BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Human morality is universal

I would like to begin by asking my opponent to "bear with me" as I try to familiarize myself with the methods of debating on this website. This is my first debate here, and in fact my first non-verbal debate ever. I would like to argue that morality is NOT universal but instead, entirely dependent on societies. I define society as: A body of human beings (more than one) , associated or viewed as members of a community 1) I would ask my opponent to imagine him/herself being the only human alive on our planet. Now being the only human around, do you feel a sense of morality; do you know what is right or what is wrong? No, because your sense of morality does NOT exist in isolation. But, the moment a second person is brought into the picture, a sense of morality is introduced as well. You now begin to develop a feel for what is right and wrong; what is moral and immoral. What does this tell us? Not only does society dictate what is morally acceptable (I will expand on this in my next point), but the entire concept of morality cannot exist without society. 2) Just by observing the vast differences in what is morally acceptable in different societies and time periods it becomes quite simple to see that morality is not constant. In more than one African tribe human sacrifices are still regular things. Arranged marriages take place everyday. The mere fact that something can be perfectly acceptable to one group of people, but a moral crime to another has to lead you to believe that morality has everything to do with society. 3) By examining modern moral issues today we can see firsthand how moral laws change relative to society. Let's consider homosexual relationships. Now I realize that the morality of homosexual relationships is still the topic of many debates but if we see the progress its made in American society over the past 100 years, it is astonishing. 100 years ago a large majority of people viewed homosexual relationships "as immoral" as incestuous relationships. Today, a topic who's morality was NEVER questioned not too long ago, is one of the hottest topics for debate today. Recent polls show that approximately 50% of Americans "see nothing wrong with homosexual marriage" let alone homosexual relationships in general. What has caused this huge shift in moral standards? What has changed in the past 100 years? Society.
All humans are created equal.

The burden of proof was on my opponent to show all humans are created equal. He has failed to do so. Pro has pretty much conceded. His arguments which are completely unsupported by any premises can be summed up like this. 1. Some of America's founding forefathers, and Abe Lincoln think all men were created equal so they are. One problem with this is that people like Thomas Jefferson thought this was good public policy, not that it was in fact true. Obviously a brain dead child doesn't have the same chances at life and capacity for greatness as the child that was born not being brain dead. 2. All people should be treated as if they were born equal. This actually has nothing to do with the resolution but. .. .. Treating a baby born with collapsed lung as equal to one born with a fully functioning lung could kill the child. Treating people as if the were all created equal has deadly ramifications. Conclusion- my opponent had the BOP here and he has failed to fulfill it. Egalitarianism is such an abstract concept, that I had no ideal what I was arguing against. Did my opponent mean, outcome based or opportunity based egalitarianism? Did my opponent mean, that individuals be treated as equals or that groups be treated as equals? Egalitarian philosophy is really hard to pin down. Here is things that opportunity and outcome based egalitarians disagree on. 1. Affirmative action- outcome based=pro opportunity based=con 2. Welfare- outcome based=pro opportunity based=con 3. Voter registration- outcome based=con opportunity based=pro Outcome and opportunity based is just one way to divide egalitarians. There are numerous other ways to divide and subdivide them. Pro never made it clear, what he was arguing for and didn't meet his BOP.
All humans are created equal.

I believe that all of us are equal in our humanity. We may be inferior or superior in some respects, such as the ability to do something. However, we all have capactiy for greatness. We all are part of the human race and it is idiotic to think of one as inferior or inferior. Even if inferiority or superiority were true matters, one would not acknowledge that. One would treat his or her fellow human with respect and love. Everybody deserves an economic opportunity and social justice. That is the kind of egalitarianism I support. That is the movement I advocate.
All humans are created equal.

My opponent seems to be arguing that America's founding forefathers believed all men were created equal, so they are. I would like to point out to my opponent, that just because some famous people in the past believe something to be true. It doesn't make it true. I have no ideal what I'm arguing against here. What form of egalitarianism do you support, pro? There are several different forms. My opponent concedes that people are born with certain genetic advantages. I agree with this. Then he states that when you factor in all genetic advantages and disadvantages it all equals out. This goes against Occam's Razor. The chances of genetic advantages and disadvantages being exactly equal across the board, seems absurd. I urge pro to argue some form of egalitarianism, so that I know what I'm arguing against in the final round.
All humans are created equal.

Main Argument The Declaration of Independence begins with the phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." All humans are born with the capacity to become great. Therefore, all of humanity is created equal. Now, when it comes to what you achieve in your life, you may be superior or inferior in some respects, but as a person - a human, a member of humankind - you are equal to all others. Even though I am an Atheist, the metaphor, "created equal" is to my liking. There is no Creator, God, Lord, or Father, but truly all of us are equal. If all men weren't equal, then why would Abraham Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation, saying,"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." I cannot think of any argument that supports the notion that all men weren't created equal. I look forward to my opponent's argument.
Students should be allowed to pick their classes.

Here is the rebuttals to your rebuttals: Unfortunately, I am an educated gentleman of incredible class and wit so I will think of reasons why each (non clergy approved) claim is false. Pro: I am educated to. Just because I am younger than you and am a female, does not mean that I am not educated. Rebuttal: A/B) It does not decrease the chances of students skipping. Students skip mainly because they are attracted to an activity (such as smoking cigarettes or a newly released movie) that happens outside of the classroom during school time. I think that students skip classes not because the class does not interest them, but because something outside the class is more appealing. Pro: Yes it does. People sometimes skip school because they are forced to take a harder class than their capable abilities. C) The actual act of picking the classes does not teach skills about scheduling. The act of attending and following the classes that have been picked is what gives you that skill. You will learn scheduling whether you pick your classes or someone else does. Pro: Students will learn when someone else gives them an example, then goes into their footsteps. My argument, Children do not have the same capacity of looking towards the future as adults, nor do they possess the experience of adults. A child might cull the difficult courses like maths and sciences from their timetable because they are hard, and the child is living in the immediate present. This can limit the child's future and they will regret it when they are older. Adults should, and must have the last say on a child's courses. Rebuttal: If the student regrets it, people can say that it was their responsibility. I am saying that not all students are not capable of this, but if they choose that, it is their fault.
Students should be allowed to pick their classes.

Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence so I would feel quite comfortable saying "NO IT DOESN'T" to all of the points. Unfortunately, I am an educated gentleman of incredible class and wit so I will think of reasons why each (non clergy approved) claim is false. Rebuttal: A/B) It does not decrease the chances of students skipping. Students skip mainly because they are attracted to an activity (such as smoking cigarettes or a newly released movie) that happens outside of the classroom during school time. I think that students skip classes not because the class does not interest them, but because something outside the class is more appealing. C) The actual act of picking the classes does not teach skills about scheduling. The act of attending and following the classes that have been picked is what gives you that skill. You will learn scheduling whether you pick your classes or someone else does. My argument, Children do not have the same capacity of looking towards the future as adults, nor do they possess the experience of adults. A child might cull the difficult courses like maths and sciences from their timetable because they are hard, and the child is living in the immediate present. This can limit the childs future and they will regret it when they are older. Adults should, and must have the last say on a childs courses.
Cigarettes are, overall, more detrimental to the overall well-being of Americans than alcohol.

Now, I do not smoke or drink. They are both very unhealthy habits and should not be encouraged. However, as a whole, Americans are hurt more by alcohol by cigarettes. While cigarettes themselves are less healthy than alcohol, they are also much less commonly used. Also, alcohol is much more likely to hurt people indirectly, such as drunk driving accidents. Approximately 21% of American adults are smokers [1]. By contrast, 54% of American adults are drinkers [2]. That means that there are more than twice as many drinkers than smokers in the US (there's your math lesson for the day). Obviously, that means that twice as many Americans are likely to be hurt by alcohol than are likely to be hurt by tobacco. Also, while smoking does do horrible things to your body, Alcohol does too, and it also impairs your mind temporarily. So, not only is alcohol giving you cirrhosis, it also impairs your judgement, so it makes you go have sex with that woman who you perceive at the moment to be particularly attractive, and then you pick up AIDS. If you don't like that example, here's another. You get in the car with 4 of your friends, and think that you only had a few, so you should be okay. Instead, you proceed to run into a car containing a woman and her two children. You all die. So, while smoking will kill you slowly, alcohol will kill 7 people quickly. If you smoke in the car, your friends might be uncomfortable, but unless you completely seal the car and smoke a couple packs, they won't realistically be at any higher risk for some terrible disease. You will, but they won't. I am eagerly awaiting your response! 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. [PDF] . http://www.udetc.org...
Creationism (Pro) vs. The Big Bang Theory and Evolution (Con)

For my opening statement, I would like to point out how overwhelmingly proven evolution is. Back in the day of Darwin and his introduction of his theory, debates were rigorous and controversial. But in today's time, with the massive amount of information and evidence collected by fields like palaeontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other areas, we've gradually come to the point where it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Thousands of studies and experiments have been done. All of them that have stood up against vigorous criticism stand in support of evolution as a scientific theory. To reject the scientific community's massive amount of information and factual knowledge for whatever reason is ludicrous, much less so in favor of a belief in a deity. As far as the big bang goes it is much less certain, but that doesn't mean it is less valid than creationism. In fact, it is much more reasonable and logical for the big bang than a mystical being. This is explained by numerous things. For example, the redshift of the galaxies, the microwave background across the universe, and even the mixture of elements that are seen today. For the fact the instigator of the debate failed to define or give much more than "the popular belief" of creationism, evolution, and the big bang theory I feel obliged to "define" these somewhat. Evolution, as defined by Merriam Webster: the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization) However, it is NOT the "survival of the fittest" as has been popularly coined by people, as it is not solely contingent on that singular metric. Big bang theory, as defined by Merriam Webster: a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density Creationism, as defined by Merriam Webster: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis Before we begin I must point out that pro should not use the bible as a reference because that is not an authoritative knowledge source. It can not be proven/disproven in the traditional sense. Also, it leads to many logical fallacies such as double think and circular reasoning that prove nothing but inept debate skills. This opening statement is rather lengthy but justified because I took the burden of establishing a ground of what exactly we are debating and for the simple fact I'm advocating for two extremely complex theories while Pro is advocating for one faith based belief. I look forward to your rebuttal.
Creationism (Pro) vs. The Big Bang Theory and Evolution (Con)

For my opening statement, I would like to mention that I once believed in Evolution and the Big Bang and all of that sort. Then I started doing my research before I became a devoted Christian. I believe God created the world for the fact that a lot of science especially when you keep pushing the clock way back just has too many things that can't be explained. For instance, one day I questioned my teacher on what made the Universe. What made the matter that created this big bang. He did not seem to have an explanation for me. A college educated teacher in my senior year of high school ultimately stopped in his speech by just a few unexplained questions. After doing more and more research I found that the earth and every organism and habitat on it was just too perfect to be some scientific accident or phenomena. There had to be some greater power out there. Religion can answer the questions of "Who or what made God? " and the whole book of Genesis in the bible can explain how everything was placed perfectly. So to me that makes more sense than what science was first teaching me. I look forward to reading your opening statement.
abortion, case closed

Abortion is wrong and cruel. It's proven science that fetuses have beating hearts and are human, which means killing them is called "MURDER". I'll say it again. MUR-DER. Hillary Clinton during the 3rd presidential debate stated that we cannot be forcing women to give birth to children. She called the unborn babies "children"? So know we are killing innocent children and the government is wasting people's hard earned money on it. That's outrageous! When people make the claim they want "women's healthcare" they really mean abortion. No human has the right to kill another innocent human, the law says that. I am pro-life not pro-murder.
Children over the age of 6 should make their own toys

Obviously, of course, there are limits. However you prove a good point. I simply made up random objects I thought of. But anyways, the toys vary. Once children get a bit older they can wean off of supervision, however ages 4 and 5 would mostly be the learning stage. A wooden car might come in a kit, or simply something along those lines. You are also correct on the point of an unsupervised 6 using dangerous tools. However, would a screwdriver honestly be dangerous to a child with proper instruction on it's use? It's like handing a child a hair dryer and telling him that the buttons turn it on and nothing more. I believe I just contradicted myself. And no, this was never intended to be that serious.
Children over the age of 6 should make their own toys

Thank you for such an interesting topic. I will be debating that children over the age of 6 should not make their own toys. It would be nice for children to learn hard work by making their own toys, but the thought is somewhat unrealistic. You state that children 4 & 5 years old should have parent supervision, while children 6 & above, I'm assuming, should not. Making a wooden car would not be a simple task. You have to use tools such as saws, screwdrivers, hammers, and sandpaper, and while using these tools would be considered hard work, it is not suitable for an unsupervised 6 year old. I remember when I was 8 and I was trying to cut up salad in a mini food processor. I noticed it was not cutting the lettuce all the way so I stuck my finger in there so the salad could be cut up. Bad mistake though, since my left index finger was cut almost in half. I still see the scar today. But this was because I was not very intelligent at the time. Allowing children to use these dangerous tools can lead to serious accidents. Making a doll is not easy either, sewing fabric and cutting fabric uses needles and blades. Children the age of 6 should not be doing this without supervision because accidents could occur. A better way for children to learn hard work at a young age is by doing chores around the house, since they will have to learn how to wash dishes, vacuum, and do laundry in the future because they are life skills. Children over the age of 6 should not make their own toys since it will be dangerous. Doing chores is better at a young age since they are safer and children will learn skills to be successful when they have their own home.
Children over the age of 6 should make their own toys

It will teach them good work. For children ages 4 and 5, adult supervision should be used. Kids 3 and under can play with old toys. I say that children should be taught hard work, and they need to do work to achieve things in life. After all, wouldn't you be happy if you were a small child and you finished your very own wooden car, or made your own doll or something of the like and see the happy face on your parents faces that their little angel or champ made something they loved? Please try to change my mind.
Children over the age of 6 should make their own toys

The reason you state on why children should make their own toys is that it would teach them hard work. But now you suggest that kids can make toys from kits. I don't think that kids making toys from kits would be hard work. What would that teach them? Kits are made to be easy. I put together a kit of a model train and all I had to do was screw in some screws and paint it. A screwdriver can be dangerous to an unsupervised 6 year old. It's not likely, but screwdrivers can slip off the screw and go into a body part. Sure as a young child, it would be fun to see the look on my parent's faces after I make my own toy, but it wouldn't have been hard work and would not have taught me anything that would be important in life. Wouldn't doing chores teach children skills they will need in life? The other day my sister, who is 11 years old, had to wash the dishes and she didn't know how. I don't think making toys would have helped her achieve the skills needed to wash dishes, or wash the laundry. Therefore, children over the age of 6 should not make their own toys since it does not teach them hard work in life, and does not give them skills they will need in life.
Communism vs capitalism

Communism at it's core defies nature. It certainly defies human nature. The idea that people should be given the same resources equally is preposterous. We as humans cannot expect other humans to simply accept equal things like food, housing and social status. The same drive in humans that compel us to explore lost continents, venture into space, an build a better mouse trap is the same drive at will not allow us humans (as a whole) to settle for equality and the status quo. Nature itself would not allow any species on Earth to not evolve. Nature compels all species to advance. The alpha male mates with the alpha female (or vice versa). Bacteria and virus constantly mutate to defeat controls like penicillin anti biotics. All life on this planet is constantly striving to build, learn or adapt to a better way of life. Nature's rule is constant and never changing: Advance and survive.
Communism vs capitalism

So, in this world I've set up for the purposes of the debate, both theories exist, but neither has been exploited. We are a group of people trying to decide the fate of our society, and we have two theories to consider: capitalism and communism. I am the half that is arguing for communism, Vi is arguing for capitalism. All we have are the ideas and writings of those like Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Good Luck in this debate ;-) I think that communism is a way of society that from the bourgeoisie, to communism Chinese, the society which is living there, is happy with it. We have got some books, like Marx, and Engels, that describe the bases of communism, these books are very good for society, because they show us a different way of society and another way to see the world. Now you will probably tell me to me to look to Cuba, North Korea... but these countries are not communists right now, those countries are dictatorial countries, but they started by a communist society and they ended in dictatorial society. The one who is communist is China and now it will probably be one of the future best economy countries, and it has got a lot of products exported. It has got a lot of poverty and this is the weak point of communism, that some people are poor but I think that in general, it's one of the best countries in the world. The idea of money has been abolished as well, since every worker is equal and receives the same 'payment'; though I will venture to say that there is no real payment, as much as an availability to the same resources and privileges as everyone else.
Islam is a false, Christianity is true.

While I think that it is more likely that both of these major religions are false, for the sake of this debate, I will make the argument that Islam is a more plausible religion than Christianity. For starters, Christianity has some very bold and highly unlikely tenets to its religion such as a piece of bread transubstantiating into the body of Jesus Christ without changing in shape, size, or texture. Also, Christianity claims that God saw fit that the only way to atone for the sins of mankind was to have his son murdered by his chosen people, the Jews. These are just a few things that I will mention in the introduction and I'm excited for the remaining rounds of this debate. Good luck.