BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Federal Government Should Implement The Islamic Shariah In The United States

First of all, Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe because Muslims are IMMIGRATING to America and Europe, in search of jobs, prosperity, stability, etc. It is not some sort of Muslim "Great Awakening." You use the Qu'ran as a source. This is not rational. So rape is prohibited by the Qu'ran, and every other respectable religious text I can think of. What of it? Rape still happens in Muslim countries, perpetrated by Muslims on Muslims. And I'm sure, because of the insecurity of women--I mean, if you could be persecuted for reporting a rape, would you--that the rates are far higher than the United States. I notice you ignored my point about that completely. The Qu'ran, as I say, would only be good evidence if every American was Muslim. You say the number of drunk driving deaths, lung cancer deaths, and rapes will decrease. What else? Will our teeth stop decaying? In all seriousness, that is improbable. How can I impress upon you that this will never happen? Shariah law may reduce lung cancer, and maybe even tooth decay, but it would contravene essential American freedoms. The Constitution would be extinct. Liberty, equality? Things of the past. Until Islam grows out of its adolescent hot-headedness, it has no place among the great religions of the world, and even less place in law and government. Here is a passage from the US State Department website regarding Religion. "Religious freedom means that the state cannot sponsor, support, or discourage religious expression by any group or individual. Religion remains a prominent feature of life in the United States, but courts have held that the First Amendment means that a "wall" must separate religion and the government. " Shariah law would violate this. Here is another: "The rights embodied in the Constitution do not exist in isolation or in the abstract. They require recognition and active support by all Americans, regardless of political views or position in society." Shariah law violates this as well. Americans love and preserve their rights. Shariah would destroy that, and all else we in America hold dear. It will never happen, thank God. (Information, quotes taken from US State Department website, primarily http://usinfo.state.gov...)
The United States Federal Government Should Implement The Islamic Shariah In The United States

My cruelty argument still stands. Present a real, non-Quranic argument on that score and I will debate it. Islam is only barbaric and ruthless when it inflicts its laws on unbelievers. America is not Muslim; therefore the laws here would be barbaric and ruthless. By the way, this is the 21st Century, not the 20th, but you seems to think it's the 14th. My original argument still stands: SHARIAH LAW WOULD BE UTTERLY UNJUST IN AMERICA AND IT WOULD UNDERMINE EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY STAND FOR. You have not presented any new arguments, so there is nothing more I can say. If you can covert America to Islam, then perhaps you will be getting somewhere, but until then I don't think what you advocate is even conceivable possible.
The United States Federal Government Should Implement The Islamic Shariah In The United States

Chopping off the hands as punishment for robbery Islam prescribes chopping off the hands of the convicted robber. The Glorious Qur'an says in Surah Maidah: "As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands:a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power, full of wisdom." [ Al-Qur'an 5:38] The non-Muslim may say, "Chopping off the hands in this 20th century. Islam is a barbaric and ruthless religion!" (Which Is What Exactly You Said) Zakat Argument-I Agree With You Rape-Arguement-Islam prescribes method of eliminating molestation and rape All the major religions declare the molestation and rape of women as grave sins. Islam teaches the same. What then is the difference between Islam and the other religions? The difference lies in the fact that Islam does not merely preach respect for women, or abhor molestation and rape as serious crimes, but also gives clear guidance as to how society can eliminate such crimes Islam has Practical Solutions for the Problems of Mankind Islam is the best way of life because its teachings are not doctrinaire rhetoric but practical solutions for the problems of mankind. Islam achieves results both at the individual and collective levels. Islam is the best way of life because it is a practical, universal religion not confined to any ethnic group or nationality
The United States Federal Government Should Implement The Islamic Shariah In The United States

Raheelso, instituting Shariah law in the United States would undermine everything our country stands for. 1. Shariah Law is distinctly Muslim, and instituting it would infringe on others' rights to believe as they choose. Imagine instituting the Spanish Inquisition in Saudi Arabia. 2. Cutting off the hands of criminals is cruel and unusual punishment. 3. Your argument that hijab would reduce rape is interesting, but most rapes are perpetrated by someone who knows the victim previously--it is not a spur-of-the-moment decision, in other words. The clothing of the victim does not matter, and again, absolute capital punishment for rapists in every case is cruel and unusual. 4. Your Zakaat is also an interesting idea. However, Americans give charitably more than any nation in the world already, without being forced. The great thing about charity is that it is unconditional. With Zakaat, only those who are willing would be giving charitably--and would have presumably done it without Zakaat. And to those who weren't willing, it would be nothing but a tax. And we have those already. 5. Yes, America's rape rate is high. That is a tragedy, and something we should be working to fix. However, Shariah is not the answer. I notice that you don't give any rape statistics for countries WITH Shariah law. It would be interesting to see how they compare. However, under a law where women have been IMPRISONED for being raped--they wore the wrong clothes, you see, and rode with the wrong men; so it was their fault. Right. Shariah law is unjust. More important, however, it is un-American. This law should NEVER be instituted in America.
Robots sent to destroy human life on Earth would be more moral than humans are capable of being.

What the heck. I've no idea where Pro is going with this, but I hope it'll be a good debate! My argument will be simple: According to the vast majority of accepted accounts of 'right conduct' (I hope Pro will elaborate on this next round, but I reserve the right to challenge his definitions since 'right conduct' was not defined in the first round) 'murdering, torturing, raping, pillaging, stabbing, purple nurpling, and other varieties of hurtful deeds' are considered immoral. We have three choices: 1. The robots are not moral agents and are thus amoral. Humans have the capability to be moral and refrain from immorality. Humans therefore are capable of being more moral than robots are capable of being. 2. The robots are performing immoral actions, and humans at the very least have the capability to refrain from performing those acts to the same extent or at all, so humans are capable of being more moral than robots. 3. Morality does not exist. I'm not sure about this because R1 seems to assume the existence of morality, but if this is true then neither robots nor humans are any more moral than each other and the resolution is negated by virtue of that fact.
Robots sent to destroy human life on Earth would be more moral than humans are capable of being.

Burden of ProofThe burden of proof will be shared between my opponent and I. In order to win, one must not only refute the other's arguments, but must also bring their own case in favor of their respective claims. I will argue the affirmative of the resolution and my opponent will argue the negative.Definitions Robots: metallic beings programmed to rape, murder, torture, and pillage the human species until it is completely erradicated. These robots would also especially target those who are unable to defend themselves, such as babies, children, cripples, and elderly people.Destroy: any means used to erradicate or hurt the human species, including but not limited to murdering, torturing, raping, pillaging, stabbing, purple nurpling, and other varieties of hurtful deeds. Human life: any member of the species, Homo Sapiens. Including but not limited to children, toddlers, newborns, fetus', the elderly, librarians, gays, straights, asians, libertarians or any other being who could be considered as part of the human species.More moral: to perform moral actions more often than that which one is being compared.Morality: conforming to the rules of right conduct.Other clarifications In the scenario in which we will be arguing, no divine creator or deity will exist. One of the reasons being that it is unable to help the humans in time of attack.My definitions and other clarifications will not be up to debate. Once one accepts this debate, they necessarily accept my definitions and other clarifications.
Robots sent to destroy human life on Earth would be more moral than humans are capable of being.

On AP2Con, in his refutation of AP 2, does not seem to understand what morality is and thus, who is capable of it. Morality is conforming to the right rules of conduct. The robots in this scenario were built for a specific purpose and thus, if they do it correctly, they are conforming their objective code of conduct and are thus acting morally. The fact that the robots were created for a purpose is both a descriptive and a normative fact in this case. The descriptive fact that they were designed for a specific purpose entails a normative fact(that they ought to kill humans). If they do not kill then they are not conforming to the right rules of conduct.Overcoming the is - ought gapCon argues that while the base of any hypothetical imperative is based subjectively, conforming to it could be measured objectively. However when the base of a moral code is itself subjective, conforming to it would in any case be based off of subjectivity. The difference between a hypothetical imperative for robots and a hypothetical imperative for robots is that humans make their own hypothetical imperative based on their subjective preferences while the hypothetical imperative set forth for robots is set by those who designed them and so is on a different plane entirely. A printer does not have an 'obligation' to print because it is completely inanimate. The robots described have at least a degree of sentience.
Robots sent to destroy human life on Earth would be more moral than humans are capable of being.

Rejection of AP 2My opponent believes that the is-ought problem is being inconsistently applied to humans but not to robots. However the difference between humans and robots in this scenario is that humans were not made for a purpose while the robots were. It is therefore possible for the robots to deviate from what they 'ought' to do and therefore they can be moral or immoral. As to my opponent's example of a printer, I agree that it has no moral obligation to do what it was programmed to do, however not doing the thing that was the point of it's programming is wrong according to an objective code of what it 'ought' and 'ought not' to do. BP 1: Overcoming the is-ought gapMy opponent then believes that humans are able to get around the is-ought problem. However his argument has much to be desired in that it's main premise relies on the idea that "If I want to bring about X, then I ought to do Y". His critique that he brought against robots being capable of morality was that there was nothing objective about it. But then he builds a human response to the is-ought problem completely out of subjective feelings? If 'ought' truly is conditional(which it cannot be if we are speaking of 'objective' purpose) then morality is simply a clash of wills. It is an inconsistent philosophy that cannot be applied universally, thus contradicting itself seeing as it draws heavily on Kant.Summing up At the end of his case, Con points out two reasons which he believes will lead voters to reject my argument. They are as follows.1. Pro has provided no grounds for thinking robots have objective moral purpose, and has contradicted his reason for rejecting human centered morality in doing soMy grounds for objective moral purpose are exactly what separates human and robot morality. Robots are designed to fulfill a certain purpose, and in going against it are doing what they 'ought not' to do. This is why humans are incapable of 'objective' morality. To be objective, something must be existant without opinion. My opponent's morality is completely derived though from subjective values.2. He has not provided good reason to believe that humans cannot have objective moral standards. As I exaplained above, objective means true without regards to opinion. Humans came about with no regards to an objective purpose and so any such values that one derives are completely subjective.3 minutes to spare!
Robots sent to destroy human life on Earth would be more moral than humans are capable of being.

I will be taking two routes in this debate, both of which I think are sufficient to defeat Pro's argument. 1: Rejection of AP 2. Oddly, Pro seems to have a massive contradiction in his round. He argues that humans have no objective purpose because of Hume's so called 'is-ought' gap. Now, I will demonstrate that this gap can be (fairly trivially) overcome shortly, but let me first point out that this argument applies in the exact same way to Pro's robots! The descriptive ('is') fact that the robots were designed for killing and murdering does not endow them with objective moral standards, any more than the fact that humans happen to have evolved to act in certain ways endows them with objective standards. Pro has not only failed to provide grounds for thinking his hypothetical robots have objective moral purpose, but in doing so has explicitly contradicted his argument against humans having moral standards. Pro seems to have a very odd understanding of moral objectivity: a being has morally objective facts if it was programmed in some way to perform certain actions. This is clearly false - a printer does not have a objective moral obligation to print just because it was programmed to print. BP 1: Overcoming the is-ought gap. Say I define morality, as J. S. Mill, the classic political and ethical philosopher did: a form of utilitarian hedonism, where one ought to act to maximise universal happiness, often with respect to certain rules established to generally promote general happiness. So we have a stipulative definition for morality. Now here's the trick: how does one establish that one 'ought' to be moral, given that definition? It takes the form of a 'hypothetical imperative', an idea elucidated by Kant [1], which looks like this: If I want to bring about X, then I ought to do Y. For example: If I want to keep my car in good condition, I ought to take it to the local mechanics once in a while. The 'ought' is conditional on us willing a certain end, and once this end is willed it becomes an empirical matter as to how one ought to bring it about. Therefore, once we gave any given example of 'good conduct' in mind, we can overcome Hume's gap like this: If I want to act according to the moral principles stipulated, I ought to work to maximise happiness (or whatever). Now, as the why one would want to do that: that's a different debate, and one which would require us to be careful about what kind of moral system we choose. However, all that Pro has required I do to overcome this point is overcome Hume's 'is-ought' gap and provide an objective moral standard (hedonistic utilitarianism) according to which human *could* in principle be moral. To sum, we have two strong reasons to reject to Pro side of the debate: 1. Pro has provided no grounds for thinking robots have objective moral purpose, and has contradicted his reason for rejecting human centered morality in doing so and 2. He has not provided good reason to believe that humans cannot have objective moral standards. Thank you for reading. ^^ [1] . http://www.moralphilosophy.info...
Robots sent to destroy human life on Earth would be more moral than humans are capable of being.

For my argument I will argue two positions. The first will be that the robots which I described are acting morally when they rape, pillage, murder, ext. The second will be that human beings are incapable of acting morally. AP 1: Morality is conformity to the right rules of conduct. This is simply the agreed upon definition of morality. If my opponent wishes to argue over the interpretation of this definition, that would be fine. AP 2: Being programmed for a specific purpose, robots become moral agents. To validate this premise, we must look at what a moral agent is. A moral agent is generally defined as a being capable of acting in a right or wrong way. Since robots have a set purpose, they are capable of acting in a right way(killing, raping) or in a wrong way(not killing or raping). Whether they actually have free will over the matter is not important in this case because the criteria of moral agency is simply to be capable of acting in a right or wrong way. A robot can act in a wrong way by simply malfunctioning or breaking. Also, it being generally accepted that humans are capable of acting in a right or wrong way while the debate over they have free will is still ongoing is testament to free will not being necessary for moral agency. AP 3: Robots are fulfilling their purpose by killing, raping, ext. and so are acting in regards to right conduct. If their purpose is to kill, rape, ext. and they kill, rape, ext. then they are logically fulfilling their purpose. AC 1: By fulfilling their initial purpose, robots are conforming to the right rules of conduct and so are acting morally. --- From Ap 1, 2, and 3. BP 1: Humans have no objective purpose to follow in terms of right or wrong conduct. To challenge this premise, my opponent simply needs to provide a normative ethical claim that is able to bypass the is-ougt problem. Meaning that it is able to go from an 'is'( how the world is) to an 'ought'( how one should act). BC 1: Humans are incapable of acting in either a right or wrong way. --- From AP 1 and BP 1. This is the obvious conclusion one would draw when a non-subjective purpose is needed in order to act morally, and there is no non-subjective purpose. Therefore humans are incapable of acting morally. I will go into further detail as the debate progresses and when I see the specific objections Con brings.
justification

Once again your argument is full of holes. For example you said how this was about justification not moral justification but surely the examples you used such as Hitler and sexual abuse are moral. Also sexual abuse is not reasonable or right and you are trying to justify it so by that you are arguing that it can be right or reasonable. Because that's the definition. If you are voting remember that if you vote for my opponent you are in other words saying that sexual abuse and the many evil acts if Hitler can be seen as right and reasonable. To answer your question on sexual offenders being scientifically proven to have been sexually abused, well have you ever thought about those people from bad backgrounds that have gone on to great and honourable deeds, consider Mandela maybe so I am not saying that bad backgrounds have no effect but you can overcome the effects because that is proven also and so they still hold responsibility for sexual offending.
justification

the Oxford dictionary states that the definition of justification is, the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. So it is not if the situation is justified or not, it is the action of you showing something to be justified which means no matter how much of an absurd reason you give to justify something you have justified it. going into it being morally justified would be a different story but just sticking to the definition you can clearly justify anything. encase you still don't understand, I shall give you an example. I can justify someone sexually abusing another person by stating that they were also sexually abused and might still be traumatised by the events. it is scientifically proven that people who have been abused are more likely to abuse. the reason something like this would never work in court, i hope. Is because people have more common sense than that, which also means that justification is totally unreliable. and that anything can be justified.
justification

Ok then, so your argument is that everything can be justified and you use Adolf Hitler being abused as an example. Well do you really think that just because he got beaten up gives him the moral right to authorise the deaths of millions of innocent people? Because that is your argument is it not? One man, however badly brought up, who ordered deaths of innocents can never be called justice. Justification for your information according to the Oxford dictionary is 'The action of showing something to be right or reasonable.' No matter how hard you try mass murder of millions is not right or reasonable. He still chose to be prejudice from his own freewill and chose to discriminate against Jews. He didn't have to set up a vicious totalitarian regime. He chose too and to justify that would be to sympathise with someone considered the most unreasonable man in history. You also say that because Hitler was brave and determined somehow it's ok then that he did what he did. It doesn't matter if you are brave or cowardly, analytical or emotional because it's what you do that defines you and what he did was neither right or reasonable and can never be and therefore cannot be justified and therefore since that cannot be justified, not everything can be justified and so your whole case is disproved.
justification

i was having an argument with my mother and sister about justification. i said that you can justify anything, as long as people have their own opinion. for example, hitler. i could justify what hitler done by stating things like, he was abused as a child, he wasn't brought up like "normal" people. and i could say that he is a good rolemodel, just by stating that he was brave, that he was determined, he was a soldier and saved somebodys life, how he was talented. if i asked someone to name a person with all of those attributes, do you think the first person which will come to mind is hitler, no. i said all of those things to my mother and sister and got no response, all they done was shake their head and say i was ignorant. so as they did resort to attacking my i suppose i won the argument. they also think im some fucked up kid who thinks raping or murder is okay, which i dont i can just understand how someone would be able to justfy it. i challenge anyone?
Environment

It is getting warmer in general. It is the speed at which it is warming that is a cause for concern. I don't care what Al Gore says about anything. I care about science, education, and the planet. No, we can't stop global warming, it is a natural process, but we can slow it down as we prepare for the climate change. I will give you the Faux News crap because Faux News is responsible for putting "crap" out. They are agenda pushers just like MSNBC and all the other media outlets.
Environment

Take a trip to the Arctic, it's getting warmer there. I was looking for someone who believes that what we are doing has an effect on the environment, but you took the challenge. The planet's temperature has always fluctuated. It starting warming quicker once the industrial revolution started. Just because it is cold outside right now does not mean global warming is not going on, and it definitely does not mean that we have nothing to do with it. This sounds like Faux News gibberish to me.