BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Goats are better than donkeys

Both of these links seem to not exist. I get a 404 missing code and I get a missing page not found one. They eat donkey meat in China, the same place they eat dog meat. http://www.reuters.com... Goats actually provide food their meat is good and they produce good milk that can be turned into cheese. If I am riding a donkey and I have no food, I will have to kill it. It does not have good meat. I will not be in good health and then I would die. I could not ride a goat, but I can have its cheese. If I kill it I will not lose my method of transportation.
Goats are better than donkeys

Naw dude donkeys are better than goats because they are in the bible. Also, all goats can do is make milk and baaaaaa. At least you can ride a donkey. Not only this , but donkeys can be used as guard donkeys. <http://www.hobbyfarms.com...;. Donkeys also love kids. <http://www.donkeys.com...;. What can goats do again?
Goats are better than donkeys

Goats are much better than donkeys. They produce milk that can be used for cheese. Goat meat is called mutton and is quite common in the USA. Donkey meat is sold by WALMART!!!! They had to RECALL it from CHINA because there were traces of FOX meat in it. If it is that bad they have to put FOX meat in it. Donkeys are routinely the butt of jokes. They are commonly called an a**.
Police in Baltimore should not wear riot gear.

Riot gear seems to effect crowd violence according to recent study by the UC Berkeley. When cops wear riot gear it signals to the crowd, that the police are ready for a fight. This comes from numerous observations on the Occupy movement and then watching these theories play out with the violence in Ferguson, while protests in LA were mild and also used less police in riot gear. Another problem is that riot gear comes with police lines and restricting the movement of protestors, which have been linked to increased aggression in groups. http://m.sfgate.com... What we're seeing is a lot of the actions of Law Enforcement actually causing these riots to occur in what would've otherwise been peaceful protests. I don't disputes that a police presence is necessary in these events, but showing up in riot gear is just going to lead to more riots, which actually causes more total people and property to be damaged. Now my opponent might point out that the risks to police are increased when they wear less riot gear, but when you see the decreased violence towards civilians and their property, you can see it's a fair trade off, especially when you consider how many women and children are spared from violence as a result of this. Police accept this job knowing they will face more risks than the general population, so this minimal risk is fair, and from a utilitarian point of view an incredibly good trade off.
Police in Baltimore should not wear riot gear.

In the acceptance round you say quote " So no semantics and let's just debate whether police should wear riot gear as often as they do or not. " I am not sure as to whether we are debating about the current riots in Baltimore or regular police duties that happens in Baltimore or just common police duties around the World. I don't want to come off as rude I just want to know what I am debating about. If I could get an answer before you start your Round 2 arguments that would be great.
Police in Baltimore should not wear riot gear.

The rounds are 3 hours long and have a 2,000 character limit. So before accepting, keep that in mind. I'm willing to negotiate down to 60 minutes if the timing of acceptance is right. Full Resolution: The police in Baltimore should not wear riot gear, unless there is a high likelihood of a riot actually breaking out in the particular area they occupy. We will not be defining high likelihood at all. Just use common sense to determine what that means. So no semantics and let's just debate whether police should wear riot gear as often as they do or not.
You have no right to health care.

You used the example of Cuba of how the right to liberty is more important than the right of healthcare but I would like to disagree. Many Cubans ran away as refugees because they were under government persecution or faced economic conditions that didn't allow them to properly care for their families. I think we can agree that the must fundamental of all rights is to be able to live and not the be persecuted and killed for arbitrary reasons. So in reality, it was more to preserve that right than the right to for liberty. You also constantly talk about how liberty allows an individual to fulfil a meaningful life and I would agree however one cannot have a meaningful life if they are not alive. Yes, people can live without healthcare but a majority do need it. Before modern health care, the vast majority of children died before reaching adulthood meaning that they had no chance for a meaningful life whether or not they have freedom or not. You disagree with my assertion that healthcare than liberty but for me, I firmly believe that a person's right to live outweighs a person's right to live a meaningful life. Also, you keep talking about how the right to healthcare requires other people to involve themselves in other people's problems but that applies to every right including the right to liberty. As you mentioned before, the right of liberty does not apply when taking away other people's liberty but someone must ensure that doesn't happen. Someone must ensure that people have that right. So in an example where you have imprisoned arbitrarily for no reason by some maniac should I be obliged to help you? Should I have to bankrupt myself to pay your bail, get you a lawyer to prove your innocence, or risk my life to break you out of jail? You constantly mention how there is no right to healthcare because other people will have to provide it but the right to liberty is no different. People must sacrifice their own freedom to ensure the freedom of others
You have no right to health care.

You are correct that a person does not need liberty to live. A person does not necessarily need health care to live either. As you said, they may not live as well, but they would still live. As far as saying that health care is far more important to human life than liberty, I cannot disagree more vehemently on this issue. Cuba is a good example of a place that has less freedom and more health care. Thousands of Cubans have escaped Cuba to come to America, primarily for liberty. They did so on makeshift rafts, with smugglers, and at huge personal risk. According to U.S. Census Bureau 2013 ACS, 31% of these immigrants remained without health coverage. Do you think they prefer health coverage or liberty? Sure, in Cuba they will get health care, but they could also be shot for having a non-uniform political opinion. When I think about living a meaningful life, I think about the pursuit of happiness. I do not think about whether or not my health care is covered. There are no history books on the lives of oppressed people who lived meaningful lives because they had their health care covered. You pursue happiness through liberty. There are other issues that make the right to health care troubling as well. Health care is not free. If it is made a right, then someone has to pay for it. If there was a society of just you and me, would you pay for my health care or would you prefer I paid for my own? If I cannot afford it, and it is my right, then you must pay for it. I do not think you would be morally abject to this scenario. However, what if I told you I smoke? I drink? I eat poorly? What if I said I'm addicted to drugs? Suddenly, you're paying for a huge sum despite the fact that you may treat your body like a temple. Does your opinion change if people who cannot afford health care abuse their bodies? I will take a quote from Patrick Henry, obviously out of context, as I think it exemplifies how a lot of people feel on this issue: "Give me liberty or give me death."
You have no right to health care.

I agree with your definition of the right of liberty while beforehand I thought you were talking about how people should be allowed to do whatever they want. I will admit my previous argument was a bit hyperbolic and would like to ignore because I the character limit is restricting and I would rather use the space for new arguments So far, your entire argument was that the right to healthcare is not a right because it violates the right of liberty but I find that argument to be flawed. A person does not need liberty to live. Sure a life without freedom wouldn't be amazing but you would still be alive. However, medical care is vital for a person to live for any decent length of time. So if anything, the right to medical care is far more important and fundamental than the right to liberty. Therefore, saying healthcare is not a right because it violates the right of liberty does not hold up. As you said, when you have two competing rights, then you run into a social paradox so one right must be given up. Considering healthcare is far more important for human life than liberty, I would say liberty would be the one to be given up I would like to also mention your example for a doctor forced to treat a patient. I will admit, forcing someone to do something they don't want is something that should be avoided but I would argue not giving someone medical treatment is far worse. Without medical treatment, someone can die, be disabled or at the very least suffer longer than they have to. Compare that to someone forced to give the medical care who would at worst would have to work long hours and be exhausted and at least have to swallow a bitter pill. The idea of having a dying patient who nobody is treating is far worse in my mind than a doctor who is forced to treat a patient at gunpoint.
You have no right to health care.

I agree that rights are a societal construct; however, if you have two competing rights, then you run into a social paradox. When you say something is on equal standing to any other right, then you cede that for the rights to exist then they must also co-exist. Universal health care cannot co-exist with a right such as the right to liberty. Now, to quickly define what I mean by universal health care, I mean the right to have another person provide you with health care. I do not mean your individual right to provide yourself with medical care. I think we can agree on this point as it was inferred from the topic. I want to define it to be clear before I present my next argument. Now, as far as your examples of "the case could be made for any right or law", namely murder, slavery, and rape, these are not the same thing as the right not be to forced to provide a service. In fact, these only strengthen my arguments all three are acting in a similar way to the right to health care. That is understandably a bold statement, so I will explain the difference. The right to liberty can be defined as the right to be free. This obviously has its limits when you infringe upon someone else's right to be free. So the right to liberty can be defined as the right to be free without affecting anyone else. So, as an example, we can have an open exchange of ideas, but if I disagree with your ideas, I can not punch you in the face. Murder, slavery, and rape all affect people other than yourself, and thus is in violation of the right to be free. Forcing someone to provide a service to you also affects someone other than yourself. No one finds it objectionable to limit people's right to liberty because the right to liberty and the right to act in violence cannot co-exist.
You have no right to health care.

I would like to argue that health care is a right because rights as a whole is a societal construct. There's no natural law that dictates human rights such as the Law of Gravity or Lenz's law, instead, it's just something everyone agrees to. It's not like someone in a lab experimentally derived human rights. Considering most people on both sides of the political spectrum, as you pointed out, agree that it's a right, then I would consider it a right on equal standing to any other right. Also, you pointed out that the right of Health Care will force people to do things that they don't want to but this in it of itself is a lacklustre argument. After all, the same case could be made for any law or right. Why should murder be illegal if it deprives an individual the freedom to kill other people? Why should people not be allowed to have slaves if it deprives them of the freedom of owning slaves? Why should people not be allowed to be extremely racist and systematically oppress a group of people? These are just a few examples of people's actions are controlled and how a person's right to liberty is violated but in a way that no one finds objectionable. Yet, these things are deeply frowned upon and people were forced by gunpoint to give up those liberties. I suggest you would have to go beyond that doctors would be forced to treat people at gunpoint because at that point you might as well argue that rape should be legalised cause people are constrained by the law to not act completley free
You have no right to health care.

The right to health care is a fallacious argument. People on most sides of the political spectrum believe that health care should be a right; however, to make the case for this supposition you have to infringe upon inalienable rights, so the argument is not valid. Think about it. If a doctor decides that he does not want to provide you with his services for whatever reason, then how do you compel him to make you provide those services? Well, the threat of losing his job is a good way to compel someone, and he does not work in the private sector, it is a valid way to compel him to provide services as by not providing them he would not be fulfilling his job requirements. But say, he does not care about that. And say every other doctor in the world does not care about losing their job. In this scenario, no doctors wish to provide health care for you. The reason doesn't matter... maybe they're against the type of surgery or procedure you want or maybe you're Hitler or maybe they just don't feel like getting out of bed that day. How would you then compel them to provide their services? Well, if they won't be swayed by words, then they will have to be compelled with the butt of a gun. The argument comes down to a "fix my leg or I'll shoot you" type scenario. If you are against slavery and consider liberty a right, then this poses a problem.
reason+intent=morality

wrong=belief=immoral if your intent is good then its not immoral reason and intent is morality, if i cant tell right from wrong i cant be immoral, and if i dont have intent i cant be immoral, like a rock cant be immoral or moral reason=subjective=false and truth=information=mental logic=objective=true=matter=physical thinking is not objective morality is absolute, as logic is the Measurement of resonable, Thus its illogical to feed my kid battery acid and immoral, as its not healthy for the kid, cause and effect
reason+intent=morality

Your intent is irrelevent as to whether what you do is moral or immoral. Your intent may be to do good but does that make it moral if the act is wrong? Intent is a start but intent by itself is not morality. I don't know if by reason you mean logic or your explanation for doing something. If it is logic then you almost contradict yourself. Reason is objective feeling but intent is subjective feeling toward a situation, which is personally trying to do good even if it is wrong. Objective think + Subjunctive think = moralitythere are only two ways to think. Objectively or subjectivelySo Objective think + Subjuntive think = All the types of thinkingSo, via substitution you could say All the types of thinking = moralityIt would be important to define all types of thinking. All types of thinking would be ones logical thinking and personal feelings. That is what you say morality consists of. So, you are saying that morality of a code of what is right or wrong that changes from person to person since subjective think is ones personal opinion. You are saying that morality changes and by definition, morality does not change. If you are confused about the little bit of basic substitution and math that I did, I would be happy to explain.
reason+intent=morality

action+intent=moral or immoral consequence cause+effect=logic logic+experience=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic) i push you of a Cliff on purpose has immoral consequences, like feeling bad about it, getting locked up etc.. feeding your kid deadly poison to make it healthy is unresonable, based on the logic that is the poison is not healthy for the kid, Thus its illogical, wrong, immoral, unresonable, belief, evil, living inside ones head.. evil=live
reason+intent=morality

I understand that I apparently have a lack of comprehension. But you still have explained why you need intent for morality. You are restating the same statement and not explaining why it works and you are ignoring why I say that intent does not compose of morality and merely just made a statement with no facts to back it up. Also, you chooses your actions. They can either be right or wrong. Since your actions determine whether you do right or wrong then you choose the thing (actions) that make up right or wrong. You are ignoring my statement and merely making your original statement, while completely ignoring what I said. 1. You sentences to formulate you thoughts. 2. Do not make a bunch of independent thoughts without explaining what you mean by those thoughts3. Try not to make tangents that do not relate to the debate4. Explain why intent is correlated to morality5. Rebuttal my points from round 2, which you did not rebuttal and left untouchedThe onlt thing from this list that you actually did was. Nothing. You did not do a single thing that I said. You are just putting little thought bubbles and you are not explaining why you think they are correct. You told me to learn English and I have a lack of comprehension, which is hypocritical because you could not even do 1 of the five thing that I told you to do (this violated #3 going on tangents). You did not give me an explanation for why intent is composed of morality. You are justing saying it as if it is fact with no actual reason why you think it is that way. And also you have left my points from round 2 untouched. Also, your arguement can be left defenseless with this statement. If a man think that killing certain types ethnic groups of people is ok according to his intent. Then, by your definition that is a moral action. Killing all those people according to you is moral. Explain that.
reason+intent=morality

I am not understanding what you are trying to say. My argument is not that a rock is evil. Also, you are getting off subject. You are also not defending your previous argument or arguing against my arguments. You are also not formulating thoughts that the reader and I cannot understand. I ask that you organize your thoughts before you say them in order to help explain what you are trying to prove/explain. Also, from some of your sparatic thought I would like for you to explain."the only Sin is unawarness"We are not talking about Sin what are you trying to prove with this"you do not determine right and wrong, in any way"This is simply incorrect. We choose our actions and those action are either right or wrong. Therefore, we choose/determine right or wrong by our actions."belief=Be lie"I do not know what you are trying to say hear"a rock has no intent.. it cant intend evil, which is intended.."Why are you talking about rocks?You have basically avoided all of my statements from round one and have introduced points that do not prove your side of the case correct.My argument is that intent is not morality. Reason is correlated to morality. I am not denying that. But, you have not given me even an iota of evidence that prooves that intent is part of morality.So, this is want I would like for you to do next round for the debate1. You sentences to formulate you thoughts. 2. Do not make a bunch of independent thoughts without explaining what you mean by those thoughts3. Try not to make tangents that do not relate to the debate4. Explain why intent is correlated to morality5. Rebuttal my points from round 2, which you did not rebuttal and left untouchedIf you do these things then I think that we can have a good Rounds 4/5 for the rest of the debate. And I would like to thank you for this challenge of the debate that you have presented. And I wish you good luck on rounds 4/5.
reason+intent=morality

Morality is whether something is right or wrong. That being said people either do good or bad. Whether they do good or bad is not dependent or reliant on ones intent. Intent is just a mere way of obtaining peace of mind for ones actions and it is not actually what makes up morality. It is basically a comfort booster. Whether you personally know whether it is right or wrong does not excuse you from morality. You are trying to imply that if you cannot know if something that is right or wrong that it excuses you from upholding morality. You cannot excuse yourself from morality because morality applies to the set of ideas that everyone agrees on and not what each individual person agrees on. Also, only living being can have morality. You used the example of a rock. Whether something is morally exceptable that means the action is either right or wrong. A rock cannot perform an action because it is not alive. The rock arguement is not a good morality for intent because a morality does not even exist for a rock.Also, you contradicted yourself in the last sentence. You said that morality is absolute. But if morality is also based on one's intents, which changes from person to person, then how is that absolute. Can I also make an example of why you saying "if your intent is good then its not immoral"If a man think that killing certain types ethnic groups of people is ok according to his intent. Then, by your definition that is a moral action. Killing all those people according to you is moral. Explain that.
If you think racist jokes are funny, you are racist.

Racist jokes are kind of funny. Most people grow up with these jokes so they don't know they are wrong. I know some people that tell racist jokes about there own race. People are learning to just live with the racist comments and jokes because there are ones about every race. You can find ones about Americans, Africans, Mexicans, you name it. Only a few hundred people out of millions think that racist jokes are inhuman.