BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics

I believe there are right or wrong answers in ethics. Everyone has their own different moral principles and behaviors. Some of them are not acceptable in society. Yes, you are allowed to believe whatever you want is right or wrong, but society doesn't agree. Some men think there is no problem with hitting women, but society and the legal system doesn't agree. The laws are moral based and helps a community function properly. But, deciding what is ethical is a personal process. Everyone has their own actions and the way they deal with things. Your reaction to a situation is different than someone Else's. But, your reaction may not be ethical. There is no set in stone form of personal ethics because there are different perspectives of the ones involved in an issue. If your child is acting out of line, you may think it is ethical to hit them to keep them in line. But, another parent may think that that is not ethical and will never lay a hand on their child. Ethics are a learning process. Having something happen and your reaction to it can vary every time. It is a process of trial and error because each outcome is never the same. The way you react may not be ethical, you learn from it and make more ethical actions. You need to investigate the situation to understand what the best result would be. By going through situations that moral codes arise, we learn about our ethical perspective. If my family was poor and had no money to buy food, would I steal bread from the store? I know that stealing is wrong. But, I love my family too much to have them suffer like that. That is how morals are linked to feelings. You second guess your instincts because you are overwhelmed by your feelings. Most people base their ethical standpoint on what makes them feel the best. That may seem selfish, but that is pure proof that there are wrong answers in ethics because it effects others. Their actions aren't usually the most ethical because it could have a negative effect. I could be shopping and there could be the last copy of a book that I want, but another person wants it. At the same time, we could put our hands on it and a issue would arise. The other person could just snatch it out of my hands and not care that I wanted the book too. That wouldn't be moral because your actions were based on your emotions. That is the wrong thing to do. The right thing could have been to talk about who got the book first, be a good person and just give them the book, neither of you take the book, or talk to a sales person to see if there are other copies of the book. You really can't rationalize with someone if that is their moral standpoint. It may not be the correct way to handle a situation, but that is what they feel and you can't change that. What' should be coined as ethical behavior puts no one at harm, no ones feelings are hurt, and the final result is acceptable to all involved. Even if the result requires you to sacrifices what you want. Good ethics are the foundation of a good life.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics

Yes because we have to show our children what is ethical and unethical. Our children are the future to our world so its important to show them what is morally right in our society. Raising our kids is by far the most important ethic there is to have ever been taught. Not only does it teach our kids right from wrong, but it makes the parents even better people when we show our kids how to function in the world and be as good as people as they can be
The use of Atomic bombs on Japan was justified.

You need to provide sources for your arguments. You have also not responded to any of my arguments. In conclusion people are free to agree or disagree with the use of Atomic bombs but in the end the bomb clearly saved millions of lives. The Potsdam Proclamation was clear cut "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." Japan refused that. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the engines of Japan, bombing those cities crippled Japan's ability to wage war. The military can't fight without adequate supplies, again leaflets were sent warning potential targets (cities) to flee. "they should have bombed somewhere where it could have made a bigger impact against their military instead of innocent citizens." My biggest question is why are you willing to sentence people who serve in the military to death but not innocent civilians? Not citizens civilians. Just because people served in the Japanese military does not mean they committed war crimes and should be sentenced to death. What if that person who served was drafted? Does that mean they should be sentenced to death over civilians? What if that was the only prospect for "Hachrio" to serve? "Hachrio" had to provide for his family and was unable to unless he served, if he did not serve his parents and siblings would starve, does that mean because he chose to serve it's alright to take his life away but not a civilians? This is just an example, I hope you understand that. Fire bombing takes time, and again time is precious. Who knows how many months of firebombing it would've took to force Japan to surrender? Months? Years? Time is precious the more time passes the more suffering Japanese people will endure during the war. The US was the only country to use Atomic bombs yes that's true. However look at the lives saved as a result of the bomb (look above in our arguments.) The lasting effect of the Atomic bomb was very minor in comparison to the actual invasion of Japan. Did the Atomic bomb kill millions of allies, Japanese military and civilians? No, the Atomic bomb was the best option available the lesser evil of them all. How does the Korean War relate to the use of Atomic bombs during WWII? It further proves my point actually millions of Japanese would've starved if the Atomic bombs did not force the Japanese government to surrender. Even before the use of Atomic bombs the Soviet Union was in the process of creating their own Atomic bombs. The Cold War is a different topic, while it is relevant to the use of Atomic bombs in Japan it was not the sole factor in causing the Cold War. http://www.ndl.go.jp...
The use of Atomic bombs on Japan was justified.

Including on the opinion to not drop the bomb, the head scientist of creating the bomb during the Manhattan Project, Robert Oppenheimer didn"t agree with dropping it. When Oppenheimer saw how explosive the bomb was he said it had reminded him of a saying from a book "Bhagavad Gita: I am become death, destroyer of worlds." Oppenheimer was distraught to think that something he had created had destroyed so many lives and he felt responsible for those who died because of the bombs. Robert Oppenheimer said towards the end of his life in regards to the atomic bombings, "I have no remorse about the making of the bomb and Trinity [the first test of an a-bomb]. That was done right. As for how we used it, I understand why it happened and appreciate with what nobility those men with whom I'd worked made their decision. But I do not have the feeling that it was done right. The ultimatum to Japan [the Potsdam Proclamation demanding Japan's surrender] was full of pious platitudes. ...our government should have acted with more foresight and clarity in telling the world and Japan what the bomb meant." This quote expressed from how he felt about the bombing shows that he didn"t intend it to be used in such a horrific way. Not only did the main directors of making the atomic bomb not agree with it, but the military was very limited compared to the amount of military. The two cities that America decided to bomb didn"t even have much military power. Civilians had outnumbered troops from six to one. If America really wanted to hurt Japan so badly by using such a powerful weapon, they should have bombed somewhere where it could have made a bigger impact against their military instead of innocent citizens. Another reason to look at, why couldn"t America just use fire bombings instead of atomic bombings? America became the first and only country to use atomic weapons throughout every- single year of history throughout the whole entire world. Firebombing would have hurt Japan too, but America used the atomic bombs just to look superior compared to other countries, especially the Soviet Union. If anything, the U.S. should have only needed to bomb Japan once, besides the war was almost over anyways. You must wonder why the United States is the only country in the world that actually used nuclear weapons. They have deadly and lasting costs. Not only were there the immediate deaths of thousands of civilians, but thousands more died in the months to come after the bomb was dropped due to the radiation produced from it. Additionally, thousands more lives were lost even further down the like during the Korean War because of many suffering from starvation due to loss of so much land and sources of food. No potential loss of lives from a Japanese invasion outweighs the long lasting effects of the tragic dropping of an atomic bomb on another country. The United State's decision also played a large role in igniting the Cold War.
Vegas Golden Knights - Best Team in Hockey

Is there anywhere in my debate that it states Golden Knights best hockey team OF ALL TIME?? That can not be possible since they are in the league for the first time this season, they haven't even played a playoff game yet. But as of right NOW they are the best team in hockey. Now if we wanted to debate who's the greatest hockey team is of all time in the NHL, then clearly it's the Montreal Canadians with 24 Stanley Cups. Last one won in 1993 against the LA Kings and Wayne Gretzky. The Blackhawks sucked all through the 80's and 90's, it wasn't until the 2010's that they started winning. But for this debate I'm stating The Golden Knights are the best team in hockey. It's ok if you want to jump on the Knights bandwagon for the playoffs since your team will be done for the season soon and when the playoffs start you can cheer for the Golden Knights. #goldenknightsrule #blackhawksdrool #getontheknightbandwagonnow (mic drop)
Vegas Golden Knights - Best Team in Hockey

Sure, The Blackhawks are the basment of the leauge in the Western Confrence. You guys pulled a fast one on us last night. The Golden Knights might be the CURRENT best (for this season), but in terms of ALL TIME, The Blackhawks have u guys beat by a hell of a lot of points. The Golden Knights have 3 championship wins, we have 6, counting 7 for this year. And you guys are nothing but hype seriously. #sellout
Vegas Golden Knights - Best Team in Hockey

OMG you are dense. The Blackjhawks WERE the best team in hockey when they won 3 Cups in 6 years, but those days are over. Toews and Cane have huge contracts and they are over the hill now, Seabrook has been a healthy scratch at 8 million a year and after last nights azz whipping by the Golden Knights over the Blackhawks. Golden Knights send Blackhawks to seventh straight loss Vegas wins with four goals in third period https://www.nhl.com... Now if you would like to take a look at the Western Conference standings, you will notice that The Golden Knights are not only first in the Conference, but also first in the league. While the Blackhawks are in the basement of the league and already lost to the worst tam, the Arizona Coyotes earlier this week. So Chicago used to be good but that was 5 years ago. https://www.nhl.com... Vegas Golden Knights ARE the best team in hockey!!!
Vegas Golden Knights - Best Team in Hockey

Vegas Golden Knights are the best team in hockey in their first year in the NHL. The team is heading towards a Presidents Trophy and Gerard Galant will be the coach of the year. The Golden Knights have currently three 20 goal scorers and their Goalie Marc-Andre Fleury has the second best save percentage in the entire league. With experience of winning 3 Stanley Cups in the past for Fleury, the Golden Knights are on their way to the Stanley Cup Finals with one of the best goalies in the league. And in the playoffs it's all about goaltending, and the Golden Knights have that. Golden Knights vs Pittsburg Penguins Stanley Cup Final Calling it now, since I did pick Pittsburgh the previous 2 seasons to win the Cup and they did. Well this year it will be Golden Knights, Stanley Cup Champions!!!! All doubters, you will be eating your words in June, when James Neil hoist the Cup at T-Mobile Arena Go Golden Knights Go!!! Fanboy out (mic drop)
Vegas Golden Knights - Best Team in Hockey

Well I'm sorry to say but The Blackhawks ARE NOT the best team in hockey and their season will be over on April 7'th. While I will be warming up for the first round of the playoffs with the Golden Knights. It's ok I understand if you would like to cheer for the Golden Knights in April when you have no Blackhawks hockey to watch. There is always baseball but the White Sox SUCK and the Cubs are going to suck for another 108 years again, they got their one championship that they get every 100 years. So if you want to watch some exciting winning team hockey then cheer for The Golden Knights, BEST TEAM IN HOCKEY!!!
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

by complicating it you are simply lying to yourself. lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one no you are not, you are being unreasonable if you argue its reasonable for me to jump of a cliff in my current state, im hinting at its a long way down.. obviously it would be unreasonable to jump, you wouldn't jump I can only wake op physically today now, and tomorrow is still tomorrow, which is in my imagination today now yes so alcohol is poisonous.. thanks for backing my point
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

"making sense and reasonable might be the same, but you used the words make sense, im talking about reason, reason is not physical, senses are", you're referring to your ability to reason but it's the same. You use all of the data you take in through your senses to create a standard or outlook; whether it's touching a hot stove to realize it's hot or listening to a lecture and having an epiphany both use the same standard reasoning ability. "dude I am simplifying an example... im not making an absolute statement that I will die if I fall of a cliff, but based on the logic that applies to reality it would not be reasonable for me to jump of a cliff...", and I am making it more complex because your understanding of how things work is too simple. If the world were so black and white would I be here taunting you with the notion that it's not? Of course not. "ogic is cause and effect, not twisted observations... it is illogical to jump of a cliff because of matter, and its reasonable to conclude that based on the logic that still applies, I didn't gain the powers of superman over night by random coincidence so its still unreasonable for me to jump unless I want to die", matter has nothing to do with it; the easiest test to any idea is to make it smaller. For instance you say jumping off of a cliff and don't give a height so let's say that this cliff is 2' tall. Will you die if you jump off of a 2' tall cliff? That's a pretty complicated question honestly. It's not a black or white yes or no, no different than you not necessarily dying from falling off of a cliff; the rules of the world and physics aren't so simple as to grant you the joys and comforts that come with deductive logic. I am sorry. "now is a loop, there is no going into the future beyond what I can imagine. the future is ahead of my personal physical experience, and the future is false", there is no loop. You're trying far too hard to delve far too deep into the simplest of things. You could say that the future is beyond our grasp but honestly when you go to work tomorrow it's preplanned. Just being honest. The arguments of potential that come around this concept are fallacious wastes of time for a reason. Don't do that to yourself. "it is only poisonous if it is poisonous to the body, therefore if its not poisonous to the body its not poisonous", but alcohol is always poisonous it just takes a specific amount to take on effect and become lethal or even have an impairing effect honestly. "It is what it is" only works when it's true all the time as a constant but nothing in this inductive universe is a constant. Again, I am sorry.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

making sense and reasonable might be the same, but you used the words make sense, im talking about reason, reason is not physical, senses are dude I am simplifying an example... im not making an absolute statement that I will die if I fall of a cliff, but based on the logic that applies to reality it would not be reasonable for me to jump of a cliff... logic is cause and effect, not twisted observations... it is illogical to jump of a cliff because of matter, and its reasonable to conclude that based on the logic that still applies, I didn't gain the powers of superman over night by random coincidence so its still unreasonable for me to jump unless I want to die now is a loop, there is no going into the future beyond what I can imagine. the future is ahead of my personal physical experience, and the future is false it is only poisonous if it is poisonous to the body, therefore if its not poisonous to the body its not poisonous
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

im not saying it would make sense, im saying its reasonable, and logic determines reason, reason the the concept of logic, cause and effect is it unreasonable to jump off a cliff if I want to die, compared to eating vegetables? well im not adding bungijumping you are, im talking about reality as it is.. where you can jump of a cliff and no bungee is necessarily attached to you, therefore its not implied in my example you are twisting it m8 it is only true, when it is true, only now is true, anywhere beyond now is imaginary, false. so you can jump of a cliff and imagine flying away and everything will be fine, you will not continue falling and splat?(if you are on earth and everything is as it is.........lul) if no one can get poisoned, no poison exist the effect of the poison is the cause of the poison wauw, your saying cause and effect dosnt apply to your ice cube example, but that is only true if you imagine it, as there is no logic in fantasy
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

there is no logic in fantasy, that's why I can imagine jumping of a cliff and slamming into the ground and nothing actually happens besides perhaps and emotional response, where as we can reason about this and come the conclusion that jumping off a cliff would be unreasonable, and what determines it is unreasonable is the cause and effect relation of my body and the ground, if I had the power of superman it would be reasonable for me to jump, yet it would be reasonable for me to jump if I wanted to die, because logic is so, yet if I was superman it would be unreasonable to jump if I wanted to die, as it is an insufficient way to kill myself, based on logic. logic is the measurement of reasonable all poisonous objects will poison animals, cause and effect of the object being poisonous, matter determines this, it has nothing to do with what you think, because you can eat the object, and your thoughts doesn't change the result that you will get poisoned its only a poisonous mushroom if its poisonous to my body, if an animal eats it and the animal can handle the poison the cause and effect relation is different so there is no cause and effect relation causing these things with the ice cube? simple
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

Logic is purely conceptual (http://philosophy.lander.edu...) which in turn means that patterns are not a derivative of any logical process but instead that all logical processes are derivatives of patterns throughout the universe. Cause and effect is simply one standard that is relative to the observations and presentations of logic however logic itself, esp. inductive logic (http://www.chaosforum.com...), does not necessitate this behavior theoretically. P1: All objects that are poisonous will harm animals. P2: Humans are animals. C: All objects that are poisonous will harm humans. Using your mushroom premise this is unsound as (http://namyco.org...) some mushrooms are poisonous to common housepets like cats and dogs but not to humans and furthermore given the same quantity not all toxins are necessarily dangerous even between humans which is how Toxicology is based related to LD50 (http://biology.unm.edu...) charts. Note that there is no set amount but instead it is based on your size and weight. This is true of all toxicity even though the differentials can be so minute it does not matter. Concluding cause and effect as a standard of logic should always produce sound deductive presentations if all the premises are accurate however this is also not true. For instance something as simple as an ice cube floating defeats the general rule that solids are heavier than their liquid states and will sink within them if allowed. Instead we note that ice cubes float, we know why, and the logic produced by this follows the actual pattern of behavior instead of the pattern of logic forcing the behavior. Simple.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

"by complicating it you are simply lying to yourself. lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one", you should put that in a book or a blog or something. It will definitely make people pay attention to you. "no you are not, you are being unreasonable if you argue its reasonable for me to jump of a cliff in my current state, im hinting at its a long way down. . obviously it would be unreasonable to jump, you wouldn't jump", hinting you say? Implying? So I was right all along. Oh those hidden parameters. .. "I can only wake op physically today now, and tomorrow is still tomorrow, which is in my imagination today now", so when you typed this was it like . .. deep? You know, flowing from one key to the next, unsure if you would make it between key presses? Instead of worrying about likelihood I bet you type like every letter is your last. You never know, you know, and your ability to manage to survive to type out one whole word is fictitious, because that's the future, and that's not real. .. Right? I got confused. "yes so alcohol is poisonous. . thanks for backing my point", I am pretty sure you never had a point because this runs counter to just about everything actually said. However. .. Congratulations! I hope you win! <3
Amelia Earhart was an American Spy

Amelia Earhart was no american spy for several reasons, my first reason being, the newest evidence they had of her plane disappearance was a piece of her plane being found. It was found in the South Pacific on a small remote island by the name of Nikumaroro in 1991. Also the island Nikumaroro is quite a far distance from japan which is supposedly where she was supposed to have been captured and killed. Also it isn't uncommon for an american hero such as Earhart herself to be close to an American president. There have been many cases of American Presidents having close relationships with other famous people. So due to outstanding evidence against this American hero being a spy. She is just that a hero and nothing more than that.
Amelia Earhart was an American Spy

Amelia Earhart is proven to be a spy for the American government through her involvement and deep friendship with Teddy and Eleanor Roosevelt. She frequently visited them and had a very secretive relationship with them. As patriotic Americans, the Roosevelts asked Amelia to do secret spy missions for them against the Japanese. When she disappeared on her last mission with Fred Noonan, she claimed to be attempting to fly around the world, but in reality, she was using that as a guise to fly over Japan and spy on their military power for the President and his wife. As a result, she was captured by the Japanese and was never found again because they hid the evidence of her plane and most likely murdered Earhart and her partner.