BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Objective Morality

My opponent is correct in that the existence of the word "Should" in my opening statement has no place. My attempts to justify it are futile, and I will admit fault. But lets entertain his assertion that saying something "Should" or "Shouldn't" be, would negate my argument. I am not claiming that morality itself does not exist. I am not claiming that moral standpoints do not exist. I am claiming that to consider morality as being objective is a waste of time. So Ill ask m opponent to not remove the word "Should", but to add the word "Considered", between "should never", and "be static". The only thing wrong with that statement, is the manner in which I expressed it. This explanation will most certainly be looked down upon by my opponent, and rightfully so, for I did not my prepare my opening statement adequately enough. If he were to refuse further argument on the basis that my foundation was flawed in expression, I would not be offended, for I'm here to learn to not make such mistakes. In my opponents second paragraph, he compares morality to physics. I cannot entertain this thought, because I simply cannot make the connection. Physics exists, whether or not we as humans experience it. Physics exists, without the slightest bit of human intervention. I could have cited areas of science where it has been claimed that the universe hasn't always followed the laws of physics we experience today, but that would be entertaining the idea the same factors that contribute to physics, also do to morality. Morality is an invention of man, that has been and continues to be amended to this day. A good reason morality cannot be static, is that there is always context to a moral assertion. The reasons for which my property could be seized, could be infinitely different from my opponents reasons for taking my car. In fact, only if it was objectively moral for my property to be seized, would I have no right to be angry if he took my car. "Dlange, if society ever comes to a consensus that rape is morally right, then is rape morally right?" If society came to a consensus that rape was morally correct, then it would be morally correct, because morality is a man made invention, therefore, it is subject to manipulation and determination by man. The beautiful thing about a non-static morality, is that such a thing could still be challenged. I think what my opponent meant to ask, was that if society were to come to a consensus that it wasn't necessarily considered immoral to rape someone, would it be ok to rape someone. What I would say to that is "Well thank goodness morality is non-static, therefore always up for discussion". "There are countless moments in history in which whole societies were wrong". Again, and thank goodness that morality is not objective. As for my starvation argument: I stated that the man with the money was hungry, but not starving, to assert that he wasn't necessarily in mortal danger. But since my opponents rebuttal is not based on this concept, I can't present a defense.
Objective Morality

I didn't realize I was taking the term "should" out of context. If the term "should" was used as equivalent to the term "can" then why did he use the term "should" at all? Given his correction, his opening statement is translated to mean ". . . because morality can never, and [can] never, bet static." Either my opponent was being oddly redundant or he is backpedalling on an earlier statement in order to avoid my criticism.The fact that morality is under constant dispute is not proof that morality is not objective. It is equally plausible that humanity is simply disagreeing or disregarding real moral laws. In fact, using my opponent's logic, it could be said that laws of physics are not static because physicists still disagree on a lot of scientific issues. If the conclusion regarding physics is non sequitur, then it must be so with morality.My opponent seemed to take my terms "human experience" and "insanity" a bit literally. So, let me clarify my point. Relative morality cannot be actually lived out. In other words, my opponent says morality is subject to alteration, but when push comes to shove, he will not act that way. Case in point, if all of humanity agreed that it was morally right for KRFournier to take anyone's property, then dlange should not be indignant when I take his car, given his own view of morality.This is why I brought up the rape scenario. I was not insisting the Con must agree that it is right. I'm asking him if it is right. I'm challenging his ethical framework. Let me be more direct. Dlange, if society ever comes to a consensus that rape is morally right, then is rape morally right?I am exposing the underlying fallacy of Con's position. Moral relativity commits the fallacy of equivocation by inadvertently equating moral assessment with moral obligation. Moral assessment is the act of a person assessing whether something is right or wrong. Moral assessment is truly a subjective action. Moral obligation is that act of one person obligating another person to adhere to some kind of moral standard. It is irrational to say, "You cannot take my stereo because it is my opinion that stealing is wrong." Just because society can agree that stealing is wrong doesn't solve the problem either, because there are countless moments in history in which whole societies were wrong.This leads to a fundamental question we must ask of Con. If morality is not fixed, then how do we know what is right and wrong? Who decides? Is it democratic or based on might? I eagerly await answers to these critical questions.Regarding Con's starvation anecdote, I must admit that I just can't figure out what it's supposed to prove. He says both men are immoral, but I don't see how. Even if I grant my opponent that morality is based on current trends (which I don't), I don’t see how current moral trends identify Man 2 as immoral. How is it immoral to refuse to feed a starving man at your own mortal expense? It seems to me that only the man that steals is immoral. So, how exactly is this a deadlock?
Objective Morality

My opponent has taken my statement, most notably the word "should", out of context. "Should" is not being used in terms of "Morality must not be treated as being static, for that would be immoral." The statement simply means: "Since morality cannot be static, it CANNOT be treated as so, if it is sought to be improved. Improvement is the inevitable consequence, of a non-static morality. Proof that this occurs in reality, is the lack of consensus as to what objective morality must be, when assumed to even exist. The number one proof that morality is NOT objective, is that our SUBJECTIVE human experiences demand it. Human experience, like morality, is non-static, and is not a whole. Sanity is also subjective, from a subject, to the observer. Therefore, sanity is an inefficient factor in this debate. My opponent has given me an ultimatum. I must agree that rape is O.K. if the memories of the afflicted can be erased, or say it is not, and lose the argument. The erasing of a memory does not change the fact that it actually occurred. My opponents argument would only hold water, if technology could erase an actual event that occurred. This is self-contradicting, and logically impossible. I cannot have an opinion on an event that never occurred. Here is an logical approach as to why morality can't be objective, using variables: We have two men, one jobless, starving man (Man 1), and one hungry man, who is employed, and has just enough money for a single bite of food (Man 2). Man 1's starvation is X, man 2's degree of wealth for food is Y. Make the degree of starvation with man 1, equal to the degree of wealth with man 2. This degree will be represented by the number 8, for no particular reason except to stray from the numbers 1 and 2, since they've already been used extensively. Man 1 asks Man 2 for the food money, because he is starving. Man 2 refuses, although he is not as hungry as man 1. If Man 1 were to then steal Man 2's money for food, who has committed the immoral act? Using contemporary ideas of immorality, they both have, and to the same degree of 8. This event could occur back and forth, until both men are dead. Since lifespan is not a factor, lets say they both live forever. The fact that immorality has occurred here (Based on contemporary standards of what is claimed to be "Objective Morality"), Since this event keeps occurring infinitely , the degree of immorality is non-static. If the degree of immorality is can be made to be non-static, so must the degree of morality. Therefore, objective morality is non-existent.
Objective Morality

. . . morality can never, and should never, be static.My opponent takes an absolute moral position against morality being static. Therefore, he has refuted himself. If morality is static, then my opponent loses. If it is not static, then the above statement is also wrong, and my opponent loses.The number one proof that morality is objective is that our human experience demands it. No matter how much people insist that morality is relative, we all behave as though it is not. Therefore, we are either all insane, or morality is indeed objective.In fact, a simple test will put my opponent straight. I ask my opponent if there is ever a time in which the rape of a little girl is morally good. For instance, in a world that is "more and more influenced by techonology", would it be okay for a pedophile to rape a little girl if we had the technology to erase all physical and mental traces of the incident such that the little girl would never even know it had occurred?
George. W. Bush was a better president than Barack Obama is

APPROVAL RATINGS My opponent said, "Under [Lincoln's] presidency half the states seceded and his subjects hated him enough to assassinate him. " This is my point exactly. At the time, his "approval ratings" were terrible. But now we recognize that the actions he took to cause that low approval were in GOOD SERVICE to the country. This further proves my point that approval ratings are not an appropriate measure of how good a president is. LEGAL ISSUES My opponent's first source actually supports that Obama RESPECTS the law, not violates it: He urged the Supreme Court to favor federal law over state law, which is absolutely appropriate and in accordance with the Constitution. This leaves my opponent with a single example of Obama challenging a law, whereas I provided sources that show multiple examples of Bush blatantly violating Constitutional and international law. Considering that the President is the head of the EXECUTIVE branch, the most important standard for assessing a president's quality of service is their respect for the law and "taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. "[1] By this standard, Bush was undoubtedly NOT better--indeed, worse--than Obama is. GENERAL WELFARE Re: RE: Source 10: The source is not skewed. It shows a critical time of economic turmoil in the US, with EQUAL REPRESENTATION given to both Bush and Obama. Source 2 shows a more complete version of the same graph, further demonstrating the pattern of improvement. The 10-year deficit is too far outside "General Welfare" to argue within a 3000-char. limit, but I will say that my opponent's third source did NOT support her claim about the suffering of future generations. Not only did Bush fail to promote the General Welfare, he explicitly impeded it by signing the 2003 "stimulus" package into law. This bill cut critical spending for Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and public education[3] (all programs that promote the general welfare) in favor of tax cuts, most of which went to the top 1% income earners. [4] DEFENSE My opponent attempts to excuse Bush's negligence by saying that he was "too inexperienced. " This does not negate the fact that he failed to provide for the common defense by not taking action after knowing the risk Osama bin Laden posed. If his inexperience was the cause of such a grave error, then so be it--this still makes him a worse president. THE STATE OF THE NATION My opponent said, "Obama has done a poorer job of keeping the nation from falling apart than Bush. " This is a weighty claim for which my opponent provides no valid evidence. In fact, three disasters--all of which the President has the capacity to prevent or lessen--occurred while Bush was in office: the WTC attacks, the decimation of New Orleans in Hurricane Katrina, and the 2008 financial crisis. The arguments and evidence I have provided make the truth clear: Bush was NOT a better president than Obama is.
George. W. Bush was a better president than Barack Obama is

Experience is valuable. If you were to take two people, know nothing about them aside from their experience, and choose one to fill a position, you would choose the most experienced. The president is an administrator who must not allow the country to fall apart under his watch. Both presidents inherited problems which they handled badly early in their presidency, but Obama lacks the experience and lessons learned. In addition, Obama has done a poorer job of keeping the nation from falling apart than Bush. APPROVAL RATINGS We agree that approval ratings are not a complete measure of quality, however my opponent references Lincoln. Yet modern adoration of Lincoln does not reflect reality, under his presidency half the states seceded and his subjects hated him enough to assassinate him. Obama has likewise angered voters to the point of constant protests and talk of secession and violence. The approval ratings are relevant because they show unrest and division under Obama. LEGAL ISSUES Bush served for eight years. Obama has only served for two, and has in fact already challenged a number of laws [1] [2]. He has not overturned Bush's various measures reducing the privacy and rights of citizens, and this year re-authorized the PATRIOT Act. While Bush did violate laws, he did so in the interest of US citizens with significant popular support for his actions. Obama has disagreed with some of these practices like Guantanamo but has proved unable to take action. GENERAL WELFARE Here, Obama has done worse only two years than Bush did in eight years. RE: Source 10: this is skewed; it reflects only a small part of Bush's last term, and an unfinished first part of Obama's first term. In addition: "To compare job growth in 2010 with Bush's record ignores the nearly 4 million jobs lost in Obama's first year, during the freefall that began in Bush's final months. " [4] There is nowhere to go but up. RE: Source 11: This biased article fails to mention the amount Bush era poverty was raised by. In the table below [5], you can see that the percentage of people below the poverty line increased from 11.7 percent to 12.7 percent. A total rise of one percent. And the poverty rate for families increased by only 0.2 percent. This is hardly "damning". Under Obama the federal deficit has skyrocketed. Future generations will suffer the effects of Obama's term but not Bush's. [3] And while the economic downturn began at the end of Bush's second term, recessions are a cyclical event, occurring every decade or so. The country was already past due for one. While Obama inherited some of the problems from Bush, similarly, Bush was not immune to the accumulated problems of previous presidents. COMMON DEFENSE President Bush made an error in judgment but note that he was then highly inexperienced (proving my point about the value of experience) and that the issue was not dealt with by Clinton.
George. W. Bush was a better president than Barack Obama is

"The only possible way to objectively know which president was better is to base our opinion on the amount of their experience." Here my opponent essentially defines "better" to be exclusively based on seniority. This is a ludicrous standard of measurement because it does not address QUALITY of public service, only quantity. We are debating who was a better president, not a longer-lived politician. What's more, George Bush's terms as a governor are extraneous -- they may have influenced his actions as President, but alone they demonstrate nothing about the quality of his service. Though my opponent cites approval ratings as evidence, she herself acknowledges that they do not show which president was objectively better. In fact, one should regard them as an irrelevant measure -- Bush's approval ratings were at 90% >after the worst act of terrorism on US soil<, and Lincoln, who "preserved the Union and ended slavery"[1], had half the country at war with him. If popularity is somehow indicative of the quality of one's service, my opponent does not say how. Rather than base our opinion on these irrelevancies, let us look at how well Bush and Obama upheld the Constitution, which, according to the Presidential Oath of Office[2], is the duty of the President. Bush FAILED, where Obama has not, to uphold the Constitution in the following areas: "Take Care that the Laws be Faithfully Executed" During office, Bush publicly challenged hundreds of laws[4] and blatantly violated others such as authorizing torture[5], unwarranted surveillance[6], and declaring an illegal war[7]. "Provide for the Common Defense" The attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, which occurred during Bush's first term, was the deadliest act of terrorism on US soil. It is widely known that on August 6, 2001, he received and IGNORED a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US."[9] "Promote the General Welfare" During the entire year of 2008 (in Bush's second term), job losses got worse and worse every month and only began a pattern of improvement immediately after Obama began his first term (see the graph in Source 10; it's damning). Poverty rates also increased >every year< of Bush's presidency after 2001.[11] In conclusion, Bush repeatedly failed in his primary duty as president -- which is to uphold the aims of the US Constitution -- where Obama has not. This clearly shows that Bush was NOT a better president than Obama is.
George. W. Bush was a better president than Barack Obama is

I maintain that the previous president of the United States was a better president than our current president, a claim for which I alone have the burden of proof. My reasoning for this is simple. Subjective arguments can be repeated ad nauseum but prove nothing. Our country is one of widely varying and sharply contrasting moral guidelines, so neither president should be considered objectively better based on which cultural mores they bow to. There are many other subjective arguments which only appeal to those who share the values each president has held up or turned their back on. Therefor, the only possible way to objectively know which president was better is to base our opinion on the amount of their experience. Clearly, President George W. Bush is more experienced on the job, having had spent over four times as much as Barack Obama was a president. Of course, Bush was also re-elected--he didn't get his experience by accident. In addition, President George W. Bush is known to have more executive experience overall than Barack Obama, having spent time as a governor of a large and powerful state. Finally, I will compare their respective approval ratings. While numbers of supporters do not make a president better, only better liked, they may offer some indication of how well a president has served. On average, Bush and Obama have had fairly similar average approval ratings (see the link below): Obama's average, according to Wikipedia, is 54, Bush's was 49. For a new president, Obama's approval rating is abysmal, having fallen below 50% in this first year--meaning, he has already lost the approval of the people who voted him in office. Bush, however, had an approval rating of 90% at one point--meaning even those who had voted against him approved of his work. It took him eight years to reach the abysmal ratings which Obama seems headed for even now. In conclusion, any objective look at these two presidents will show that George W. Bush was a better president than Obama is. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ricky Gervais vs. Louis C. K. rap battle

What's your glitch GervaisYour rap doesn't make me enticedYou can do comedyI know it's sad, but I'm not sorry Hi mom! That's your average jokeSo go away, you British blokeWhat's your problem little prickI'll burn your balls and crush your dickWelcome to the bottom of comedy hellDeeper than the lowest wellYour "comedy" deserves to dieMe? Beyond the greatest I can fly!Hear me out I'm Louis CMy raps shock like AC/DCBehold the electric rhymingMasterful rap, masterful timing
Ricky Gervais vs. Louis C. K. rap battle

Louis fvcking sucksThe Office is deluxeIf you don't like it, get outMy raps are superior, they'res no doubtI'm controversialNever go to rehearsalI memorize tha sh1t easyAm I making you uneasy?You look sweaty and nervousTo your raps I'm imperviousDoes that make you depressed?Should a known my raps were bestLook at your complexionCan't see your reflextionYou're much too whiteAnd your hairs too brightI'm a fvcking comedy kingYoung comics better kiss my ringI'll kick back and drink some bordeauxWhile I record my show on HBO.
Ricky Gervais vs. Louis C. K. rap battle

Here's Louis CK from AmericaKicking asss from here to AfricaOne of my parents was an economistAnd your dad was a little drunk bitchI was on the show with LettermanThat's only the start of my battle planHa! I'm still young at forty threeYour so goddamn much older than meHere I am from the show Louie The Office? What a load of hooey Look it my filmography, it's greatYou and yo daughters are gonna get raped I'm so cunting awesome I can escape the censorI'm a thief I can bypass any sensorI'm the king of black comedyAll you can do is dramedy
Ricky Gervais vs. Louis C. K. rap battle

Glad to be battlin today Finally gonna take down C.K. Let's make this beef brief Ginger death is the motif You got your show Louis What a mockery of comedy Ya ginger haired mick I'm the boss, my rhymes stick I'll make this sh1t quick Take your life with an icepick Oh you really want some more I'll fvck ya daughter, she's a wh0re I'm a comedy genius Our styles are heterogenous I'm an international hit Look at you, you're unfit My raps are sleak and bleak You're sh1t is soft and weak I'm your fvcking enemy You should be afraid of me Guess that's all I've got for now I'l just wait here for a while While you formulate your rhymes I'll ponder my future crimes
Is cheerleading a sport

Hello, Thank you for such a detailed opening argument. Let it be known that I accept most of your definition of a sport except for a certain part.Let me start by saying that my typical argument on whether something is a sport or not depends solely on this: "can you hold a beer and a cigaretee and play competitvely?" if the answer is no then it is a sport. However I will take a different position on this debate. I agree that a sport is a physical competition as pro states, however, what defines whether something is a sport is ulitimately how it is scored. A real sport will be scored on the merits of the player(s) as opposed to how another party interprits and then scores it. For instance, Football is a sport because a team will get a point if they reach the touchdown line. In cheerleading though, whether or not you win depends on how the judge percieves how well you did, as opposed to you reaching a set and non-subjective standard imposed by a third party observer. Prefer this definition because it promotes a tangible standard for one to acheive as opposed to a subjective opinion. For instance, this debate is not a sport, not only becasue it is non physical but because the person who will rate this round will use their own opinion to decide the round instead of the victory being soley in the hands of the players.Although this is a quick response I think it fully satisfies the resolution and negates pro. I am confident in my stance, thank you.