BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An objective morality can be discerned

An "objective morality" is not feasible. Morality is man-made. It is the job of the religious to try to prove the existence of an objective morality, as they usually believe in a God that created morality for man's sake. As a social species, homo-sapiens have adapted their own morals to meet the needs of their tribe. This is the idea that everyone should act in a way that if everybody acted that way, our system would function properly. Because morality is man-made, it is impossible to have a theoretical one because if you give an example of a theoretical objective morality, another group or individual will have a conflicting but equally valid morality. Their morality is equally valid because morality is perceptual, and not conceptual. The way in which each person perceives morality is different. To close, answer this: If a hypothetical "objective morality" outlined a topic such as abortion, would it be pro or anti abortion? Also, please don't answer with a religious response, try to answer in purely secular terms. (just re-posting my last argument... sorry I'm new to this website and don't fully understand the rules) The reason that humans have adapted a nearly-generic morality is because we are a social species. We have the ability to communicate with one another in a way that is unmatched in other organisms. I believe that evolution may have played a role in this in that through the process of natural selection those in tribes or families must have gained some survival advantage via their (what we consider to be) "moral" thoughts. My position is that human morality evolves to fit the needs of current state of a large group of people. For example, in Johannesburg, South Africa, there are huge amounts of torture, murder and other capital crimes. This is because the survival of the average person in Johannesburg depends on different factors compared to the survival of the average person in suburban upstate New York. Their morality has changed. It is not objective, because we can argue that their morality is bad for us. The morality of a law-abiding United States citizen is not objective because the murderers of Johannesburg can argue that the United States morals are equally bad for them. Objective morality cannot be discerned because one man's objective morality is another man's biased morality. Because there will never be a world in which everybody shares exactly the same morality, it is impossible to choose the "best" or "least biased" morality. Every morality is biased to someone.
An objective morality can be discerned

An "objective morality" is not feasible. Morality is man-made. It is the job of the religious to try to prove the existence of an objective morality, as they usually believe in a God that created morality for man's sake. As a social species, homo-sapiens have adapted their own morals to meet the needs of their tribe. This is the idea that everyone should act in a way that if everybody acted that way, our system would function properly. Because morality is man-made, it is impossible to have a theoretical one because if you give an example of a theoretical objective morality, another group or individual will have a conflicting but equally valid morality. Their morality is equally valid because morality is perceptual, and not conceptual. The way in which each person perceives morality is different. To close, answer this: If a hypothetical "objective morality" outlined a topic such as abortion, would it be pro or anti abortion? Also, please don't answer with a religious response, try to answer in purely secular terms.
Redebate: Puppies should be tortured.

Ok, fine so you don't like my story.... *hangs head* Nevermind. However, I do believe that even if this debate needs some realism, we should still be talking about hypotheticals. We aren't debating about our actions. We are debating about a dogs. An animal with whom we have no way to communicate other than, Good Boy! Bad Boy! Sit!.... Also, impacting the what you feel towards what you think is right is not a requirement of debate. Debate is basically 2 people arguing about something. Who wins is determined not by, Hmmm, I think that this action is right, so I am siding with Con. No. It is determined by the better arguments. And no, it's not self evident that we shouldn't be talking in fairytale. You merely stated a claim. You had no warrant. I may not have answered your argument(one sentence) in the expected way, but I still answered it. Notice, however, that you have not taken a since chance to attack my argument... So I guess I can extend it to my speech. Again, this debate requires us to think in hypotheticals. We can admit it. In reality, this situation we are debating about would never happen. However, that doesn't mean that I lose on default. All it means is that we have to debate using hypotheticals if we want to debate this out of the box topic. So really, we have to consider that hypothetical chance of torture being punishment for murder. Also, some would say that life in prison, death row, or the death penalty is torture... Your claim, you have to prove it... I just disproved that little you proved with your 3rd claim... 4. As to you response, look above. Seeing as my opponent doesn't really want me to be arguing about a story, I'll give a chain of logic that basically shows a more "real" argument. Puppies are rational beings. Being rational beings, puppies are bound by morality. It is immoral to kill. A puppy understands that it is immoral to kill or do some other atrocity.. A puppy understands that because it is immoral to kill or some other atrocity, it is wrong and he should not do it. A puppy has the ability to understand that if it kills or some other atrocity, it will be punished. If a puppy kills or does some atrocity with all the above understandings, it should be punished. If the correct punishment is torture, then the puppy should be tortured. I hope that works. Also, my story still stands.
Redebate: Puppies should be tortured.

1. I agree with the topic analysis. 2. The debate should have realism in it. Since we are debating about our actions and what is right in our society, I expect that we debate this correctly. This debate, like any other, should impact the way we feel towards what we think it right. I didn't post this in the first round because it seems self-evident that we shouldn't be talking in fairytale. 3. The punishment of committing murder is not torture. 4. As for the story, my response #2 shows I expect to have a debate about real situations.
Redebate: Puppies should be tortured.

Thanks to my opponent for posting this debate. Before I begin, I feel compelled to say this, due to the nature of the debate. Please do not vote for anyone just because you like their stance. Please actally vote for who you believed presented the better arguments. Otherwise, there would be very little point to the debate. Thank you Now to the debate. Topic Analysis: Judging from my opponents one and only sentence pertaining to the topic, I think we can safely assume that the topic he hopes to debate is; Puppies should not be tortured for no reason. That is basically his argument. The way I see it, if I can provide one reason, however unplausible, that would show that puppies should be tortured, then I win the debate. Here is that one scenario. Please remember, that no where in my opponents post does he say that this debate has any roots in realism. So here I go. There is a country of dogs. These dogs are civilized dogs. We can consider them to be very civilized dogs, by human standards. There are laws in place that forbid the killing of a dog, no matter what. There are moral standards of this society that also say that killing is wrong by all moral standards. These laws and moral standards state that if you kill someone, commit a grave sin, the punishment shall be torture. Enter little Billy. He is a puppy. His mental maturity is that of a 15 year old human (young enough to be a child but old enough to know that killing is wrong). He plots to kill his best friend, Bobby. His choice of murder is to take Bobby out to dinner, and to poison Bobby's water. The plot works, and in Doggy Court, Billy is convicted of dog murder, the most grievous crime in the country. The punishment is torture. Billy knows this, and knew that if he killed someone, he would be tortured. From the story above, I think it is safe to say that Billy should be tortured. Thank you.
Redebate: Puppies should be tortured.

Thank you for the debate. 1. Thank you 2. Here is what debate is, according to Merriam Webster: : a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides. No where in that does it say that you have to change you view. No where does it say to see who's right. Its a discussion. Who wins the debate is not about who is right or wrong, since sometimes that cannot be contested, like in saying the Sky is Blue. It is about who gave the better arguments. 3. Again, this debate, as real as it may seem, requires us to think hypothetically because the situation presented by the topic is so different that in order to debate this, there needs to be some hypotheticalism(not sure thats a word, but you know what I mean) 4.You are contradicting yourself here. You say that in today's culture we use the term vaguely and loosley.Then you go on to say that people define torture differently. And I don't see what you are trying to prove... 5. Here is what rational means: : having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason Even with those 3 intelligences, dogs are still capable of knowing what is right or wrong. Saying otherwise would be like saying that dogs are machines that only act without thinking about their actions. 6. Yes, a dog can indeed. If a dog is able to know right from wrong, then it should know if it is right to kill or not. 7. This claim is not true. Nor does it have any warrant, so we cannot assume it to be true. Also, dogs are not a species that have to live with humans. 8.Look above. and below. 9.So you suggest that the dogs teachings override his own sense of morality? a. Example: My story. It isn't as unrealistic as it sounds. Just imagine a pack of dogs. There is your society. 10. Dogs mature at faster rates than us.http://www.dog-names.org.uk... That site shows that at the age of 1 year old, a puppy is already mature. http://atheism.about.com... If you take a look at this article, it argues that dogs have evolved a sense of morality. The source of this morality is because of dogs living in a society. For the society to continue to exist ,morality is a neccesary thing. Without morality, the society would fall apart. Conclusion: My opponent still hasn't refuted my chain of logic. The only parts he attacked were the parts about puppies being rational beings.Seeing as I have proved that dogs are rational beings, and they have a sense of morality, my logic still stands. Because the only burden I had in this debate is that I had to give one example where puppies should be tortured. My opponent never refuted that claim, so it can be extended to here. So my chain of logic can be used as an example. Because I have fulfilled my part of the debate, I win. And the story still stands, again.
the unites states federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance

For the government to substantially curtail its domestic surveillance, there are many flaws to this plan. The United States government should not restrict domestic surveillance because of the well known fact of new terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks can happen any day, any time, and anywhere. There are only 3 ways to stop terrorist attacks which are interrogation, penatration, and signals intelligence. 2 of the ways are invalid due to the fact that there are consequences to them. The Interrogation is not valid due to Obama, Penatration is very difficult to do becaude the leak exposing a double agent. Then there is only one solution to this problem and it is the signals intelligence- monitoring the enemy's phone calls and Internet communications. (source- www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/10/here-is-the-pro-nsa-surveillance-arguement/)
No-Kill animal shelters are better.

No-kill animal shelters would be fairly unneeded. You are supposing that they are better since adopters would like shelters would like shelters which do not kill. The problem is, you are not fully understanding the actual purpose of an "animal shelter." The purpose of this shelter is not always to get animals adopted, but to rehabilitate them, or get them back to normal life, so it would not always be necessary for animals to be adopted. My argument is that animal shelters can be a health hazard since sick animals with an infectious disease and can spread further nuisance if released. Also, animal shelters cannot take care of an animal forever, they'll have to kill it if it is not adopted, they cannot just feed, take care, and treat for animals without having profit. This might seem cruel, but this will benefit both the animal shelter and the people. (I think I overwrote it a bit, the first paragraph should sum it up.)
Should government regulate school lunches

I believe governments should provide some sort of regulation for school lunches. Regulation does not have to mean that the government micro-manages what we have to eat. It could simply mean setting restrictions on caloric value or creating standards for food quality. The government does that kind of regulation all the time. Certain items that are sold to the American public must pass safety standards before they are allowed on the market. The government sets up laws to restrict false advertising to protect the American consumer. Again, I'm not calling for micro-management, just guidelines really. Some simple, common sense regulations that leave schools freedom to pick things out, but balance out that freedom with restrictions on choices that would be flat-out bad to give to kids. My opponent opens with a statement on the idea that it is the job of the parents to monitor this, not the government's. While that is a noble sentiment to express, I think we should all realize that for lower class families, a school lunch is much more cost effective than buying extra food to pack into a lunch. This option is especially attractive versus packing a lunch because many kids of lower income families receive free or reduced lunches. Additionally, some parents may simply not care about their kids enough to monitor their nutrition. I realize the government can't be your parent all the time (and probably nor should it try to be), but in a situation like this, when the government is perfectly able, we should allow it. That's all I've got, until my opponent responds. Also, to my opponent, welcome to DDO, I hope you stick around.
Abortion is Murder

My argument is pretty simple and straight forward: P1 - At the moment of conception, the unborn has all the biological components of a human being, and is therefore a developing human being. P2 - Murder is the premeditated killing of a human being. P3 - Abortion is a premeditated killing of a developing human being. C - Abortion is MurderI don't think this debate will be bogged down by issues of semantics at all. No one really needs a dictionary to know what murder or abortion is, the definitions are merely for the sake of formality. Murder is the premeditated killing of a human being. We are not talking about self defense, death penalty, war, or even the controversial euthanasia. I believe my opponent and the readers know exactly what murder is and I believe my opponent and the readers know exactly what abortion is as well. The heart of this debate, just like most abortion debates, will be the definition of a "human being". Con already showed this in his acceptance post. He wants to distinguish between a "human being" and a "person". He stated that, "Something can be considered a human being while not being a person" Which we will see is problematic. Con adds that, "it seems reasonable to believe that it is not murder to kill a human being if it is not also a person," basically claiming that only the killing of a "person" should be considered murder. The semantics and definitions in Con's statement are not at all universal. It's his job to show us the basis and reasons as to why we should accept this view of human life, and it's my job to show why my presented view should be accepted. Con is asserting that there are certain requirements that an animal needs to meet, in order to be granted the right to live. This way of thinking is not unlike the thinking of Hitler's Nazis who deemed certain groups of people as not fully meeting the requirements of a human. "Under the Nazis, Jews were legally classified as a race. Hitler said 'The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but they are not human. ' Nazi propaganda films portrayed Jews as vermin and sub-human, unworthy of life. " (1)Now Con's wording and semantics are a little different than that of the Nazis, but it is the same concept. According to Con, if a human being is not a "person", then he is not worthy of life. It seems that Con can accept that the unborn is a "human being", but he claims that the unborn is not a "person" and therefore do not share the rights and privileges that a real "person" has. Before I get into this issue of personhood. I would like for Con to first further expound on what he means when he is talking about a "person" and how they are different from a human being that is not a "person". Sources:(1) . http://www.chgs.umn.edu...
Abortion is Murder

I do not wish this debate to be bogged down in semantics, but I wish to address the definition of 'murder' provided by Pro. It is true that this is the common definition, but I suspect it simply will not do for this debate. I assume we will be debating what exactly should count as 'murder' and whether abortion conforms to this concept. Legal definitions are therefore useless - we will be debating whether or not abortion should be considered murder prior to law. I would also like to distinguish between a 'human being' and a 'person'. There is a condition called Anencephaly [1] where the infant is born without the major part of their brain. They never achieve any kind of conscious existence. They are quite literally empty shells; given certain biological definitions they would be considered human beings but virtually no-one would seriously consider it murder to abort or euthanise such a creature. Something can be considered a human being while not being a person and it seems reasonable to believe that it is not murder to kill a human being if it is not also a person - and that, although I will not follow this line of thought, that it is murder to kill a person who is not a human being.I will leave it there for fear of making a full fledged argument in the acceptance round, but I fear these clarifications are necessary before we begin because Pro's opening definitions do not seem to fit the purpose of this debate. Pro can, of course, challenge all these claims in his opening round. Go ahead Pro. http://www.ninds.nih.gov...
Abortion is Murder

Full Resolution: Abortion is MurderI will take the affirmative (Pro) position. Round 1: Acceptance and definitions (and agreement on definitions) Only. Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Rebuttals. Round 4: Summary of arguments only, no new arguments! Definitions:Abortion - Also called voluntary abortion. The removal of an embryo or a fetus from the uterus in order to end pregnancy. Murder - The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
Euthanasia should be legalized worldwide

Rebuttal You say that Euthanasia should only be legalized for people aged above 18 and suffering from a terminal illness. You also mentioned that children over 10 could choose to go ahead with Euthanasia provided that they have a doctor's approval. However, the patient may not always be able to make that decision. Consider the case of a coma. It is impossible to decide whether a patient in a coma may even regain consciousness, let alone make a decision about their future life. I'd also like to bring back the point I made earlier regarding 'terminal illness' and 'pain'. More examples could be Paralysis, Blindness, Speech Impairment etc. Is a patient suffering from a type of cancer in more pain than someone suffering from any of the above mentioned diseases? How can we measure that? We can't. All we can do is estimate a patient's 'level of pain' through verbal or non-verbal cues. My point is that we have very limited knowledge in this domain and hence we are not in a position to make a decision that may impact the lives of countless individuals. When you enforce a law, it has to be clear, direct and must not create any confusion. It is impossible to do so since we cannot distinguish between what is right and what is not at all times.
Euthanasia should be legalized worldwide

People have the right to choose. Look, you have a terminal illness. You are in constant non stop extreme pain. So your telling me you would live another week of non stop pain for no reason? Thats why I think you should have the right. However, they should have to have a reason and be over 18. We don't want teenagers/depressed people doing this for no reason. I think children over 10 could say if they would want to do it or not, but with doctors opinons. Parents should never decide to kill their children, and shouldn't prevent it without a reason. Sorry for my english, it's not my native language.
Euthanasia should be legalized worldwide

Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The incentive to go ahead with Euthanasia would be to relieve the pain and suffering of a patient diagnosed with an incurable disease. Somehow terminal illness is always associated with the final stages of cancer. There are many kinds of incurable diseases ranging from the final stages of a Malignant Cancer to something as mild as Asthma (can also be severe, but for the sake of the argument let's assume it's mild). So does that mean that a person suffering from Asthma can choose to die just because of the complications of the disease? NO. It's unfortunate that things turned out the way they did, but they've just got to live with it. Yes, they may feel left out at times due to some of the activities that they can't take part in, but that doesn't give them an excuse to miss out on a life like that. Boldly, I'd like to extend the same ideology to any other disease including mental retardation and physical disabilities. Also, there is no set standard for measuring, quantifying and comparing the sensation of pain. We can only estimate the level of pain based on a person's behavior and other verbal cues. Even if this seems philosophical, it is rather absurd to assume that the future would be free of pain. We don't know what happens after death. We define birth as the beginning of life. But is it not true that the fetus inside the womb is not alive? Similarly, we cannot ascertain what happens after death. Yes, theoretically there shouldn't be any sensation. However, we will never know for sure and due to lack of knowledge we cannot advise anybody to go ahead with Euthanasia.