BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is not relative

I think morality is not relative. Before I state my reasons I must make clear what morality exactly is and what it means when one considers morality is not relative. Based on my knowledge morality is set of rules that are or are not permissible in terms of harm. The reasons I think morality is not relative because right and wrong are matter of opinion, different societies have different beliefs, and opinions varies from culture to culture. An individual who is born and rise in a family where drinking alcohol is wrong and is a sin. For that individual drinking alcohol is wrong and if he does it then he is committing a sin. On the other hand an individual who"s born and live in a family where drinking alcohol is not a sin and it"s not wrong either. This does not make alcohol right or wrong to drink but it shows the differences in opinions base on different families. Different societies have different beliefs. For example, in a Muslim society the females are not allowed to go in the public without covering their body, face, and hair. In this sort of society you will observe the females in fully dresses. On the other hand, in a society where there are no Muslims, you will see that the females are not fully covering their body. And they don"t have some dress code. They can have a mini shorts with a tank top. They both will have different opinions on each other"s way of dressing or manners of doing things. But each of their actions and manners are base on what society they belong to. Opinions vary from culture to culture. Such as, a guy living in India will not eat a cow because he beliefs base on this culture that cow is grandmother or someone else. A guy living in New York will eat that cow because he does not believe that the cow is grandmother or someone else. He just believes that cow is a cow. (1.)Right and wrong are matter of opinion. (2.)Different societies have different manners of doing things. (3.)Opinions vary from culture to culture. (4.)Therefore, morality is not relative. In sum, variations in people are base on their opinions, culture, and society they live in.
Morality is not relative

I apologize for miss understanding the age concept of your argument but by you stating that "They do know the rules and system of there society" you are contradicting yourself by actually agreeing with my argument that then there is an establishment of moral structure. It will be foolish for you to think that a society can live without morality because without morality a society wouldn"t be able to sustain itself by going against the universal rules that exist. Even though these rules change depending on society universal order still must be present and the understanding of what"s right from wrong needs to be establish for the society to be well organized and prosper. A moral absolutist understands this concept that there must be an understanding of wrong and a right in every society for the society to progress or else there will be disorder between the people in these society.
Morality is not relative

I am not discussing the age of the person who is drinking but the fact that their values and beliefs are totally different one another. And it doesn't necessarily means that the person who is drinking lives in a family or society where they do not know the system or rules of the society. They do know the rules and system of the society but they just want to follow their own beliefs and system. That again brings me back to the point that we as humans are totally different from each other base on our beliefs, systems, rules, and values. We as humans do know the times are changing but as a society we will do what we belief in and do not care about what others think or do because again we are different from society to society due to our culture and beliefs. For example times arr changing so does that means all Muslim females will dress like others. The guy in India will start to eat the cow. No! because we will follow our beliefs, system, values, and culture. This is why we will always remain different from each other.
Morality is not relative

Such as an example as you provided about an individual who does not drink because he is rise in the family and society where they belief that drinking is not right and its a sin compared to a society which doesn't morally view under aged drinking as immoral, still doesn't ignore the fact that a moral structure does exist. So, if we wouldn"t agree that morality is relative and that there not a universal order for a society to exist, we would be ignoring that a human mind is able to evolve and adapt to new circumstances. By stating that moral relativism is true, we are acknowledging that it is correct for a society to differ moral and immoral and even though some society can be considered as an outdated belief systems like the example you stated which that society doesn't yet understand that alcohol can cause a long term affect to the child. In a society as history has shown, we as humans are time after time progressing and we have to understand these changes and recognize them to embrace humanity, as well as what we see as moral progression.
Morality is not relative

There is no one common thing in a society because everyone views things differently. Such as a example i provided earlier about an individual who does not drink because he is rise in the family and society where they belief that drinking is not right and its a sin. That individual well view people who drink very differently compared to an individual who was born and rise in a society where drinking was a regular thing. So which brings me to my point again that people are different because of their culture, beliefs, and place they were born and rise in. Somethings are right for one at same time be totally wrong for another person. The Muslims belief in praying five times a day because of their culture and society they were born in compare to someone who does not pray 5 times a day was not rise in an culture, family, or society where they belief praying five times a day is necessary and if you don't do it its a sin.
Morality is not relative

I agree that morality differ between societies and what could be viewed as wrong could easily be interpreted differently in another society like the example you gave about the cow having a connection to humanity compared to NY that we view cows as a source of food but what needs to be understood that we are still establish that is moral right and wrong by stating the cows interpretation. Rachels provides a similar example that shows that in many ways societies really do not differ from each other as much as we think they do but morality still exist. So for example in Rachels article she uses the example of murder to explain how morality is necessary for a society to survive. She does establish that there is a distinction in what every society views as murder being moral or immoral. But Rachel does explain that murder is a universal rule despite its cultural definition. So in different terms cultural relativist couldn"t ignore murder in one society because that is part of a lifestyle. A society that has not established if murder is moral or immoral, couldn"t be able to sustain themselves because people would be forced to become independent and force an individual to adapt to what is called "survival of the fittest" and feel that they are able to survive without the interaction of others in a attempt to live longer. This example provides support that morality is relative and that there is a universal connection with all other societies
Morality is not relative

But it is not about everyone following the rules because for one society one thing is right and for another its something totally opposite s right. Opinions vary from culture to culture. Such as, a guy living in India will not eat a cow because he beliefs base on this culture that cow is grandmother or someone else. A guy living in New York will eat that cow because he does not believe that the cow is grandmother or someone else. He just believes that cow is a cow.
Morality is not relative

A moral absolutist believes and understands that for a society to function rules and restrictions must be present. It is redundant to think that a society can live without morality because a society wouldn"t be able to sustain itself by going against the universal rules that exist. Even if these rules are not written down they still apply because the universal order that exist explains that to survive every society must have some type of understanding from what they define as right and wrong. Without a society establishing what is wrong or right would lead to the society demolish their existence because of a clash of beliefs. A moral absolutist understands the concept that there must be an understanding of wrong and a right in every society.The idea that morality is relative has to exist because if it doesn"t exist, then we can conclude that the society could not survive obstacles for a long period of time.
Gun Control

My opponent argues from the position of an American living in his country where guns are common and the population have relatively easy access to them, and where the consensus of opinion is that the status quo, and their Constitutional right to possess firearms, should be maintained. But given a blank sheet of paper, would my opponent's arguments still hold water? If he were the founding father of a new land would he think that flooding the country with millions of guns and allow the people to run around pretty much willy-nilly with them be a good idea or would he think that firearms should be the sole preserve of the military, law-enforcement officers and strictly-regulated and properly licensed hunters as they are in most other developed nations? And if the founding fathers of America could have seen into the future were able to see what sort of country America would become 200 years or so on, would they still have thought it necessary to organise the citizens into an armed militia to protect the country from foreign invasion? Take my own country, for example, Great Britain. Given a blank piece of paper, would we choose to have an unelected head of state, donate 75% of the nation's land to them and their over-privileged cronies and pay them hundreds of millions of taxpayers' pounds every year live the life of luxury Avarice could only dream of, or would we prefer a democratically-elected head of state – a president, rather than a monarch? I suspect the latter, yet there is no mainstream call for the country to become a republic, and I suspect Americans, if they hadn't always had free and easy access to firearms would not now demand the right to bear arms if it wasn't part of the Constitution. To address my opponent's final point: of course it would be better to have a gun to deter a gunman, but it would be better still if there were no gunman because guns were so hard to come by. Thank you.
Gun Control

My opponent brings up the Tuscon shooting. While this was a tragic event, I had stated at the beginning of the debate that background checks before obtaining a gun were acceptable. Even the slightest attempt to invesigate Loughner's background would reveal his mental insanity [1]. He should have been put in a mental institution. However, this is separate from the gun issue. And next, my opponent moves into the fun aspect of comparing different countries. This can be clearly seen to be a terribly inaccurate method of finding relationships between gun ownership and gun crime [2]. The US's non-gun homicide rate is almost as high as the total homicide rate for England/Wales and Japan combined. The US total is still less than the non-gun homicide rates of many other countries, such as Mexico. There's no reason why gun control would contribute to less non-gun violence. This method doesn't properly get rid of confounding variables. For example, England is an island. It is much, much easier to regulate what gets on and off an island that what gets through a 6,000 mile border with a country supplying illegal drugs, itself contributing large amounts of the violence (legalization, not gun control, would mostly solve this problem). How can this problem be solved? Sowell has the answer [3]. While we cannot compare different cultures and countries, we can easily compare individual countries during their change from one policy to another. The clear trend in England has been that increased gun control has resulted in more homicides and robberies. In fact, England has a higher rate of robbery, largely due to the fact that the people they are robbing from are always unarmed. Think about it logically. If an armed citizen is in a gun fight with an armed criminal the criminal may have an advantage. But what if the criminal had a knife and the citizen had nothing? The criminal almost always wins. Remember, "God didn't make all people equal - Mr. Colt did. " [1] . http://www.mtsusidelines.com... [2] . http://www.guncite.com... [3] . http://www.allsafedefense.com...
Gun Control

I thank Mongoose for posing this debate challenge and would like to respond to his argument as follows: Guns don't protect people; they threaten, injure and kill people. Not so long ago, in America, because firearms are commonplace and easily obtainable (legally or illegally) in that country, a young man who was disillusioned with the result of a recent election in Arizona walked into a meet-and-greet between the winning candidate and her constituents at a local supermarket and opened fire. As a result of this obscene attack on democracy, a freely-elected politician was severely injured and one of her staff members, three retirees, a federal judge and a young girl born on September 11th 2001 were killed. [1] Supporters of public gun-ownership often claim that ‘guns don't kill people, people do' but we have to ask ourselves: ‘In this case, how successful would this frothing nut-job in Tucson have been if he hadn't had easy access to a firearm?' Clearly, if he had walked into that supermarket unarmed and shouted "Rat-a-tat-a-tat" or "Bang-bang! You're dead" it is unlikely that the consequences would have been fatal! My opponent then goes to claim that easy access to lethal weapons leads to lower crime rates, and quotes criminologist Gary Kleck who concluded that "'handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes.'" If what Kleck claims is true, it means guns are used in a truly alarming 400,000 crimes per year. Now, let's compare the US to Japan and Great Britain, countries where private gun ownership is strictly regulated. In Japan, guns only kill 6 people in every 10,000,000 whereas in England and Wales the figure is 38 in every 10,000,000. Meanwhile, in the USA where citizens have a constitutional right to "bear arms" a whopping 1026 people in every 10,000,000 are killed by guns – that's 27 times more than in England and Wales and a staggering 171 times more than in Japan. Of course, determined criminals in Britain and Japan can, and do, obtain firearms, but they are only the most hard-core, well-connected of villains: the average burglars and muggers do not routinely carry firearms and, most certainly, young people with mental health issues are not able to access guns and use them to massacre innocent people in schools, colleges and other public places as seems to happen on such a depressingly regular basis in the United States. Please don't misunderstand me: I'm a great admirer of America – in many ways it is a wonderful country with much to be proud of – but one of the few issues that is widely supported in the United States, mainly for historical reasons, but which I cannot support, is the right of ordinary American citizens to routinely arm themselves with guns. Thank you. [1] http://topics.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.gun-control-network.org...
Gun Control

Hello all. This debate is part of the current Debate Tournament. I will be contending that gun regulation should be minimal and only in the forms of background checks to purchase a gun. If my opponent wishes for a different resolution, I hope he comments on it before accepting it. Contention 1: Guns protect people If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, which actually increased crime rates. States with right-to-carry laws tend to have lower crime rates than those without [1]. It makes logical sense that criminals, when deciding their targets, will be less inclined to rob from somebody who may be armed with a gun. When people are allowed to conceal their guns, they create a positive externality on society, protecting the non-gun owners with criminal’s fear of assaulting somebody who can fight back. When the criminal knows that the victim is unarmed and not dangerous, he is much more inclined to infringe on their other rights, such as property and life. Criminologist Gary Kleck concluded that “handguns are used for protection nearly 2 million times per year, up to five times more often than to commit crimes” [2]. Guns can be used, without being fired, to intimidate a criminal to stop committing a crime and flee, thus protecting everybody. Also, a large number of potential crimes never even occur because the potential criminal is too scared of the possibility of confronting somebody with a weapon. The clear power of guns in the law abiding civilization, in addition to the general inability of the government to completely enforce its idealistic gun restrictions, make the notion that banning guns would do anybody any good somewhat ridiculous. In Washington D.C., the homicide rate tripled between 1976 and 1991, during which it banned hand guns, while the national rate only rose 12 percent [2]. This would logically result from the fact that law abiding citizens gave up their guns, leaving a full 100% of the guns in the hands of people with the clear intention of breaking the law. Criminals, now knowing that their victims are completely defenseless, are all the more keen to use their guns to rob, steal, and murder. The individual citizens are much better at defending themselves than the police force, which is unable to give constant protection at all times like a gun can. Guns give regular citizens a much better fight against criminals, deterring them from even trying. That shall be all for now. [1] http://www.cato.org... [2] http://www.roanoke.com...
Gun Control

My opponent's opposition to gun control has now become clear - he dislikes it because it restricts personal freedom; the 'right' an individual has to go out and shoot people. Of course, using a gun as an offensive weapon is illegal, but sometimes people do break the law, and the fact that someone looses their temper and uses a gun to blow the head off the person that annoyed them will be of little consolation to the friends and family of the deceased. Also, in terms of self-defence guns just serve to escalate the amount of violence in a confrontation, often with lethal consequences. If an armed robber comes to your home you can use your gun to defend yourself but you and your family may be killed in the shoot-out. The best way to stack the odds in your favour would be to invest in a sub-machine gun and a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher. But what if the bad guys up the stakes again and attacks your home using an armoured-vehicle equipped with surface to surface missiles that are capable of being launched well out of range of your RPG's? You see, there have to restrictions on what type of weaponry should be available to the general public, so the argument that gun control restricts personal freedom falls flat on its face. In summary, gun control is designed protect citizens, not to deny them their rights. Thank you.
Gun Control

Yes, drugs are still prevalent in society despite drug laws. I am opposed to drug laws for the same reason I'm opposed to gun laws. They both try to restrict freedom. I find supporting one and not the other to be contradictory. It is believed that banning drugs actually increases the number of people who die. The same is true with guns. The act of banning it makes it worse. Your source says that most recent massacres have been commited with legal guns, but it provides no dates or other sources for that determination. Is it 90% or 50%? Where are the majority of these massacres? What are the laws? Don't forget that my position in this debate allows for minor regulations to keep guns from known felons and the mentally unstable. Yes, many people died in 9/11, and even more from gun violence. However, even more die from Motor accidents according to the graphs at the bottom [1]. Are we going to ban cars? No. One can't just say that something has potential danger and try to eradicate it from society. It's what they're trying to do with drugs, and everybody pretty much agrees that it isn't working. My opponent points out the correlation between gun ownership and firearm deaths. Again. With the exact same source and no counterargument to what I said last round about the failure of attempts to compare different cultures. My source revealed that, when looking at a single culture as it went from lenient to strict on gun rights, overregulation increase the rate of crime and murder. Carrying a knife is illegal? That's ridiculous. Knives serve all kinds of useful purposes, like with food and all. Anyways, if both sides are unarmed, then it would be almost impossible for a woman to physically defend herself from a stronger man. Guns are the great equalizer. My opponent needs more sources to back all of his claims. In conclusion, it has been shown that increasing gun regulation comes with an increase in gun crime and murder. Therefore, guns shouldn't be banned. Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun Control

With many thanks to mongoose for continuing this debate, I would like to respond as follows: My opponent wrote: "I was the founding father of a new land, I would let them have guns. The alternative would be to set up checkpoints all around this land and make sure that nobody was bringing in guns, then check to make sure nobody had guns." Drugs such as cocaine, heroin and cannabis are illegal in most Western countries but there are no checkpoints manned by law-enforcement officers, no searches of members of the public for contraband narcotics. Instead, in addition to anti-smuggling measures implemented at borders, the police launch intelligence-based operations and raid the homes of suspected drug traffickers and users, and the same approach could be applied to guns. Of course, drugs are still in circulation and it will not be possible to completely rid society of the menace of guns, but it will help to reduce the number of innocent lives lost as the result of gun crime. And, by the way, it is a myth that most gun crimes are committed using illegal weapons, the majority of recent shooting massacres were committed with legally held weapons. The attack on the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11th, 2001, caused 2,606 deaths. America's reaction to this terrorist outrage was, understandably and justifiably, resolute and robust. Meanwhile, however, there is over ten times that number of gun-related deaths every year in America – equivalent to ten 9/11's every year – yet the US Government do little or nothing about it. The fact is, and there can be no denying this, there is a direct correlation between the percentage of households with firearms and the number of intentional firearms deaths: the higher the percentage of gun owners in a country, the higher the number of gun-related deaths per capita. Finally, regarding the knife analogy: in Britain and elsewhere, carrying a knife is illegal: in Britain the penalty is four years imprisonment and is set to increase. As a result, knife crime is being driven down and the same can be done in the United States with stricter gun regulations. Naturally, intentional gun deaths will never be completely eradicated, but any measures that can be introduced that could save innocent lives must be worthwhile. Thank you. Sources: ---------- http://www.gun-control-network.org... http://www.telegraph.co.uk...