BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Lesser of Two evils is a dangerous mentality.

Yes apathy is often bred through all the failures we have had. However, it should actually make us more dedicated to try to change things. "Which brings me back to what I have mentioned earlier, vote your better interest. If neither party has your interests than do not vote at all your time has better uses. " I agree and that is actually part of my argument, that voting for none of the above may be the best option. "Morality is a feeling of correctness which in turn is emotional bias. " I would like to commend my opponent on presenting as view of morality I have not heard before, at least not worded in that way. It almost sounds like a form of moral relativism. I will probably address that in greater detail in a later debate but basically the problem with that line of reasoning is that everyone's personal morality would conflict with another's. If there is no unified morality then anyone can do whatever they want and be able to justify it. Something that is immoral may illicit an emotional reaction, such as a murderer killing a bunch of people would likely make you angry. In such a case those emotions are justified. Voting for someone who is in line with your beliefs or not voting at all because no one fits your beliefs gives you a clear conscience, which is a justified emotional response. Your example is on the right track and so we should look at the implications of any particular proposal. However, we must not dismiss something merely because it illicit an emotional reaction. I thank you again and look forward to hearing your closing remarks.
The Lesser of Two evils is a dangerous mentality.

"Now let us not focus so much on the viability of third parties and get back t my original point about the morality of voting for the lesser of two evils." I will abide by your request as it has gotten a little off track and for that I apologize. "So to put it concisely, there are some issues that the two major parties aren't addressing and so if those issues are important to you then voting for either would be immoral." There is a reason that the top two parties will not address certain issues of all kinds. As my opponent has pointed out it is because of the media and how it will effect the outcome. Also to add is a major flaw in our country's lack of interest because we who do not vote nor pay attention to politics since the end result is all the same, two candidates who are evil. Which brings me back to what I have mentioned earlier, vote your better interest. If neither party has your interests than do not vote at all your time has better uses. My opponent brings up the point, again, of morality. I failed to attack this point earlier. Immoral - not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. Morality is a feeling of correctness which in turn is emotional bias. Emotional Bias - to believe something that has a positive emotional effect, that gives a pleasant feeling, even if there is evidence to the contrary. Voting for your morals may compromise what actually needs to be fixed. Example: Conserving natural habitat. Politician A suggests that we need to keep these habitats for our future generations to enjoy. Politician B suggests that this habitat may be destroyed in order to fulfill our needs as a species to grow and prosper. Of course this is just an example which suggests that B may be on the right track but A is using an emotional tactic in order to make is point saying that our children need it. I pass it back to my opponent.
The Lesser of Two evils is a dangerous mentality.

Now to address several points you brought up "The point I was attempting to make was that vote in favor of which party benefits you the most as compared to the nominee himself. " The problem with that is that the nominee may not represent the stated goals of the party. "The president is more likely to get bills passed if their party backs it. " Actually, it is the other way around. Congress proposes bills and the president has the option to vet them. So what you should be saying is "The congress is more likely to get bills passed if the president backs them". However, not all bills that come to him are good, so a veto is not always a bad thing. If there were a third party president it could help to keep the other parties in check, it could improve checks and balances. Isn't it better for someone to be informed before they vote than to vote and have no clue about the issues? Too many times people will vote when they don't have a clear understanding of the issues or the candidates. Isn't it better to not vote if you are not well informed? [1] People who vote for third parties tend to have a better understanding of the issues or at least are more concerned because they don't see either major party addressing them. Also, are you aware f the actual percentage of American voters who vote? It tends to be just over 50% so then whoever is in power already does not represent a large group of people. [2] The reasons for such turnout numbers vary and are hard to pinpoint, some of it could be apathy, but some of it is also a dissatisfaction with the options. [3] People talk about viable and non-viable candidates, much of what makes a candidate viable is media perception, and the media quite often projects their bias onto an election. So often the media influences who people vote for. [4] [5] "Now it comes down to would one rather chose the lesser or evils and vote Republican to lower taxes or keep them the same or Democrat because the voter knows taxes need to be raised for X reason. " The particular issue you brought up is often a party split, however what about an issue that neither party addresses, such as foreign policy where the two parties now pretty much agree, just to differing degrees. Both the Democrats and Republicans want same level of interventionist foreign policy, while Libertarian and Greens, despite being on opposite ends on social issues, both want a more non-interventionist foreign policy. [6] [7] Now let us not focus so much on the viability of third parties and get back t my original point about the morality of voting for the lesser of two evils. So to put it concisely, there are some issues that the two major parties aren't addressing and so if those issues are important to you then voting for either would be immoral. Thank you and I hope to see your response soon 1 . http://www.princeton.edu... 2 . http://www.infoplease.com... 3 . http://www.cbsnews.com... 4 . http://www.mitpressjournals.org... 5 . http://www.strategicforesight.com... 6. http://www.progressiveaustin.org... 7 . http://www.gp.org...
The Lesser of Two evils is a dangerous mentality.

"Therefore if I have a problem with his stances I should have a problem with the choices he makes. " Yes my wording was poor and you are correct with what I have quoted. The point I was attempting to make was that vote in favor of which party benefits you the most as compared to the nominee himself. The president is more likely to get bills passed if their party backs it. "I entirely agree which is why someone voting for a third party that better fits their values cannot be blamed for "throwing an election". " Again I bring up the point of interest. Yes one vote will not make a difference in a small third party but it will assist in a larger party's pool. Example: Democrat wants to raise taxes, Republican want to lower or keep the same. *Tried to keep to a minimal* Now it comes down to would one rather chose the lesser or evils and vote Republican to lower taxes or keep them the same or Democrat because the voter knows taxes need to be raised for X reason. It is now better to chose the lesser of two evils that benefit you the most in the best way that can "fit" with your morals. Yes you can vote for that third party but it is not helping anything. Throwing an election seems exaggerated it is more of one less variable. "I agree and I don't see how that refutes anything I have said. " My comment was more of a side note that could effect a persons vote and elections. I pass it on to the opponent.
The Lesser of Two evils is a dangerous mentality.

You mention that Hitler and Stalin are both considered to be morally reprehensible in History. This is correct and you also are correct to assume the possibility that their opponent was worse. From what we know of History is it really right to justify what either of them did? If I was someone around in that time who voted for either of them, I could be held morally responsible for the death of millions of Jews or other Europeans or for millions who died in Russia. My argument is deals with the whole mentality behind it. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. The mentality is what needs to be changed, only then will we have more real options. In a debate like this there is a certain level of what if that is necessary, although I will try to keep speculative hypotheticals to a minimum. You said "Never in the history of the U. S. Has a third party won and I doubt that will change any time soon. " That is not entirely true. In the election of 1860 Abraham Lincoln ran on the Republican ticket and won. At that time for all practical purposes the Republican Party was a third party, it had only been around since about 1854. [1] We could also look at the election of 1912 where Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Bull Moose Progressive party ticket and although he didn't win, came in second beating out the Republican incumbent Taft. [2] It happens throughout history that third parties can gain strength particularly when one of the other parties is in turmoil. In fact for the moment let us take it down a level and rather than focus on President look at Governor. In 1999 Jesse Ventura ran for election on the Reform party ticket for Governor of Minnesota and won. His party eventually changed their name to the independence party and have had a major influence on Minnesota politics ever since. [3] You said "It is better to live happily within the choices the president makes than by how you feel about his stances. " I am not sure I entirely understand your point there as the choices the president makes inevitable stem from his stances. Therefore if I have a problem with his stances I should have a problem with the choices he makes. You mention that a single vote will not affect the election. I entirely agree which is why someone voting for a third party that better fits their values cannot be blamed for "throwing an election". You said "Also to add to that if the voter is convinced of something before even hearing both sides of a argument than not only do party's prey upon such ideas but the voter also falls victim to it. " I agree and I don't see how that refutes anything I have said. I await your response. 1 . http://www.socastee.com... 2 . http://www.u-s-history.com... 3 . http://www.independenceminnesota.org...
The Lesser of Two evils is a dangerous mentality.

My stance is Con, against. My opponents stance is that "if you vote for the lesser of two evils then you could be seriously compromising your moral values. " I will be refuting his statement by explaining that voting in favor of your interest, in this case the lesser of the two evils, is in fact a wiser choice. The pro brought up the point about the American two party system, saying it compromises a persons moral values. To which I ask what is more realistic to vote for stances that will effect you or stances that will make you feel bad. Hitler and Stalin are recorded in history as extraordinarily reprehensible people. Does history tell you about who their opponents were? During their time those two people were the people to save them. Those who opposed those two may have been a worse option. We will never know what would have happened if there were different leaders. I chose not to play a if, what argument and leave it at that. The lesser of two evils is assuming that both options are evil. In the U. S. Elections, the outcome is between one of two parties. Never in the history of the U. S. Has a third party won and I doubt that will change any time soon. To which I suggest that you vote in your interest not your morals. It is better to live happily within the choices the president makes than by how you feel about his stances. "In American political discourse, it is often said that voting for a third party or not voting is throwing your vote away. " That statement is entirely correct. Sure one may vote for their feelings about certain topics because it will make them feel good but it will have little effect on the end result. Yes the two party system is broken. Until something drastic happens it will not change any time soon. Until such a time comes it is vastly better to chose in the interest of yourself than your morals. "I would ask you, isn't voting for someone who's values conflict with your own merely because they are slightly less in conflict than the other guys truly throwing your vote away? " Yes. One vote is not a game changer in a pool of over 200 million. "Is it ethical to vote strategically rather than with your moral and ethical convictions? " Again yes. Also to add to that if the voter is convinced of something before even hearing both sides of a argument than not only do party's prey upon such ideas but the voter also falls victim to it.
The Lesser of Two evils is a dangerous mentality.

The lesser of two evils mentality in voting is a dangerous and destructive philosophy. It stems from our flawed false dichotomy of a two party system which has been ingrained into us. If you vote for the lesser of two evils then you could be seriously compromising your moral values. The more you appease the idea of the lesser of two evils, the more alike the two evils will become. If you had to choose between someone like Hitler and someone like Stalin could you do it? If you could, you would only have yourself to blame for the outcome by condoning it with your vote. In fact in Germany in the 1930s much of Hitler's support came from those who feared the Communists and Hitler was the lesser evil when compared to them. In American political discourse, it is often said that voting for a third party or not voting is throwing your vote away. I would ask you, isn't voting for someone who's values conflict with your own merely because they are slightly less in conflict than the other guys truly throwing your vote away? Is it ethical to vote strategically rather than with your moral and ethical convictions? Lets assume for the sake of argument that by your voting for a better candidate than the lesser of two evils it caused the greater evil to win. Couldn't it send the message that enough people were dissatisfied with the choices they were given that they rejected them? Especially if there are a significant number of votes for alternate candidates. In Europe there many countries have more than two choices. In the real world, there are quite often more than two choices and so choosing the lesser evil of two would be disingenuous. We often think in terms of this or that, but what if the answer is in fact, that other thing.
Mafia Debate: You should not be allowed to play on D1 without knowing your role/alignment

This is a debate about mafia, that game we play in the forums. Wikipedia defines the game as follows: Mafia, also known as Werewolf, is a party game created by Dmitry Davidoff in 1986 modelling a conflict between an informed minority, the mafia, and an uninformed majority, the innocents. At the start of the game, each player is secretly assigned a role affiliated with one of these teams. The game has two alternating phases: night, during which the mafia may covertly "murder" an innocent, and day, in which surviving players debate the identities of the mafia and vote to eliminate a suspect. Play continues until all of the mafia have been eliminated or until the mafia outnumbers the innocents.The debate's about whether players should be allowed to play the first day phase without knowing their alignment. I'll be arguing they shouldn't and I'll start arguing in the next round. There aren't any rules.
This House Believes that Mark Purposely Ended His Gospel at Verse 8

Con spent more than 80% of his final post repeating things that we both agreed on in our first posts and which have never been contested in this debate. Mark did not write the final verses of his Gospel. Con stated that he would like to ask me a question, so I will answer it. Why did scholars add to the end of Mark"s gospel? The most likely explanation is that people wanted to expand how they were using Mark"s Gospel. Mark was original written for gentile Christians. (1) As Christianity grew and copies of Mark were spread around, people wanted to use Mark"s Gospel to educate others who knew little to nothing about Jesus. So an unknown scribe wrote a short summary of the endings of Luke and John and attached that summary to the end of Mark"s Gospel. While this epilogue had its function, we can still use Mark"s original ending as it applies to our lives today. The suggestion that Mark intended to write more but died before he could, while not impossible, relies on a giant coincidence. Why cling to this coincidence when we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Mark would purposefully end his Gospel at 16:8? The original ending of Mark is a cliffhanger, a call to action, and an encouragement to hope instead of being overcome by fear. Mark purposefully ended his Gospel at 16:8. Source: 1. http://www.theopedia.com...
This House Believes that Mark Purposely Ended His Gospel at Verse 8

Hope is a central theme in Mark but we should not think of it as the only theme. The suffering of Christ is also an important theme, if not the dominant theme. Mark has been called the story of the cross with a long introduction. From the chapter 8, the halfway point in the Gospel, everything Mark discusses is aimed at the cross. In Mark, the way to glory for Christ is through the suffering of the cross. Yes, hope is important to Mark, but to suggest that Mark would not end with a cliffhanger because it is not a hopeful enough ending completely misunderstands the nature of this Gospel. Mark does not describe a vague or open-ended hope. Mark describes a hope that comes through a changed life. Mark"s gospel offers great hope, but it also demands great commitment. Hope does not come from sitting silently on the sidelines. Hope comes when we commit our lives to Christ. The women were overcome by fear, though we know that they did eventually overcome their fear. Mark wants us to ask if it will be fear or hope that rules our lives. This cliffhanger ending was intentional. Source: http://www.theologynetwork.org...
This House Believes that Mark Purposely Ended His Gospel at Verse 8

Some interpreters have concluded that Mark's intended readers already knew the traditions of Jesus' appearances, and that Mark brings the story to a close here to highlight the resurrection and leave anticipation of the parousia (Second Coming). Some have argued that this announcement of the resurrection and Jesus going to Galilee is the parousia (see also Preterism), but Raymond E. Brown argues that a parousia confined only to Galilee is improbable. Gospel writer Mark gives no description of the resurrected Jesus, perhaps because Mark did not want to try to describe the nature of the divine resurrected Jesus. Brown argues this ending is consistent with Mark's theology, where even miracles, such as the resurrection, do not produce the proper understanding or faith among Jesus' followers. Having the women run away afraid is contrasted in the reader's mind with Jesus' appearances and statements which help confirm the expectation, built up in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34, and Jesus' prediction during the Last Supper of his rising after his death. Richard Burridge argues that, in keeping with Mark's picture of discipleship, the question of whether it all comes right in the end is left open. I seriously doubt Mark purposely ended his goslel just to create a cliff hanger for his readers. This ending does not portray the meaning if Jesus Christ and God. It is the complete opposite. Mark ended his gospel with fear instead of hope. This is why I think something happened to Mark in his time that prevented him from finishing his Gospel [Sources: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...]
This House Believes that Mark Purposely Ended His Gospel at Verse 8

Let"s begin with where we agree. Mark stopped writing his Gospel at 16:8. Chapter 16, verses 9-18, were not written by Mark. The earliest manuscripts don"t contain these verses, the early church father make no mention of these verses, and there is change in the style of the Greek writing (though I grant that the change is not a significant one). Mark 16:19-18 appears to be a summation of the endings of the Gospels of Luke and of John. It was probably added sometime early in the second century. Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com... As a side note, this has nothing to do with why Mark is the second Gospel in the Bible. Early scholars believed that Mark was written second and the Matthew was written first. This is because Matthew was referenced more by early church fathers than any other NT book, and because of the very "Jewish" nature of Matthew. Source: http://www.usccb.org... Now to the main issue. The suggestion that Mark died before finishing the Gospel smacks heavily of coincidence. It would mean that Mark had written nearly everything of importance about Jesus " his life, death, and even his resurrection " but then at such a critical time in his writing Mark died without discussing the events after Jesus" resurrection. It is exceedingly unlikely. A more likely explanation is that Mark purposefully stopped writing at 16:8. Mark has written what we would call a cliffhanger. For another example of a biblical cliffhanger, see the ending to the book of Jonah. Mark was writing to Christians who know the story of Jesus to encourage them in their faith and deeds. Mark intentionally stopped writing with the women who know that Jesus has risen from the dead paralyzed with fear. An angel has revealed to these women that "He {Jesus} has risen!" The angel has told the women to "go, tell his disciples and Peter," what they have seen. However, "Trembling and bewildered" They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Mark is attempting to engage the audience in the events of his narrative. Will the women speak? Will they tell people what they have seen? Will they remain afraid and never tell anyone? What will happen next? Of course the reader can easily understand that eventually the women did overcome their fear. That is the only way that Mark could know about these events to record them. However, the real goal of a cliffhanger is to bring the reader into the story. Mark is encouraging us to ask, "What would I do if I were one of these people? Would I go tell others, or would I remain silent?" And the even more important question Mark wants his readers to ask is, "What will I do in my current situation? Now that I have been told that Jesus has risen from the dead, will I remain silent or will I go out and tell others?" Mark has purposefully ended his Gospel at 16:8 to create a cliffhanger, inviting his readers into the story and calling his readers to action in our daily lives.