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

I believe this is due to the universality of morals from which the basic standards of moral living required for societal success stem. On its own, cultural relativism initially seems plausible but further assessment reveals it to be little more than an acceptance of defeat and a display of unwillingness to discover the truth in ethics. It is much easier to say that there is no universal moral truth, thus rendering all cultural beliefs equal and relative, than it is to say that the moral truth exists and to figure out what that is. In the scope of truth, however, what is easier to believe is not often what is true and this case is no different. Morality is not relative. It is instinctual to believe that a culture that believes in suppression of the lower ranks of hierarchy is worse than a culture that exhibits freedoms, even at the basic level. It is correct to say that this society is better, though different. Morality entails values which all humans should possess and judgments of right and wrong which should not falter. If a culture believes it is right to murder every person born on a Tuesday, it is immoral, regardless of their moral predisposition.
Morality is not Relative

Disregarding my previous arguments, which were completely pro relativism. There have been many philosophers like W.T Stace and James Rachels whom argue that morality is not at all relative. James Rachel stated that, "It is not a sound argument. The trouble is that the conclusion does not really follow the premises, even if the premises are true, the conclusion still might be false." (4.P.1) (1.)The Premise concern what we believe, in some societies people may believe one thing and in other societies, people may believe differently. (4.P.3) (2.)The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead; the Callatians believed it was right (4.P.1) (3.)This does not follow from the mere fact that they disagreed, there is no objective truth in the matter (4.P.2) (4.)The practice could be objectively right or wrong, and one of them was just simply mistaken (4.P.3) (5.)Some societies believe the earth is flat. In other societies, such as our own people believe the earth is roughly spherical. (5.P.1) In sum, Rachels states that morality cannot be relative due to the fact that the premises don"t match the conclusion. Just because a society has different practices from one another does not mean that the other society has the wrong practice, it just means that they have different beliefs that are expressed in different ways
Morality is not Relative

It is common sense that a society that supports Jews and freedom is better than one that doesn"t but cultural relativism deems that observation unjust. Another problem is that we would also be able to distinguish between right and wrong by consulting our society. Of course, we know that our society is often in charge of upholding morally impermissible structures but there would be no room to argue. Even if we found wrongness in our society, we would not be able to progress because all things are relative. Women have been given the right to vote and read freely but with cultural relativity, it cannot be claimed that this is any better than it was in the past; it is simply different. In addition, cultural relativists tend to mistake similarities for differences. The example of the Greeks, who burn their dead, and the Callatians, who eat their dead, is one which is used to justify the relativity of morality. The problem with this is that they are viewing only the action event rather than the action type. The event may be different but arguing that these are both equal is redundant since they are the same action type (honoring the dead). With further analysis, it is not difficult to see that, when it comes down to essentials, cultures really aren"t that different.
Morality is not Relative

The debate between cultural absolutists, who believe in one universal moral truth, and cultural relativists, who believe that morality is culturally based, is not new. Philosophers contemplated objectivity in ethics since the time of Socrates and have yet to find an answer. The Cultural Differences argument, used to defend cultural relativism, is widely supported as proof that morality is culturally influences. I believe, however, that the logic used in this argument is extremely flawed. In this rebuttal against the notion of relative morality, I will debunk the Cultural Differences argument and attest to the absolute and universal nature of ethics. The Cultural Differences argument, which entails that different cultures have different moral codes and therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality, is simply unsound. Relativists claim that since right and wrong (morals) are only matters of opinion, and morals vary from culture to culture, morality must be relative to culture. This is not logical because belief does not instantly imply truth. If a culture believes that the earth is flat and another culture believes that it is round, a lack of objective "truth" in geography is not implied. Cultural relativism completely bypasses the fact that one culture could be right while the other is simply mistaken. Furthermore, belief in cultural relativism has vitiating results to society. For example, we would no longer be able to say that one society was morally better than or inferior to the other. This is seemingly harmless until matters of moral dilemma are brought up such as anti-Semitism and slavery. It is common sense that a society that supports Jews and freedom is better than one that doesn"t but cultural relativism deems that observation unjust. Another problem is that we would also be able to distinguish between right and wrong by consulting our society.
Morality is not Relative

Morality being relative depends on a number of factors, such as, culture, geographic accident, and the time period. Each of these factors plays a crucial role in determining whether morality is relative or not, however the most important factor seems to be culture. Although many philosophers like James Rachel"s, W.T Stace, and Ruth Benedict have argued over this topic, I believe that morality could be relative in some cases and not relative in others. Ruth Benedict argued that morality is relative; she demonstrates this by stating that what may be culturally normal to some cultures, may seem to be culturally abnormal to others. For example (1.)What we believed to be defined as culturally normal has been "forced" upon us since birth. (2.)"A normal action is one at which falls well within the limits of expected behavior for a particular society." (90.5) (3.)"The small portion of the number of the deviants in the sure instinct with which that society has built itself upon fundamental sanities, but of universal facts that happily, the majority of mankind quite readily takes any shape that is presented to them." (91.4) (4.)"No civilization can possibly utilize in all its mores the whole potential range of human behavior." (90.2) (5.)"We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially appropriate habits." (90.4.4) In Sum, Ruth basically argues the fact that from birth that what we perceive as culturally acceptable has been taught to us through our parents and other people in our society. Whether they are teachers, or a religious leader in our society, we are shaped by all these experiences. James Rachel"s argues that moral codes are a key aspect of moral relativism, due to the fact that moral codes differ amongst different cultures. For example (1.)The Greeks believed that it is wrong to eat the dead whereas, the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead (3.P.1) (2.)Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture (4.P.1) (3.)Eskimos see nothing wrong with infanticide, due to the fact that they use it as a method to help them survive. (2.P.2) (4.) Whereas, if you look at our society we believe that infanticide is immoral, because we are taking an innocent persons life (4.P.2) (5.)Hence, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture. (4.P.3) In Sum, through his example James Rachel"s is trying to demonstrate that just because one culture does not share the same practice as the other culture. It does not mean that the other culture is wrong; it just means that they follow a different moral code.
Ariel Castro VS Jodi Arias (who is worse?)

Hello everyone! Based on the two biggest issues on the news during the last week, I think this would be a fun debate. How this will work, is that my opponent will pick one person in round one. This debate will be about determining who is more sick and twisted out of Jodi Arias, and Ariel Castro. I will take either one. Debate will take place in rounds 2 and 3. Thanks in advance to whoever accepts this. :)
I am smarter then everyone on this site.

It's hard to establish a weighing mechanism in >1000 characters. You see, this again shows how Pro is an idiot. If he wanted a debate on what exactly intelligence IS he should have A) given a larger character limit and time limit. At this point, I'll let the judges decide what the weighing mechanism for intelligence is. I'm sure they would agree with me considering that you've been banned twice. This is his only rebuttal to these points, so they stand. Pro says I dont have friends...that hurt my feelings :( (not really, it just shows that he's an idiot even more)***NOTE: Pro has never argued how he IS intelligent. It isnt even my job to show him to be an idiot. Its just fun. "It would have been stupid for me to take the debate as serious as you did." But what is our weighing mechanism for stupidity? Oh, you havent given one? ok. Pro ignores the grammar problem in his votebomb, A. conceding to my argument, and B showing how he's an idiot. Vote Con. Seriously.
I am smarter then everyone on this site.

The fact that you haven't offered a weighing mechanism for intelligence. (Seabisuit, Troll, 0%) The fact that you've learned some arbitrary facts about the way in which contemporary language should be constructed doesn't make you more cognitively astute. Moreover, semiotic-ally it's impossible for you to distinguish sign relations. Insofar as language is only defined by its relation to other signs it has is no authentic construction. You probably have no friends. This address's arguments 1 and 3. On 2. You took the one round debate, and have already said this account was used for vote-bombing. Its existence is only a consequence of my motivation to vote-bomb, not to win debates. It would have been stupid for me to take the debate as serious as you did. On 4. I can create as many accounts as I want, there is no consequence. I don't have political aspirations on this site and anyone that does is probably upset that he is sexually impotent, and needs to employ some alternative power
I am smarter then everyone on this site.

Pro is a multi account of seabiscuit, one of the biggest idiots to ever join this site. Pro is a troll (remember his "our American flag is the current one to ought to be set on fire" debates that have been deleted.) Pro's resolution should've stated "I am smarter than everyone on this site" because it's a comparative statement, so "then" isn't grammatically correct[1]. Pro is stupid enough to make one round debates[2].Pro votebombs with the RFD " Everyone is stupid accept for me"[3]. It should have said "except".Pro's win ratio is 0%.Pro is stupid enough to pick an argument with innomen[4], who can easily have him banned. Thus we can conclude that Pro is an idiot, and therefore not smart. No one else on this site can claim to have done the idiotic things he has, so you have to vote Con. 1. http://bitURL.net...2. http://bitURL.net...3. http://www.debate.org...4. http://www.debate.org...
TV shows like 16 and Pregnant discourage teenage pregnancy

Young people are aware of the immense responsibility of child bearing. Indeed most who have siblings and those who reflect upon the demands they put on their own parents understand this responsibility. Such shows glamorize and normalize teenage pregnancy. Those on the show tend to be middle class and so the true reality is sugar coated. When something is not taboo the choice do it becomes easier. Thus cultural normalizing of teenage promiscuity will raise teenage pregnancy.
Tax rates should be raised on the rich

I kind of understand. Poor people are getting poorer and rich people are getting richer. It is not good for society if poor people get poorer so we should take more money from rich people on the sole basis that they make more money. Why is it up to the rich to support the poor? Rich people are more likely to not use social benfits like food stamps or public transportation so why should they pay more for programs which they are less likely to use? It is not up to the rich to help the poor simply because they are rich. This is class warfare at it's worst.
Tax rates should be raised on the rich

Thanks for the debate! so in a nutshell, while I'm a fan of the capitalist system and market economics, government intervention is required occasionally to correct market failure- that is, where the market outcome is not the socially optimal one. Taxation is a case in point: while deregulation and the decline of the welfare state are both trends in government, the rise and fall of 'supply-side economics,' skill polarization in labour markets, globalization, and the increased pace of technological change have all combined to produce a 'market outcome' of both high inequality in terms of wealth distribution and tax rates on the rich, by both relative standards (comparing the rich today to the poor today) and historical standards (upper bracket marginal effective taxation rates are lower in the US and Canada since any time since 1929, and will soon surpass even that water mark) This is a problem because inequality is linked to nearly all social and economic ills... on the societal level: poor health, more crime and violence, poorer responses on life satisfaction surveys, etc. economically, the disappearance of the middle class and rise of a wealthy elite has significant and negative repercussions for the economy as a whole. Raising the METR (marginal effective tax rate) on the rich is a direct policy tool in order to redistribute wealth to bolster the middle class, and nip the rise of the super-rich before the damage to society and our economy becomes insurmountable. If you want specifics, I wouldn't even be opposed to a virtual doubling of the existing rate, though the exact increase would depend
Tax rates should be raised on the rich

Hi all, just signed up! apologies in advance for the mistakes in form I'm bound to make. Definitions: The Rich: top 10% income bracket and above Tax rates: marginal effective tax, which includes capital gains, etc rates http://en.wikipedia.org... The argument: I intend to argue that low tax rates on the rich are a symptom and cause of wealth inequality, which is undesirable from a social or economic perspective, and thus against the long term interests of the rich and the poor alike. (ie: The rich should want the government to tax them more)
Tax rates should be raised on the rich

"However, massive wealth inequality such as we are seeing now is against the long-term interests of :everyone: in society, because the social and economic conditions that allowed the super rich to become super rich in the first place tumble down. " You never elaborated as to why wealth inequality is against the interests of the rich. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "Wealth inequality leads to general social malaise, for the rich and poor alike. " So your argument is that the rich should pay higher taxes in order to keep the poor from rising up? This seems more like tribute to me.
Tax rates should be raised on the rich

Thanks for the response, and excellent point. No, the rich have no obligation to pay more simple because they're rich.... nor, as you say, does it make sense for the rich to pay more for services they never (or rarely) have to use. However, massive wealth inequality such as we are seeing now is against the long-term interests of :everyone: in society, because the social and economic conditions that allowed the super rich to become super rich in the first place tumble down. The life satisfaction surveys, social mobility indicators, and health indicators correlated with high inequality are not only worse for the poor. Wealth inequality leads to general social malaise, for the rich and poor alike. In effect, it is in the interests of the rich to prevent society from becoming too unequal as much, and perhaps more so, as it is in the interests of the poor.
Evolutionary Theory is a viable model

This dude is funny. He continues to insist upon a definition for evolution and then immediate abandons it That is the lack of cogency I was speaking about. And the point of this debate is that we do not agree on evolution. Apparently, he does not understand what the con side of the debate is all about. If his proof is nothing more than "I am right if you agree with me", the debate is over and he loses. And I did not ask him how he does scientific analysis on the genome. I asked him how he does scientific anaylsis on his claim of common ancestry. Hint: He cannot. But evolutionists always change the subject afte begging the question. And he continues to dodge the Q while begging it. I want to see him do the scientific analysis on his claim that the fossil clearly shows evolution. These tools know nothing of science or philosophy.
Evolutionary Theory is a viable model

Deliberate antagonization is the technique I expected of my opponent as indicated by his other debates, being an adult I can ignore that and get down to the meat of his argument. My opponent states "First he provides us a definition, which has nothing to do with evolution and then he proceeds to ignore it to prove evolution." I am curious, how exactly does giving the scientific definition of evolution have nothing to do with evolution? It is nonsensical. In response to my shared molecular vestiges argument my opponent deliberately ignores the examples provided that I am sure he would agree with. If you (The reader) recall I said "There's a sweet taste receptor gene called Tas1r2. In felids there's a 247-base pair deletion in exon 3 and a premature stop codons in exons 4 and 6. I am sure my opponent would concede this is indicative of common ancestry between the felids. The Tas1r2 gene in bottlenose dolphins has a deletion of exon 4, a 20 base pair insertion in exon 3 and a 1 base pair deletion in exon 6. I am sure my opponent would agree that common ancestry between the dolphins best explains this." As indicated by my opponents retort I get the message that he would disagree with this as evidence of felids and bottlenose dolphins being related. Onto my opponents question he ask "how does he observe, test, reproduce and falsify this?". Observation: Map the genome and observe the sequence. We observe that mutations are inherited from parents, for example me and all 7 of my siblings inherited mutations from our parents, I simply applied the same logic in my molecular vestiges argument. Test: Map your genome and the genome of your parents, it is an undeniable fact that you have inherited mutations from your parents. Potential Falsifiability: Find an identical molecular vestige in humans and some more distantly related species such as naked mole rats that isn't in chimps. This would easily falsify my argument. Onto his claims about my evidence from fossils. He claims "And he did not tell us how the fossil record is clear and defined evidence for evolutionary theory. And he never tells us how this claim is observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable." I am starting to think he did not even read my post at all or he skimmed it. As I said, "The fossil record is clear defined evidence for evolutionary theory. I will use the example of birds and dinosaurs. Most people have no idea just how bird-like dinosaurs were, take a look at T-Rex", I then proceeded to list bird traits in T-Rex. Observation: Dig up a fossil and proceed to do a cladistic analysis. Test: Analyze the morphology of said fossil since paleontology relies on morphological data rather than molecular. Potential Falsifiability: Find T-Rex in the same layer as a mammoth or find no morphological traits indicative of birds in T-Rex.
Evolutionary Theory is a viable model

This dude is funny. First he provides us a definition, which has nothing to do with evolution and then he proceeds to ignore it to prove evolution. He said "Shared molecular vestiges are indicative of common ancestry", but how does he observe, test, reproduce and falsify this? Indeed, he is committing the classic logical fallacy of begging the question, but assuming evolution to see evolution. And he did not tell us how the fossil record is clear and defined evidence for evolutionary theory. And he never tells us how this claim is observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. He failed the test of science.
Resolved: The destruction of the death star was an inside job.

I've already had this debate but my opponent basically quit, but I rather enjoyed writing the argument and would love to have a debate about this topic. http://www.debate.org... I will likely use a similar but more polished an elaborated argument I used in that previous debate, but since I'm pro, it really shouldn't matter if you get a sneak peak. Rules: 1. Trolling is required. 2. Facts may be made up but must coincide with the Star Wars Movies. 3. For the purposes of this debate everything in star wars did occur and should be treated as fact. Rounds: 1: Acceptance. 2: Openings 3: Rebuttal. I look forward to having this debate. Should be fun. :D
Solarman1969 refuses to debate me because he knows he can't win

First off, I would like clarify what I mean by "win". Obviously, when Solarman takes up a debate, he knows he's generally not going to win the vote because of his far right wing points of view. However, he does seem to take some sort of satisfaction in finding opponents who don't know how to deal with his belligerence or who provide relatively weak arguments. I have debated Solarman in the past, and instead of responding to his personal attacks, I took his arguments at face value. I responded with facts from impartial, scholarly, and peer-reviewed sources that refuted his arguments. I correctly pointed out that his arguments were usually either supported by non-reputable sources such as anti-Islamic websites, such as prophetofdoom.net, or by faulty logic. Instead of responding to my arguments, he has ignored them, dismissing me as a Stalinist. I am arguing that Solarman has accepted the fact that he cannot prove me wrong using reason or rational arguments, and has therefore decided to ignore my challenges to debate.
Should marching band be considered a sport

Additionally, what most band members don"t realize is that the same people who support marching band as a sport unknowingly contribute to labeling it as an extracurricular activity. For example, band directors (not coaches) call marching band participants "students" or "band members," not "athletes." There are no marching band "captains," they are instead referred to as "drum majors" or "section leaders." At competitions, the evaluators are called "judges," not "referees" or "officials." In Kentucky, high school marching bands are governed by the KMEA, (Kentucky Music Educators Association), the same organization that oversees vocal ensembles and symphonic band. Most importantly, marching band is not recognized by the KHSAA, NCAA, or the NOC (National Olympic Committee). That is my final argument. Thank you for this debate.