BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Absent Religious Moral Framework, (The Proposition On Offer)

Firstly, I would like to extend my thanks to the ever-patient Tarzan for humouring my seemingly inane arguments and, secondly, point out that he did not explicitly state that these hypothetical siblings of his were of the opposite sex. Perhaps they could both be girls? Since lesbians can get married these days, why not extend my opponent's logic to allow adopted sisters to get wed? And since two women cannot procreate, why do the sisters even have to be adopted? They could be blood relations. For example, I presume my opponent would agree that Romanian pop star twins, The Cheeky Girls, should be allowed to get married if they suddenly became lesbians? http://www.solarnavigator.net... Certainly, I for one, would not object to graphic spy shots of the lovely couple frolicking naked on their honeymoon being published in the newspapers and I don't suppose my opponent would either! But what if Scottish pop star twins, The Proclaimers, suddenly turned gay and decided to get married? http://www.bbc.co.uk... Would my opponent sanction that? And if not, why not? Or if he does not object to gay and lesbian siblings getting married, surely he cannot then object to blood brothers and sisters getting married, as to do so would be to discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation. Now, supposing the public at large adopted my opponent's concept of what marriages should be considered socially acceptable and concluded that adopted siblings, gay brothers and lesbian sisters and, by extension, blood siblings, should be allowed to get married, then it must follow that other close relations should be allowed to tie the knot too. So, if a brother and a sister could get married, why not mother and son, or father and daughter, and since we shouldn't discriminate against homosexuals, why not father and son or mother and daughter? I would agree with my opponent that social norms are often based on religious doctrines. However, these religious texts were often written in before formal codes of laws were developed and formed a quasi-legal framework around which people were expected to live their lives. With regard to family issues, procreation and the welfare of children were of paramount importance which is why homosexuality and incest were prohibited. Even though times have moved on and most people no longer believe in deities, holy spirits and the like, and the majority of people are sufficiently enlightened to accept that gay couples have the right to play a full part in society, including getting married, to extend the same social acceptance to marriage between close members of the same family would inevitably lead to a decline in moral values as well as an increase in deformed babies. Thank you.
Absent Religious Moral Framework, (The Proposition On Offer)

I'm glad that Brian, someone with a great sense of humor, took this debate... Let's examine the important parts of his conversation between the Messers Shagnasty and Bigbossman... The extent of Mr. Bigbossman's moral outrage is contained in the following: "here in the city people tend to take a very dim view of incest, myself included." "Jesus Christ on a f***ing bike…" "F***ing rats c*cks, you're all crazy! Sick and crazy!" My dear Brian refers to these ejaculations as "normal social conventions" without providing any basis for how these normal social conventions came about. Many social conventions are the result of religious influences - for example, homophobia, anti-polygamist sentiment, anti-incestuous sentiment, anti-adultery sentiment... What we have here is simply a case of leftover religious socialization. Consider: 1) Neither individual is related to the other. 2) They share a close bond, much like lifelong friends. 3) They are sexually attracted to each other. Wouldn't these two individuals be perfect candidates to marry each other? Aren't the first and third the only criteria we evaluate when considering the possibility of recreational sex? The fact that these two individuals happen to have been raised in the same house says absolutely NOTHING about their sexual compatibility. The only social moral against their actions is perceived incest. It's not even actually incestuous!! I submit that this perceived incestuous relationship is simply a remnant of moral approbation from the remnant of living in a religion-dominated society. AFFIRMED.
Absent Religious Moral Framework, (The Proposition On Offer)

The proposition on offer is that absent a religious moral framework, there is nothing morally outrageous about adoptive siblings engaging in recreational sex or even marriage. Definitions and Caveats: Morally Outrageous - That which offends a major tenant of popular (nonreligious) morality. Adoptive Siblings - Those individuals raised together in the same family as legal siblings though not related by blood. Recreational Sex - Copulation not for the end of procreation. For purposes of this debate, recreational sex itself is presumed to not be morally offensive. ********************************************************* I propose that absent a religious moral framework, there is nothing morally outrageous about adoptive siblings engaging in recreational sex or marriage. It is no different that any other two non-related people - these two simply happen to share a common childhood. It is not unheard of that two childhood friends will develop a much closer bond with each other than with their own siblings. There is nothing wrong with these individuals engaging in recreational sex. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with adoptive siblings engaging in recreational sex. Consider: - There are no health concerns as the two individuals are not related. - Religious morals like those in Leviticus do not apply. AFFIRMED.
Evolution is not part of atheism.

Is Evolution a PART of Atheism? Yes in as much of a way as polygamy is part of Mormonism. Now we all know that polygamy isn't the entirety of Mormonism but yes it is a part. In fact polygamy has nothing to do with the majority of Mormons today but at one time it had a place in Mormonism. Likewise Evolution had and has a place or part in Atheism as a whole. Atheism also had a part in the development of Evolutionary Theory. " I do not believe that fairies exist. Evolution shows us that traits from two distinct lines shouldn't exist. As such, a hominid with insect wings should not exist." "-- Does this imply that evolution is part of afairyism?" Yes it does. Afairyism is a part of the general population. If 90% of the general population believe Afairyism then it is a PART of the general population, even if it is only 1%. Perhaps my opponent should make the argument that Evolution is not the WHOLE of Atheism because it most definitely is a PART of that whole. Proving that Evolution and Atheism have two different definitions does little to diminish the role each play for each other......and they do play a role for each other. Before Evolution had a scientific footing Atheist were there to support its notion. Charles Lyell "delighted" in the possibility of Evolution but had no scientific proof. Charles Lyell was Darwins influence. Notice Lyell came Before Darwin. http://en.wikipedia.org... The relationship between Evolution and Atheism is so great that one could argue the only reason Evolutionary Theory is taught, believed, or researched further is because of an adamant belief in Atheism rather than a belief in the "science" behind "The Theory". Biased, perhaps. Needless to say...That neither had influence over the other or no part is with in either belief system is foolhardy. The flaw in my opponents argument is he attempts to argue, somewhat acceptably, that Evolution is not the Whole of Atheism. The debate simply asks if it is a part and yes it is a part and quite a large one. It is so large of a part that some people believe it is the Whole thus stereotyping every Atheist, my opponent is combating this.
Evolution is not part of atheism.

Evolution is not part of atheism. The easiest path to atheism is to realize that theism has no valid reason to be believed. Atheism is simply the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. Just as I am an Asanta Clausist I am an atheist. Just as I don't believe in God I don't believe in the tooth fairy. No part of my non-belief in leprechauns is contingent on my belief in tectonic plates, just as no part of my atheism is because of my belief in biological evolution. Evolution is deeply rooted in strong scientific evidence, atheism is the realization that most people who blather on about religion are cracked and more swayed by what they want to be true rather than the evidence. Evolution is the best theory we have for understanding life on this planet explaining a massive amount of data in a very easy to understand theory. Atheism is not believing that "invisible man done it" is a compelling idea. While many and perhaps even most atheists accept the theory of biological evolution that doesn't make it part of atheism. Many atheists believe the sky is blue and that gravity makes things fall to the ground. Are the theories of optical light scattering and gravity therefore atheistic? Michael Ruse doesn't speak for me and for the most part he arguments are poor to say the least. Some people may be eager to explain all of life on this planet without needing to genuflect to the divine, but that doesn't make evolution part of atheism anymore than many atheists love for the music of John Lennon makes music atheistic. ---- There's nothing in atheism. Atheism is the acceptance of the reality. That one does not believe in God compels us towards accepting no other claims about anything. I've know about four or five atheists who lost their faith in God when they were told that there was no Santa Claus because they took the logical inference one step further. They never needed evolution or the evidence in favor of such a proposition. They took truth that magical man who knows when you've been bad or good applies equally well to God as Saint Nick and purged their minds of silly myths. -- That's the requirement; one must simply not believe in God. Accepting well evidenced scientific theories is simply a product of having a rational, uncluttered, unbiased mind and overwhelming evidence.
Evolution is not part of atheism.

Well I intend to prove that Evolution IS part of Atheism. This isn't to say that ALL Atheist believe in Evolution or ALL Evolutionist believe in Atheism, but to say that evolution isn't deeply rooted in Atheism or at the very least a part of Atheism is incorrect. Contention 1 Most all Atheist believe in Evolutionary Theory, I will offer references if disputed. The very fact that most Atheist accept Evolutionary Theory associates evolution as part of atheism. Contention 2 Most "PROMINENT" Atheist support Evolution in a sort of religion or reason to replace religion Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian Atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion. Michael Ruse says "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Reference; Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
The minimum wage should be abolished

Good points. However, we come back to the question of this: Why should or shouldn't the federal minimum wage be abolished? It shouldn't because, as I said before, it keeps the balance between workers and employers. If the minimum wage was abolished, it could open up jobs to under-educated people. But why wouldn't the employers take advantage of the workers? These people NEED these jobs. Who says employers will pay $5 an hour? That seems a bit too much for most companies whose job is to maximize profit. They could offer $1 an hour. How would you pay for a higher level of education with that? You couldn't without giving up other necessities. You'd be stuck in a dead end loop of earning money, spending it on the necessities, and repeating. You'd never be able to find your true potential through education. At that point, a worker would wonder whether it is worth it. Their work is worth next to nothing. Very few could get education to increase their work value without digging themselves into a huge hole. They'd be working to get nowhere. How much of that could they take before they decide to just give up and depend entirely on government support? Now we have workers who have to pay some of their hard-earned money to people how can't support themselves, and people who can't find a way out of their endless cycle. It's a lose-lose. Nobody wins. Solutions aren't pretty. But they work. And currently, I think the minimum wage is a solution to wealth gaps across America. It may not be much, but it's a way of making sure employees can earn enough to hopefully make some future for themselves. In an America without a minimum wage, we'd have so many workers who would give up because all of their hard work wasn't paying the bills. It'd be a sad, depressing world for so many hardworking Americans who couldn't find a way out of their cycle of hard work, expenses, and repeating. With our current minimum wage, at least Americans can find jobs and be able to work through the ranks to truly achieve the American dream. Whoever wins, know that this has been a very interesting debate for me. I hope I can have more good debates with you in the future.
The minimum wage should be abolished

People with a high school education or less have the highest unemployment rate. People with less than a high school diploma have more than a 10% unemployment rate, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see http://www.bls.gov...). Allowing some low or no skill jobs to be paid less than minimum wage would allow these people to find employment. $5/hr is better than $0/hr. You have contended that one cannot support a family on this rate of pay, and your are correct. I contend that one is not supposed to be able to support a family on this wage. This wage will simply allow that person to feed clothe and shelter themselves. A person who has not attained a high level of education, and does not or can not perform heavy manual labor, will not make much money. That is life. If a person wishes to earn more money they must educate themselves, and work exceedingly hard to get to that level. I also will concede that many people in the upper stratosphere of our society have not gotten there by merit, but by inheritance either into money or status. However, somebody in that family's past DID earn it, and handed it down to their posterity. That is the American Dream we hear so much about. If you work hard and attain a high level of success, you and your posterity will be rewarded. That dream is still alive today. Imagine if, a person of low or no education person applies themselves with a $5/hr job. They can advance in that job, and earn more money. They can get their GED, and then, one class at a time (because they are exceedingly expensive), that person achieves a two-year degree. Now they make more than enough to support themselves, and be a productive member of a family unit that can rear their child in a higher societal status. Now imagine if that person can't find a job because their work is only worth $5/hr, and the government requires and employee to be paid more.
The minimum wage should be abolished

First, I did not strictly mean just McDonald's. McDonald's has a wage similar to the federal minimum, and I was just using it as an example. You get what I mean. And when I say McDonald's is easy, I mean it takes no experience or pretty much any other prerequisite. Pretty much all of the skills you need are the ability to read and write, the ability to count out money, and the ability to prepare food a certain way. Not exactly rocket science. You talk about how undereducated people could get jobs without a minimum wage. First of all, how much would they get paid? Less than the minimum wage, I expect. It's hard enough for people to support a family on several minimum wage jobs. How much harder would it get if they got something like $5 an hour? Second, the people who make minimum wage now are, generally, society's group of what many call "undereducated", if by that you mean high school dropouts and such. They're able to get jobs, because they don't need to be college graduates to learn the simple skills needed to do minimum wage jobs.
The minimum wage should be abolished

Ah yes, the old McDonald's argument, invalid because: 1. Most McDonald's employee's make more than minimum wage; 2. McDonald's offers benefits that rival other large corporations, including stock options; and 3. McDonald's work is not that easy. Those who believe it is, have never worked in t he food service industry. Glassdoor.com offers insight into this with an anonymous survey of McDonald's employees showing that the lowest paying job in the store actually pays about $0.50/hr ABOVE the minimum wage (http://www.glassdoor.com...). Without a minimum wage, employers could give more jobs to undereducated people, who have difficulty finding any job because nearly nothing they can or are willing to do is worth $7.25/hr to a company. Because of the minimum wage, companies instead roll several simple jobs in to one job to make it worth the money, and hire somebody more capable.
The minimum wage should be abolished

I accept your challenge. I don't think the minimum wage should be abolished. To start off, think of where many people get their first jobs. Mainly places like McDonald's or other fast-food places. How much do they earn? At least $7.25. How much would they make if the minimum wage was abolished? Much less than that. Why? Because people don't work at McDonald's because they want to work there. They work there because it is easy, simple work that pays. They work there because it is the only work option to support their family. Which means that McDonald's could make their wages $3 an hour, and people would still work there. Because they HAVE to. $3 is better than nothing. And since McDonald's work is very easy to learn, they could just fire anyone who wants a raise. Because a replacement is right around the corner. The minimum wage is the governments way of keeping a balance between how much a worker gets paid and how much the employer gets to keep.
Doctor Assisted Suicide

For this round I would simply like to strengthen the argument I started to make at the closing of round 2. In 2012 the American Medical Association sponsored a poll for any private physician to understand what the majority of physicians feel. It is impossible of course to see the credibility of the physicians that participated in the poll. For those who did participate in the poll, 75% found physician assisted suicide immoral and wrong. They also weighed in to say they would not participate in physician assisted suicide. I do not have any arguments to respond to from the closing of the last round, due to the fact that none were made. In closing I would like to thank my opponent for his arguments in the first round. I would also like to say I find physician assisted suicide wrong because of my beliefs and the beliefs of the doctors involved (which match up to the poll) and due to the fact that it disagrees with the Hippocratic Oath sworn on by all physicians. Thank you
Doctor Assisted Suicide

In reply to the arguments that you made against my original argument, it is perfectly acceptable to use my beliefs as an argument. I will now explain why for multiple reasons: 1) in order for this to be legalized it would have to be voted on by the government (state or federal) or the people of each state. Therefore the personal beliefs of all individuals voting would come into account. 2) in the hypothetical situation that doctor assisted suicide is legalized on a country wide scale, the beliefs of the doctor who prescribes the medication to legally commit suicide would come into play because ultimately it is there decision. They are the one who signs the prescription. They can turn down a request for medication to commit suicide. The argument on the Hippocratic Oath was not a belief In a new argument I would like to bring into account that most physicians find it unacceptable as well. 75% of doctors polled in 2012 found PAS unacceptable **Same resource as before**
Doctor Assisted Suicide

The first problem i have with this argument, is the use of personal beliefs as an idea to dictate others actions. "The main reason i find it unacceptable is because i consider it to be morally wrong. As i Christian i do not believe in suicide" Suicide is a much broader action than just personal beliefs. If you consider it morally wrong to commit suicide, than don't commit suicide. Why and how can you stop others from seeing it as the only option to escape? The oath would be contradictory if there was a law allowing doctor assisted suicide, but while illegal, it makes total sense. Keep in mind these are all logical based arguments.. As your own person, what gives you the right to dictate when someone wants to end their life? If an man is suffering with something incurable and facing constant excruciating pain day to day. And he wants out, who are we to stop him? If he can't do it by himself, than doctors should be allowed to give them the easy way out...
Doctor Assisted Suicide

The issue of doctor assisted suicide is an issue that has arose some time ago and has yet to fade away. The issue is broken down into two major actions, is it acceptable or is it not acceptable. I believe that it is not acceptable for several reasons. The main reason i find it unacceptable is because i consider it to be morally wrong. As i Christian i do not believe in suicide but i do understand there are people who do and people who commit suicide. With this being said, there are other factors addressing why doctor assisted suicide is unacceptable. This includes the Hippocratic Oath and in a portion of the Oath it states: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect." In my opinion this is pretty clear cut and i find it hard to argue against that issue. I respect the rights of American citizens but this would not be the first law to prohibit an action from taking place. http://www.uic.edu...