BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
No culture is superior to another

My opponent seems to blur the line between law and morals. Just because in society x,y,and z it was legal to enslave humans or kill humans due to their religion and/or race doesn't mean this activity is moral. In fact, I think that since most people see these actions as highly immoral despite being legal, proves that at least some morals are objective. For example, many primitive tribes legally allowed for human sacrifices, yet this is considered highly immoral by most people in the world. What this shows is that people sometimes are so worried about meeting their basic needs that they set aside their morals for a bit. Yet, as we move away from day to day survival we can pull the lens back and get a better idea of what is moral and what is not. Just because some megalomaniac degrees that action z is moral, doesn't mean it is. As for other species, we have a pretty good idea of what their needs are. It would be unfair to hold up a coyote to human's standards. Nevertheless we shouldn't allow for arbitrary cruelty towards the coyote from humans. As for aliens, we will cross that bridge when we get there. We have no idea if humans will blow themselves up before meeting aliens or not. For all we know the aliens could be practically identical to humans. Nations are built upon the past. Social change is slow. I think we know the difference between right and wrong, we just have not found the time and effort to match our nations values and laws with morality. There will always be a vested interest trying to hold back social justice. Just because we haven't defeated this vested interest, don't mean morals are subjective, we just need more people protesting factory farms. As for war, we make compromises between morals and survival. I think on some level they knew war was wrong, but a necessary evil. To compensate for warriors feeling queasy about killing they glorified war. Think about it, if they thought war was moral, they would not need to glorify war. In fact, I think that's what most social justice issues come down to. Survival and inconvenience versus morals. "I don't' want to lose my job, go factory farming." Therefore, the issue isn't about morality but the factory worker not wanting to lose his/her job. Thanks for the debate.
No culture is superior to another

I detest the morals are subjective argument. People use this to rationalize all sorts of animal cruelty. Tribe A has different morals than tribe B, therefore morals are subjective and we can do whatever we want to the weak. Some people even go so far as to say that it is okay to arbitrarily light people and animals on fire since morals are subjective. I disagree, morals are objective, regardless of the tribe you happened to grow up in. The reality of it is morals are objective. Sure, there are a few powerful and morally devoid people who think forcing people into slavery is moral. Yet, human trafficking is universally accepted as illegal and immoral, except for a few. [1] [2] People may not universally agree on what flavor of tea is best, but certain issues like homicide and slavery seem universally accepted as immoral. As I perceive the situation, people who think morals are subjective, either have not put much thought into the issue or are morally devoid their-selves. There are many issues that seem like a good idea at the time, but then when you think it through falls apart. Thanks for debating. 1. http://www.un.org... 2. http://www.humanrights.com...
No culture is superior to another

I gave quite a few examples of eurocentrism and western beliefs of superiority because of morals and technological advances. But still my definition of superiority is the "the belief that you are better than other people"(or society in this context) but yes we will stick you your target. http://www.merriam-webster.com... I will also define moral because its very relevant "Concerned with or derived from the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society" www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/moral As for your arguement you assume there's one set of objective morals which are universalistic and objective. However I will dispute this it is well known that the west have massively different moral norms to other countries or tribes. This difference means that there is no one objective universal moral because it varies universally as shown in here http://www.revue-klesis.org... in other words morals are subjective. Also even if there is a God (to which I doubt) and he gave us an objective moral system. However so did the devil or other human beings and who's morals to believe is subjective - no opinion is inherently more right or wrong then the other. So thus it is subjective. This also leads to the latter part of your argument since morals aren't universal or objective you're judging it from a western standpoint and thus from a bias standpoint so your view is less valid (someone from the east would view their culture as superior). This all means that morals don't make society inherently more important then the other because they vary. You disagree with me because you've been socialised into western morals thus you would believe them to be very important and objective but its different realistically and universally thus just because you perceive its more superior doesn't make it so. I will give an example of this: someone in the UK were raised with morals attached to the west and someone else in North Korea are socialised into the morals of the culture. Neither is superior to each other even if the North Korean believed it or vice versa as it all perception.
No culture is superior to another

My opponent failed to demonstrate a criteria for one culture being superior to another. Therefore, I will provide one. Also, since it is unfair for me to hit a moving target, I propose that neither one of us change the target. A culture can be deemed superior or inferior based solely upon morals. You might live in a rich neighborhood, with adequate military protection, technology, and knowledge, yet if everyone is immoral fools it will be Hell. The best way to judge the morals of a society is how it treats the weakest, animals. "A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members" ~Pope John Paul II Morals are paramount to all other characteristics of a society. Therefore, some cultures are obviously more moral than others. From the below website we can see how various countries rate in animal welfare. [0] As you can see there is rating from G the worst to A the best. United Kingdom and Austria have the best protections for animals with an A rating. Belarus and Iran have the worst a G rating. To me it is crystal clear that the United Kingdom and Austria are superior to Belarus and Iran. Thanks for debating. 0. http://api.worldanimalprotection.org...#
No culture is superior to another

(I apologize for this beforehand as some words may lack spaces between them because that's how it formats it) Its often seen as the western style of government - individualistic and capitalistic -with large technological advances are seen as superior to other countries or styles of management of the world. I mean; wouldn't the average (western) human being scoff tribes around the world as inferior to the superior might and supposed intellectual, moralistic and technological staple the USA or the UK are? Its always been widely believed that tribes are uncivilized and savages inferior to the West https://en.wikipedia.org... . Even Charles Darwin believed that Europeans were superior 'because of morals' compared to 'Savages' who don't even understand the idea of morals http://www.racismreview.com... I am promoting a different view towards this, supporting that no country can be inherently better then the other meaning that the USA/UK is not superior to an anarchy. North Korea or any country with significantly less progress then the West. This also means the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is completely wrong because its imposing its beliefs on other countries which do not hold the same beliefs. Any supposed beliefs stemming from perceived superiority, morality or intellectual is just perceived as being more important which does not necessarily mean its true. For example the UDHR tries to get rights for children in every single country often trying to prevent child soilders. However this is wrong due to childhood being a social construction -https://revisesociology.com...- and every society having different ways of raising their children meaning a society can't impose their views on the other because every society has different ways of raising their children; it is completely relative thus neither is superior and any perception otherwise is indeed perceived. Sources in support: https://en.wikipedia.org... Sources for against: https://en.wikipedia.org... www.quebecoislibre.org/younkins26.html This also argues against my arguement for a more biological approach: https://en.wikipedia.org...
gravity=weight+force of gravity=down+up=falling+rising

difference in the "density" or weight of matter is the force of gravity a little feather falls more slow then a bowling ball because there is down there is up, becasue if there isnt down the thing dosnt fall when the force of gravity applies to an object, up is the cause of Down, when the force of gravity dosnt apply, Down is the cause of down wind flow goes out at the top of my window, and comes in at the bottom if a cup cake falls from a tree, how far is it from down? cause+effect=logic
PC Gaming is better than console gaming

That's great! I can't use a controller! But the cool thing with a PC is that I can plug in my Xbox controller into my PC via a MicroUSB cable, and these can be bought cheaply for like four bucks (USD) on Amazon. So if I ever want to play Cuphead with my buddy on my PC who doesn't like using a keyboard and a mouse, we can both be comfortable playing on the same computer playing the same game because I just plug in the Xbox One controller into the PC, and I use my mouse and keyboard. Now if you don't like cables, you are just making things difficult, but there is a solution, you can get an adapter for 25 bucks (USD), and you can make a PC that is better and cheaper than an Xbox One X already so you have money left over to get one. You can also even make it so you can fully replace your keyboard and mouse with an Xbox One controller even not in games. Sources: Proof you can use the controller: https://www.pcworld.com... MicroUSB cables: https://www.amazon.com... Wireless XB1 Controller Adapter: https://www.xbox.com... How to use XB1 Controller on desktop: https://www.windowscentral.com...
PC Gaming is better than console gaming

Xbox and Windows are owned by Microsoft, almost all Xbox 'exclusives' are as well on PC, meaning almost all Xbox One games are on PC. The only games that the Xbox One has that aren't on PC include Crimson Dragon, Dance Central Spotlight, Fighter Within, Forza Motorsport 5, Fru, Halo 5, the Halo Master Chief Collection, Kinect Sports Golf, Powerstar Golf, Rare Replay, Shape Up, Sunset Overdrive, and Xbox Fitness. Look up any game you think is on the Xbox One but isn't on PC and put PC after the game name in Google and you will find proof. As for the TV, a TV is just a bigger monitor, at my house, I have 2 desktop gaming computers. One is next to my desk like a normal PC, the other is on a table connected to my TV. Gaming computers can use HDMI cables, and almost every new television has an HDMI slot, and if it doesn't, you can buy an adapter. You can as well buy a Steam Link which lets you stream any game over to your TV from your gaming PC with a slim $40 device with little to no noticeable lag. The Xbox interface isn't all that special. There is an app for everything Xbox can do. As for the last part, that may just be because mouse and keyboard are superior to controllers and most PC gamers probably use mouse and keyboard. Evidence: Steam Link: https://www.amazon.com... TV with PC: https://www.reddit.com... Only Exclusive Xbox One Games: https://en.wikipedia.org...
PC Gaming is better than console gaming

Good point I should try that... Except I won't and here's why. I don't play ANY PC games. Honestly, all the good games are for consoles. And also traditional, your console is hooked up with your TV (in my case my huge home theater). This gives a much bigger screen, and your also able to use the Xbox interface. I don't play any PC games because really the only games I played were Fortnite and Minecraft (Mineplex). But I just got them both on my Xbox and I've seen a definite increase in my Fortnite wins per month (as well as Hunger Games).
bleach is one of the best animes I have ever seen, I believe it is better than fullmetal alchemist

I guess this is pretty useless. My main thoughts on fullmetal alchemist is that they portrayed themselves as action at first and proved to be about story alone. So with that I was as well as many others disappointed about the lack of action. Although as I said I do love fullmetal and it does have a great story. I own all 14 Discs and have played 3 of the 4 playstation games. I hand this victory to you my opponent. I have yet to learn exactly how to compact my skills, this is the point of me joining this site. Thank you for the fun. But just a little add in, it was already stated that Orihime can create a shield in anyones body and make it expand. But the only problem is, is her hesitance to kill. Now on to the fact that I have not seen all of bleach nor read all of the manga for fullmetal or bleach, so I can no longer contest. If you have would you care to comment on where you were able to see them all?
bleach is one of the best animes I have ever seen, I believe it is better than fullmetal alchemist

Well said, yet what you are saying is a drawn out fight is coinidentally not that long compared to dragon ball z. I am not referring to a fight between two characters with which one runs away and comes back another day, the fight between byakuya and ichigo has been the longest so far and that only lasted two episodes within the actual fight. As for fullmetal alchemist being a drama, well either way if you compare fullmetal alchemist the manga with bleach they are about the same so maybe the classification was not listed the way it was supposed to be considering the character outlining were just as bleaches repetitive style that you feel you have noticed. The character scar runs around with a little girl just as kenpachi zaraki does. Then you have al and armstrong and hawkeye who all at somepoint need to be saved as well. as for ichigo being the strongest that definitely is not the case when he gets his insides handed to him over and over again by people he could clearly beat if he were only more understanding of the power he could hold. yes some of the regular humans are weaker, that is because ichigo is not a regular human. this is already decided when his father shows his true colors. chad is only weak when they only portray his ability as something from nowhere until you find that it is amplified by hueco mundo and that he is part hollow hole. orihime could kill ichigo anytime anywhere if she were only like rukia and yoruchi and had the guts to do so. this proves chad could be a match and orihime is stronger. Bleach is a japanese anime which takes place in japan and fullmetal takes place in another world. but if it were to be in this world its parallel world is germany. Ths story to this is racism and trials and hardships. this is the teary dreary drama i was mentioning. bleach made no claims that it did not fulfill. If it starts on action saturday previewing actions scenes, it provides this. fullmetal does the same and provides bits and pieces and what could be called a quarter of a skirmish. Now i still love fullmetal alchemist but i wish the manga would have been the anime. as far as i have read in bleach, the manga does not differ that much from the anime. So i see that this has become pretty interesting and so far i respect your argument, plz give me more.
bleach is one of the best animes I have ever seen, I believe it is better than fullmetal alchemist

Alright, thanks. I've got what I need. Let us begin. First, in response to my opponent's question, Full Metal Alchemist is a drama rather than an action anime (in fact, the manga is a drama as well). My opponent suggest that unlike "Dragon Ball Z", Bleach doesn't suffer from the weakness of drawn out fights and a main character who is too powerful, but both of these assertions are false. Drawn-out Fights: In the manga, the fight against the villain known as Syzayel takes 40 chapters to resolve. Given that 40 chapters can roughly be described as 20 episodes (since the current pace of the anime is roughly 2 manga chapters per episode), it will take 20 episodes to resolve. This is just 10 episodes shorter than the longest fight in dbz. Main character being too powerful: Ichigo suffers from the problem you had with Goku in that he is made out as being too powerful. There are times when one questions why the other characters are even around since Ichigo is the only one to win in the fights that actually matter.. Ishida, Sado, and Orihime are not only regarded as being far weaker than Ichigo, but they serve as the losers in most of their fights. Now I'm going to point out some other problems with Bleach: Repeating ideas in the plot: After the into story arc, the leading female protagonist is kidnapped and the main character (Ichigo) sees it best to rescue her in a land which is supposedly impossible to get to (Soul Society). This is where the soul society arc begins. Well, after this arc is resolved, the next arc has the same premise in that the other leading female is kidnapped (Orihime), thus leading the main character to rescue her in a land that is supposedly impossible to get to (Hueco Mundo). Incidentally, the same kinds of supporting characters are introduced in both arcs. My opponents only problem with Full Metal Alchemist is that there isn't enough action, but Full Metal Alchemist is more along the lines a philosophical drama than anything else. In short, my opponent may as well claim that the Spiderman was better than V for Vendetta simply because it had more action. Basically, Bleach and Full Metal Alchemist are both good animes, but my opponents reasons for claiming that Bleach is better are not sufficient.
bleach is one of the best animes I have ever seen, I believe it is better than fullmetal alchemist

I apologize for not making this clear enough for you and whoever might have thought this argument unclear. So what I am asking is this, who believes that I am wrong when I say, Bleach is better than Fullmetal Alchemist? And then I move into explaining why I feel this way. Now the question comes up that is very interesting and it almost made me faulter but it was not strong enough to do so. "Question #2: Are you suggesting that full metal alchemist is an anime that falls under the genre of action?" When fullmetal came on it was under the action genre. So I have a question for you. Are you saying that Fullemtal aclhemist started a action anime and turned into a teary dreary drama? If that is the case, then i guess i withdrawl this competition seeings how bleach is all genres and fullmetal is drama. But either way, bleach is still better for it has a better variety as well and very solid characters whith which you can connect to very easily. this time give me some points of views and leave the questions until after. Thank you very much. :)
bleach is one of the best animes I have ever seen, I believe it is better than fullmetal alchemist

Greetings. First, I would like to thank my opponent for extending this challenge to all debaters here. I personally have in interest in both of these animes, so debating them will be a pleasure. Now with formalities out of the way, let us proceed. The resolution states that bleach is one of the best animes my opponent has ever seen and that he believes it is better than fullmetal alchemist. Since I'm unsure of what this topic means, I'm going to use this round entirely for cross examination. And given the fact that this debate will last four rounds, I believe that I will only need two or three of those rounds to dismantle my opponent's case. Question #1: In this debate, are we discussing whether or not Bleach is superior to full metal alchemist, or is it my objective to prove that you don't believe Bleach is is inferior to Full Metal Alchemist? Question #2: Are you suggesting that full metal alchemist is an anime that falls under the genre of action? Question #3: Where is your evidence to suggest that not too many people have open enough minds to get into other cultures besides their own? Question #4: At what point are you suggesting that full metal alchemist lost its action edge? Question #5: Where is your evidence to suggest that most of the fans were upset over the fact that some fights that occurred in the manga didn't occur within the anime? That is all. IMPORTANT NOTE: For people who just SLIGHTLY skim over other people's cases, pay special note that I am using this round for cross examination. I realize that some of you would believe that my case is weak merely because there wasn't that much text in my first round, but I assure you that this isn't part of my case which I will present in round 2. This round is being used for clarification and nothing more. As for people who don't know what we're debating about (although I'm not too sure why you'd click on this debate), wikipedia provides general information for both series. Observe below: Full Metal Alchemist: http://en.wikipedia.org... Bleach: http://en.wikipedia.org...(manga)
bleach is one of the best animes I have ever seen, I believe it is better than fullmetal alchemist

I used to be in love with fullmetal alchemist until bleach made an appearance. bleach gives a mixture of animes that everyone can enjoy, it especially gives a good amount of comedy crude and toned. The problem with fullmetal alchemist is they changed too much from the manga to the show and toned it down way too much. If fullmetal had kept its action, storyline and demeanor then it would probably give bleach some good competition. But that is not the case so fullmetal has fallen. Fullmetal has a alright storyline but the action sucks and the comedy is mediocre. Fights in the anime that should have happened or should have been shown disappointed a lot of fans. Bleach gives all of that. It is also not like dragonball z taking forever just to finsih one fight nor taking three days for one person to power up to the next level. Also bleach does not make it so the main character is the strongest in the universe. I will find it interesting to see what someone has to say. Actually I will find it interesting if anyone has anything to say at all becasue not too many people have open enough minds to get into other cultures besides their own. Or they just think cartoons are for kids. But whatever whose up for this?
bleach is one of the best animes I have ever seen, I believe it is better than fullmetal alchemist

My opponent requested where one could find Full Metal Alchemist anime / manga and Bleach manga. This free website contains every chapter of both series so far: http://www.onemanga.com... As for anime, this free website contains every episode of Bleach: http://www.animeblogz.com... Unfortunately, I do not know of a free website that provides Full Metal Alchemist episodes. My opponent states that he hands this victory to me, thus a confession that he concedes to my arguments as well as my rebuttals to his. With that said, my opponent okays the extension of my round 3 arguments to this round. Bottom line: Bleach and Full Metal Alchemist are two great animes, but when comparing the two, Full Metal Alchemist is nearly flawless with it's story and doesn't depend on action (especially since it's not an action focused anime) whereas Bleach depends on both action and story while making many errors in both departments. Thus, you should vote in negation of the resolution. With that said, I thank my opponent for participating in this debate and I thank the audience for reading. Good night.