BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Necrophilia should be legal

[In relation to paedophilia] 'I"ll support the movement when it comes up, provided a system has been developed so that all involved parties have given their informed consent.' So you seemed to have changed your tune here. Before you said this: [Here you are talking about law against paedophilia]'This particular law is very sensible, in that it protects children from potentially life-altering experiences.' And this '...the practice of pedophilia can harm the child involved physically, emotionally and psychologically.' However, in your most recent statement you have claimed you would support legalisation of paedophilia, ONLY given that '... all involved parties have given their informed consent.' Now, we can debate the definition of 'informed' all we want, but in my opinion a child cannot give any informed consent because they are a CHILD. They are underdeveloped emotionally and intelligently, and while these debate is about necrophilia, I would very much like to see you describe a system in which children can effectively give their 'informed consent'. To me, it seems like your views on paedophilia and it's legalisation are inconsistent. Simply view the quotes above, and it is obvious why I think this way. Please explain yourself. Secondly, let's be real here. I don't know what country you live in, but given that you have an internet connection and advanced English skills, I'm assuming you live in an English speaking western democracy, probably the USA. (I live in UK for clarification).The reason I bring this is up is that in the society that I predict you to be in, how could you ever need to '...gauge society's readiness to accept necrophilia as a valid option...', when you know perfectly well how society views necrophilia? And even if you don't live in a western democracy, pretty much everywhere in the world necrophilia is treated with disdain. In your own words: [When telling someone you are a necrophiliac]'...accompanied by a look of disgust and a suggestion that I immediately see a mental health professional.' So isn't society's reaction obvious? I don't see why I'm your little 'test'. Thirdly, when I told you that there was no way necrophilia could be legalised, you responded with this: 'All I have to say on this one is think about how many things people one hundred years ago would have said this exact thing about, which are now perfectly legal.' Unfortunately, it seems like you have missed out a word, and even more unfortunately still this word seems to be important. In your response please clarify what you intended to write, as I can't argue against something that I don't know what it is.
Necrophilia should be legal

Morality is, when you get to the center of it, defined by culture. Every person, when they’re born, has no moral standards at all. Moral standards of some sort are forced onto them by the society they grow up in, but those moral standards are subject to change. The basest of moral standards is that it is wrong to do things that harm other people. Even if you take a historical incident of mass genocide, the targeted group had to be dehumanized in order to justify their slaughter. It is virtually impossible to deconstruct the moral standard that says harming other people is wrong, because in attempting to deconstruct said standard, one hits a massive roadblock. Namely, it’s already been deconstructed by the concept of revenge. If it’s right to harm someone because they harmed you first, then who’s to say it’s wrong to harm someone to prevent them from harming you? The only way to avoid this convoluted system of morals is to do away with morals altogether, which no one is perfectly capable of doing. That said, I’ll still attempt to come a step closer to doing just that right now: while I won’t take the first step towards seeing pedophilia legalized, I’ll support the movement when it comes up, provided a system has been developed so that all involved parties have given their informed consent.You honestly think I meant this as a hypothetical debate? While it’s true that this debate, in and of itself, will not change the law, I am perfectly serious about trying to have such a system as I proposed at the beginning of this debate implemented. This debate is meant as a test, to expose any flaws I hadn’t seen in the system and to gauge society's readiness to accept necrophilia as a valid option, so that I can properly determine where to go from here.‘There's no way this would ever be legal.’ All I have to say on this one is think about how many things people one hundred years ago would have said this exact thing about, which are now perfectly legal.
Necrophilia should be legal

' The age of consent laws that are already in place prohibit children from giving their consent. So then, it"s not my moral standard that says children can"t give their consent, it"s the law. This particular law is very sensible, in that it protects children from potentially life-altering experiences. Laws that prohibit necrophilia protect no one but the perpetrator of the act, who frankly should be allowed to make their own decision on the matter. ' But you are still not answering the question I posed in the previous round. Both of us happen to agree that paedophilia should be illegal, yet we differ on whether necrophilia should be legal. You have asked me before, 'What would give you the right to hold everyone else to your personal moral standards?' and yet at the same time you want to make paedophilia illegal, as you say it protects them from potentially life altering experiences, and by doing this are holding paedophiles to your moral standards. Let's say I supported legalisation of paedophilia, and you supported banning paedophilia. You can make all the arguments you want, yet I might disagree with you still. In that situation you would be holding me to your moral standards, namely your standard that paedophilia is wrong. When I posed the hypothetical scenario of a populous obsessed with necrophilia, I meant it in just that way, a hypothetical scenario. So the actuality isn't relevant. For example, your system of necrophilia would never be implemented in our society,yet here we are debating it. So saying that people would try it and then return to their old habits makes no sense, you don't know how people think. Focus on the hypothetical, otherwise this debate would have started with 'There's no way this would ever be legal. Good day!' 'In addition, I fail to see how a massive growth in the population of necrophiliacs would cause society to break down, so I would appreciate it if you could explain your thoughts.' Upon review, I have to admit I was quite unspecific. What I was referring to was the issue of procreation. Society would break down as nobody would be having babies and the population would come to a grinding halt.
Necrophilia should be legal

It seems you misunderstood my statement on children giving their consent. The age of consent laws that are already in place prohibit children from giving their consent. So then, it’s not my moral standard that says children can’t give their consent, it’s the law. This particular law is very sensible, in that it protects children from potentially life-altering experiences. Laws that prohibit necrophilia protect no one but the perpetrator of the act, who frankly should be allowed to make their own decision on the matter. ‘…what if the demand was even higher than that?’ If the supply of corpses was still too low to satisfy the demand, I would suggest utilizing a waiting list. Also, if everyone shared my sexual preferences, there would likely be no graveyards, as it would be a normal, accepted thing for all corpses to be used in necrophilia (at which point there would be debates about the legalization of biophilia, as it would then be considered sexual deviancy).‘…both you and I would consider unacceptable.’ Once again, you assume that I share your moral standards. In actuality, the only reason that I oppose pedophilia is the negative effect that it has on the child involved, and I do not, in fact, consider bestiality unacceptable (though I wouldn’t personally participate in such an act), so long as the animal involved is physically able to handle such an act. So you see, I do not have a double standard in this regard. As long as no one is harmed in a particular act, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be legal.‘…do you think you are living a healthy lifestyle?’ Not in particular, but then again, neither are many people who practice perfectly legal, ‘normal’ sex. The only unhealthy thing about having sex with a corpse is the chance of contracting a disease, which is also a very real possibility when having sex with a living person. Under the system I originally proposed, the person choosing to live this lifestyle would be informed of the risks ahead of time, which is more than one can guarantee when discussing sex with living people, as living people are capable of lying about their status in regards to sexually transmitted diseases.‘…should your lifestyle be encouraged?’ I wouldn't say that it should be encouraged, exactly, but it should be left open as an option. It’s the same as with any other ‘deviant’ sexuality. No one should be pressured into trying it if they have no interest whatsoever, but for those who are interested in trying it, it shouldn’t be such a taboo subject that they’re afraid to even mention it.‘…how could society function on a populous obsessed with necrophilia?’ I don’t perceive this ever becoming an issue. At worst, a large amount of the populace would try it out, decide it’s not for them, and return to their old sexual habits, having sufficiently sated their curiosity. A few would likely realize that they are necrophiliacs, but those few would hardly have an effect on the world’s overall population. In addition, I fail to see how a massive growth in the population of necrophiliacs would cause society to break down, so I would appreciate it if you could explain your thoughts.
Necrophilia should be legal

How can you say this: 'What would give you the right to hold everyone else to your personal moral standards?' While at the same time say this: '...while a child cannot legally give their consent for someone to have sex with them.' It seems that you are holding me accountable for me holding everyone else to my moral standards, yet here you are holding paedophiles to your moral standard. Who are you to say that a child cannot give their consent? (Disclaimer! I am against paedophilia in all of its forms. What I am trying to do is use the scenario of a paedophile attempting to justify his actions based on your logic). So, if your moral standard can be law, i.e. children can't give consent, then why can't my morale standard be law, i.e. necrophilia is wrong? You mention your solution to the supply and demand issue, namely being reuse of corpses, yet still I ask you what if the demand was even higher than that? Desire for sex is an innate human drive, so if everyone had sexual preferences such as yourself, what's to stop them going into graveyards? They can't have sex with living people, and their drive needs to be satisfied. It's human nature. 'If what you mean is "why would they stop at what"s in the system?", if they didn't they'd most likely have broken some other law, and could be prosecuted for that.' Fair enough, but then the people who want sexual relations with animals, child etc would say: 'Hey! How come the necrophiliacs get to bone bones? (Excuse the pun) I want to have sex with my pet! If he can have sex with a corpse, why can't I have sex with my pet, that's not fair!' Having this double standard in regards to sexual relations that society deem ordinary can't exist, as otherwise that makes you a hypocrite. What I'm trying to say is that legalised necrophilia will open the floodgates to a whole world of things that both you and I would consider unacceptable. I will try to be as civilised and polite as possible, because there is no point in being rude or insulting just because you disagree with someone's views. But I want to ask you the question do you think you are living a healthy lifestyle? And should your lifestyle be encouraged?(I perceive legalisation to be the same as encouragement, as it would push people who would have thought about it, but wouldn't have wanted to break the law into actually doing it). So again, should your lifestyle be encouraged? If no, then why not? You are a necrophiliac, so why can't other people? You can't say 'I can be a necrophiliac, but you shouldn't' It's hypocritical. If yes, then how could society function on a populous obsessed with necrophilia? Society would break down, the population would be wiped out and there wouldn't be an untouched corpse anywhere on the planet!
All Weapons on Earth Should be Destroyed

The Potential EndWhile nuclear weapons are quite destructive and frightening the resolution reads that ALL weapons on Earth should be destroyed. We could eliminate nuclear weapons without getting rid of such things as hand guns, police batons and other such weapons as that. This does not say why we should eliminate all types of weapons from bows to hunting rifles to warplanes. We could eliminate weapons of mass destruction but still need basic weapons in order to perform tasks like hunt and keep order in the streets.Also I would like to point up that the nuclear build up is what prevented the Cold War from tuning into a Hot War. Through a policy and situation known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) [1] we kept each other at bay through threat of destruction. It is arguable that without nuclear weapons we would have gone to war with the USSR. While you can argue for the destruction of WMDs it does not go to show why ALL weapons need to be eliminated. Police BrutalityTaking away handguns from the police will not stop police brutality, nor will it stop criminals from acting irrationally. In fact removing hand weapons would give people to act more irrationally by giving them hope of escape and fighting back etc. Most police brutality cases are done through physical beatings and not with a gun but with hands and feet. Taking weapons away doesn't solve this problem.Now to address your "teaching children" idea:1) If teaching children to detest crime was so effective why do we still have crime?2) Children are taught to detest and fear crime through the prison system and (hopefully) good parenting3) Most crimes stem from poverty [2] or broken family units, you can't teach these things away4) We do scorn criminals by jailing themThere is no way to prevent people from committing violent acts, if there was then we would have found it by now and implemented it. Crime is detested by the government and the people hence the use of police and the prison system. Violence is "awful" and we are taught this in school (no bullying), in the workplace (no harassment or battery) and in the streets (cops). People however choose to ignore this in a world full of weapons so why would they listen in a world without them?Weapons are ToolsWeapons are tools and are used by many as vital parts of life and society. Hunting knives, rifles, bows and arrows, and TNT are all things that were designed or are used to kill and yet benefit society. How would people hunt without weapons? Hunting is still a source of food for parts of the Third World. Where would man be if we couldn't hunt? Weapons are also used for sport such as in bow shooting. They are also used in self defense against animals and crazy people and criminals. The weapon is what put man above the rest of the animals in the world, you can't just take it away from him. Man invented weapons as a tool, they are a strong part of our history and our personality.Weapons cannot be destroyed entirely. [1] http://www.nuclearfiles.org...[2] http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com...
All Weapons on Earth Should be Destroyed

Here we go. You took the burden of proof so I'm going to lay out a simple starting argument. I'll focus most of my attention on refuting your main points. OrderWeapons keep order plain and simple. Cops carry guns in order to give off the presence of authority and control which then breeds order. Many people will not draw weapons on cops because they are liable to get shot. During the cold war weapons kept us out of war with the USSR. The theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) made it so that neither side opened fire on the other because both sides feared retaliation. Without weapons governments couldn't stop mass uprisings such as riots effectively. Police would have no way to stop criminals from running from them every single time. Weapons do keep order. Human NatureWeapons will not eliminate violent behavior, it will only cause people to seek other tools to carry out their violence. Just because we eliminate weapons doesn't mean that it will eliminate violent behavior. People will just seek out makeshift weapons to carry out their desires. Sharpened broom sticks, kitchen knives, rocks and tools will become commonplace at murder scenes instead of a smoking bullet. People will just make their own weapons making it much harder to regulate and control who gets what. Weapons are just a tool and people will find a way to function without them in the same violent ways. Beatings would increase along with murder by wrench. - It is better to have an industry that is controlled by the government than a underground homemade weapons market- Weapons help to keep order- Violent behavior won't be changed, just the way it is preformedOn to you since you technically have the BOP.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion is not justifiable

Don't worry about it we've all done it. Now to address your points. Firstly, you say that they protest because of their upbringing and culture. The very same could be said about Christians. They are brought up and taught an equally strong religious culture so why aren't they protesting against petty insults to their religion? The United States completely does have a similar culture as it is a predominately religious nation, like Iraq or Pakistan etc. I do not find it difficult to sympathize with them because I live in a different culture. I find it hard to sympathize with them because I don't feel that they deserve such special treatment. I feel that it is overactive attention seeking in a way. I am confused when you say that 250 years ago it would be horrible to think of such an act. I don't see how this is a valid point as we are not living 250 years ago, we are living now. Of course I am willing to respect their culture however I am not willing to respect such outrage over such petty comedic insults in which we all must face up to and receive. You say that we should be willing to accept their counter. I think the mere fact that we don't protest over such satire shows that we are well capable of taking a jab and would therefore be able to accept a counter. You say "It is perfectly acceptable to be outraged if the religious figure you devote your life to is outright insulted upon national television." If I devoted my life to the Easter bunny and therefore rioted and caused mayhem over an insult to the Easter bunny would that be justifiable? They are both the same principle. You're right if a kid was bullied in such a way we would view it as cruel but if the kid rioted over it and in turn was potentially putting people in harm we would see it as an extreme over-reactance and even worse than the initial bullying. Again, it is the same principle. "Just because it happens on a regular basis in our world, does not mean that it is acceptable. Just because the rest of us are used to insults and rudeness, does not mean that it is acceptable to begin with." There is an element of truth to this however when you bring it into context it is flawed. Are you saying that Muslims are not used to insults? Of course they are, that is why they are constantly rioting, and not just because of satire, for countless other reasons. If they weren't used to insults then they would have learned by now to just take it on the chin like the rest of us. I would also like to state that from my argument, I am only obliged to try to say why such behaviour isn't justifiable. I am using this in the context of other religions. Therefore because other religions don't kick up a storm about such behaviour it cannot be justified. This is a valid argument in the context of the title. If all religions did in fact have such strong outrage on the matter then I could still say it cannot be justified as there is a right of free speech. Again, there is no right to allow Muslims not to let their feelings get hurt. I look forward to your argument.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion is not justifiable

Firstly, my bad, I hopped into this one rather quickly. Excellent debate topic if I might say so. Addressing the question of why they feel the need to protest the insults to their religion, it is because it is apart of their upbringing, as well as apart of their culture. They are still a culture based upon religion in every sense of the word. Because we don't have a similar culture here in the United States, it is difficult to sympathize with them, or to see why they would react in such ways. We all laugh at a depiction of Jesus on South Park, it's true, but take us back about 250 years, and it would be horrible to even think of such an act. We should respect that they have their culture, and if we are willing to insult it, then we should be wiling to accept their counter. It is perfectly acceptable to be outraged if the religious figure you devote your life to is outright insulted upon national television. Whether or not they take action does not really matter as you said, but it's the same as being picked on at a school playground. 8th grade kid goes up to a 3rd grader and points out, makes fun of, and laughs at his imaginary friend in front of the whole yard. We would view that as cruel and if the younger kid retaliated, we would understand. This applies to the real world circumstance in that entire countries are based upon the foundations of Islam. They are not exempt from being made fun of, but it is still justifiable that they be mad if you regress back into a religious standpoint. Unfortunately, they do live in a now somewhat secular world, but that does not mean that their anger is unjustified. If my whole culture was publicly humiliated, I would feel somewhat insulted, however, if my whole life revolved around my culture, I would feel outraged. Just because it happens on a regular basis in our world, does not mean that it is acceptable. Just because the rest of us are used to insults and rudeness, does not mean that it is acceptable to begin with.