BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It doesn't matter whether a society is morally right

Pro's last sentence stated, “This is to mean the society in whole being wrong, which must in fact be judged by people outside the society.”A society is judged by other societies when that society invades another. When a society is at peace with the rest of the world, and people are happy within the society, then that “society is morally right.” Other societies have no business or desire to criticize the cultural norms or moral code of conduct of a society where its citizens are generally happy and at peace with other societies. For example, let's take two neighboring societies each having a typical family size of members. One society lives in Pro's home and the other lives in Con's home. Pro's family are happy and following the norms of their religion and consider themselves “morally right.” Con's family are also happy and following the norms of their religion and also view themselves being “morally right.” However, Pro believes Con's religion is morally wrong and Con feels the same way about Pro's. Yet they live in peace within the neighborhood. So it does matter whether a society is morally right; otherwise, the family of either Pro or Con will have a broken home of unhappiness. In closing, Con is in no position to say that Pro is living a morally wrong life, as long as Pro and Con mutually embraces each other's Unalienable Rights when in the company of each other. And this is the “moral right” thing to do, while being good neighbors. Finally, since we are good neighbors, Con looks forward in meeting Pro again on the debating floor.
It doesn't matter whether a society is morally right

I regret to say, Pro should have stated his definition of this debate in Round 1 not in Round 3 by Pro's following statement, "This is the point of the debate. No matter if one society is said to be wrong by another it does not make the society wrong. Their is no right in a society, only its ability to prevail over other societies."In Round 1, Pro left the definition open for Con by his statement, "First round is acceptance and definitions." Con's definition in Round 1, falls within the scope of the debate's title and therefore, Pro must argue why a society could exist while the members of that society are morally wrong relative to the social norms of that society. Even the first two comments advised Pro "to clarify morally right" (by InnovativeEphemera), or "it requires to specify to whom" (by Cold-Mind). Since Pro left the "acceptance and definitions" open for Con to defined, Con took the lead in defining the debate's scope. This conflict between Pro and Con, on the debate's definition, will be decided by the voters.
It doesn't matter whether a society is morally right

Con's argument is, for a society to exist the members within that society must be “morally right,” albeit imperfectly, relative to the norms of that society, otherwise, the society will eventually self-destruct to an uncivil state of existence. There is no mention in the title of this debate of comparing the norms of one society relative to another, or a debate on some “universal” code of conduct for all societies. In the opening of Round 1, Pro did not elaborate on any extensions of this debate beyond the title. This is the point of the debate. No matter if one society is said to be wrong by another it does not make the society wrong. Their is no right in a society, only its ability to prevail over other societies.
It doesn't matter whether a society is morally right

The title of this debate, being the stake in the ground is, “It doesn't matter whether a society is morally right.” Con's argument is, for a society to exist the members within that society must be “morally right,” albeit imperfectly, relative to the norms of that society, otherwise, the society will eventually self-destruct to an uncivil state of existence. There is no mention in the title of this debate of comparing the norms of one society relative to another, or a debate on some “universal” code of conduct for all societies. In the opening of Round 1, Pro did not elaborate on any extensions of this debate beyond the title. Con's presentation in Round 1, relative the debate title, concludes that it does matter whether a society is morally right.
It doesn't matter whether a society is morally right

Societies develop with their rules as that societies morals. Their is no universal morality, only will to power. If another society believes another society is wrong it is only true if that society destroys the other. It is only subjective while the other ideal still exists. Societies continually adapt and change over time, further promoting an evolution of societal forms. The only correct societal form is one in which it has destroyed all other societies, whether other societies thought it to be moral or not.
Quran & Bible Violence

Bs"d I will be proving that the Qur'an is violent, sexist, intolerant of other cultures, and yes, Anti-semetic. As well as that the Torah is none of these things. The Qur'an says you can beat your wife (Qur'an 4:34) and that you can rape your wife (Qur'an 2:223) both of which are explicitly banned in the Torah, marital rape is still considered rape, a crime punishable by stoning to death. Beating your wife is also banned, if someone does this their wife is entitled to a divorce as well as compensation and you still have to pay her for the rest of your life. {1} It also says in a minimum of 109 places to murder infidels, I have chosen to provide the top few, such as Qur'an 2:191: "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith." Also please note that it says "where you catch them," thus disproving any claims that this was self-defense. There are also many other verses which are violent, I just won't quote all of them, but it's all here (Qur'an 3:151, 4:89, 8:12, 8:39, 9:5, and 17:16). But then we find a very different instruction in Exodus 23:9: “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.” And then there is the issue of revenge, Qur'an 2:194 says: "[Fighting in] the sacred month is for the sacred month, and for violations is retribution. So whoever offers you violence, then offer ye likewise violence. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." Whereas Leviticus 19:18 says otherwise: This is in direct contradiction with Leviticus 19:18, which says: “Do not take vengeance on or bear a grudge against any of your people; rather, love your neighbor as yourself; I am Adonai.” This is insanity, even the Non-Testament says for us to love our enemies, but the Qur’an says to exact revenge on anyone who offends you! Now let’s see here, which is a better religion, the one that says you can abuse your wife, murder people of other religions, exact revenge, etc. Or the one where women are given equal status as men, rape is punished by stoning to death, beating your wife is prohibited, senseless violence is prohibited, and so is revenge. Which one sounds more peaceful to you? {1}. http://www.jewfaq.org...
morality=reason+intent

Look here, you dumb@ss, Don't be stupid, my lass. I know you're desperate for a win, but your hopes are gonna go flying into the bin. Nobody will vote Pro 'cause you were born low. Everyone will vote Con (I hope) 'cause high I was born. Your mentality is bad; it contains no swag. The contradiction is amazing so amazing I'm puking. Everyone will vote Con, (I guarantee you) exactly before dawn. Ok, I'm tired and bored of this Debate. "morality = intent + reason" "look.. its not about the intent, its about the reason if i punch you, its not about me intending the punch, its about why did i punch you" You just contradicted the title of this Debate. Hitler had reasons for war, he was extremely patriotic and wanted to do good for Germany. This doesn't justify his actions of killing over 30 million people though.
morality=reason+intent

No offence meant, but honestly. I mean, that's what I've been trying to explain the entire fking time. So now, all vote Con plz =) But srsly, I thought Hitler had a damned family. Hmmmm. .. Search Hitler Family Line (I think that solves many issues) Vi_spex I don't feel like creating a poem now, so you'll have to wait till next round. The poem will be good I promise =) P. S. Good at insulting you, shhh
morality=reason+intent

*Ahem* Forgive me for the poem I put in the comments :3 The second I glanced at the title; I knew it wasn't trifle. The philosophy of vi_spex, oh, how it lacked in intellect. I looked at the familiar name, and wondered if he was sane. Oh how it sounded very vi_spex, and with the infectious stupidity he radiated, I was vexed. I read his other debates; I lost a few neurons to my fate. Oh how I wish you would stop, vi_spex, Your intellect is merely a speck. The ideals you believe in are not bright, are instead dim. Your mentality is stupid, they are not like cupid's. Do not try to preach things that are so vi_spex like, to others they are spikes. I was only trying to create a Poem. This is the best poem I've created so far. (Ignoring the insults) Anyway. Reason Intent = Morality Hitler loved his Country, (Germany), committed acts of aggression only to improve his Country's economy, power, and influence. He was extremely patriotic, extraordinary (though deluded), and simply adored his people, his Wife, his Family, and his Dog. He died a martyr, (suicide). He believed that he was doing good. His intent was to improve Germany's economy, power and influence. He *ONLY* (I hope you see the sarcasm) wanted to improve the Country which he so loved. (Though through war, if necessary. In this case, it was.) Hitler's Intent = Good (In a way) Hitler's Reason = Good Intent Reason = Morality Positive (Good) Positive (Good) = Positive (Good) Thus, from your fabulous equation, I conclude that Hitler was "Good". Now, how many here can tell me wtf is wrong with this? Firstly, Hitler might have adored his Country and all, but slaughtering 30 million people is purely genocide, be it good or bad intent, cannot be justified. Would you flick a switch and kill half the world, including your loved ones, your family, friends, including yourself, purely for the sake of stopping overpopulation?* "Oo, I had a good Reason and a good Intent. Hey, I'm good." You'll get instantly executed. (Tortured viciously before that, though. Maybe personally by me >:) ) *This question was taken from the series of the Robert Langdon guy. Hey, I <3 his books Sources: https://answers.yahoo.com...
morality=reason+intent

Huh Are you ret@rded? Your stupidity is infectious, honestly. I am arguing that: Intent + Reason DOES NOT = TO MORALITY I said that Hitler's Reason and Intent. Was Good. Thus. Morality. Is. Good. Genocide. Was. Justified. But Genocide SHOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED. (especially in this) In an equation, Positive + Positive = Positive Hitler's Intent was added to his Reason. They were both positive. Thus, Morality = Good But Hitler does not = Good Must I spell out everything? I am rebutting your "rebuttals" (if they can be called rebuttals) by giving examples on how your equation is wrong. U keep changing. Title: Reason + Intent = Morality In your last argument, you stated: Reason = Morality And in your argument, you stated: Intent = Morality And now: Is it wrong to reason about rape? Now, wtf does rape has anything to do with Morality = Reason + Intent?
morality=reason+intent

Huh I don't get you, m8. Firstly, all intent is positive? All intent of everything is positive? Hmm. Or maybe you meant that Hitler's Intent is positive, which = Genocide of 30 million people are justified. Ooo, Genocide in such a large number is totally justified. Hmm. I have no argument? You're the one that has no argument, posting weak comebacks. Your last argument contradicted itself. Title: Reason + Intent = Morality In your last argument, you stated: Reason = Morality And in your latest argument, you stated: Intent = Morality Now, tell me, what exactly is wrong with this? Hmm. I'm out of poems. Good luck =)
The Limits of Omnipotence

"It's silly to say a being that can contradict itself is not worth consideration, because you are using your own human logic and applying it to a God that is unaffected by it."No, I'm applying human logic to the limitations of humans. God may exist and may well be worthy of consideration, but because of the limitations of us mere mortals we can't be the ones to do the considering.When we attempt to contemplate the infinite, when we apply out reason to topics not limited by reason, we have no chance of actually understanding it. The paramecia living in the dust in the air intake of my computer have a better chance of comprehending this debate. That gap is merely finite.The topic isn't unworthy of consideration because it isn't important. It's unworthy of consideration because we are incapable.ConclusionI have demonstrated that a deity that is capable of paradoxical behavior results in explosive logic leading to logical absurdity, at least in the minds of us mere mortals. Thus, my resolution is supported.An omnipotent deity is either:(1) Limited by logic in what it can and cannot do or(2) Utterly incomprehensible and thus unworthy of further consideration.I would like to thank Esiar for participating in this debate. It has been a pleasure.
The Limits of Omnipotence

I see your point, but your conclusion is completely ridiculous. The rules of the Universe haven't always existed (Because the Universe itself hasn't always existed), so there must be something/one that is not under the limits of logic, time, mater, etc. that exist. It's silly to say a being that can contradict itself is not worth consideration, because you are using your own human logic and applying it to a God that is unaffected by it.
The Limits of Omnipotence

To say omnipotence has limits is a logical contradiction, if one wants to speak of that. Definition of omnipotent: Having unlimited power; able to do anything. Definition of unlimited: Not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent. Unlimited & Anything include things that contradict. If an omnipotent being cannot do something that logically contradicts itself, then that only being that the being isn't actually omnipotent. God created logic, therefore he is not under the laws of logic, therefore he can do things that logic wouldn't allow. Here's an example: An 80's computer couldn't possibly run everything a modern computer could. Here's another example: If there are people that live in a 2D World, they are under the rules of that world. They could not comprehend anything outside of a 2D world, and some would even say that 3D (A thing not bound by the laws of the 2D world) doesn't exist, and give their reasoning based upon the established laws of the 2D world (Some people do this with 4D)[1]. But, there is a bigger picture, in which both 2D and 3D exist, even though the people in the 2D world couldn't wrap their heads around it. We live in a logical world, and we are under the rules of logic. We cannot comprehend anything that does not fit within logic, and some people use logic to show that omnipotence (something not bound by logic) is impossible. There is a bigger picture, in which a logic world and something not bound by logic (An omnipotent being) both exist.
The Limits of Omnipotence

I maintain that an omnipotent deity is either:(1) Limited by logic in what it can and cannot do or(2) Utterly incomprehensible and thus unworthy of further consideration.Round 1 shall be for acceptance only.Rounds 2 and 3 shall be for presenting arguments and rebuttals.Round 4 shall be for final rebuttals and conclusions. No new arguments in this round.Burden of Proof is shared equally.
The NFL should keep the current overtime system

I agree that my opponent's definition of the overtime system is factually correct; this is the system I will be defending.The NFL overtime system is among the most sensible in the world. In football, a sport notable for its high-contact and injury-prone nature, it is necessary to create an overtime system that will end the game when it needs to end, but not be unfair to either side. The current system achieves just that.Because a touchdown from either side is enough to win it, and a field goal only wins it if the first team to have the ball doesn't score, teams must plan accordingly. This is a strategic element that directly complements the strategic element of the game itself, and can create some fascinating scenarios. If you have a 4th and goal at the 2 on your first possession, do you go for the win and hope your defense can hold if you miss, or do you kick the field goal and hope your defense can hold? Do you take the wind (like Bill Belichick did in last night's overtime win over the Bronco) or the ball in a rough-weather game? These scenarios are fun to watch and add immensely to the drama of an NFL game, much more so than the overtime system in college football, soccer, basketball, or hockey.To respond to my opponent's issues:*If fairness was a major issue and the receiving team had a major advantage over the kicking team, why would coaches even consider kicking to the wind? Just last night Bill Belichick's Patriots chose this against a Peyton Manning-led Broncos and won.[1]*Ties are unsightly, yes, but are a necessary evil. Nobody wants a tie, and nobody wants to play to one, but if neither team can win it in a 15-minute overtime period in the regular season, they don't deserve a win. Ties encourage teams to be aggressive, which is why there have only been 19 ties since the introduction of overtime in 1974 and only six ties since 1990.[2]*No coaches challenges is actually a net positive for both teams, as any questionable play can and likely will be challenged by the booth - coaches don't have to risk losing a valuable timeout in a game that can be decided by time.References:1. http://www.businessinsider.com...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The NFL should keep the current overtime system

The current overtime system consists of one 15 minute overtime period. The team that wins the coin toss normally gets the ball first. If a match has not been decided when the 15 minute overtime period ends, the game ends in a tie. If you win the toss and get a field goal on your first possession, the other team needs at least a field goal in order to extend the game. If you score a touchdown on your first possession, you win the game. . http://www.nfl.com...There are numerous flaws with the system that will be explained below:FairnessWith the current overtime system, if a team wins the coin toss, they have a significant advantage over the team that doesn't win the coin toss. All they have to do is score a touchdown, and they win the game. The other team does not get the ball, and have a chance to get a touchdown as well. TiesDuring a tie, no team wins the game, and the game is not counted as a win or a loss for either team. Ties occur when the 2 teams have failed to win after the 15 minute overtime period. Usually, no team scores, but on some occasions, the two teams get a field goal on their 1 possessions, and then fail to score there after. In a recent poll conducted by ESPN, 71 percent of people were found to have disliked ties, while 20 percent had no opinion on them, and 9 percent liked them. No coaches challengesAnother problem with the current overtime system, is the fact that coaches are not able to challenge calls made by the officials. All reviews are decided by the officials, so if a coach has a problem with a certain call, he is not able to challenge the ruling on the field. I await my opponent's opening arguments.
from a christian perspective, people who are unrepentant, and know they are wrong, should be forgive

Only because you did not hear me clearly. I make a statement multiple times NOT for my health but for clarification. This is the last argument you made: 'the text I quoted in the opening post had that bible verse, where he made the same argument. I will just highlight his following points, basically stating that even if it's not required, it's still or can be meritorious to forgive anyway. "Consider Luke 17:3A533;4, where Jesus tells us, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, A533;I repent,A533; you must forgive him." Notice that Jesus says to forgive him if he repents, not regardless of whether he does so. Jesus also envisions the person coming back to you and admitting his wrong. The upshot? If someone isnA533;t repentant, you donA533;t have to forgive him. ********If you do forgive him anyway, that can be meritorious********, provided it doesnA533;t otherwise have bad effects (e.g., encouraging future bad behavior). But it isnA533;t required of us that we forgive the person." ' Now if your brother sins Rebuke him. IF he repents forgive him. It is required that we forgive him if he repents. This person is unrepentant. He has not been sorry for his sins so he should not be forgiven. It is rewarding to forgive yes, but Your are just wasting breath patience and thought forgiving someone who doesn't want to be forgiven ( an unrepentant).
from a christian perspective, people who are unrepentant, and know they are wrong, should be forgive

They are unrepentant that means they are not sorry for their sins. This person knows that they are unrepentant that means they know they are not sorry for what they did. They know they are in the wrong but the question is: Did they repent? If they did therefore your use of that verse was correct in this content. If they did not repent then that verse is unless because it does not say anything about if they do not repent to forgiven them anyway. You just stated that they were unrepentant and they knew they were wrong. You did not state that they repented because, I would guess that was not the case. They are not sorry for what they did they do not truly want forgiveness. If they did I'm sure they would have been repentant.
from a christian perspective, people who are unrepentant, and know they are wrong, should be forgive

the text i quoted in the opening post had that bible verse, where he made the same argument. i will just highlight his following points, basically stating that even if it's not required, it's still or can be meritoriious to forgive anyway. "Consider Luke 17:3A533;4, where Jesus tells us, "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, A533;I repent,A533; you must forgive him." Notice that Jesus says to forgive him if he repents, not regardless of whether he does so. Jesus also envisions the person coming back to you and admitting his wrong. The upshot? If someone isnA533;t repentant, you donA533;t have to forgive him. ********If you do forgive him anyway, that can be meritorious********, provided it doesnA533;t otherwise have bad effects (e.g., encouraging future bad behavior). But it isnA533;t required of us that we forgive the person."