BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality: Is it Objective or Relative

I am glad to be sharing this debate with my opponent. I hope to have a Jolly good discussion. I will now argue below why Morality is objective. *Just a reminder to the voters and my opponent, that this debate is NOT about the Grounds for objective moral values and duties, but whether morality is objective or in fact relative*.Objective Morality- Morals that are true independent of the belief of human beings.David Hume's Five-Point Approach to Ethics:( I will only list 4 because the last one is irrelevant to the debate topic since it deals with the grounds for objective moral values and duties).There are five methods by which Humes uses to verify that there are in fact objective moral values and duties.1. Naturalistic, Empirical, and Experimental- Hume's approaches morality through the mind through empirical methodology. Humes also intends to use the same experimental method in analyzing human morality that he uses in analyzing human understanding. Hume treats ethics, together with psychology, history, aesthetics, and politics, as the subject of his “moral science".2. Moral Judgements- According to Hume, moral judgments are essentially the deliverances of sentiment (ECPM 85). We recognize moral good and evil by means of certain feelings: the calm pleasure of moral approval or the discomfiting displeasure of moral disapproval, either of which may be felt in contemplating a character trait in oneself or another from an unbiased perspective (“the general point of view”).3, Virtue- Hume's ethics are full of an extensive and assorted set of virtues.Character traits are the foremost object of moral assessment. Acts are judged derivatively, in relation to the traits assumed to cause them.4. Role to Reason- Hume uses the principal role, which says that to reason in ethics, is one of helping agents to see which actions and qualities are genuinely beneficial or efficacious.First Conclusion: In moral experience we encounter objective moral values and duties, and so, in the absence of some sort of defeater of that belief, we are perfectly rational to hold to it. Moral realism is the default position, and the my opponent needs to provide some powerful defeater to overcome it.Source: [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.shenvi.org...
Age to get first driver's license should be raised to 18

I think raising the legal driving age to 18 when you start out would greatly benefit all parties involved. "If the driving age were pushed to 18, teens would have more time to learn about driving safely." (1) Teens reflexes are not fully developed yet and this can greatly affect their driving skills. More often than not they will also have a cellphone in their hand as well. Texting and driving is a huge problem among teenage drivers when they first get their license. The teenage brain is also influenced by peer pressure and distractions that are going on around them. Car accidents are the leading cause of death among teenagers. A 16 year old is twice as likely to die in a auto accident than a 30 year old. If we can get the most vulnerable drivers off the road a few more years we will not only save the lives of people, but will make the roads a little bit safer as well. Teens also often drive with other people in the car; this can be dangerous as well. They will not be focused on the road they will be focused on what is going on in the car. Then there are more lives that are harmed in the event that an accident happens. "In 2003, there were 937 drivers age 16 who were involved in fatal crashes. In those wrecks, 411 of the 16-year-old drivers died and 352 of their passengers were killed. Sixteen-year-old drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a rate nearly five times the rate of drivers 20 or older." (2) These numbers may have been from 2003, but they still show that 16 year olds are not mature enough to start driving, especially if they are going to have other people in the car with them. They have other lives in their hands and they are not taking that seriously. (1)http://articles.mcall.com... (2)http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Age to get first driver's license should be raised to 18

This is exactly the reason the driving age should be raised. Adults are capable of making their own decisions, and need to be responsible if something were to happen. Kids can blame it on the parents as society often does as well. They will never learn anything that way. By waiting a few more years until they become adults to get their license they will have the maturity that is needed to do so safely. If people don't have stable jobs to pay car payments and insurance they will most likely not get one until they do. If cars are given to kids when they first learn how to drive and then their parents suddenly make them start paying for them they will not be able to anyway so.
Age to get first driver's license should be raised to 18

If the age is 18, people will be adults when they get their driver's licence. Any mistakes they make are their responsibility. They have no safeguard for their lack of experience. Also, many do not have jobs capable of paying for he insurance and gas they will have to pay for by themselves. Their parents cannot directly train them, if the kid does not want them to. Also, you are a legal citizen at 18, so they can't have any blocks on what they can do.
The Quaran is not God's Word

You see, we already debated what the Bible says. This debate isn't about the Bible or Christianity. It's about the Quran, and ONLY the Quran. Even if you could prove that the Bible wasn't God's word, that doesn't make the Quran God's word by default. You need positive evidence for the Quran, and you need to give good answers to the criticisms of the Quran. As for your diatribe about logic, the truth is this; what seems logical to one person is nonsense to another person and vice versa. It's really up to the voters to decide what they see as logical to them and what they don't. I, for example, see it as logical that since God is all-powerful, he can do anything He wants, such as be in two places at the same time. Thus He can be Father in heaven and Son on earth at the same time. After all, scientists have observed that even a particle can do this - be in more than one place at once. To you this seems illogical. So I will have just one rule. Let's not ignore the points raised by each other like how you ignored all my arguments just to lay out your desired rules. You might not like my answers, and I might not like yours, but at least lets agree to answer each others points, and let the voters and readers decide what they think of the answers. You may answer according to how you feel, but I will always bring documented facts like I did in the opening round. I agree to use logic, that is, what I see as logical. You do the same. But I have no burden of proving Christianity or the Bible in this debate. It seems that your book is so weak, that you can't prove it without comparing it to mine. If you choose to make this debate about the Bible you won't have proven anything about the Quran except your inability to defend its lies. In any case, whatever argument you bring I will easily show the refutation. I have a feeling you're gonna find some excuse to run from this debate, but if you do, at least the evidence has already been posted for all and sundry to see. Strangely, you usually can't resist debating in the comments section, so why not do the official thing here?
The Quaran is not God's Word

first of all, we should set some rules for this debate. 1- since you started this debate, it means that you don't believe Quran to be word of God. so, if I were to prove to you otherwise, would you quit Christianity and Accept Islam? if that's the case, i would gladly prove you're wrong. 2- since I don't really want to waste my time and yours, if something is presented logically, i expect you to accept it. 3- no cursing each others religion or calling names. if you agree, let's start, and know this, you will LOSE. because if you accept Christianity in which God wrestles Jacob and accept the historians of 2000 years ago, i can prove with 100 times more accuracy that Quran is the true and unchanged word of God. and our last debate hasn't ended yet. i just was posting other things and didn't really have time to answer.
Reality is no more important than Fantasy.

"You state that without Fantasy we would still have the instinctual desire to survive. Tell me, what makes this desire to survive? What makes us have this instinct?" You stated that our abilty to fantasize gave us purpose, that this purpose set us apart from the animals. I countered by saying that animals do have purpose even though they lack this ability to fantasize...lol So then you say, "what made the animal instincts?" Well it is not the ability to fantasize, as we have just agreed that this jis is the very thing that sets us apart? Are you now saying that animals reason(fantasy) too. I do not have to account for the motivation behind nature. The argument states that fantasy is just as important as reality, because without it reality would be barren of purpose, but the reality that we witness every day, is that animals and other forns of nature demonstrate the motive to survive without the ability to fantasize. So it is not the case that the lack of fantasy turns all life into action-less objects. This is where we are now. Lol As far as the Decartes quote, I will say that all statements or claims have presuppositions. You cannot have an 'I' without self awareness, be it mental or physical, and you cannot have an awareness of self without an awareness of 'other' i.e., what you are not. So what the consciousness that arises from our awareness of self is not even the simultaneous awareness of reality, we build the 'I' through learning what we cannot control. This is the development of the personality. The fantasy (reason) arises out if our need to rationalize these two contraries (what i am/want vs. what reality permits). I learn that I must act or engage this realty through experience. Actions produce reactions desired and undesired. I adapt/change to survive. Thats all... I understand and actually believe that there is there is more to discover about the capabilities of the mind (our non-physical self) but you cannot rationally make the leap beyond what you know to be true. The examples you give may be true, but can you really take possible exceptions to the rule and apply them to life as a whole, when it is evident that we are still subject to the laws of reality. Also, these individuals even with their increased influence, are still engaging reality, they are not (or haven't as of yet), wholly dismissed reality,as you propose...lol
Reality is no more important than Fantasy.

This is a very interesting resolution! Many times I have pondered the point or purpose of imagination/fantasy and the role that it plays in our reality, or perception of it, so this has the making of a very good debate...I thank you for the oppurtunity I do have a wee inquiry about the definitions: If fantasy is defined as "anything imagined and often impossible" does it not include those things that are mentally concieved/appehended, but nonetheless possible? E.g., the mental apprehension of a car versus an actual car. I think the question arises to establish a clear line between the two, i.e., that even if the fantasy is realistic/possible/could happen, it is nonetheless apparent that it is not happening, and so must be assigned a fantasy. Reality is defined as those things that are physically existing...so this includes those things are physically evidenced rather than existing? Eg., words don't exist physically but they can be heard, read or spoken and their meaning evokes changes in reality... Or Well...maybe I should allow you to contextualize their meaning in your opening....lol Let me know what you think... Thanks for letting me play... Jaguilar
Reality is no more important than Fantasy.

This should be fairly self explanatory. I will be debating that Reality and Fantasy are no more important than the other. Rules:First Round: Our Stances and Acceptance.Second Round: Arguements.Third Round: Refutations.Fourth Round: Conclusions. Defintions:Reality: That which is physically existing.Fantasy: That which is imagined and often impossible. I argue that our imagination, our desires and fantasies are no less important than what is phyisically real.
Hillary Clinton Will Make A Bad President

You have a good point. School grades are NOT related to wealth, and your analogies were completely irrelevant. All I am saying is that currently it is very easy for the rich to get richer and very easyfor the poor to get poorer, and all Hillary would do is even out this imbalance. I am not a communist or a socialist. For your information, America is ALREADY A SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY. WE HAVE PUBLIC SCHOOL WELFARE AND MEDICARE. HILLARY IS NOT MAKING US ANYMORE SOCIALIST THEN WE ALREADY ARE. She is not doing ANYTHING to strip of us liberties and freedoms. SHE OPPOSED THE PATRIOT ACT, whereas President Bush, who you seem to support, MADE THE PATRIOT ACT. The patriot act did far more to hurt our liberties than any imagined socialist programs of Hillary's. I will repeat myself again, all Hillary is doing is evening things out. She is not forcibly taking money from anyone. All she is doing is taking away laws that made it much easier for the rich to get richer, as I have said before. There will be no forcible redistribution of wealth in any way, shape or form. There are no parallels between how Hitler and Hillary Clinton came to power. Until Hillary Clinton begins blaming Jews for every one of america's problems, burning down buildings to generate fear, and declaring martial law, she will be nothing like Hitler. This analogy is ridiculous and insults my intelligence and yours. I know very well how democracy works, why it has flourished, and the forces that drive the economy. I have invested in the stock market, I have extensively studied democracy and our system, and I am upper middle class. I would not be on the receiving end of her reforms. In general, I would say that you have not backed up any of your assertions with facts. All my opponent is doing is spouting rhetoric and outright lies. Whenever I have challenged him to support his opinions he does not, and insults me and my intellegence instead. He appears to be utterly unable to form any sort of cohesive, well reasoned argument and has very little knowledge of the actual issues. Instead, he outright ignores any of my points that prove him wrong and instead calls me an idiot. I could have refuted his entire closing statement by copy pasting my earlier argumments. He will not listen to new opinions or ideas different from his own, as he stated in his first refutation. It is impossible to debate someone who refuses to rely on facts whatsoever and ignores anything that proves him wrong. That is all.
Hillary Clinton Will Make A Bad President

Wryan, School grades aren't tied into someone's wealth. They are directly related to one's hard work. Just like in the free markets. You summed up perfectly how a democracy dies. "...the rich and corporations are an indescribably small segment of the population...and...represent roughly a tenth of the population. I would argue that what Hillary is doing is supporting the right of an overwhelming majority in a democracy to dictate what happens." Congratulations, you're a socialist, or possibly even a communist. You are pushing an agenda that has failed time and time again, strips people of their liberties and freedoms, and has caused the mass murder of millions in order to maintain power and control. You know nothing of history, and nothing of Hitler and how he came to power through the exact same political strategy. You haven't the slightest idea how our democracy works, and how it has come to flourish. You have no understanding of the forces that drive the economy. It's very sad that you think it is justified to take another's wealth and give it to someone to whom it doesn't belong. Worse yet, you are either blind to Hillary's own words, or are choosing to ignore them because you would be on the receiving end of her wealth redistrubtion programs. Lastly, there has NEVER been a socialized health care system that has worked. I'm closing this debate with Hillary's own words. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Clinton said, according to the Associated Press. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." - June 28, 2004 "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own' society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we're all in it together' society." - May, 2007 "The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the direction of independence." - Feb 2, 2007
Hillary Clinton Will Make A Bad President

I'll just refute. 1. Wealth distribution will not destroy the economy, it will just even out personal financial gains a tiny amount. Furthermore, to abolish capitol ggains she would need to have a bill passed through the appropriate govering bodies. It is unlikely that it will pass. Furthermore, if people know that she willl be elected they will begin adjusting their stocks accordingly well before the actaul abolishment takes place, so there will be no one single crash. Furthermore, there are many people who will not leave the market, such as hedge funds etc, so the market will not completely crash. In addition, many stocks are so steady they would probably not be affected, for example Berkshire Hathaway. Another point you are missing is foreign investors. When the capital gains tax does not apply to them, they will likely stay in the market and help to keep it stable. Finally, thereis a good chance that the market could easily recover from such a crash, as buying surges when stock prices go down. 2. Having health care, even if it is not fantastic, is still better than having none at all, as do many uninsured americans. 3. Making policy based on polls and public image is the purest example of democracy. A president who bases their policies on what the people want is a very good president indeed. 4. She has managed a health care initiative of 500+, and she was a close adviser to Bill Clinton, who was a president and as such had the staff and a beauracracy of one. So she definitely has experience. Furthermore, her style of governing very much relies on advisers and helpers, meaning a "lack of experience" (Which I dont think exists), is no issue. 5. If she is elected president she will not in fact be divisive, she will have won by a majority. Furthermore, noe of the other candidates, Democrats or Republicans, have as large a percentage of voters supporting them as Hillary does. So therefore she is the least divisive. Furthermore, you give no examples of when she has pit groups against eachother for political gain. As a final note, it is unfair to say that everything Bill Clinton did was also done by her.
Hillary Clinton Will Make A Bad President

Hillary Clinton would be a horrible president for several reasons: 1. Her economic policies of wealth redistribution will destroy the economy. Furthermore, the second she abolishes capital gains the markets will crash. 2. Her national health care system will lower the quality of health care for all Americans. 3. She has no guiding principles. Instead, she makes policy based on polls and what gives here the best public image. 4. Mrs. Clinton has never managed any organization of significance. Being a Senator just means that you show up 6-months out of the year and either vote on issues, or propose bills. Besides a tiny staff, Mrs. Clinton has never had to manage a group of thousands or even hundreds of people. How then can she be deemed to have the managerial skills and experience to manage millions of government employees and thousands of bureaucracies? 5. She is too divisive. Hillary and Bill have a record of pitting one group against another, in order to get political gain.
Gay Marriage

I am excited to debate this topic as my second debate ever. I am fully aware that this topic is very overdone, however I felt that a majority of debates on this topic were poorly constructed and resorted to personal attacks and poor conduct. I also will find it an important matter to discuss as long as its not legal in some states. I am PRO, and are therefore for gay marriage being legalized in all fifty states in the Untied States of America. CON will be against such a law. Meaning of gay: Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. Meaning of marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other. Rules: No religious arguments shall partake in any part of this debate. No personal insults or attacks. No sarcasm or rudeness. A calm, intelligent, thought-provoking debate. Forfeits shall result in a 7-point loss to the offender. Burden of proof is shared. 10,000 characters allowed. Three rounds. Three days to respond.
gay marriage is wrong

My opponent has forfeited their last round, so I shall recopy my previous argument. ___________________ Let's begin with the counter-rebuttals. "-is the fact that two people love each other enough to want to spend the rest of their lives together there kept it simple definition of marriage." -Not correct. Marriage has always been known as the union between a man and a woman. This definition does not evolve, even if society does. "what is wrong with two people who are incapable of having children wanting {to adopt}." -So, in an adoption situation, there are parents of one gender. Well, it has been proven that children that don't have the presence of a father are more likely to give in to sexual peer pressures- especially girls. In the case of a double-father partnership, kids who lack a mother presence are more likely to get into drugs and alcohol, and this is even higher for boys without a mother. Simply stated, lack of a parent of one gender has negative consequences on the development of the child. "and another thing we are talking about human beings not animals therefore that topic of animals should not even be presented ." -Humans are indeed animals. No matter how smart we are, we have the fundamental similarities with animals- A need for survival, the wanting to reproduce, etc. {P4} Science -Opposites attract- a fundamental law of nature and science. Whether it be magnets or electrons-protons, it is shown that opposites were "made for each other" Man and woman, physically different, were made for each-other, as supported by: {P5} Religion, the doctrine that billions follow. Even if you don't follow a religion, humans were made for men and woman to be together, reproduce, support their child, and contribute to society. Gay marriage hinders the growth of a rapidly-advancing population by taking away the chance for the next generation to contribute to the world. Please vote without bias. Thank you for this debate. - Shadow-Dragon -