BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Human cannibalism is morally wrong.

I accept my opponent's definitions (although definitions 6-8 are obviously irrelevant) and look forward to this debate. INTRODUCTION My opponent has put forward a definition which I would like to focus on: "founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom". In most cultures, cannibalism is considered as abhorrent as incest. But let's examine whether cannibalism is truly morally wrong. I will make this short, as I can only argue against general objections before hearing my opponent's case. As far as I am aware the supposed problems with cannibalism are these: 1. It violates the rights of the deceased. 2. It upsets remaining family and friends. 3. It's disgusting and unnatural. 4. Health concerns for the cannibal. I will respond to each of these supposed problems. RIGHTS OF THE DECEASED First let me present two few hypothetical situations. 1. A mother, child, and father are stranded somewhere without food. The father dies, perhaps a heart attack, or a fall from which he has broken his neck. No one has made any effort to encourage his death. The mother, knowing help will not arrive before she and her child starve to death, opts to cook and eat the father to survive. 2. An individual dies of some similarly innocent cause. Perhaps he has had a fall, or committed suicide. He has made it clear he wishes for his body to be made available for any who wish to eat it. It is clear that there is nothing morally wrong happening in either of these situations. No one has been harmed, and that is the most important thing. The deceased is simply not around to care what is happening to them, and to argue that the rights of the deceased outweigh the rights of the living is absurd. One should barely be taken into consideration, the latter is the defining factor. FAMILY AND FRIENDS While it is of course an unfortunate side effect that family and friends of the deceased may react negatively to knowing their loved one has been eaten, this does not make the act of cannibalism immoral. Consider a hermit who has died naturally, and has no living friends or family, no one who is even aware he exists but the cannibal. This no longer applies. The moral problem is not inherently linked to the act, it depends on the situation. Furthermore is does not make an act immoral if it upsets other parties--if this were the case homosexuality and miscegenation would be terribly immoral. DISGUSTING AND UNNATURAL Obviously irrelevant, unless my opponent wishes to disagree on this point. HEALTH CONCERNS These do exist, however I maintain that it is not immoral for a person to harm themselves knowingly and willingly, as their choice does not harm any others against their will. They have consented to the harm. CONCLUSION Unless my opponent can offer other reasons for cannibalism being immoral, or wishes to further pursue one of the supposed problems, we can only conclude that cannibalism is not, in fact, immoral. All of the usual reasons are either irrelevant or circumstantial, which means that if there are moral problems they arise from the situation and not the act of eating human flesh.
Human cannibalism is morally wrong.

I fully agree not to rely on semantics, however as a guide I offer the following definitions, Moral 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. 2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel. 3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. 4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being. 5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man. 6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste. 7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support. 8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Morally Wrong: that which is not in accordance or conflicts with morality. Cannibalism: For the purpose of this debate the consumption of already human flesh/matter by another human.
Human cannibalism is morally wrong.

I disagree with the belief that cannibalism is morally wrong. In round one we will agree on anything that needs clarifying, agree to not rely on semantics, and to be civil. In the continuing rounds we will debate. Arguments will not be presented until round two. Human cannibalism is the eating of one human by another human. For the purposes of our debate we will focus on dead humans. I look forward to a good debate.
one person canchange the world!

I will argue one person can change the world. Even if it is a negative change. My examples are the single mass murderers in the USA who bought guns and killed people like in Sandy Hook (1). It changed the world because the news was international and it left strong emotions in the hearts and minds of the people who were seeing the news. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... A positive example would be philosophers like Karl Marx who made the economic ideas of collectivism come true and inspired other nations to take part (1). His ideas swept through the Russian Empire and toppled the monarchy making the Soviet Union and an industrialized nation. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... Good luck in the next round!
Marijuana should be legal

' you are not getting my point about marijuana killing people. When it does this, marijuana sales will go down, hence rendering marijuana tax obsolete. Though it does not kill people like tobacco and alcohol does, it will cause people to do stupid things, which will essentially lead to death, suicide, et-cedra.' Death from marijuana is very rare , do you seriously think that people don't know that cannabis can be harmful for your body ? (although not highly) , humans have used marijuana for a long time . Why would anoyone think that it will magically change because 'marijuana killing people' marijuana sales will change over time maybe go down maybe go up maybe stay similar but i can gurantte that people will not stop smoking it because 'marijuana killing people' . Another thing i would like to adress is that even if magically marijuana didn't produce money so what? how will that negatively effect you? . 'Here is why: They will not get the job, which will not create jobs, which will not benefit the economy. We want to benefit the economy, correct?' I guess you are not very good at trying to cover something since if anyone is actually following this debate knows that i have rebutted your point about this on the last round . 'I do not see how it is unjust. If someone has in their possession something that can harm, they should be punished. What would they be doing with it? ' Oh than lets ban guns , knifes and anything that can harm people , the difference here is it only directly harms anyone who chooses to take it , if you see someone snorting cocaine does that harm you? '1. Using it, which will harm them.' Using that logic we should punish people for suicide attemps . '2. Selling it to someone else, who will use it, harming them.' *harming themselves by choice and not harming anyone else by doing so . 'How is it spoiling people? More people would be hired, which would benefit the economy. (Have you noticed that everything ties in with the economy somehow?)' First of all if anyone want's to be a policemen he can become so second of all I have already explained in the previous round how much cannabis would benefit the economy . 'Yes, it is true that alcohol kills brain cells. It is just as bad. However, it has been proven that marijuana slows down brain activity. Look at the link below:' Which is not the same as killing brain cells .... I await my opponents response
Marijuana should be legal

He has given me plenty of arguments to refute. I will start from the beginning. Rebuttals "And who are we to impose our own morality on an issue that doesn't even directly harm us , tell me how would someone smoking marijuana at his home will harm you? . [sic]" I am not talking about morals. I am talking about taxpayers, which I see you noticed due to the other rebuttals you posted. "Speaking of jobs and taxes . http://www.bbc.co.uk...... Colorado has just 'The US state of Colorado collected $2m ("1.2m) in taxes from newly legalised recreational marijuana businesses' and 'Overall, the state collected a total of $3.5m in marijuana taxes if medical marijuana firms are included. '[sic]" Indeed, however most of those are state taxes. I do not live in Colorado, which means it does not effect me. Furthermore, you are not getting my point about marijuana killing people. When it does this, marijuana sales will go down, hence rendering marijuana tax obsolete. Though it does not kill people like tobacco and alcohol does, it will cause people to do stupid things, which will essentially lead to death, suicide, et-cedra. "yes an interview is less likely to get that job in your scenario[sic]" Thank you for conceding my point. "and so what? " Here is why: They will not get the job, which will not create jobs, which will not benefit the economy. We want to benefit the economy, correct? "Putting someone in jail/fining them/giving them community service for possession of a drug is unjust, it should be their choice and not the government's what they put in their body. [sic]" I do not see how it is unjust. If someone has in their possession something that can harm, they should be punished. What would they be doing with it? Two things: 1. Using it, which will harm them. 2. Selling it to someone else, who will use it, harming them. "like if spoiling people will automatically make them better[sic]" How is it spoiling people? More people would be hired, which would benefit the economy. (Have you noticed that everything ties in with the economy somehow? ) "Actually alcohol kills brain cells while cannabis doesn't there was only one study that have suggested so and it has already been proven wrong[sic]" Yes, it is true that alcohol kills brain cells. It is just as bad. However, it has been proven that marijuana slows down brain activity. Look at the link below: . http://www.thomashedlund.com... Conclusion Because that is all Pro has stated, there are no more rebuttals I can state. I await his next arguments and rebuttals. Thank you.
Marijuana should be legal

'but as citizens of this country, we want there to be more people who are not ill or dead. ' And who are we to impose our own morality on an issue that doesn't even directly harm us , tell me how would someone smoking marijuana at his home will harm you?. 'People are less likely to be hired for a job if the interviewer can tell they have been smoking, which is a hard smell and behavior to cover up. ' Speaking of jobs and taxes http://www.bbc.co.uk... Colorado has just 'The US state of Colorado collected $2m ("1.2m) in taxes from newly legalised recreational marijuana businesses' and 'Overall, the state collected a total of $3.5m in marijuana taxes if medical marijuana firms are included.' Marijuana legalization would create thousands of new jobs and would benefit the economy , yes an interview is less likely to get that job in your scenario , and so what? he chose to smoke cannabis and prohibition is not going to stop him from doing so. 'Indeed it did, but that is because the government did not have as much control as it does today. ' (prohibition) since the 1970s drug use has risen ,Putting someone in jail/fining them/giving them community service for possession of a drug is unjust, it should be their choice and not the government's what they put in their body. They are not harming anyone by mere possession, and putting them in jail at huge cost to the taxpayer ruins their life and costs us all. Sending someone to jail for drug posession is a waste of money as well as being unjust. the big majority of drug arrests are indeed for drug possesion and not for dealing .'What needs to happen is greater funding of the DEA and police. ' like if spoiling people will automatically make them better . 'There's no such thing as 'better quality' marijuana. It's a plant. It is not synthesized. And it will only be used more, not less. If it is legalized, it will be easier to find, which will lead to more people using it. It's simple logic and statistics.'sings of low quality weed are : Lots of seeds and stems, lack of trichomes,and some brownish color all indicate bad quality , drugs can in fact be low quality since dealers might put stuff into it to make more money while businesses are regulated . Also it is not as simple as you think it is in Portugal when drugs have been de-criminalized it barely affected the numbers , in fact some experts claim that prohibition leads to more use because society condemns it and that attracts some. 'Actually, it is. It turns down brain activity until it is very low. When it gets to that point, it is barely capable of complex thought. Alcohol is better for the brain than marijuana because it doesn't shut it down as quick or as much.' Actually alcohol kills brain cells while cannabis doesn't there was only one study that have suggested so and it has already been proven wrong .
Marijuana should be legal

Though his argument and rebuttals may have been short, he was attempting to disprove my arguments. I will respond to that before I move on to the facts he stated about why recreational marijuana should be be legal. Pro's RebuttalsPro stated that "the person doing it chooses to do it is his body he damages by taking any relatively strong drug. " This is true, but as citizens of this country, we want there to be more people who are not ill or dead. We want people to have good jobs so they will pay taxes. People are less likely to be hired for a job if the interviewer can tell they have been smoking, which is a hard smell and behavior to cover up. Pro has not given any more arguments against mine, so I shall move on to his facts about marijuana in round 2. Pro's Arguments Towards Marijuana1. "Prohibition failed"Indeed it did, but that is because the government did not have as much control as it does today. If that happened again today, there would still be illegal uses, but not as many because more people would be caught. What needs to happen is greater funding of the DEA and police. is un-supported by facts and statistics which have shown that since the war on drugs started more and more people use drugs[sic]That is not true. There is plenty of evidence for health issues and statistics. I will mention some evidence in a moment.2. "Better Quality and Possibly less use"There's no such thing as 'better quality' marijuana. It's a plant. It is not synthesized. And it will only be used more, not less. If it is legalized, it will be easier to find, which will lead to more people using it. It's simple logic and statistics.3. "Hemp" I do not really know what to say about this energy thing. I personally think we need to move on to electric cars instead of bio-fuel or oil power cars. 4. "It is not as harmful as legal drugs"Actually, it is. It turns down brain activity until it is very low. When it gets to that point, it is barely capable of complex thought. Alcohol is better for the brain than marijuana because it doesn't shut it down as quick or as much. Cigarettes destroy the mouth, lungs, and throat, so I guess you could say that's worse. 5. "Prison and Tax money" Yeah, more people paying taxes sounds pretty good to me. That is what I was talking about earlier: we want less people dying from drugs so we can have more taxpayers to pay their taxes. I patiently await Pro's arguments.
Marijuana should be legal

'Marijuana is comparable to tobacco, which we all know has downsides.[1] Studies have shows that marijuana smokers are exposed to more smoke than cigarette smokers. This exposes them to an larger amount of carbon dioxide and tar, which increases the risks of a range of health problems including respiratory tract infections, bronchitis and lung cancer.' However Marijuana is much less addictive than tobbaco . Also the link between cannabis and lung cancer is significantly lower than tobbaco's link to lunk cancer also i would like to add that I don't care how bad it is the person doing it chooses to do it is his body he damages by taking any relatively strong drug. My Opponent didn't give me any more issues to address .
Marijuana should be legal

Evidently, I will begin by asserting the facts that explain why I believe it should not be legalized. Marijuana is comparable to tobacco, which we all know has downsides. [1] Studies have shows that marijuana smokers are exposed to more smoke than cigarette smokers. This exposes them to an larger amount of carbon dioxide and tar, which increases the risks of a range of health problems including respiratory tract infections, bronchitis and lung cancer. [1] Not only that, according to drugfree. org, "{s}moking a single marijuana joint is equivalent to smoking 2.5 to 5 cigarettes in terms of damage to the lungs, largely due to differences in how pot and cigarette users smoke. "[2] "The Guardian {also} reported July 31 that researchers at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand found that the deep drags taken by marijuana users, along with their penchant for holding smoke in before exhaling, can cause problems like obstructed airways and hyperinflation of the lungs. The lack of filters on marijuana joints also contributes to lung problems. "[2] As this is only round two, I shall await round three to give the rest of my reasoning to not legalizing recreational marijuana and my rebuttals against your arguments. I look forward to seeing your reasoning and arguments for why you believe recreational marijuana should be made legal. [1]. http://learnaboutmarijuanawa.org...... [2]. http://www.drugfree.org......
Marijuana should be legal

I have accepted this debate and shall be arguing the con side, saying that recreational marijuana, as I assume we are talking about recreational and not medical, should not be legal. My opponent will be arguing that recreational marijuana should indeed be legal.Because my opponent has neglected to lay out some rules, I feel obligated to do so. Proper grammar and spelling should be used at all time. All sources, if any, must be cited. All arguments must be sophisticated. Because that is all I wish to say, I await Pro's arguments for the legalization of recreational marijuana.
Gay Marriage

It is my first, so I wasn't quite sure how to start it off. I will admit it was a week beginning, but I do hope to pick it up as I go along! 1) Marriage is a spiritual bonding, I agree, but the point of that quote is to say, homosexuals are people too. They should be treated as people, and not as dogs. In other words, they should be able to marry, because they know what it is, and they seek it, and care about it. 2) I would usually agree with my opponent in most cases to 'make no attempt to change what the status quo without interference is not logically sound. ' But in this case, I would classify it differently. Since it makes 2 people inherently happy, and doesn't harm you, you should leave it be. This is one of the problems I have with the Christian Religion. They need to make sure if they believe it, that's how the world should be run. Just because Christianity feels it is not right for same sex marriage, doesn't mean that's how everyone feels, particularly the homosexuals. Church doesn't have to approve, but they need to let people do what is right for them. The Church doesn't have to practice gay marriage, they need to let it alone.
Gay Marriage

Thank you for starting this debate. Some definitions: Gay: For this debate it does not mean ‘happy' but rather the resolution is referring to sexual attraction to people of the same gender, or homosexual. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Marriage: Biblical religious concept where two become one. http://www.intothebible.com... Before presenting my own case I will address my opponents points. 1)Dogs are not allowed to marry because there dogs and don't know what that is. They don't seek it or care about becoming married, and neither do their owners for the most part, and if the owners they are in no way stopped from dressing up there dogs and pretending the dogs are spiritually bonded by it while the dogs wait for their owners to take off the embarrassing clothes and give them bacon. 2)The concept of ‘if it doesn't hurt you, you should let it be'. Had my opponent said ‘if it doesn't hurt you, you could survive letting it be' then I would agree that that saying would hold true all the time inherently. That is logically sound. But saying that just because isn't harming you should leave it as it is, make no attempt to change what the status quo without interference is not logically sound. If you only did what was necessary to survive and avoided the unnecessary progress would never be made. Now the question is, what exactly is the case hear? Well its actually not cut and dry enough where considering either of the things my opponent brought up are relevant issues needed to be considered (humane treatment, equality, doesn't hurt you). The issue of being for Gay Marriage is only relevant to the religious people that believe in the practice of the biblical concept of two people spiritually being one. If a homosexual union between two peoples spirits is consistent with that religion's (Christian) doctrines on marriage, or spiritual union, or even good and evil in general then of course Gay Marriage should be allowed to be practiced by it. But if by those beliefs that practice the belief in marriage are not consistent enough to be compatible with there being homosexual marriage then of course it would be irrational of them to practice any such thing. Such is the case with Christian doctrine that tries to convince people their souls can become one in the union of marriage, for they do not encourage gay sex at all and even go as far as to call it a sin in many cases. They do not encourage homosexuality as good in any way so while on holding that belief it would not be rational to encourage mixing it with something they hold as a holy practice (marriage). So because it would be inconsistent with its faith, beliefs, teaching, ect… the church should not start practicing gay marriage.
Gay Marriage

"A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?"- Anonymous There is nothing wrong with Gay or lesbian marriage. It may make certain people uncomfortable, but for some people, being in small spaces makes them uncomfortable. Does that make small spaces wrong? There is no logical explanation for Gay and lesbian marriage to be illegal. 1. It doesn't effect anyone except for the 2 people. There isn't much of an argument other than that. If it doesn't harm you, then you should let it be.
Gay Marriage

1) My opponent only seems to have 1 religion on their mind, Christianity. To get the big picture, you must keep a broad view. There are Religions that accept homosexuality, for instance, Unitarian Universalist, Episcopal, and Lutheran. Each of those Religions can spiritually bond 2 people. 2) My opponent claims "Every human being is made in the image of God. " Before going any further, I'd like my opponent to prove "God. " If my opponent cannot prove God, nearly everything she has said would be a insufficient claim. 3) Again my opponent brings up the Christian Church, Marriage can be under the Episcopal Church, thus the Church is accepting the homosexuality. 4) I'm not quite sure what my opponent meant to prove when she mentioned a roller coaster. I believe she is trying to say she was treated like a dog when she was not able to ride the coaster. As she also stated earlier, dogs would have no urge to ride the coaster, in fact strapping them in would be a difficult enough task, just because the dog wouldn't corporate. As for the safety part, Gay marriage is not a unsafe in any way.