BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christian morality (Pro) vs. Atheistic or Secular morality (Con)

The reason why Christian morality is superior to secular morality is because of the unchanging nature of Christian morality. Christian morality is derived from the Christian God and according to the Bible is unchanging in Malachi 3:6, “I the Lord do not change. So you descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed”. So Christians have an ultimate standard to appeal to when measuring morality. Like how we measure quantities using the metric system it is important that the standard does not change or become relative with the object which is the standard for which things are measured. This is why the standards for the metric system are made of pure platinum concealed in an air-tight container filled with argon gas, so that have an ultimate standard to compare our measuring tools to. In a Christian setting, there is no dispute on whether or not murder is wrong, or whether lying, stealing, or committing adultery is wrong as it is explicitly clear in the word of God that such actions are wrong. However, the only basis for these actions being wrong is that the personal opinion of the majority and society. What I find ironic with Con’s statement that he is against any objective morality and advocates for “do as you wish as long as it doesn't infringe on another's ability to do the same” morality but imposes it as a policy that should be absolute. Another reason why Christian morality is superior is that we are accountable for our actions when God judges us. If Atheism is true or if deism is true where there is no God that plays an active role by judging what is right or what is wrong, then why should one obey the laws set by society if after they die they face the same fate as a person who spent all his/her life obeying laws, donating to charity, etc. , and as that of a serial killer or Stalin unconscious and unaware of anything that happened when they lived. I’m not claiming that atheists themselves have no sense of morality; it is that they have no objective purpose for being moral. The consequences of such can be seen in history. Over the last hundred years, millions upon millions died at the hands of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and other atheists easily outweigh anything Christians have done since Christianity was a thing. These men were acting consistent with their atheistic beliefs that there is no God that will hold them accountable to their actions and that there is no ultimate authority on morality. Conclusion: Christian morality is superior to secular moralitySource: The Holy Bible (NIV)
Christian morality (Pro) vs. Atheistic or Secular morality (Con)

Please note that I am a deist. I reject the existence of a God that intervenes in our universe. This comes with rejection of all religions. So i will be arguing for secular morality. Morality - conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. I advocate for the "Do as you wish as long as it doesn't infringe on another's ability to do the same" morality. Although I personally reject any kind or form of objective morality this is my subjective moral code. I would like to know what you, as a Christian, think what is moral and what is not.
Water boarding for interrogation is Constitutional

Fist offal, you say, "Water boarding is obviously severe handling or treatment," in response to my definition of punishment. How is it severe? I would say that during a time of war, where there are videos of soldiers getting their heads cut off and we use these measures to keep me you and the rest of the United States free and safe, this is the farthest thing away from severe. "In Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'. " The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture. "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion. " "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society. " "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary. "' I will argue each definition one by one 1) We are not degrading human to human dignity. My interpretation is that it means we are degrading a whole race or man kind, it's only 1 person and we're not degrading him. 2) IF I read this right, that is the whole point. We must make them lose their senses, not to kill, but to be able to get the information necessary out of them. If we killed them, it would be pointless. 3) This is not rejected throughout society. In a November 6th poll, 40% of Americans say that they support water boarding and 30% say it isn't a form of torture (I'm not a fan of polls because it's only on 1,024 people of over 300 million, so it could definitely change) so, if 40% support it, it is not rejected through out society. 4) Water boarding is necessary. The only reason we perform it on prisoners is because it works and has stopped numerous attacks. We are saving American lives when we do it. "Torturing anyone, is in fact against the Geneva Convention. " I set up this debate to argue about if it's constitutional, not whether it is or is not against the Geneva Convention. And the same thing goes for the next thing you quoted; it has nothing to do with the Constitution. Also, we can't speak about the prisoner is losing his rights under blank amendment when he is water boarded; he has no Bill of Rights, because he isn't a US citizen. So, as long as it is done on foreign prisoners, there is no question about is it is or is not Constitutional.
Water boarding for interrogation is Constitutional

Hello First off let me say that this debate will only be about if water boarding for interrogation is Constitutional, not weather its right. Water boarding for interrogation is Constitutional, because there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about interrogation. Its says- "Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."(http://www.whitehouse.gov...) THis is the only part that says something remotely close to water boarding or interrogation. First, water boarding isn't cruel or unusual. We aren't going to let the prisoners die, because we want the information that they know. Water boarding will not let them die. Second, it isn't a punishment. Punishment is 1. the act of punishing. 2. the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault. 3. a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc. 4. severe handling or treatment. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) We are not punishing the solders. The punishment will come later, if they go to court or revive orders from being apart of a terrorist group.
Illegals Should Build the Border Fence

The Constitution does not stictly apply to illegal immigrants for the US Constitution is mean for citizens of the United States. The 8th Amendment can be applied to illegals if you so wish but it does not have to be applied. Thus your argument is moot. However manual labor was indeed outlawed in the US but not on the basis of "cruel and unusual" punishment. Manual labor certaintly isn't unusual unless you think Home Depot and regular contractors are unusual and it certaintly isn't cruel. Once again unless you think that plank setting and post digging is cruel work. Yes, the United States welcomes legal immigrants. We have never welcomed illegal immigrants. Why should we welcome the lazy, the impatient and those who believe themselves to be above the immigration proccess? We don't. Let me clarify. Our immigration policy is not confused, our policy on how to deal with illegal immigrants is confused. We have no set definitive way to deal with illegal immigrants besides the occational roundup of illegals. This policy would eliminate that confusion. Like I said in my previous argument this would give us a set and solid way to deal with illegal immigrants. No more confusion. Our legal immigration policy is perfectly fine. Your next argument is an attempt to justify and defend illegal immigration. Since this debate is not about the pros and cons of illegal immigration I am not going to respond to that at this time. This debate is about whether or not they should be building our fence. Also they would build the fence to building codes because we will hold them and continue to make them do it until the fence is to code. The faster and better they preform the quicker they get home . This will boost morale and give the workers incentive to build the fence correctly. Work fast and work right and you're free to go, if not you're stuck until you do it right. Next you say we will be losing jobs to immigrants: false. We are not currently building a border fence because people don't want to hire contracters to do it. However now we can build our fence AND save people the pain of dealing with contracters, just like I said before. Now to your claim about the price of housing and feeding these people etc:These people should be in jail anyways. Illegal immigrants have broken our laws and belong in jail as they wait to be deported so we have to house and feed them anyways in jails across America so why not put them to work at the same time? Notes:This plan was targeted at illegal Mexican immigrants since that is where the heart of the problem lies. Obviously there would be no deportations of Canadians to Mexico, that is absurd. My opponent dropped many points I made, including those about fence building being a deterrent and a way to get more boots on the ground on the border.
Illegals Should Build the Border Fence

Thank you for taking this debate and would like to say that you are turning out to be a most interesting and productive member of this site. DeterrentI think good hard manual labor along the US-Mexico border would be a decent deterrent for illegal immigration. Right now laws concerning illegal immigration are confused and inconsistent but with this new policy there would be no more confusion. If you are caught here illegally (esp. from Mexico) you will be shipped to the border where they will work for a predetermined amount of time before being deported back to their home country. This strong and consistent policy would be a strong deterrent against illegal immigration.The FenceClose to two-thirds of all Americans favor the construction of some sort of border fence, [1] so why not build it? Well cost is a major concern for many tax payers who want the fence but aren't willing to pony up and actually pay for it. Well with this new immigration policy you would be provided with free labor. Labor in any project naturally is a large cost, lets say half. Using the estimate provided to us by Gov. Perry, $30 billion dollars, [2] this would be cut in half by using free labor making the cost a much more managable $15 billion. Keeping Watch With labor groups on the border working around the clock with police and border patrol agents watching the border would also end up being watched as well. Now if illegals are approaching the US border they will see police keeping watch over their comrades who failed adding another level of deterrence. In closing:Many Americans support a border fence but make excuses about how to build it, lets knock out two birds with one stone. This plan puts up a get tough on immigration policy that will act as a deterrent to illegal immigration while putting up a border fence thereby securing the border on both sides.[1] http://www.wnd.com...[2] http://www.nytimes.com...
People with AIDS should be shot into the space.

First of all, I'd like to point out that the cost of my plan that he is giving you is not taking into account all the budget cuts I gave you in Round 2. I'd also like to clarify that since I'll have no opportunity to refute his Round 3 arugment, he should focus solely on showing why my arguments against his plan don't matter. HE CANNOT MAKE CHANGES TO HIS INITIAL PLAN. First off, he's telling you that we're saving the money of getting people to launch sites. But we're still transporting people to the burn sites! We're using just as much resources in travel in both plans, so you can drop this point. Furthermore, it's going to take a lot more than one gallon of gasoline to maintain this fire. It is unfeasible that we can keep this fire going with just more AIDS victims. It will inevitably take more fuel, whether it be gasoline or wood, both of which are resources that we shouldn't be wasting. Moreover, his plan of simply burning people in fields does not take into account wheather. If it is raining or snowing or windy, this plan obviously won't work. We would have to build facilities for this plan, which would bring the economic costs up much higher. Furthermore, this is not a fool-proof plan. This creates a lot of burned debris that isn't good for anything, so ultimately it's just taking up space in this overpopulated world. My plan outsources all waste products to space. Also, his plan does not take into account people escaping from the fire. If someone manages to escape from this field, then they'll have a vendetta against society, and spend all of their time spreading AIDS to everyone else. This will of course mean that the majority of society will wind up with AIDS, meaning we'll have to constantly burn more an dmore people, leading to more waste, more economic problems, and severe underpopulation. My plan does not risk people escaping, as you can't escape from a spaceship. (NOTE: Possible escapes during the in-between period when people are being transported to the launch/burn sites have equal probability in both plans. Since my plan has the advantage at the actual site, PRO clearly wins this point.) Moreover, even if you want to argue that CON won the economic point (which he didn't), it's still worth the cost. Why? Fun. It's a lot more fun to launch people into space than to light a match. Furthermore,t he people strapped to the outside of the rocket will obviously burn up in the atmosphere, giving us the fun of both plans. All we need to do is to design a camera to attach to the outside of the roket that will transmit the signal back to earth in order to view people burning. So, since the PRO plan is way more fun than the CON plan, you can disregard any minor economic differences. The PRO has clearly won this debate. (And to anwer the comment about bullets: this would create a huge excess of disease-ridden corpses that we don't want to deal with. Besides, shooting someone when they're helpless isn't that fun. Launching them into space when they're strapped to the outside of a rocket sure as Hell is.)
Lotteries are helpful to the nation

Lotteries are very helpful to the nation. There are two types of lotteries; lotteries held by companies such as lotto 49 and lotteries held by organizations or people. Lotteries are very beneficial. I will talk about lottery companies first. Firstly, they employ citizens and create jobs like administrators and other service jobs. The money those employees earn is another's business' revenue. Therefore, lottery companies create many jobs whose disposable income keep the economy going. Secondly, they pay taxes and add to the national income. Lottery companies pay taxes like any other company and the taxes are used to provide free schools and welfare services as well as being used to build the country's infrastructure. Moreover, it provides an unprobable chance but still at a chance for the poor to escape the poverty trap and to become rich. Lotteries held by charitable organization or individuals in order to solve an issue are also beneficial. Firstly, charitable lotteries donate money to charity [1]. This is clearly not a waste to the country since the money is going to charities who have a good cause. Lotteries could also be used to lift people out of problems like medical bills or natural disasters [2]. Sources 1-https://www.charityintelligence.ca... 1-http://winbig.ca... 2-https://www.mv-voice.com...
Women should be allowed to play on men's sports teams.

When women and men play together, men find themselves at a distinct disadvantage. Men have been raised to treat women with respect and kindness. This notion definitely shows up on the playing field. For example, you can never hit a girl as hard as you would hit a man. Since men are so competitive, they may feel like they are letting their team down by not giving 100 percent against a woman, like they would when going against a man. Although women have a competitive side, men are more aggressive. Traditionally, women are thought of as more fragile and less aggressive than man. With this in mind, it is clear the reasons why it is so difficult for women to participate in male dominated sports. Also, since the women is in the male dominated sport, the chances that their other females out there helping "the cause" are very small which makes it even harder for her to be taken serious. Regardless of the sport for women participating in traditionally male dominated sports is that the female body is not made to correctly function while participating. For exampleï¿½€"women have BOOBS. Which distinctly get in the way of their range of motion? If a man ran into you, or touched your boobs while playing sports, would you feel violated? Because what you're telling is that you think this would be OKAY. Hmmï¿½€ï¿½ Also, the idea that the women will lose their femininity if they play with men is another reason to keep them off the field and out of the ring. For women to be taken seriously in a male dominated sport they have to not only be the best female in the ring, gym, or wherever, they also have to be the best overall athlete. Men will not treat women with respect; they want to be equal in their status on the team but because of our sexual natures, women might take something differently or in a sexual harassment way that may even lead to charges.
There is no such thing as Alcoholism!

I Accept. I look forward to Pro proving that alcoholism doesn't exist. I will assume round one is for acceptance. Since Pro has not set up any definitions I will present the oxford dictionary definitions of words that may come up in this debate. Alcoholism: An addiction to the consumption of alcoholic liquor or the mental illness and compulsive behavior resulting from alcohol dependency. Dependence: The state of relying on or being controlled by someone or something else Addicted: Physically and mentally dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects.
There is no such thing as Alcoholism!

Pro drops all of my arguments and simply re-affirms his plagiarism is not plagiarism. Despite the fact that everything he wrote was not quoted, and as I read it, it would most definitely comes of as if he is the one who came up with the idea. The oxford dictionary definition of plagiarism. "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's" To be honest, I'm not to concerned with this though. I know anyone who votes here understands that copy and pasting an entire article as ones argument simply isn't acceptable. Most of this confusion on what alcoholism is could have been prevented had Pro simply given his definitions in R1. I do him a courtesy of posting the official definitions and accepts them (by not responding), but simply goes on about how it's a disease instead. Regardless, Pro' plagiarism ought to result in an automatic concession.
There is no such thing as Alcoholism!

80% of what i put above is from the source, which is sited, you are correct about that it's from a source. However, you are missing the point. What I was including with my argument was evidence not plagiarism. Like Istated before if Alcoholism was a real thing in your dictionary sense, people around the world would be acknowledging someone with a a meth problem as someone with Metholism and they're a methoholic. Source: http://www.baldwinresearch.com...
There is no such thing as Alcoholism!

Pro has plagiarized his entire round from his source. This alone warrants an automatic concession on his part. Pro is also referring to alcoholism as a disease, something that was never specified from the start, I posted the ox ford dictionary definition alcoholism in case something like this had happened. I do believe though that you the reader will see that simply being addicted or dependent on alcohol qualifies as alcoholism. I will none the less post an argument anyway. According to the National Counsel on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (NCADD), "Alcohol is the most commonly used addictive substance in the United States- 17.6 million people, or one in every 12 adults, suffer from alcohol abuse or dependence along with several million more who engage in risky, binge drinking patterns that could lead to alcohol problems. More than half of all adults have a family history of alcoholism or problem drinking, and more than 7 million children live in a household where at least one parent is dependent on or has abused alcohol."[1] This is a staggering number of people who are affected by alcoholism. Pro will need to present some kind of evidence to dispute that the 1 in 12 Americans who suffered from alcoholism, are actually not dependent or addicted. This indeed is a daunting task on his part. Additionally, I will put forth evidence that suggests genetics may also play a roll in developing an addiction or dependence on alcohol to humor Pro's disease arguement. "Twin studies offer a chance to compare the influence of genetics versus environment. Identical twins (one-egg twins) share exactly the same set of genes while fraternal twins (two-egg twins), like ordinary siblings, share only one-half their genes. A higher rate of concordance (similarity) between identical twins compared with fraternal twins would argue for heredity. In other words, how often are both twins affected together rather than only one. The evidence favors heredity with figures like 60% (identical) versus 39% (fraternal) in one Scandinavian study" Robert M. Morse, MD who has written the article I use states that, "Certainly heredity cannot account for all causation in alcoholism but in that manner it is much like diabetes or heart disease that also have an inherited component." Even if he were to refute the statistics I present here, it doesn't stand from him to win due to his plagiarism in round 2. Vote Con. [1]https://ncadd.org... [2]https://ncadd.org...
Prostitution is a profession as any other.

I was a child prostitute. I was raped by a pimp and forced to work with my virginity blood fresh in my panties. SO WRONG. After that night, I escaped. I ended up back on the stroll for a few years as a teenager, but never again was I forced. After 20 years healing, I have studied sacred sexuality, and now am CHOOSING for myself to work in the sex industry as a sexual healer. I teach men to open their hearts when being sexual. I teach women to honour their YONI (cave of wonder) Modern prostitution has lost all respect for the women involved, in earlier times the Sacred whores and Temple Harlots or horaes were known as dispensers of the grace of the Goddess. I get about 10 percent clients I wont see again, because they do not want to respect me. The rest are looking to heal their own sexual traumas, and learn to enter sexual activity with hearts, minds, souls, genitals all open and shame free. The chemical mix when sexual energy is experienced with deep connectivity exercises, is one of the most healing concoctions on earth, mentally , spiritually and physically. I have had full grown men, break down in tears when I work with them. This work fills my heart with joy, I love seeing couples come to me for healing as well, it is only negative hateful attitudes to sex that have so many confused and filled with pain, feeling their very desire for intimacy has caused society at large to label them as pigs, dogs, predators.