BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Individual's have a moral obligation to assist people in need

I will first just given a broad overview of my opponents case. My opponent has demonstrated perfectly the dehumanization our social structure imposes on the poor. The poor are deemed "lazy" and "drug addicts" and it is simply accepted that they have somehow chosen to live in such a state. My opponent seems to disregard the impact of conditions of birth and the cycle of poverty. It is not a coincidence that children of the poor tend to be poor. It is not that this "choice" is inherited in families but, rather, because of the inherent disadvantage being born in poverty places on the individual. Freedom from violence and access to high quality education are powerful variables that make it nearly impossible for the poor to "raise themselves up from their boot straps." My opponent has really only made one argument and that is that the poor and homeless are lazy and do not deserve or actually need assistance. First, my opponents argument that we do not know if they are actually in need is moot because it is not what the resolution is asking us to evaluate. The resolution assumes a person is indeed in need and the question lies in whether we have a moral obligation to help people given that they are in need. We are not trying to determine whether we should help people who might be in need to whether we should help people who are in need. Second, my opponent's entire case is just a series of claims without any warrants to back them up. He just repeats the claim that the homeless are lazy without providing any reason to believe this, and then categorizing all homeless people as drug addicts. In an economy where there are more people than jobs, it doesn't make any sense to say that the homeless can just choose to have a home. My opponent also states that a homeless person can get back on their feet and the reason that they do not is because they are lethargic. So people starve to death, STARVE TO DEATH, because they don't feel like eating? I'll let the judges of this debate decide which is more plausible, that the homeless choose to starve because they are lazy or there are simply not enough jobs available. My opponent has also failed to address my argument about how wealth inequality is dehumanizing. All he says is that people who are homeless are lazy but this fails to address the argument that wealth places a value on individuals and that we should be free to choose professions not out of a drive for profit but out of a longing to find meaning in work and to provide for society as a whole. He also doesn't address the argument that egalitarianism requires this moral obligation to others. As of now, I do not know if my opponent accepts the principle of egalitarianism or simply rejects that having such an obligation to other is necessary to uphold egalitarianism. Thus, this argument stands as well untouched. My opponent has failed to meet his burden of clash by failing to respond to the arguments given. Thus, my opponent has failed to provide the con case enough ground to stand on in later rounds and therefore, Pro already wins the debate.
Individual's have a moral obligation to assist people in need

Referring to defining moral obligation. Defined as "A duty which one owes, and which one ought to perform (Law Dictionary)" There is no "duty" in the world not even morally. That we owe to people. The homeless in America have every opportunity to better themselves. When it comes down to it all they have are excuses as to why they are in such a predicament. Some would argue that they suffer from addictions to drugs and alcohol that keep them from succeeding but again that's just an excuse and if they truly wanted to better themselves they would clean their act up. If someone is truly sincere about bettering themselves and show it to me, I would gladly help them but that isn't the case unfortunately with most people. I feel that the money and such should be given to better things such as children hospitals, cancer charities, ect. Money would be better off some where else, other than in the pockets of a homeless man that "begs for food and water" when re they take those couple of dollars to a drug store (convenient store) and buy a pack of cigs with it. Or take to an alcohol store and buy some jack Daniels with it. In conclusion, being morally obligated to help someone is complete bovine excrement. If you don't know for sure what you are doing to "help" that person "in need" than don't help them. It's simple, if you feel like you're just giving money to the homeless for them to buy drugs why should we be obligated to give them anything? We can put the cash to better and more giving events and charities that actually might help make a difference in the world. If homeless people want to get back on their feet then they are able to do it at anytime. They must be lethargic to not. Everyone has their own philosophy to different things. We shouldn't be put in the position to all have the same thing we need to oblige towards.
Marijuana should be Legalized!

Okay, first of all I would like to say that I do not EVER want to do drugs and put myself in that kind of danger. If Marijuana is legalized, think about all the danger that that would put people in. Even though, the taxes might give our government the money, it's not worth the risk of people dying in order to do so. Also, if marijuana was made legal, think about all of the health problems that would occur. I don't think we need to be paying anymore money for health care. I also understand that you made a point how scientists have yet more to study about marijuana. The government is in fact keeping us safe because WE DON'T really know what's in Marijuana. If they said that we could have it anytime we wanted, think about what that would do to people everywhere. Smoking is already harming people enough. The second-hand smoke? We would all have to deal with that too. So back to my point, we could at least WAIT to find out what is in marijuana and see if it IS safe, and wait for them to keep the law or not. I agree though with your point about your topic on "If Marijuana was legalized we could study the chemicals in Marijuana in more depth and maybe find cures for such "UN-curable" diseases". I think that scientists and doctors with degrees should be able to study marijuana, but I don't think it should be open to everyone. I thank you for listening to my debate.
Marijuana should be Legalized!

I know that this topic is very well discussed throughout the United States, so i thought i would let my opinion be out there. I believe that Marijuana should be legalized because it would help put a fire into our economy. Think about it, really honestly, this economy would have an amazing bounce back if we legalized it, and put a tax on it. Think about how many people smoke Weed. If we taxed weed, and sold it in per-say Weed store, in similarity to a liquor store, more people would go and buy it legally instead of risking going to jail. The construction industry would boom back, because we would need people to make the Weed stores. The housing industry would come back maybe not as strong, but there would be plenty of investors, investing in Marijuana. The crime rate would seemingly go down, because we wouldn't be throwing people who didn't commit a "real" crime into jail, and we could focus more on the people who are actually hurting this world. More jobs would come into effect due to the legalization of marijuana, think of how many brand new stores, and businesses would open if it was legal, jobs would be abundant everywhere in the United States. Another strong point, Marijuana has so many things in it that scientists have yet to study, and it has been proven that there are chemicals in Marijuana that can help prevent certain sickness's. "Data in Dr. Tashkin's study suggest that people who smoke marijuana are less likely to develop lung cancer than people who do not smoke anything at all. Since marijuana smoke contains the same cancer-causing agents as tobacco and the only difference between the nonsmokers and the marijuana smokers was their use of cannabis, then it is not an unreasonable hypothesis that marijuana can prevent the development of cancer."(Swerdlow). If Marijuana was legalized we could study the chemicals in Marijuana in more depth and maybe find cures for such "UN-curable" diseases. Swerdlow, Lanny. "MARIJUANA CAN PREVENT CANCER, NOT CAUSE IT ." (2010): n. pag. Web. 26 Oct 2010. <http://cannazine.co.uk...;.
Marijuana should be Legalized!

I don't know really what you mean when you say that our economy would be better if it was legal, because that could turn into even more problems for our people. Marijuana is a gateway to even stronger drugs and if people use it, they might start buying other drugs that aren't good for their bodies. You also said that marijuana should be provided for scientists to study it, but if doctors gave away the prescriptions, the people taking the medicine could overdose and not know. I heard a story about a girl that took drugs for a medication, only needed to use them certain times, but used them just because they made her feel calm, and abused it. She ended up waking up in the hospital. This is just one of the many stories of people who can abuse drugs, such as marijuana. If it were legal, people could make these decisions everyday not even knowing the effects it has on their bodies. Marijuana is dangerous and harmful. If our government made it legal it would just cause more problems for our country, because of all the health care and taxes we would have to pay for the marijuana abusers and users in the hospital. This is not fair, and it's not as big of a deal as it would be if we made it legal. I thank you for listening to my side of the story, and giving me the chance to have a good debate! Thanks!
Marijuana should be Legalized!

I as well believe that marijuana is pointless, and it does do some pretty dumb things to you, but i still believe if it was legal it would help our economy and everything would be better, we could focus on bigger problems, and alot of forward movement would go on from there. Another thing is, just like beer, and smoking tobacco its the persons choice, alot of people do it because they enjoy the high, i personally don't, but everyone has their opinion, also, there is more pollution in the air caused by smog and cars, and all sorts of other things that make smoke from marijuana and tobacco seem nearly there. So overall marijuana may be dangerous, just like alcohol and tobacco is. but it should still be legal for people to make their own decisions and for us to reap the benefits of a fruitful booming economy. Thank you for listening, you made some very good points!
Marijuana should be Legalized!

Actually, they have not yet proved if marijuana reduces lung cancer or not yet. They tested it, but then found out that the testers might have been too young to develop lung cancer. Also, just because there have been made laws to have smokers stay away from buildings, does not mean that the smoke is still in the air. Anyone can breathe it in and harm their body with the smoke. Now there might be some good things about marijuana that we don't yet know about, but what about the bad things? Your blood pressure dropping? Heavy coughing? Stinging and burning of the mouth and throat? Death? I don't think people want to go through this, just to have a quick high. It doesn't make sense. As I said before, the government is protecting us, and protecting future generations. Now, you can go against it, but there will be consequences. I'm pretty sure some scientists are able to test marijuana because how would they be able to test the lung cancer situation? I do not think marijuana should be legal, because it harms our bodies, for NO apparent reasons. We don't need to be ruining the bodies, that God Himself created for us.
Marijuana should be Legalized!

Well, I agree that there are some dangers in smoking and using marijuana, mainly because there is always a risk that they could get caught with it, and has alot to deal with gang related material. but If Marijuana was legal, most of those dangers would disappear because that fear would no longer be there. Also, did you not read what I posted about how smoking marijuana reduces the chances of getting lung cancer, even more then a normal non-smoking person has. It has been proved that smoking marijuana has its advantages. Yes second hand smoke is dangerous to another persons health, but its not the smokers responsibility to make sure they are away from the smoke, that is why there are laws and such to help prevent second hand smoking, like staying away from certain buildings, and restrictions when it comes to smoking in certain area's its the person who decides to walk or be around the smokes fault they are getting the second hand smoke. I strongly believe that this world would be better if marijuana was legal because it would take so much controversy out of the way for us to focus on other things. If it was legal, mores scientists could be open to studying it.
Does good and evil exist?/Examining scenarios to prove statement

I forgot to define morality and morals so i will do it in this round instead.Morality:a doctrine or system of morals.[1]Morals:of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of rightconduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical[2]RebuttalsI did not argue that person A did not have a reason for killing person B."If I was talking to someone about something trivial and then suddenly took a gun and shot the person in the head because I felt like it (and for no other reason; the conversation had nothing to do with it)"You did say the only reason he had is that he felt like it.However, in deciding whether an action is good or evil, one can definitely take into account the context of the action being done.One could say that A's action was not evil because he had a good reason and to not do so would be immoral,as you point later in your argument.To an outsider, human sacrifice might be immoral because of the killing of individuals, but it is also possible the outsider might agree that the idea of keeping the world alive for future generations is morally sound.To have an objective morality absolutely every person would have to agree that it is either moral or immoral,what i don't see possible. To a non-believer in their gods it would sound like complete nonsense and immoral but to them or to an outsider agreeing with them it sounds completely moral and justifiable.My opponent argues that most people will not kill unless there is a good reason. I would think that this statement in itself is something that would be agreed upon universally...According to the definition good means morally righteous,and i think most people would agree that we can see on TV that do people kill for trivial matters,like 10 dollars or a discussion,without a morally righteous reason....even those who might be incapacitated would have their reasons to kill, even if they don"t believe killing is wrong. That's a big claim. The majority of people would not say a person is guilty for their killing,because they wouldn't know what the were doing and because they can't discern good and bad. If they don't know that killing is wrong because it is stopping another person's life they wouldn't need to have any reason to kill. Kids usually only get the idea of separated minds with 4 years of age,so i don't think,depending of the problem,the person killing would have that concept too.[3] I bring this up because my opponent is denying the existence of objective morality by bringing up the case of relativism, but my opponent has not convinced me that relativism can completely negate objective morality.I don't believe in relativism,i do think that certain things are absolute but not regarding morality. There aren't principles that would have been obeyed by absolutely every person.Or, in contrast, is A"s decision to kill B the moral decision because to not do kill B would be immoral?Outsiders would consider it immoral,but for A it would be moral. It wouldn't be moral or immoral for everyone.[1]:http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]:http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
Does good and evil exist?/Examining scenarios to prove statement

Welcome to DDO. Good luck. You have the BoP because you did claimed that good and evil do exist. Pro didn't define evil and good so i will do it for him.Evil:morally wrong or bad [1]Good:moral righteousness [2]ScenarioYour scenario is somewhat flawed. This scenario isn't real,because i don't think a person would kill someone without a single reason,just because they feel like it. Another thing is that in your scenario the person that shoots(let's call this person A and the other one B to make it simpler) doesn't seem to consider murder morally wrong. If A did,he wouldn't do it without any reason.Even if A was mentally handicapped,the only way i think someone would do something like that without any reason,someone could say his act wasn't evil,that wasn't fault,because he didn't know what he was doing or that it wasn't his intention.Objective MoralityIf evil and good existed and everyone acknowledged that there would be objective morality,because by definition,good and evil have to be moral and immoral,respectively. I don't think objective morality exists,if it did people wouldn't disagree about the morality of something. In the times of the Cold War,USSR was considered evil in the US,but US was considered evil in USSR.Murder,as your scenario depicts is unlawful by definition[3] so not committing murder would be just following the law,to say murder is objectively evil every society would have to agree that murder is wrong,what doesn't happens,some cultures accept human sacrifice or execution. Samurais could kill people without being considered evil in the Tokugawa period when his honor was affected,and if he could prove his act was right,his murder would be considered morally right[4] and human sacrifices are common in many cultures[5].To prove your point you would have to show me that at least one type of murder or thing you consider evil is considered by every single person to be immoral. [1]: http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_law) [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Does good and evil exist?/Examining scenarios to prove statement

This is my first debate, and I decided to start with the topic of whether good and evil exist, using a certain scenario as a jumping point. I am arguing that good and evil do exist. The scenario that I would like to present is the following: If I was talking to someone about something trivial and then suddenly took a gun and shot the person in the head because I felt like it (and for no other reason; the conversation had nothing to do with it), this would be considered evil because I would be taking the life of someone. How would you argue that this action would not be considered evil? My opponent would be arguing that there is no such thing as good and evil using the scenario as the beginning of his/her argument. The debate can expand from there. The rounds will be as follows: 1. ) Acceptance/proving that shooting person in head is not evil because good and evil do not exist 2. ) Rebuttal on both sides 3. ) Rebuttal on both sides #2 4. ) Final thoughts Sources may be used, although this debate is mainly centered around this particular scenario. Other scenarios can be brought up later in the debate.
Nuclear power Vs Natural Gas

CHERYNOBL . I Cherynobl was really no ones fault. It is just an example of lack of knowledge and why humans should not be allowed to have that kind of power. ECO-FRIENDLY . I Natural gas might be bad for the enviorment but nuclear energy plants have multiple examples of causing medical problems and harming the people. "With an eye to the first anniversary of the tsunami that killed 20,000 people and caused a partial meltdown at the Fukushima power plant in Japan, a recently formed nongovernmental organization called Rebuild Japan released a report earlier this week on the nuclear incident to alarming media coverage. "- Slate. com's Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger Source: . http://tinyurl.com... This shows how even in Japan, a very advanced first world country was nearly wiped off the face of the earth because of nuclear power plants. Japan now plans to rid of them in 40 years. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... CONCLUSION Why my opponent makes some good points, he simply does not have a good argument against the massive risks.
Nuclear power Vs Natural Gas

NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS . I Chernobyl is a prime example of a nuclear accident that has ruined the land and it will stay dead for a very very long time. Natural Gas cannot do that to a place, it is much safer. . II Nuclear power is cleaner, but is somewhat easy to get and can be used for atomic weapons. Massive downside and having Nuclear power means more and more of the material for nuclear energy is on the market. Making it easier for terrorists to get their hands on it. . III Millions and millions of GOVERNMENT dollars, unlike natural gas which is mostly corporate. Meaning that nuclear power in a country with a free market is simply illogical. CONCLUSION I have shown that nuclear power has many downsides. Sources: . http://www.world-nuclear.org... . http://www.nci.org... . http://www.greenworldinvestor.com...
People should have a religion

If we actually take a look of the definition of religion, It's 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, Especially a personal God or gods'. That's the definition that numerous people would agree too. I believe you would also agree that definition to be to one that's use on a day-to-day basis. The part where we differ is when we define religion as 'a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion'. I'm well aware that's part of the definition, But no one uses that definition when they talk about religion. "If you believe that running every morning before work will make you a healthier person and so you do it religiously every day. Therefore you have adopted running as your religion. " In this sense, You used 'religiously' as a adjective rather than to identify yourself with a religious organisation. If we use that same logic, I could say that i religiously take illegal drugs. Therefore it's my religion. Also, Where does it end? If i have a great devotion towards anything, Like eating food, Exercise, Playing on my phone, Does it make it a religion? I don't think so. "I'm saying that people should devote themselves to something meaningful that gives their life a meaning. " I totally 100% agree with that statement. However, Devoting something that will improve you as a person does not warrant a religion, As i previously talked about. Other words to describe devoting to something can be a 'routine', Like "I have a routine to read books every night", Or 'lifestyle', Like "exercising 5 times a week is going to be a part of my lifestyle. " No one says "Since i run everyday religiously, It must be my religion". "Why shouldn't someone believe in something greater than themselves if it makes them better people in society? " Again, I totally agree with this statement, But again, Striving to be a better person with great devotion is not a religion. If we look back to the main definition of religion, It's 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, Especially a personal God or gods'. Being a better person is not a superhuman controlling power, It's a total human thing to do. Thus, Actively improving on oneself is not called a religion, But rather it's called a routine or lifestyle.