BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality isn't subjective

I accept! I am looking forward to this. There are two ways to look at this fascinating question. The first is that there is a clear, Universal distinction between right and wrong/ This thing is good and that thing is bad, And anybody who says different is objectively wrong. The second is that morality, What is right and wrong, Is not intrinsic to the universe and that "right" and "wrong" are labels made up by humans, Which we then ascribe to things based on our interpretations of them. The difficulty with the first interpretation of the question, (that things are objectively good or bad) is that there is no way to tell which moral system is the correct one. There has been no evidence pointing either way. If morality isn't subjective, It must be objective. But which moral system is objectively true? What objective morals are you arguing for? Please provide evidence. Even claims that one moral system is correct because it's better (i. E. It results in good things, Or fewer bad things) are always predicated off of one moral system to use as the arbiter of what is good and what is bad. Please explain which moral system should be preferred, And why. Due to the arguments outlined above, We can reasonable default to the second interpretation, That there is no intrinsic moral system, And that what is moral from the perspective of each person depends on their interpretation of the situation, And the general meanings of good and bad, Or right and wrong. This clearly means that morality is subjective, As it is obvious that different people, Both today and across history, Have differing beliefs on what is moral and not moral. Look at the abortion debate. This is clearly the clash of two moral systems. It's clear that people have different interpretations of what is right and wrong. Their principles of rules regarding the distinction of right and wrong are based on or influenced by personal feelings or interests. Your beliefs on abortion are supported by your moral systems, Which likely involves religion or the sanctity of life, Which likely came from your upbringing or personal tastes. Meanwhile, My beliefs on abortion are supported by my moral beliefs the definition of life, And bodily autonomy/personal freedom. My beliefs bodily autonomy and personal freedom in particular are informed by not only my upbringing but also my personal experience with and vested interests against loss of bodily autonomy. You, Presumably not having the same experiences and vested interests, Have a differing perspective and therefore a different moral system. This means that our experiences and principles of morality are subjective, Regardless of whether there even is an objective moral system at all. In conclusion, Morality is subjective because (a) there is no clear objective moral system, And (b) people have differing beliefs and subjective interpretations of morality.
Morality isn't subjective

I would like to remind you that this debate isn't whether or not morality exists, But rather that it is/isn't subjective. I'm saying that if there is such a thing as morality, It would be subjective. By accepting this debate, My opponent has agreed that there is morality, Of have agreed to work under that idea. The idea that morality does/doesn't exist is an argument for another time. I would again like to emphasise the difference between a "moral view" (what one believes is/isn't morally correct) and a "moral standard" or simply "morals. " "There is absolutely no proof that there is a fundamentally true moral system. " My argument on morality is based on the ideas of fundamental truths that stay exactly the same from person to person. By saying that morality is subjective, My opponent is admitting that fundamental truths are subjective. My opponent stated in his earlier arguments that "Moral truths are subjective" and continues to distinguish them from fundamental truths by describing the latter as "concrete. " This separation essentially makes no sense. The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 is truth, Yet it's not concrete, The same way that morality is made up of fundamental truths. By definition morality is made up of fundamental truths. What my opponent insists on calling "subjective morality" is simply not morality at all. This is but a "moral view" which is ones opinion on what they consider to be "true. " I am not arguing that this "one true moral system" will ever be found, Used, Or recognised, But rather that morality can't possibly exist in objective form by definition. Moral - standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong Principle - a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning. Truth - a fact or belief that is accepted as true. Fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true. True - in accordance with fact or reality. Therefore morals are "fundamental facts or beliefs accepted as accordance with truth or reality regarding right or wrong. " My opponent continues to make the case that since you can't "prove" morality it therefore doesn't exist. He makes the point of a chair being able to be "observed and measured" there fire it's concrete and a fundamental truth. Whilst he may say that, His chair may not be concrete, And he not be sitting on this chair. We could all be living in a simulation, We could be hallucinating. We essentially can't "prove" anything in this world with absolute certainty, This doesn't mean that nothing is true. Whilst there may or may not be morality, If there is than it can't possibly be called "subjective morality" because by definition that wouldn't be considered as morals unless you consider fundamental truths/facts to be subjective.
Morality isn't subjective

If we have no way of observing this fundamental truth, Then how do we know it exists? If you have no proof that any moral system is true, Then how do we know there is one? The existence of a fundamentally true moral system is the keystone of your argument, But you have openly admitted that you have no proof for it. There is absolutely no proof that there is a fundamentally true moral system, On your baseball/gun/cow metaphor: This is not the same situation. The shooting of a cow was a concrete, Perceivable event that definitely happened. It can probably be pinpointed with CCTV footage. But there is no CCTV footage of the One True Moral System. Your metaphor is a logical fallacy. If an innocent child was raped and murdered for no reason, That would certainly go against the moral systems of me and just about every other decent human being. But, Sadly, There is probably some monster who thinks that's perfectly okay. In their mind, They are right. On your chair metaphor: This is a different situation. A chair is something that can be measured and observed. If there is disagreement on the color, We can use a camera and a color-sensing program to discover the true color of the chair. We can't do that with morality.
Gay marriage should stay legal in all 50 states

UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA UNTY ZULAUNTY ZULAUNTY ZULA
Gay marriage should stay legal in all 50 states

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is just the opposite of theism, theism is the belief in god, atheism is the absence of belief in god.It doesn't make sense to say that theism doesn't explain anything, but atheism does.Atheism has nothing to do with science, "science is our belief on the purpose of the universe." is not part of the definition of atheism neither of your sources actually have that sentence in them. Also, most atheists ( note: not all but the majority) don't think the universe actually has a purpose. "theism might be a part of a religion."Atheism can also be part of a religion. for example Satanism (Church of Satan)" Def. of religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.(second link)" Like I said before, atheism doesn't say anything about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. It's simply not believing in god.In conclusion, atheism is not in any way more specific than theism, and atheism has nothing to do with science, this is a common misconception because the majority of atheists accept science as a way to explain how everything works, but even if you reject science you can still be an atheist.http://www.churchofsatan.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Atheism is a religion.

"if theism is not a religion, why would atheism be? " My reply: theism is not a religion, theism might be a part of a religion. theism says we have a god. atheism says there is no god, science is our belief on the purpose of the universe. theism does not explain anything. Def. of religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (second link) using this def i say that atheism is a religion be cause it is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Socialism

I believe socialism is the best of all political systems that we know of, especially in modern society.Socialism involves political power being given to the general people. Political decisions are in the hands of the people and the people decide what general policies are passed. In this way, no one agency can have too much power, instead of having one or even a few people decide what they think is best. Socialism is not Communism. Communism necessarily involves a dictatorship or an oligarchy. History has shown that when power is concentrated, people without power or means are generally neglected, even if they represent the majority. Pure socialism solves that problem. Socialism also solves the problem of limited political participation.The problem with a system like the one in the U.S. is that the party system limits us to the parties and what the parties propose to do. If we don't like the Democrats, we can choose the Republicans. If we don't like the Republicans, we choose the Democrats. It's either that or have no political voice because everything else is marginalized. So my political participation is limited to the Republican and Democrat platform? That's it? That's really dumb. What if the policies of the Democrats and the Republicans contradict the wants of the majority? There's literally nothing we can do except petition for change and hope it passes. We can petition all we want, but those in power want to stay in power, meaning those with the means to help them remain in power get their voices heard first and foremost in most cases. In a socialist system, the majority can decide: Hey, we don't like what you're doing, change that or we remove you. And the system will allow for the majority to remove the policymakers from office. That's what I call power in the people!
The Atomic Bombs Should Have Been Dropped on Japan

I am grateful for those bombs, because if they hadn't been dropped, it is possible-not likely, but possible-that we would have a rising sun flapping over the White House. The lives of all those men, women, and children are not to be taken lightly, but I am glad that only 130,000 were killed, and not 3,000,000. I don't value one life over another, but I value three million lives over one hundred thirty thousand. And why do you feel so strongly about this? Don't you realize that more people were killed in the Blitz, the bombings over Berlin, and the bombings of Tokyo? I don't hear you calling the men who flew those bombers "evil", you hypocrite. Excuse the ad hominem attack, but I think it is warranted after calling me a "sick monster". And you ask what Japan did to us. They killed our soldiers, pilots, sailors, and yes, civilians too. American POWs were usually beheaded, and if not, sent to torture camps worse than the German death ones. That is what they did, not to me, but to America. However, the bomb wasn't even payback, although the Japanese certainly deserved it. No, it was a way to end the war. It saved lives. Do you not understand that? And, before I end, I would like to apologize to any Japanese people or people of Japanese descent reading this. Yes, the torture of POWs is true, but the government of Japan is much different now. At this moment, there are the best of relationships between Japan and the United States.
The Atomic Bombs Should Have Been Dropped on Japan

This is Just insane is it not enough that millions of lives were lost because of some stupid selfish act. To me it is. What do you want from them. What did they ever do to you or America so yould would be greatful of those bombs. I tell you that almost all of America are even sorry for their own actions. The creator of the atomic bomb probably would be too. The pilots of the planes that dropped the bombs were also sorry too. You are making me sick. So you need to forfeit this topic now!
The Atomic Bombs Should Have Been Dropped on Japan

The effects of the bombs are not to be downplayed- I agree with you on that. However, dropping the bombs was absolutely necessary to end the war. Before I get into the details, I want to explain something about Japanese culture in the 40's- and even today. The Japanese were fiercely loyal to their country. They would fight to the last man. For them, surrender was unthinkable. American soldiers invading Japanese controlled islands in 1944 and 1945 saw Japanese gunners with limbs blown off continue to fire their machine guns at the advancing GI's . Japanese sailors who had had their ships sunk would swallow water and drown to avoid being taken prisoner by the Americans. And 1945 saw extensive use of kamikaze pilots and kaitens. A kamikaze pilot was a pilot that loaded his plane with as much explosive as possible, then crashed it into enemy ships. He would die. A kaiten was a manned torpedo. A kaiten operator had no chance of survival. If his torpedo hit his mark, he would die in the explosion. If his torpedo missed, it would run out of fuel and he would sink to the ocean floor. Their were nearly no recorded Japanese surrenders in WWII. There is a reason for that. Now, you may be asking what this has to do with the bombs. Well, if the bombs hadn't been dropped, and invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been necessary. And the Japanese would've fought back tooth and nail. They would've given everything from rifles to rocks to Japanese citizens aged from 70 to 7, and told them to die for their country. And they would have obeyed. If you think that having 7-year-olds in combat is crazy, well, it's not a hyperbole. Young Japanese children fought the British in Burma all the way up to the surrender. So, yes- the bomb killed millions. But the death toll from an invasion would have been twice that- and civilians would have been killed too.
The Atomic Bombs Should Have Been Dropped on Japan

The Atomic bombs should not of dropped in Japan.Justice? What happened to the fairness in civilisation? Japan may of despised America but that does not give America permission to break world peace. We may of been in war but the atomic bomb was too much. Consequences could of been larger and a world war III was a high possibility. Even now, residents of Japan, especially in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, must wear masks to protest themselves from the exposure of the radiation. The lives lost in the bomb was triple the amount of any normal bomb. Statistics even state that if the atomic bomb was not dropped than Japan's tourist industry would have triple it's success. Therefore the atomic bombs should not of been dropped in Japan.
Should I be able to vote on this website

As it stands when I am writing this round, you should not be allowed to vote. You have not met the requirements for DDO's voting system, and as this debate is not about the justification of the system, you have no right to vote. You are not Nick Jonas, so the majority of your argument is invalid. If you have wanted to vote on DDO your entire life, as was stated previously, you would have easily completed three (3) debates on DDO. This leads me to conclude that you have not spent your entire life wanting to vote. As it stands, Pro has lied twice, possibly giving me points for conduct. Again, if you have spent countless hours wanting to vote, then why have you not started/completed three debates? The answer? The hours have not been countless. BoP is on Pro as it stands, and as I have rebutted all arguments, I win. Pro's sources were as invalid as his/her argument, so this should be a decisive win for me.
Should I be able to vote on this website

My entire life, I've wanted to vote on this website. I've spent countless hours wanting to vote, working on honing my debate skills, and here we are. My third debate. Let's start out by saying who I am. I am famous pop star Nick Jonas* Does Nick Jonas deserve the right to vote? As Americans, we all do actually. The 15th ammendmant says that all Americans have the right to vote (. http://www1.umn.edu... see 15th ammendmant). Also, I, Nick Jonas**, have won countless awards (. https://en.wikipedia.org...). A person so succesful in their life should be able to vote for any arguements without question.
The Holocaust Happened

Thanks for accepting. According to Wikipedia, "From 1941 to 1945, Jews were systematically murdered in a genocide, one of the largest in history, and part of a broader aggregate of acts of oppression and killings of various ethnic and political groups in Europe by the Nazi regime."(1) Wikipedia articles have been edited 804,430,849 times by over 27,009,864 users and is managed by over 1,000 administrators.(2) If Wikipedia's record of the Holocaust were mistaken, don't you think it would've been corrected by one of those almost 1 BILLION edits? Or seen and revised by one of the over 1 THOUSAND admins?Even the Institute for Historical Review, "an organization primarily devoted to publishing and promoting books and essays described by critics as pseudo-historical that attack the mainstream historical consensus concerning the Nazi genocide of Jews,"(3) does not deny the Holocaust! And I truly mean it literally says that it "does not" deny the Holocaust.(4)I'll end with a quote from RationalWiki: "... Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism often embraced by bigots who are too cowardly to admit that they wished that Hitler had finished the job." Is my opponent a cowardly bigot? Would he be able to argue his position while looking in the eyes of these Jewish children? Thanks for the debate.(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://www.ihr.org...(5) http://rationalwiki.org...
The Holocaust Happened

Nothing happened, ever. Right now all came to be and the only things that can be proven here on out either relate to the present or the future. The past is merely what we assume that the current evidence points to but the past never existed, the only time that exists is the present and the immediate future. The Holocaust in an imaginary sense may seem to be really happening but in reality it never was, it is part of the present illusion which was imposed on us all less than a nanosecond ago. Hitler is a figure we say was "real" and the holocaust we say "happened" but both are lies. The only reality and only happening can be in the present or the foreseeable future.
Should the US nuke China

Well due to the fact that all chinese people look weird and DID NOT INVENT FOOTBALL!!!!!!! I also wouldn't call your source reliable because that person in your source is obviously racist towards "round eyed people". That could be the most racist thing ive ever heard in my life. Now to chow, obviously the hang over would have been ten times better without a chinese man because chinese people are all terrible athletes. And lets not be stupid Kong Fu Panda is obviously not real because its animated. Chuck Norris is Australian, we all know that, DUH!!! Yao Ming isnt even relavent anymore now that he is gay and lives in china again. Lastly SHIN SOO CHOO isnt even a real person so dont even use him. China needs to be bombed immediately because they are all fat