BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Actions Are Amoral

1. Morality Is Mind-Dependent If two asteroids collide in the depths of space no one would say that such an action is moral or immoral. It simply is. Same thing if a tree falls in a forest. It is simply an action. Morality is simply the flavor of reaction of a mind to a certain action. If say, a person strangles a child to death, it would only be considered immoral if it was perceived by another person capable of perceiving morality. When people come in contact with actions they label them as either moral or immoral based on the type of emotional reaction they feel to an action. The action itself is simply that, an action. Morality of an action depends on the action being perceived by a morally capable mind and then judgement of morality being projected onto it. Take this example... A morally neutral person is walking down the street and arbitrarily has the chance to steal from a lady on the street. The chance turns up in favor of stealing and this person steals the purse. On the one hand, if no other moral agent perceives this action it appears to be a moment of chance, same as an asteroid collision or falling tree. Such an action is therefore amoral. Now the only way this action will become "immoral" is if a third party bystander, who does not have knowledge that the thief in the example is morally neutral person motivated by chance, perceives the theft and reacts negatively to the action and projects their own perception of morality onto the action. Thus causing it to be "immoral". Let us consider a third case in which the third party bystander still does not have knowledge that the thief in the example is morally neutral etc. but this person was involved in a bad relationship with the potential victim in the example and during this relationship the victim stole multiple times from the bystander over the months they were together. In this case, the bystander perceives the theft and applauds the thief and due to their own perceptions attributes the label of moral to the action. In these three cases the only variable is the mind perceiving the action which shows that the action itself is not moral or immoral but rather they are amoral and are only perceived as anything other than that when morally capable minds project their perceptions onto the action. Thus, actions are amoral.
Trumps wall isn't the best solution to illegal immigration

" 5 billion is less than 10% of the 1% of the money the Government has. This is an inexpensive project. " - Actually that 5 billion is just for the security for the wall, The actual wall itself is estimated to cost 70 billion dollars. This is not even including the yearly upkeep which is estimated to cost 150 million dollars a year to maintain. This is anything but an " inexpensive project" especially for a country trillions of dollars in debt. " Banning drugs is good. Banning guns isn't for the better. " - My main point was that if you're fine with sacrificing individual rights for the greater good, Than you should support wealth redistribution, National healthcare, And banning all drugs. " However even so the majority of drugs smuggled across are through boat and through the air. Wrong. 59% comes through land. " - You completely missed my point which is that yes 59 % comes from land however that 59 % is hidden in vehicles or through tunnels. All of which a wall wouldn't prevent. Once again I am sadly unable to link my sources which is complete bull$hit. I find it funny how debate. Org gets angry at me linking sources and yet when I lose my original account they fail to respond.
Trumps wall isn't the best solution to illegal immigration

Rebuttals: 5 billion is less than 10% of the 1% of the money the Government has. This is an inexpensive project. People who overstay their visa are deported, However ICE the organization that has been defunded by the Democrats. People who overstay their visa are also less likely to commit a crime and just need to get their visa reevaluated. Banning drugs is good. Banning guns isn't for the better. "border security is already doing a good job? " You know Why? - We already have hundreds of miles of fencing and as we build more fences, We get less illegal immigrants. However even so the majority of drugs smuggled across are through boat and through the air. Wrong. 59% comes through land. Trump's wall includes a series of chokepoints where 1 Billion dollars will go to the drug security there. More arguments God "fixed the borders of the peoples" (Deuteronomy 32:8) and delineated the borders of the Promised Land (Numbers 34:1-15; Ezekiel 47:13-23). We are to guard ourselves against those who would harm us (Luke 11:21; Proverbs 25:26; Nehemiah 4:17-18). No, Pope Francis, A wall is not anti-Christain.
Trumps wall isn't the best solution to illegal immigration

- Regarding your first points about how walls work I am not arguing that walls do not work, I am arguing that the wall Trump is imposing isn't the best solution to the issue of illegal immigration. Besides even if the wall would work, This doesn't change the fact that illegal immigration by foot has decreased in the past decade so why would we spend billions of dollars on a cause that is already being solved? Instead we should invest on the ever growing amount of illegal immigrants by overstayed visas. " There have been multiple cases of Government taking private land for a greater cause. New Jersey Turnpike just to name one. The people are paid back. " - If you are of the train of thought that the government taking away private land unwillingly for the greater good is moral, Than you should also support the banning of alcohol, Drugs, Guns, Or the redistribution of wealth. Also the people whom Trump is taking away land from aren't paid back as many of the Texans homes, Ranches, And farms are being taken away. " The yearly keep up for the wall will be cheaper than original border security. Instead of focusing on agents to pay, To monitor, Etc, Etc. We have drones and a fundamental barrier. " - The wall would cost billions while the security for the wall would only cost millions. Besides once again why would we invest in a wall when border security is already doing a good job? " Now the Biggest factor everybody forgets: Drugs" - This debate is on illegal immigration NOT drugs. However even so the majority of drugs smuggled across are through boat and through the air. Not to mention that the majority of illegal drugs by foot are smuggled through tunnels and hidden in vehicles. Drug cartels in Mexico have a vast amount of money and resources at their disposal why would they walk their drugs across? " Since 2012, The number of traffickers apprehended at U. S. Borders has steadily increased from 364, 768 to nearly 500, 000 in 2014. From 2012 to 2015 the U. S. Border Patrol has seized more than: 8. 2 million lbs. Of marijuana 32, 600 lbs. Of cocaine 34, 000 ounces of heroin 17, 600 lbs. Of methamphetamine" - This proves my point which is that border patrol is already doing a good enough job so why would we invest in a wall? " The majority of drugs appear to travel by land, With 59% of total drugs seized attributed to Border Patrol efforts in the U. S. And abroad. Over the years these efforts have forced smugglers to turn to maritime routes to move illicit drugs around the globe. " - Once again why would we invest in a wall when border patrol is already doing a good enough job stopping drugs and illegal immigrants? Besides as Ive already pointed out the majority of drugs are through boats, Tunnels, Air, And hidden in vehicles, All of which a wall wouldn't prevent.
Trumps wall isn't the best solution to illegal immigration

I would like to start off by stating that I am NOT against border security, I think it is rather important that only mentally stable people who will obey the law be let into the country. However I am rather uncertain about this notion that the border wall is the best solution to the immigration problem. I am however very open to having my mind changed. All of that being said I am going to now present my argument for why a border wall across Mexico isn't the best solution to the illegal immigration problem. - The amount of illegal immigrants stemming from over stayed visas has increased from 41 percent in 2008 to now 44 percent in 2018. While the rate of illegal immigrants on foot has dropped considerably ever since trump enacted stronger border patrol laws. SOURCES, Https://www. Nbcnews. Com. . . https://www. Factcheck. Org. . . - Furthermore once the wall is build who is to say that many will simply dig tunnels or come in through boat. One could make the argument that boats and tunnels are too hard to make and most will come in on foot. However as Ive already previously stated, The amount of illegal immigrants coming in on foot has dropped considerably while the amount from over stayed visas is rising so it would be a better long term investment to spend that 21 billion dollars and invest it into enforcing expired visas. SOURCES, Https://www. Nytimes. Com. . . - Another one of my problems with building a wall is that the federal government would take away PRIVATE land to build said wall as seen in this article where Texas landowners are trying desperately to keep their land. SOURCE, Https://www. Washingtonpost. Com. . . - My last major issue with the wall is the yearly upkeep required for the wall. While I could not find any statistics for how much the upkeep will cost, I could imagine it would be somewhere in the millions as you would need building materials, Vehicles for transport, And a large staff required for the nearly 2, 000 mile long wall assuming it gets built. All of that said while I will agree that a border wall would prevent some illegal immigrants from entering the country, Enforcing the people with expired visas and investing in more border patrol agents would be a better solution to the issue at hand. These 2 methods would also be significantly cheaper than building a 21 billion wall with millions more being spent on the upkeep. Like I previously stated in the beginning, I am very open to my mind be changed.
Abortion

My opponents case can be defined in round 1:"My body my choice" is invalid since your actions directly effect another body that has its own heartbeat, blood, DNA, brain, and nervous system. Life does begin at conception."So in this debate I do not need to argue for abortion per se, but rather need to prove this resolution false. So I am going to play devils advocate and begin by saying that life does not begin at conception. The underlying argument that a fetus is a human, which I agree with, states that abortion is not a women's right and is not protected under the right of bodily autonomy since the fetus's body is separate from its mothers body, which is correct. However, this argument falls flat when used to say that "life begins at conception," since at conception, the baby is just a single celled organism with no organs, no grey matter, not even Chromosomes!As far as I'm concerned, life begins when the fetus has its own organ system from its mothers, which occurs at around 3 or 5 weeks. Thus, life does not begin at conception, since it does not have its own heartbeat, blood, and brain like my opponent claims.
Abortion

Abortion is morally unacceptable, it and it goes against the qualities and ethics that make this country great. There are not valid reasons as to why Abortion should be legal / accessible to the public. Excluding rape and life of the mother, which only make up a very small percentage (Rape - O.5% and Life of the mother - 4%). Life of the unborn trumps convenience of the mother. "My body my choice" is invalid since your actions directly effect another body that has its own heartbeat, blood, DNA, brain, and nervous system. Life does begin at conception. I am open and ready to conduct a civil and educated debate with someone of opposing views. I am confident the judge will judge not on opinion, but on the arguments made and who better conveyed their ideas and thoughts.
COD is better then Halo

I see your points I do but I still think that COD is better if you look at the reviews all the COD is amazing but Ghost wasn't there best I don't think I mean yes Halo is a good game but why just play it over and over with the same theme based game at least COD changes locations and doesn't make you do the same thing over and over Halo you have the same mission almost all the time to get rid of the Covenant it gets boring after a while if you think about it at least in COD it gives you different people and different Missions and gives you different back grounds look I know all ready I'm gonna lose this debate and I don't care my opinion is out there and that is that COD is way better
COD is better then Halo

I'm gonna love this argument so here we go :D -Opinion- So you state that "Halo is just getting boring to be honest all you do through the game is just fight aliens". Well, in the campaign you do fight aliens. Whether it be Halo , Halo 2, etc. They all fight aliens or just some form of intelligent life. But why is it boring? You fight in the future, giving the player the experience that they will never experience in his/her lifetime because these things won't happen. You fight as one of the remaining KNOWN Spartans that are alive. For multiplayer, you said that "in COD its amazing going around doing different things in Halo's multi its not as fun either". Both have almost equal number of game types so you should have A LOT of things to do including Halo's sub-campaign called Spartan Ops which is kind of like Ghosts Extinction game to the point of doing something else than multiplayer. More importantly, i think Halo has a more strategic game play to it than you think. COD provides you the weapons. You are able to customize your loadout for better control of the map whether it be close range or long range. On the other hand, Halo does the same thing but there are weapons on the map providing a more strategic play of conquest. Making players remember, spawn times on each weapon and if your conquest is done correctly, you are able to take the enemy weapons like maybe a sniper or maybe the Rocket Launcher. Each game are fast pace games so you do have to be on the ball. -Ratings- I will provide multiple sites to see where each game stands, recent game Halo 4 and CoD:Ghost, on critic reviews. Halo 4 CoD:Ghosts Metacritic 87 metascore 73 metascore GameStop 8.7/10 review 5.4/10 review TrustedReviews 9/10 review 7/10 review http://www.trustedreviews.com... http://www.metacritic.com... http://www.gamestop.com...
Choose a Gun Resolution Debate

Please read everything below before acceoting. Sadly, it is time for a debate on this. Since Firewolfman here has been very insistent, I will go ahead and challenge him. Here's how this debate is going to work:Here are the resolutions (I am always pro): Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime The Second Amendment Guaruntees Our Right to Bear Arms Guns Should Be Legal Choose one of these resolutions and post the resolution of your choice in your round 1 argument. That is all you many post for round 1. No arguments please. Rules:1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.
Barack Obama is not qualified to be the next president of the US.

First off, I am all for talking to a perfectly sane leader of a country, but to talk to Ahdiminijad, who has repeatedly stated the phrease "Death to America", says the Holocaust was a fraud, and continues to send troops in to Iraq to aid in the KILLING of US and UK troops, is simply ridiculous. Now if one country attacked another country's troops, didn't that used to be as good as a declaration of war? You can argue all you want about how beneficial it is to negotiate with other world leaders, but I refuse to parley with a man who sends in troops to kill the good guys. And if you have any findings to disprove that, then by all means use them. If we're going to talk to Iran at all, here's what we're going to say:"Stop killing our troops, or prepare for war". Second-of-all- I am not particularly in favor of any American candidates, but I admire John McCain, not only because he is a war hero, but also because, unlike Mr. Obama, he recognises that al-Qaeda in Iraq is an imminent threat and must be dealt with. It must be dealt with not through slow withdrawal, which would give the al-Qaeda a monumental propanda victory, but through perseverance. It doesn't matter what the surge was meant to do, nor does it matter how slowly Mr.Obama plans to withdraw the troops. And if you think that al-Qaeda is just going to say 'Screw it, they're retreating. I guess we'll retreat, too", I'd like to know what you're smoking. Once they see that we're retreating, they will push more of their forces into Iraq, and we will be handicapped in terms of how much forces we have to counter them. The propaganda victory may also persuade more people to join the al-Qaeda, and further destabilize Iraq, and perhaps Afghanistan as well. Thirdly: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that sitting in the Illinois state senate and voting 'present' a bunch of times adds anything to your experience. And in your rebuttal argument, name me one time he has had any impact on a major foreign policy decision. Also, it's true that he helped get the state of Illinois' economy back in order, but there is a serious difference between fixing the economy of a state and fixing the economy of a nation, much less one that is in major debt. Fourthly (I think that's a word): I'll admit the US doesn't always have affordable healthcare, but, again, I have to agree with John McCain's proposal, which is to cut taxes for lower income families so they can afford healthcare. Mr.Obama's plan would weaken the healthcare companies because it would put many restrictions on what they can and can't do, such as having to lower prices. Fifthly: HOW IS HE GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF THIS, YOU ASK? By increasing taxes on the hardworking American family, of course. But that's just the solution to everything nowadays. I'm sure they won't notice, as long as he adds some mantra about how your tax dollars are going towards the message of peace, unity, and change™. And, surprisingly, I don't have much problem with his immigration plan, though America should enforce it's illegal immigration laws.
Barack Obama is not qualified to be the next president of the US.

From what I have read about Sen. Barack Obama, I've come to the conclusion that he is NOT ready to lead a country, much less the country with the most powerul military in the world. I mean, think about it! Take Barack Obama, a two-year senator. Then add the most powerful military force in the world. Use your imagination. This is the guy that said the US should invade its ALLY Pakistan. This is the guy that talks about hope, unity, and a whole bunch of other bullocks when he can't back them up with policies that make the least bit of sense. Earlier today I heard Obama say that the US should get its troops out if Iraq as soon as possible, and if al-Qaeda poses a serious threat, the US will go back in. Pardon the language, but, what the fudge are you thinking, Mr. Obama? al-Qaeda is IN Iraq and they pose a serious threat, combined with Iranian-sponsored forces (yes, I said IRANIAN-sponsored). And the only reason they aren't completely decimating the US is because the Surge is working, which Obama refuses to admit. Oh, and Ahdminejad? Give me a break. Obama says that the US should enter negotiations with Iran and Ahdapajamabad, the guy that continues to send in forces to kill American, British, and other country's forces. Isn't he the guy that wants to wipe Israel off the map and screams "Death to America" over and over? Yeah....
Courage the Cowardly Dog is, in fact, Brave

"Fear is a Component of Bravery" "My opponent again, seems to equate courage being without fear". My opponent has just shown by this quote that he does not agree with his own definitions, he is saying that courage does NOT equate without fear; even though he clearly states in his definitions that Courage (Act) means without fear. "He has now answers to my analogies" Why should I answer any of your questions when you didn't answer any of mine? If you would of answered mine in the second round I would of had MORE than enough time to answer yours. I am not going to waste my time answering your questions when you don't even answer mine, like your supposed to. You have NOT given enough evidence to support your resolution considering the fact that you can't even agree that you completelly have no doubts about your definitions and cannot prove that being brave does not mean without fear, which it does; considering I explained it in about two of the rounds and you still seemed to ignore my questions and start talking about another topic. I in the other hand, have proved that Courage means without fear as it is stated in your OWN definitions and since Courage (Dog) DOES have fear Courage (Dog) is NOT courageous therefore being, that being brave means to have the act of courage which comes to the conclusion that Courage (Dog) is in fact is NOT brave. My opponent failed at attempting to prove his resolution and didn't even try to show how my resolution is wrong.
Courage the Cowardly Dog is, in fact, Brave

"Fear is a Component of Bravery" "You stated in your definition that Courage means without fear, correct?" I answered that question by saying that in certain cases that is the case. My opponent again, seems to equate courage to being without fear. He has no answers to my analogies. I can give you four other definitions of courage in another dictionary (ironically from the same source): World English Dictionary courage (ˈkʌrɪdʒ) — n 1.the power or quality of dealing with or facing danger, fear, pain,etc 2.the courage of one's convictions the confidence to act inaccordance with one's beliefs 3.take one's courage in both hands to nerve oneself toperform an action 4.obsolete mind; disposition; spirit http://dictionary.reference.com... Courage doesn't necessitate being without fear. Let me make this clear, I do agree with the definition I posed in Round one, because taking the definition into context, we can still see that Courage (dog) exhibits brave characteristics. My opponent equates courage with being without fear, and has yet to address any of my arguments, but instead clings to semantics. So let me readdress my arguments, ~Fear is a Component of Bravery~ Fear is generally taken to be the opposite of bravery, but today I ask the audience to take a minute to think about what bravery truly means. There are very definite lines that separate bravery, recklessness, confidence, and arrogance. Bravery is an act of overcoming your fears and challenging them. Let's take a look at a simple analogy. If a person with Acrophobia (the fear of heights) climbed a tree to overcome his fears, is the person brave or is he a coward? And if a person who has no Acrophobia is leisurely climbing a tree, does this mean that the person is brave? As you can see, fear is what allows there to be Bravery. If courage equates to being without fear, then acts of recklessness (Jumping off the building for fun), apathy (Not caring about life or death and committing suicide), ignorance (Unknowingly jumping off the building), and arrogance (Overconfident belief that one can survive falling off the building) must be respectively considered courageous. It seems as if my opponent is attempting courage synonymous to recklessness, apathy, ignorance, and arrogance. I've given enough evidence to support the resolution. I thank both the audience and my opponent and leave the rest to the voters.