BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is not objective (Contender: Con)

That's the point I'm trying to make. Has Tom done a very bad thing? He did it in self-defense, but what if the danger he was in was just a burglar? That's why I'm saying if you say imply murder is absolutely wrong, there is always going to be circumstances that are not covered by objective morality. Say your loved one, maybe your child, is a bully. He doesn't really do any physical damage, he just likes to get others' lunch money. But what if one day a victim, of your child's bullying just pulls a gun out and shoots your child? According to objective morality, the gunner is not at fault. He is killing in self-defense, isn't he? That's the problem I'm trying to highlight. That's why morality cannot be objective. I hope you address this problem. Now, why do we have lawyers? To solve a skirmish, or theft, or litigation. Why don't we just judge people according to a supposed objective moral rule book, like say the Bible? Would the Orlando shooting would be considered moral? Would stoning adulterers would be considered moral? Likely so. If the Quran were to be a the objective moral rule book, would you be happy about that? Killing unbelievers, death for apostasy, all these would be considered moral. These are the problems if we applied objective morality in our society. A great example would be Sharia Law in Islamic countries. What's your opinion - is it moral? Now, why don't you support the killing of homosexuals, just like in your ultimate, flawless rulebook says you should? Because you've questioned and evaluated whether this rule is really moral. You have used subjective morality. These are the problems of objective morality. Subjective morality is the solution. "There would be no right and wrong, every law written would be arbitrary because every man is there own law giver." No. It's the combined debates and discussions of people highly educated in the field that gives the rules, in our case the law. But remember, these are still subject to change and are not final. Any changes of the law would be planned, discussed, debated, evaluated and then passed. Subjective morality does not mean everyone is their own lawgiver, not at all. We wouldn't want a law that is unquestionable. We want laws that do not reek of monarchy and dictatorship.
Morality is not objective (Contender: Con)

My opponent fails in his argument went he starts by saying Tom has done a very bad thing. If morality is subjective Con cannot say murder is absolutely wrong. Secondly my opponent equated murder to self defense. The problem with his illustration is that murder is unjust killing which has been universally wrong,. but self defense on the other hand is not wrong. His illustration doesn't show whether morality is objective or subjective. Why morals are objective is because as we've seen is that they are universally binding. Murder is always wrong no matter who commits it, in the same way giving food to the poor is always seen as good. Morals cannot be subjective because it's impossible to live out. There would be no right and wrong, every law written would be arbitrary because every man is there own law giver.
Morality is not objective (Contender: Con)

There are often situations where the rules should be broken. Reality is almost never black and white. At this time, what if that someone, let's name him Tom, knows he has done a really bad thing. He is a murderer. Everybody with an objective morality view would see him as sinful, as a killer, deserving punishment. But what if he killed in self-defense? It is reasonable to say he isn't the one at fault. Perhaps there is a law in the objective morality rulebook that says it's okay to kill in self-defense. Let's flip the tables again. What if Tom's assailant wasn't really all that threatening, and Tom was overreacting? In that sense Tom is now at fault. By now objective morality would probably not be covering this circumstance. But then, what if Tom had a panic disorder? That would really mess things up. People are rarely maleficent just because they like evil, the truth is is rarely that simple. That's why we have lawyers to take in all these circumstances and determine the fate of Tom. If we just punished poor old Tom like that according to an ultimate objective morality, it wouldn't be really righteous nor moral, would it? And that is why it is better that our morals, laws can and should be debatable and questionable.
Morality is not objective (Contender: Con)

Is morality objective? By objective, one would mean fixed rules. Shall it be given by a supposed higher being, it doesn't matter. By subjective, one would mean the morality is flexible, under human opinion. So the long and short of it: objective is fixed, subjective is flexible. I will take the side that morality is not objective, Contender will take the side that it is. Con may begin arguments in Round 1.
McDonald's

"Ooh yummy! I'm just gonna eat 100 McDonald's nuggets a day regardless of my health and pretend I know exactly what i'm eating!" Are you telling me you don't wanna eat a couple of grapes? If I were you, i wouldn't eat any Nuggets, I'd think twice before eating 100 Big Macs a day! In short, McDonald's food isn't good food. Heck, It isn't food, PERIOD.
McDonald's

LOL! I may love McDonald's but I'm not crazy enough to eat 109 McDonald's products a day! I'd end up in the ER if I did that! I hate grapes! They taste weird to me and I don't even eat McDonald's chicken nuggets as their nuggets are soaked in gross stuff like ammonia and ew! McDonald's food is food by default as it is a restaurant and EVERY restaurant sells and serves food! McDonald's is kind of fake and unhealthy food but it's still good nonetheless!
Gay pride parades

Con hasn't read my sources about the whole history of straight pride events and why they formed and so it is a waste of time repeating the same point with the same source if Con refuses to read the information I provide. And yes, I do state that, and I state that right. And yes you do see people celebrating they're white, and 99% of those events are Neo-Nazi in their intent who are normally very hostile toward black people amongst other denominations too. Con hasn't understood my point about the reasons why these "pride" events take place; his shallow view and blanket statements of them all being simply about what they say they're about is wrong and indicative of Con's ignorance and lack of insight. Gay pride, Black pride and other similar events all form from being oppressed by their society in some manner, or they form purely because they're a minority within the society whom want to be seen more in the public eye and celebrate who they are. You then get Straight pride and White pride events which are obviously (as I have shown) not the same in their intent of what and why they're doing the prideful event to begin with. Linked with Straight pride events is normally a dislike for gay people and similarly, white pride events normally have a strong undercurrent of racism and hatred toward certain minorities (e.g. Black people). Am I stating that a Straight pride event is necessarily wrong? No, however, due to these parades being normally formed either from a minority in society to celebrate who they are or the event being a backlash with different intent to what its main message is, Straight pride events are either the exception (which they aren't) or they fall into the latter category. I think we can both agree that it is perfectly legal for them to hate gay people (albeit stupid, wrong and hateful), however to make your claim about how they're on a equal field is extremely stupid, insulting and void of any reasoning on the issue.
Ectogenesis will Help Women with Unwanted Pregnancies

Alright, my opponent forfeited. I will begin where I left off. There are many benefits to ectogenesis, and I believe the possible moral implications are outweighed by the good the procedure can bring to society. I found a compiled list of some advantages to ectogenesis: 1.Artificial wombs would allow women with damaged uteruses but with viable ovaries to have their own genetic children without resorting to surrogacy 2.Premature babies could be placed in artificial wombs instead of incubators- this lowers the risk of poor respiratory development 3.This would allow women who do not want to physically carry a child to have their own baby 4.Artificial wombs would be a possible alternative to abortion http://www.kuro5hin.org... Assuming the last advantage leads to many unwanted children (who would have, in other cases, been aborted) there are many, many families throughout the world who would love to look after these children. There are about 123,000 orphans in America alone. http://www.orphancoalition.org... "There are up to 36 couples waiting for every one baby placed for adoption." http://www.lifenews.com... While there are many orphans already in America alone, there are many, many more couples waiting to adopt. Therefore, the "too many unwanted children" argument is invalid. In summation, despite the moral and theoretical arguments against ectogenesis, the procedure will ultimately help pregnant women by opening up more options. Note: in my above argument, my computer converted some commas to quotation marks"oops" Anyways, thank you for reading! I hope over the next few decades we will see a rise in acceptance and research for ectogenesis! :)
Ectogenesis will Help Women with Unwanted Pregnancies

Compared with other medical procedures, the abortion industry is largely unregulated. Although there are no exact statistics for the number of women who die from botched procedures, LifeDynamics.com compiled a list of 347 women killed by legal abortions since 1973.2 Furthermore, the National Cancer Institute commissioned a study lead by Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center which found a link between abortion and cancer: "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women." The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer reports: "28 out of 37 worldwide studies have independently linked induced abortion with breast cancer. Thirteen out of fifteen studies conducted on American women report increased risk. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, sixteen of which found increased risk. Most of the studies have been conducted by abortion supporters.
Ectogenesis will Help Women with Unwanted Pregnancies

Ectogenesis is the process of removing a fetus from a mother and placing it into an artificial womb. This artificial womb will nourish and protect the baby, much like the body of a mother; in cases of rape, incest, and abusive relationships, the mother would not have to abort the fetus, and rather place it into this artificial womb. I AM NOT SAYING ABORTION SHOULD BE MADE ILLEGAL AS A RESULT OF ECTOGENESIS. The artificial womb would give women with unwanted pregnancies the chance to not carry a baby for nine months. This is about fairness between the sexes. This is about more choices for young mothers in tough positions.
Pro-Choice/Pro-Life

I need to apologize. I am not able to post this round as one of my family members has been killed. If my opponent would like to forgo this round, that would mean a lot to me. I understand this is unprofessional so I understand if my opponent would not like to ignore this round. If this is the case, I encourage voters to vote for my opponent. Again, I am truly sorry. Hopefully we can continue this debate without this round or another time. Thank you for your time.
Pro-Choice/Pro-Life

I have added an age limit as I am interested to see what people similar in age to myself have to say on this topic. This is meant to be a respectful debate. Rules: 1. First round is acceptance. Do not present your argument. 2. No new arguments in the final round. 3. No kritiks or semantics 4. Definitions and topic may not be changed during debate I will be arguing in favor of "Pro-Choice" (against pro-life), you will be arguing in favor of "Pro-Life" (against pro-choice). Definitions: Abortion- "removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy" Fetus- "an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind" Embryo- "an animal in early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems" Pro-Choice- "favoring legalized abortion as an option for unwanted pregnancy" Pro-Life- "supporting the right to life of the new born; against abortion" I look forward to having a respectful debate on this topic. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://i.word.com...
stupidity=doubting myself

Just because I doubt something I have done, something I will do, or something I am doing, doesn't mean I'm stupid. It is in human nature to second guess themselves. If a man were to take a formal test with right and wrong answers, would he be stupid for double checking? Is he stupid for thinking he had done something wrong? If anything, he is improving himself and his answer by putting more time and effort into it instead of being rushed.
Schools shouldn't require unifroms

Schools today have ways to help kids get out of that situation already, making uniforms will not make a new way out, we don't need one. Safe 2 Tell is a great place where people can anonymously tell someone about their problems. Uniforms only make more and more problems for schools and families, making them buy uniforms, or the schools having to get them to the families, and making sure that a student has a uniform when they go to school, and don't destroy it or tamper with it. Uniforms just make situations worse. Study have been taken to prove that when uniforms are enforce, bullying increases by 10-15%. Even 1% is to much, so why increase bullying instead of finding a way to stop it. Uniforms maybe the first step....The first step back! The future is where you would think to go for the solution for problems, not the past. Uniforms discourage individuality, making everyone the same. Why would you try to take away the creativity of your kids? It just seems so wrong to take something that they were naturally given, like taking away their personality. Who would do such a thing? That is horrible thing to do to a child, some one who isn't fully grown yet, not knowing the world around them and it's requirement, or who they even want to be! Uniforms has been a harm to everything they touch. Kids hate to wear them, parents hate to buy them, and school hate to distribute them. Why enforce something that you don't really want in the first place. The first amendment states clearly that people have a right to freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of EXPRESSION! What is buying the food you want? EXPRESSION! What is watching television shows that you want? EXPRESSION! What is personality? EXPRESSION! And what is wearing the cloths you want? EXPRESSION! Our founding father got that people should have the right to do what they want, be treated like they want, and wear whatever the heck they want, so why don't schools now get that? What other reason do you need to see that uniforms are wrong? They only lead to more harm!
Schools shouldn't require unifroms

I see your reasoning, but it is known that in most cases jewelry, watches, and different buttons (as long as they are appropriate) are allowed. Sunglasses are also allowed, just not during class, which is no different from schools without uniforms. I resent the fact that the real world does not have uniforms. If you were to go to, say, a law firm, you would see mainly nicely tailored suits and professional skirts and blouses. No judge would take you seriously dressed in casual ware, say jeans and a tee shirt. While it is true their always will be cliques, having uniform does help with stopping these from going too far. And, in most cases, the schools give each student two uniforms, so they can wear them in alternation with one another, so you always have them clean. If people were to be having trouble at home, and then bruises did show, this would give the school an opportunity to help them, instead of letting the kids be beaten to the point of death. Uniforms cannot do all the work, I understand that, but every movement starts with the first step, and school uniforms is the first step.
Schools shouldn't require unifroms

In response to my opponent, schools still should not require uniforms because even when kids wear uniforms, it induces bullying. Kids will find things to bully on other kids. What would schools be like with uniforms? I will answer this question for you, school become much more clean looking from the outside in, but much, much more harsh from the inside out. What would you do if in your school, you were required to wear the same thing everyday, and you were not allowed to express yourself? You were not allowed to wear anything but the one uniform, no extra jacket, no sunglasses, no jewelry nothing but the same skirt, blouse, socks, and shoes every single day that you have school. And the guys wore the same pants, shirt, socks and shoes? Honestly it would be like having no excitement in your life! No trying new things or having fun. New classes would be formed very quickly, between ones who keep the uniforms clean, and not, between ones with multiple suits, and only one. Another reason that we shouldn't have uniforms is that uniforms do not actually exist in the real world, and what is school for? Teaching kids about the real world, a world which doesn't have uniforms. School is supposed to teach, teach about the real world, Science, Math, History, and English, all real world things. The real world Does Not Have Uniforms. Studies have been made to prove that with uniforms will increase bullying within communities, making the classes of school even more distant. When you have uniforms, the only good points about it is the student will look all nice and united, but it is what happens behind the picture is most important. An example would be most people do not know when their friends are having marriage problems, and all of a sudden they are having a divorce or children are being beat at home but they are covering it up very easily, by covering the scars or wearing make up over the bruises. So uniforms just cover up the bad stuff, they do not erase them.
Schools shouldn't require unifroms

Schools should require school uniforms because they help the learning environment, help improve grades, and help decrease bullying. We all know that teenagers have hormones and that those hormones make our emotions insane. So, when girls wear those tight, low cut shirts, and those short, short shirts, guys stop focusing on their school work, and start focusing on staring at their chests. Of course, even thought they brought it on themselves, the girls get mad, and they too stop focusing on work to yell at the guys. With school uniforms, however, it makes it easier for the boys to focus on what they're supposed to be focusing on. The most common colors for school uniforms are navy blue and tan. The color blue is proven to be calming, and help stimulate brain activity. Now, with the learning environment improved, grades improve too. Again, the color blue helps stimulate brain activity, allowing students to work better. With distractions of attraction mostly out of the way, again people can focus. Another common cause of distraction, however, is jealousy. That ugly, grotesque emotion we feel when we want something that someone else has. Now, with no one wearing designer clothing and people not feeling like a loser for not having that clothing. Now, with everyone on an equal level, people can stop fretting about being the same as everyone else and start focusing on their school work. Now, I understand that school uniforms alone cannot fix grades, but they can help with studying. When you are dressed to impress, you tend to work harder. Jealousy is the number one cause of bullying, jealousy and fear. With no jealousy in clothes, or girls in tight clothing trying to steal they're boyfriend, bullying decreases incredibly. Clothing is also the number one cause of theft and fights, but with everyone in the same clothes, bullying decreases by almost 40%. Uniforms are needed to keep bullying down, and help improve grades with a good learning environment. Why have extreme highs of bullying, and an average of C's with out uniforms, when you could decrease bullying and increase grades?
Schools shouldn't require unifroms

Schools should not require uniforms because uniforms increase the amount of bullying. Uniforms were created to keep order, stop bullying, and create a sense of unity, but uniforms actually increase chaos behind the scenes, make bullies find more personal things to bully on. The sense of unity? They will look like each other but separate people even more. Students do not like uniforms in the first place so why make them unhappy, and cause even more problems in a school than there already is? What if a student's family can not afford a uniform? They will be forced either into another school, made to wear a run down uniform, or just simply get in trouble everyday for not having one. Uniforms are not like normal cloths. Normal cloths will be worn all day until people go to bed, and sometimes even after. But a uniform will only be worn at school, so when students come home they will change into normal cloths, which is more money out of the pocket of the parents or guardians of the students. Why cause more debt in America? Do people really need that? Also students will need to buy more than one uniform unless they are either going to wash it every night, or wear smelly, dirty cloths around, which will inflict even more bullying.
[SHARED BOP] Hitler's philosophy is superior in morality and reasoning to Stalin's

P#1: If murder and torture are equally cruel why is it many animal welfare people are all for eating meat if the animal had a nice life before the relatively 'instant' death? Because killing isn't wrong if the being felt barely any pain, that's why. Hitler adored torture, amking beings work on a bread a day, then gassing them after what they thought would be their first shower in months, turning their lungs inside out and burning them inside out, what an a$$hole.P#2: Shooting is merciful in comparison to gassing. If it isn't let me just tell you that unlike Stalin who insisted on head, or heart, shots to conserve ammunition, Hitler was very happy to line some jew rebels up and have his men shoot them anywhere ont he body again and again (they failed to bother using automatic guns like in the movies, for quite some time).P#3: He did not harm the religous, he harmed only the people forcing people to believe in it (such as egocentric pedophilic priests whom had been having a whale of a time.P#5: The education system did not at all brainwash children. He INSISTED teaching unreligious science ONLY. EVOLUTION over CREATION etc et era. They were not taught censored history that's a f*cking false claim. Stalin allowed people to hold any belief and live any way they wished, he even brought back churches in WW2 for morale. HE just hated the brainwashig that had let to his severe bullying as an atheist child in an Orthodox school.Hitler...MC#1: wtf? "didn't aim to torture any enemy or make them useful." okay well how about you watch this movie http://www.youtube.com... posted. Jews in concentration camps, of any age, were scum to Hitler.http://www.nobeliefs.com...;Have you read mein kampf? He writes " "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."So yeah he did.