BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is Not Universal

For a brief road map, I will go over my opponents arguments and then enforce my own. His first argument was to say that it is "impossible to prove a certain set of moral beliefs to be true" Which is completely correct, until he goes on to say that certain key values can be determined to be moral whether everyone agrees or not. But, if everyone does not agree then we still have to fail to recognize morality as a universal concept since every person or group or society could have a different view of what morality is. Which he also stated in the beginning of his argument, that morality is a broad term. He mentions one of the basic key values of morality is the aspect of killing but as I said in my previous arguments other people and religions have different ideas of whether killing is moral or not. Which is what we are debating, whether morality is a term that can be used universally and accepted with the same ideas in mind. -created equal- I believe that my opponent is attempting to make the point that humans may not think they are superior to other humans and that they have no right to hurt others or to believe killing them is not immoral. Which is his personal belief and view as to what morality is. This argument is directed at my point that some Australian tribes believe it is moral to eat human flesh. I am not saying that I agree with this, but what I am saying is that others have different opinions as to what the definition of morality is. Which again, his argument does not fit in with the debate considering it is proving that his definition of what is moral is different from what the definition of morality is to other people. -logic- Again, his point is that humans do not have the authority or right to kill other humans. I agree, but there is other people who do not agree on the meaning of the word morality which is why it was possible for my opponent to say that morality is a broad term in the beginning of his arguments. He says it isn't ethnocentrism because it is logical to believe that humans cannot kill other humans. But just by saying that is an example of ethnocentrism. Saying that it is only logical to believe that you should not and cannot kill a person and eat their flesh is saying that that idea is superior to any other. The people in those Australian tribes believe differently and you are therefore saying that they are wrong and your idea is dominant over theirs is ethnocentrism. As for my on case, my points stand strong. According to the definition of morality any code of conduct that is implemented in a society or religion or group may be considered moral. Since there are many different groups of people, societies and religions with different ideas as to what is right and wrong we can see that morality is not a universal idea.
Morality is Not Universal

This is a pretty tricky subject to debate, since morality{1} is a very broad term. But I think that even though some people might have their own idea of morality, that doesn't mean there cannot be a universal idea of morality. I don't think that this is a case of ethnocentrism, just logic. First off, I think it's impossible to prove a certain set of moral beliefs to be true (whether it's the morality of Christianity, Islam, or a particular tribe) but I do believe it's possible to establish certain key values to be moral, whether or not everyone agrees. One of the most basic ones, which I will focus on, is the aspect of killing {2}. It should be obvious that all humans are created equal, whether they were created by God or by nature. What I mean is, no one man has power or dominion over any other. If one believes this, the onus is on them to show why they do so. Otherwise, it should be obvious that all human beings are equal to each other, and no one has the right to harm or kill another. Just because some people believe that they have the right to hurt others, or to go so far as to kill and eat them, doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean that murder is moral, or at least, not immoral.This isn't a case of ethnocentrism, just logic. What gives another human being the power and authority to kill another human? Not only that, but to eat the flesh of new born children? What gives another human the right to take away the life of a newly born human, and not only eat them, but to tell others that it is completely ok to do so? If all humans are equal, then the power to decide who lives and who dies is not in the hands of any human being, by means of simple logic. So I believe this is one case where morality is in fact universal, that all humans are equal, that no human has power over any other, and therefore, does not possess the right to kill another human, due to this equality. Because of this, I believe that some moral statements are in fact universal.{1} "a doctrine or system of moral conduct"-http://www.merriam-webster.com...{2} "to deprive of life : cause the death of"- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Mormons are Christians

-----Definitions----- Mormons - Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. [1][2]Christians - [people] who follow or belong to a religion based on the worship of one God and the teachings of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible . [3]Christian(Biblical Definition) - A follower of Christ, from the Greek 'Christianos'[4]-----Belief in the Bible-----So, we can see that a Christian is one who believes in God and Jesus Christ as contained in the Bible. Mormons claim to believe in the Bible as scripture, and in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Son of God. I quote relevant sections from official Mormon websites. "The Book of Mormon is the word of God, like the Bible. It is Holy Scripture, with form and content similar to that of the Bible. Both books contain God's guidance as revealed to prophets as well as religious histories of different civilizations. "[5]While Mormons believe in additional scripture, they believe that The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is simply another set of scripture that affirms the teachings of the Bible and acts as an additional witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior. "Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the Son of God. He is our Redeemer. "[6]Mormons believe in the teachings of Jesus contained in the New Testament, and quote the New Testament frequently on their page about Christ. [6]As additional proof that Mormons believe in the Bible, they list it under their Scripture Study section on their official website. [7]Lastly, the official name of the Mormon church is 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints'. They proclaim in their very name that they are followers of Jesus Christ, and so fulfill the definition of a Christian, both from the dictionary, and from the original Greek as found in the New Testament. [1]. http://mormon.org...[2]http://lds.org...[3]http://dictionary.cambridge.org...;[4]http://www.biblestudytools.com...[5]http://mormon.org...;[6]http://mormon.org...;[7]http://lds.org...;
Mormons are Christians

My burden was to show Mormons are not Christian. All this takes is one example of their beliefs contradicting Christianity. Christian Beliefs 1. He still said this quote and since Joseph Smith started the religion and his interpretation of the bible is part of the religion therefore, a multitude of Gods is part of the religion. 2a. Christianity teaches they are one being. Mormonism goes against this belief therefore, they are not Christian. 2b. Yes the Father and I are united. They are one being. Christianity teaches they are one being. Mormonism goes against this fundamental dogma. Therefore, they are not Christian. 4. Christianity teaches God is spirit. Mormonism teaches God is man. Therefore, Mormons are not Christian. 7. Christianity teaches that Jesus is both man and god. Mormonism does not. Mormons deny this dogma of Christianity. Mormons are not Christian. 8. I do not have to provide a definition Christianity teaches it is correct. Mormons do not. Mormons are not Christian. Mormon beliefs. 1. But, you still have not addressed Prophet Lorenzo Snow's quote. Therefore, you hold it as true. Since Christianity teaches God is a spiritual deity and Mormonism teaches God is "flesh and blood" then Mormonism is not Christian. 2. I cited Prophet Lorenzo Snow. You have not proven he is an non-official source. He is a Mormon prophet how much more official can you get? 3. No, you stated that there was a possibility of other God's. Christianity states there is no possibility of another God. 4. Alright I shall drop this point because my source is not authoritative in Mormon belief. Yet, I still have more than enough to prove Mormonism is not Christian. 5. It's a fundamental dogma of Christianity that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. You have doomed your case by stating Mormons believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate. As they are violating a dogma of Christianity. 6. I apologize for misrepresenting an un-authoritative source for an authoritative source. As such I will drop this point. 7. I do not have to provide proof for it. It is a Christian doctrine. Remember the Resolution at hand "Mormons are Christians" Mormons do not believe in Original Sin therefore, they are not Christian. 8. I'll refer back to number 7s logic. Christianity does not teach it is correct. Mormonism does. Mormons are not Christian. My opponent has failed to meet his BOP in showing that Mormons undoubtedly are Christian. To be a Christian you must follow the basic tenants of Christianity. Mormons deny some of these basic tenants. They are not Christian.
Mormons are Christians

I will begin my argument by stating the fundamental dogma's of Christianity that all Christians must follow to be considered Christian. Then I will state the fundamental Mormon beliefs. Christan: 1. There is only one God. Period. No other Gods anywhere. 2. God is three in one. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three beings in one God. (This is the most confusing aspect of Christianity) 3. God is omniscient, omnipotent, infinite, etc. 4. God is Spirit. 5. Jesus Christ is God. 6. Jesus Christ became man. 7. Jesus is fully God, and fully man, 8. All people have sinned (original sin) 9. Death came into the world through Adam's sin. 10. The Holy Spirit is God. 11. The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. Mormon beliefs. 1. God was once a man who lived on another planet. This is the most important Mormon belief. God was mortal at one point. This clearly contradicts well most aspects of Christianity. 2. God is a man. Once again this clearly contradicts basic aspects of Christianity. "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangilble as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Spirit has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit…" 3. Multiple God's and Multiple worlds. God created other world's with people living on it. There are also other universes with other God's ruling over these universes. This clearly contradicts the first aspect of Christianity. There is only one God. 4. Jesus was begotten by a physical union between God and Mary. Once again God is spirit in Christianity so this would be impossible. 5. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) are separate beings. This contradicts another basic, yet confusing, tenant of Christianity. 6. People turn into God's when they die. Do I have to explain why this violates every tenant of Christianity? Because it does. 7. There is no such thing as original sin. This violates number 8 and 9 of basic Christian beliefs 8. Jesus visited the Americas. There is no record of this in the Bible (or have any archeological support). As you can see Mormon beliefs violate the basic dogma's of Christian belief therefore, they cannot be Christian. They may believe in the Bible and Jesus Christ but, many of their other beliefs are NOT Christian.
The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old

Resolved: The new DDO voting system is superior to the old one. I am affirming.The new DDO voting system is a system of up/down voting where the judge selects a single winner for the debate. The old system was a categorical system weighing Spelling and Grammar, Conduct, and Sources as well as arguments. As a courtesy to my opponent, we'll use that system for the round. Round 1 is for acceptance only. No new arguments in the last round. Good luck.
Safestanding should be introduced at Premier League Grounds

Thank you for your response. I was referring to the introduction of . http://www.safestandingroadshow.co.uk... which would require a change in current legislation. I agree that changing the legislation will be a lot of hassle, mainly due to the emotion following the disaster, and that is why I began the debate - in order to see if there were any rational reasons rather that just blurred emotion for why it shouldn't be introduced. Ultimately while you did put forward better points against it than a number of senior politicians and journalists, I believe that I rationally countered each point, and that other than the cost, there quite simply are no cons, therefore I advise voters to vote Pro. Thankyou for your time, and hopefully this is introduced sooner rather than later!
Safestanding should be introduced at Premier League Grounds

Could you also distinguish between why people will suddenly act 'foolish' in SafeStanding sections when they don't (as a whole) act foolishly when standing in seated areas. I didn't say people would "suddenly act foolish in Safe standing sections". I was making a general point that people shouldn't rely on physical structures to keep them safe. The increased foolishness (read: stupidity) would happen slowly.This is essentially a point that messing with natural selection is bad. Okay, that's all I got.When initially I accepted your debate, I thought you were referring to:http://safestand.co.uk...If you are trying to rewrite The Football Spectators Act (1989):Changing legislation is a hassle. It is much easier to get over-protective laws passed after a disaster; than it is to get them re-evaluated based on logical arguments. Emotion (read: lots of people all excited) more than logic (read: a few people with calm arguments) moves the government.Is there a reason England shouldn't adopt the practices of Germany and others allowing stadiums to convert some sections between standing and seating depending on the game?I don't know. I'm not English, never been to a soccer (I said soccer) game. My second round was what I could come up with when I realized you weren't referring to the website I mentioned. Put a space between 'safe' and 'standing'. Just thought I'd give you some kind of argument.I am going to forfeit the last two rounds unless you want to debate something else. (I don't think this argument needed five rounds.)Thanks for the debate and giving me something to do a little research on.Now just because I think I'm funny. GO SPURS!!!!!
Full Drug Legalization

The key thing in your first statement is that it does not address the proven pharmacological effects of cocaine provoking violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression. Even if drug dealers are not violent, cocaine is proven to provoke violence. I also like how you prove the harmful effects of legal drugs like alcohol (which I have shown no support for in this debate) yet suggest that we should legalize other harmful drugs, some being less harmful and some being much much more. Wow what a horrible idea. Nothing like adding coal to the fire. I guess your argument is that we are already killing our selves with minimal amounts of drugs; we might as well open the flood gates and legalize all drugs. I presented a harm to the action that you are suggesting and you have yet to disprove it. That one harm alone is enough to reject the idea of full drug legalization. Also where did I proudly state "we only throw people in jail for selling things we dont like...not just using or having those things". You also contend my source by1.making up arguments that cannot be proven, and 2. By introducing evidence from a blog who references something that plays no part in its claim. If you look at that blog, they make the same reference you do. However when you look at where they got their information, their source does not even support their claim. Not connected at all. So until you can prove that argument it is null. This is also an unanswered argument "Lets look at history. Legalization has been tried before—and failed miserably. Alaska's experiment with Legalization in the 1970s led to the state's teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska's residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990." You also have not touched the fact that your example countries have only partially legalized drugs. You have no ground to stand on when it comes to this topic.
Full Drug Legalization

A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that "homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacological effects of cocaine." The violent behavior caused by drugs won't magically stop because the drugs are legal. Legal PCP isn't going to make a person less violent than illegally purchased PCP. So, crimes committed because of drugs will increase as the number of drug users increase with the legalization of drugs. The psychopathic behavior that drugs cause will not somehow magically stop because drugs are legal. Legalization proponents ignore the fact that the people committing violent crimes are career criminals who will not stop their illegal activities once drugs are legalized; they will instead seek new sources of illicit revenue. Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful. Illegal drugs are not illegal just because. If you look at the example countries you gave, they don't even have Full Drug Legalization. They only have partial, so that does not help your case at all. You claim that we have wasted billions of dollars in this anti-drug efforts. But for those kids saved from drug addiction, this is hardly wasted dollars. Moreover, our fight against drug abuse and addiction is an ongoing struggle that should be treated like any other social problem. Would we give up on education or poverty simply because we haven't eliminated all problems? Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction—whether in taxpayer dollars or in pain and suffering—government spending on drug control is minimal. Lets look at history. Legalization has been tried before—and failed miserably. Alaska's experiment with Legalization in the 1970s led to the state's teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska's residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990. The truth is, only about 5 percent of inmates in federal prison are there because of simple possession. Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes. But hey dont take my word for it, I am nearly voicing the same arguments as the Drug Enforcement Administration. (No more bias than your source) http://www.usdoj.gov...
Full Drug Legalization

I am very serious when i say that drug prohibition is one of the most harmful domestic government policies. Alcohol related deaths skyrocketed during prohibition, because bootleggers had an incentive to carry very high concentrations of alcohol. The same economic incentives exist today. The Toxicity and potency of nearly all drugs has gone up, as drug dealers find it no reason to water down or thin out their material. In nations that have moved towards partial legalization (switzerland has special clinics that literally hand out cocaine) dosage levels of drugs remain more stable making them safer. When you are unaware of the potency of a drug it is very easy to overdose. Millions of people are thrown in jail over the drugs...and millions die of alcohol and tobacco poisoning. The number of illegal drug related deaths is very small. There is nothing wrong with throwing someone in jail who has committed a violent offense against others, but if you are going to throw people in jail just because they have the potential to cause crimes then you can throw just about anyone in jail. The violence caused by drug dealers ONLY exists because drugs are illegal. The harder Police crack down on drugs the more violent the drug dealers will become, because the less violent dealers will be in jail. If drugs were legalized then the industry could be monitored by police and with no need to use violence to settle disputes violent drug dealers would be a thing of the past, just as the prohibition era gangsters and bootleggers disappeared after the repeal of prohibition. Because of the Drug War teens are more afraid of cops then they are of marijuana, cocaine, acid, PCP, or crack. I know people who would rather risk an experimental go at cocaine then get caught with it. But hey dont take my word for it, I am nearly voicing the same arguments of former LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS. LEAP website: http://www.leap.cc...
Full Drug Legalization

Are you kidding me on "Full Drug Legalization?" This cant be serious can it. Tens of Thousands of people die, every year. This is a very limited number due to the current laws. To get "Full Drug Legalization" would more than likely quadruple that number. You know what is more important than costing tax payers money, costing them their lives by doing something so ignorant. As far as our justice system filling our prisons with non violent criminal, apparently you have never witnessed someone wet on PCP or on a bad acid trip. Drugs can cause violence. Have you never thought of the violence most drug dealers cause just in sales alone. Protect our children and America from the ignorance of "Full Drug Legalization."