BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
These two situations are just as moral.

I have been a fan of his religious debates for some time, and I know I'll get a good debate out of him. I will state from the outset that I, like my opponent, would personally switch the train tracks, but not murder the homeless man for body parts. It seems like such a natural decision that it took me some time to work out WHY I would make those decisions. I am happy to say I've reached an answer, and I will attempt to explain why the train track case is not as immoral as the body parts case: The main reason I believe the train track man acted morally while the body parts man didn't, comes down to choice. The man who stumbled upon the train tracks had 2 choices; pull the switch or don't. These 2 choices would yield 2 consequences; 1 person dies or 50 people die. He acts based upon those 2 choices, and makes the natural decision to change the tracks and kill the homeless man. The body parts situation isn't so cut and dry. The man who discovers 50 children in need of body parts doesn't just have 2 choices; he has many. He could appeal to the public to donate body parts, or appeal to friends and family for the same. Hell, he could even give up his own life so that the children could live, seeing as he's so concerned about their well-being. But of the many choices and options the man has available to him, he somehow arrives at the decision to murder an innocent vagrant in cold blood to harvest his organs. This is clearly not a moral decision to make given the alternatives available to him. My opponent's main argument seems to be that with morals, the end justifies the means. This, essentially consequentialist, viewpoint is good in theory but doesn't hold water in reality. My opponent's own admission that he would make different decisions for the two cases is evidence of this. Following my opponent's line of reasoning, there is no difference between hunting down and stabbing someone to death, and punching someone in self-defence (to save your own life), accidentally killing him in the process. The end is the same (a man is dead), but nobody would suggest both men acted equally as immoral. I will leave my first round here. I have argued against my opponent's suggestion that the end necessarily justifies the means in moral situations, or at the very least in the situations he presented. I have also shown that the reason one situation is more morally correct than the other is the number of choices available to the person in each situation. My basic argument is that of the 2 options available to the train track guy, he chose the most moral, whereas of the many options available to the body parts guy, he chose the least moral; namely, to murder an innocent man. I await my opponent's rebuttal arguments.
These two situations are just as moral.

Changing the tracks on a runaway train so that it kills one homeless man rather than 50 children (lets suppose they are all roped to the tracks). Murdering a homeless and using his body parts to save 50 children. -- The train would kill the children if the tracks were not switched. The children in both cases will live equally productive lives. There are no extenuating circumstances which apply in one and not in the other. --- I'm not arguring that switch the tracks is moral or murdering the person outright isn't. In fact, I would switch the tracks and wouldn't murder the homeless man for body parts. I'm simply arguing that the inherent morality of the actions are the same.
Illegal Immigration Is Bad

Illegal Immigration is currently a problem in the U.S. Why? These Illegal Immigrants are taking jobs, not paying taxes, and not waiting in line like others do. They currently occupy 8 million jobs, ones which could be taken by legit U.S. citizens. They don't pay nearly 2 million dollars in taxes. As well, many people wait in the immigration line. Yet these people think that they're better, or have a better reason than the people waiting.There are currently 11 MILLION Illegal Immigrants in the U.S. (mostly occupying Texas/California). Illegal Immigration is not okay, and we should put a stop to it.
Illegal Immigration Is Bad

Everything costs money of course, it's the base of our country. But do you think that if we're in debt, we should give up on border patrol to save money? My guess is no. Our government is heavily in debt, but did you know that 1/3rd of the debt is owned to itself? Or to be more specific, the Federal Reserve. Which is part of our government (but still technically a 3rd party). Our government can get out of debt if it wishes, however that is another debate.Illegal Immigration is bad, cleanly put. If it costs money to stop, then oh well. I guess we'll go more in debt by what you're saying. However we do need to stop this, or at least attempt to. As well, did you notice that they don't pay $2,000,000,000 in taxes a year? While not a lot compared to our debt, this number of unpaid taxes by Illegal Immigrants will increase as more come in our country. This is our country, let's keep it clean.
Contradictions in the Bible

If God made the mistake by creating humans because we would 'all' be corrupt then he wouldn't have made us in the first place but not everyone was as we find out later in the story Genesis 6:8-91 King James Version (KJV) 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. 9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. You said "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds." - Jeremiah 17:10 As stated in this verse, the god character admits to "testing" the mind of man. If the god character is "all-knowing" does the god character need to test the mind of man? No. An "all-knowing" god character would already know the future for every living creature he has created even before they are born on earth. Therefore, this is another demonstration of absolute Contradiction written in the bible. One author believes that the god character is "all-knowing", while the author for the books of Jeremiah forgot that an "all-knowing" god character does not need to perform any tests against his creations because an "all-knowing" god character would already knows it's future. If we know the future for the result of 10 + 10. Do we need to test this by gathering 10 oranges and 10 apples and counting them to get the sum? No. We already know that the future for 10 + 10 is 20. Thus, testing is not required. Unfortunately, the author for the books of Jeremiah failed to apply this concept when integrating an "all-knowing" god character in his stories. My response A test does not have to be about trying to find out someones potential but it could be about helping the subject finding their own potential, God may know our potential but we don't. I would like to say you're one of the most if not the most formal people I've debated it was a pleasure debating you.
Contradictions in the Bible

There is an obvious reason as to why the god character decided to destroy all living things on the earth in the story in the first place. It is because he regretted and repented that he made all living things: "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. " - Genesis 6:7 KJV So would an "all-knowing" god character make the mistake of creating living things and destroying them because he didn't know that they would only cause him regret and repentance after he destroys them? No. An "all-knowing" god character would not bother destroying his creations, because he would have already known that they would not be perfect and knew the entire future of each living creature he created. Thus, this demonstrates an absolute Contradiction written in the bible. One author believes that the god character is "all-knowing", while the author for the books of Genesis believes that the god character does not know the outcome of whether his creations will need to be destroyed or not if they do not meet his satisfaction. The next contradiction in the bible is as follows: "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds. " - Jeremiah 17:10 As stated in this verse, the god character admits to "testing" the mind of man. If the god character is "all-knowing" does the god character need to test the mind of man? No. An "all-knowing" god character would already know the future for every living creature he has created even before they are born on earth. Therefore, this is another demonstration of absolute Contradiction written in the bible. One author believes that the god character is "all-knowing", while the author for the books of Jeremiah forgot that an "all-knowing" god character does not need to perform any tests against his creations because an "all-knowing" god character would already knows it's future. If we know the future for the result of 10 + 10. Do we need to test this by gathering 10 oranges and 10 apples and counting them to get the sum? No. We already know that the future for 10 + 10 is 20. Thus, testing is not required. Unfortunately, the author for the books of Jeremiah failed to apply this concept when integrating an "all-knowing" god character in his stories.
Contradictions in the Bible

To contest your first stanza I believe that the authors are expressing the way God wants to be interpreted through inspiration and I should've clarified that the kjv would be the version we would be reviewing in this debate. Because with kjv the scripture I got was John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. which seems very different to what you said out of curiosity what version are you using? You said But from the author for the books of Genesis, he believes that his god does not know all things and is open to making mistakes. Here, his god regrets destroying all living creatures when he realized after his act of devastation against all living things in the world, that he did not create humans to be perfect: my response I doesn't actually say that he doesn't know all things he just made a promise to himself that he will never destroy the world again he didn't say he regrets it he did it for good reason so I doubt he would even regret it he did it because the world was filled with wickedness Genesis 6:11-13 King James Version (KJV) 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. No Thank you for sharing your thoughts and participating in this debate.
Contradictions in the Bible

The bible was written by more than 30 authors expressing their own opinions and imaginations in scriptures. With that said, each author have a right to their own opinions and imaginations of what they believe represents their personal view of what their god may be like. And with many opinions written expressed by different authors, the opportunity for contradictions and conflicting thoughts are very likely. For example, the author for the books of john, believes that his god knows all things: "for God is greater than our heart and knows all things" - John 3:20 But from the author for the books of Genesis, he believes that his god does not know all things and is open to making mistakes. Here, his god regrets destroying all living creatures when he realized after his act of devastation against all living things in the world, that he did not create humans to be perfect: "never again will I curse the ground of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done." - Genesis 8:21 So while one author believes that his god knows all things and cannot make mistakes, the author for the books of Genesis believes that his god can express regret for the mistake he has made and promises never to destroy all living creatures ever again. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and participating in this debate.
Tennis is better than your sport.

You can chose any sport you want to compare to tennis. I just have a few rules. 1. Be respectful. 2. This is fun debate. Because I like to argue :D 3. We can't say anything negative about the other persons sport. For example, your sport sucks, etc. We can however compare each others sports. For example Tennis is more physically demanding than your sport. I believe tennis is the best sport in the world. I enjoy all sports but tennis is the most exhilarating and requires the highest level of skill and physical fitness.
Tennis is better than your sport.

first of all thanks for admitting that roger federer is not the highest paid athlete in the world and that the top paid athlete is not a tennis player. this is actually a point against your argument, not for your argument. Also, thanks for admitting that tennis is not the cheapest sport in the world. this is relevant because it makes tennis less accessible to the masses. who knows how many tennis stars are out there who are too poor to afford to play the game and will never be able to play it. are the best players in the world really the best players if not everyone gets a chance to even play tennis in most parts of the world? so many street kids become soccer gods, how many famous tennis players can claim that they came from nothing? Also I was arguing about drug testing procedures not athletes getting caught. everyone knows people can get away with doping without getting caught. happens all the time. You did not address the point that sexy sexy girls distract me too much to appreciate the game. you just said that it's a good thing. maybe it's a good thing for my mojo, but not for the sport itself. it's a distraction. i end up watching tennis for those incredible, succulent, majestic, spine-tinglingly alluring thunder thighs and not for watching a little green ball being smashed around. it's a very... yummy.... distraction. mmmmmmmm... i need to change my pants brb..... ... ok.... back... and please don't talk about candian tennis. i am canadian and i don't care what you say about canadian tennis at the provincial level, it cannot be more intense than even five minutes in the gym with george saint pierre, or even a minute in the speedos of michael phelps. speaking of being canadian, how can you be canadian and be fond of tennis? i am always depressed after watching raonic come close but never truly reach greatness. how can tennis not depress you as a canadian especially? tennis is not the only sport that can be played on different surfaces. cricket can be played on a much wider variety of surfaces and its rivalries are far more intense than nadal vs federer or sampras vs agassi. heck even boston vs la during the larry bird era in basketball is more intense. don't even get me started on soccer rivalries. they reach the level of civil wars sometimes. also you admit that most "haters" don't have the skill to crush rally balls. if that's the case then tennis cannot be very good exercise for most people who attempt to play it. better to burn calories while you run after a soccer ball or bounce a basketball then getting tennis elbow playing a sport that you don't have the skill to play.
Tennis is better than your sport.

First of all I believe that tennis played at a provincial to national level (I'm from Canada) is more physically demanding than any other sport at the same level. Because in soccer anyone can run around and kick a ball in tennis because of the skill required to play at a decent level if your picking up a racket for the first time and your hitting ground strokes at 20mph and missing every 2 balls your obviously not going to burn as many calories. But when guys are crushing rally balls at 80mph and serves at 120 mph. Your rate of burning calories is going to be a lot higher. It does generate a lot of money for players Roger Federer is the second highest paid athlete in the world. There are also several more tennis players on this list. http://www.forbes.com... Admittedly tennis is not the cheapest sport. I will even testify to that especially since I break stings every few days. Luckily I have a sponsor to keep costs. But I am not sure how relevant that is in terms of being the best sport. That's why we have indoor courts it is just as fun as playing outside just rallies are a bit faster and you don't need to deal with extreme heat or cold and there is no wind or sun in your eyes. In the history of tennis no professional player has ever tested positive for steroids. Although Victor Trocki is currently under investigation with the ITF for not providing blood because he was feeling ill. He however did provide urine which tested negative. Yes I agree female tennis players are beautiful but would they are fierce athletes and competitors. They wouldn't have such great bodies if it weren't for tennis. Also, I'm glad that they are proving that not all good female athletes have to look like men. It makes women's tennis a lot easier to watch. Also Tennis is the best sport because it requires the most skill. This is also how it makes haters out of people who don't possess that skill. It is also extremely exciting to watch, especially if your watching guys like Roger Federer I will cite tomorrow's Basel Final as an example. Watch how amazingly he moves on the court and the amazing shots he can produce he is the most talented man you will ever see. Also the different surfaces and conditions that effect the outcome of a match are amazing it adds new elements to what are already fierce and thrilling rivalries. For example Nadal vs Federer, They are tied on hard court Nadal dominates on clay and Federer dominates on indoor hard courts and grass. If there was only one surface like all other sports one would always beat the other.
Tennis is better than your sport.

I will not argue for any particular sport, but simply state that tennis i snot better than many sports in many ways. 1. It is NOT the most physically demanding sport. http://hitchfit.com... 2. It does not generate or pay its athletes the more money than any other sport. 3. It is not the cheapest sport to play and so very few children around the world can play it (relatively to sports like soccer). 4. Unlike soccer and american football, it is not possible to play tennis in any kind of weather. Tennis matches are often stopped due to rain. 5. It is not the safest sport in the world. Tennis players get injured all the time and many great players have been unable to live up to their true potential due to the dangerous and injury-prone nature of the game. 6. Drug-testing in tennis is just as bad or as good as many other sports. 7. Female tennis players are too beautiful and sexy and it is difficult to concentrate on the sport itself for me personally. Looking at those thighs makes me want to forget about points, games and sets. 8. don't bother trying to argue against me unless you like getting pwned. (just kidding) 9. game, set match.
Using a gay activists logic, a pedophile should never be let out of prison.

It is often said by many gay activists that being gay is not a choice and that people are born that way and cannot help but be gay. If this were true then simple logic dictates that a pedophile is also born that way and they cannot help but be a pedophile. Heterosexuals are born to be heterosexuals and can't help but be heterosexual the same with being bi-sexual. A bi-sexual clearly makes a choice as to their preference on any given day. All of the above are sexual preferences. Why is it a homosexual can not be rehabilitated but a pedophile can. There is no scientific logic here. One can only come to the logical conclusion. If a pedophile can be reformed a homosexual can be reformed. If a homosexual cannot be reformed than a pedophile cannot be reformed. If the later is true then a pedophile should never be let out of prison once they commit an act of pedophilia of any kind. I could find no studies comparing homosexually and pedophilia as it pertains to the context of this debate. But one thing would be painfully obvious. If a pedophile can be rehabilitated then a homosexual can to. One can come to another conclusion in this regard. It is politics that is separating the homosexuals from the pedophiles with regard to the rehabilitation argument. And it is done so at the expense of the children.
Riddle Challange!

1)Fourscore men and fourscore more / could not make Humpty Dumpty where he was before... 2)What has a tongue in a hole but no lips, teeth, or gums? 3)What has a foot but no legs? 4)What comes down but never goes up? 3) A dad and his son were riding their bikes and crashed. Two ambulances came and took them to different hospitals. The man’s son was in the operating room and the doctor said, “I can’t operate on you. You’re my son.”How is that possible? 4)What has roots that nobody sees, and is taller than trees. Up, up it goes, and yet it never grows. 5)The FBI comes to you for help to solve a murder. In a Mansion a man is murdered in cold blood in his bedroom. During the murder the chief was in the kitchen, the nurse was in her room sleeping, maid 1 was vaccuming the hallway, and the other maid was getting the mail. Now tell me, who on this great Sunday would commit this murder. 6) If you are poor then you have a lot of me, if you're rich then you have none of me. If you eat me then you die. What am I? 7) Spell out just one word with the following letters. djruewtsoon : must use all letters 8) It takes 8 men 20 minutes to build a wall, how long does it take 5 men to build the same wall?
Riddle Challange!

This is a Riddle Debate the rules are very simple. 1st round will be acceptance and in the second round I will ask a total of 8 questions, My opponent must get all them correct or he shall Forfeit all 7 of his points. (select winner option being used) He must not use the Internet either. In the finial round I will reveal the answers and weather or not he has gotten them correct or not. He/she will end the debate by a simple thank you comment. ~Lannans rules Please comment if you want to take the challange!