BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Physical Beauty Depends on How Much Effort You Put Into It

Physical beauty is totally dependent on hard work - nobody is a natural beauty. This includes what kind nutrients you eat to make your hair and skin beautiful, as well as the amount of time you put into exercise, and strength training to create a nicely formed body shape. It also depends how much personal care you've put into yourself, such as washing your teeth everyday to have nice teeth versus rotten teeth, as well as growing healthy hair, and washing it versus greasy and damaged hair. It also depends on how often you may trim your facial hair and other body hair, and what type of haircut you have that will best fit your face shape. It depends on what kind of fashionable clothes you choose to wear, the quality of the material as well as the style to fit your body shape. If you have seen makeover shows, you can see that you can turn any ugly duckling into a beautiful swan, because it depends on how much work you put into making yourself beautiful. Therefore, physical beauty depends on effort, and does not come naturally.
The Paradox Of The Stone Doesn't Disprove God's Omnipotence

All pro has done in his above arguments is say that omnipotence is not illogical without providing any evidence to back it up. CONCLUSIONPro; who has burden of proof, has not been able to prove omnipotence is not paradoxical.Note: I would have made a more comprehensive argument but the character limit was 1000 LETTERS!
The Paradox Of The Stone Doesn't Disprove God's Omnipotence

Thanks for accepting! I hope we make the most of our rounds =D Can God create a stone so heavy, he can't even lift it? This question is often posed to try to show that the concept of an omnipotent God is illogical. 1. Can't defy logic Let's assume that God posseses omnipotence where he can do anything that doesn't defy logic. The answer is “no,” because creating a stone so heavy that an all-powerful being cannot lift is a logical absurdity. This doesn't concede that God isn't omnipotent, as the defintion of omnipotence excludes the ability to defy logic. 2. Can defy logic God can do anything, even defy logic. Making a rock so heavy he can't lift it is a logical absurdity... but God can defy logic! God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, yet remain omnipotent because he can defy logic! Even under this definition, the Paradox of the Stone fails to prove that omnipotence is illogical. Remember, because God can defy logic doesn't mean that his ability itself is illogical. I've proven my case.
There are no right or wrong answers in Ethics

I understand what you are trying to say but that does not mean that it is ethically correct. Even if Adolf Hitler and others did kill so many people, but we are no one to choose who dies and who lives. Even if they are guilty and one feels that they should die because of the fact that they have committed a crime, it does not mean that we should kill or execute them. It is wrong and no ethically right to do no matter what opinion or mentality you have. These are rather big topics that we are discussing about, but ethically wrong things can happen at any time with anyone. For instance is it right for a person who did not study and who has to pass the final exam to cheat off someone? It would not be correct because it is not fair for the person who is being cheated on the test. That person, that is being cheated on could have been studying for a long time and it is not fair for someone to just look at their answers. That is ethically wrong no matter the circumstance which is something that I am trying to get through to you. What is wrong is wrong there is not in between. Something cannot be wrong but at the same time right. Is it ethically wrong to lie to your parents about something that you have done? For example, if you, as a college student,go to a party that there are many parties going on anywhere. You of course have a couple of drinks and decide to go to a friends house. On the way there in a private neighborhood at midnight you accidently crash into a tree, but decide not to call anyone. Is it ethically correct to lie and say that another car hit your while it was parked? Lying to your parents or to anyone for that matter is ethically wrong. There is no need to lie, to steal, or to do anything that is wrong. Many people do have different views, different beliefs, and different opinions. But, no matter what religion or beliefs ethical values are always either right or wrong. If you do not want to accept that and always make excuses to cover up something saying that it is right when in reality it is not. We have to accept that things are either wrong or right not right and wrong too. As putting my point across and closing my argument there is in fact a right and a wrong when it comes to ethics. Murder, stealing, lying, abortion are all wrong ethics. There is no lee way to say "oh well he or she did it for a good reason for a good cause". It just is not true. If people want to say otherwise than they are incorrect in the obvious manner. What is bad is bad, bad can never be good. Ethics has nothing to do with beliefs or religion but common sense you cannot make something dirty be clean at the same time. With all these points that I have given throughout all my arguments it is clear that there is a right and wrong. What you think otherwise is not correct in any manner. Therefore, If you do a good deed it will be rewarded with something good, but if something bad is committed it will not be rewarded with something good. It will be punished, as I have repeated, by the justice system that realizes and comes to term that there is a definite right and wrong in ethics.
There are no right or wrong answers in Ethics

People who believe otherwise that murder is right are completely not reasonable and might have something wrong in the way they think. Murder is wrong and that is that. That is why the Justice system is put in place is it not? To condemn those who have committed a crime something a person should not have done, something WRONG. The justice system acknowledges that some people make wrong decisions therefore putting them in jail for how many amount of years, depending on how severe the wrong action was. No one will ever be put to jail because they did a good deed or something right, because the jail is not for people who do right, but people who do wrong. The has to be a fine line, and there is, in ethics, because when a person gets put to trial on murder, the judge will never say, "well he or she did do it for revenge or a "right" cause . Hence, he or she did the right thing". That would be completely absurd. Murder is murder and there is never an okay time to commit murder. If someone does something right it is awarded, not punished. If someone steals you do not clap and reward them, is someone cheats on a test they do not get an A+. The world is full of excuses, always trying to bend and see the right side to something that is completely wrong. What is black is black, you cannot say it is white. You cannot find purity or rightness in something wrong. There are no gray areas it is either white or black there is no in between. Therefore, there are only Right answers when it comes to ethics or Wrong answers when it comes to ethics. You say that "There will be a variety of sides and viewpoints no matter the ethical topic....". People have different sides and view pionts because, again as said previously, people want to bend the rules, so to say, to, in a way, cover up the wrong by making it seem as if it were right. And that is where the problem lies because people want to make their own opinions of whether or not something is right or not when there is already a concrete knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. For example, Adolf Hitler was a Nazi and believed that the ideal person was an Aryan who was tall, white, with blue eyes and blond hair, and that if you did not look like this, well you would have to be killed. When in fact, he himself had black hair and not that tall only measuring 5'8. He in total killed eleven million people based on what this man thought was the ideal person. Just because Hitler thought of this and had many followers, does it make it ethically right for all of them to have killed that many people? Did it make it right for him, since it was his own belief, to kill these people just of what he thought? In that time many people agreed with Adolf Hitler, but does that make it ethically right just because he had so many followers? He murdered and brutally killed so many people and it would be completely ridiculous for people, in our day and age, to think that what this man did was ethical. Now tell me this, do you think that what Hitler did was ethical?
There are no right or wrong answers in Ethics

I am not refuting your beliefs on any of these matters nor am I agreeing with them, what I am trying to prove is that there are no concrete answers in Ethics. You give your belief on these ethical matters, saying that murder is wrong and that one cannot fight evil with evil, but those are your beliefs and the beliefs of one side of the spectrum. You believe that it is ethically wrong to murder no matter the circumstance but there are people who believe otherwise. There may be eighteen states that have removed the death penalty but there is a still a remanding thirty-two that have not; it is an extremely controversial matter because of the fact the are two very distinct sides and each side believes that their views are whats right while thinking the other is wrong. There is no way to make a concrete decision because people will continue to have their own views, values, and opinions. Even if you would have argued that there is nothing ethically wrong with murdering someone who has murdered others themselves there would still be another opposing side and that is where my point lies. As you mention one of my examples using the topic of abortion from my first argument you state, "Many people are pro-abortion others are not." And within this statement not also lies what I am trying to prove as well but it is also statement that helps support the fact that I am trying to prove. Regardless of your views on the topic of abortion, no matter what you believe is ethically right, the one thing that both sides have in common is that they both have opposing sides that believe that their viewpoints are ethically right and that the opposing side is wrong. It is the same concept when it comes to the topic of murder, stealing, any crime in general, abortion, religion, and anything of an ethical matter. There will be a variety of sides and viewpoints no matter the ethical topic because everyone has their own beliefs, values, and opinions because ethics is set of moral principles that govern a persons to groups behavior. Everyone as their own set of ethical values ranging from situation to situation and fluctuation in severity dependent on the situation at hand. People will still stand by their ethical values or sometimes even change what they believe in because there is no set right or wrong side. It is just a matter of what each individual, group, or society chooses to believe and there is no way of determining a right or wrong side without the use of personal opinion. It really is all somewhat of circle that just proves that there are no right or wrong answers in ethics because it is a matter of opinion and as mentioned in my second argument there is no unbiased ethical hierarchy. If this unbiased unethical hierarchy ever did exist than maybe there would be room for adjustment in my overall argument but there isn't and the plausibily of that is seemingly impossible so until then my case lies that" No, there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to ethics.
There are no right or wrong answers in Ethics

But who are we, as human beings, the one who have the power to take someone's life away. We are not anyone to decide if a person deserves to die no matter how many people they have killed or raped. We cannot have the power to choose such an absurd thing to kill someone by the death penalty. In essence what are we really doing to that murderer by killing them? Nothing absolutely nothing because they are not learning from the bad decision that they made by killing or raping or anything of that matter. In fact the should be placed in prison where they can think over the things that they have done and that way they can repent and actually know that what they did was wrong. You cannot fight evil with evil but with justice in the correct and right way. That is why the whole justice system is in place eighteen states now do not have the death penalty, which includes New Jersey. The only way for someone to know that they did wrong is to put them in isolation even if it does mean for the rest of their life. The universal golden rule is treat others as you as well would like to be treated. Nobody in this world is perfect even when we try our hardest we are never going to be an ideal person especially in the society we live in today. In your first argument you mentioned abortion which is a big debate that is happening here in the U.S many people are pro-abortion others are not. Abortion is ethically wrong because who are we to take a baby's life away no matter is they are not fully developed into a baby. The womb has started a process of life even is it starts with an egg and a sperm. by aborting we are killing the beginning of a life. No matter the circumstance of a pregnancy either through rape or an unwanted pregnancy we cannot just have the option to kill a live being that is being formed in the womb of the mother. It is not the baby's fault that they will soon be born. The baby has the right to live as any other human being. If the mother does not want the baby than be it, but it is unethical to abort it. The mother has many options in our day and age either to put the baby up for adoption where a loving family will cherish the little one. One cannot be selfish and just abort a live creature. It is completely unethical to take that decision with out taking into consideration of what good life that child could have had if they were just let to be born. Our society in which we live in takes abortion as just an option of committing a mistake of not using protection or just because the mother does not want another baby. Abortion should not just be an option to choose, in fact it should not be an option whatsoever. If you are old enough to do adult things then you should be responsible enough to accept that a mistake has occurred and to take responsibility in having that baby because there is always a light at the end of the tunnel. And if you really after the nine moths do not want to keep the baby then adoption is always an option because loving families with mothers who cannot have kids open their arms to unwanted babies.
There are no right or wrong answers in Ethics

Ethics is a set of set of moral priniciples that govern a persons or groups behavior; the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles. I believe that there are no right or wrong answers when it comes to Ethics considering that everyone has their own set of ethical values ranging from situation to situation and fluctuating in severity and importance dependent on the issue or conflict at hand. The reality of it is that Ethics is really, and heavily based on, a matter of opinion. This is also known as Ethical Relativism. By exact definition, Ethical Relativism explains that there are no moral right or wrongs but instead that what is "right" or what is "wrong" is usually determined by social norms. In the world that we live in there is obviously a great number of different societies as well as cultures and groups of people and what is morally acceptable in one society most definitely does not guarantee that it will be acceptable in another and so on. Different societies have different moral codes and who is to say which is more valid than the other on a "right" or "wrong" spectrum? And anyone who would attempt to classify an ethical circumstance would be basing their conclusion on their personal opinion anyway. Just by simply adding in another person to a situation of that sort helps support the cause that there is no way to say that there are right or wrong answers in ethics. Another person may have the same viewpoint but it is just as likely that their viewpoint would completely differ making for two opposing sides; and bringing another component into help decipher wether the ethical standard is right or wrong would just continue the circle of disagreement because as mentioned before it will all be based on the sole princible of opinion which varies person to person, group to group, society to society and so on. For example, in certain countries the idea of polygamy, men having multiple wives, is socially acceptable. However here in the United States that is considered morally socially and ethically wrong and is highly looked down upon by the majority of people. Another example that is both extremely controversial and pushes the question of what is Ethical is the big debate on Abortion. There are a number of people who argue that abortion is wrong and that the deliberate termination of a human pregenancy is not only ethically wrong, but from a religious standpoint, a sin worthy of punishment. At the same time there is a same number of people who are pro-abortion and argue that offering pro-abortion laws is actually a safer healthier alternative for women who feel as is they are not fit to become mothers and will sometimes take drastic dangerous measures if the option of abortion isn't available. Both sides, on the right and the wrong, come from a place of moral upbringing that ultimately affected their opinion on the situation. Either way there is no way to prove that either the "wrong" or "right" answer is right or wrong, or to say that one view is more valid than the other proving that when it comes to Ethics there are no concrete right or wrong answers.
increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA*

i generally agree that there must be a curve associate with taxes and revenue. but i contest many points. first, you've presented nothing to indicate that we are at the sweet spot on the curve, assuming that's what we are shooting for. we could very well be the left side of the curve, and could increase revenue by increasing taxes. second, historically, government revenue is around 18%. this is regardless of how high or low taxes are, for the most part, if you look at that tax rate graph i cited and compare it to what's occurred since the 40's. http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com... on a side note, that graph shows that the New Deal and War spending probably boosted us to that 18% rate previously we had been lower. so, if we are going to get the same revenue with higher taxes, we might as well increase taxes. this would all mean we are probably on the left side of the curve. most of your points like this president or that president cut taxes and there was a boom afterwards, appears to be just empty words. you didnt cite anything usually, and the bottomline again is the tax rate v revenue comparison. third, many economists think the curve should be slanted to the right. there's nothing magical about a regular parabola other than that's often how things work. http://upload.wikimedia.org... *A possible non-symmetric Laffer Curve with a maximum revenue point at around a 70% tax rate, based on "How Far Are We From The Slippery Slope? The Laffer Curve Revisited" by Mathias Trabandt and Harald Uhlig. historically, our tax rates have been about twice what they are now. and we've still gotten that 18% figure. that means we can actually increase taxes, and perhaps that 70 figure isn't so far off, given historically our tax rates are close to that. it's not always a sin to increase taxes, which seems to be just a presupposition of most conservatives these days. even reagan increased taxes many times. it's a basic idea, you tax what you spend for. in many ways it's a conservative principle. borrow and spend, not so much. or, as a last point, you haven't shown any other alterantives, what are we going to cut? if you are going to argue cuts to most of this stuff, it has to be a matter of necessity, and as of now you are just arguing rhetoric, empty words. empty words dont mean much when grandma is living in stark poverty or dying of relatively easily addressable issues. *on a last point about capital gains, and i address this as it's a specific argument besides taxes and revenue generally. yes there was a lot of capital gains after the cuts. but that only means people were taking their gains due to the opportunity. that means it was temporary. eventually revenue from gains went back to the normative rate increase. as proven by this graph. http://www.econlib.org...
increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA*

increasing taxes, as a practical matter, is necessary for the financial well being of the USA,,, aside from utilizing government health care to save money. where are the cuts going to come from to balance the budget, if there are no tax increases? background, we have a seventeen trillion dollar debt, and a deficit that fluctuates up to a trillion a year. everyone worth their salt as an expert says we need to do something about the deficit. about ten percent of the budget is spent on the poor, so even if you cut that in half, it wouldn't make much of a difference. even if you privatized social security, we'd still have current expenditures to maintain our promise to current retirees, which almost everyone agrees should be done. and most people dont want it privatized anywaays. perhaps gutting medicare and medicaid would us from having to increase taxes, but is that really what we want, and really necessary? health care is a basic necesssity, a basic right, if you aren't just lazy, no? plus we should be going in the direction of government health care, or tightly regulated private insurance. all other countries spend around ten percent GDP on healthcare, whereas we spend around 17 percent. that's a savings of a trillion dollars in itself. in fact, if we dont want to increase taxes, or gut government health care, the only other way to save the country's finances is via government health care. where else would we cut anything of signfiicance? sure there's plenty of waste and fraud and abuse out there, but as far as i can see, the only structurally significant reform is government health care or increasing taxes. to put it in perspective, roughly, we got 500 billion on defense, 500 billion on interest and debt payments, 500 billion in social security, 500 billion on general government expenses, and 500 billion going on a trillion in health care. most "poor' people and general government expenditures, which are often a rallying cry of conservatives, is not much in way of significance. historically, we had much higher tax rates, and other counties do too, and they all show how a country can do just fine that way. http://newsjunkiepost.com... i grant that im not sure how superfluous government pensions and perks are factored into the whole budget, there's surely places of mention in these areas. as per "growing" ourselves out of the problem, historically the government's revenue is only 18% of GDP, which is back to its historical average. i dont see how one could expect to do much better. so aside from government health care, i dont see how else we can balance the budget other than by increasing taxes.