BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Based on both Darwinism and Christianity, incest is less morally correct than bestiality.

IntroductionFirst of all, I would like to point out to the reader that my opponent did not have a chance to respond last round because his account was closed for reasons unknown to me.I will bring up no new arguments in order to comply with the rules, but I will briefly summarize my argument in absence of a new statement to rebut. SummaryTo get to the assumption that morality is based on something, it must first be displayed that this is a possibility. Principles for "proper conduct" (morality as defined) can only be determined when there is a particular goal in mind. This can be seen to be the case with Christianity (i.e. "Do not do these things in order to not displease Yahweh; These things are better because Yahweh says so."), but since evolution has no goals (like doing what Yahweh says) and makes no statements about the relative "value" of various actions, no morality can logically be drawn from study of it. Any such attempts will result in a moral code tainted by the bias and opinions of the person creating it, resulting in a large number of possible moralities. I have not argued that either Darwinism or Christianity is a "good" or "bad" source of morality, but I am making the claim that no morality can be based on Darwinism as defined.Even by the morality that my opponent constructed where variation is the goal, incest cannot be seen to be less morally correct. This is because bestiality cannot lead to any offspring. If humans only engaged in bestiality, the human population would decline rapidly along with variation. When it is not assumed that a person can engage in just bestiality or just incest, the argument falls apart. This argument can only hold up only when a person is assumed to be able to engage in only incest or both bestiality and sex with those not closely related. As I have explained, this is a fallacy.Furthermore, my opponent did not provide any concrete evidence to support his assertion that incest is less morally correct according to Christianity. After all, as he admits, incest must have been initially responsible for the growth of the human population. His arguments were based on vague observations and unwarranted assumptions.In conclusion, I have refuted all of my opponent's contentions. My opponent has not met his burden of proof.
Based on both Darwinism and Christianity, incest is less morally correct than bestiality.

Based on: used as the foundation or starting point for something. (http://tinyurl.com...)Darwinism: the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)Christianity: the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)Incest: sexual relations (especially intercourse) with a close relative. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)Moral(ly): holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)Advisable: to be recommended; sensible (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)Bestiality: sexual intercourse between a human and a non-human animal. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)R1: Acceptance from Con. No arguments should be presented or this will result in full 7 point forfeit.R2: Pro presents opening arguments; Con rebuts.R3: Closing statements; no new points allowed to be raised unless in direct rebuttal to R2.
Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed

"I still see no factual evidence that this would serve a purpose." I cannot provide factual evidence, only logic. My logic is that those who have nothing to lose might consider taking part in these fights rather than turning to crime. Why would someone become a criminal hitman and have to dodge the law all the time when he could do the exact same thing legally. "who can take the most heroin you ask? At what point does killing become a better example than that?" People who take heroin are only harming themselves. Killers harm others. This way killers would be killing killers and both would have agreed to fight in the first place. This is obviously preferable to killers killing innocent people. "I believe that instead of sending them against each other to kill we should be helping them." We don't know who they are until they have already killed and even then we have to have caught them. This way they would expose themselves to us and we could keep a close eye on them. "As in today's society, children model themselves after what their parents do and the things that they grow up around. If we tell them it is okay to fight in an arena to kill then they will no longer strive for excellence by going to school." That may be the case with some, but thats the same with every sport. Also high risk jobs tend to be the highest paid. The reason for this is because nobody wants to do them. It can't get much riskier than this. If the kid was bright he'd study. If hes not? Well, we'd just be allowing natural selection to take place again, which would be for the good of our species. "Today, we also have parents who will do anything to make their children succeed." In most case they just want their children to live well. I doubt these parents would think that sending them to their possible deaths would be a good way to guarantee this. And these fights would obviously only be legal for those that are over the age of responsibility. "Imagine a parent pushing their children to fight, to become ruthless, to kill, JUST FOR SPORT." The child would not legally be able to fight until he was over the age of responsibility. It is possible that in some cases the parents could have the child prepared for the time that he reaches this age, but these parents would obviously be crazy and murderous anyway and as you said "children model themselves after what their parents do". "Then what type of society would we be living in?" A society where killings occur in stadiums among killers and where those outside the stadiums need not live in fear.
Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed

Like what? Who can take the most heroin? Who can rob the most houses? What I have proposed would actually serve a purpose to society." I still see no factual evidence that this would serve a purpose. You are merely confirming my response by listing more preposterous examples of "games" that would have no point. who can take the most heroin you ask? At what point does killing become a better example than that? "There will always be murderers in this world. Would it not be better to have them kill each other for our entertainment than to have them roaming the streets killing innocent people?" I believe that instead of sending them against each other to kill we should be helping them. If we create an environment that our kids grow up in telling them it is okay to kill where would we be? I would now like to lead a discussion on the effects on children: ~~ As in today's society, children model themselves after what their parents do and the things that they grow up around. If we tell them it is okay to fight in an arena to kill then they will no longer strive for excellence by going to school. If you offer them an option to drop out of school and become a "gladiator" so to speak where does the drive to succeed go? It goes directly into violence. Today, we also have parents who will do anything to make their children succeed. We see this in today's sports, academics, etc. Imagine a parent pushing their children to fight, to become ruthless, to kill, JUST FOR SPORT. Then what type of society would we be living in? I await your response.
Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed

"Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason." Yes, the laws are for the good of society. I have put forward an argument to show that this would be for the good of society. "With the allowance of "human cock fighting" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of "sportsmanship". Like what? Who can take the most heroin? Who can rob the most houses? What I have proposed would actually serve a purpose to society. "Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena?" There will always be murderers in this world. Would it not be better to have them kill each other for our entertainment than to have them roaming the streets killing innocent people? "Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence." I am arguing that the law should allow it, so obviously there is law. Your example of UFC supports the idea that we are a blood thirsty population. I have put forward an argument for why this would be for the good of society. It still stands.
Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed

Thank you for your argument. Now I would like to point out the multiple flaws in your argument. 1. Allowing fights to the death is simply ridiculous. There are laws against murder for a reason. With the allowance of "human cock fighting" it would open a gateway to other possible crimes being illegal as long as they are in a setting of "sportsmanship". 2. Humans are humans regardless of social status. Putting them in cages with swords and armor with a cash prize is completely unethical. This type of behavior would be illegal on the streets so what would the difference be when set in an arena? 3. Your suggested scenario is based on a world with no laws, a blood thirsty population who would pay to see people die, and sponsors to promote such violence. 4. Of course there is always the comparison to today Ultimate Fighting Championship but the relationship between fights with supervision, protective equipment, and TRAINED fighters creates a large gap between the two.
Fights to the death similar to those once held in the Colloseum in Rome should be allowed

These fights would differ from those held in Ancient Rome in the following ways: 1. All contestants would be contestants by choice. 2. They would be competing to win cash prizes. 3. There would be no unfair advantages betweed contestants. The weaponry and armour would be similar to those used by the Gladiators of Ancient Rome. I believe that these fights would benefit society in the following ways: 1. Those with nothing to lose might be tempted to take part rather than commiting the crimes that they do. In this way it would transform the misfits of society into respectable or dead people. Neither of which we need worry about. If the contestant won he/she would earn an honest wage and would more than likely become a celebrity. As a celebrity he/she would not be able to do much wrong without drawing attention to himself/herself. 2. It would create plenty of jobs. Stadiums would be built, armour and weapons would need to be crafted, merchandise to do with the fights would be sold and it would definitely be broadcasted on television and radio. 3. A requirement of entry could be that the contestants agree to be organ doners which could lead to as many lives being saved as lost. I've already thought of so many counter arguments. Ah well.
Using Photoshop in media should be banned

Pro responds to my Constitution argument by saying that since we banned cigarrette commercials from public television, and that was not a violation of the Constitution, because it was put into effect. This argument is easily negated, this did violate the Constitution and should have never happened. Pro then says that Photoshopping media leads to harming people's self-esteem, and thus self-harm and eating disorders. My argument about freedom of expression still massively outweighs this. If freedom of expression is violated, there is no reason to live, it undermines our value as human beings. This outweighs a few people that have their self-esteem lowered. Even if it gets lowered. People can use photoshop to improve their photographs and make themselves look better in photos, improving their self-esteem.
Using Photoshop in media should be banned

You bring up a very good point concerning the Constitution, but do people really need photoshop to fulfill their human rights?No, it would not compromise the fundamental freedom of Americans. When cigarette commercials were banned from being shown on public television was that a violation of the Constitution as well? Obviously not, or else it wouldn't have been put into affect. The entire idea to both of these bans is to protect people from harm. Photoshopping media has and will lead to harm of people's self esteem which can lead to problems with self-harm, eating disorders and many more problems. By arguing your point, you're conveying that you don't care about the protection and welfare of American citizens. Health and well-being beats all in my opinion, therefore I win :)
Using Photoshop in media should be banned

I accept the challenge. My framework will center around human and constitutional rights. The freedom of expression is a fundamental human right protected by the United States Constitution, to deny that right would be to deny what it means to be human, and would degrade citizens. Any law or action that goes against any of these fundamental freedom should be banned. Photoshop is an artistic outlet for many people, that helps them refine their photography skills, and develop art, which is how they express themselves. Taking away photoshop would take away the people's ability to express themselves. Thus, we should keep photoshop. Human rights outweigh all other arguments, thus I win.
Using Photoshop in media should be banned

I believe that it should NOT be legal in the United States for images with models or people, to be Photoshopped. When children are exposed to the idealistic image of these fabricated people who have been edited by computers, it makes them believe that is what all people should look like. In effect, they may realize that they don't have the same type of body as the fake Photoshopped people, which can lead to body image issues later on during teen years. Why do you think body image issues in children and teens have sky-rocketed since collection of data began? There is a very clear correlation between the growth of body image issues and photoshopped media, which is why I think it should be illegal. You may think, "It's the company's right to do whatever they want with their images." but if it causes potential harm to certain viewers, then it should be banned. A similar situation arose when people wanted to ban drinking alcohol on public television. This was banned because, just like this issue, it created potential dangers for certain viewers, particularly underage kids.
Deuterocanonicals should be in the bible

The deuterocanonicals should not have been taken out by the protestants. The claim made is that they were not inspired however this is contrary to the truth. The deuterocanonicals were present in the first bible as decided at the Council of Rome and the African councils. Who gave the protestants the right to alter the word of God? The oldest bibles in the world contained the 73 book cannon as affirmed by the Catholic church at the councils. the burden of proof is on the protestant (my opponent) to prove that the deuterocanonicals are not inspired and should not be in the bible. Sources for information must be referenced.
The US's War On Drugs ought to end.

It's times like these when I feel like I'm debating myself. I could be conceded and think that he didn't post because he didn't have a response but I would probably be wrong. Sometimes I wonder though. Anyway, there are a few things that I would like to clarify that might have been ambiguous in my last post. I hit the 8000 character limit and had to keep everything extremely short. So allow me to elaborate on this points that were a little muddled. ------ For the observation. In his opening statement he said ". .. your opening statement seems to assert that the US should legalize all or most drugs. " He then went on to critique the idea of legalizing most currently illegal drugs. This is what I meant when I started this debate and my observation served as a little bit of a defense. But the main point was that he agreed with me. You can ignore that "(Page 13)" part in my first attack on his case. That was a typo. I know the third point didn't look like anything more than an assertion, but I purposely left out the evidence. My evidence was to be found further down the page in "health benefits" portion of my case. My fourth and fifth attacks were to serve as backup attacks. Sort of a second line of defense. This was to show that even if he were to justify everything that he had talked about in his opening argument, why this couldn't be enough. Six was meant to be a turn on his case with two justifications. It was meant to show why criminalizing drugs actually exacerbates the problems with them, while legalization serves as a mitigating factor. On to the clarification of my case. Health Benefits 1 needed more justification. The implicit point was that drugs are sold at artificially high prices in places where they are illegal. The reasoning is that it costs much more to bring drugs to people. The division of labor is risky, mass production is almost impossible, storage is never safe, and transportation is even harder. All these costs spike the price of drugs. This makes people pay for drugs through sex and then STDs are passed. (This is also the reason why people have to steal pay for drugs. ) Furthermore, needles are harder to find and buying them itself makes you look conspicuous so you are forced to share, furthering the spread of blood related diseases. HB 3 was another great reason to vote Pro in this debate. It serves as one of the biggest reasons why drugs are not as bad when they are legal. Look for SB1's empirical justification on the internet. It can be found with a quick google search. I'll find it if someone is really curious. The point of safety benefit 2 was to show that legalizing drugs would make criminals 400 billion dollars per year poorer. The justification for SB 4 can be found just a few lines above this one. SB 5 and 6's empirical fact can be found at . http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... on page 13. And the rest of the case was not intricately explained but the ruff picture was conveyed. Thanks for reading my ideas.
The US's War On Drugs ought to end.

I am generally in favor of less restriction on currently illegal narcotics, but your opening statement seems to assert that the US should legalize all or most drugs. This is problematic because drugs with strong addictive properties do have predominately adverse effects and thus their lack of legality is justified. So, while I would wholeheartedly agree that marijuana should be 100% legal, but drugs like: crack and meth should be illegal. Here's my reasoning: you are correct to assert that "Everything should be legal until a case for criminalization has been proven" because in a liberal democracy things are legal until proven otherwise. We tend to give people the freedom to make poor decisions as long as their decisions do not harm others. Addictive drugs are a problem because they rob people of this freedom. This loss of freedom amounts to a form of coercion or a decision under duress and allowing people to be placed in these situations is unjust. Because these drugs are coercive, the government is justified in protecting people from themselves and stopping them from ever using in the first place. I usually go longer than this, but in stride with your remarkably short opener, I'll stop at that.
The US's War On Drugs ought to end.

I tried this argument once before and ended up debating someone who doesn't speak. So this is my second shot. I will save the most of my arguments for when I have loured someone into debating me. Until then I will make a simple argument that initially tilts the scale in my favor. Everything should be legal until a case for criminalization has been proven. I contend that there are almost no arguments for drugs to be illegal and a multiplicity of quality arguments for the legalization of drugs. I contend that any legitimate arguments for criminalization are not very significant and can be outweighed on magnitude by the benefits of legalization.
Abortion

With that being said, because my opponent is against abortion, there is really not much for me to do here. This debate was supposed to be for someone who was in favor of abortions. However, my opponent has made some claims that I disagree with, so I will address those without further adeu. My opponent has brought up a common argument that appears a lot from the pro-choice side, which is that those who have been victims of rape should be able to get abortions. Before I counter this, let's create an imaginary situation in which we have a woman that has been raped and is looking to get an abortion. First and foremost, the rapist should be hunted down and killed. What happened to this woman was a terrible act of lust and inhumanity. However, to me, the fact that this woman conceived against her will does not justify ending another human life. Those who commit terrible crimes, such as killing people, should be killed. Babies, who are innocent and have not killed anybody, should not be killed. My extreme sympathies would be with this woman as she struggles to recover from what happened to her. She would indeed face troubles from society. Yet, why can't we have some sympathy for the child? It seems as though my opponent is giving all of the sympathy to the woman. This child is facing the risk of being killed, while he had no choice in the matter. My opponent's next argument moves to the baby itself, and whether or not he believes it should be classified as a human upon conception. My argument is that a human life begins at conception (when sperm meets egg). Whether or not an embryo is developed into a baby, it is still a human being in the making. If my opponent disagrees with this, I would like him to tell me when that developing bundle of cells becomes a human being. I don't care about what the rest of the population thinks about abortion, that's beside what we are debating here. People can protest and do whatever else they see fit, that doesn't change the fact that abortion is still killing babies. If a woman doesn't want a baby, or is unsure if she will want one in the future, she shouldn't have had sex in the first place. They made that decision and they need to deal with the results of that choice. Killing babies is not the way to solve her problems from making that sexual decision. End of story. I look forward to hearing my opponent's responses.