BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
(I'm new) Objective morality MUST exist.

I decided to take this debate because pro's actual points don't seem to be arguing for the existence of objective morals, but rather, that atheists cannot account for it. I disagree. I'd like to define what is good as, "what brings happiness and reduced harm". To this, Pro might respond "why ought we try to reduce harm?" To this, I respond that I'm simply defining good as what reduces harm, in the same way that pro defines good as what is consistent with God's nature. Now I will go through pro's points. 1. I agree with con on this point. I don't think that we can get a standard of morality by saying whatever the cultural norm is can be considered right. 2. Most atheists are evolutionists, but most atheists are not social darwinists. Evolution is simply the theory that we evolved from a common ancestor though mutation and natural selection. It does not state that we ought to kill the weak so the strong may live on. Darwinism is not a moral system. 3. I agree that cultural norms should not determine morality. A. Using my definition of good, we can tell when an action is good or bad. Whether or not an action was predetermined is irrelevant to whether or not it is good or bad. What I think you actually mean is "we cannot punish a person if their actions were predetermined, because their actions weren't their fault". I think this is not true, because I don't believe that punishing a person for their actions is the only purpose of the justice system. I believe that the purpose of the justice system is to reduce crime, and thus, reduce harm. We need to have rehabilitation in the justice system, because that stops the person from committing another crime, while not punishing them gratuitously. There also needs to be punishment in the justice system, to make people scared to commit crime. This type of justice system is completely consistent with naturalism, and hard determinism. B. See earlier responses to this exact point.
Feminism fights to harm men.

Final rebuttal:Saying that gender equality fights to harm men is equivalent to saying that racial equality fights to harm whites. Or saying that fighting for sexual equality fights to harm non-LGBT individuals. When, in reality, gender equality (and equality in general) is focused around giving equal rights to both sexes, and eliminating the struggles that are produced from patriarchy.Such struggles include:A) Women being misrepresented in politics.B) Rape of both men by women (out of a sense that men are viewed as people who will always accept and appreciate sex willingly) and women by men (out of a perception that women can be viewed as sexual objects).C) Objectification of women in the media.D) Discrimination against those who slip out of their socio-gender normative, simply because they wish to be more individualistic (Ex: passive gay men being compared to women. Which itself is a main lead for same-sex rape within prisons, as passive gay men (or simply men who don't fit within a tough enough veil of masculinity) become to be seen as easy substitutes to women as sex objects).E) Child abuse by mothers/fathers who force their children to mold into a gender normative (Ex: male children being abused for being to 'effeminate', and female children being abused for being to 'masculine').F) Slut-shaming, which can lead to depression and suicide (as with the case of Amanda Todd[1]).Etc., etc.Thus, as a feminist is against patriarchy, a feminist is also against all of these points stated above.As for your next few paragraphs until the end of my opponent's 'Five ways feminism has ruined America', that was copy/pasted from this source[2]. Which means my oppenent has yet to provide an argument for yourself.The rest of his argument is, yet again, another copy/paste job from this source[3].Conclusion:My opponent has yet to provide a realistic argument as to how feminism fights to harm men, and also how gender equality can be percieved as being harmful to men when it obviously has not been implemented yet.Because of such, my opponent has to fulfill their burden of proof.Vote Con.Sources: 1- http://en.wikipedia.org...2- http://www.usnews.com...3- http://www.thetrumpet.com...
Feminism fights to harm men.

Rebuttal to Third Argument:Point 1:I. My opponent has simply pasted sources without describing the qualities or as to how they redirect back into their argument.II. My opponent has yet again simply copy/pasted directly from this source.[1]III. My opponent has yet to answer to any of my counter arguments, or provide how the ideology of feminism is not centered around equality of the sexes.C: Feminism has yet to be shown (in this argument) that it 'fights to harm men', meaning the burden of proof has not been fulfilled.Also, if you acknowledge that there are feminists that 'want true equality' then you are conceding your argument.Point 2:I. 'Feminist' A fights to harm men, while 'Feminist' B fights for gender equality.II. A 'feminist' is, by definition, 'a person who supports feminism'.III. Feminism is, by definition, the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.[2]C: Feminist B is by definition not a feminist, whereas Feminist A by definition is a feminist.Point 3:I. My opponent's claim is that 'Feminism fights to harm men'.II. Feminism is composed of individuals that fight for gender equality, not female supremacy.C: Feminism does not fight to harm men, thus my opponent's claim is false.Sources:1- http://anti-feminism-pro-equality.tumblr.com...2- http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Feminism fights to harm men.

Opening Argument:To begin, i would like to define the term feminism: fem·i·nism [fem-uh-niz-uh m] noun the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.[1]I would like to mention that this definition alone already shows the resolution that 'Feminism fights to harm men' to be false. However, I will continue with my opening points.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------* Feminism is based around equal power distribution between the sexes, not supremacy.Feminism makes the claim that there is a hierarchy that exists that is tilted in favor of men, this is called patriarchy. Feminism means to abolish this social hierarchy in favor of gender equality between the sexes, not the supremacy of one sex. This alone is clarified in the definition of the term, and anyone who strays from this term (such as radical 'feminists' like TERFs) is by definition not a feminist, nor do they under any circumstance represent feminism. Saying such is equivalent to me saying, since one person in the state of Louisiana is a member of the Ku Klux Klan, then all people in Louisiana are members of the Ku Klux Klan. Saying that all feminists seek to harm men is baseless. Purporting that feminism ignores issues like domestic violence against men, or non-recognition of female on male rape (both of which are issues that MRAs like to throw around, but do nothing about) is also baseless. Patriarchy and imbalance of power between the sexes (and imbalance of power between classes) is what causes these instances, and is exactly what feminism is opposed to.I will rebuttal my opponents opening argument claims in the second round. I hope we can have an intelligent and meaningful debate.
SocioEconomic Mobility

A common measure is to establish the trend of income between multiple generations of a family. For example, this study on birthweight and race found the trend of income between parent, grandparent, and great grandparent. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...We combined information from 3 generations of family members. The first generation consisted of the adult male and/or female in the household of NLSY79 respondents when they were 14 years old. Information concerning first-generation individuals was acquired retrospectively from NLSY79 respondents who were 15 to 22 years old at the time of initial interview. The second generation was comprised of NLSY79 respondents who gave birth to at least 1 child before 2002. The third generation includes the children of NLSY79 respondents for whom birthweight was reliably obtained through maternal report.There is debate over the validity of comparing just two generations of a family: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...And yet, one main assumption that has gone largely untested for all this time has been the idea that intergenerational social mobility should be measured as the similarity in socio-economic outcomes between parents and their offspring, that is, betweentwogenerations. This two-generation paradigm has most recently and forcefully been challenged by Robert Mare in his presidential address to the Population Association of America (Mare 2011). Mare notes that thanks to the preponderance of mobility research that either implicitly or explicitly assumes that the intergenerational transmission of status does not extend beyond that from parents to their children, "[i]t is likely that we have overstated intergenerational mobility [...] or, at the very least, have misunderstood the pathways through which it occurs" (ibid: pp.19"20).I hope this helps! :)
SocioEconomic Mobility

Sorry to disappoint Ladies and Gentlemen but this is not an argument. I am a senior in college trying to come up with an accurate metric to prove my argument that socioeconmic mobility in the U.S. has drastically decreased over the last 35 years. (Largely due to NAFTA and improper Federal policies) I have come to this forum because people who want to participate in discussion are the ones who have the best opinions/knowledge. I have looked at things such as tax returns, unemployment rates, investment within the market; thus far I have not come up with anything too effective. I also unfortunately have the single most useless professor in the whole world. PLEASE HELP ME.
Glenn will die in the Walking Dead season 5

Obviously Pro has asserted the resolution as fact placing the entire burden of proof on him to give verifiable evidence. Short of showing us the script or giving us a sneak peek at the episode that confirms Glenn's death he cannot fulfill his burden.While rumors have been going around that a major character may die it will certainly not be Glenn. According to the Walking Dead Enthusiasts "We have information from our own reliable source on the ground in Georgia stating this rumor is 100% NOT TRUE. Our insider, who is familiar with the filming schedule, confirmed that Glenn has not been killed off at this point in filming." (http://www.twdenthusiasts.com...) Glenn has not died yet so put your mind at ease.
Xbox/Playstation should make it to where gamers only play with people of there own age group.

I accept this challenge. I will use round 1 to respond to your points and make my own. "Gamers these days are getting tired of being forced to play with immature little kids..." -Yes they are. Now does this justify change though? This won't prevent the kids from annoying them. The kids fake their age anyway. "always complaining when they lose, and are always calling other people online offensive names as well." -This isn't exclusive to kids. Trash talking, insults, scrubs, etc. also exist in older age groups as well. I don't think segregating the community is a good idea. This is the internet. People are going to be immature. Age does not equal maturity. Should those who are below 13 but are mature enough be penalized? Should those who are above 18 but immature be put in the high age group? I do not think so.
Xbox/Playstation should make it to where gamers only play with people of there own age group.

Ok, I think that gamers these days are getting tired of being forced to play with immature little kids who shouldn't be playing certain games anyway. Such as Call of Duty, or Grand Theft Auto: Online. It is such a pain to play with them sometimes, due to the fact they are always complaining when they lose, and are always calling other people online offensive names as well. I think that the servers should be spilt between age groups. >13 could be the first one. 13-17 could be the second one. 18-40 could be the third one, and then 40+, so that way there can be balance, and people can have more fun online without worrying if a little kid will try to report them for losing at the game they play, and I do realize this could actually make it harder to find people online due to the fact, the gaming community would be spilt, but the solution for that could be by letting in a player from a different age group in every once and while without telling them, but you could only get let in to the next age group you are closest to. EX: If the servers for the 13-17 are not pulling in a lot people at the moment, and I am 17 years of age, I could be let in the 18-40 age group, or even place in a subgroup with the 18-40 group (such as a 18-25 age group within the 18-40 age group) or if I am 13, I could be put in the >13 age group, and place in a subgroup there too (10-13). This would not only help with kids playing with people the should be playing with, it would also help control the petos, and even increase the flow of track in the online gaming world.
Gentle oral sex between adult and a child should be legal

Okay, This is beyond 'out there'. In theory this would allow for a 21 year old man to have oral sex with a 5 year old. There is (surely) no reality in which this would be considered acceptable. . . Anyway, This shouldn't ever be taken seriously, If this is something you're genuinely interested in you need to evaluate your lifestyle and make heavy changes, Wanting those kinds of relations isn't normal by any means.
Gentle oral sex between adult and a child should be legal

Ok, First to set meanings. Oral sex = Either putting genitals in mouth either licking genitals Gentle = One that causes no harm Legal = Non-sanctioned We all know how children like putting things in their mouth. Sadly, In the world where we live, The beautiful practice of children sucking on adult's genitals has been condemned and sanctioned by the law and the masses. Because of this, Children who have had oral sex with adults are being impacted with the guilt for the deed they have done. For those who want more information on this topic, Book "The Trauma Myth" by Susan Clancy explains this very well. In the book, She interviews today's adults, Children in the past who engaged in gentle sexual activities and came out unharmed by them. The statistics that she uses face some problems from the very start. Like, The fact that she combines gentle sexual activities with violent ones into one statistic. But in her book, She did correct one of her statistics when she said that it is not known whether children are hurt by sexual activities, Or are hurt children more likely to engage in sexual activities. Children who wonder around alone with no parents or friends are likely already damaged by that alone, But they are also easier targets for child lovers. Which means that in studying statistics one can falsely assume that children are damaged by sexual activities, Rather than damaged children being more likely to engage in sexual activities. As explained, It is much more possible that already hurt children are engaging in sexual activities, Rather than children engaging in sexual activities are being hurt by sexual activities. Second factor is the fact that children are often being separated from their lovers when their relationship is discovered, And questioned by family and police. This can easily lead to a sense of guilt, Which later in life results in alcohol and drug abuse. So rather than sexual activities being the cause of problems later in life, The reaction of people, Friends, Family and police are just as likely to be the cause of those problems. Third factor is the huge condemnation of sexual activities with children by the society. Often condemned in news, Stories written about this form of love in a very negative way, Along with the complete media censorship of any positive examples of this form of love. So it is only expected for children who engage in sexual activities to feel as outcasts. Children who had sexual experiences feel like they have disappointed their family and friends, Because the reaction that their friends and family produce is usually disapproval, Which borders closely with disappointment. Saying that society protects children from sexual activities is equal to saying that society protects children from joy. Sexual activities cause joy, Both in children and adults. Saying that sexual activities are against the rights of a child is saying that children don't have right to sexual activities, That their freedom is limited. And considering the joyful nature of sexual activities, It is a negative limitation.
In most cases internet "spam" are differentiable from internet "scams"

As most people with internet experience are aware "spam" refers to large volumes of unwanted and unasked for messages sent in mass to a large number of recipients in the hopes that some fraction of them will actually read said message rather than just rolling their eyes and immediately deleting it. When this term first came into common use it was common for it to refer to obnoxious advertisements for legitimate products. As time went on however, use of spam tactics for legitimate advertising purposes has diminished significantly, alongside a concurrent upsurge in the use of such tactics by scammers wishing only to steal peoples money. I will use the DDO opinions section as a specific case to examine. As of the creation of this post there exist over 50 spam messages within the past week, every single one of which was a scam message, in most cases one purporting to be able to use some form of magic or astrology to alter peoples minds and make them fall in love with you but there are also quite a few that offer to allow you to join a nonexistent secret society that apparently controls the planet. All of these are clearly fake services of course, and all require an upfront fee. Offering a 'service' that has no positive impact for the buyer is among the most common types of scams which exist. There exist there ZERO spam advertisements that are not related to some sort of scam. (1) I chose the example of scammers on DDO because it is a conversation about this particular scam/spam relationship that inspired this debate and also because it would be one of the most relate able and easiest to access for people reading this, but other examples of similar phenomenon exist in the form of junk emails and mass phone calls. In the case of emails there are many examples of spammed scam mails that those reading may be familiar with including the infamous 419 scams, romance scams, fake charity scams, pyramid schemes, etc. Among the phone spam/scams the most common include tech support scams, credit card interest rate scams, fake cruises, fake home security... you get the idea. (2) Whereas once upon a time telemarketers - People that advertise legitimate products using spam methods - were a much larger problem, now the majority of spam phone calls are in fact also scam calls. They are un-differentiable. Pro contends, as the title would suggest, that in "most" cases this relationship between spam and scams as described is not the case when it comes to identifying the purposes behind certain spam, in other words that "most" spam advertisements are more likely to originate from legitimate service providers rather than scammers. While sometimes this is the case, it is far from true that such is the case "most" of the time. In light of the multitude of examples provided above and the multitude of examples that those reading likely have direct experience with, I do not believe there is sufficient reason to say that this is in fact the case. 1) http://www.debate.org... 2) http://www.itbusinessedge.com...
Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool

This round is just for you to accept the position, so don't type on your first post. This is a Lincoln-Douglass Debate topic that was used in the District and State tournaments. Because this will be a LD debate, I'd prefer it if another Lincoln-Douglass debator picked up the Neg, but it isn't required if you just look at these requirements: Value Premise: The value premise (or VP) is a word or group of words to show why a resolution is moral or immoral. The debate over the VP decides which is used to judge the round. For example: If I debate this topic and use the VP of "National Security", then I am saying targetted killing is moral or immoral because of national security. If i win the VP debate with that VP, then we base what is moral or immoral based on which case benefits National Security more. Value Criterion: The value criterion (or VC) has different meanings depending on where you debate. For this round we'll be using the southern definition, which says that a Value Criterion is how your Value Premise applies to the case/resolution (depending on who you talk to.) for example, if my VP is "National Security", and my VC is "Targeted Killings protect citizens", then Targeted killing is moral because the protection of citizens justifies national security. Contentions: To put it simply, your contentions are your arguments. There are no technical restrictions on how many you use, so long as you keep them within your time limit (or character limit in this case), however the typical number for an affirmative is 3 and neg is 1 or 2, but feel free to use as amny as you want. For Example, if I use the VP and VC used above were used, and the first contention was "Targeted killing kills terrorists", then that would be your argument, and you'd list what proves it within the contention. LD format: Well, first off this LD is a moral debate style, not statistical, so it focuses a lot more on philosophers and expert opinions than it does on actual statistics. The round goes Aff constructive -> Neg Constructive -> Aff Rebutal -> Neg Rebutal -> Aff Final Focus - Neg Final Focus. There can be no new arguments in the final focus, you can reiterate on points made earlier in the round and say why you won, but you can't make new arguments in it. You'll have a better example of what one looks like by my first post, but it would still be better for an actual LD debator to debate. I won't object to anyone who isnt' though :)
Pokemon should be allowed in school.

Pokemon should definitely not be allowed in school. The purpose of going to school for many is to obtain a rich, fulfilling education to prepare one for the real world. Going to school means you willingly submit yourself to be educated, and to be matured. While it is necessary to include a bit of fun and lightheartedness into the daily school routine, (recess) the primary function of school is to get a pure, undisturbed, and untainted education cost and time effectively. If one of the primary reasons for you attending school involves playing a game, attending school is pointless. You might as well stay at home and play all the games you like; truant officers will not go into homes.
Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God Fail

Thanks for the debate Pro.I accept.Pro provided definitions for Cosmological Arguments (CAs).However, Pro did not provide definitions for the other terms of the resolution.Definitionsexistence - the fact of having objective reality.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...god - a superhuman existence worshiped for having power over nature or human fortunes.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...fail - be unsuccessful.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...*Request*I request the voters use OPT-IN voting standards when voting, so no crappy votes get past moderation.Please no crappy votes.