BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is fair

My opponent believes that because it is created by human beings but that does nothing to negate the fact that the nature of moral decisions are ones that tend to be fair. I do not contend that morality is absolute but that its creation was to ensure people would make decisions that are more fair. I believe my opponent missed the point in my example of slavery. People were not showing morality by owning slaves but when morality was applied slavery was abolished. People began to ask themselves if it was fair to own another human being and deny them all rights. "The only authority is through those who have the most power" This is a perfect example when applied to my slavery example because the slave owners were the ones with the power and they decided to relinquish the power and start granting them their rights. To make them equal was fair. Here's another example of slavery that swaps the ones in power. An employee has the chance to steal some merchandise from their employer but they decide it would not be morally acceptable. In this example the employer is the one who has the most power and yet the employee still makes a morally upstanding decision. They determine that stealing is not fair just because they have the opportunity. Both morality and fairness are beliefs that are man made so it has to be judged on a case by case basis to determine if the decision made was moral and fair because there is no absolution in either. The following are "defined" definitions fair fair1 /fe(ə)r 1. in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate. 2. just or appropriate in the circumstances. 3. without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage. This definition reaffirms my position on fairness because these are scenarios that do not require any absolution. Number 1 can be applied in many aspects of our every day lives such someone playing a game. If they do not cheat that are playing fair. Number 2 specifies that it is according to the circumstances (meaning no absolution) Number 3 can be the same as number 1.
Morality is fair

I won't contest my Pro's point that morality is man made. I agree with that point. First let us go over the definitions of in words in the resolution. Morality:"beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior[1]" [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... Fair:"treating people in a way that does not favor some over others[2]" [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com... The resolution is "Morality is fair." Morality is not fair. Why? Because it is created by human beings from my observations. My opponent agrees on that point that morality is man made. So it can not be fair because it is not absolute. It is relative as my opponent has shown with his examples. The standards of morality are relative so how can it be fair? When one benefits and another suffers how is that fair? There is no absolute authority to dictate fairness either. The only authority is through those who have the most power. Therefore they are only an authority through the threat of force. Fairness has no valid basis. So morality can not be fair. "Morality puts a figurative leash on our true nature which is not as kind hearted as we've been shaped to be but it creates a more fair society for everyone." It can not be fair because there is no such valid concept of fairness. That is exclusively a matter of opinion because there is no absolute authority to derive fairness from. "In the early years of America's creation slavery was the right of anyone who had enough money to buy one. Slavery is to take away the freedom of another person and force them to do literally whatever the owner desired. Slavery was done simply because people could with no consequences. They believed the slave to be beneath human dignity and thus justifying the possession of another person. Clearly this was not fair and over the course of time people began to realize what they were doing was morally wrong and slowly slavery was abolished. Morality set slaves free which everyone can agree was the fair thing to do." Morality was the initial reason why the Atlantic Slave Trade took place. Pope Nicholas V issued an edict so save these unbelievers[3]. Was this fair? I would say it was not. [3]http://www.princeton.edu...
Morality is fair

I look forward to this debate. The origins of morality have been debated since man began to question religion. Many people believe that it comes directly from religion or the God's where as others believe it is purely the creation of man so that we can live in a civil society. Personally I tend to believe we created it. Morality puts a figurative leash on our true nature which is not as kind hearted as we've been shaped to be but it creates a more fair society for everyone. For example: In the early years of America's creation slavery was the right of anyone who had enough money to buy one. Slavery is to take away the freedom of another person and force them to do literally whatever the owner desired. Slavery was done simply because people could with no consequences. They believed the slave to be beneath human dignity and thus justifying the possession of another person. Clearly this was not fair and over the course of time people began to realize what they were doing was morally wrong and slowly slavery was abolished. Morality set slaves free which everyone can agree was the fair thing to do.
Atheism is the default position.

Rebuttal 1:If a default position is to be defined as the natural state of things: then I would direct Pro's attention to the historical fact that all clans or races in recorded history had different marks of complex theology. This would imply that Humanity supernatural deity could be hard wired in human genes. Hamer, Dean (2005). The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard wired Into Our Genes. If this were the instance, then Atheism is not the default position but a position that goes against the genes one is born with.Your conclusion is that Atheism is a default position. Your premise leading to that conclusion is "Babies are born with a lack of believe in God"My contention is the premise is false. Babies are born with with a brain. The brain has structures and chemical signals that adults interpret as "religious experiences" Babies have these structures and chemicals in their brain and therefore indicate that they believe in God. Babies are theist by default.My example of the brain structures does not lead to impossible for anyone to be atheist. Just like babies have the natural default position to poop and pee on themselves, but they grow up and make a decision to use the bathroom. Then the analogy would follow is that Atheism is a conscious decision made.Therefore in conclusion Theism is the default position not Islam, Christendom, Hinduism,etc.
Atheism is the default position.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists.That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it.That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist. Nobody is born a Theist. If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default positionof being an Atheist.It's that simple.
Italians should always be considered White

"Tell me something, what's the difference? " On has one option as a definition (Presented OR thought out with care) where the definition could just mean thought out. The other definition means only one thing. "Since there is no difference, if it pleases you I will use your translation" Excellent, though you do contradict this point later in your argument. "When people from North Korea here Americans, they do not think of them as kind and harmless" This is a matter of perspective, one thing that must be considered when determining if someone is white. "Italy also has enemies, so not everyone will consider Italians as harmless" But you must consider perspective into this as well. "Where is your proof that Italians are all kind" I never stated I believed that. "Audience, my opponent is still trying to win a debate that he lost in round two. " We shall see what the voters decide. I would like to thnk the audience for reading and my opponent.
Italians should always be considered White

Thank you for posting your next argument. My last argument will be brief, since I have already made my point. Listen to the following sentences, "Reached after or carried out with careful thought" "Presented or thought out with care" Tell me something, what's the difference? The only difference is that it is worded differently. You say that you disagree with my translation of considered. That is contradicting yourself. There is no difference between your and mine. Since there is no difference, if it pleases you I will use your translation. I live in the USA. When people from North Korea here Americans, they do not think of them as kind and harmless. Italy also has enemies, so not everyone will consider Italians as harmless. Analysis, interesting word, lets look at what is means. "The separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements" In order to do this you have to carefully think over the facts, or, as you say, consider. Where is your proof that Italians are all kind? Audience, my opponent is still trying to win a debate that he lost in round two. Although he is somewhat a good debater, he has failed to provided sources that would prove his case, has made numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, and has had a weak argument. I believe I have made my point clear and heavily urge a Con vote.
Italians should always be considered White

"Reached after or carried out with careful thought" This is where we disagree. I said considered means thought out with care, while you have said its carried out after careful thought. "So, considered does not mean just reach or carried out. What it means is reached after or carried out with careful thought." It has two definitions, and since they are from the same source, and I hadprovided mine first, I feel my definition trumps your's. "If we think about all the Italians carefully, we relies that there has to be at least one person who has, is, or will harm someone. There has to be at least one person or is with malice." Agreed. "Mr. Russo is an Italian mob boss that was just caught. His mob was called the Russo clan. Police described the Russo clan as a leading player in the Camorra organized-crime syndicate that operates in and around Naples" I agree with this biography. "There are other Italian mobs that are currently running loose causing harm to others. Since we have no proof that someone is innocent, we can not always think they are" However, you can always consider this. "There are usually about eighteen players, some are innocent and some guilty. There are more innocent than guilty. Everyone, including the guilty, pretends that they are innocent. Just because most of the people are innocent does not mean that we should consider all of the people playing the game innocent." Mafia is a game of complete analysis. If you fail to analyze and consider the posibility of someone being innocent, you are going to lose. Thank you for reading.
Italians should always be considered White

Thank you for posting your next argument. You yourself said that considered means thought out with care. Another translation, though meaning the same thing, is "Reached after or carried out with careful thought" That is the translation from your own source you provided me. So, considered does not mean just reach or carried out. What it means is reached after or carried out with careful thought. Care, or careful means cautious in one's actions. Do you see where I'm going? If we think about all the Italians carefully, we relies that there has to be at least one person who has, is, or will harm someone. There has to be at least one person or is with malice. Mr. Russo is an Italian mob boss that was just caught. His mob was called the Russo clan. Police described the Russo clan as a leading player in the Camorra organized-crime syndicate that operates in and around Naples. There are other Italian mobs that are currently running loose causing harm to others. Since we have no proof that someone is innocent, we can not always think they are. I will use something more familiar, the mafia games that are played on DDO. There are usually about eighteen players, some are innocent and some guilty. There are more innocent than guilty. Everyone, including the guilty, pretends that they are innocent. Just because most of the people are innocent does not mean that we should consider all of the people playing the game innocent. If you are unfamiliar with the game you can find the link in my sources below. I thank you and look forward to your next argument. Happy New Years. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://online.wsj.com... (3). http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (4). http://ddofans.com...
Italians should always be considered White

"Many Italians are kind people yes, but just because someone is kind does not mean that they are always without malice or harmless" Does this mean you should not consider the fact? In fact with all people, you should always consider this fact. "It was said that Hitler was a very kind man to the blonde hair blue eyes. But to say that he was harmless because he was kind is absurd" As I said, it should have been considered (Thought about) that he was harmless. However, when his actions disproved this, he should should have been considered as evil. "Now, even if there was someone who was perfect, that does not mean that everyone is. " I aree with this. "Let us say we put one person in a room that is perfect. Then we put nine other people in the same room who are not perfect. We call them test subjects 1. As" Okay. "We can not say that all 1. As are perfect just because one of them is" But you can consider it. Also, I would like to point out that white does not mean perfect, but without harm. Do you think we should always assume people are evil? Thank you.
Italians should always be considered White

Many Italians are kind people yes, but just because someone is kind does not mean that they are always without malice or harmless. It was said that Hitler was a very kind man to the blonde hair blue eyes. But to say that he was harmless because he was kind is absurd. We must face it, no one is perfect. Now, even if there was someone who was perfect, that does not mean that everyone is. Let us say we put one person in a room that is perfect. Then we put nine other people in the same room who are not perfect. We call them test subjects 1.As We can not say that all 1.As are perfect just because one of them is. Do you think that Benito Mussolini was always perfect? Thank you, I look forward to your next argument. Sources: (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com...... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com...... (4). http://en.wikipedia.org...
Italians should always be considered White

Well, lets have a go at it then! Definitions: White: without malice; harmless http://dictionary.reference.com... Always: every time; on every occasion http://dictionary.reference.com... presented or thought out with care http://www.thefreedictionary.com... RESOLUTION: Italians should always be considered as White I do not need to tell anyone in the audience that Italians, as a people, are generally kind. Even if you disagree with this satatement, you must agree that some people are kind. This brings us to the conclusion that people should always consider if anyone (including Italians) are white. I will end here because you asked me to be breif.
thought on atheism

Atheism is not so. Theism is not mythical and unreasonable. As a disclaimer, I am a member of the Bah"'" faith. I wanted to make that clear before beginning this debate. The Earth's size and position in the galaxy. If the Earth were any smaller, any larger, any further from the sun, or any closer to the sun, we wouldn't exist. The Earth is in an absolute perfect position and size in our galaxy. Even a fraction of a difference in the position from the sun and we would all either burn or freeze to death. I am keeping my argument for this round short and sweet as my opponent did the same.
This smelly bus would whisper: Jedi4 was more important than Kant in the development of philosophy

Kant influenced many more than just three guys. The three philosophers that Pro has listed were the philosophers that "created" German Idealism--a philosophy not at all related to Nazi Germany. These philosophers did this against Kant's writings. Kant's writing, and especially his work on his Categorical Imperative influenced the philosophical world to an extreme. Prof. Oliver A. Johnson claims that, "With the possible exception of Plato's Republic, (Critique of Pure Reason) is the most important philosophical book ever written."[1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "Immanuel Kant (1724"1804) is the central figure in modern philosophy. He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields."[2] I can tell this is not at all a very serious debate (I almost wish I did not accept it, due to it's stupidity...), so I won't go into the actual philosophy that he introduced that has caused such influence. Now let's look at how much Jedi4 has influenced philosophy. Pro has claimed he has influenced many students in the philosophy of "Jedism". Well, I can safely say that no student of philosophy has been influenced in it, much less philosophy as a whole. But let's take a closer look at his backup for this claim. He gives a link to a debate that Jedi4 has participated in. If you take a look at this debate, he has lost, so I don't think he really did have much influence. I have now proven that voting Con is justified, but I also want to clear Kant's name. Pro has brought up a false picture of young Hitler. I don't know who that picture is of, but it's not of Hitler. Check out this Wikipedia article for some pictures of Hitler when he was younger: http://en.wikipedia.org... So, we can conclude that Kant and Hitler were not at all the same person. (You can also take into account that they lived nearly 100 years apart. As for Pro's assertion that Kant was some sort of psychopath that kept a philosopher in his basement, this argument does not even deserve to be addressed. Vote Con. [1] Article on Kant within the collection "Great thinkers of the Western World", Ian P. McGreal, Ed., HarperCollins, 1992. [2] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Immanuel Kant" First published May 20th, 2010. http://plato.stanford.edu...
This smelly bus would whisper: Jedi4 was more important than Kant in the development of philosophy

Kant influenced like 3 german guys (nobody even cares about 2 of thems). Ficthe, Shelling and hagel. Ficthe was basically an LSD additced kant lover and Shelling stole everything from Fichte. Hagel created some BS system based on dielticis. Thats all what kant did for us. The world would be better off without german idealism. I (jedi4) have inspired many students to base philosophies off jedism and the philosopjy of star wars. I have proven the movies star wars are based off factual eventshttp://www.debate.org... We know Kant was a germo.Heres the kicker so was hitler. Kants death was mysterious, no body was ever found. Aaaaaaand we have never seen kant and hitler at the same place. The bigger kicker? Look at Hithit and look and Kant ^ young hitler ^ young kantThe similarites are f*cking striking. Kant obviouslt is biologically immortal and died as adolf hitler. We know hithit liked art anddddd so did Kant. Kant was a bad artist but worked on it all his life. Who would get so mad over a little bit of artwork? No one but who would get mad if a lifetime of working on art was rejected. Thinking about it makes me want to commit genocide. Theer is doubt that kant did any philosophy. I believe there was an old genius man with dimention in kants basement that Kant molested and stole his work. Because kant like to f*ck loose women and get down to paaaaaartay. Philosopher s like kant dont do sh1t like this. They are quite guys who sit in there homes and read philosophy. http://www.theguardian.com... All that wine would make Kants mind all f*cked. Kant wasnt a intelligent man he was a psycho molester theif man who made his carrier off an old man in his basement. On behalf of all real philosophers F*ck you Kant.
that islamic belief in getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false religion

If a religion contradicting itself made it a "false religion", then every religion would be considered false. The debate parameters said that the virgins after death makes it a false religion, but nothing about that makes it not fit the definition of religion. Therefore Pro has failed to show why it doesn't qualify as a religion. Had the parameters said immoral religion or incorrect religion, then my opponent would have a point, but I wouldn't have accepted the debate because I agree with that. Virgins included, it still fits the definition of religion I provided, so it still qualifies as a valid religion.
that islamic belief in getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false religion

That may be the case, but the resolution is about whether or not the idea of these virgins makes Islam a false religion. I don't see an any way why it does. The virgins might be an appeal to human desires, but so is the biblical description of heaven. Beauty is one of the many human desires. We like to have something pretty to look at. Heaven is described as having streets of gold, buildings of jasper, and the foundations of the walls were said to be garnished with all manner of precious stones. (1) Some might say the difference is that sex is an immoral desire, but this isn't inherently true. Sex in and of itself isn't necessarily immoral. It is seen as immoral in predominantly Christian cultures, but that isn't universal morality. There are plenty of valid religions and cultures that celebrate and revere sex. Even the word orgy comes from the Greek orgia, meaning secret worship. (2) We view such activity today as reprehensible, but that has not always been the case. Religions and cultures have varied throughout time as far is what is permissible and what is not. So just because Islam uses sex as an afterlife reward in no way invalidates it as a religion any more than a heaven full of jewels invalidates Christianity. Both are using human desires as promises of an enjoyable afterlife. 1. http://shieldoffaith62.blogspot.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
that islamic belief in getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false religion

"Even though the Qur'an does not mention the number of virgins, it does say in verse 56:36[27] that Muslim men will be awarded with virgins in Paradise. The Qur'an describes their physical attributes, for example they will have large eyes (56:22) and big breasts (78:33)[20] and so on. The actual number of houri is thus a minor issue and 72 is the number of those houris confirmed in multiple hadith. The hadiths are a crucial part of Islam and certain Muslims ignore them because sometimes they contain uncomfortable details about Islam. There are many hadiths and Qur'anic verses which talk about various issues of a sexual nature. According to Sahih Bukhari 1:5:268 which belongs to the most authentic collection of hadiths, Muhammad himself was given the sexual strength of 30 men and so on."