BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Would you do the wrong thing but for the right reasons

It is impossible to create the perfect world, their will always be murder, rape, etc. Many have tried, their is no conclusion, no light at the end of the tunnel. You may make a paradise, but you would kill millions in the act of it. And you say it like when you do, everyone will just stop sinning and become angels, you are wrong. People will not stop, they will always want, they will desire what they dont have, and eventually, they will do anything for it.
Would you do the wrong thing but for the right reasons

Is it truly wrong to do the wrong thing but for the right reasons? After all it would be for the greater good. Now yes millions if not billions would die in the process, but it would be for everyones greater good. For example would you save the world form a world war 3, but if you did you would kill billions. But it would be a wrold that is safe afterwards. Yes I know I or however did this would be seen as the villian but I truly believe that it would be the right thing to do. If I had the power and means to rid war, murder, rape, I would. Wouldn't you want a world were you know you will be safe? I know that the only way to achieve that is though killing those not worth saveing. But afterwards the world be be united and safe. People would now have no reason to live in fear, and crime would go away. I would try to creat the prefect world.
Would you do the wrong thing but for the right reasons

I disagree with my opponet. What about the ones you kill to get their? What would they think? Their is always a better way to go about something, it may be the harder way, but it is the right way. ~Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and when people start getting it confused, that means they need to sit down with some real people. ~Chuky D~ ~It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong. ~Jeramy bentham~ I thank my opponet for giving me the chance to debate such a interesting topic.
Would you do the wrong thing but for the right reasons

I think that if you have a good reason, then it justifies what ever means you used along the way. For example there are three people stuck on a railroad track and a train is coming. There are two routes for the train, but on the one it is right now your love is stuck on that piece of the track. But on the other one there are two other people. You can switch it now but you can not save them all in time. So what would you do. Any way you look at it you are killing someone. Another example is would you save the world, but at the cost of billions of lives?
Change the 2nd Amendment

I would first like to point out that my opponent has failed to provide any constitutional amendment only provided a rationale for one that is, frankly, deeply flawed. If my opponent would like to provide one I would gladly address it. My opponent proposes a gun registry. this would not, however, be a constitutional amendment or addendum. you also are already required in most states (if not all) to have a firearm license. Even if it already wasn't required, it still wouldn't be a constitutional amendment. My opponent brings us gang members that carry guns for "cool points" I would ask my opponent to clarify exactly how he would suggest we determine who is trying to get "cool points" and who wants a firearm for more legitimate purposes. My opponent argues that we should not have people carrying guns because it can draw suspicion. This is not a reason to amend the constitution. We should not have the government remove our right to self preservation because people are suspicious of people who carry guns (which I don't believe most people even are.) To conclude, my opponents arguments are deeply and fundamentally flawed, and he should provide a proposed amendment so he can fulfill his BOP that a constitutional amendment is necessary.
Change the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment states that "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", I do believe it could be changed. The world today is full of craziness so allowing anyone to walk around with bear arms isn't a safe decision. Personally, for me I feel as though you shouldn't be allowed Bear Arms unless you have a registration or license for the gun itself; People such as "Gang Members" only want to have an affiliation with a gun to collect "cool points" or "Street Cred" But doesn't understand the potential danger that armed guns create. Also allowing people to carry guns bring suspicion especially in the eye of the public, children, and etc.
A just society ought to recognize Animal Rights

Clarification: I refer to “Con” in the third person because a debate is addressed to those that read it. The voters that is. Overview of debate: Con claims that much of this debate is off topic. Though we have a definition of what Justice is, and as con has not contested it, it stands. “Justice is fairness or reasonableness, as well as giving each their due. ” Being that we have agreed that Animals have rights it would seem that a just society… that is to say a fair, reasonable society would recognize those rights. Con claims “, a just society is not obligated to recognize Animal Rights through law, however it is morally driven to respect [and therefore recognize] Animal Rights. ” This essentially concedes the debate as the term “ought” is the moral implication. If society is morally driven to respect animal rights it is synonomous to say that a just society ought to. I apologize to con that he feels this was a poorly constructed debate. I did not intend it to be so. He also claims that I intentionally made the title as vague as possible to give myself the advantage. This is not so, I simply wanted to have a short debate on the topic. I could not care less if this was an easy win or a hard loss. I don’t debate for a record, and those who know me on this website know this to be true. I am also baffled that con feels this was a waste of time. I thought it was enjoyable and did not intend for it to be less enjoyable to him. Conclusion: we see that con has essentially conceded. He has accepted that animal rights exists and in his own words that society “is morally driven to respect [and therefore recognize] Animal Rights. ” Thanks for reading.
A just society ought to recognize Animal Rights

You're referencing me in the third person in a debate between two people, which is both highly amusing and disturbing. Regardless, you've cited sources that contradict your opening statement, as the debate.org citation does identify animals as nonhuman, for the sake of clarification within that debate. In fact, I think this entire debate is already off course, we seem to be debating Animal Rights, more so than what constitutes a just society, and whether or not Animal Rights is a qualification for a just society. So with this that automatically removes both our first and second conclusions, as they are irrelevant. The title of this debate is "A just society ought to recognize Animal Rights", not "What constitutes Animal Rights". So now that this should be cleared up, let us debate whether or not a just society really needs to recognize Animal Rights. First off, what is a just society? By definition and combination, it turns out to be "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community, behaving according to what is morally right and fair." By definition, a just society is not obligated to recognize Animal Rights through law, however it is morally driven to respect [and therefore recognize] Animal Rights. This debate was overall poorly constructed and it's clear that your intentions were to make the title as vague as possible to favor the pro side much more easily than the against side. Congratulations for wasting everyone's time.
A just society ought to recognize Animal Rights

Con’s definition of animal is ridiculous and unsourced. Animal cannot be reasonably defined as non-human as humans are classified as animals. (1) This is a truism as Homo-sapiens are a member of the animal kingdom. C1: Con concedes P1 and P2 of my C1. Thus he is contending P3 and the conclusion. Con Claims that there are significant differences between humans and other animals. First he claims that because animals are a source of food they are different. In the history of the world, humans have eaten other humans as food, as well as some other animals have eaten humans as food. Thus this first difference is not really a difference. Likewise as entertainment and respect. Do Humans not find amusement from other humans and show some respect to animals? Of course they do. All differences are negated. Even if they were not, my contention was not that there is no difference between humans and other animals. Rather that there are no relevant differences that would impact rights. So even if you were to grant these differences, con has failed to link the differences in a way that would impact rights. Con’s conclusion concedes a main point in this debate. “Animals have some rights.” C2: Like C1 my opponent does not contend my first two premises Con contents that not all suffering is needless. This has zero impact on this debate as I never argued that all suffering is needless. I did argue that Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer. Con concludes that “Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer. “ This again concedes a main point in this debate. Con claims that it may be likely that “animals do not actually feel pain the way we do.” He continues to say “It may recognize that its body is under the stress of pain, but it may not consciously feel it the way we do.” This is a weak argument of what they might “possibly feel.” Especially as modern science has all but concluded that many animals do feel pain. (Please see source from opening argument.) C3: As a definition has not been provided for Just, I will provide one here. BSH1 states that “Justice is fairness or reasonableness, as well as giving each their due.”(2) To apply this to this debate we see that “Needless suffering is neither fair, nor reasonable, nor due--it is, by its very nature, needless.” (2) Con argues argues that “to take accountability of all living things is not an obligation for humans.” I have not argued that it is. What I have argued is that humans ought to respect an animals right to not needlessly suffer. This means not being the perpetrator of such suffering. Thus as con has conceded that “Animals have some rights” and that “Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer,“ he has essentially conceded that animal rights do exist. Since they do exists it follows that a just society ought to recognize Animal rights. (1) http://www.britannica.com... (2) http://www.debate.org...
A just society ought to recognize Animal Rights

A just society can exist without Animal Rights, and still hold such a title. Animals - Non-human, sentient organisms C1: There are significant differences between human and animals, to the extent that animals can/are denied what we recognize as our inalienable rights. (SHORTENED DUE TO CHARACTER LIMIT) While your logical statement does take the form of a universal affirmative (i.e, All of A has B, All of C is A, therefore all of C has B) and is not flawed in its process, it is flawed in the reasoning behind it. [In agreement with] P1: Humans have fundamental rights P2: These rights exist despite differences in look, intelligence, age, gender, size etc [Revised] P3: There are significant differences between humans and animals that would impact rights (i.e, being a source of food, an entity for our amusement, respecting us vs. respecting them, etc.) C: Animals have some rights, but are severely limited based on our needs C2: Needless suffering, and recognition of sentimental value (SHORTENED DUE TO CHARACTER LIMIT) [In Agreement with] P1: To be free from needless suffering is a fundamental right P2: Animals are capable of suffering [Revised] P3: Not all suffering is needless [In short, take into account scientific research and animal test subjects] C2: Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer, however they should not be protected from all forms of suffering by human acts. I think an important reference that can mediate the subject of suffering is Dr. Michael J Murray's response to Dr. William Lane Craig's view on animal pain (and the existence of God, a different subject). To summarize, it is very likely that animals do not actually "feel" pain the way we do, but instead react to the stimulant of pain as a defensive technique. It may recognize that its body is under the stress of pain, but it may not consciously feel it the way we do. http://www.reasonablefaith.org... C3: A Just Society While animal rights can make a society seem just, it is not an obligation for society to recognize those rights of animals. Society is a human creation, and to take accountability of all living things is not an obligation for humans. Animals can suffer behind the curtains, but a society can still be seen as just because morality is not a typical quality applied to animals. As dull witted as this is, how I get an animal to be food on my plate or fur for my warmth and pleasure is devoid of morality, because I am satiating my needs. What is a question of being just or not, is how often I fulfill these pleasures and to the degree in which I do it. In the 19th century, buffalo were slaughtered by hunters for game rather than food. Whereas the Native Americans killed what they needed, and did so without law and order. P1: A just society appeals to human needs P2: Animals do not require human needs C3: A just society does not appeal to animals C: A just society can exist without animal rights, it has already historically occurred.
A just society ought to recognize Animal Rights

A just society ought to recognize Animal Rights It is my burden in this debate to show that animals have rights. If it can be shown that animal rights do exist it seems to me to follow that a just society ought to recognize them. Thus if I can show Animal Rights exist, I win this debate. C1: There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rights Society on balance accepts the notion that people have rights. Young and old, white or black, male or female, smart or dumb; humans have rights that ought to be respected. Despite these differences that humans have with each other, rights are accepted universally. From this we can conclude that the existence of rights is not impacted by these types of differences and are thus inherent. Certain rights exist independent of human differences. It seems reasonable to accept that all animals, human or not, inherently have rights despite differences. They ought to be respected. Unless my opponent can show reasonable argumentation as to why humans, of all animals, inherently have rights for a reason not applicable to other animals then it follows that all animals have rights. P1. Humans have rights P2. These rights exist despite differences in look, intelligence, age, gender, size etc P3. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact rights C. Animals have rights C2: Needless Suffering To be free from needless suffering is perhaps the most fundamental right. If something is capable of needlessly suffering, inherently there exists a right to not be subject to such suffering. This leads us with one simple question. Can Animals suffer? The general consensus is that some animals do in fact feel pain. Many governments around the world recognize this truth and have in response passed regulations that minimize or eliminate such pain. For example the U.S. Government has such regulations. "The requirement or recommendation to consider the recognition and alleviation of pain in laboratory animals when conducting research in the United States is constituted in federal law, regulations, and guidelines, enforced by the US Public Health Service Policy, and promulgated by various professional organizations"(1) If we accept, as most do that animals are capable of needlessly suffering, then it follows that a just society would not allow such animals to suffer needlessly. P1: To be free from needless suffering is a fundamental right P2: Animals are capable of suffering C2: Animals have a right to not needlessly suffer Conclusion Humans have rights. There are no relevant differences between humans and animals that would impact the existence of rights. Animals have rights. One of which is the right to not needlessly suffer. Just societies ought to recognize animal rights. Many countries, including the U.S. do recognize these rights. The resolution is affirmed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
A just society ought to recognize Animal Rights

What is just? In some cases the animal that wasn't killed for the sake of sentiment was also the same animal that could have fed 10 people before they perished. I assume you are referring to domesticated animals and animals that are used for furs and other bodily accessories. In such case, to what degree of suffering do you find unjust, simply killing the animal or skinning it alive and leaving it in cages to rot from infections? Please clarify.
Should There be Armed Guards And Metal Detectors in All Schools Nationwide

read what this website said because the youth of america need to be protected better . we have federal officers on air planes we need them in schools as well as metal detectors this needs to be made a national mandate . we can send troops and missles to protect foreign countrys like turkey as well as others when we could be using those funds to protect our own from homegrown terrorist like the conneticut shooter as well as others banning guns is not the answer the answer is making it a national law that all schools have some type of armed guard and metal detector present and only one entrance in and out of the school while children are present . from http://www.change.org...
That, on balance, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has improved academic achievement in the U.S.

um they would probably say something along the lines of 1. It helps all the lower educated kids stay with the higher ones 2. It it helps every one maintain the same levels of education, and its not like the higher leveled ones will get stupider. 3. It will help give the lower educated kids more educated and gives more time to them especially to learn. um those would be the only ones i could think of. sorry. they are probably lame ones too ha ha
That, on balance, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has improved academic achievement in the U.S.

Hello my name is Gina Lee and I am on the negative behalf of the resolution which clearly states that, on balance, the no child left behind act of 2001 has improved academic achievement in the United States. 1)the NCLB fails to focus on students. According to the website entitled www.fixingNCLB.org, it is is stated that NCLB stifles student creativity, also known as America's ingenuity. Current research indicates that students have different learning styles. Moreover, the business community has been extremely vocal in calling on students to develop the capacity to "learn how to learn" – not just to remember data presented shortly before a test. What this means is that the NCLB is basically a trick and does not do any U.S. citizens and educators any good. 2)the NCLB fails to motivate students. According to www.NCLB.org, it is stated that NCLB reduces the quality of a student's day in school on multiple levels. Instead of engaging in a curriculum that relates to students' lives in lasting and meaningful ways, students are forced to engage activities dictated by someone else's agenda. The joy of life long- learning is replaced by a system void of self-motivation, exploration, and creativity. What this means is that the NCLB basically cheats students, parents, and teachers with this sort of cheat. 3)the NCLB can increase world poverty and drug-related usage. According to website www.accessmylibrary.com, it is stated that Increased crime rates and poverty in cities during the 1960s weakened inner-city schools, which are primarily composed of minority students. This weakness rooted in the 1960s has led urban students to lag behind their suburban counterparts in academic achievement. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as the "achievement gap." In response, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), a law aimed at decreasing the disparities in academic achievement between poor and wealthy schools. The primary feature of the ESEA was Title I, which provided (and still provides) the largest source of federal; funding for states' elementary education in history. The original incarnation of the ESEA focused on specific remedial programs, and the 1994 reauthorization focused on implementing uniform standards to which all students would be held. This legislation constituted a victory for the "standards movement," and laid the groundwork for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.What this means is that the NCLB is no good and is perhaps dangerous for the education for the United States. Thank you.
Pro-Choice is the only choice

" if a child was to be born with a birth defect that was surely to end its life, would it be better for the child to be aborted before it has the ability to consiously understand pain"Is this taking into account that fetuses diagnosed with birth defects can often have been misdiagnosed? http://www.lifesitenews.com... ^ 40% of ectopic pregnancies are misdiagnosed and then when aborted through chemicals the fetus is alive but severely deformed to to the attempted abortion, all over a misdiagnosishttp://newspano.com... ^ case of misdiagnosis over ectopic pregnancyIts not just limited to those type of misdiagnosis's either, babies are diagnosed to have certain ailments that are not lethal at all but could still be aborted. 90% of all babies predicted to be born with down syndrome are aborted even though people with down syndrome can live perfectly healthy and normal lives. Some of those babies are later shown to not have had Down Syndrome at all. http://carijean.hubpages.com...If the child has a birth defect that could end its life should it be aborted? I can see why it would be ethical so yes. Does this happen frequently? It most surely does not. Children can be born with birth defects, but these birth defects can be misdiagnosed and not even be lethal or painful at all to the child who would otherwise have been aborted. Does that mean that after 7 months the mother can still decide to have an abortion?YesBut does that mean that society has to agree with that choice no matter what? Does that mean that people do not have a legitimate claim to want to advocate that the right of the child to live has a GREATER say then the right of the woman to choose, after deciding to NOT have an abortion for 7 months and then suddenly change her mind and have her say be greater than that of the childs right to live days away from being born?Certainly notPro choice isnt the only choice, Pro-lifer's have a very legitimate reason to want to advocate the right of the child to live and they shouldnt be told that they just have to agree with Pro-choicers and not be able to have any contrary opinion over the matter. There are reasons to be Pro-life, and thats what this debate is about, whether or not people have any reason to be pro-life
Pro-Choice is the only choice

I will agree that abortion is gruesome tho the pictures did not disturb me (i am a makeup artist and therefore desensitzed by blood) however tell me, if a child was to be born with a birth defect that was surely to end its life, would it be better for the child to be aborted before it has the ability to consiously understand pain? Or would it be better to birth the child and let it suffer in some hope of a miracle? If the child dies it dies more quickly and peacefully in the womb. In fact children die in the womb during late pregnancy all the time, if the life of the child needs to be taken in hope of giving the next child a better life than why birth this child only to suffer?