BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Situational ethics is superior to absolute ethics

I will just state a few definitions before starting. Ethics will be defined as: "moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.". Situational ethics is defined as: "Ethical decisions that follow flexible guidelines rather than absolute rules, and are taken on a case by case basis.". Absolute ethics is defined as: "certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other circumstances such as their consequences or the intentions behind them". I will be arguing that situational ethics is a superior basis for morality. The right thing to do often depends on the situation for instance: Slavery is often thought of as a moral absolute but what about those few people who bought slaves to free them [1]? You need to put constraints on when slavery is good or bad for instance slavery is bad when you force that slave to work for you or buying another person is bad when you plan to enslave them afterwards. You see absolutes need to have many constraints placed on them and a blanket statement such as "slavery is bad" can never work because there are some situations where slavery could be justified (I have already laid out one of there situations). So called absolute's can be justified under specific circumstances running through a few: Killing: In order to save more lives, Stealing: Intelligence agencies stealing information from other governments, Terrorism: Fighting to overthrow a dictatorial government (an example would be the american revolution). The fundamental point is that different actions are moral in different situations as I think I have illustrated. I look forward to your arguments. [1] http://www.quakersintheworld.org...
religion shouldn't be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution

I guess lastronin went to the website and realized the resoultion is utterly stupid... I need 100 characters. So let me once again reiterate my argument: The Resoultion is dumb because it is a fact that the term "religion" or "God" is not EXPLICITLY mentioned anywhere in the U.S Constitution, except in the 1st Amendment. The Founding Fathers had a deistic mindset when they were drafting the Constitution, and tried their best to eliminate religion from politcal and judicial realms. They only saw religion as important in social and moral realms for the new nation. And the Porn Star is still saying "Oh My God!!"
religion shouldn't be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution

"religion" is a term and an idea we grew up with. Amending the Constitution now will not make the term go away. Even if we were to step back in time and rewrite the Constitution (pretend we're at the Constitutional Convention), religion-inspired ideals pervade our having been there at the Convention, given that we had just drafted the Declaration of Independence with verbiage to the effect "endowed by our Creator" and such. The Founding Fathers were grasping with principles to form a new government. One of those principles was "law." And they had to base that law on something. They chose, in the First Amendment, to neither officially recognize any particular religion nor to disallow its practice. So they do recognize the very idea of "religion." BUT, since it was not in the main body of the Constitution but tacked on as an Amendment, although a rather important one, they did not feel that religion was important to the workings of a Republic, especially at the Federal level. The Preamble and basing law on "We the People" perhaps is as good as it gets and is sufficient. Although the Amendments address individuals' rights, the Articles alone are sufficient to address any quarrels we might have when it comes to religion and religious practices. For example, the Supreme Court could delegate to lower courts.
Jack vs The Police (Jack Murdered Mr Giant)

My name is hunnydew Attorney general representing chickens of Alabama. I graduated top class at SCREW Tyson and chick Fil'a University of law and farming. I recently found that Jack not only killed Mr. Giant but got me drunk and stool my mother. I'm still very drunk not clear what even happened the night after my mother's kidnapping. DEAR GOD WHY WONT THIS END! CAN SOMEONE GET ME VICADIN!
Jack vs The Police (Jack Murdered Mr Giant)

Hi, this is a mock trial of Jack and the Beanstalk. I will be defense or against the claim that Jack murdered Mr Giant. Please refer to this link for the info: . http://www.abc.net.au... The prosecution must prove each and every element of each offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is conceded by the Defence that the alleged victim, Mr A Giant, died from head injuries received from a fall which occurred while he was climbing down a beanstalk on 1 April 1997. It will therefore not be necessary to call any medical evidence to prove the cause of death. I (the defense) am not allowed to use any of the prosecutions material in my debate unless it is first used by the prosecution. Likewise, the prosecution may not use any of my (Defense's) material unless it is first used by me. To further explain, once you use ANY PART of your material, it is fair game to me and vice versa. However, the copy of the Charage/Fact Sheet and the copy of Legislation and legal notes are fair game for either side to use at anytime in the debate. The prosecution (pro) is first trying to prove this (murder): . http://www.abc.net.au... If the prosecution feels they cannot prove murder, the prosecution (pro) MUST concede to the fact they cannot prove murder. It is important that the pro is clear about what they are arguing ie- "I do not feel I can prove the case of murder and have decided to go after "Breaking into any house and an committing serious indictable offence. " It is important to understand that murder is the charge that should be sought after first, but the pro can bow out and seek the breaking and entering charge at any point in this debate. If the prosecution (pro) makes no statement saying that they have not taken murder off of the table, it should be concluded that is what they are out to prove. If that is the case, and the Defense (con) wins, they win the entire case and not just the murder charge. The prosecution will refer to this website for Breaking etc into any house etc and committing serious indictable offence: . http://www.abc.net.au... Please refer to this page regarding regarding the elements to prove murder, self defense, provocation, and break enter steal: . http://www.abc.net.au...
Jack vs The Police (Jack Murdered Mr Giant)

Thank you sir for posting. 1.Mrs. Giant- I would like to bring up Mrs. Giant's interview. She said and I quote "Who are you, get out" I don't know about you but that doesn't seem like she was welcoming Jack Jones into her home. She also responded to Jack Jones by saying "Never mind that, if my husband sees you he will eat you. Now jury do you think that he was very aware of what would happen to him if he did not leave the first two times she told him. Since this guy knows what he was getting into he should have left if he did not want any harm. As the wife of Mr. Giant she was one of the owners of the home. She had every right to tell him to "Get out". The reason for saying that is because she never wanted a fight to go down. According to one of the home owners he was never welcomed. http://www.abc.net.au... 2.Jack's actions- I would like to say there was nothing wrong about climbing up a bean stock that was on his mothers property, but once he got to the top he found a house. People and that dog of a person of the jury do you think that Jack Jones would do anything to not be charged with the crimes. He would lie if had to. So just think about his interview. He did not ask for permission to enter the house. He took the goose instead of hiding. He most likely did this action out of greed. He use the axe without warning Mr. Giant, Jack's action caused the death of Mr. Giant. 3.Why Jack Jones most likely lied- Let me bring up Jack Jones's mother, Ms Nora Jones She said and I quote "My son, Jack, has often been in trouble and has a tendency to make up stories and tell lies" She as one of the people who know him best said that he had a history of lying. Now since I have brought up this info up it seems that he could have been lying at the interview. http://www.abc.net.au... 4.Albert Morse- He knew jack is a trouble maker and when he arrested him Jack said that he never wanted to kill the giant. Then once he interviewed Jack's mother she stated that he said he said "I climbed up a beanstalk and found a giant's house and then the giant chased me and he is going to eat me. I am very frightened. I must get the axe and chop down the beanstalk and kill the giant." http://www.abc.net.au... 5.Conclusion- His mother stated that he had a history of lying, and stated that jack wanted to kill the giant. Mrs. Giant stated that she said get out very clearly. She also tooled him to hide once he came down but he did not listen. Ps don't worry the guy at Burger king gave me some cloths, and burger.
Jack vs The Police (Jack Murdered Mr Giant)

The defense would like to remind the people of the jury that the prosecution must prove beyond ANY reasonable doubt that Jack maliciously murdered Mr. Giant with intent. The defense would first like to call into evidence the statement made to the police by Jack Jones. The jury will be shown by Jack's statement that he was acting in self-defense when he frantically chopped down the beanstalk, which ultimately and unfortunately led to the death of Mr. Giant. Jack was extremely frightened after hearing the terrible, threatening words said by Mr. Giant. Jack is a small boy, not much taller than 4'5. Now, please imagine the circumstances when a man, NAMED MR. GIANT was chasing him yelling, "I want to eat you, I want to grind you up". Any reasonable person cannot see that as anything thing other than a direct threat to life and limb. The fact that Mr. Giant is SO much larger than Jack automatically put Jack's life in danger when considering mutual strength and distinct disadvantages for Jack if the two found themselves in distinct interchangeable combat. Mr. Giant's fist or foot could easily be considered deadly weapons to someone like you or I, not to mention little Jack. Mrs. Giant was also clearly concerned for Jack's safety when it came to her husband's temper. Jack has quoted her as saying "Quick, run like the wind, before he wakes up. Keep that goose quiet." This reinforces the validity of Jack's fear for his life. Given the circumstances, with the deceased's own WIFE showing fear, who of us in our right mind would not have panicked and chopped down the beanstalk exactly like Jack did? On the charge of B&E, it is clear that Jack was invited into the home by Mrs. Giant, and that she allowed him to take the goose. She told him to keep the goose quiet as he was running away with it, for Pete's sake! The defense is confident that you, the wonderful people of the jury, will see that poor little Jack was simply trying to please his hard working mother when he unwittingly wandered into the Giants' home. He was then invited to stay, and was given the goose by Mrs. Giant. The jury will also see that Little Jack Jones was only acting out of fear for his life and that of his mother when he chopped down the beanstalk – the only option he could see in his panicked state. Unfortunately, the generosity and hospitality of Mrs. Giant ultimately led to the death of her husband. @ Hunneydew(Whispers) I think they might be able to see it. PULL UP YOUR PANTS BEFORE THE NEXT ROUND!
Jack vs The Police (Jack Murdered Mr Giant)

Thank you for making your statement. Hello ladies, gentlemen and that questionable heshe wonder in the back of the jury. I would like to state my opening statement. Well who is this jack, a man who would disturb such a large giant? He decided break into MR. Giants home. What was he trying to do what was his goal. He even was getting a bit out of hand for his mother. As it seems if you read the short facts about the crime, Mr. Giant never actually attacked Jack. So the members of the jury understand how the timeline of the crime played out. http://www.abc.net.au... I hope that the jury will also understand all code and evidence as this trial continues. 1. The LEGAL NOTES and LEGISLATION say that there must be a necessary reason for the defendant to use the argument of self defense. 2. Jack Jones was breaking and entering the home of Mr. and Mrs. Giant. 3. The reason for commenting the crime of B&E http://www.abc.net.au... B&E-breaking and entering. I hope the jury will understand that he was not using a weapon or actually attacking Jack Jones. Thank you for letting me expresses my opening statement. (Whisper) Hey Saoirsesfather can the jury see the tattoo of a pony on my a33. Last couple of nights I haven't been able to remember. Jack got me seriously drunk A few days ago. I wonder how that happened.
Jack vs The Police (Jack Murdered Mr Giant)

People of debate.org on March 31st 1997, Jack Jones wandered onto the property of Mr/Ms Giant by way of a beanstalk. After entering the house, the wife of Mr Giant informed Jack that he was welcome on the premises. The Defense points out to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that under Section 18 sub section 1 of the Crimes Act, "Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused ..causing the death charged... was done with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person." In order to prove the charge of murder, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt : 1. the death of the deceased (the Defence concedes this fact) 2. an unlawful act of the accused which caused that death 3. such act was done with; a. intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm; or b. reckless indifference to human life. The defense will show the court that Jack Jones did not commit a crime and was acting in self defense. The defense would like to point out that The Common Law has always recognized the right of a person to defend himself or herself against an attack. Again, he wondered onto the property of Mr and Mrs Giant and was then chased by a belligerent, psychopath who had every intention of causing permanent harm or possibly death. Jack was left with little choice, his life or the life of someone who had no concern for the life of others. In the coming arguments, the ladies and gentlemen of the jury will see that Jack Jones acted completely in self-defense and was left with no choice when confronted by a man threatening to "grind his bones up and eat him". Thank you for your time.
According to the Bible (Old & New Testament) Jesus Christ is God

This debate is contending the issue of whether or not the Bible (the Old and New Testaments) contains evidence that indicates Jesus Christ is God. Please read the rules cafefully before accepting, thank you! Rules: (1) Evidence should primarily be from the Bible as we are debating a theological issue. All theological issues should be grounded in the bible. The bible, as defined above, consists of the New and Old Testament. Evidence outside of the bible such as Watchtower publications, or commentaries, will not be accepted as valid evidence. You may use any translation you desire, and you may use multiple translations in your arguments with the simple rule that you cite the translation you are using. (2) This debate is not discussing other theological issues such as the doctrine of the trinity, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, the hypostatic union of Christ, etc. This debate also presupposes the authority of scripture and the exsistence of God. The matter should be focused on the issue of Christ's divinity. (3) No semantics, personal attacks, or any other games that will reduce this debate to anything less than what it is intended to be, which is a serious debate. (4.1) There are three rounds.The first round is acceptance and recognition that the rules are understood and will be followed.The second round will be where the first arguments will be presented.The third round is simply for more arguments, rebuttals, and conclusions. (4.2) In this debate rebuttals are not necessary. It is up to the individual to decide what would be more profitable for their debate. If the opponent wishes to move on, without rebuttals, and present more evidence than it is permitted. (5) All definitions will firstly be valid in accordance to orthodox biblical theological terms. If there is any reason to define a term it will firstly be in accordance with the theological definition. A resource for appeal to and utilizing can be found here: https://carm.org... All secondary definitions will be based on definitions provided by dictonary.com. Conclusion: I only ask that the person who accepts this challenge will take it seriously. I welcome anyone who wished to contend. God bless.
Kissing little girls

I like kissing little girls I like kissing little girls All over their pretty face Kissing them on their lips Sticking my tongue in I don't care if she is really young I don't care if she is only 3 I will kiss her all over her pretty face What crime am I doing What are you going to charge me for Is kissing illegal, In what kind of a world Guilty for a kiss Placed on a toddler's lips You cannot catch me I will kiss pretty little girls All over their pretty face And like a skilled lover I will leave no trace I look when no one is there When little girl is alone I approach her and kiss her All over her pretty face
Health care should be free (everywhere)

As I have already said, this is not a bizarre idea, many countries have free health care. How is it immoral? People are able to go to hospital for free (governmental not private) in many countries, hospitals aren't only built on tax payer money, they get other sources of income as well. Henceforth, if there is a proper allocation of tax, thereby funding sectors that actually need the money and which are important such as health care, people would be able to receive free health care. If you are wealthy enough to afford private institutes, then that's good for you. However, many of us will need to use the hospital some day e.g. on our deathbed, accidents, births etc. so this is NOT theft because everyone gets sick, therefore you'd be able to go to the clinic because you have a cold and not have to pay money which you could have used for other things. THIS IS NOT THEFT.
Health care should be free (everywhere)

Stealing my earnings, which is tantamount to enslaving me, is not a burden of me? You are not only a thief, but a reprobate thief. And, of course, being a thief, you want to disarm people. And no, thievery is quite a common idea, but grossly immoral nevertheless. Can you please explain me your moral justification for your desire to steal from your neighbors?
Health care should be free (everywhere)

How is that a burden on tax payers? The allocation of tax should be properly accounted for to help the working class/students. Moreover, instead of spending a lot of money on the armed forces for example (America), there should be government operated hospitals/clinics that cater for medical emergencies/check-ups or so what have you, for free. This idea is not bizarre, tons of countries in Europe and other continents (where there really is the bloody "American dream") have free health care. Don't look at Greece or Italy (cause they're bankrupt), but look at the UK, Germany, Sweden, Iceland. Norway, Spain, France, Malta etc. where the health care is free. On the other hand, citizens that have free health care are usually more content with their lives and in turn they have more money to sustain themselves instead of having to pay for medical insurance. Thus is it possible to have free health care without increasing taxes, because by using the funds properly, the government would be able to take a more direct helpful role on people's lives instead of institutionalizing everything.
Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justifed.

All except for the last paragraph is a direct quote from this source [3]. None of this evidence supports the position that affirmative action promotes equal opportunity, only that it increases educational end employment opportunities for minority groups, which is true but it does this through reverse discrimination. It does not end discrimination. Since my opponent refuted none of my arguments and provided none that support the resolution I conclude the debate and urge a Con vote. [3] http://clinton2.nara.gov...
Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justifed.

~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///I agree with your difinitions and if you look at mine and you're difinition for affirmative action you'll see they're the same. Discrimination covers race, gender, and other aspects of injustice. My difinition is not limited to race. /// My definition of affirmative action is not limited to race either, yours was just more specific as to those advantaged by it. A minority group can refer to many things, be they ideological groups or racial groups. They are also different in that it does not reference the phrase 'equal opportunity. ' I have shown that phrase to be in direct contradiction to affirmative action. ~ ///You fail to notice that this is a public forum topic. Those quotes are evidence which is sited properly. That's the techinique used in a public forum debate whioch we seem to be doing now. /// Alright, I will accept these quotes as arguments by my opponent, but they are still just quotes made by individuals, they do not cite any evidence to substantiate their claims. Until such evidence is provided that Affirmative action promotes equal opportunity that arguments holds no weight. ~ ///Contention 2 Revisited/// I stand by the position that increasing the opportunities of minorities has no bearing on the resolution of this debate. If a higher power dictated that an organization needed to have so many of each minority represented no matter what their circumstances this does not promote equal opportunity. This practice would allow for the least qualified member of one group to be more qualified than the most qualified than another but those of lesser qualifications get to reap the benefits of the organization just as well. ~ ///The problem with going con is that all debaters fail to mention another means to put an end to discriminaion; that's where they fail. /// It is not Con's job to provide a solution to discrimination, in this particular debate it is my responsibility to show that affirmative action does not promote equal opportunity by refuting your attempts to affirm that it does and providing counterargument(s). ~ Since my argument went unrefuted I will add to it that the resolution of this debate does not reference ending discrimination, it references promoting equal opportunity which affirmative action does not do.
Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justifed.

I agree with your difinitions and if you look at mine and you're difinition for affirmative action you'll see they're the same. Discrimination covers race, gender, and other aspects of injustice. My difinition is not limited to race. You fail to notice that this is a public forum topic. Those quotes are evidence which is sited properly. That's the techinique used in a public forum debate whioch we seem to be doing now. The problem with going con is that all debaters fail to mention another means to put an end to discriminaion; that's where they fail. Affirmative action has been used in the passed a countless number of times and congress has passed approximately 47 bills that have improved the lives of many people who'd have been or have been discriminated against because of the orgin, race, gender, and etc. So if you don't agree with affirmative action than please tell me another means to handle discrimination. One that has been as affected as affirmative action. I'll leave you with that to ponder on and you can get back to me but in the mean time i have an actual debate for this topic today; one that'll hopefully be more challenging and an opponent that will know more about this topic.