BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flag Desecration Should Be Banned Entirely

I personally do not agree with flag desecration, but on a legal and practical level, it is necessary for the government to recognize that flag desecration is an act of freedom of speech and should not be prohibited. Opponent's arguments:My opponent did not demonstrate how the presented arguments/anecdotes coherently translate into justification for the prohibition of flag desecration, so I will state my interpreted meanings after each argument I restate.1. Flag desecration is an insult to the people who stand for what the respective flag represents. Interpreted meaning: Insulting what people believe in by using physical actions, that is not prohibited independently, is not an act of freedom of speech, and thus the legality of it is illegitimate.2. Pentagon incident. .. Interpreted meaning:The act of flag desecration can be psychologically traumatizing to a person to a point of post-traumatic stress disorder(PTSD)(1). My rebuttal:I assume freedom of speech is accepted to be appropriate on a legal level for this debate. My burden is to demonstrate how flag desecration is an act of freedom of speech and how it should not be interpreted as an act of psychologically traumatizing that could lead to a PTSD. Freedom of speech was instituted for the reason that a government cannot suppress an individual or a group within the nation. Without freedom of speech, a government will rise with too much power and control and one will see events similar to the Tienanmen Square Protests of 1989(2). Flag desecration can generally be categorized as a form of protest, so the controversial issue that is surfaced is whether it is a peaceful or a violent act. In this case, violence can be defined as physical or mental harm to another living person, or destruction of another individual's property or public property (flags are not public property; if you can purchase a flag as a citizen, it is no longer categorized as property belonging to the public). Burning one's own flag does not physically harm another person OR vandalize another's property. Flag desecration would not psychologically traumatize an individual because, although a flag may represent virtues or symbolize beliefs, a flag can be reproduced and still hold the same value as any other flag. In other words, scarcity is not an attribute for flags and an insult is as far as flag desecration can be interpreted. The values of the flag still remain intact. Additionally, there has been no accounts of individuals going through PTSD after witnessing flag desecration. The symptoms of this disorder resulting from such events are far-fetched, improbable, and even ridiculous. Conclusion: Flag desecration does not physically/mentally harm another person and does not vandalize public/private property. Flag desecration cannot be classified as an act of violence and is a form of protest. Therefore, there is not enough justification for prohibition to restrict such acts because flag desecration is a peaceful form of protest. (1). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(2)http://news.bbc.co.uk...;
Flag Desecration Should Be Banned Entirely

Today in my civics class, I watched an old video on the Texas v. Johnson case. I have always been against burning the flag, but seeing the disrespect from this "Revolutionary Communist Party" made my blood boil. That flag is the representation of everything this country stands for. Those people burning the flag have received countless benefits from this country, including its freedoms. People who burn flags, or even consider it an act of freedom of speech, are offending countless people. They are insulting our Founding Fathers who worked so hard to establish what we have today. They are insulting every American soldier who has been killed, injured, or captured fighting for this country. They are insulting every family who receives an American flag when they lose a loved one to war. A few months ago, I had the opportunity to speak to a man who lived in DC during the 9/11 attacks. His wife worked in the Pentagon, and she was killed. As soon as he heard about the attacks, he immediately went to the Pentagon to search for his wife. He spent the entire morning assisting EMTs and trying to get closer to the building. He had carried out countless bodies. Just when everyone was losing the little bit of hope they had left, a fireman came out of the smoking hole in the side of the Pentagon. He was carrying an American flag. He walked onto the lawn, stuck the flag pole in the ground, and everyone cheered. This moment gave the man I spoke to the strength to carry on and care for his family. That is just one example of how much an American flag can mean to someone. When someone justifies flag burning, they should consider stories like this.
god will put you to death if you are gay, worship other gods, curse at your parents etc etc etc

I don't know if you consider this an answer but the idea that he is God is what makes this all ok. The idea of a GOD is that he is the meaning of good. Anything he does or says no matter how conflicting is law. The fact that he is the omnipotent omnipresent being that created the universe means that all his laws are, well the law. You can say what you want, but by the definition and descriptions of what a God is, he is always right. He can't make mistakes because all he does is what he was meant to. Your argument is useless since (because you chose not to state your definition of God) God is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of ALL MORAL ATHORITY; the supreme being. this means that whatever he does he is right. And even though we don't have the right to do it, he does. He can break his own rules, he can kill whoever he wants, because he is not human, he is morality itself. So I would either give up on this debate and start a new one that can be won, or you can try to argue that Morality itself is being immoral. Side note: you seem kind of angry in this argument so I hope you aren't offended, but you can't win this. Thinking about this logically if we go about this using the definition of a God, he can not be wrong, period. so in your next debate I would define your terms with better detail. Because you will never truly be able to win this against the definition of what you are talking about.
god will put you to death if you are gay, worship other gods, curse at your parents etc etc etc

“For one, I am Agnostic, not Christian,” so you got caught in an absolute unchanging lie. Correct? I mean the spoiled brat 15 year old that you are doesn’t even know what he says. “The fact that he is…” as you stated in round 1... So like nearly every christian out there you don’t even know what you state and or say. Let’s take a look at the definitions for “agnostic”1. a person who holds that the existence of theultimate cause, as God, and the essential natureof things are unknown and unknowable, or thathuman knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility ofultimate knowledge in some area of study. 3. a person who holds neither of two opposingpositions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject ofimmortality. Adjective 4. of or relating to agnostics or their doctrines,attitudes, or beliefs. 5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims toknowledge. 6. not taking a stand on something, especially notholding either of two usually strongly opposedpositions (often used in combination): to take an agnostic view of technologicalprogress; fuel agnostic energy policies. So well gosh golly gee gosh darned it all you just got caught in a HUGE major hypocritical contradiction and or a flat out lie. And with the absolute convincing look and portrayal look of your god in your last misery in round 1 oh absolutely you are a fundamentalist or do you wish to take that back as well? You went to this site, well um no it not this site, it my debate BIG DIFFERENCE, to argue because you are an arrogant bottom feeder a$$ with the soul attempt and only to try to p**a me off and for no other reason. NEWSFLASH: Hey hotstuff it didn't work. You only belittled yourself. Then you continue “not preach... “ which is exactly to the letter what you did. So more hypocritical contradictions because you have no outs? Tell you what, I’m not going to bother with the rest of your asinine silliness of you trying to defend yourself because you have no defense. You dug a hole so deep for your yourself and you have no way to worm your way out of it. Grow up.
god will put you to death if you are gay, worship other gods, curse at your parents etc etc etc

For one, I am Agnostic, not Christian, so don't just assume what religion I am. I went on to this site to argue, not preach (something you should already understand not to do.) Do you really think you can use the age old argument of "prove it to win this"? you insult me yet you have no true evidence for your argument. Who do you think wrote the Bible? Do you think that God himself (If he is real that is) decided to write down the story of the universe and give a perfect book of all of it. GOD NO (pun totally intended.) The old testament you talk about so much was stories passed down for generations, so it is fair to think people might have changed it over time to teach their children what the parents wanted them to know. And the new testament was censored highly by the church to exclude anything they did not want to believe. So how can a book written by God himself be censored by the church? Because even they knew it was mostly fake. Their is likely a seed of truth within most stories within the Bible, but it obviously is not the full truth. This is not even an argument just so you know. This is just you trying to prove your superiority to Christians. You don't define your terms, you use the argument fallacy Ad Hominem, and you rant more then use logic. You say I have no friends or loved ones. Well I do no matter what you believe so don't think you can just insult and intimidate me and think you can make me back down. Come up with a real argument if you want me to treat you like an adult. Stop ranting and find proof that God did this and said this. Do you have eye-witness accounts? do you have news clippings form that time? Do you even have any real evidence to prove the Bible is the word of God? If not quit this argument and rant on a site that cares. My argument is that because he is God, nothing applies to him. If he created the universe he choses what is good and bad. So he has to always be right. Contradictions will not affect him because he is all powerful. Unless this is not the definition of God you have, you will not win this not just because you are ranting rather then arguing, you will not win this because by definition, not ethics, God can not do wrong. If you wish to challenge that state your definition of God so that we can come to an agreement over what the definition of god is.
NBA playoffs

Lebron James is battling a shoulder injury he is able to play but not at 100% i would have to think that the Cavs would need their star player at 100% to beat the powerhouse Celtics. Lebron James has proven in past playoffs to not being so great in the clutch as he misses crucial free throws, him having a injured shoulder makes it even harder on him to carry his team. The Celtics has 4 players who can get hot at any game and have more exp going in. Shaquille o Neal has a stamina issue as well.
NBA playoffs

oh really the cavilers have a well developed superstar team. The Cavs have LeBron James who has set many records that many other people have not set. LeBron has faced many buzzer beaters like the Eastern Conference championship LeBron has been guarded by hedo turkolu and then SWISH! Lebron gets the buzzer beater against the magic. They also got Mo williams and antwan Jamison and also Shaq and Mo williams and Delonte West and Jamario moon and the rookie J.J Hickson.
Classic Regressives on Parade here

Baltimore"s murder rate is up 48 percent this year.Baltimore"s murder rate is up 48 percent in 2015, the Baltimore Sun"s Jessica Anderson reports Thursday, with 144 tallied homicides.More than half of reported homicides (74) have occurred in the past two months. This has led many to accuse police of not doing their jobs in the wake of the indictments of six officers in the murder of Freddie Gray. May 2015 was the deadliest month Baltimore has seen in more than 40 years. May 2015 was the deadliest. Do you see the ignorance of Regressives here ? They now claim the police are not doing their jobs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROTFFLMMFAO !!!!!!!!! Regressives have no brain !
Classic Regressives on Parade here

Well, we never did find out what this debate was about. All we got from my opponent was plagiarism and forfeiture. The only thing Pro made that came close to being an argument was "Regressives have no brain! ". This is easily defeated. As Pro points out, these regressives are making a claim. They are claiming the police are not doing their job. Well, making a claim requires a thought before the action takes place. Therefore, regressives must have a brain.
Fun debate: Wallups are better than Mupplers

Your argument is that Mupplers are better than Wallups because they more apt to survive. I argue Wallups are better because they have values. Even though Wallups are at the mercy of aggressive Muppler prey, they are still an example of how to show kindness, love, and patience with one another. I guess it depends on what you consider better. I'd want to be around Wallups more than I would want to be around Mupplers because they represent the values I hold near and dear to my heart. The same goes for the people I'd want to associate with. There are the ones that will aggressively challenge and try to take advantage of you for their benefit or survival, then there are those that will give up their time, resources, and put themselves second to be a great friend.
Fun debate: Wallups are better than Mupplers

To argue, I will simply explain why Wallups are less likely to survive, as a species, in comparison to a Muppler. [1] Humble creatures are submissive by nature. They are less willing to fight back for their food, which is what they need to survive. This leaves the Wallup at a disadvantage when compared to a Muppler, which is willing to take what it needs to survive. [2] A Wallup's loving nature and kindness put it at a disadvantage because it is less willing to fight and without the ability to fight, any aggressor's towards a Wallup are more likely to win in a fight and kill the Wallup. Mupplers help each other by swarming their enemies to protect the hive. [3] Living on a mountain-top also has it's disadvantages as birds of prey can spot a Wallup more easily. Mupplers live under treetops to prevent this. Let me explain what a Muppler is: Mupplers are creatures that thrive in a hive-like setting. They typically nest in mile-wide areas near rivers or lakes. They use their natural excretions to build small "family" nest under the treetops. In a hive there are no less than twenty family nests and the families have been found to contain up to 14 members at a time. The youngest members of the nest keep the walls of the nest firm and excrete a scent onto the exterior to attract small insects to prey upon. The older Mupplers fly under the branches of the trees in search of food and can survive for a week without water. When faced with danger, they can excrete a poison through their mouths into their enemies eyes to blind them. When the hive is faced with a threat, the Mupplers swarm together to kill that threat. Mupplers work for the greater good of their species.
Fun debate: Wallups are better than Mupplers

Let me explain why Wallups are "better" than Mupplers. Do I mean "better" in the sense that Wallups are superior to Mupplers? No.Wallups are better because they are humble, hard-working, loving, patient, kind creatures than always have the best interests of others in mind.Wallups are small, furry creatures that live on mountain-tops, burrowing just beneath the surface. If one Wallup doesn't have enough food, the other Wallup will give up his food even if it means he will starve. Wallups live in peace, and seek peace.
Fun debate: Wallups are better than Mupplers

Rules: 1. First round is for acceptance only. 2. No sources allowed, however you can make anything up as long as you make it sound logical. 3. This is a fun debate meant to prove that one non-existant creature is better than the other. * Keep in mind this debate is a bit shorter than usual. It has a 3,000 character max. * I am arguing that Wallups are better than Mupplers.
Deontology

Fazz, I have never criticized your personally. If that is how my remarks came across, I apologize. But never were my arguments directed at you as a person. I think that there are many flaws with Nietzche's philosophy on its own. The idea of nobility he espouses is a poorly reconstructed appeal to ethical egoism, which is just ridiculous. Egoism is no more a moral doctrine than murder, IMHO. But that is, of course, a separate debate. The point I was trying to make about cultures is that morality is subjectively interpreted. Even if there is some absolute morality, we can never know it, because everything is subject to interpretation. Kant's mistake is that he assumes we can know and comprehend morality. Of course I understand the difference between a philosophy and this debate. My issue is that debates have parameters, and that debates require clash. You seemed more interested in discourse than debate--an admirable goal. After all, discussion is the best way to learn and share knowledge. Yet, in this context, I wanted debate. I hope you understand where I'm coming from on this. Thank you for accepting.
Deontology

Well, if you [i]are[/i] content just to criticize me personally, then lets, call it "even" and agree to disagree? Yes/No? I will make a small concession, here. No, morality is not mis-interpreted (I quote: second section/para one). I will concede this. I am taking a Nietschian persepective where cultures are not irrelevant but stupid. If they misinterpret they fail the will to power (argument). Thus, you may cede, one factor, perhaps? Question. Do you understand the difference between a philosophy and this debate?
Deontology

Thanks again to Fazz.OVERVIEWSPro never contests that rules violations did transpire. Thus, Pro's actions merit a 7-point loss.ARGUMENTSRational AgencyPro says that I claim that he does not have volition. This is incorrect. What I'm claiming is that people have volition in many matters, but if something, like killing, is wrong, it is always wrong.So, while I can freely choose between option A and option B, if both are equally just, then I can exercise volition. Yet, if option B is unjust, it would be immoral of me to choose option B. Therefore, autonomy, under Kant's imperative, does not justify immorality. simply because I can choose to do something wrong, doesn't mean I should. Choosing option B is ALWAYS immoral. Volition just doesn't factor into it, because morality is an absolute.Pro utterly and totally DROPS that non-rational agents have moral worth and dignity. Kant argues that only beings with rationality are ends with dignity, and not means. But this implies that babies, for example, lack dignity and can be abused as means. This is, prime facie, wrong.Morality as Universally ValidI believe what Pro is saying here is that morality is universal, but cultures can misinterpret it. Let's say that Morality says that action A is wrong. However, there is a remote culture out there that believes that action A is okay. Is that culture suddenly immoral because they unwittingly did something wrong?They did not, and arguably, could not have known action A was wrong, so, can we hold them accountable for it?Moreover, if we somehow believe morality is universally valid, that could justify gross excesses in imperialistic behavior. Cultures could force their "correct" morality upon cultures with "incorrect" moralities. What I'm trying to get at is, even if morality is universally valid, how do we know which interpretation to prefer?The Imperative says morality is Deontological. But, how can we know that? Why isn't it Utilitarian or Virtue-based? The imperative just makes too many assumptions.Ignoring the ConsequencesPro doesn't actually rebut anything here...extend all arguments. They're dropped.Morality as Universally DerivedAgain, Pro doesn't actually rebut anything here...extend all arguments. They're dropped.BOPPro fails to uphold the BOP. He needs to justify why the Imperative works, not just respond to my critisim. As yet, Pro has failed to do this.
Deontology

Thank you! First let me apologize; In any court case, there are several rounds of argument. Some rounds are merely for providing "evidence". Preseneted a minor slip-up. My iteration by implication is that if the defender feels that his case is strong as is/a priori then it is one way of saying . . "i rest my case". 7 points is acceptable. Via YOUR ARGUMENTS: [b]Rational Agency [/b] You said: Rational agents are agents with autonomy that can be logically exercised,. . Kant says: must respect rational agents as ends in themselves,. . I say: Faz is a rational being. I respect, that you too, must be rational. However, when you say that I do not have volition are you denying me the lugbruity of my hubris? [b]Morality as Universally Valid[/b] A friend said: Morality is culturally and socially influenced, You said: . .. and subjective? Kant says: Yes, my dear, but a duty held [i]A priori[/i] is such that it conflates ethics and morality. Friend say: But. But. You say: It is not univesal Kant might say: Ethics is universal. Duty thus, vanquishes subjectivity from the realm of mortality. [b] Morality as Ignoring the Consequences [/b] You start. .. I say: Well, before begining, I must commend you on your logical prose, in this last section. You begin again: thanks, thanks so much. [Call] Hey, buddy, mall? I say: No. I hate the mall! [/Call] [b]Morality as Universally Derived[/b] Kant says: Morality can [read: should] only be determined [read: by thinking aloud] through a priori reasoning; There are certain obvious conclusions that can be made about morality based on universally recognized principles of right conduct. I said: I concur. I agree. I concede the round. Over to you?
Deontology

Thank you! I will allow you the chance to argue first.. But I will point out one foxpass ;) You say: [b]reinterpretations of the framework are not allowed[/b]. I will allow this statement above. However, when Kant allows us to [color=red]act[/color] he is telling me that I have leeway. After all, I would not insult my contender by interpreting that which cannot be re-interpreted. Conversely, I would not expect to be asked to act beyond and opposingly to my own volition. To quote some poetry: Eyes wide open, naked as we came One of us will die inside these arms For to follow what is categorical, one must pose [i]au naturale[/i] in figure, in speech and [i]in[/i] stance. No?