BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is not Relative

You stated that every culture follows the exact same standards, then who set those standards and what exactly are those standards. You also claim that there is no such thing as different human behavior, then how do you explain the different languages and different cultures. If human behavior didn't vary there will only be one language and one culture. Human behavior varies, not everyone responds to being happy with smiling and not everyone cries while being sad. With different human behaviors there are different responds to different actions. You also stated that your actions is either right or wrong however what makes them right or wrong? The culture dictates what is right or wrong and the society follows the culture. Morality has to be relative becuase in different cultures there is different outlooks on what is morally right or wrong. The cultures depends on the time period and location, there ins't just one standard which everyone follows.
Morality is not Relative

My Argument- Con It is ignorant to judge or compare different cultures since each is unique. Looking at different culture practices and comparing them with your own will make the practices look abnormal. The popularity of the culture doesn't affect morality. Morality has to be relative since there are many different cultures different standards on what is morally right or wrong. You shouldn't judge or compare different cultures since : 1.Each culture has different practices due to their location and time period. 2.Human behavior varies with each culture causing different ideas to more important in certain cultures than others. 3.There is no one standard in which the cultures can be compared with. 4.Thus, when an individual judges another culture they are implying that their culture is the standard and all actions in their culture are morally correct. Looking at cultural practices and comparing them with your own culture will make them look abnormal like: 1.The Kwakiutl would kill an innocent person if their friend or relative died in order to wipe out the death stain which is illegal in our culture. 2.People who practice trance and catalepsy in different cultures are highly regarded while in others they are looked down upon. 3.Eskimo's practice infanticide which is illegal in our culture. 4.Therefore, by looking at cultural practices and comparing them with your culture different actions will have different meanings and the different cultures actions will be regarded as abnormal. The Popularity of a culture doesn't affect the morality of the culture: 1.Many people feel that a certain culture is morally correct since it is followed by more people. 2.Unpopular cultures didn't gain currency due to historical reasons. 3.Slavery was recently found, in reference to the age of other cultures, in America to be illegal. 4.The popular cultures aren't perfect about what is right or wrong in morality since there are flaws in the popular cultures. There is different cultures with different standards on what is morally right or wrong: 1.Different cultures are located all over the world at different time periods. 2.Not cultures are the same, nor do all cultures have the actions and thinking on what is morally right or wrong. 3.Since all cultures dispute on what is morally right or wrong, there can't be one moral standard. 4.Therefore, Moral relativism must be true since there are many different standards, each for their own culture.
Morality is not Relative

Throughout the world there are many people with the perception that morality is not relative. If there is no moral relativism in a culture then that means people live day by day off certain set of rules. These people believe there is a reason for these standards. They also believe in being either right or wrong. (1) Since morality is not relative, people do not believe in any changes. The beliefs and the standards from the past will remain the same no matter what. If everything in these different cultures has been going normal and perfectly fine since the standards were put into place, then why try to change them. No moral relativity means no modifying any rules (or standards). (2) Something's are either good or bad. If its good then it stays good and if it"s bad then it will stay bad. Since morality is not relative then there is no reasoning.
Morality is not Relative

If the one moral standard is made up by our ancestors, does that the moral standard is correct? Our ancestors were human just as well and didn't encounter all of the different problems that we have today. You argue that there are many famous authors that say that there is one moral standard, however there are many authors you disagree with this and say that there are many moral standards. As for your question about murder, yes murder is morally wrong however what is murder is the real question. Murder is different in different cultures. It is ignorant to believe that your cutlure is morally correct in everythnig while just recently slavery was deemed illegal and women were just given rights. The cultural standards are changing all the time and if there is one standard, does this one standand change with time and location? Years ago it was wrong for women to have jobs and not be a housewife, but now it is acceptable for women to do this. If there is one moral standard since the beginnning of time, why didn't cultures follow this before. What is morally right and wrong changes all the time depending on the cultures so there has to be multiple standards which can change for the culture's survival.
All children should be home-schooled

Unfortunately, your statement that 'all Children should be home-schooled for their primary education' is completely unlogical, unreasonable and impractical. There are multiple flaws. The reality is, there are a large number of families who send their children to school plainly because they lack the educational and/or teaching capabilities to teach their own children. Parents in this situation would have two main options; they can either hire a private tutor, which would be very costly or, attempt to teach their own children which would be very time-consuming. Both options would yield much lesser benefits to their children to if they just sent them to almost completely free, government-funded education.
All children should be home-schooled

Thanks to you, Turdle, for this debate challenge. It's an interesting idea, that I'd like to develop further. When considering whether "all Children should be home-schooled for their primary education," the obvious first question is: in a perfect world? or in ours? My resolution is that when not constrained by financial means and education, it is preferable for parents to home-school their children until the sixth grade. Firstly, I think there is a simple solution by which no family should be too impoverished to provide home-schooling. Simply, if a voucher system is implemented to pay for public and private schools, those vouchers should also be redeemable for school supplies and programs. In that way home-schooling would be just as free as government-funded education. Secondly, concerning the time-consumption: any valuable occupation produces something valuable, and anything valuable is proportionally worthwhile; that is to say, however great a thing is in value, a proportionally great amount of effort and time is justified in producing that thing. This is obvious, but what next follows is grossly overlooked globally, and specifically in American society. The most valuable product is a good child; good children grow into good men, good men compose good societies, and good societies produce happiness, which is the absolute end of human action. Therefore children warrant the largest amount of time spent on anything. Therefore the proper education of children can never be fittingly considered "too time-consuming." Practically speaking, however, so much time on child-education such that they cease to produce the wealth to provide for that education. This crosses into the solution of the voucher system, but of course, on the whole, the majority of families need to be producing more wealth than they consume, or the society is doomed. This problem is naturally solved by having two parents, I'd say. The one works outside the house, the other educates and house-keeps. If the income from one parent should not be sufficient, then again, the voucher system. So then, these are the ways that the problems of time and financial constraints might be dealt with. Now, I'll just briefly argue why for this family not restricted by time or money, it's best to home-school for the early years. The early years of the child are his most formative years. By spending the majority of these years in close fellowship with his family, the child is able to properly form the familial bonds which are the smallest and most crucial thread in the fabric of society. Of course, this relies on the parents properly being able to instruct the child. This of course, they would know, if their parents had before them taught well. This begins with philosophy, however, where one first learns how to live properly. It's a simple argument, I'm interested to hear your comments.
Stephen Harper is good for Canada

The Keystone XL project is definitely a defining issue for Canadians but to claim that it would lead to massive amounts of death and destabilization of markets is too grandiose and assumes too much. For instance, do you even know the construction plans? Ie. filters, safety valves, etc? What if new tech is released? Like the BP incident, if a spill does happen, all parties would face extreme criticism and likely get fined millions to billions of dollars. Doing a bad job in projects like these are very counterproductive for companies. In contrast, building the pipeline will allow greater exchangeability of resources which will drive down costs and increase profit margins. When wealth trickles down, confidence for the Canadian market will increase and this in fact may make us more competitive on the global market. As much as I hate Harper, the comparison to Hitler, and the camps to climate change are totally unjustified. Have you suffered in concentration camps before or fought in WW2?
Stephen Harper is good for Canada

Id like to start off the debate by going a little easy and just bringing up one simple point. If Keystone XL pipeline is built from the Alberta Tar Sands we will see massive amounts of death and destabilization of civilization and markets. Global warming could very well kill us all. Not to play the Hitler card but I think it's actually an interesting comparison. Hitler wanted to achieve a utopia for at least select human beings. Stephen Harper wants to kill everyone in a game of Capitalism vs. The Climate where there will be no humans at all. Stephen Harper is making the planet a global holocaust camp from which the torture of Climate Change will be long and painful and will take more than millions of lives but billions. Thank you.
Hitler was a genius.

he was a military genius how else do you describe his ability to battle Europe, china, and Russia all at the same time. you would like to argue he lost and was forced to commits suicide due his failure. i would dispute this as prier to the united states joining the war effort against Germany Hitlers armies was devastating the allied forces. the Russians were so scared of the Nazi army that they had to lock their soldiers in to train cars to keep them from fleeing before they reached the battle field. The British and there leader Winston church hill were begging for America to get in involved due to the loses and inability to mount a proper defense. the french had already lost. The Germans were unstoppable they had a leader who had planned out every detail and acquired the proper tools and equipment to own Europe. Hitlers failure was not do it his incompetence or lack of planning. it was due the japan going against his suggestion and involving America in the Europe and Asian war. Hitler had sen many communications to japans leader to persuade them from attacking America. it was japans ego that caused Hitlers fall nothing more. you concept of a genius is only acquired by an IQ of above 150 is absurd have you not ever heard of a musical genius. or a mathematical, or a medical, or genius due to a separate skill. a child how plays the Cello as well as Yo-Yo Ma when their 5 is also referred to as a genius. i have already stated your theory of a high IQ has no place in this debate. i believe you refereed to his death squads who went out murdering people who didn't agree you are correct that happened but i believe in my second round i spoke of his ability to get such loyalty from people that they would go murder thanks for contributing to my argument. you also what to claim his suicide was from shame i would like to point out that had be been captured he would have been tortured and then him self murders after likely a long period of horrible pain. so i again will say he was a wise enough man to know he wouldn't enjoy that kind of suffering and choose the best and least pain full option. as for references for this information i would say start with the 7th grade world history book want another go to history channel .com and go the the section under world war 2 a wonderful third source is pbs.com and use there world war 2 section seriously nothing I'm saying is honestly that unknown I'm just putting a slight different spin out it.
Hitler was a genius.

My opponent would like us to believe that IQ has nothing to do with this debate. It is an astounding proposition in a debate on whether a particular person was a genius -- a term that describes a particular IQ level. He then attempts to redefine "genius" as referring to one's charisma or accomplishments. For this redefinition he offers no source. Apparently abandoning his previous arguments, he then attempts to claim that Hitler was charismatic and had great accomplishments. Even if my opponent had demonstrated these two claims (he has not) his argument would still fail because neither charisma nor accomplishments are relevant to the topic of this debate: whether Hitler was a genius.My opponent has not shown that Hitler was charismaticIt is undoubted that to be the leader of a country a leader must be able to get people to follow. However, there are many ways that one can gain obedience. One way is through charisma, as my opponent suggests. Another is through fear. Hitler operated death squads that murdered people who spoke out against the regime or did not follow the regime's rules[1]. My opponent has not shown that people followed Hitler because he was charismatic, much less that followers indicates charisma.My opponent has not shown that Hitler had great accomplishments.I will confine my response to the domestic state of Germany, and ignore for present the atrocities Hitler committed, since this is the basis on which my opponent stakes his claim that Hitler had great accomplishments. Unfortunately for my opponent, his history appears to end in 1939. To evaluate accomplishments, one should look to the final result not some arbitrary point in the middle. At the end of Hitler's life the German army, which my opponent lauds Hitler for having rebuilt, was again destroyed[2]. Following the war Hitler started, his country was split in two[3]. Finally, as a result of his "accomplishments" Hitler was forced to commit suicide to avoid the humiliation of being captured and tried for the world wide suffering he had caused[4].In summary, even after attempting to change topics mid-debate, my opponent has failed to demonstrate that Hitler was a genius, charismatic, or accomplished.References1) http://www.deathcamps.org...2) http://www.history.army.mil...3) http://www.dailysoft.com...4) http://www.historyplace.com...
Hitler was a genius.

IQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEBATE. The term genius refers only to his leadership skills. is genius is refection to his ability to accomplish thing no other leader had done. such as after world war 1 Germany was demilitarized and striped of it standing army. Yet Hitler was able to not only rebuild and train a new standing army he conquered one country completely and invade another while the whole world was still under the impression he had no military force. Through his charisma and speeches to the people he not only gain control of his country but he obtained untold loyalty from his people. a loyalty so strong he convinced them to not a only march off to commit murder but to die as well. there for i use the phrase genius as it took an incredible amount of planning and thought and devotion to accomplish any one of these two tasks i listed thus far. but he did both at the same time.
Hitler was a genius.

Before moving on to address my opponent's arguments it is important to determine what is meant by "genius". The term "genius" is a psychological term describing someone of very high IQ. There are two IQ tests in common use today: Wechsler and Stanford-Binet[1]. Wechsler does not define an IQ range as "genius" but Stanford-Binet (SB) does[2]. SB defines genius to be an IQ of 152 or above. My opponent has supplied no evidence that Hitler ever was given an IQ test, much less that he scored 152 or above. My opponent makes three points in his argument that I will address in turn:1. Hitler "was perhaps one of the smartest men alive at his time"This claim is conclusory, and my opponent offers no evidence to support it. There is really nothing on this point that I need to refute, but I will point out that Hitler was probably not very smart. Indeed, the major accomplishment of his life's work resulted in his own death and the occupation and division of his country[3]. 2. "in re guards to his leadership skills. "I will concede for the sake of the this debate that Hitler had good leadership skills -- in so far as he was able to get people to follow him. This point, however, is irrelevant to the topic of the debate as leadership skills do not demonstrate an IQ above 152.3. "Adolf Hitler was and should still be reverie as a great man. "This statement is also conclusory and irrelevant. Although I do not believe Hitler was a great man, the issue of whether Hitler was "great" is irrelevant to whether he had an IQ above 152. References1) . http://psychology.about.com...2) . http://en.wikipedia.org...3) . http://www.history.com...
Hitler was a genius.

My opponent has again tried to change the topic of this debate. In three rounds we have gone from "Hitler was a genius" to he gained loyalty through his charisma, to he was a military genius. It is hard to debate three topics in three rounds. My opponent also takes issue with my definition of "genius" but offers no alternative of his own. He further attempts to distract from his failure to demonstrate that Hitler was a genius by discussing ideas like "musical genius." Again, he offers no definition for his term. Additionally my opponent fails to note that many accomplished musicians have very high IQs. There is evidence from the psychological academic literature that suggests there is an association between IQ and musical aptitude[1].While not directly refuting any of my points from rounds 1 or 2, my opponent now claims that Hitler was a military genius because his failures were the fault of others. However, a true military genius would anticipate the actions of others and develop his strategy accordingly. Having failed to show that Hitler was a genius per se, my opponent attempts to argue that Hitler was a "military genius". As support for that assertion my opponent simply offers that Hitler's loss of the largest war in history was not really Hitler's fault. This argument, like those before it, is wholly without merit for the reasons I outlined above.On the announced topic of this debate, or any of the alternative topics offered by my opponent since, my opponent has failed to demonstrate that Hitler was a genius.References1) http://www.jstor.org...
America is one of the Worst Countries in the World

I write this, Sir, in utmost pain, with a branula in my hand, full of Gravinate, Flagel, and Taravid. I too have a strong fever, so I hope you will excuse me if I my answer is not exceptionally well. Firstly as my opponent the Proposition has not given the definitions, I now gain the right to establish the definitions in this debate. 1. Let America refer to the Republic of the United States of America, 2. Let worst refer to most severely bad, and country refer to a sovereign land with it's own constitution. 3. Let "one of the worst countries" refer to (as the prop failed to define, I have the right to) the ten most severely bad countries, which refers to infrastructure, morality, human rights, levels of education, lifestyle, levels of corruption, tolerance, international disdain. Now let me, keeping in mind the above definitions, rebut the points of my opponent: 1. I believe that firstly instead of going by untrustworthy statistics we should look at the Education Index published by the United Nations. I do not believe you will find a better source. The United States comes at number 21 with a 0.968 not far behind from New Zealand, which is at 0.993. The difference is only 0.025. Now compare that with with Niger, at 0.282 and a difference of 0.686 with the United States of America and a difference of 0.711 with New Zealand. Other countries at the bottom include: Burkina Faso at 0.301, Mali at 0.331, even India one of the leaders is at 0.643. Even China the economic giant is at number 83. So it is obvious that taking population into consideration, the United States of America is most certainly not one of the worst countries based on education. Of the permanent countries in the United Nations only France equals the education index of the United States of America. With the United Kingdom at 31, Germany at 33 (Germany is one of the P5+1 countries), Russia at 43 (I have already mentioned China). So you see in no way does your argument stand. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. As for your argument from infrastructure, the United States of America is at 5.8 which is only 1.0 less than Switzerland which is ranked at 1 with 6.8. Do take account of size and population, In any case the "worst" would be considered as Bosnia and Herzegovina at 2.0 or Angolia at 2.2. India is at only 3.6, as is Russia, Israel at 4.9, United Kingdom at 5.3 and while granted Japan is higher it is only so by 0.2. So as to stating that America is one of the worst countries from the statistical perspective you have chosen to argue, you have failed. As the onus probandi was on you, and you have failed to show it, I believe the debate falls in my favour. While it was not neccessary to provide a counter-argument I would have liked to do so, but as I said I am in much pain. I pray that you and I both get better soon, Godspeed on your reply, Ajab