BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Polyamory (having more than one sigifcant other) is morally wrong

As a pro to the topic, I will take my right to define the topic, as the opposition himself failed to properly do so in the description. You can tell from here that his stance is going to be very under-explained. Polyamory refers to having two partners or more at the same time, with the awareness of everybody. Because there is no such thing as morally wrong to a non-religious person (such people only live in accordance to what is SOCIALLY wrong or right if you think about it) I will depend what you call 'morals' to the Christian fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control and immorality to the seven deadly sins: wrath, avarice, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony, for such ideas or rules are more or less what 'morality' is based on. So polyamory is morally wrong as it is a combination of lust and avarice. Lust is committed where polyamory is concerned, as nobody would want another partner...except for sexual purposes. Think this way: you have a wife who loves you and you love her back. Your connections are great and everything and communications between you guys are smooth (otherwise, you would have already broke up)- why would you want another partner unless your penis itches for someone else? Avarice is committed during polyamory as without greed; without the want and lust for more and more sexual partners so that you can have different asses to stick your dick into, polyamory would not be committed. Nobody would want another wife if avarice was not enough, if one wife cannot sexually satisfy a man. But it all boils down to one question doesn't it? That is: how many wives would it take for a man to start being greedy? Well, again, because without religion, such a thing as morality wouldn't exist, I shall refer to the Bible which says: But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. Notice that they did not say: "...each man should have his own wives"..." but rather "...each man should had his own wife". So ONE is the answer. And lo and behold for the Bible too agrees with my point about lust. For the verse said that it is because of the temptation to committing sexual immorality that one should have only one partner...that means if a man marries another wife, he would be tempted to commit sexual IMMORALITY and you tell me- now that we know that one of the reasons that one commits polyamory is because of lust- why wouldn't the person have sex with his second significant other??? He would! Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, as lust and greed (or avarice) is morally wrong, polyamory is morally wrong, for it is a combination of the two. With the word 'checkmate', as I am not sure you would be able to defend your case, I'd like to end my argument. Thank you for your time.
Polyamory (having more than one sigifcant other) is morally wrong

Round 2: Opening arguments. Round 3: Refutations. Round 4: Defenses. Round 5: Closing arguments. I am not planning on being too strict with this, but I do hope for a debate that is decently structured. However, deviation will not be too much of a problem, as long as it is done with the best of intentions. I think that polyamory is not morally wrong. Definitions: Polyamory: Having more than one significant other.
Polyamory (having more than one sigifcant other) is morally wrong

It's not that I don't believe in sources- in fact I have used it before; it is that I don't NEED to use it for this debate. Anyway, you cannot deem sources to be perfect evidence for your argument, as we can debate with the sources' info as well. 1. Finding the origins of morality is not off topic. How are we supposed to know what something is if we don't know where it came from? Sure, you will have some sort of idea of what it is but you won't be able to have something to refer to- and so, how much better or rather more accurately, can we refer to morality than its origins? And you say we have to use the "actual system" of morality. Where did that system come from? If you do not say 'from the origins of morality" then that would be an inaccurate system! See, morality is a concept (not a system, mind you)- you can try to change it into your own concept, but you will NEVER EVER be able to change the original concept no matter what you say- because the maker of the concept had spoken! Factual-based things like math and science, you can change or prove wrong, but never concept. For concepts, whatever comes out of their author's mouth is final. 2. I would like to elaborate on my point that happiness does not have anything to do with morals with an example. Let's say a secret club called the 'Jolly Jolly Bestiality Club"; a club, which encourages animal-sex, walks into the woods one day. They rape all of the animals they see. Now the overall rate of happiness would be 100 percent at that time, as only they know about the raping spree, and they are happy about it. Does that make bestiality morally right, sir? No it does not. It may make it socially correct, which is something I have said about in the beginning of the debate, but not morally. Therefore, Utilitarianism is not a very accurate system, because as I've said, no matter how jolly one feels doing something, it doesn't make it correct. 3. Given this, polyamory is immoral or, at least, is not moral Given THIS logic, no matter the willingness of people in a polyamorous relationship still does not make polyamory moral. They have multiple companions, who make them happy but happiness cannot equate to morality. They are committed, which has been shown to make people happier/have more pleasure, but that still does not qualify for the action to be moral. Conclusion: How many times must I stress that just because one is jolly happy, it doesn't mean that they are free from immorality??????????????
Polyamory (having more than one sigifcant other) is morally wrong

Clearly, this has become a debate about the origins of morality. I will follow-up nonetheless but not to the extent that I do what my opponent did: stray from the topic 9/10 of the time to talk about morality and use the remainder to say the actual argument. 1. Foolish opponent! Every debater knows that the first definer of the topic is the one that everyone has to follow. I was blind to this in the first few rounds, but now that I have just realized this and spoken it aloud to the debate, you'd have to follow too. As this IS A RULE so you'd just have to keep following my definition. And I think this rule that they made is pretty smart as if it weren't created, we would just be debating about what the correct definition of morality is the whole time and not actually talking about the real topic. 2. Morals do not depend on happiness. In fact, if it was, Earth would be a place where the majority of its inhabitance are immoral- why? Because people would just live life according to what they feel, not by the laws of morality. Therefore, your point that said that if people were happier, they would have a higher morality, is poor. Also, how does the amount of freedom in your relationship affect your moral standard? I could have the most wives in the world- does that stop me from sinning? No, just because you have ten thousand wives, it doesn't stop you from being a murderer (if you are one), it doesn't stop you from excessive drinking- you'd still be the same type of person, only with a huge amount of spouses or s*x-buddies, as I've already explained that polyamory comes from lust most times. Sources: NONE, I can think from myself, which is probably quite shameful for you as you, an eighteen year old needed FIVE sources to debate me, a thirteen year old who did not use a single source (except to find what polyamory means and to see different people's views on polyamory)
Polyamory (having more than one sigifcant other) is morally wrong

Hi I'm so sorry man. I only saw that 'acceptance and definition' thing you wrote when I had already posted the argument. Anyway, let's not dwell on that. 1. Imagine a block of ice water which you just took out of a fridge. Put it under the sun for a while and it melts into liquid water. Now, has the water changed? Physically, yes. But not chemically: it is still water. Likewise, atheists (the liquid) are what melted from their religious ancestors (the ice)- though they don't believe in what their ancestors did, the morals (the water) were inevitably passed down. So it is a fact: though atheists don't keep the religion, they still keep the morals which were passed down. No matter how you disbelieve in God, you still have the morals drawn from your parent's/grandparent's/great grandparent's/great great grandparents or beyond that's religion. There was no other possible method that morals came in except through religion. A leader could make orders for his people but that would be called 'laws'- it was forced into them- morals however, are inside a person and are practiced through the will of the person. 2. Screw your point about polyamory is not necessarily being avaricious Why? Because one, i've already said that we NEED to follow religion in order to find what morality is, therefore, Bible references, no matter how poorly said to you, need to be used in order to understand morality and two, because one can only concentrate on a partner at a time. If one can fulfill his needs on one, why want another? Gee, I don't know, maybe because of AVARICE. And your point about not hurting the other wanted partner's feeling was useless because no matter how 'emotional' as you put it, the situation gets, IT IS STILL IMMORAL TO PRACTICE POLYAMORY. 3. You also talked a lot about asexual people. Well, if an asexual does come into the situation, then kindly refer to my point about avarice which is still valid as I've just defended it, thank you. 4. I think a lot of your argument was based upon my Biblical references but now that I've defended that too, I doubt you have anywhere else to run.
Abortion

You read that somewhere? Without listing a source? You cannot say that, unless you have the evidence. Of course school is important, but you shouldn't kill a baby just to go to school. But if a person couldn't feel pain, someone can lawfully kill them because they couldn't feel it? Murder is murder, whether the person can, or cannot feel pain. If school is more important than an the baby, then there is something wrong. If someone kills a pregnant woman, the police file that crime as a 'double homicide'.
Abortion

But in the UK when you're sixteen it's when you do the most important exams of your life, you can't miss them, Also a girl was pregnant at my school and she was off for 5 months of it. You cannot honestly expect a girl to get raped and have the baby? You must've heard of all the emotional trauma that being raped causes and you expect a young girl to go through that everyday when she has to look at that child for the rest of her life? And of course you're ending the fetuses life but it hasn't started yet, being serious what has that child actually done so far to show it has a life? Also I read somewhere that when you abort a baby it can't feel anything
Abortion

Taking time out of school to let the miracle of life happen is important. And there are pregnant girls who go to school, I've seen them before. They only take time out of school when the baby needs to be delivered. Rape is not an excuse, it's still a human, even if the baby would be born from a rape case. It should be unlawful to kill a fetus, like I said, the fetus will develop a heartbeat. By aborting the baby, you're ending the heartbeat, and its life. Why would you end an unborn babies life? It did nothing wrong, it hasn't been born yet. A mother may suffer from having the baby, but aborting the bay will put it through a lot of pain.
Abortion

I count a human as being alive once it takes it's first breath. And yes of course it's the mother's choice? You're making it out as though if a 16 year old girl got pregnant after being raped and wanted an abortion would be the exact same as a thirty year old woman who got pregnant by her husband and then the doctor killed it as soon as it was born which is of course completely different circumstances. I think that if a woman doesn't want to have a baby but gets pregnant by accident then it's completely her choice whether she keeps it or not. Back to the 16 year old girl again, would you rather her drop out of school for about half a year (one of the most important year of her life where I'm from) to have her baby?
Abortion

Abortion is murder. Although the supreme court ruled that it wasn't I'll be stating my own belief on this subject. To start, what do you define a human as? If a fetus is not a human, then what is? Does not being awake make you not human? Fetuses will develop a heartbeat. Just because it's unborn, doesn't mean it's not human. It may be the woman's choice, but if someone killed someone else because of a choice, then it's not murder by your definition. If killing the baby is your choice, no one can stop you (thou shalt not kill). What if the doctor aborted the baby without the mother's consent? It was the doctor's choice, right? Or does the mother have to make the choice to kill her child? Abortion is depriving an unborn child, the chance at life. You and I are both humans, but was I less of a human before I was born?
Trees are human

1. Cell structure: Trees and humans, as you had stated earlier, are both living, and according to cell, are both made of cells. However, the cells that are part of them have a different structure, most notably the cell walls and the chloroplasts 2. Behavior. To my knowledge, both plants and humans can interact with each other. However, humans have much more complicated methods of social interaction to accomplish things such as, this website, buildings, etc
Containment

Let's start with refutation. First, when your rhetorical, implicative argument that we shouldn't change the opinions of Communist countries if they don't desire to be changed has multiple flaws. A) Most likely, the people who are 'not interested in changing their view points' are usually the oppressive and repressive, dictatorial leaders that subdue their people with force, be it physical, spiritual, or economic. B) A rhetorical attempt at a warrant isn't a warrant at all. You need proof. C) The point at which governments violate the human rights of their citizens necessitates intervention by the United States. Moreover, the United States' collective government, as long as it abides by its Constitutional premises, cannot perpetrate unjust actions that violate human rights. The policies of particular individuals with power can and that's wrong. However, because the United States has the foundation that best supports the rights due to humans, it is obligated to secure those negative rights for all other humans as well. Thus, the United States is legitimate enough to act on the international sphere. Additionally, the United States, after enacting containment policy for a country, contextually, does not "force" its opinions on countries. It destabilizes oppressive regimes and translates power over their regions to the people to develop a satisfactorily sound and democratic government and then allows them to mature as a people. Moreover, because a communist country suppresses the rights of individuals within its countries, were the communist country to enforce its policies that violated rights upon United States citizens, other countries' citizens, or their own citizens, that enforcement would be unjust.
Containment

Thank you for your response! I am pretty sure you are stating that for America to be safe from harm, the US has to be world police and force their opinions on other countries. What if the communist country was not interested in changing their view points? In Julius Caesar, Caesar was murdered because the senate thought that power would turn him evil. Was that correct for them? That is what the entire book is trying to get us to think about. Is it alright for the US to assume that something is going to happen and then act upon it? The containment policy is forcing the US opinion on countries all over the world. My question for you is: Is the US forcing their capitalist opinions just as bad as a communist country forcing their opinions on us? Thank you.
Containment

Thanks for introducing this topic!!!The premise of my argument will be my concept of an active cosmopolitanism defined as actively pursuing the protection of all humans.Sovereign countries are only sovereign when they recognize the fundamental human rights of its citizens. Unfortunately, a trademark of many countries is that they do not protect human rights or they perpetrate their abuse. Thus, the US is obligated to contain governments that choose to violate human rights.There are two arguments supporting that.First, Dasching and Deschant in 2001 argue that neglecting the protection of human rights otherizes and dehumanizes victims, thereby reducing them to a bare life, devoid of value. That is explicitly in violation of the etymological principle of 'human' rights.Additionally, Harries of Harvard University concurs with the argument that when the United States does not protect human rights on the international sphere, its credibility as a nation is reduced to a minimum. As a result of our neglect, we are pressured to change policy by other countries in the United Nations and in the world. The impact on our nation is a devolution of international power and acceptance, which opens the United States up to acts of violence and aggression by other countries.I have more arguments that will be introduced in the second constructive.I am excited to debate!!
Anyone in any field

So I have to get information on a person in a career due tomorrow. Who did you connect with that helped you into the field? Who should I contact if I were to try to get into your career? What experience was needed for your current job? What qualities are ideal for your field? When did you decide on your career? When did you finish education Where is the best opportunity for your career/job? Where did you learn of the field? How do you see your career changing in the next 10 years? How much in expenses did it cost for education? Why is it a good field for you? please answer these for your career type
George W. Bush

---> Extend all arguments except IraqRefutations: ---> Saddam --We entered Iraq for weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Husein [1]Weapons of mass destruction:The CIA's final report was NO WMD'S FOUND. [2] Everyone will scream bias at the source I used, so lets use a less biased one to prove no WMD's where found. The weapons program was already halted with UN sanctions, and when we invaded no WMD's where found. [3]Saddam: The rational behind Saddam was he was a mass murderer etc. But one must ask was this a legitament cause to invade his country? No.Areas where people are being killed and no US invasion: 1. Somalian civil war. [4]2. War in Dar Fur (US not there) [5]3. Pol Pot [6]4. Chairman Mao [7]The point is killing Saddam because he was killing people is not a reason as all of these other conflicts/mass murderers never got invaded by the US for this reason, and weren't invaded by us at all. My opponents last statement on oil is not relevant as it never happened (no oil was taken). Conclusion:He dropped most of my arguments and has not justified the Iraq war or showed my arguments false/not enough to weigh down his good side. Bush FAILED US. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...[3] http://www.economist.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
George W. Bush

extend arguments.1) AfricaMy opponents premise here is he helped Africa, well may I point out this may not have happened without Clinton. This premise is basically defending foreign policy. Lets look into two things I support, but will devils advocate on:---> Iraq warIraqi troop deaths:Total dead: 28,736-37,120[1]Coalition forces troop deaths:Total dead: 24,219Total wounded: 117,961 [1]Plus cost:1 trillion US dollars. [2]Deaths to civiliansOver 100,000. [3]---> Afghanistan warAfghans killed:Killed: 36,806-40,982+ [4]US/allies troops killed:Total Killed 14,007+ [4]Civilians killed:civilians killed on accident 9000 [5]7000-8000 killed on purpose [5]14-17 thousand killed total [5]Yeah he killed a lot of people from this. 2) Patriot act No one blames him for 9/11, sorry. But the patriot act (something I am for) I will devils advocate on to refute:"roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups." [6]Why is this a problem? Right to privacy. "The right not to be subjected to unsanctioned invasion of privacy by the government, corporations or individuals is part of many countries' privacy laws, and in some cases, constitutions. " [7]"Privacy uses the theory of natural rights, and generally responds to new information and communication technologies. In North America, Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis wrote that privacy is the "right to be let alone" [7]Conclusion: extend arguments. The things my opponent stated are either bad or outweighted in other areas, so I urge a con vote. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.iraqbodycount.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
George W. Bush

I will be short, as its your first debate.1) Deficits "With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions. " [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...2) economy"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office." [2]"His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office." [2]3) Oil prices"Gas price under bush went to $4.21 a gallon and was over $3.00 a gallon most of his last term in office." [3]"under George W. Bush, the price of gasoline increased from $1.60 per gallon when he took office in January 2001 to $4.40 per gallon in July 2008, a jump of 275 percent." [4]Conclusion: Bush failed us. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://blogs.wsj.com... [3] http://www.sodahead.com... [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
It is improbable that God exists.

Resolution The existence of God is improtbable.Clarification I am not arguing for the falshood of any particular faith. Therefore, doctrines such as the trinity and incarnation are not important for this debate. Definitions Improbable: Less than 50%God: For the purpose of this debate, God is doing to be defined broadly as the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God. Therefore, doctrines such as the Trinity and the incarnation are irrelavent. Rules Round 1 is acceptance only. Round 5 is just for closing statements. Do not accept this debate unless you are serious about this. Do not forfeit; if you wish to forfeit, don't let the time run out. If you are a troll, you will be blocked. Please note: I have low tolerance towards idiocy.