BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are no morals without God

Without God there no morals. . You said that one philosopher said that humans can determine whats right from wrong from pain means in moral and pleasure means moral . Well why do people have to follow that ideal because few that are consider high in society said so ? No, why should human being follow a ideology that he/she might not agreed upon to them killing can be sport for them and they say killing me i don't care that just life, philosophers cannot prove morals just because they say its wrong to other people it could be right to them. Since God created us he all knowing and knows whats best and knows what wrong from right since he created everything. Juts like when your parents teach you something you don't usually denied because they wise and they raise you. God created everything so he our Father AND ALL knowing so he knows what best.
There are no morals without God

First point to be made here is that in order to prove that there are no morals without God, my opponent would need to show an intrinsic link between morals and God. The burden of proof should be on that claim. I hope my opponent shows this link.Second, several philosophers have proposed ways in which there can be morals without God.Kant believed that one can simply determine whether or not an action is good or bad by envisioning that everyone believed that it was good or bad. He also states, in addition, that objectification (using person as a tool) is objectively wrong by definition.Another school of philosophers has stated that whatever causes pain is bad by definition - and whatever causes pleasure is good by definition. These philosophers are known as the utilitarian-hedonists.Finally, one can use intuition to determine, somewhat accurately, what is right and wrong, regardless of religion. There is no reason to believe that this moral intuition derives from any deity.CrazyMan890 ought to show why these moral systems cannot be used to determine morality. Comparing these to intuition is not a valid argument. He must also show a fundamental link between God and morals.
There are no morals without God

The only point made by Crazyman is: why follow these ideas?First of all, Kant's proposal is based in reason - he did not refute this.Second, the utilitarian perspective is intuitively appealing, which may convince some to follow it.Furthermore, why should we follow God's moral beliefs just because someone claiming to represent that being said so? If my opponent wishes to say that he is omniscient and all-good, and therefore knows morality, then I will point out that this means there is an objective standard of morality, and God is only able to recognize it - thus, there are morals without God.
Mormonism is a joke

I'll be Con arguing on the position that Mormonism is not a joke. As definitions haven't been provided I'll go ahead and define Moron, just in case this becomes an issue later: Mormon: 1. the doctrines and polity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, founded in the U.S. in 1830 by Joseph Smith, especially its adoption of the Book of Mormon as an adjunct to the Bible. 2. adherence to these doctrines or membership in the Mormon Church That definition brought to you by www.thefreedictionary.com On to you for opening arguments, Pro, fire away. Also, in your opening statement, could you clarify wehter we're able to argue each other's positions round 2 or will that wait untill round 3?
Mormonism is a joke

Sense of humor? Sir, I'm offended! I'm trying to argue a genuine topic about a religious stance and you're accusing me of joking around? That's just rude. Since my opponent didn't negate anything, my arguments stand, and I'll move on to my opponent's arguments :) MY OPPONENT'S CASE: My opponent is trying to show contradictions in the Mormon faith between the text and the words of their prophet, it does not prove Mormonism to be a joke. Sure, irony is a funny circumstance, but it is often done unwillingly, and is just a consequence of an action rather than an actual joke.
Schools are entitled to student searches. regardless of a warrant

I am going to organize my argument on three contingencies, labels alphabetically. But first, I would like to proved some simple definitions that suit the overall topic. Civic Virtue: "Civic virtue is the cultivation of habits of personal living that are claimed to be important for the success of the community. " Fairness: "lack of favoritism toward one side or another" Now that definitions are out of the way, I will start my first point by applying these definitions to my argument. Under my definition of "civic virtue", sacrifices must be made for the overall good of a community. For a school to be able to strive for success, the environment has to feel safe, and/or danger-free. Therefore, civiv virtue in the school campus would uphold the millions of tax dollars given to public schools each year. Also, under my definition of fairness, since the school is to show no discrimination to the body they are searching, then everyone is being searched fairly. Now I don't believe that searches should be a regular thing, only that when a school has reason to believe something is going on, they should have the right to act in an appropriate manner. For my second contingency, I would like to point out the safety measure. Schools have to be able to search a student, or a students possessions in a time of suspicion. For example, the school ought to have the right to search students lockers. A multitude of things can be put in student lockers, and they are basically the schools property anyways. But schools simply do not have time to go to the courthouse, and obtain a warrant, if they have suspicion a student is plotting something. Finally, I would like to give a few examples. for student-athletes, drug searches/tests are a huge thing, for understandable reasons. If an athlete is taking drugs/steroids, then they have an advantage over the rest of the population (depending on the type of drug. Obviously Crack will not allow for an athlete to preform in his prime! ) Now, for my final example. For my closing statement, I would also like to bring up some points I believe you might bring up, so I will save you some time and effort. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I am going to focus on the part where it talks about unreasonable searches. If a bullet is found in the hallway, the school has "reason" to search students. Thank you, I am finished . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Schools are entitled to student searches. regardless of a warrant

Alright, let's get started. You have only one point, but have two arguments to back it up, so I will thoroughly examine your arguments. "Safety Vs. Liberty has always been an issue, especially at schools. I believe that schools should obtain a warrant though before searching a students property for the following reasons: A. Allowing schools to search a student's property (Not a locker) gives school administrators unrestricted access to a student's possessions. A system must be in place to limit or oversee what these administrators are doing, and by obtaining a warrant, a 3rd party can do this. Without this system in place I can see administrators abusing this power." Okay, since you did not provide an example, I will substitute my own. Let's just say, a purse. Let's suppose a teacher had a reason to suspect that a student was hiding a pistol in their purse. Do you understand how long it takes to obtain a search warrant? Now, she you have the opportunity to seize the bag, but you can't take it because you must get a warrant first. Also, the entire class, that you were responsible for, is now dead. Also, a third party? Ain't nobody got time for that. Next, "B. School administrators cannot alone determine if a search of a student's personal property is "Reasonable". Like I said in my first reason, a 3rd party (Judge) must be involved in the decision. The school administrator cannot act as judge in this decision." Who cares? If your lip balm is mistaken for a bullet, and a teacher asks you to take it out, who cares? This really only effects students who are thinking about committing a crime. Next, you provided no reason why and administrator could not act as a judge. The Admins are there to provide for the general welfare of the student body, which is similar to the job of the judge. I'm extremely surprised you did not bring constitutionality into this case, so I will go ahead and just go ahead and debunk this. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) The teacher had suspicion, and acted on instinct. She caught the student with the pot, and she was removed. Had this been a firearm, that teacher could have saved students lives. teachers do not have the right to just go through students belongings, however they do have a right to protect the student body. If we must sacrifice liberty for safety, then even the supreme court agrees with me that it is necessary Thank you, I am finished.
Schools are entitled to student searches. regardless of a warrant

(Sorry for forfeiting last round, I will put my rebuttals in the next round) Safety Vs. Liberty has always been an issue, especially at schools. I believe that schools should obtain a warrant though before searching a students property for the following reasons: A. Allowing schools to search a student's property (Not a locker) gives school administrators unrestricted access to a student's possessions. A system must be in place to limit or oversee what these administrators are doing, and by obtaining a warrant, a 3rd party can do this. Without this system in place I can see administrators abusing this power. B. School administrators cannot alone determine if a search of a student's personal property is "Reasonable". Like I said in my first reason, a 3rd party (Judge) must be involved in the decision. The school administrator cannot act as judge in this decision.
Orcas are cool as sh*t

Some dolphins can be naughty... but not all! You're telling me that you're ok with the arbitrary slaughter of tens of thousands of dolphins just because a few of them get too frisky? Might as well end all humanity, by that logic. My opponent's got to face the facts: I mean, killer whales kill more dolphins than the Japanese, without regard to whether any individual dolphin deserved to die. Maybe he's got a point that the seas are better without SOME dolphins, but only the creepy ones. Not the good ones, which are equal apt to BE MERCILESSLY KILLED by orcas! http://www.youtube.com... And sea lions? Maybe they are tasty... but that doesn't mean they deserve to be mercilessly torn apart! http://www.youtube.com... Just look at that face! Clearly not talking sh!t either... Maybe orcas's do get shat on by all kinds of people, but that doesn't make them cool as sh!t... they're merciless killing machines. They are, after all, called KILLER WHALES! Not cool, bro. Not cool.
Orcas are cool as sh*t

http://www.youtube.com..."We killed Nazi's for the same reason that James Bond kills (or beat's the living sh!t out of) villains: because they deserved to be killed (or mauled)."Yea and orcas kill things for the same reason. Why do they kill dolphins you ask? Because Dolphins rape things for fun. (see video 1).Orcas kill sea lions because A) Sea lions are tasty and a homies gotta eat amirite? and B) Sea Lions been talking sh*t. B*tch @ss n*gga.And as I've previously established, ORCAS DON'T TAKE YO' SH*T.Furthermore, if you've ever seen the documentary Blackfish, you would know that when orcas kill their trainers, its because they actin' a B*TCH. Words to live by.Orcas get shat on by their trainers every day at places like seaworld. They get torn away from family, and they're forced to perform for crowds of yelling children.Don't you think you might kill someone too?
Orcas are cool as sh*t

We killed Nazi's for the same reason that James Bond kills (or beat's the living sh!t out of) villains: because they deserved to be killed (or mauled). See video's 1-4, b!tches.... lol http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... So, killing Nazi's or Bond Villains is not arbitrary... UNLIKE HOW ORCA'S KILL! Orcas kill everything, good or bad... or ugly.... like innocent trainers and sea lions. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... If something is arbitrarily violent, then it cannot be cool. Orcas are arbitrarily violent. Therefore, orcas cannot be cool... as sh*t or otherwise.
Orcas are cool as sh*t

Good try buddy, but Orcas are still cool as shi*t.You may say that violence and killing are evil, but you know who else was evil. Nazis! And you know what we did to Nazis? We KILLED THEM! Killing can be evil, unless it is totally warrented. If you are a justified killer, then you are a bad@ss and you are therefore COOL AS SH*T. Take James Bond for example. I peed James Bond is universally agreed to be cool as sh*t, and he kills a f*ckload of people. Those people needed to be killed out of necessity. Also, bond is wearing all black and white, just like orcas. Orcas kill dolphins because they have to eat, and everyone knows dolphins taste AWESOME. Orcas kill their trainers because their trainers are a bunch of trippen b*tches who want to keep the orca locked up in some tiny @ss aquarium. Orcas are so godd@mn stellar though that they don't take your sh*t. They kill their captors 'cause they don't want to be locked up like slaves. Speaking of slaves, take a look at Django. "D’Artagnan, motherf*ckers!"Django is a bad@ss, cool as sh*t slave who don't take it from no one! Orcas, like him, kill because they get pissed. Orcas are meant to swim in massive swathes of ocean, not in some dinky little sh*thole called seaworld. The killing of the trainer isn't vile, IT'S JUSTICE!!!tl;drCon is just some hippy who can't handle to awesome bad@ssery that comes from the vigilantes of the sea, the orca. Imagine if you will, you're out at see, when some b*tch @ss sea lion comes up to you and starts talking sh*t. Then suddenly, a killer whale swoops up and eats that little b*tch, just like in the video. Cool as sh*t am I right?Killer whales are loving to their friends, and fierce defenders of the weak, and freedom fighters, and obviously are particularly impressive. Just remember, http://www.youtube.com...;
Orcas are cool as sh*t

Cheers, everyone. Welcome to this, the latest troll debate I've had. To be "cool as sh*t," something must be "particularly appealing or impressive." It will be my argument that orcas are neither particularly appealing, nor especially impressive. My opponent has the burden of proof, so I'll begin by refuting his arguments and then offer my own. Tyler says that orcas are cool as sh*t because of how they are called, one example he cites is that orcas are referred to as "killer whales." In saying that orcas are "cool as sh*t," then, by his own framework is to say that killing -an activity for which orcas are named- is particularly appealing or impressive. But if killing is an act of violence, and violence is EVIL, then there can be nothing particularly appealing or impressive about being a killer of any kind, whale or otherwise. For some examples to prove my point, the first video is an example of an orca killing a dolphin. The second is of an orca killing its trainer. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Vile. Utterly vile. Whether orca's have lovely families, or not, they're violent, terrible, killers. To vote for PRO is to say that killing is cool as sh*t, and killing is NOT cool as sh*t. Killing is bad, mmmmkay? My opponent's other argument is that orcas are cool because they age. There is nothing particularly appealing or impressive about aging. Everything ages, therefore there is nothing unique to orca's aging that makes them appealing or impressive. orcas also kill dolphins and people. Remember that.
Orcas are cool as sh*t

Game on. So f*cking majesticOrcas a so super cool, which is even cooler than cool as sh*t. First let's talk names. Orca whales have many names, which adds to their mystery and their appeal. The most common name for the Orca is KILLER WHALE. Have you ever heard something described as killer? It's surfer/Snowboard/x-treme sport slang. I'll give you an example of its use.Dude did you see that movie about Orcas?Yea dude it was crazy awesome!I know bro it was totally killer!Obviously in their name you can see, Orcas are really the bees knees.Their lesser known name of the orca whale is the GLADIATOR WHALE. I bet your legs are trembling in awe now. As we all know Gladiators are pretty f*cking badass. Orcas aren't just talk though. They've got the goods. "Killer whales hunt in deadly pods, family groups of up to 40 individuals. There appear to be both resident and transient pod populations of killer whales. These different groups may prey on different animals and use different techniques to catch them. Resident pods tend to prefer fish, while transient pods target marine mammals. All pods use effective, cooperative hunting techniques that some liken to the behavior of wolf packs." (1) You hear that? They are viscious killers. The wolves of the sea! They even kill for fun! They even kill their cousin, the bottlenose dolphin! Orcas are also technically a breed of dolphin, and everyone loves dolphins.Orcas aren't just deadly killers though. They also have a caring side. Orcas love their families and never leave them. It's just like the super cool feudal families of old! Once a baby is born in the pod, they stay with the pod for the rest of their life. They also grieve when a family member dies. WowOrcas can also live to be pretty goddamn old. Orca whales are known to live as long as 100 years. Also killer whales don't take you sh*t, and kill their trainers in captivity when they acting like a b*tch.Sources1. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com...;
Babies are atheist

Thanks for accepting Emilrose, should be a great debate. ...we'll start this off in Vi-spex terminology:atheism = a + theisma = no, absence of, without, lack of; not[1]theism = belief in a god or godsatheism = lacking/without the belief in a god or gods(+)Belief - A belief that something Does exist(-)Belief - A belief that something Does Not exist(0)Belief - The lack of any belief on the subject; ignorance. So from this we can see that the Only thing atheism means is "Lack of a (+)belief in a god or gods"...Those people who do not know about the concept of god have a (0)belief in god. They still lack a (+)belief, and thus are still atheists. The same rings true for babies...logical proof1.)There are 3 types of belief: (+), (0), and (-)2.) According to the roots and definitions I have given, atheism simply means, "Lack of (+)belief".3.) These three types of belief are mutually exclusive, meaning someone cannot hold multiple beliefs without a logical contradiction. So in other words, you can't believe god IS and IS NOT real, you cannot believe god Does exist and hold No-Belief about his existance...ect3.) If someone has a (-)belief about god then they DO "Lack a (+)belief", and are thus atheist.....If someone has a (0)belief then they DO "Lack a (+)belief", and are atheist as well.4.) Babies lack a (+)belief5.) babies are atheistsources[1] http://wordinfo.info...
resolved: environmentalists are stupid.

There is little left to say at this point, I suppose. First is that my opponent agrees a CON vote is needed. Second, that although my opponent claims 'debate sucks', she has joined this site, so that conflicts with the validity of her claim. Third and finally is the fact that she herself started this topic, and if she did not want to debate, she should not have instigated a discussion of environmentalism. I suggest not only that my opponent forfeit for her final post, but that, and believe me, I'm implying only facts, free of potential 'offense' (though I do despise political correctness), if she has a lack of intelligence or motivation preventing her from carrying on a successful and stimulating debate, that she not attempt to waste the time of serious debaters, because this site was intended for an exchange of ideas and views on different subjects by debate enthusiasts; definitely, not a place for those who have a strong dislike of this activity. With that all said, I agree with my opponent insofar that a CON ballot is the best choice today.
resolved: environmentalists are stupid.

I'd like very much not to turn this into a personal debate. First of all, vote CON because of the fact that my opponent has abandoned all argumentation of the topic. With that said, anyone has a right to be on the website, but if one chooses to debate here, then he or she should at least take the activity seriously and help the site to be productive as opposed to merely chanting 'debate sucks' on a website dedicated to the art of debate. While I would not deny ANYONE the right to debate here, I just think that anyone who joins ought to want to debate, otherwise he or she wouldn't get the full experience out of it; if one doesn't like debate, then there's little point to joining a site called debate.org. So, to conclude this debate round, the CON vote is needed mainly due to the fact that my opponent has dropped my last post, in which I dissected my opponent's position, proving all the logical flaws therein. Thank you.
Men should not be aloud to discuss whether abortion is right or wrong.

This seems oxymoronic but if you really look at the reason behind the topic you will find that I am an advocate for women's rights. The fact you say that a fetus is not part of a woman is not true in the fact that a fetus cannot survive outside of a woman. If a woman has cancer (a disease that cannot live outside the body) should it be up to a man whether or not it can be removed?
Men should not be aloud to discuss whether abortion is right or wrong.

My opponent"s argument is centered around the idea that abortion is invasive. In fact, abortion does not need to be invasive. It can be done via other procedures such as through pills. The argument of my opponent"s is based on the assumption that the fetus is part of the body of the woman. To see why this is false, note the following syllogism. (All syllogisms not original) 1. The fetus is part of the pregnant woman. 2. A male fetus has a penis. C: A pregnant woman has a penis. This is absurd as well as false. However, there is more than just logical fallacies in the argument. There is factual support for the fact that fetuses are not part of the mother. Indeed, this fact is that the mother"s immune system rejects the fetus. [1] If a fetus is not part of the mother, then the mother has no say in what to do because it is no longer "the body of the woman," to quote Pro. 1. http://www.sciencemag.org...
Men should not be aloud to discuss whether abortion is right or wrong.

Argument: Abortion is a very invasive procedure done to the body of a woman. Therefore women should be the only ones who have a say on whether or not it is legal or how easy the process of receiving on is. Men have no idea what it is like to be a woman and they never will. Men should not have the right to tell a woman what is right and what is wrong when it comes to their bodies. That is pretty much it.
Men should not be aloud to discuss whether abortion is right or wrong.

I will not now put forth arguments against the resolution, instead, since this is a five round debate, I will let pro begin in the next round. My point about contradiction basically has to do with the fact that it's a male who's telling us that males should not interfer. If a male interfers to say that a male should not interfer, then there is a contraadiction. Present your argument. NOW!