BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is nonexistent.

"The Circular argument is that morality is a social construct." That's because your argument used circular reasoning. "we need this social contract." We also need a benevolent deity to solve our problems. A starving man in a desert needs food. That doesn't mean they exist. "Morality is how we make decisions." Many people would disagree. There are people with morals who are hypocrites. "Imposing our thoughts of morality on others is wrong." Well, then I guess I can kill whoever I want. The rest lacks the understanding of this principle: Morality is based on what is ethical. Ethics are based on what is right and wrong. To determine such principles, we need a powerful source. But where does this source get this power? Many, if not all, people say that it just has this power. Things don't just happen, and since there aren't any causes besides self-imposed ones, this power must not actually have power, and thus, morality must be false. You could argue this only applies to objective morality. This question I give you: if people have conflicting points about morality and each other's moralities say the other needs to die, who is correct? If all are correct, then is morality even existent?
Morality is nonexistent.

The circular argument is that you say morality was invented as a social construct, then say it is false. We need this social contract; if not to give meaning to life; at the very least, to make decisions. I assume you will agree that happiness should be maximized. Morality, or how we find it, is by definition the system of logic by which we make decisions. You assume we have to dictate our morals to others, thus becoming hypocritical, but what I'm arguing is that we should develop our own 'morality' to make decision; imposing our thoughts of 'morality' on others is wrong. Life is meaningless if you don't pursue the morality, here being a 'higher thing' (as in an ideal) that is actually correct and up for debate to discover, because otherwise we end up doing whatever we want which contradicts what others see as pursuing happiness; this ends up ultimately decreasing collective happiness (as in doing what we like/want to do). We need to accept what is generally good (moral, as generally agreed upon) in order to do things, giving us ultimately freedom we can't otherwise access, like this debate website. What I'm saying is that morality is really something we are determining, the ultimate morality is something we haven't reached yet. Morality has to exist and be perpetuated by people. Morality isn't like disgust (the feeling that something is bad, as a evolutionary self-defense mechanism), but, rather, something we determine logically. There are some things that we can all generally agree statistically is counter-productive. Going back to the illustration, killing is bad by logic because you destroy an unknown resource.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

Note: I still have a ridiculous 1000 character limit.Con wrote "we are not required to help others in any instance." If this is true, my opponent would apparently defend the following scenarios as morally permissible:1. Dozens of pedestrians walk past a 2 year old child over the course of several minutes, as she lays dying in the middle of a street after being hit by a car. http://www.reuters.com...;2. Fellow patients & hospital personnel fail to do anything to save a 49 year old woman after she collapsed onto the floor in a hospital waiting room. The woman died 36 minutes later. http://gothamist.com...3. A 6'5" assistant football coach witnesses a 58 yr. old man raping a 10 year old boy in a shower, but fails to stop the rape or report the incident to police. http://www.salon.com...If we can easily stop suffering, we MUST. Period.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

Note: Con has imposed a 1000 character limit on my response despite his opening argument exceeding 3500 characters - a blatantly unfair handicap. 1. Justice is not synonymous with selfishness Con cites one pessimistic political philosopher to define justice in loaded and ridiculous terms. MOST people consider greed / selfishness as moral vices, while altruism and selflessness are praised as moral virtues. 2. Human beings are social creatures that rely on the assistance of others Con wastes time talking about an abstracted "state of nature" which has never actually existed. Human beings are social creatures who depend on the benevolence of others (especially relatives) to thrive. 3. Con confuses legal and moral obligation The former may not exist in many instances where the latter does, as demonstrated below. 4. Con's argument leads to perverse outcomes Con says "we are not required to help others in any instance." Is a mom not required to save her infant from drowning in a tub?
Insulting Jesus In a Debate Constitutes the Loss of the Conduct Point

The crux of my opponents argument is thus: since insults are subjective they should be permitted in a debate. Just because some insults are subjective no means opens the door for all types of insults to be allowed. Any type of insult, Jesus or not , should not be allowed in a debate for they are not constructive.Also, I think we have a different view of what constitutes an insult."Jesus was most plausibly a homosexual" or "Jesus' divinity is unsupported by the evidence" are not insults but opinions that can be backed up. I'm talking about phrases that are purposefully used to hurt and degrade the character or description of Jesus for the sole purpose of angering the opponent. A true insult. Controversial opinions do not equal insults. "DDO bans the use of "religious slurs" which probably means unnecessary hate speech toward a particular religious group (ie, "Christians are all idiotic")"Such hate speech or unnecessary comments toward a group can also be applied to the figure of Jesus and therefore requires the loss of the conduct point. And, insulting Hitler would be no different from insulting Jesus because the very nature of an insult, its purpose and its use have no place in any sort of debate.Insults don't belong in a debate, using them requires the loss of conduct.Controversial opinions =/= insultsInsults must be purposefully hurtful.Thank you.
Insulting Jesus In a Debate Constitutes the Loss of the Conduct Point

Pro says insults have no place in a debate, but that is untrue. Is it really a wonder why the resolution mentions Jesus and not Hitler? Being politically correct, actually, can hinder communication more than necessary or desired. If we were debating the justness of Nazi Germany's actions, I would be in my rights to insult the nazi party ideals. In fact, just taking the Con side of such a debate and arguing against the nazi party could be seen as an insult against them.Similarly, just by taking Con in this debate, I would inevitably be insulting some people. But what is the difference between insulting Jesus and Hitler? One was a madman and one was not? Maybe, but that's just an opinion, as subjective as what exactly should be considered "insulting".To say we shouldn't be allowed to insult Jesus without some sort of penalty would be to say we can't debate Jesus' existence, divinity, sexual orientation, or pretty much anything else about him, including this debate itself! (for some people would surely be insulted)DDO bans the use of "religious slurs" which probably means unnecessary hate speech toward a particular religious group (ie, "Christians are all idiotic"). That much I can agree with. That would be a hateful generalization and specifically targeted to hurt every Christian's feelings.However, to say "Jesus was most plausibly a homosexual" or "Jesus' divinity is unsupported by the evidence" could also be seen as insulting to Jesus and insulting to the Christian religion, but really they're just interesting resolutions to debate. Sure, some people might find it insulting, but those who are ultra-sensitive to reading differing opinions to their own really shouldn't be on DDO in the first place.What DDO's terms of service was most likely constructed for is to set up guidelines for everyone to get along with each other but at the same time debate interesting and controversial topics. To say insulting Jesus is taboo is to erase the possibility of a lot of fun, controversial debates on one of the most important issues of our time: Christianity.You're welcome.
Insulting Jesus In a Debate Constitutes the Loss of the Conduct Point

Thank you.Insults & Debating Insults have no place in the realm of formal debate. No insult of any kind should be posted in a debate because insults are unprofessional and unsportsmanlike. Attacking a figure does nothing for the debate and insults never add to the purpose or drive of a debate. Voting Rules"Which debater, on balance, was more composed, and used fewer or no personal attacks against their opponent? Improper conduct includes personal insults, profanities, and bad sportsmanlike behavior." [1]Personal insults are included when weighing the loss of the conduct point. It never says who the personal insults target because any sort of insult has no place in a debate. Since insulting Jesus would count as a personal insult (since Jesus was a person) this falls under the voting guidelines that outlines the loss of this point.Also, in insulting such a prominent religious and historical figure could in turn insult those who adhere or respect him as a person which is why insults count as misconduct. What this means is that this simple insult could actually cross a wide range of misconduct some of which are outlined in the Terms of Use. The DDO Terms of Use bans the use of "personal attacks" and "religious slurs". [2] Depending on who reads the insult (and if it is in a DDO debate a large host of people could be subject to the insult in question) it could very well be considered a personal attack (on Christians) or even a racial slur depending on the severity. Also, insults are considered unsportsmanlike behavior because they can add nothing to a debate and are generally used to debase a person or opponent which is not fair nor does it show upstanding conduct and character. Since there are no positive connotations to insults and they have no place in debate they can safely be classified as unsportsmanlike. That's two parts of the voting guidelines such an insult violates.Therefore, any insult on Jesus Christ in a debate would constitute the loss of the conduct point for these various reasons backed up by both the voting rules set up in the DDO Orientation and the Terms of Service.Thank you.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...
smoking should be bang in public places

I only need 1 argument to win this debate. The United States Constitution give everyone the right to pursue happiness whenever and wherever they choose. If a person wants to smoke in public areas they have the right to do that and if people don't like that that's their problem. If you don't like that a person is smoking in public you always have the option. You stated that "Rather than punching people for smoking in church premises, the government should make a rule that people smoking in public place will have to apologize for there mistake. " but the government doesn't make rules. They make laws. The United States Government can't force you to say anything, whether it be as simple as sorry. You also stated that "Children are always tempted to try out the various things which the 'elders do', that being said a child who sees an adult smoking is bound to get an urge to try the same as he grows up. " but almost every school in America teaches the harmful effects of drugs and alcohol. According to pbs. org, the undeveloped child mind uses its undeveloped pre frontal cortex to make decisions and children are more likely to make decisions based on what their peers do and accomplish rather than the parents like you suggested.
smoking should be bang in public places

several jurisdictions have successfully implemented a ban on smoking in public places, others are struggling to come up with a clear-cut statute for the same. Banning smoking may seem to be an easy task, with such a large number of health hazards to its credit, but people addicted to it have come up with a long list of reasons as to why it should not be banned.........in public places. Historical records suggest that the first ever ban on smoking in public was implemented way back in 1590, by Pope Urban VII, according to which anyone found smoking in the church premises was subjected to excommunication. Rather than punching people for smoking in church premises, the government should make a rule that people smoking in public place will have to apologize for there mistake. Over the period, the issue has become a bit sensitive, and thus, calls for a proper evaluation of the pros and cons before implementing the ban. Smoking ban is a broad concept with several aspects, ranging from a ban as a part of the criminal law to a ban as a part of the general norms of the workplace. While some argue that smoking in public makes a wrong impression on budding minds, others refer to it as a denial of a basic right. This even effect children.Children are always tempted to try out the various things which the 'elders do', that being said a child who sees an adult smoking is bound to get an urge to try the same as he grows up. Outlawing smoking in public also sends across the message that it is not just hazardous for the health, but it is a moral wrongdoing as well. Among the most prominent benefits of such ban, one would be the fact that it would curb passive smoking, which subjects a non-smoker to several poisonous chemicals in cigarettes which can cause a range of disorders, (including asthma and the middle ear infection), to a significant extent. Studies also reveal that nearly 3,400 non smokers succumb to lung cancer every year, in the United States alone. Statistical evidence also suggests that the places wherein such ban was brought into practice witnessed a large number of people quit smoking, a significant number of whom did it as they didn't find a place to smoke. Similar studies also reveal that the number of patients with ailments like asthma, lung cancer etc . has also decreased in places wherein smoking ban is strictly implemented. Obviously, the cloud of smoke exactly disturbs other people; especially non-smokers feeling. Imagine sitting in a restaurant unable to enjoy the meal because of the smoke from neighbour's table. It should be banned because the percentage of non-smokers is higher than active smokers so non-smokers have right to clean air and also second hand smoke is more dangerous than actually smoking as well. If you want to classify cigs as a harmful weapon and claim it "the right to bare arms" then i would have to believe everyone that ever smokes in public should be arrested for attempting homicide and for putting others in harms way.
Abortion should be legal in the United States

My arguments against abortion: Abortion is killing a fetus. A fetus is human and alive therefore it is a human life. Killing an innocent human life is murder. Murder is wrong. Therefore abortion is wrong. The right to life is more important than the right to end a pregnancy. The right to life is more important than convenience to the mother. Adoption is a great alternative that does not involve killing. Fetuses develop quickly. For example, in 8 weeks the eyes, nose, mouth, and tongue have formed. Electrical brain activity begins at week 6. By week ten the fetus can make bodily movements. The heart begins to circulate blood at day 22. We can establish that fetuses being aborted have the basic features of a human life [1]. Lack of development is not an argument for abortion because a newborn is far less developed than an adult but has the same right to life. 1: http://frc.org...
Abortion should be legal in the United States

5 rounds 72 hours 10,000 characters I will be arguing, clearly, that abortion should be legal in the US. Con will argue that it should be illegal. Distinctions such as in the case of rape or life endangerment, etc., are flexible. I only ask that you argue against abortion, in some cases, immediately after conception. It would be a less interesting argument if all we were debating was late-term abortions. Thank you, and I'm looking forward to some fun, some practice formulating a solid argument, some learning and some widening of both of our views on this topic!
Argentina deserves the Falkland Isalnds

I have lived in the Falkland Islands and i have witnessed first hand the disagreement of an English rule. There is more to surviving as a nation than trade a peace, it isa proper government that appeals to the people, which there isnt with British, and also the amount of resources and support Living in the Falkland islands a couple of years ago, i respect your opinion but I have witnessed the problems with the British rule and how the citizens consider themselves more argentian than British
Argentina deserves the Falkland Isalnds

Small nations do not need to be subject to the governing rule of a second party in order to survive. There is vast precedent of it only because of rampant fear mongering and power jockeying, by the leaders of the more historically militant and territorially competitive countries(Most notably, Portugal, Britain, Spain, The United States, and The Soviet Union). By remaining neutral, and focusing on international trade, small countries can ask for military and disaster assistance from any or all of their trading partners. There is nowhere near as much threat from rogue states as there once was, and there are defensive options, even without UN intervention. All other public services are most efficiently provided by government of much more limited scope.
Term Limits should continue

.. You say that i have no evidence to support my claim. Neither do you that the lack of Term Limits would help. Yes, Rossevelt was an amazing president, but one of the few. Last I checked, there are inly 4 heads on Mt. Rushmoore, and can't think of a president who would be added with those great men. Plus, it is very easy to rig an election with the technology that is avalilable to us today. In '04, all of the voting machines were owned by the Republicans, Kerry was expected to win in a land-slide, Bush gets re-elected. You also say that the President doesn't have the legal ability to rig an election but, with the right connections and incentives anybody can be persuaded to anything. There is also the other point of the Term Limits, to limit power of one political power. With this in place, it allows both parties an equal chance at power in thw White House. Another fact, since 3/4ths of the politicians in congress voted for the amendment, and they obviously know more about the political world than us, there has to have been a good reason for it. And almost always, when one man is given to much power he is corrupted by it. Though in some very exceptional people it is false, in most it is true. Without this, then it would only be a few steps away from having a president for life.
Term Limits should continue

I would first like to point out that since this is a policy debate my opponent can't change his argument, he can only add onto what he already has. This means that all I have to do is disprove his one argument and I have won the debate. I will begin this by pointing out that he has no evidence that a president without term limits would want to rig the elections. Since he has failed to present any I will show you evidence that a president would not corrupt the system. Franklin D. Roosevelt was born January 30th 1882, he was elected to four terms in office, from 1933 to 1945. During this time he saw America through WW2 and the great depression. He is regarded as one of the top three presidents of all time (usually with Abraham LIncoln, and George Washington.) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I ask that judges review these pages before making their decision. My second argument is that it is nearly impossible to rig an election. It would take an incredible amount of manpower and money to successfully rig an election. There is no evidence of it in the history of the United States, and the president does not have any legal ability to rig an election. I await my opponents counter. What facts will you dig up Emmet? I'm waiting...
Term Limits should continue

I shall now start with my opening statment, if there were no term limits then the government would be much easier to corrupt. If the same person could be president in an unlimited number of times then it would be simple for that administration could rig election after election continuiing their reign of power until they die. Literally giving us presidents for life. Now to make sure that there are no confusions, a term limit is a limit on how many times a person can become president, i.e. 2 terms. I now await you response, Zane.
Abortion Should Be Abolished

Hi. Round 4 and I am extremely pushed for time at the moment so this post will be concise and mostly rebuttal. 1) The numbers of civilian casualties in the U.S. lead war on terror is bewilderingly high, a fact that is probably very conveniently brushed under the media carpet. "They are only trying their best" is frankly not good enough. 2) Killing people in the name of U.S. righteousness is as purposeful as abortion. It is unfair to regard abortion as intentional murder. You may personally regard it as murder, but the actual intent is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. 3) At the end of the proverbial day, the circumstances are the same. death is death and selective morality is hypocritical. 4) Is the U.S. fifty separate countries or one nation. 5) Whether or not religion is a help or a hinderance to social progress is another debate altogether. 6) I would assert that the U.S is very much a bully in regard to it's foreign policy, again another debate maybe. But I would suggest that forcing U.S. values onto smaller nations, as recent history proves is often counter productive. 7) You once again chose to ignore the issue of the recent Irish debate. A predominantly Catholic society that voted counter to your viewpoint. 8) You also chose to ignore my suggestion that society is actually driven by greed (money) rather than moral values and the U.S is no different in this regard. Money is a more powerful God. 9) How we view physiology, is once again a subjective issue. And don't rely on expert opinion, because expert opinion is as divided and as subjective as everyone else's. 10) All your latter points are extremely subjective and personally held. Righteousness is in the eye of the beholder and no matter how much you protest your Christian principles, ultimately there is no greater authority capable of passing judgement. Let the collective will of the people decide and I for one will happily go along with their decision. I will make every effort to post a worthy and comprehensive final round. Regards.