BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
there are no rights or wrongs in ethics.

What if you're without a home, and living on the streets? Yes, stealing is a bad thing but what if your life is on the line? Do your morals when you had a home and food to eat still count? At what point do you stop and say what I think is wrong here doesn't count? It's looked down upon by society for females to want to dress like males, and males to want to dress like females, but if that's what they want or feel is right for them then they should do it. We live in the land of the "free" yet there is a lot that we aren't allowed to do. Yes, we do need laws to keep us in check but when it comes to other things like a same sex couple showing affection to one another that's looked down upon. It's looked down upon because it makes a lot of people "uncomfortable." But should that be the problem of the sam sex couple? No. If their morals are telling them it's the right thing to do despite what anyone else thinks their going to do it.
there are no rights or wrongs in ethics.

Yes, there are rights and wrongs in ethics. Looking at the definition and even though everyone does have a different outlook on life and everything that comes throughout, people still need to follow the main morals of what society puts on us. A person who does wrong does not mean they are all that bad. However, in life we have rules and standards to live by. The main thing that we as people need to follow is the law. One day you cannot just walk in a grocery store and steal what you need because that is what your morals are telling you to do. We follow the morals society and the law gives us because if we don"t then we have consequences to pay. You need to live up to the societies standards to live your life accordingly. You must behave otherwise you will be punished.
there are no rights or wrongs in ethics.

In order to get an understanding of the topic at hand, we first should know what the definition of ethics is. Ethics are the moral principles of an individual and how they behave themselves accordingly. With that being said, living in one the most diverse countries in the world, we all have different thoughts, ideas, and opinions. So wouldn't our morals be different as well? There is no way to explain to someone that what they hold to be right, isn't. We all live different lives, and all go about them a different way. Then again, there are morals that have been instilled in us by our parents, families, even religious affirmations. However, it is still up to us to decide which ones we want to continue to fulfill in our lives. Life is one big marathon full of obstacles, and we're constantly being tested on our morals. Whether or not we can stick to them is the ultimate question. So are there right and wrongs in ethics? Of course not.
The United States of Americashould alter itself into a American Confederated Union, not unlike the E

Definitions and anything else that needs to be said before we start, American Confederated Union: Each state has own army, all 50 states have a mutual defense pact. The possessions and island territories of the United States of America are all sovereign, and have positive relations with the American Confederated Union (ACU). The United States Congress is changed into a unicameral legislative body, which now has a mostly regulatory function over the 50 "states", regarding such matters such as environmental rules, the sale of radio waves, or the maintenance of the inter"state" highway system. One doesn't need a passport to travel through any of the 50 states, trade between all 50 states are unrestricted. The office of the Presidency carries a different role, as chief facilitator of relations between different states. The supreme court is now comprised of 9 justices popularly elected from the 9 geographical subdivisions of the American Confederated Union, and typically presides over cases involving different state conflicts. Another good thing to note is is that "states" like Texas hold more favorable bonds with countries like China, whereas a place like washington state has a trade embargo with the People's Republic. You can write the rest of the terms, next round, we'll hammer it out, third round, we start.
The United States of Americashould alter itself into a American Confederated Union, not unlike the E

Hamas' endorsement of Barack Obama was unfortunate, however it was unwanted and even if it was wanted, probably won't be very convincing in getting people to vote for him. You refer to Ronald Reagan as a RIR, which I can only assume to mean Republican Islamic Revolutionary, as he likes giving things to jihadists. Since January 19, 1984, the State Department of the US has considered the Islamic Republic of Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. From 1984 to 1986, the Reagan administration authorized the shipment of 2512 anti tank missiles to Iran and at least 18 anti-aircraft missiles. Ronald Reagan loves terrorists, the EU is awesome and so the United States should change to be more like them, vote pro.
The United States of Americashould alter itself into a American Confederated Union, not unlike the E

I would like to bring up the point of the Articles of Confederation, which doing a weaker thing, FAILED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If a less drastic version of this proposal was a failure, than what evidence is there to suggest a different result. Second, there is no necessity to go all EU on our asses. The current Federalist system has lead to the success of our nation. Allowing us to be separate but United. The United States ought not to do things that are not necessary or beneficial, therefore we ought not to do this.
Resolved: The USFG should eliminate immigration quotas.

Resolved: The USFG should eliminate immigration quotas ==Definitions== 1. USFG: The United States Federal Government 2. Should: give acceptable reason for 3. Eliminate: remove, lift 4. Immigration quotas: prescribed number of immigrants allowed within the U.S., mostly in context of visa policy ==Rules== As agreed to by both of us: 1. New arguments cannot be brought up in the last speech, unless to counter some type of abuse. 2. Drops are concessions (independent evidence and points). They need to be responded to in the next speech. 3. Setup: I speak first and last (he keeps his last block blank), he gets 2nd word.
Giygas is the Hands-down Most Disturbing Boss In a Non-Horror Video Game

My opponent has not responded to any of my bosses, and has not said in any way why they are not disturbing. It is also clear that my opponent did not watch the videos, because if he did, he would have seen that Blizzeta is from Zelda as well. "That music during the battle is so epic. .. You have to listen to it yourself. " Epic is not disturbing. "Giygas is also creeper [sic] because it was based off of personal disturbing experiences of the creator of the game. For example, one time when he was a child, he walked into the wrong theater, and saw a rape scene in a movie. Thus, Giygas's second form looks like a fetus. " That does not make Giygas disturbing. That makes his background story disturbing. This actually goes for everything that my opponent has said, except for the prayer part. "The only thing able to stop Giygas is prayers. Nine, to be exact. I don't know exactly how or why this works, but it does. No attacks work on Giygas, because he is protected by an impenetrable shield. The only thing that does any damage to Giygas is human spirit. This is only one of many disturbing forms of Giygas. " But that means little. In order to defeat Super Dementio in Super Paper Mario, a player needs to get 8 Pure Hearts to make him no longer invincible. Does that make it disturbing? No, not really. You'll have to say more about these "other forms" or they count for nothing. "And that is why he is the most disturbing boss in a non horror video game. vote [sic] pro. " My opponent has not refuted any of my claims, at all. All five of the bosses that I mentioned are more disturbing than Giygas.
Giygas is the Hands-down Most Disturbing Boss In a Non-Horror Video Game

All of these are from Zelda, except for the one from "Twilit" which I've never heard of. That music during the battle is so epic. .. You have to listen to it yourself. . http://www.youtube.com... Giygas is also creeper because it was based off of personal disturbing experiences of the creator of the game. For example, one time when he was a child, he walked into the wrong theater, and saw a rape scene in a movie. Thus, Giygas's second form looks like a fetus. . http://earthboundcentral.com... They go back in time to get him in his weakest form, an infant. Sort of like an abortion. Giygas's dialogue is the exact words of the rape victim in that movie he saw on accident. The reason it says "You cannot grasp the true form of Giygas's attack" is not because it was pure evil, but out of self-defense. Pokey calls it pure evil, but every word out of his mouth in that game is a lie. The only thing able to stop Giygas is prayers. Nine, to be exact. I don't know exactly how or why this works, but it does. No attacks work on Giygas, because he is protected by an impenetrable shield. The only thing that does any damage to Giygas is human spirit. This is only one of many disturbing forms of Giygas. . http://forum-files2.fobby.net... . http://moonside.kontek.net... . http://www.freewebs.com... . http://superfani.com... (JK) And that is why he is the most disturbing boss in a non horror video game.
Giygas is the Hands-down Most Disturbing Boss In a Non-Horror Video Game

There are many bosses that are more disturbing than Giygas. 1. Bongo Bongo He's got one eye, and his hands are severed from his body. That is creepy. Also, you can't see most of his body without the Lens of Truth. - - - http://www.youtube.com... 2. Death Sword He is also invisible, until beaten up enough by Wolf Link. He is also very creepy. He's got horns coming out of the sides of his head. - - - http://www.youtube.com... 3. Blizzeta "NOT TAKE MIRROR!" Her head spins inside of itself, and her eyes are blood-red, and she has fangs. Very disturbing. - - - http://www.youtube.com... 4. Barinade It's surounded by jellyfish-things, it has purple tentacles, and just watch the end when its dead. It's covered by red warts, and explodes in green goo. Eurgh. - - - http://www.youtube.com... 5. Ganon Giant boar, with two giant swords. In the darkness. Surrounded by fire. Quite disturbing. - - - http://www.youtube.com... I think that will do for now.
Giygas is the Hands-down Most Disturbing Boss In a Non-Horror Video Game

"It's all a matter of opinion. " Disturbing in general is a matter of opinion. And who thinks spiders are cute? Never seen anyone think that. "Also, the name of a character doesn't matter, unless it's ridiculous. Giygas's name doesn't make sense. Bongo Bongo is just ridiculous. For example, what kind of name is Kirby? " Why is Bongo Bongo "rediculous? " You give no explanation. Kirby is a real name. He was named after a vaccuum company, or a lawyer, nobody knows which. . http://kirby.wikia.com... "2. Dark and scary looking? Almost all dramatic boss battles take place in the dark. Not a big deal. Everything probably looks creepy when you can see by smelling. Hold on, you misspelled creepy. In addition, turning into bugs is not creepy. It is gross. Just like people exploding into goo. Gross is not disturbing. " Not much looks creepy through smelling. Ice looks really cool. Turning into bugs is very disturbing. "3. Yes, it does look like a penguin. I can tell you as many times s I have to. It looks like a penguin. " I'll tell as many times as I have to that she does not look like a penguin. The rest of the argument was about originality, and but that doesn't matter, because it would still be disturbing. "4. That is was. " What? That makes no sense. It looks like my opponent conceded, but I can't be sure. "Magic? A boar holding two swords is very hard to picture. " It's already pictured on the video I gave in the first round. . .. . "and one important detail I forgot". .. . "because of something with the time-space continuum that I don't remember". .. This is a weak argument, with no sources to back it up. Porky? The guy in SSBB? That wasn't disturbing. In conclusion, my opponent has done nothing to back up his arguments, and has conceded at least one of them. I have constantly refuted my opponent's points.
Compulsory Abortion Orders should be imposed on pregnant women deemed unsuitable for motherhood

The tragic reality is that while you need a licence to keep a dog, feral scum like Karen Matthews was allowed to give birth to child after child, even though the authorities were fully aware that she was totally unfit to be a mother. http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.timesonline.co.uk... Thankfully, very few women are as criminally unsuitable to be a mother as Karen Matthews, but there are, nevertheless, tens of thousands of dangerously inadequate mothers in Britain that should never have been allowed to have children in the first place. The stats say it all: * On average 1 child is killed by its parents every 10 days. * 64,000 children are in local authority care * 35,000 children, some not yet born, are considered to be "at risk of significant harm" http://news.bbc.co.uk... Most of these unsuitable mothers have some or all of the following in common: * They have never had a job and have no intention of ever getting a job. * They view having children as a means to obtain free housing and extra state benefits. * They are substance abusers. * They are not in a stable relationship and have numerous children by different fathers. * They are poorly educated, and neglect their children's education by allowed them to play truant. * They, or their partners, are violent and abusive towards their children. * They allow their children to become involved in substance abuse and crime. These factors dictate that both children will and the wider community will suffer as the result of allowing women who are unfit to be mothers to give birth with impunity. But it is not just unfit mothers that fail children; it is the entire electorate for not insisting that a law should be introduced that would help prevent child abuse. In view of this, I would urge all British voters to lobby their local Member of Parliament and request that he or she submits a Private Member's Bill that makes provision for Compulsory Abortion Orders to be imposed on pregnant women that are deemed to be unsuitable for motherhood. This law should make it clear to the judiciary that the potential future welfare of the unborn child and the interests of the wider society must be prevail in all cases and any consideration for the human rights of the would-be mother must not be allowed to compromise the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Once this legislation has been passed, social services departments will, for the first time, be able to prevent an unsuitable mother's pregnancy reaching full term and thereby save a youngster from a life of misery and I therefore commend this important measure in the fight against child abuse to the House. Thank you.
The LEGO Company is much better than Mega Bloks Inc.

Again, I will debate upon the statements my opponent has posted. -This is a pretty impossible topic to argue for or against. LEGO has constantly tried to sue Mega Bloks for having really close designs with bricks from LEGO. Many kids prefer LEGO bricks than Mega Bloks. Here is the chance of seeing which is much better. -Simply because it is an opinion, not much as a fact. Yes it is an opinion. But note the title of this topic: The LEGO Company is much better than Mega Bloks Inc. This topic is debating on which is much better with facts of LEGO and Mega Bloks' achievements, along with history of entertainment, popularity, and preference of the two. The LEGO Company being better than Mega Bloks will never be a fact, but we can debate on which has made a better point in history and our lives. *audience cheers* :) I'd like to thank my opponent for debating this topic. I wish you luck our last round =References= If any questions or wanting more information on both brands, here are the references on which I had found available. LEGO Magazine The LEGO Book . http://www.lego.com... . http://club.lego.com... . http://www.megabrands.com... I thank you all for reading this topic and debate, and hope for you all to vote for the best one who had debated.
The LEGO Company is much better than Mega Bloks Inc.

This is my first debate here so I will try to do my best in proving in FACTS. I hope my opponent does good as well. I think that the LEGO Company is much better than Mega Bloks Inc. (or MEGABloks Inc. ) Reason 1: LEGO Time in History This does not prove much. BUT! LEGO has been distributing more, evolved, and been a part an adult's favorite choldhood toy. LEGO is involved in many people's history. LEGO has also showed many themes in its history. Many of which have helped out other real themes such as Batman to help out in it's sales. Reason 2: LEGO Safety LEGO has always been trying to be much safer to kids. In a way to also help them grow. LEGO Duplo is for small infants that like to build in their early stages of life. Most of the bricks are much bigger so infants can't swallow them. Reason 3: LEGO's involvement in an adult's childhood. LEGO has introduced many themes that help a kid grow his/her imagination since being a baby to child to kid to teen and then to adult. Infants can use LEGO Duplo for their contruction, as they grow older, they can use Quatro, Thomas and Friends, or Creator. As a kid, their imagination expands so they can use products like Racers, City, Toy Story, or Castle. Being a teenager they can make much better things out of all their bricks. Advanced products such as Bionicle, Mindstorms, Technic, Trains, and even Architecture can grow a teen's imagination capabilities. As an adult, they have full experience of these brands and products, and actually make better creatons than what most kids can't. Reason 4: International Phenomenon LEGO has grown so much that it is distributed internationally. From a small wooden shop in Dutchland, to all corners of the world. LEGO even has an annual event called LEGO World, showing LEGO's part in history, acheivements, and purposes. LEGO is even making an MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game) called LEGO Universe. Linking all kids in a safe way that even has parental control on the game. I hope to accept an oppenent, and hope for the best. As a fan of this product, I hope that I put up a much better debate than the previous argument.
That greyhound racing should be made illegal

If we ban these races, where are the dogs going to go? Remember that some dogs have been in much more worse places. As I said before, this industry provides thousands of jobs for people. And making these races illegal will put people into poverty. I do support stricter laws to make sure that dogs are being treated fairly. I also support better oversight so that the laws that we have now are being followed. But banning them is to me a putdown to all those families whose only income might come from working in the industry. Thank you and this was a great debate.
That greyhound racing should be made illegal

Hi and sorry about the last round I thought I put it up already... Yes, recently greyhound racing numbers have slightly decreased over time but how can we still deny the extremely prominent exsistence of the mass killing of greyhounds; over 20,000 anually. Because of the massive demand for more puppies over 25,000 are born annually, of these 1000's only 1/2 will make it to the training age. During this stage 1000's of greyhounds will be killed because they refuse to chase, aren't fast enough or because they injured themselves. The remaining few greyhounds will continue on to racecompetitively for several years usually stopped by the age of 4. But greyhounds have an average lifespan of 12 years and only 500 greyhounds get rescued by greyhound resuce groups leaving the remaining greyhounds. Because of the greyhound racing industry keeping it all hush hush the public doesn't often know about the mass killings and torturing of these animals that happens annually and they need to know.
That greyhound racing should be made illegal

The racing industry provides thousands of jobs for people. Banning Dog racing would cost the economy a lot of money. Having those races will boost tax revenue. We as a society want to improve. So when we looked at the greyhound races, we did notice some problems. We looked over the races. Changed some of the rules. And improved the races. That does not mean that dogs are still not being mistreated. But if we Took a look at the past and compared it to today, we have improved. In the past, dogs were treated much more worse. So yes maybe it is not perfect. But man is not perfect. Today the American greyhound association proudly sponsors these races. Having these races will bring many jobs to people without jobs.
That greyhound racing should be made illegal

Hi there, There is no doubt in my mind that greyhound racing is cruel and should be abolished and I am here to convince you too. I define the topic as the competitive racing of the dog breed; greyhounds, should be completely abolished as a sport. I will be arguing the social side of the split in this round. In the middle ages greyhounds were observed as the dogs of nobility, since then we have only managed to undermine the originally nobilic, sleek, exquisite dogs and forced them into "racing for their lives." They have gone from the top of the heirarchy of dogs to the rock bottom, forced to wear muzzles in public and only seen as those dogs you see on the TV, racing. They are identified as the racing dogs and have to other meaning. If these dogs were freed of their undermining title they might finally be seen as something else; the lazy and sweet family pet that they are. THESE DOGS ARE NOT MEANT FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES AND ARE LIVING CREATURES TOO.
That greyhound racing should be made illegal

Okay, this is my first time starting a debate so thanks to anyone who accepts the challenge. But I have to lay out a few guidelines... 1. If you accept the challenge you must be prepared to debate in the same demeanor as you would if you were actually debating out loud. That means you can't refer to your opponent by their name/ username, no slang and for gods sakes signpost... 2. Please be prepared to debate the whole debate, when you forfeit it isn't any fun for anyone. 3. Lastly, have fun... So let the games begin and may the odds ever be in your favour...
Resolved: The Social Contract Theory ought to be valued over Justice

Here are additional specifications for the definitions I am including: Justice: conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Social Contract Theory: The view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society. Definitions are all my opponent provided, so my round ends here. Good luck to Pro for his opening argument.
Resolved: The Social Contract Theory ought to be valued over Justice

I affirm that the resolution, Resolved: The Social Contract Theory ought to be valued over Justice. To do this I would like to offer these Definitions Social Contract Theory-A theory that states giving up rights is needed in order to have rights and maintain order Justice-The quality of being just or fair . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Ought- The quality witch makes an action dutiful or marally obligatory Affirm- confirm: establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...