BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

This is classic "me not knowing when to shut up" but why would my strength or quality of desire have any effect on whether the action is moral?Do you not think pedophiles have a strong unalterable desire? Surely serial killers have some strong motivation?I am just saying good intentions do not always make good actions, and I would never have tried to defend bestiality with that argument.
Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"Intelligence is a greater good for the progress of humanity than the gratification of libido." There is no dichotomy between intelligence and libido. I find the claims relating to this statement to be totally irrelevant. To say it outloud you are suggesting that bestiality should be illegal because that might improve the intelligence of zoophiles. Only the most desperate to condemn it could keep from laughing at that I think. "If something is detrimental to society, is it not then immoral? Then, wouldn't it be wise to entertain such thoughts to ban it?" I find that the idea of things being detrimental to society is almost always an anti-concept. What people really mean when they say that is "it's not as good as it could be." If someone is violating no rights they should not be subject to legal sanction no matter how anti-social anyone may think they are being. Furthermore it is often claimed that self-destructive (or even just non-productive) behavior in individuals is a 'detriment' so the state gets to step in. Now zoophilia doesn't really have anything to do with that, they are no less productive or social than anyone else; but on principle I refuse to recognize the idea that just because a group of people or an activity is less useful to society than you would like does not give you the right to ban them/it. However to answer your question, if you think it is immoral because it is detrimental then you aren't saying it's moral but still detrimental. "From a perspective that acknowledges health, It would be absurd to hear that one with great mental health cannot gratify his sexual needs within the bounds of the human race." No more absurd than saying someone with 'great?' mental health cannot gratify his/her sexual needs within the bounds of the opposite gender. "Moreover, if it were the case that Bestiality and Zoophilia were legal, then the human race would be vulnerable to an significant increase of sexual transmitted diseases and zoonosis" Incorrect, there are currently no known pure STDs between animals and humans and zoophiles have been having sex with animals regularly so if a plague was out there it would have hit us long ago. (Please don't say HIV, that is a hypothesis and it has not been confirmed and it could have spread just as easily by eating the undercooked meat). Furthermore if risk of disease was a basis for banning consenting behavior then it would follow that we start with human sex given the danger posed by HIV and other well-known STDs. At this moment in time it is safer to have sex with a random domestic animal then it is to have sex with a random human. "bestiality and zoophilia is to be considered immoral as it brings more harm than sexual gratification which I would not understand why it cannot be satisfied within the bounds of the human race." It brings no harm, and I reject a moral standard which attempts to quantify and compare the good of sexual gratification and the risk of zoonosis infection without an objective method by which to do so.
Freedom of Speech Is Superior to Freedom of Assembly

To begin, it's important to note that assembly is a multisided affair. In law, this is recognized as "offer and acceptance" where an offeree consents to accept an offeror's offer. My opponent only recognizes expression from the offeror's perspective, ignoring the offeree. This is vital because an offer itself can violate an offeree's freedom of assembly. In law, this is recognized as "harassment". Three classic examples of this which many are aware of are indecent exposure, predatory advertising, and stalking. An offeror harasses an offeree by expressing unreliable information and unwanted attention. That is an offeror presumes a common interest when in fact, one does not exist. In fact, even the Supreme Court has overturned FCC regulations over indecency, particularly over TV: . http://www.nytimes.com... In fact, the matter of indecent exposure in predatory advertising has even grabbed psychologists' attention as having widespread negative social effects on the preservation of freedom of assembly: . http://www.apa.org... In fact, freedom of speech has been allowed to overarch workplace harassment which is often recognized as a form of stalking: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Furthermore, even Constitutional law scholars are concerned that freedom of speech goes beyond this in terms of property rights. That is freedom of speech is romantically overarching freedom of assembly by compelling people's property to be subject to practical reason: . http://www.independent.org... (p.331-332) Lastly, I'm not sure my opponent understood the reference to Islamofascism and Middle Eastern Islamists, but if he refuses to press that point, that's his choice.
Freedom of Speech Is Superior to Freedom of Assembly

This is a negative position against freedom of speech that emphasizes how one's freedom of speech is not entitled to impose upon others freedom of assembly. Many forget that freedom of speech is not the only right which exists, so it's paramount that all rights get treated with respect. What seems to have happened in Western Civilization is that since 9/11, pragmatism has suggested that sensitive personalities who endure duress, intimidation, harassment, negligence, and provocation are obligated to endure rugged individualism. Otherwise, they're fundamentalist, terrorist, Islamofascists who are attempting to regulate others without consent. In fact, the lack of consent arrives when people are exposed to images and messages in the universally entitled public sphere which they don't consent to assemble with. Security has been inverted towards freedom of speech where people are supposedly entitled to security in broadcasting themselves, telling the broadcasted upon that "If they don't like it, they can leave." This is qualitatively equal to telling someone that if someone doesn't want to get punched in the face, someone should move out of the way. For example, those who are bombarded by advertising are told to simply put up with it. Otherwise, go somewhere else that advertising doesn't exist. The only difference between speech and getting punched in the face is the degree and style of quantitative force, but these are subjective value judgments which FURTHER compel people to assemble without consent. That is people are compelled to assemble with the judgment of others they haven't previously agreed to. Instead, people are told that the social contract is implicit such that newborns are expected to conform to authority. To be clear, this isn't arguing against freedom of speech, nor does it advocate emotional repression such as what's found among Middle Eastern Islamists. This simply recognizes that freedom of speech is not superior to freedom of assembly.
Pick Your Own Debate - 1D

I couldn't agree with my opponent more with his assertion that a government's role is to instill laws which are morally virtuous. However, I couldn't agree with my opponent less with his assertion that suicide is immoral. My opponent provided one argument to show that suicide is immoral, which was based upon Kant's categorical imperative. I will provide a few counter-arguments: 1. My opponent quoted Kant's second maxim of the categorical imperative and concluded, with little explanation, that it pertained to suicide and proved suicide immoral (at least according to Kant). My opponent argued that because suicide is usually for the sake of ending one's own happiness, that it is immoral according to Kant. I would like to suggest to my opponent that a person who commits suicide is not doing so to end their own happiness, they are doing so to end their own misery. It is not a case of viewing yourself as merely a means to an end, the end being the end of misery. It is a case of a human being exercising their inalienable right to live and die whenever and however they please. I would even argue that this is the only right we are born with and that ours is the only life we are morally allowed to take. 2. I believe that the second maxim of Kant's categorical imperative is actually more condemning of those who would attempt to stop (i.e. make illegal) suicide than those who would commit it, because that too is an action of self-interest, and far more selfish. To demand that another human being endure misery and pain because you are attached to them emotionally, this is the very definition of selfish. 3. Even if we were to conclude from Kant's categorical imperative that suicide is immoral, why should we allow that to decide our laws for us? According to Kant, lying, over-eating, smoking and drinking alcohol are all immoral acts, but nobody would suggest we make telling a few lies at the pub against the law. Kant's philosophical views, complex and unique though they are, should not be (and thankfully are not) the sole basis for our morals or our laws. ------------------ I will now set some arguments of my own: 1. It is a completely impractical law to uphold. Indeed, it is the only law I can think of where the 'criminal' can only be punished if they FAIL in their attempt, as you can't imprison a dead person (though I'm sure men have tried). 2. One major reason for instilling laws in the first place is to prevent crime. There is no way somebody who is about to commit suicide will be persuaded not to do so upon hearing there is a law against it. I'll leave it there for this round. Thanks to the Skeptic, I'm looking forward to the final round.
Pick Your Own Debate - 1D

I DEEPLY apologize for my stupid mistake, my opponent is correct in stating that I have accidently chosen his side. However, I do want to thank my opponent for overlooking this mistake and allowing me the courtesy to start on a fresh start. I also want the audience to note that I am now attempting to argue for a side I am totally against, so my argument may seem not so common or perhaps intuitively appealing. Nonetheless, it should hopefully put up a good fight for my opponent. ==================== Role of government ==================== This is a simple argument, and I don't think my opponent will disagree with me on this issue (nor does he have to). I argue that government should be concerned with upholding what is morally virtuous, or "right", as should any individual. If a government is violating human rights or commiting immoral deeds, than it is an unruly government worth tearing down or changing. That said, all laws a government implements should at least have a sensible purpose/reason for doing so, or must attempt to do what is right. So if a government body wants to uphold the virtue of human rights, then it should pass laws that will do so. That stated, I hereby argue that suicide is IMMORAL, and thus making it illegal is the moral thing to do. I will attempt to back up this claim in the following argument: ==================== Kant's categorical imperative ==================== Immanuel Kant's famous categorical imperative[1] is the bedrock of his moral philosophy, called Kantian Ethics. Kant grounded his ethical system on the fact that humans have a special capacity that seperates them from other beings: reason. From this standpoint, he argues that all morals and obligations should follow from this - the categorical imperative is the final product. He has three formulations of it, and it is the second formulation that is relevant to the morality of suicide: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."[2] Since suicide is practically almost always for the sake of ending ONE'S own happiness, then it follows that is immoral due to Kant's categorical imperative. Because it is immoral, then suicide itself should be made illegal. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Again, I thank my opponent for allowing me to pick up again, and I hope this argument gives him a good challenge. I await his response. ---References--- 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. Kant, Immanuel. Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals. trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Print.
Pick Your Own Debate - 1D

My opponent appears to have accidentally supported my side of this debate in his second round. In Round 1, I specifically stated that if we were to argue the resolution "Suicide should be illegal in the United States", that I would take the CON position. This means that my opponent must argue PRO for the resolution that suicide should be illegal, and his argument thus far, that the law should only concern itself with actions that violate other people's rights, supports my side. I am certain that this was nothing more than a mistake by my opponent, and for the sake of this debate I would suggest we forget this round and start fresh for Rounds 3 and 4, with my opponent arguing PRO that suicide should be illegal in the U.S.
Pick Your Own Debate - 1D

I thank leet for accepting this open debate, and I"m sure it will turn out great! Unfortunately for those in the comment section and for my opponent, I will be choosing the second topic: arguing that suicide should be decriminalized. I wholly agree with the first topic (in my opinion it's actually a strong argument against the First Cause Argument for the Existence of God) and the third topic seems too "vague", for a lack of better words, to argue over. With the introduction and slight apologies over, I shall begin: ==================== Nothing you do to yourself is immoral ==================== I argue that nothing you do to your own body, whether it be tattoos to drugs, is immoral. When dealing with ethical issues, the government should ONLY be concerned with protecting individuals from others - everything else is fair game. That said, the only time that this should be modified is when doing something to your body negatively affects others - aka violates their rights. For example, drinking and driving can easily result in serious injury or death in innocent bystanders or drivers, therefore drunk driving should be illegal. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Yes, that is all for my opening argument. From that sole argument, I lay foundation for my position. I await my opponent's response.
Pick Your Own Debate - 1D

My topics and positions are: 1. The creator of this universe must have been omnipotent - CON Now I personally don't believe in a creator being, and I know my opponent doesn't, but this is just assuming this Universe WAS created. My opponent must argue that to create this universe, the creator had to have been omnipotent, and I must argue the opposite. 2. Suicide should be illegal in the United States - CON Pretty self-explanatory. I don't really want to debate this because I've recently had a similar debate, but I know I'd get some good arguments out of you that didn't come up in that debate. 3. The Human species will be responsible for their own extinction - PRO Again, pretty self-explanatory. Well that's them, I hope you can find at least one of those three you wouldn't mind debating. Cheers.
Pick Your Own Debate - 1D

If you have participated or read any of these types of debates before, then this one should be no different. However, for those who haven't: ROUND 1: This obviously includes this opening introduction and rules. For my opponent, he/she will post 3 topics (clarify them if you could) he/she wishes to debate, and then post his/her position on each of the topics. Please try to add a mix of subjects. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc. ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of three positions my opponent proposed. It should follow throughout as a normal 3-Round debate. *NOTE* - I realize that politics are almost undoubtedly tangled with social issues, but a somewhat cut between the two would be fine. By politics, I imagine topics such as what is the best political system, what role does the government play, economics, taxes, so on and so forth. By social issues, I imagine topics such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, so on and so forth. *NOTE* - Please put forth only controversial, or at least opinionated claims, for the topics. This should be pretty self-explanatory. If you have any questions, just leave it at the comments section. *NOTE* - The "1D" notation is for purely for browsing purposes. If there's any concerns or questions, leave it at the comments sections.
The Chelsea team of 2004-05 are the Greatest Football team from England since the Premiership began

"They didn't even finish top of their Champions league group" They didnt lost a sigle game. Having to play Barcelona and Bayern Munich in a single group is pretty difficult. Certainyl much harder than a group containing CSKA Moscow and FC Porto as the two best sides. "renowned Ronaldinho Barcelona team", the team which never beat an English team that had 11 men? A team which won La Liga championships against a joke of a Real Marid team and had a 12th man on their team almost their entire Champions league run. Inter Milan had Ronaldo, Robberto Baggio, Pirlo and Zanetti. By the way this is late 90's Ronaldo and Baggio, how can beating them over two legs be nothing less than impressive. That "mediocre" Juventus team had been in the previous 3 champions league finals, winning the first one. Though it did have a joke of a team consisting of world player of the year Zidane, Thierry Henry, Del Piero and Inzaghi. The teams Manchester United beat in Europe were far supieror to the ones Chelsea had beaten. Your argument is dishonest and misleading. Manchester United won the league by the record point margin in the 1999-2000 season, which is the year they won only the Premiership This team won a treble then dominated the league when they decided to focus on it. Man U didn't enter the FA cup that year and losing to the Champions league winners Real Madrid in the quarter finals is still a fantstic achievement. The point still remains that between 22nd of May 1999 and the 21st of May 2000 Man Utd had won the champions league beating an Inter Milan team which had Ronaldo and Baggio,a juventus team of ZIdane, del Piero, Henry and Inzahi as well as a Bayern Munich team consisting of Matthaus and Kahn. They had also won the FA cup beating Newcastle as well as a record victory in the premier league. This is all within a year. The United team of 07-09 never even proved itself as being the best team in England. 3 league titles, 2 champions league finals one of which they won. In the other year they lost in the semis to the evential winners taking a game at home. A fifa world club championship, winning the two community shields it appeared in, setting the all time record for most games gone without conceeding a goal and having the world player of the year win it on their team. Manchester United proved beyond a shadow of a doubt they were the top team in Britain and only Barcelona could really contend over who was the best team in the World. Chelsea never came close to proving they were the best in Europe. In Chelsea's time of 04-06 it would be either AC Milan or Barcelona. simple fact they dominated the Arsenal team of that year. They drew both games they played with Arsenal in the 04-05 season. THe thing is Arsenal lost 0 games in 03-04 yet lost 5 in the next season, none of which were to CHelsea. Essentially they were a weaker team than before. You cant say the arsenal team of the year before would have lost to Bolton or Birmingham city in the league. Ran out of time
The Chelsea team of 2004-05 are the Greatest Football team from England since the Premiership began

I don't feel like writing that much this round. 1. Chelsea finished that year with 95 points in the Premiership, the highest point total ever for a team. (1) As well as 29 wins which is a record. Conceded only 15 goals in a whole season which is the lowest amount a team has conceded since the 38 game premiership was introduced. Losing only one game the whole season, an away game to Manchester City which was due to a penalty(2). Simply put no team has ever dominated the domestic league as strongly. 2. Chelsea also won the league cup that year beating Manchester United over two legs in the semis as well as beating Liverpool for the trophy in the final. They only lost in the FA Cup Round 5 1-0 to Newcastle away(a team they had beaten 6-0 on aggregate during the season) with a weak team they had fielded which did not contain Cech or Lampard or Terry or Drogba on the starting team(3). That Chelsea team also were down to 9 men by the end of the game due to a red card and an unfortunate injury for Wayne Bridge. 3. Chelsea also did extremely well in Europe that year finishing top of their Champions league group. Chelsea lost their third game of the season away to Barcelona at the Nou Camp, a game they were winning 1-0 until Drogba was sent off, they avenged the 2-1 loss by beating them 4-2 at Stamford Bridge. (4) This was the Ronaldinho Deco team that was favoured to win the whole contest and won it a year later. After advancing they dismantled Bayern Munich before losing to Liverpool by 1-0 over two legs due to a very controversial goal with many feeling it did not cross the line. (5) To conclude the Chelsea team of that year dominated the League and also won the league cup. They only lost 4 games over the whole year. None by more than goal. One to a very strong Barcelona in Spain in a game they were winning until Drogba got red carded. One to Liverpool in a goal which did not cross the line. One to Manchester city due to a penalty and one to Newcastle where they played a weak side and were down to 9 men by the end. (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://news.bbc.co.uk... (3) . http://news.bbc.co.uk... (4) . http://news.bbc.co.uk... (5) . http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Children should have more limited screen use

Evidence shows that gaming actually causes must of that behaviour you suggested. Young children will play video games which include not abiding by the law which makes them more likely to do it in the future....... Video games also waste a lot of time, that could be used for learning useful things. They tend to put children off their homework and result in a decline in their grades. video games do not develop life skills, while school does I think it is important that screen play is limited so that we can live our life in a more active, interesting and creative way.
Children should have more limited screen use

Those games are staged scenarios. They do not develop in any way skills. Furthermore, is it really good for children to learn gun skills in a world becoming peaceful? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Before the technology age children played together doing simple things like climbing trees, skipping, marbles, hide and seek... and things like this. These games were free, cheap and kept you fit. Whereas today " we still do these things sometimes.... but the most popular type of play is screen based. Things like X box, DS, Wii, Computer and TV. These things can be quite exciting and interesting. Some can help you to learn. But this type of play is not necessarily all good. There are some negative things about electronic games: They are expensive and you need to buy more and more games. It is not always very social. You don"t learn good talking and listening (social skills) Restrictive with how many can play with you, so it is easy to feel left out.