BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A free market economy is harmful to society

1) Minimum wage: In a Capitalist society there must be a minimum wage for the workers to be able to get a somewhat fair pay. While this hurt some businesses people being able to live off of what they are paid is more important. More workers for a lesser wage for each is not really a good economic cost for the worker as it would be for the bourgeois. What would be able to get the bourgeois to even pay fairly? From what I know of them (they are family) they tend to love money so why not keep as much as they possibly can? The employee does not even have much of a choice in who to work for, they will take what job they can. Michigan has the second worst unemployment rate in the United States at about 15% so if I am offered a job I am going to take it regardless of pay. If the big business owners wanted to attract more employees they could simply pay a little more than what a small business is which since it is a small business might not even be a lot already. 2) Welfare/social security: My opponent says that if social programs were to be cut then taxes would be lowered and more people would be willing able to give money to charity. What if they didn't though? Which is just as likely as them donating money. These people would have nothing to fall back on and cause an economic gap between them and the rest of the population. If you are born into poverty and homelessness chances are you will live and die that way. Especially if there was a depression, no one would be able to donate money for many years as they themselves have hardly enough money to survive as is. The percentage of people who actually abuse the system and do nothing to get off of welfare and just survive off of it are a low percentage and not very many people on welfare want to stay there. And my time is up. Rest of argument will be in the comments.
Gay Marriage

I would like to clarify that this is the only legitimate reason that I know of to be opposed to gay marriage. Terms clarified: Marriage - the legal definition Civil Marriage - a term that I use to illustrate the concept of a type of marriage that does not include financial factors. Civil benefits - refers to all of the explicitly non-financial benefits of marriage ~~~~~~~~ Argument ~~~~~~~~ Contention 1: Homosexual marriage violates the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The 14th amendment guarantees all citizens of the United States equal protection under the law [1]. Citizens that are married are granted rights that are not afforded to those that are not married. In fact the number of individual rights granted to those who are married outnumbers those granted to individuals not married by over 1000 [2]. Some specific examples of unjust freedoms gained through marriage is that it allows any non-resident of America to gain an immigration 'fast lane,' or it makes it easier for them to move to this country and they can ignore many traditional immigration regulations. Marriage also grants spousal exemption from estate taxes [3]. I do not believe that a person deserves special treatment simply because they had an emotion that made them want to spend their life with another person [2]. Contention 2: Most of the civil benefits of marriage can be gained through alternate legal avenues that do not involve marriage. For instance there are forms that you can fill out online that grant another individual your power of attorney [4][5]. I ask that you read the provided link [4] to learn about this concept if you are currently unaware of what it entails. You can also cerate a last will and testament that does many things for you legally, even if those involved are not married. It is for these reasons that I believe that homosexual marriage should not be legalized and marriage should be demoted to a lifestyle in kind with other lifestyle choices that people make such as veganism or nudism, or there should be some form of legal contract that grants most of the civil benefits granted by marriage to a couple. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.hrc.org... [3] . http://www.shusterman.com... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://www.expertlaw.com...
Gay Marriage

This has been argued a thousand times but there is no legitmate reason for gays not to be allowed to marry please do not be ignorant as I am asking for two things here. First you have to proof that there is a legitamate reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Second do not vote if you arebiased in any way shape or form as this does not help anything. P.S. I dont care much for grammar and spelling so dont worry about it.
Free Will is Impossible in a Linear Universe Caused by an Omniscient God

God only goes as far as nurture and a push to the edge occasionally. There is not just nature but also nurture, the nurture of the world. We still make decisions. There are people who go shoot up schools, and god would not make them do it. Free will. People make their decision even when pushed, no matter the degree. Sometimes it is even the opposite. A drug addict for example could know drugs are ruining their life but people keep having interventions and such. Let's say the interventions are god's hand and e addict doesn't stop. Free will. In the end it always comes down to the person who makes the decision. And there isn't always god influencing you, that shouldn't even need to be said. I'm not even christian because of god's plan or actions, i'm christian because i logically see it as right. I made the arguments and made my decision. I chose. Now it may be that god brought me to DDO but i still had to do a lo to get where i am. And god is god, not a worldly father. God is not bound by ethics and being a conscious robot is a far greater horror than maybe going to hell, whatever it may be. Forcing us to do anything is immoral but god doesn't make our desicions, we do. (this is not a direct rebuttal meant to destroy Pro's argument in round 3)
Free Will is Impossible in a Linear Universe Caused by an Omniscient God

R1). It is obviously a valid analogy regardless of how it is explained. I could just say god and jack but went with an analogy about cars. Your point in one is also just strong talk and is not logical. R2). "seems" "i believe" Same as defending a serial killer? These are opinions. And Jack, and the robot still have the choice. Still have free will. God didn't make them or force them do anything and god might not have interfered in the first place. R3). Complex way of saying "An omniscient god that doesn't definately cause something and there had been a choice for the being with free will did not disallow the being to make a choice." R-Conclusion). You are looking at it from the future, this is wrong. Since we are talking about something that makes the descision at the present we must go from there. The human does not know the future and makes a choice. The human have been led to the choice but was not forced to choose a certain thing.
Free Will is Impossible in a Linear Universe Caused by an Omniscient God

Technically speaking, this attribute could also be applied to the God of Judaism, Islam, and possibly Hinduism depending on your perspective. Anyway, that is besides the point so let me get into the meat of my argument: While your story is interesting, there are several factors that I would say very possibly refute your own argument. I will list them below; 1.) To start off, God is not a human, and this very human situation does not even come close to applying to the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent being. I will further explain in my synopsis. 2.) Going off of my first point, if you wish to get into the area of responsibility, I would still very much so claim that God would hold responsibility. For example, if you were building a robot and you knew that the robot had software that would force it to kill all humans it meets. Now, the creator of the robot has a choice; either let the robot into the world knowing that no matter how much you may wish otherwise that robot is destined from creation to kill people, or you go back and change its software to make sure it does not do those actions. This is the same way with God, in that God would necessarily know for a fact what exactly a human will do before they are born. He would know if that human would accept or reject him. He also knows that He will punish said human with Hell if that human does not accept him, a punishment so horrible it would have been better for him to have never been born according to the Bible itself. Defending such actions seems to me the same as defending the serial killer robot being released by its creator. To any logical person, I believe such action would seem irresponsible, and even malicious. 3.) I would ask you rewrite your last sentence, being I do not really understand what you were trying to say. Please do not think I am trying to attack you personally, I simply wish to understand fully your position. Allow me to conclude here; my reasoning for suggesting that as soon as you enter an omniscient God into the equation of existence you logically have to get rid of the idea of free will is this: by saying that everything can be known, you are literally admitting that everything in existence has a set path that can be predicted. Going by this logic, the idea that life could have any semblance of free will does not seem to be possible. Thereby, the idea that an omniscient God could create us humans knowing the way in which he was creating us would cause the outcome of our judgement whether good or bad, seems like nothing more than a farce. A fixed trial set up before any point in which we could have existed, with no possibility of changing the outcome.
Free Will is Impossible in a Linear Universe Caused by an Omniscient God

Okay, let's do this. This debate assumes we are talking about the christian god since this is a unique attribute to it. Having that out of the way let us begin. Two characters: Jack and Mr. Gihilson. Mr. Gihilson is Jack's father. Jack wants to go to a party. Mr. Gihilson lets him go in his car knowing very well that Jack will drive drunk after and get in a crash. Who's fault is it when the car is crashed? Mr. Gihilson wants to teach Jack a lesson but lets Jack make his own decisions. Mr. Gihilson isn't irresponsible or incompetent. More like laissez-faire. In the end it comes down to the decision Jack made. Jack getting in a crash is his own fault. Jack knew very well it could happen and made a wrong choice anyways. It is Jack's fault. Mr. Gihilson knew it would happen and it did and he was essential in it happening but it is still Jack's fault. A god that knows the future and the consequences of the actions it takes still is not in control of the will of the decisions of it's creation if it does not force anything and the creation has a decision.
Free Will is Impossible in a Linear Universe Caused by an Omniscient God

It would seem to me that the second you introduce a 'God' that created humans and is omnipotent/omniscient, you instantaneously rid yourself of the concept of free will. Being that such a God can literally never be surprised and knows the outcome of every single action, that would mean we live in a linear universe. What I mean by a linear universe is one that has no suprises, one that could, if using advanced enough math, could be completely predicted from beginning to end. This would of course include human actions and reactions. To get a view of this, I would suggest looking up the Law of Identity. So therefore, it would seem to follow that there is not even the remote possibility of humans having free will being that God would have known the outcome of every humans actions and reactions. For example, the idea of the Christian God punishing us for our actions on earth would be redundant being that God himself would have known the end result of our creation before even creating us, thus making the idea of punishing us for our 'bad actions' and sending us to Hell would be absolutely ridiculous being he himself would have made us in such a way that Hell was an inevitable result.
Death Penalty

I like the point you are trying to prove. Rather clever and I would say I could agree to some extent. Although it sounds so easy when you put it that way. Cheaper costs, more cruelty to the criminal and happiness to the victims. But as you've mentioned, death is an eternal sleep and to some, it is an escape from their wretched lives. So in your prospective, dying is a positive thing because the person will not live anymore? As you've defined death for me, let me define life to you. Life is about seeing the world, learning about different cultures and expanding knowledge. Yes, having a person confined in prison will make their life a pain. But in my opinion, having their "lives" stunted from diversity and knowledge is basically enough to be a pain. Also, of course a criminal would be sentenced to jail but not every single criminal, whether it be a thief, a murderer or a rapist will be sentenced a LIFETIME of confinement. So why not imprison them to suffer (As your point to not believing in death penalty is so that the criminal will live a life of discomfort.) and then have them killed after they've served the number of years they deserve in prison? Further more, let's take a killer for example. Mark David Chapman. Famously known to be responsible for second degree murder on to John Lennon. This man was sentenced 20 years to a life time in prison. Let's say the circumstance was that they decided to let him go after 20 years. Yes he's rot in prison for 2 decades. But now he's out, what's going to stop him from killing someone else or commiting another crime? Now with this context of him happily out of jail, he can live his life and live happily with his family. Same goes for most criminals who are not sentenced a life time of imprisonment. They get to live their lives in the end once they've been let out. What I'm trying to prove is that criminals should be confined and then be punished with death. Leaving them no chance to explore the world, learn about cultures, and expand knowledge.
Death Penalty

You're very welcome, I hope you enjoy your stay lol. This is actually the first debate I've done in probably a month or so, so thanks for sparking my... brain. Okay let's get down to business. Firstly, I'll bring up the meaning of death. Death is not a conscious activity. When you die, you're dead. Remember before you were born? No you don't. That's death. It's nothing. Now we take this and think for a second... is nothing a punishment? I wouldn't say it is. I'd say it's pretty much an easy way out. If you take suicide for example, people are wanting to die. They're wanting an escape. For whatever reason, they feel being dead would be better than being alive. So when we end someone's life, we're basically giving them a way out. They don't suffer. We don't see them paying for their actions. We see them escape and go to an eternal sleep. Now when we see someone in jail, we can see that they're uncomfortable. We can see that they're locked in a cell with no access to much of anything they want. Now you tell me - if someone killed someone you love, would you want to see them suffer? If the answer is yes, then why would you want them to have access to an easy way out, where they don't suffer? I would much rather know that person is not having a good time with their life than... well, just not being conscious. Now, you may say hey! It costs a lot to keep someone in prison! Well sure, and a 3 bedroom penthouse suite downtown costs a lot too! But a mansion on the waterfront costs even more... so let's switch the penthouse with prison and the mansion with death. The most common number that came up for the price of containing an inmate in America (considering America is the centre of the universe...) was about $40,000, so I'll use this little article for reference [1]. $44,000 a year is the penthouse, and (I haven't found a concrete number, but it appears to be around $3million per execution) $3million is the mansion. Yes, the penthouse (prison) is expensive, but compared to the death penalty, it isn't [2]. As you can see by the 2nd link I provided, it costs about $1million more to execute a prisoner than it would be to hold him in prison for the amount of time he would have been there if he weren't executed. So the death penalty is more expensive than prison. Regarding what you said about the death penalty being the "most moderate way to easily get justice and avenge the crime" makes sense to a degree, but in the grand scheme of things all that does is possibly satisfy a couple people. And if those couple people thought about it, putting someone to eternal sleep isn't that big of a punishment compared to spending the rest of your life in a cell with (most likely) zero access to the outside world and things they enjoy doing. So let's see - The death penalty is more costly than housing a prisoner, and it's less of a punishment than holding someone in a cell for their life. Whattaya gotta say about that?! [1] http://www.theatlantic.com... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Death Penalty

Well I appreciate the kind words :)Okay so let's see. Life (in your eyes) is a great experience, and I would agree with you. I love life and I love learning new things and seeing the world change and grow and all that. Maybe knowing you're about to die will be scary, or the worst feeling you have ever felt, but how long does it last? A few minutes. Then it's lights out! Then it's just... nothing. You don't know you're dead after you're dead, so you can't be thinking about what you missed out on. While in prison, you don't have access to the outside world or most fun stuff that life can offer. Would it be reasonable to consider prison an actual death sentence, but one where you're aware of your miserable existence?I think the argument here is death sentence over imprisonment or imprisonment over death sentence, not both. However both would be good to a degree, it would cost way too much to carry out. Plus, they're most likely going to die in prison anyway, considering life expectancy drops significantly in prison [1]. 50 years in prison compared to 78 years outside of prison? That's a big difference, and if someone is serving a life sentence, it's usually just that - the rest of their life.I completely agree that sentences should be changed for murderers, rapists, etc. But that's just my point - instead of being put to sleep, they spend the rest of their lives in prison. I think that's the main thing that's hard about discussing death penalty vs. imprisonment, and that's that right now imprisonment can only be a quarter of someone's life, even if they're murderers.So my point is that when I talk about imprisonment over death, I'm implying full-time, permanent imprisonment. [1] http://www.google.ca...
The actions of corporations ought to be held to the same moral standards as the actions of individua

In this debate all i have to do is prove that corporations and individuals should be held to the same moral standards.... i made two important points which you didnt respond to sufficently. First i said that corps are rational and human beings and second i said they could be more powerful. The first point dropped and your response to the 2nd point is that its not true. First off, it is true... its hard to say corporations dont have more power than individuals because they do and certainly large ones hold more polictical clout than politicans.
The actions of corporations ought to be held to the same moral standards as the actions of individua

Hey Stevster, your opening was a little wordy on how you express your contention against corporations. If my understanding is correct, you would be referring mostly to sweatshop labor, or other actions that corporations are accused of performing. To begin, it is necessary to note that corporations have for a long time been declared as having the same rights as the individual. This was noted in court around the time of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle". You noted that corporations are more powerful than individuals, and lead to a point that because they are more powerful than individuals, something must be done to level the playing field. If one is to talk about corporate power in the sense of financial, where you can higher workers, buy machinery, and start political action commissions, then you are correct in saying that they have "power". This power, however, does not buy votes, and is not particularly powerful in swaying the decisions of an honest politician. This Corporate "Power" is not nearly as dangerous as some people might argue simply because a corporation is only as strong as the consumers who purchase from it. If a corporation, at any point in time, performs actions that are outside of the acceptable societal norms, then the people will respond by not buying their product or service. Corporations are actually rather weak when you look at it from the scope of the people that they have to reach out to. Name any product and a company who sells it, and you'll notice that are sufficient substitutes or competitors to bring that same company to its knees if it acts out of line. That part of corporate power is dependent on individuals in society to stand up for their beliefs and "fight" (metaphorically). In law, corporations are held under exactly the same scrutiny that a person is. If a corporation's equipment harms a person, that corporation is legally bound to pay for the damages. The same concept applies to whether or not the corporation is held to any environmental standards. If my understanding of the debate is correct, then it will be your job to prove that corporations are not acting ethical, and that no one is doing anything about it. What moral standards does a corporation NOT act on that individuals do?
Secular ethics ought to be prioritized over religious ethics in the legislative process.

Do you know any philosophers who advocate Secular Humanism? So, in your third paragraph, you say that secular ethics "can find ways to determine moral codes of conduct applicable to all people without showing a preference or tolerance for one religious perspective over another. " By stating such a claim, are you implying that secular ethics cannot conflict with religious ethics? Thereby making this resolution redundant? Do christian religions today apply such Old Testament law as you mention? Is logic always correct? If you apply logic to every problem you encounter, can it not lead you astray? did not Aristotle assume that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones? Isn't Aristotle one of the most renowned political philosophers in history? Let's say God does exist, and that he did give us laws to follow. Should we then follow His laws, if he existed? Is it POSSIBLE that the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Quran are true? Is it even infinitesimally possible that ONE of them is true? How can you prove that no religious book 'portrays God's desires'? Are religious ethics NOW telling us to condemn Galileo, justify slavery, kill Jews, and oppress Homosexuals? (Note, discouragement and disapproval is not oppression. Neither is protesting. ) Cannot secular ethics have devastating effects? Utilitarianism tells us that if we have a choice in letting 10,000 people die, or killing 9,999, we should kill the 9,999. Is this a devastating effect? Once again, if God DID lay down laws to these effects, should we not follow them?