BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morals are subjective not objective

I said objective morality not objective of morality, objective pertains to an object not an idea according to the very definition of objective. Objective 1. Of or pertaining to an object. 2. Of pertaining to an object, contained in, or having the nature or position of, an object; outward; esternal; extrinsic; -- an epithet applied to whatever is exterior to the mind, or which is simply an object of thought or feeling, as opposed to being related to thoughts of feelings, and apposed to subjective. Subjective 1. Of or pertaining to a subject. 2. Especially, pertianing to, or derived from, one's own consiousness, in distinction from external observation, relating to the mind, or intellectual world, in distinction from the outward or material excessively occupied with, or brooding over, ones's own internal states. As you can see since morals are only the human conciousness and can't exist outside of that as an object it is not obejcetive.
Morals are subjective not objective

The objective of morality is doing the right thing relative to a reference or "standard" (aka social norms). If no standards are yet defined, then the base line, for embracing moral goodwill, is relative to the individual's Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” of all the members within a group. Over time, the objective of morality is the evolution of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc.; hence, the social norms of the group.In fact, it is the objective of morality to continue improving social norms as in the example of the cultural evolution of the US, from slavery, to woman's rights, to today's struggles with gay rights, etc.
Morals are subjective not objective

The title of this debate (the stake in the ground) is, “Morals are subjective not objective.”In Round 1 Pro stated, “I will make my case that morals can not be proven to be objective.”Con will take the position Morals are also objective. The primitives of morality is right (moral) or wrong (immoral). The “objective,” or "standard," in any group is to do the right thing to keep the group alive. That is, when two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive. The life of the group is sustained through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for embracing the Unalienable Rights (“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”) of all the members within the group. Goodwill is a conservative force that promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms. The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms. The objective, or standard, of morality is the evolution of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. The empirical evidence of the diversity of language and social norms throughout history and today demonstrates the standard moral thread that runs through the tapestry of humanity.
Morals are subjective not objective

Well I hope you have fun with it and learn what ever it is your wanting to learn friend. There is no set standard for morals, threw out history our views on certain topics have changed. We used to think marrying small children to much older people was acceptable but now it is highly frowned upon to the point of being illegal. Slavery used to be considered humane and now it is not, then it was segregation that was found to be acceptable as well as hatred of certain cultures. Those are just a small example how morals are not set in stone.
The United States should build and maintain a border fence (MIG R6)

A border fence should be one of the mechanisms used to control immigration and the flow of goods over U.S. borders. There are already border fences in place and they should be maintained. Border fences should be extended as needed to aid border security. This should include a 700 mile double fence on the US border with Mexico.A border fence is not needed everywhere. There are natural obstacles in some places and in other places there are less expensive enforcement techniques. The fundamental contention is that border fences are a cost-effective part of border enforcement.The context of this debate is the present day United States. For this debate, there is no distinction between a "fence" and a "wall." We are talking about structural barriers.I affirm the resolution.This debate is part of the DDO tournament sponsored by man-is-good.Thanks to my opponent for taking up this topic. RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. The definitions given in the challenge stand as a condition of acceptance.DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments are allowed. Rebuttals must be related to specific points, not to aspects of the resolution or contentions not previously made. Con may not introduce new sources in the final round.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.DR 6. Dropped arguments are not counted as concessions. They may be taken up again or left to be judged as part of the case.
Resolved: "Return of the Living Dead" is the greatest Zombie movie of all time

First let me correct your mistakes. The 7.4 IMDB rating you listed for "Dawn of the Dead" was for the 2004 remake. The original 1978 version earned a 8.0 rating. Second mistake, it was the original "dead" movie, "Night of the Living Dead," which was the originator that started it all. Though the line "brains" is a classic, it is not the primary reason "Return of the Living Dead" is the best zombie movie ever. It's because ROTLD is, like NOTLD, a true originator. NOLD did indeed give birth to the 20th century day zombie movie, but ROTLD gave birth to the 21st century zombie movie: fast or running zombies. (Though technically, the fast moving ones aren't "zombies."). Every major zombie movie today ("28 Days Later," "Zombieland," and the upcoming "World War Z") owes its existence to ROTLD.
Resolved: "Return of the Living Dead" is the greatest Zombie movie of all time

I would like to differ, the greatest zombie movie of all time is obviously "Dawn of the dead". Reaching the top rank on Boston.com, #4 on askmen.com, #2 on toplessrobot.com, and #1 on ew.com. Let alone with this information I could win this debate, but I would like to go more in depth. To begin, Imdb.com ranked "Dawn of the dead" as a 7.4, apposed to the 7.2 ranked for "Return of the Living Dead".Just because "Return of the Living Dead" coined the term "brains!" doesn't mean it's automatically better. Also this was the originator of zombie movies and started a historic sequel and movement in the zombie movies.
Resolved: "Return of the Living Dead" is the greatest Zombie movie of all time

"Return of the Living Dead" is the greatest zombie movie of all time. Two reasons to start: It was the first "running zombie" film and it has the greatest line ever spoken in a zombie film: "Brains." It has made numerous "top zombie film" lists including Boston.com #4, Entertainment Weekly #9, Amazon.com #12, and Zombie Zone News #10 to name a few.
School uniforms

I suppose that means you want me to begin. I'd like to establish at first that freedom of choice is good by its own virtue. Allowing students the opportunity to choose their clothing is therefore also good. Secondly, the money spent on making school uniforms is money that parents could spend better, i.e. towards tutoring. Finally, I'd like to point out that it is possible to institute dress codes in schools to prevent inappropriate clothing from vein worn, without completely limiting the choice of the students.
Communism is better than capitalism

I apologise for the forfeiture. I deeply regret not being able to respond, and my argument would have only been short. However I was called up to work and have had no time to debate. I mean literally no time, 6 hours sleep amid 40 hours of pressured work. However, here is what I wished I could of said: I agree with everything you said, apart from the fact that all communists are the ultimate capitalists. They may share many of the same traits, and even be worse, but they are not strictly 'capitalists'. For 'capitalism' is a defined word, who's definition is in contradiction to communists. I don't think my opponent meant this point to be important anyway, so I will leave it here. You say: "There is no difference from one to another, they are all tyrants". Who are tyrants? This debate has not mentioned anything about individuals. This debate was meant to be about the two concepts, and which one would be better for society. I assume you are talking about the 'leaders' anyhow, but if you agree that leaders are "no different from one too another" and all tyrants: then surely a system built on communal ownership rather than private ownership, is better as is has less and less powerful 'leaders'. You then say: "only those with something to gain would follow either". I Agee with this too. But is this not normal? The reason why people do almost anything, if not everything, is to gain something. I think the problem is you haven't heeded my opening argument. This argument isn't about whether previous people who described themselves as communists where bad or not, I know they where. It's about whether the communist ideology would be better than the capitalist ideology, for ensuring a better society.
Communism is better than capitalism

Communism-(from Latin communis " common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order. I argue that this system is better for humanity than the capitalist system. By 'better' I mean: More sustainable Happier population Healthier population Better technology, science and art Less crime Better for the worlds environment Capitalist system- Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2] Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labour.[3] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.[4] It's argument is about the two idea's, and their impact on society. Not about whether Stalin was a bad guy or not! Please no Stalin references! Thank you
Dubstep is the best music.

"Dubstep deftly! That could be proven! POP music usually is filled with words which can be very distracting. Dubstep is made up 90 prcecent of beats which actually helps u focus on a single task!" "I find that listening to high-paced dubstep or rock (System of a down and koRn are my faves) helps me to focus more. It acts as white noise so i don"t get distracted. Yes, i do occasionally pause and enjoy the music, but it"s good to take a brief break. It helps me work at a high pace and stay focused." There are two quotes... Happy?
Taking nature oil makes earth goes to the global warming.

From what I understand, my opponent argues that decreasing the mass of the earth by extracting oil lessens Earth's mass, bringing the Earth closer to the Sun. This is wrong because the laws of gravity keep the Earth on a constant path around the Sun, at a certain distance from the Sun. Also, if weight led to planets being closer to the Sun, then the planets would be in size order around the Sun. We would see Neptune and Uranus closer to the Sun, but we don't, because the laws of mass doesn't work like that.
In the UK, men are discriminated against more than women.

My Arguments#1: The right to financial abortionMen do not have the right to a financial abortion in cases where they are unable to/don't want to provide for their child [1], whereas if a woman is unable to/doesn't want to provide for a child, she can have an abortion [2].#2: The Cancer funding gapProstate cancer gets under half the amount of funding that breast cancer gets [3], as pointed out by Prostate Cancer UK. Although it is one of the more treatable types of cancer, particularly if diagnosed early, one man dies every hour from it, says Prostate Cancer UK.#3: The Domestic violence shelter gap Despite the fact that 40% of domestic violence victims are men [4], and that when you factor in suicides, more men die as a result of it [5], there is approximately only one domestic violence shelter for men for every 180 there is for women [6].#4: Women are favoured by the criminal justice systemWomen are favoured by the criminal justice system, as is evident from one case published in KentOnline on the first of this month, where a 44 year-old woman escaped free from a jail after sexually assaulting a 14 year-old [7]. Switch the genders around and this never would've happened.#5: The homelessness gapIt is obvious that men are discriminated against more than women when you consider the fact that ~90% [8] of homeless people are male, whilst only 10% are female.#6: The massive differences in suicide rates by GenderMen commit suicide 3.5x as often as women do [9]. The privileged would not commit suicide more often than the oppressed. Following those facts, it becomes stupid to believe that there's even a chance that men are less discriminated against than women.I'll leave it there for now.Thank you.Sources[1] Appel, Jacob M. “Women’s Rights, Men’s Bodies,” New York Times, December 2, 2005[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[4] www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence[5] Davis, Richard. Published by the "Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace issues". 2009. http://www.emeraldinsight.com...[6] http://j4mb.wordpress.com...[7] http://www.kentonline.co.uk...[8] http://www.crisis.org.uk...[9] http://j4mb.wordpress.com...
In the UK, men are discriminated against more than women.

Opening arguments. Although as far as I know there are no laws that specifically discriminate women, women are discriminated in the beliefs of the culture. I mean, women are seen as less than men in our cultural mentality. Women are objectified. Women, thusly, feel substandard, lesser and inferior. I argue that women are discriminated by our cultural mind dictators, the media, and the message to women is: you are not good enough just the way you are, you must be better looking or your not worth it. All that matters is the way you look. There is nothing else about you that matters, you are purely eye-candy for men. Shut-up and look sexy, that's all your worth. This is not purely the media that creates this, it is a common consequence of large societies. People are always discriminated against: blacks, Jews, immigrants, gays, women. Women have been percieved as inferior to men almost without exception since agriculture. But. The media still encourages this view incessantly, having a huge effect on the women living with this view of themselves. I urge you to watch 'Killing us softly' on YouTube. Perhaps open your mind to the less obvious discrimination that women are subject to. For although it is massive if your eyes are open to it, it it not noticed by most people because they cannot see the wood for the trees. I mean they just don't even think about it, they just live without contemplating their attitudes. I argue women are discriminated massively by the media, but also somewhat subtlety. But thus is about whether men are discriminated more, I look forward to my opponents viewpoint so I can have something to argue with. Thank you
In the UK, men are discriminated against more than women.

Resolution: In the UK, men are discriminated against more than women.Redoing this debate because the last guy didn't take it seriously.StructureCon will start with his opening in round 1, I will state my opening argument in round 2, and the rounds after that will be used for arguments and rebuttals until Con's round 4, where he'll simply say "End of debate".Rules1. No trolling2. No personal insults3. Con cannot write or imply an argument in the fourth round.4. [All Standard DDO Terms of Service apply]5. Breaking any of the rules will result in a 7-point forfeit.Thank you.
United States Bias Regarding Revolutionary War

Greetings to all readers, and my opponent. Good luck and have fun. Keep it clean. There are several biases of the American Revolutionary War that annoy me, so I thought I would bring it out in a debate. I will address the biases, and my opponent can proceed in whichever he chooses, though I'm quite sure that we needn't bicker over semantics. I'll list the biases I intend to address in an orderly fashion, and only address them in-depth in later posts. 1. Many American Christians produce programs or make statements that portray only the American forces praying in the Revolutionary War/1812 and the like. In essence, they portray that God was on their side in these wars, and make no mention of why God should be on the side of the English. Is this a historical truth? I think not! 2. While viewing the Christianity aspect, why are all the Founding Fathers portrayed as religious men whom could do no wrong? I intend to prove that not only were people like Benjamin Franklin were not Christians. And some of them were only after their own ambitions, rather than that of a forming nation. 3. The US Minutemen truly started the war. 4. The Boston Massacre was not a massacre, but a misfortune caused by the colonists themselves. 5. The often frequently overlooked treatment of Loyalists. I notice that most Yankees conveniently overlook this. 6. The dishonourly guerilla warfare conducted by the Rebels. 7. Why is the Battle of Saratoga considered a 'Turning point' in the war? The incompetant fool Burgoyne is turned back to Canada. I would say that's almost a success for the English, not having him on their leadership lists in action, anymore. 8. The Rebels being consistantly labelled 'Patriots' rather than 'Rebel', by citizens of the United States. 9. Misconceptions about brutal anti-guerilla fighting tactics used by English chaps such as 'Banastre Tarleton' (this is mostly because of Gibson's film, 'The Patriot'). 10. The 'great victory' of John Paul Jones. Which was rather a misfortune, I think. Jones was an incompetant pirate with a large crew. He should have been placed in irons long before that seafight with the HMS Serapis. I'm sure there are many more. Good luck, once again, to my opponent.
Cheekyhobo should become an everyday slang or dictionary word

First, I urge you to look at the resolution. It clearly states "Cheekyhobo should become an everyday slang OR dictionary word". As my job is to simply conflict with the resolution (and thus my opponent), I advocate that Cheekyhobo should become an everyday slang AND dictionary word. Now, I agree with my opponent with the greatness of the cheekyhobo culture. The humor of the culture is exemplified in these debates (. http://www.debate.org... and . http://www.debate.org...) while the ability to handle unstable situations (or people) is shown here (. http://www.debate.org...). Thus, we can see that the cheekyhobo culture is certainly deserving of its own word. However, my opponent rips off his own culture by not asserting that their word should be in slang and in the dictionary. When in the dictionary, a word is suddenly valid in any situation and can be even used in a debate. Words are only put into the dictionary when the slang use grows so large that it is necessary. An example would be "muggle" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Thus, my opponent denies the word cheekyhobo large usage by saying it is a slang OR a dictionary word rather than both. However, through the proof that both my opponent and I have given, it is clear that the cheekyhobo culture deserves a word that has large usage and is in the dictionary.
Cheekyhobo should become an everyday slang or dictionary word

Too many people overlook that there are many forms of cultures in our world. I happen to be apart of the cheekyhobo culture from Zing-Zong. I beg pardon to all who I may have offended and pray that you shall see that I am correct in assuming that cheekyhobos are just nice people. I hope that people will start using the word in everyday passings and I will advocate that it can be good, bad, loving, or just playful. One day I hope all persons can be a cheekyhobo like me!