BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Objective morality is an incoherent concept.

"Please don't conflate scientific observation and moral judgment. Oh, ok, nevermind. Go right ahead. " This is my opponents opening paragraph of his second round, and it is very telling of his inability to maintain a respectable approach to debate and his inability to use intelligent and constructive arguments instead of emotional and unjustified sarcastic rhetoric. My opponent then fallaciously straw manned my arguments by stating that I proposed a morality that changes over time, which perhaps requires a consequentialist position. I deny both of these claims, and ask that my opponent actually criticize my arguments, not the imagined version his subjective view or reality restricts him to perceive. Ironically, my opponent offers a link that is contrary to his position, which he would have known had be bothered to attempt to understand, or at the very least, had he managed to succeed at merely reading the entire passage. Yes, there are skeptics to scientific objectivity, and given that humans are subjective and biased, there are difficulties at arriving at objective truths. However, this does not take away from the necessary ideal of science to be striving for finding objective truths about reality. As my opponent pointed out, Newton explained a concept of gravity. Later on, Einstein improved upon that theory. This is an example of striving towards objectivity. General relativity may be an incomplete description yet, so we must still strive to continue to revise and update our scientific knowledge as best we can to explain all available data. But, if my opponent were to propose that science is not objective, does not the law of gravity apply to him? Even without perfect knowledge, we have the ability to come to some understandings of its affects on reality. Similarly, we have the ability to make approximations about objective moral truths. Now, our current moral frameworks are most probably incomplete, but this does prove as an example that we shouldn't have the principle of politics to be to strive for objective morals. Lastly, my opponent makes a conflation with science and economics. He proposes that, because we aren't able to accurately predict what the value of a dollar will be, this somehow proves his claims. However, no one ever claimed that money had to maintain a value over time, rather, the nature of economics is that it necessarily changes over time. Also, the fact that we can't accurately predict the future value of the dollar is an epistemic restriction, not an ontological one. If we had enough information about the human mind, and the society at large, we would then be able to accurately predict how much money would be.
Objective morality is an incoherent concept.

Please don't conflate scientific observation and moral judgment. Oh, ok, nevermind. Go right ahead. 1) Even the staunchest proponents of so called "scientific morality" propose a flexible survey based standard which would change over time, and/or a consequentialist position that attempts to predict the most likely long term "positive" or "negative" impact to society as a whole. Neither of these qualifies as an objective standard. A social morality survey changes over time. Objective morality cannot change. A consequentialist position weighs the contextual information both before and after the act under scrutiny and as such is the very definition of moral relativism (subject to opinion and interpretation), and therefore can not be objective. 2) Science, at least as it is conducted by humans, cannot be truly objective. [1] The value of scientific conclusions are based on consensus and consensus does not equal objectivity. Although it sort of looks like objectivity consensus isn't true objectivity because it is democratic (not objective) and can still be subject to further refinement or superseded by another more comprehensive conclusion. You know, like Newton and Einstein. Therefore, people can not make subjective (moral or value) claims that have the potential to be (provably) objective (unchanging and not subject to opinion or interpretation). Science can tell you that "a dollar is a dollar and it's worth a dollar", but how much that dollar can buy is based on a large number of subjective contextual factors. Who is spending the dollar and when and where they are spending the dollar will change the relative value of that dollar. Even the question of who gave you the dollar and what you did to obtain the dollar can affect its relative value. Science may help you make some predictions about this fluctuation, but the fact that it is not stable defies the very definition of objective value. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu...
Objective morality is an incoherent concept.

Since my opponent is making the claim that objective morality is an incorherent concept, the burden of proof relies on them. I merely need to disprove their claims to win. My opponent argues that humans must necessarily make moral judgments that are subjective, and because of this, their moral conclusions must also be subjective. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. People can make subjective claims that have the potential to be objectively true. For example, let's take a look at the scientific realm of thought. Scientists study the natural world, and by understanding it as best they can, they try to form conclusions that best explain the phenomena that they see. Scientists do not make deductions about the universe, though; rather, they make inductions and use the principle of falsifiability to maintain their theories. Scientists make the assumption that the force of gravity is applied everywhere in the universe, and every test that might falsify this claim still shows the truth of the scientific law. So, even though scientists necessarily make subjective and inductive claims about the universe, they are attempting to make claims that are objectively true. Similarly, humans do the same thing with morality. People might not be able to completely justify the notion that murder is objectively wrong, but they can create tests of falsifiability. Muder is inductively wrong because it causes disorder in society, and if society didn't follow this law it would erupt into chaos. Using Kant's moral imperative, we can, just like scientists do, use inductive and subjective methods in order to discover objective truths about reality.
Objective morality is an incoherent concept.

Thank you for participating in this debate. I will be arguing in favor of the view that objective morality is an incoherent concept. The term "objective" is generally understood to mean something that is independent of observation and not subject to opinion or interpretation. An "objective" observer is expected to be totally impartial and unbiased. On the other hand, "morality" is considered to be a system of values and/or principles of conduct, along with associated prescribed consequences, specifically as they relate to social interaction. In order to make a "moral" distinction you must form some opinion based on the details of the interaction that is under scrutiny. Since "objectivity" precludes any opinion formation, although you may be able to render a "moral" verdict, that verdict cannot possibly be considered "objective". I look forward to exploring your thoughts on the matter at hand.
THW arm the police.

During the course of this single round, I will be countering one of my opponent's definitions, while still agreeing to participate in the debate. I feel that my opponent's definition of the police failed on a single account, that will hurt the atmosphere of the debate. Simply defining police as: "The people who control (something) by making sure that rules and regulations are being followed." My opponent made no comment about whether or not they would have to go through the same courses and tests police officers do, in order to receive their positions. I strongly doubt that my opponent desired to count an average citizen, who might enforce the law in certain situations as a police officer. Nevertheless, in the spirit of debate, I will argue my position regardless. I proudly accept the government's challenge, and I am looking forward to this debate.
THW arm the police.

I AM WITH ARMING THE POLICETerms1. THW: This House Would2. This House: The government.3. Arm: give weapons to.4. Police: The people who control (something) by making sure that rules and regulations are being followedStructureR1. Rules for Pro, Acceptance.R2. Arguments.R3. Rebuttals.Rules1. No forfeiting unless there are a same number of forfeits2. No trolling3. No plagiarism, or you have to quote it.4. Cite sources in 'Sources' Category5. No new arguments in the beginning round.6. BoP is shared in this debate.7. Not following rules is an automatic loss.I thank my opponent. Let's have a wonderful debate!I STRONGLY CALL UPON VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY OPINION.
Stalin wasn't a communist

I affirm that to be a communist requires only to have been a member of a communist political party as all five of the definitions I used confirm this. My opponent has used as his sources merriam-webester and wikipedia. Both these sources confirm that Stalin was a communist. My opponents argument is a fine example of a "no true Scotsmen" fallacy which is "s an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"). (1) Here is an example of the no true scotsman " Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge." Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." (1) Lets apply this to our debate,. Pro: Stalin is not a communist Con: Here are several definitions of communist... Stalin fits all of them. Pro: Well, no true communist is authoritative Stalin was authoritative and therefore not a communist. I have shown that my opponents argument is a informal logical fallacy. Just to be thorough I will again provide the definition from merriam-webster (the same website pro used.) as to what constitutes a communist Communist: "a person who believes in communism or is a member of a political party that supports communism" I will also present again from wikipedia(the same website pro used) that Stalin was a member of a political party that supports communism. "The CPSU was committed to communist thought and according to its party statute the CPSU adhered to Marxism"Leninism, an ideology based on the writings of Lenin and Karl Marx, and formalized under Joseph Stalin." (3) It also mentions that this political party was "founded in 1912 by the Bolsheviks, the majority faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party"a revolutionary group led by Vladimir Lenin. If a group founded by Lenin is not communism... I dont know what would be. Stalin is indisputably a communist! The resolution is negated. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Stalin wasn't a communist

Making a political party and calling it communist doesn't make it communist. If it doesn't go with the original idea of communism it's not communism and stalins communist party was authoritarian not communist. There was no difference between the way Stalin ran the ussr and how hitler ran nazi Germany but there is a difference between communism and athoritarianism. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... It's clear that Stalin was athoritarian not communist
Stalin wasn't a communist

Pro says "Stalin wasn"t a communist." I submit several definitions of what constitutes a communist. Communist: "a person who believes in communism or is a member of a political party that supports communism"(1) Communist: "a member of the Communist Party or movement."(2) Communist:" a person who believes in or belongs to a party that supports communism"(3) Communist: "a member of a Communist Party"(4) Communist: "A member of a Marxist-Leninist party."(5) Stalin was a member of a "Communist party."(6) The party was called "The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU)" which was founded by Lenin.(7) Stalin might not positively reflect the tenets of communism, and many who believe in this ideology would obviously like to disown Stalin. Pro"s arguments are similar to saying that the Ku Klux Klan is not Christian and that Islamic terrorists are not Islamic. However, the Ku Klux Klan is a Christian group, Islamic Terrorists are Islamic, and Stalin was a communist. With all due respect to my opponent, I have shown that due to the consistency of the definitions of communism and the fact that Stalin was a member of a communist party; Stalin was indisputably a communist. The resolution is negated. (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2)http://dictionary.reference.com... (3)http://dictionary.cambridge.org... (4)http://www.yourdictionary.com... (5)http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (6)http://www.britannica.com... (7)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Morality is subjective

First I am going to challenge you on the subjectivity of morality Here are some subjects (from the 10 commandments) theft adultery murder gossip coveting others possessions (envy) Here are a few others lying abortion subjugation of others forced conversion to a "faith" or "state" justification of violence against innocents gay "marriage" polysexuality blurring of the lines between men and women OVERVIEW you are very young and have not had the life experience to know the consequences of violating ancient social morays and rules of conduct Thus this should be educational for you Moral Relativism, the HALLMARK OF THE DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS , is slowly but surely destroying the basic building blocks of our society, those being the family and the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which this country was created Everything is OK - not matter how wrong or evil - it is just anothers point of view This is WRONG There is GOOD and EVIL There is Right and Wrong these principles are encased in LAWS and SOCIAL MORAYS they are IMPORTANT to the functioning of a free society your turn
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

Whether or not one gets injured or not does not have to do with skills. That is just due to a poor offensive line or getting blitzed. In fact, because Montana was able to keep playing despite these injuries (of course, after he had them) shows determination and dedication. I think that this "post-playing career in the doctor's office" is just what happens after years of playing a contact sport like football. That is for a different argument: whether or not contact sports like football should continue to go on.
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

From 1987 to 1990, Montana missed eight games, but in the 1990 conference championship game, Montana suffered a hit from Giants' defensive end Leonard Marshall. even though, Montana won four Super Bowls with the 49ers, he has spent much of his post-playing career in the doctor"s office. Recently, Montana said, he had elbow surgery and now he"s got problems in his neck. To date, he"s had three neck fusions, and his knee is so badly damaged he can"t straighten it. but on the other hand, steve young isnt injured so that makes him a better quater back
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

Joe Montana was a better quarterback than Steve Young. Joe Montana passed for over forty thousand yards and 273 touchdowns starting 164 games, whereas Steve Young passed for only thirty-three thousand yards and 232 while starting 143 games. Indeed, Steve Young ran for more touchdowns. However, quarterbacks are not necessarily meant to run. There are running backs for running. I will admit that I was not around when the two quarterbacks were playing, but in a survey that I conducted of 50 people that watched football when the two played, 80% stated that Joe Montana was better. Also, Tide's Super Bowl commercial for Super Bowl XLVII, where a 49ers fan got a stain shaped like Joe Montana's face, is another proof that Joe Montana is better. They could have used Steve Young's face, but they used Montana's face.http://www.pro-football-reference.com...http://www.pro-football-reference.com...;
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

Steve Young is the better quarterback because he has a 96.8 QB Rating (1), whereas Joe Montana only has a 92.3 (2). Steve Young also has fewer career interceptions, more rushing touchdowns, and a higher passing completion rate than Joe Montana. After seeing both players perform in person and on television, it is clear to me that Steve Young is superior in his athletic capabilities, and his quarterbacking skills. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should assault rifles be banned (semi-automatic assault-style weapons)

I would like to start by saying that an assault rifle is not a semi-automatic assault-style weapon. An assault rifle is, by definition, a fully-automatic rifle. Furthermore, I argue that a semi-automatic rifle would not help you when the military has tanks. Whatever guns you have are ALWAYS inferior to what the military has, since they get things before civilians do in any case. A semi-auto rifle won't do you any more good than a semi-auto pistol.Furthermore, I assert that, as the Constitution wrote it, that the right to bear arms was indeed for the purpose of forming a militia:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."This is the second amendment as ratified by Thomas Jefferson. It quite clearly asserts that the main thing here is the militia. It does not say anything about defense against tyranny. I await a rebuttal.
Should assault rifles be banned (semi-automatic assault-style weapons)

The United States Government should not restrict our right to bear arms. Our founding fathers gave us this right not to form a militia but to allow our citizens to defend ourselves against an oppressive government. We should not allow our government to have the power to force our vote or opinions. The only thing preventing a dictatorship is the ability of our citizens to defend themselves. We cannot prevent an oppressive government by using pistols and other inferior guns to our military.
Should assault rifles be banned (semi-automatic assault-style weapons)

With my arguments, I have rendered your reasons for an unlimited second amendment invalid. Your primary argument is that an oppressive government cannot be prevented with inferior arms to the military. However, I have argued that private citizens will never have any hardware on par with the military. That being said, it is reasonable to ban assault weapons since a ban, while impossible to perfectly enforce, would make it more difficult to acquire a weapon that is more easily capable of killing large amounts of people. The common argument against such a ban is that criminals don't follow the law and will get one anyway. While this is true, law-abiding citizens would follow the law. Today, you can get an AR-15 from a gun show without a background check. With all of the proposed gun control measures taking place, a criminal would have to have a background check and wouldn't be able to purchase an AR-15 legally regardless of whether or not they passed a background check. This forces them to buy it on the black market. However, this is still more difficult than before for the criminals. Criminals aren't always the brightest people. Not every junkie will know their local neighborhood black market arms dealer. And even if they did, the price of acquiring such a weapon would inflate with the extra difficulty of having to hide it from customs and the police. Therefore, you have less assault weapons in the hands of criminals because acquiring one isn't a trivial task anymore. Now, I don't agree 100% with an assault weapons ban. This is because the background check is the greatest inconvenience for criminals, while it is the least inconvenience to honest gun dealers and honest gun owners. I don't agree completely with an assault weapons ban, but I can at least justify its logic.
Should assault rifles be banned (semi-automatic assault-style weapons)

You still have not commented on why the government should ban assault weapons. What you are saying is that since the military could out match any weapons we could own we should just hand them over to the government and let them miss use their power. That we should not use what little we have to protect our freedom and god given rights. Further more we are speaking of assault rifles, not explosives which I completely support the banishment of. Also I apologize if I gave the impression that the only thing the right to bear arms is for is to defend against a tyrant government. Definition of Militia: 1. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. http://dictionary.reference.com...The preamble to the constitution ensures Domestic Tranquility, Which encompasses a tyrannical government. I await a response.
Should assault rifles be banned (semi-automatic assault-style weapons)

You may be able to take out a tank with an IED, but what happens when an army of aerial drones comes in? A gun would not help you.I do not see how a quote from Thomas Jefferson would bear much relevance due to the fact that he is the person who ratified the second amendment in its current state, which clearly focuses on a well-organized militia, not necessarily on personal ownership of firearms. Furthermore, the second part of that quotation does not appear in any of Jefferson's writings:http://www.monticello.org...The government shoud be able to put reasonable restrictions on ownership of certain arms. I could cite grenades as an example. Fragmentation and incendiary grenades are certain to cause property damage or harm to the owner or innocent bystanders. Why would we want people to own something that would only burn their house down or turn them into swiss cheese? This would likely hurt others around them - fire spreads.In addition, in the event of a military takeover, it would be possible to get guns from the military by using an improvised weapon (like a brick), killing them, and taking their gun. This is really the only way you could get access to anything you could really expect to match up with what the military has, anyway. Militaries have access to every kind of weapon, as well as experimental weapons which you couldn't get if you had all of the money in the world (without well-placed bribes, that is).
Should assault rifles be banned (semi-automatic assault-style weapons)

Definition of assault rifle: 1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge. 2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire. http://dictionary.reference.com...Assault weapons would aid us in repelling a tyrant government and would make a major diffrence in a battle with the military. We would need all the help we could get. Also it is possible to take out tanks without other tanks. "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson.http://www.c4cg.org...Also you have not supplied a reason the government should be allowed to ban guns, only a false reply on what an assault rifle is and that it was not a defence against a dictatorial style government. Tell me, how could the tunisians over thrown their oppressive government without the use of the very guns their military was using at the time