BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Moral Objectivity

IntroductionI would like to start by thanking my opponent for giving me his arguments. I accept his definition of morality, however I do not accept his stance on the matter. I intend to prove that in this round.Rebuttals"Person A asks person B, "Is murder immoral?" Person B responds with, "Yes, it is." Person C responds with, "No, it is not." The opinions of B and C vary in this scenario, but that does not change the fact that murder is in fact immoral.""Whether two people have the same or different opinion, that victim still lost his or her life. Thus, it is immoral."In these statements, my opponent has neglected to give an argument. He has given an example, but can only back it up using his opinion. He says it "does not change the fact that murder is in fact immoral", however he doesn't say why it is immoral besides his own opinion. This is also the case when he said "[t]hus, it is immoral." Again, he made a statement but has not backed it up with proof."Morality is objective. It is not relative simply because opinions of people vary. Morality is objective because the moral, right stance has a sane, logical argument while the immoral, incorrect stance fails at presenting facts."Again, my opponent makes the claim that morality is the "right stance" and that immoral acts are the "incorrect stance", but does not give evidence to back his claim up. Then, my opponent says morality "fails at presenting facts". I do not understand what facts are there to be presented by immorality. There are none. As I said before, there is no proof of the "right" morality, which leads me to my next refutation:"My opponent challenges me to provide chemical, physical proof that morality is objective. I do not feel the need to; it can be explained simply through words, not an infinintely long bibliography or a large arsenal of scientific evidence. Logic is key. Common sense is the foundation. The proper strategy will eventually reveal the truth."My opponent has failed to give me evidence of moral objectivity beyond his own personal opinions. He tells me he does not need to prove morality. This is simply because he cannot prove it. There is no evidence to back up the claim that it is immoral to kill or rape. The only thing stopping me from killing or raping is my personal morals; my personal beliefs. ConclusionIn conclusion, my opponent has given no viable proof that morality is objective, while I have shown that there is no proof of morality. I have shown that morals are strictly opinion and not fact. It is now time for my opponent to lay out his arguments. I patiently await them.
Moral Objectivity

IntroductionI would like to begin by thanking my opponent for arguments. I already have strong opposition to his view and I would love to make rebuttals, but the rules do not permit that. Rebuttals are in the next round. I acknowledge my opponent's definitions. Arguments I would like to begin by defining morality. What is it? According to Wikipedia, 'morality' is "the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)." The article continues with a statement that would actually support my opponent's stance, but I believe we must explore morality further before one can make the claim that it is relative. I will argue that morality, contrary to my opponent's belief, is objective. I acknowledge my opponent's definitions of opinions - external and internal - and I will keep those in mind while arguing. I will argue that morality is an external opinion, thus being objective. I will provide an example of morality below. Person A asks person B, "Is murder immoral?" Person B responds with, "Yes, it is." Person C responds with, "No, it is not." The opinions of B and C vary in this scenario, but that does not change the fact that murder is in fact immoral. Murder is taking another's life. It does not change the fact that the victim did nothing wrong. It does not change the fact that the victim was innocent. Whether two people have the same or different opinion, that victim still lost his or her life. Thus, it is immoral. "The basis of ethics is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly," says strongatheism.net. Morality, I believe, is also the acknowledgement of these potential consequences and acting to prevent them. This is accomplished by having a code of ethics. Morality is objective. It is not relative simply because opinions of people vary. Morality is objective because the moral, right stance has a sane, logical argument while the immoral, incorrect stance fails at presenting facts. My opponent challenges me to provide chemical, physical proof that morality is objective. I do not feel the need to; it can be explained simply through words, not an infinintely long bibliography or a large arsenal of scientific evidence. Logic is key. Common sense is the foundation. The proper strategy will eventually reveal the truth. I believe I made a sufficient argument. I patiently await my opponent's response and I will then refute his points. Works Cited 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.strongatheism.net...
Moral Objectivity

In this debate, I will be arguing that objective morality does not exist, while my opponent will be arguing that morality is objective and not relative. Arguments To begin, I want to, again, quote my opponent: “Morality is objective because it is founded on fact. Opinions, contrary to the belief of Pro, can also be founded upon facts. Evolution is not accepted by everyone yet it is still FACT. " I will begin my talking about opinion. Wikipedia says this about opinion: opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i. e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. I say this: There are two types of opinions:1. External Opinions2. Internal Opinions External opinions are, as my opponent said, things like evolution. It is a fact, however not everyone accepts it. Internal opinions are like saying “Pizza is good. ” Whether pizza is actually delicious is an internal opinion, for it cannot be proven. Evolution, the example my opponent used, is an external opinion, for it can be proven but not everyone believes it. Evolution is a fact, but can still be titled 'opinion'. Now, making this statement to other people, they still say that morality is factual. Then, I make the next statement: "Morality is chemical and different across all people. " They refuse to believe that morality is only chemical. They think it is more than just a function in the brain. I am going to prove that incorrect, for I am sure my opponent is not on my side with this. Morality is strictly chemical. It is strictly a chemical reaction occuring within the limbic system - Nothing more, nothing less. This is a proven fact that my opponent simply cannot deny. No matter how much he wants to deny this, there is no rulebook of morals. Yes, there are laws, but those laws were picked by people, not some divine creator. Now, let's talk about moral opinions. I have met people who would find it very immoral to steal $1 from a generally wealthy man. I, on the other hand, would not find it very unethical, for it is only $1. This difference in morals is direct proof that not everyone has the same levels of morality. Because of this, morality is not factual. If my opponent still believes it is, then I would like him to give me proof - chemical, physical proof - that morality is objective. ConclusionIn conclusion, I look forward to my opponent's arguments. I hope to also change his mind on the matter, for I truly believe I am correct. Works Cited1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://webspace.ship.edu...3. . http://www.iep.utm.edu...4. . http://web.mit.edu...
Moral Objectivity

In my previous debate about moral objectivity, WilliamsP voted and said this:"Morality is objective because it is founded on fact. Opinions, contrary to the belief of Pro, can also be founded upon facts. Evolution is not accepted by everyone yet it is still FACT." Because of this, I can see that WilliamsP is also in disagreement with me. I wish to debate him over this topic.Round 1: Acceptance OnlyRound 2: Arguments, but no rebuttalsRound 3: Rebuttals and final argumentsI look forward to this debate. It should be an interesting one.
Why abortion should be legal

The child does have underdeveloped body parts when it is a fetus that is what makes it fetus in the first place a fetus is an underdeveloped human inside of a mother. Fetus does have human instincts like any animal it has a preset amount of knowledge so it can live. The government isn't paying for abortion when it comes from a fine, the money government gets is through taxes. People who say this is a woman's rights issue is wrong it is a child's right issue because I was taught that a strong man stands up for himself a stronger man stands up for those who can't defend themselves. A child that can't defend itself needs people to stand up and say no. Thanks for the debate and I hope the voters vote for the one they fell debated best. Sources http://www.wisegeek.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Why abortion should be legal

You just stated that a fetus is a human. Well you're wrong. A fetus is not part of the human population. The human population is all the humans in the world. Since the fetus is not included it is not a human. You also stated that it has a body, a skin and organ systems. Well not all fetuses have that. In the beginning of the woman's pregnancy it does not have organ systems, a body and skin. So You could keep considering it a human all you want but it is technically not a human. In regards to killing a fetus, a fetus that is in the woman's body for a certain amount of time does have a brain but it still does not know anything. Even when a baby first comes out of a woman's body it does not know anything. While it is in the woman's body even when it has a brain it still can't think. I never stated that a fetus does not have a brain. In regards to government funding for abortion, the government should pay for abortion in cases of rape but they should pay for with the money they make from fines. If they pay for it through fines then that still means the government is paying for it, just not with taxpayer dollars. They should also pay for abortion when the woman cannot afford to have an abortion. If she can't afford to have an abortion then she can't afford to take care of a child. Raising a child is a lot of work, that is why pregnant women may not want have a child and may want to have an abortion. If a woman gives birth to a child then that child could become a good person or a bad person. If the child is not taken care of well then it could become a bad person. This is another reason that women should be allowed to have an abortion. The reasons I stated during this debate are the reasons abortion should be legal. Hopefully, those reasons will convince you and other pro life people to become pro choice. It was a pleasure debating with you. You have one last chance to make really good arguments. Good Luck.
Why abortion should be legal

Abortion is not killing a human because a fetus is not a human.A fetus is a human it has skin, organ systems, a body; is the fetus a human yes a underdeveloped human, but still a human.Killing a human is different because they don't know anything.A fetus still has human instincts, it knows how to eat and breathe before it is even born so that idea that a fetus is a brainless piece of non-human thing is wrong.Government should pay for abortion when it is dealing with rape and incest.The government shouldn't pay for abortion the person who raped the woman should pay for it through fines. Abortion is just an easy way out for when a woman decides that she had her fun, but doesn't want the responsibly that follows when being a mother. Because if woman can choose whether or not a child lives than what else can we do.Sourceshttp://collegian.csufresno.edu...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Why abortion should be legal

Abortion is not killing a human because a fetus is not a human. If you count all the humans in the world, you wouldn't count fetuses. If you don't count it as a human than it is not a human. Killing a human and killing a fetus is totally different. The difference is that fetuses don't know anything. They don't know that they are alive. So you can't say that fetuses don't want to get killed because they don't want anything. They can't think. In regards to killing a human, most humans don't want to die. Killing a human would most likely be done in a painful way. Killing a fetus is done in a non painful way. I support the right to have an abortion regardless of the case. I believe it is the right choice for a woman to have an abortion in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the woman is danger. I do not believe the government should forbid women from having an abortion in any cases. When a woman gets raped the government should pay for her to have an abortion because she shouldn't have to pay for someone doing something terrible. She shouldn't have to lose any money for someone else's action. If she gets raped, it's not her fault so therefore she should not have to pay for the abortion. The government should pay for it. You should feel bad for women who are rape victims. Paying for the their abortion would be a big help form the government. If a pregnant woman does not want to have a child than she could either have an abortion or put the baby up for adoption once it's born. The woman might not want to put her child up for adoption. She should be allowed to choose what she wants to do with the fetus because it is in her body. If a woman gets pregnant by accident than she made a mistake by not using protection or taking birth control pills. She should be allowed to fix her mistake by having an abortion. Everyone makes mistakes. Accidents happen. Why should the woman get a consequence for her mistake by having a child when she doesn't want to. The government should not forbid women from having an abortion. The woman knows what's best for her. When a woman has an Abortion it is not the government's business. The only thing the government should do is make sure the abortion is safe for the woman. Abortion is between the woman, Her partner and the doctor.
Why abortion should be legal

Abortion shouldn't be legal to those who had consensual sex with a man and happened to get pregnant. It seems like my opponent and I both agree that abortion should be legal to those who were either raped, apart of incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. But the line must me drawn in the sand when it comes to those who made their choice by having sex and got pregnant. My opponent argues that a woman should be allowed to change her mind when it comes to having a child, well she can change her, but she can't just kill a child so she doesn't have raise it. One of the roles of the government is to protect the lives of their people and that goes even toward a underdeveloped baby. The child is still human and the last time I checked killing a human is murder. Sources- http://www.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://carm.org...
Why abortion should be legal

Abortion should be legal because the fetus is in the woman"s body so therefore the government should not dictate what she should do with her own body. If a woman becomes pregnant and decides that she does not want to have children than why should the government force her to have it? Conservatives argue that the woman should have been responsible by thinking before becoming pregnant. Well here"s my argument, Even if a woman thinks before becoming pregnant she still might change her mind about having a child. If a woman becomes pregnant without thinking beforehand than she made a mistake and she should be able to fix that mistake by having an abortion. If the government does not allow a woman to have an abortion then they are forcing her to have a child. if a woman does not have an abortion than she is going to have a child. If the government does not allow her to have an abortion than that would mean that once a woman gets pregnant she has to have a child. So the government would be forcing her to have a child if they were to ban abortion. This would not be the right thing for the government to do. The woman should be allowed to choose what she wants to do with the fetus because it is in her body.
bisexuality is immoral in both males and females

I am not saying homosexual behavior is unhealthy, though evidence does indicate that point [1]. I am saying homosexuals are breaking the natural law by misusing their sexual organs. My opponent says all he is doing is abstaining from vaginal intercourse and instead is using other methods, but that is the point: sex is meant, by natural law, to be penis to vagina. So he has admitted he has misused his sexual powers. He has yet to refute my contention, and has not shown why misusing a natutal faculty is not bad. Therefore, until he does so, he loses the debate. Vote pro. 1. http://www.familyresearchinst.org...;
bisexuality is immoral in both males and females

first off i am for the con side of this debate rules you must prove to me why it is immoral please no religion in this debate thanx <3 ;) the reason i am doing this is because males think that when a girl such as myself is bisexual its so hot but when a guy is bisexual its a different story i think that the is no opinion for thinking bisexuality in both genders is attractive. so i made up this debate for my opponent to prove to me why being bisexual is wrong for both genders.
Foreign aid is another term for bribery

Hello there! You have brought up a moral issue that is not often discussed. I look forward to hearing more about your opinion.There are a couple things that disturbed me about your opening statement.1. "When western countries go into the third world..." Before going any further it must be clarified what exactly you mean by western countries. Obviously, you do not mean the land, so you either mean the government or the common citizen. Because the common citizen can not be hastily generalized easily I will assume you are refering to a Western country's governmental foriegn aid. The problem is you have not cited any source so I do not know if I can trust you that this principle has always been true, not to mention, will continue to be true.2. You say that these countries will expect something back. It is interesting because I cannot tell if you are trying to argue that these governments are forcing these less priviledged countries to give something in return? Or, are you saying that these countries' governments are simply compeled to give something back? If it is the latter, then that is their own choice and there is nothing wrong or unethical about that. If you are going to make a claim in any debate, do not solely rely on hyperbole. Using the "1,000,000 to 10,000,000 argument" simply puts extreme ideas into people's heads with no evidence. If you could cite an example that would help further this debate.
Foreign aid is another term for bribery

1. "The usage of citations makes a person less credible." If you asked any person in the world, educated or not, whether they want to hear merely your conjecture or the opinion of the expert, what to you think there response would be? I will leave it at that. 2. "I never said that Starbucks is forcing people to buy their coffee." Of course you did not. You said, "What ends up happening is that Singaporeans spend their hard earned cash on really expensive coffee, as opposed to home grown tea." It is as if you are saying that somehow the Singaporean did something wrong, and then you are claiming they are not. So which one is it? Corruption or no corruption the consumer still holds the power of their own cash.3. The above point has little to nothing to do with foreign aid being another term for bribery. I believe that bribery does happen but that you cannot make those two terms interchangeable. Conclusion: The only real point of debate you brought up in the previous round was "Do you think that western regimes are just giving away foreign aid out of the kindness of their heart, and expect nothing back in return?" You have a point their. However, this does not divine bribery. Bribery is when you give something to an individual or organisation with the explicit terms of getting a specific thing in return. I often think that the purpose of the foreign aid does have a lot to do with appearing a certain way rather than being a certain way. If the U.S. helps out Singapore, then America must be someone to associate with. But this is not bribery. You have given no evidence to support your claim. You border on the lines of plagiarism because you will not cite sources and if you did not get it from a source then you are just making up stories in your head. It would be more credible to say "I heard something about" than to just state like its common knowledge. Also, I suggest working on your conduct. You made personal attacks for no reason. I am not even slightly offended but I am concerned the others will be. Be respectful and you may have more support. Thank you for your time and thank you for allowing to engage in a conversation on a issue I have not debated on much.
This qualifies as tourettes

Nicely done. I almost argued your position for you. :) 1. Words are representatives of sound, and so my opponent's statement is representative of a condition of Tourette's Syndrome. My opponent qualified the resolution as "this counts as Tourette's" Syndrome and posted a slew of nonsense words. "Monkeys Monkeys Monkeys 171970 GOPHERS surname Grove." While the typing itself would not be a display of Tourette's,[1] it is certainly representative of a statement a tourette's sufferer would make. [2] Words represent and are perceived as sounds. [3] As soon as I read this, I thought in my head "that sounds like a sufferer of Tourette's Syndrome!" And so it is, indeed, representative of Tourette's Syndrome. My opponent will no doubt try and complain that Tourette's Syndrome does not lead to typing random words. Unfortunately for my opponent, I am Pro, and may distinguish the resolution as I see fit so long as it is rationally related to the resolution and not controverted by Con's limitations, because I am the one bringing the argument. Therefore, I resolve that the resolution, "This qualifies as tourettes" shall mean this expression, "Monkeys Monkeys Monkeys 171970 GOPHERS surname Grove," is representative of a vocal tic a sufferer of Tourette's Syndrome could produce. Which it is. Vote Pro. 2. My opponent is unfortunately unaware of the writings of Louie Tourettes. I also posit that this exact exclamation was originally written by Louie Tourette, a sufferer of Tourette's Syndrome with a tragically ironic name, who wrote such statement in a journal that is now in my personal collection and which, due to its extreme age, I could not reproduce electronically without destroying. Therefore, it is Tourette's. 3. I also posit that motor tics, being a form of Tourettes Syndrome, could be responsible for the resolution's poor grammar and spelling, and that the resolution is self-referential. I argue that, if the first resolution is dismissed, then this resolution must be what I was referring to in order to make an argument in the first place. Either way, "this qualifies as tourettes" [1]http://health.yahoo.com... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...