BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Utilitarianism is a self-consistent moral system

"Jews, gays, disabled, etc. are not vermin." I do not believe they are vermin which is why I put the word vermin in quotation marks because that's what they believed back then. In fact, some people still believe they are. "How does this relate to utilitarianism?" This was just a lead in to the rest of the paragraph; it was never meant to be part of the debate. "The majority of people being convinced of something does not make it true." Since the majority was convinced, it was maximizing happiness for them because they had fallen into a pit of believing they were higher than the Jews. Hitler's lies became their reality and even after Hitler died, some continued being cruel to "lesser" races. Once enough people believe something, it can become true in our society. "Yes, it can" How? "It just wouldn't be an accurate system of ideas." Exactly. If we attempt to follow an inaccurate system of ideas, we will be messed up. It's like believing two plus two is five for our whole lives. "You are saying a moral system must make a statement even when neither choice is more moral than the other in order to maintain self-consistency. In other words, if there's something it doesn't make a statement on, it is a bad system." My opponent has ignored my entire point where I explain how morality must be constant, not that it needs to make a statement on everything. Morality is immeasurable; it is not something you can compare something else against. "You may as well have said "utilitarianism is inconsistent because it doesn't tell you whether or not cheese or pepperoni pizza is better." This is not related at all to morality or utilitarianism. As clarified in R1, I am using the definition that it is "the idea that the most ethical course of action is the one that maximizes happiness and reduces suffering to the greatest extent." This is a root idea, and one which excludes both of the examples you provide. "The idea that the most ethical course of action is the one that maximizes happiness and reduces suffering to the greatest extent" is not a root idea because like I said before, that is negative utilitarianism not a root idea of utilitarianism. "The definition is a mixture of both." A mixture of negative utilitarianism and what? Also, if the definition is a mixture, it is not a pure, root idea. "Please refer to R1, where I explained the definition of utilitarianism that would be used for this debate." As I have stated multiple times, the definition is still not a root idea. "The fact remains that to a non-racist these views cannot be considered "utilitarian"." That is true but what I mean is that utilitarianism is not reliable because there is still a high chance that utilitarianism may be used for the wrong reasons.
Utilitarianism is a self-consistent moral system

"It minimized suffering because Hitler and the Nazis believed that they would be better off if they did not have to deal with "vermin" anymore."Jews, gays, disabled, etc. are not vermin. "Hitler, although he was not a moral person, he was an amazing orator which is how he convinced many people that Jews were less than them."How does this relate to utilitarianism?"He convinced most of Germany that he would be increasing happiness and decreasing suffering by starting genocide against the Jews. Without utilitarianism, it would be much, much harder to persuade people to kill an entire race."The majority of people being convinced of something does not make it true."An immoral concept cannot be a system of ideas showing the difference between the right things we should do and the wrong things we should avoid if there is nothing right about it."Yes, it can-it just wouldn't be an accurate system of ideas."I did not say that a system has to make a statement on absolutely everything; I just meant that morality is not constant since situations will change and there will not always be a choice that is more moral than the other or a choice that may have been moral before becomes immoral because of a change in situation."You are saying a moral system must make a statement even when neither choice is more moral than the other in order to maintain self-consistency. In other words, if there's something it doesn't make a statement on, it is a bad system. You may as well have said "utilitarianism is inconsistent because it doesn't tell you whether or not cheese or pepperoni pizza is better."Although two different claims of liking cars do not make the idea inconsistent, it does for utilitarianism because there is no root idea of utilitarianism."As clarified in R1, I am using the definition that it is "the idea that the most ethical course of action is the one that maximizes happiness and reduces suffering to the greatest extent." This is a root idea, and one which excludes both of the examples you provide."based off the definition my opponent has provided for utilitarianism, we are debating about negative utilitarianism."The definition is a mixture of both."If two different ideas of utilitarianism disagree with each other, it makes it inconsistent because there is no root idea."Please refer to R1, where I explained the definition of utilitarianism that would be used for this debate. "So since there are still many racists in the world today " some of who may be utilitarianistic extremists " utilitarianism is not reliable or steady."The fact remains that to a non-racist these views cannot be considered "utilitarian".
Government controls

A government created to serve the people should be serving the people, and not making the people serve them! Shouldn't we have information on our government rather than them having information on us? I am scared that our fourth amendment will be broken even more than it already has been, and that police and law enforcement will start to gain search warrants for everything. I would be for the government listening to our phone calls except for the fact that I believe it will become a stepping stone for future actions which are much more violating and invading of our lives. I fear that we will meet the same ending as Rome did. Rome did not end when barbarians sacked its capital. It ended when Octavian threw away the senate and replaced it with a completely different government. I fear that this is the fate we are headed towards, and that America will change for the worse. My second argument is that I believe that we will simply lose more money if we try to control the population more. We already have a government so massive that we have hundreds of people regulating SCHOOL LUNCHES. Do we really be needing to increase our size of government and spend money which could be spent much better elsewhere?
Lady Gaga has a negative impact on not only the music Industry, but on the music community itself

Well, since YOU challenged me, would YOU kindly express WHY you think Gaga is such a burden on the music industry and society as a whole? I am at the moment actually listening to "Paparazzi" which, while has a shallower meaning (a girl chasing a guy till he likes her) Gaga very clearly demonstrated in interviews, the music videos and in a more in depth look at the lyrics that the song had a view on celebrity life and demonstrated her love for Princess Diana, whom is one of her idols. Few artists in the pop industry make such connections to current events and put good meaning in their lyrics. Gaga also takes a strong role in fighting for gay rights and against the AIDS virus. She spoke out for gay rights at several venues including her speech at the National Equality March. (http://www.youtube.com...) At the time she had just debuted and for an artist with such a young career, she was very quick to step up for what she believes in. This though, of course does bring her enemies and haters...
Lady Gaga has a negative impact on not only the music Industry, but on the music community itself

I am issuing this challenge to ummlolyeah. I will let him make the first move in this debate. Note: These are my personal opinions on both the music, appearance, and the impact of such items, that Lady GaGa has produced and continues to produce. Note that this is my personal opinion and that I mean no insult to the artist known as Lady GaGa. This is just my expression of my opinion on the topics. I await my opponent's opening statement.
Circumcision should not be performed on Babies.

Welcome and thank you for taking time to read this.This debate will be about circumcision. I will be arguing exclusively for Males in the US I believe that in most cases, it is wrong for parents to have their child circumcised before it is able to give consent. Debate will be structured as followsRound One: Acceptance only.Round Two: Opening arguments.Round Three: Rebuttals and more arguments(If any)Round Four: Rebuttals and Conclusion. (NO MORE ARGUMENTS)I have made this debate nearly impossible to accept. Anyone interested or wants more clarification, please let me know in the comments.
Circumcision should not be performed on Babies.

Thanks.First off, my opponent has dropped my point that non-circumcised penises can harbor cervix cancer. This has been ignored. My opponent is correct in pointing out that this debate is not about whether or not circumcision is a violate. However, he has argued that circumcision should not be performed because it is a violation. So when I argue that circumcision is not a violation, it is indeed relevant.I've outlined medical benefits of circumcision. Thus, it doesn't seem that circumcision should necessarily be considered a violation of someone's rights. Remember though, I don't have to show that circumcision is definitively not a violation of bodily rights. All I have to do is debunk my opponent's arguments. And I've done that by pointing out that circumcision also has good consequences, which very well might outweigh the bad.Now, if circumcision is overall beneficial to someone's health, and it is not severely destroying someone's body part, then it is perfectly acceptable for a parent to have this done to their child. A penis is for intercourse, and urinary functions. A circumcised penis can easily achieve these ends, and sometimes even better.My opponent claims that I am commiting an anecdotal fallacy. However, it seems that this is essentially the same thing he was doing earlier. So this seems like double standards. Well you can't have it both ways. If it's valid to bring up the thousands of people who are upset by their parents having them circumcised, then it's also valid to bring up thousands of people who are not upset by their parents having them circumcised. You can't have it both ways. Either both are valid points, or neither are.In either case, they refute my opponent's arguments.I've essentially argued...P1: It is permissable for parents to do/give something to their children which is overall beneficial for themP2: Circumcision is overall beneficial for the babyC: It is permissible for parents to have their children circumcised.My opponent also claims that there isn't anything negative about learning another language. But most of the time there's nothing negative with circumcision either. Sure, it might decrease the penis' sensitivity. But just because it does so, this doesn't mean it's a violation.Perhaps a better comparison would be to shots. Shots can sometimes have negative effects on children, but usually are overall highly beneficial to the child, and to wiping out viruses. Is it wrong to give children shots? It seems obviously not, since it is for their good. The same with circumcision.In conclusion, my opponent has not met his burden. I've shown many medical benefits of circumcision, and as such, these medical benefits outweigh the decreased penile sensitivity, or any other minor possible negative effects of circumcision.
Circumcision should not be performed on Babies.

That being said, lets jump right into it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Resolution: In most cases, circumcision should not be performed on male babies(USA) before they are able to consent. *I will be arguing for males in the US as I stated in the first round. Circumcision: Male circumcision (from Latin circumcidere, meaning "to cut around")[1] is the surgical removal of the foreskin(prepuce) from the human penis. Bodily Integrity I'd like to state that I am not against circumcision. I support males who desire to have their foreskin removed for whatever reasons they like. Be it aesthetic, religious, smegmaphobia or medical reasons such a phimosis. However, I do not support the violation of an infants bodily integrity. *it doesn't matter if we think the foreskin is essential or inessential, just as it doesn't matter if we think a particular woman should be able to carry her fetus to term. What matters is "a human being's ownership of his own body" (or, in the case of abortion, her own). It makes sense that a man — and not his parents — should decide what happens with his penis* There are men who feel that their circumcision was a violation of their body and through a quick google search you can read whole forums dedicated to men who were circumcised as babies by will of their parents for religious, aesthetic or supposed "hygenic" reasons. They had no choice in the matter and seek to restore their foreskin. foreskinrestorations. net is a great example of such a forum. with over 19,000 users they have threads ranging anywhere from circumcision rates, restoration methods, celebrity intactivists to dealing with partners. . http://www.foreskin-restoration.net... Circumcision on infant males in most cases is a violation of bodily integrity and is an unethical infringement. Conclusion:I've started off with only one argument, and will provide more later. In this round I have primarily argued for bodily integrity, that violation of someone else's body is unethical and wrong. I look forward to my opponents response and thank him again for accepting this debate. arguments made:Circumcision is a violation of bodily integrity. Sources: (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) . http://jezebel.com...(3) . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Morality is not objective nor decided by any god but rather a freedom of people

First a small introduction: Some people would argue that there are objective moral values which would mean that by logic or science, one could decide what is good or bad. Religion sometimes makes the argument that there is no basis for moral values other than that god decides what is good or bad and that without a god, there is no reason to do good or bad things. If you don't follow god, you will go to hell so we do good things because of god. This is a very simplistic version of the actual standpoint that I'm obviously not defending. I would argue that morality is a product of our brain just as our observation of the colour magenta which doesn't have a wavelength(just an fyi). We all seem to experience pain as a 'negative' feeling but I would argue there is no goal or purpose or ought in that matter. We could just as well experience 'damage to the body' as a positive sensation but logically we would follow that sensation, we will soon kill ourselves. The way we perceive the world is constructed through time. Some see all the colours, some don't(color blindness). Morality, or our sensation of good and evil, is simply a concept build in our brains. I would argue that there is no specific way that green is supposed to look like. Maybe your green is my red and maybe your good is my evil. I do believe it is nested very thoroughly into the essence of our DNA and therefore difficult to drastically alter through a small genetic mutation. I would argue that morality in general those moral believes that ensure the survival of our species. If we took two 'worlds', one where killing each other is generally accepted as a good thing and one where it is generally accepted as a bad thing. Surely the humanity in the world where it is accepted as a good thing will be extinct quickly. Only those moral values that help our survival, stay. Moral values on more delicate or complex matters are therefore less well developed, unlike 'killing is bad', because the impact on human survival is a lot less defined. I would argue that therefore everybody has the freedom to decide whatever they see as good or bad as long as they accept that others have that same freedom and might have opposing moral values. There is no telling which one is ultimately or objectively bad or good. You could tell which one is more likely to help with the survival of the human species but who is to tell that that should be our goal?
God Exists

Thanks for accepting. In this debate, I will be presenting 2 arguments that show that the existence of God is impossible, and a further two that argue it is highly unlikely that God exists. 1) The Logical Problem of Evil: (From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1]): 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. 5. Evil exists. 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. 7. Therefore, God doesn't exist. This proposition shows that it is logically impossible for God to exist. 2) Paradox of an Omni-God [2]: God's "Omni" attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) raises a number of paradoxes that makes said attributes inconsistent with one another and therefore impossible for them to exist at once. 1. If God knows everything (due to his omniscience), he knows what it feels like to lie. If he knew what it feels like to lie, he must have done it, therefore undermining his omnibenevolence. 2. If God can do anything (due to his omnipotence), God can cause an unpredictable event. If he did so, he would not be able to know the outcome of the event, therefore undermining his omniscience. 3. If God can do anything, he can create an object he cannot move. If he were unable to move that object, however, he would not be able to do anything therefore undermining his omnipotence. In conclusion, these two arguments concisely explain why the existence of God is logically impossible. I will be presenting two more arguments next round that show God's existence is highly improbable in the unlikely event the opposition manages to circumvent my arguments. Thank you for reading. Sources: 1) https://plato.stanford.edu...... 2) https://en.wikipedia.org......
Hilary Clinton is better than Donald trump

Due to fact, Clinton is more supported than donald in 49 percenr to 44. These results are according to the latest from the SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll conducted online from May 2 through May 8 of 12,714 adults including 11,089 registered voters. And the math shows that Clinton, as unpopular as she is, could potentially be the first candidate to win Trump by more than 10 percentage points.
god obviously exists

I accept. My opponent obviously has the burden of proof as he is affirming the resolution. For now, I will simply rebut his arguments. He states that we can "see God's creations" and this is evidence of him. This is substantially flawed circular logic. My opponent's argument is effectively this: P1) God created the universe P2) Because he created the universe he exists C1) God exists This is circular logic: the premise presupposes the conclusion. If we remove the assumption that God exists, the argument falls apart. Moreover, we have no reason to simply assume that God exists because we have no evidence of him. This handles every argument Pro has laid on the table as everything else he is stated is either meaningless proselytizing ("he created us in his image") or baseless personal attacks ("if you don't believe him, you are ignorant") or hilarious misunderstandings ("if you don't think he's real you hate him" even though you can't something you don't think exists). For now, I'm going to pass this back to Pro, though I will note that he hasn't provided us with any evidence at all, and evidence is needed for his position to be valid.
Abortion should be illegal in the United States

"Abortion should be illegal in the United States because murder is illegal in the United States." According to the legal definition you have used, the killing must be "with no legal excuse or authority" in order for it to be considered murder. Currently, abortion (providing that certain restrictions are met) is legal in the United States. Therefore, legally, it is not murder. However, if abortion were to be made illegal, then it would be considered murder. Generally speaking, in a human pregnancy, the fetus is not considered "alive" until EEG waves are detectable. The common claim that brain waves can be detected at 40 days from conception was taken out of context. Instead: "To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record "brain waves" prior to 20-24 weeks." Also, it a myth that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. Although it starts developing the biological pathways which are used to feel pain at 20 weeks, there is no evidence that the fetus is capable of actually feeling pain until 24 weeks. However, as your stance on abortion is that it should be illegal no matter what the stage of fetal development is, the above information is probably beside the point for you. Since abortion seems to be much more of a moral issue than a technical issue, most, if not all, of my arguments from here on will be based on logic and reasoning rather than cited scientific facts. In this debate, I will be arguing several special circumstances in which an abortion would be justifiable. Feel free to refute these in advance. I will be discussing them more in depth in the third round. -Cases in which the fetus was conceived through rape or incest -Cases in which the mother is grossly underage -Cases in which contraception methods were used but failed -Cases in which there is evidence of a physical or cognitive birth defect in the fetus Also, I should clarify my stance on abortion in order to help avoid unnecessary confusion in Round 3. Although I personally would not get an abortion unless I were to be raped and it resulted in a pregnancy before I finish my studies, I don't believe anyone should be forced to go through with a pregnancy if she doesn't want to and there is a good reason. I am against partial birth abortions, and I believe that at a certain point when it is too late to abort the fetus, unless a complication develops after that point and the mother's physical health is at risk. Basically, I believe that abortion is too complicated of an issue to ban completely, even with the exceptions made for the mother's health. SOURCES http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.svss-uspda.ch...