth is simple assault while biting someone with your false teeth is aggravated assault. (LO) Europe: In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless except as a clerk in a tropical fish store. (England) In Milan, it is a legal requirement to smile at all times, except funerals or hospital visits. (Italy) Asia: In Indonesia, the penalty for masturbation is decapitation It is illegal to leave your house if you are not wearing underwear. (Thailand)
stupid laws

U.S. (Baltimore,Maryland)It is illegal to take a lion to the moviesU.S. (Connecticut) You can be stopped by the police for biking over 65 mph. Europe (UK) All males over the age of 14, are required to be trained in shooting a long bow. Europe (Denmark)One may not be charged for food at an inn unless that person, by his or her own opinion, is “full”.Asia (Indonesia) In Indonesia masturbation is strictly forbidden. Anyone who breaks the law and gets caught risks getting beheaded.Asia (Sngapore)It is illegal to perform oral sex unless it is part of foreplay leading to full sex.
stupid laws

America You can't shoot any game other than whales from a moving automobile. (TN) One may not dye a duckling blue and offer it for sale unless more than six are for sale at once. (KN) Europe It is illegal to be a drunk while in possession of a cow. (Scotland) A pillow can be considered a "passive" weapon. (Germany) Asia Traffic police are required to report all bribes that they receive from motorists. (South Korea) Drivers of power-driven vehicles who stop at pedestrian crossings are liable to a fine of up to five Yuan, or a warning. (China)
stupid laws

U.S. (FL)Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegalU.S. (TX)When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone.Europe (France)It is forbidden without a cemetery plot to die on the territory of the commune.Europe (switzerland)It is illegal to flush the toilet after 10 PM.Asia (Singapore)If you are convicted of littering three times, you will have to clean the streets on Sundays with a bib on saying, “I am a litterer."Asia (China)To go to college you must be intelligent.
stupid laws

U.S. It is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church. Putting salt on a railway track may be punishable by death Europe Restaurants may not charge for water unless it is accompanied by another item such as ice or a lemon slice. If a horse drawn carriage is trying to pass a car and the horse becomes uneasy, the owner of the car is required to pull over and if necessary, cover the car. Asia Rescuing a drowning person is illegal in China, since it would be interfering with their fate. It is against the law to speak to a donkey in Chinese, in Singapore.
Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound

Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound.Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Clash4. Closing arguments/clashThe Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA) Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. The universe is an existing thing. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God. I ask readers to take note that we should rationally accept an argument as sound if the affirmation of its premises is more plausible than the negation.
Only women should be able to run for president of the USA for the next 250 years

1. Men= bad presidentsb. I honestly hate Obama and I'm a Conservative, but that doesn't mean out of everything he's swcrewed up he hasn't done something right.c. Bush has been my favorite president... behind Ike. If we had women as a leader they would be like Martin Lurther King in Popcultura, (I can't find the video because they blocked youtube) and want to turn the other direction.d. He agrees, what the next two durs did was cause SOPA and PIPA.e. H. Bush did great as president and Vice if women were in that situation we'd see what happens in the Witch and Wizard series by James Patterson.f. Natives were killing and raiding towns, they rejected the daws act, they even massacred the U.S. army. (that's why the Marines are the best)\2. Women could do betera. Men do the same thing (keep men out) even Triple H admitted that. (GM of WWE)b. Women are crazzy as F*ck have you read the Child Called It, (autobiography) I never stated Palin ran for president, I was refuring to Vice president. Second of all when women have their periods we should send them to the middle east given them body armor and they would be beasts on the battle field.Wars.Why did you say those things Pro.I'm for the war on terror meaning that it's a good thing and if we pull out now the whole middle east will fall to anarchy we already see these things happening with FRA and Somaila in Africa and also the Sh*t in the Middle east.In 2000's Bueno Aries 1000 dead. Even the ROTC chicks fight.I thought that was Koreans, China has EMPs US is wide open for these attacks (I'll debate you in a Missle defense debate Policy 2011)Fairnessheh is all I have to sayalready defended thisIT WAS THE SHIFT KEY SO DON"T MAKE ASSUMTIONSMonopolies were deminished in the 1900's by Roosevelt. Men and Women deserve to run side by side maybe Women required in cabinet or vice
Only women should be able to run for president of the USA for the next 250 years

1. Do you want me to pring up every president okay (except Johnson he was an aweful southern rascist)Obama- economic recover act, rescueing us from another depression.W. Bush- Declared war on al-queda and and saught out peace in the middle eastClinton- created copyy rights lawsH. Bush- historical heritage command (I'm not going to post all presidents because that wouldn't fit. Here this if your interested http://www.ipl.org...)With Jackson you're refering to the trail of tears. If there was a women at president at this time then the Natives would still be hostile. I said women have a chance at running, but the men do to.2. women can do betera. That I knowb. These are examples of women leaders.c. (I ment everyone) Kansas does to teach evolution (though I rather they didn't) How do I know? I live in the capitol city TOPEKAd. True3. Warsa. I never said women would be terrorist would run rampet. I stated it would cause more terrorism because women would back off the war on terror. Look at Aregentina and Burma they aren't involved in any current war on terror or wars.b. Examples WW1/ WW2/ etc.c. Uhmm.. I don't know if you realize this but women fire the first shot all the time. They always have fights over boys. Heck you'd probebly have U.S. verus China over whose boys are sexier.4. Fairnesa. See this is what I mean they can run, but it doesn't mean people will vote for them. Like you said it's only fairb. Palin was running with McCain as a possible Vice-President. c. PAST ELECTIONS!!!d. Women can go now and now that all are equal (unless Obama goes Commy.) women have a fighting chance acording to your studies.
Only women should be able to run for president of the USA for the next 250 years

1. Guys have done a sh*tty job.Polk got us the southern part of the United States and Ultamily the California gold rush. If there wasn't a Gold rush we might not have been the nation we are today. James Monroe issued the Monroe docterin, without that the Latino population would still be under European control. Without Linchon there would still be slaves and a Confederate states of America. Without Jackson we'd still have a national bank. Wilson help the allies win WW1 without him our ships still might being sunk by the Germans. Without Washington we would never of had a president or crush the Wiskey rebellion. Without Turman we would of had to invade Japan and be minus a couple million American. 2. Women can do beter.Lets look at women leaders. There is Su Kyi in Mymmar/ Burma, she is the result of the first democratic election. Before that she was under house arrest for under a decade. Then there is the leader of Aregentina, she wants to sever ties with the U.S. for defacing currency. Then you have Nancy Polocy and well every in Kansas hates her and she smokes crack... Then you have Sahra Palin, the only reason we'd want her in the white house would be to spy on Russia. She's like the Minister of Turkey and he's a terrorist now why would we vote a terrorist into office.3. U.S. and War.If the world was ran by women terrorist would run rampet. because like you said they would look for peace. War= Good economy, how we make tons of products, morale is good, nationalism increases, and with a women in office it would change the saying, "I'm proad to be an American" to "Gee I sure wish I was a women." If Women were always leader in the U.S. we'd still be under British rule or even worse Mexican. (just joking)4. FairnessWomen could run. You saw that the last election when Clinton got voted down to Obama (although I wish it was the other way around) then Obama defeats Palin. It's obvesous from these elections that Americans want a man as president. Plus it would violate civil rights by saying the guys can't run. That would be strait up sexistism.
Only women should be able to run for president of the USA for the next 250 years

Reasons why only women should run for president 1) Guys have done a pretty sh*tty job so far The last decent president this country had was Bill Clinton, and the last decent president we had who WASNT a man whore was Reagan..... Before that Eisenhower was pretty good but for every decent guy president there have been 3 controversial or sh*tty ones..... Its been like that now for 250 years though, and all that time women were either not allowed to run or not selected to run by their own party. You know what happened to the first woman to run for president? EXACTLY. Men "took care" of her. All this time meanwhile guys have had a monopoly on presidential elections and those who do get elected only mess up everything! Look at the last two we've had! Its in our history that men have sucked as presidents 2) Women could do the job better Women would do a much better job then men could because women are naturally better multi-taskers, they are on average smarter then men, they dont make rash decisions like some men do, and they are much better negotiators then men are. Ever get in an argument with a woman before? Let me guess, you got loud and started cursing, but she still won the argument..... I thought so.... Women are better at negotiating which means if women became president then the issues with the war on terror, Iran, and North Korea would be resolved, China would get their sh*t together, and if aliens invaded then they could be scared away by a woman president. Men on the other hand cant handle multiple issues and are really bad negotiators (Two World Wars under men, none under women) 3) The US wouldnt be so quick to declare war. It is a fact that if women ruled the world there would be no more wars... There might be really, really, really intense negotiations about once a month, or a bunch of jealous nations not talking to each other, but there wont be any more wars. This though would only happen if women ran the world, but we are only talking about the US, which means that the US wont declare wars anymore if only women could be president. 4) Its only fair Lets face it women today have to deal with a lot of sh*t compared to men.... And in the past it was only worse, so we owe it to women to let them be the only ones who run for president because of how badly men have treated them before. Look at DDO. How many women are running for President or Vice President? One..... There used to be two but Jimtimmy left...... Anyways yeah there is currently only one woman running for any kind of office here on DDO and shes been harassed By Jimtimmy, Inferno, Askbob, and anybody who threatens to harm her little bunny thett3. Royal though is like many other women who have run for office in the past, qualified for the job but harassed by men who are scared by how smart they are. Men have been crapping on women in politics since the times of Ancient Egypt, and in the USA its been happening for 250 years, its about time women get their revenge. I now will allow the Con to give counter arguments
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

Due to my opponent forfeiting the round, I will quickly discuss my argument again. To begin, my opponent states that I forgot the fact that marriage is already legalized, which I did mention that I know briefly, and stated that my argument was my own personal thoughts on the subject. The idea of using a "Domestic Partnership", which is similar to marriage but is not. In a statistic, it states that more people prefer to date than get married; because of all the future confusion held within. As well as the fact that no religion is against the idea of a "Domestic Partnership", lowering the conflict of religious beliefs; where most are actually against same sex marriage. So voters, who do you vote for? My opponent who provided one idea that people have a right to get married; causing more chaos upon his idea with different beliefs, or my idea that resolves conflict between beliefs and not necessary to legalize it in all 50 states if this idea works?