BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
When in conflict, moral arguments should be valued over practical arguments.

"My examples of moral and practical arguments were just examples; I was not implying that they were sound arguments." Usually examples are supposed to be actual examples of what it is trying to establish. "A debater should be able to argue equally strongly for either side, irrespective of personal belief." But it is still a weaker debate. It was considered immoral then. But do we now think it was immoral then for women to show their heels? Of course not. What we consider moral now, we also consider moral a thousand years ago. Kind of reminds me of http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org...; My point is that morals can very easily change over time. You said that morality is timeless. It is not. Your contention was established as false, and then conceded by you in this statement. "That is not a practical argument. It would have arguably been morally wrong to allow the Nazis to continue slaughtering the Jews and other minorities. But preventing the Nazis from continuing had minimal practical benefit. Airlines were a practical benefit. Technological advantages were practical benefits. Preventing deaths was not a practical benefit, except in the sense that those people who would have been killed were productive members of society, and in that case airlines and technological advances were much more significant practical benefits in the long term." Death is very impractical. This debate is about which argument should be considered, not which proves more beneficial as a result of the decision. You are going off topic. A practical argument could have moral benefits, and a moral argument could have practical benefits. Overall, the war, which used the practical argument over the moral argument, was more beneficial. "See my previous paragraph." Doom, death, and destruction are all very impractical. It is very difficult to get a job when nobody is alive to employ you. It is very practical to advance society. The choice is obvious. I affirm that when in conflict, practical arguments should be valued over moral arguments. Again. Now to add a contention: Moral decisions can lead to doom if impractical. Universal healthcare is generally considered "morally correct" because it gives people better healthcare for less cost and increases supply and all the other stuff Obama blabbed on about. It would also be extremely impractical. Because it is mostly for the people who do less work and do less to improve society, it costs more than we can practically deal with, and it would lead to less initiative to make money. It would lead to less work, less pay, and less overall money and happiness. This is not beneficial. As to the side note, we later fought against communism, giving countries money to not accept it.
When in conflict, moral arguments should be valued over practical arguments.

My examples of moral and practical arguments were just examples; I was not implying that they were sound arguments. "Why are you debating something when you don't feel strongly about either side? It makes for a weaker debate." A debater should be able to argue equally strongly for either side, irrespective of personal belief. "Way back when, it was considered immoral for a woman to even show her heels. Obviously, times and morals have greatly changed." It was considered immoral then. But do we now think it was immoral then for women to show their heels? Of course not. What we consider moral now, we also consider moral a thousand years ago. Kind of reminds me of http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org... "The ends can very well justify the means. WWII was to fight the evils of the Holocaust and Communism*. If we didn't fight that war, thousands more Jews could have been killed, and we would have been further attacked by the Japanese. They would have taken Hawaii. It was necessary, so in this case practicality was more important than morality." That is not a practical argument. It would have arguably been morally wrong to allow the Nazis to continue slaughtering the Jews and other minorities. But preventing the Nazis from continuing had minimal practical benefit. Airlines were a practical benefit. Technological advantages were practical benefits. Preventing deaths was not a practical benefit, except in the sense that those people who would have been killed were productive members of society, and in that case airlines and technological advances were much more significant practical benefits in the long term. "Frequently, acting impractically can lead to doom, death, and destruction, as in being unconditionally pacifistic. This can be avoided by weighing practicality more highly that morality." See my previous paragraph. " "I affirm that when in conflict, moral arguments should be valued over practical arguments." I affirm that when in conflict, practical arguments should be valued over moral arguments." Well alrighty then! :D * * * * * My opponent has not provided any contentions. The burden of proof lies on both the PRO and CON debaters. If my opponent refutes all my arguments but provides none of his own, then the debate is a tie. So I request that my opponent support the CON side with his own contentions. *Side note: We did not fight WWII because of Communism. We were allied with the Soviets, after all.
When in conflict, moral arguments should be valued over practical arguments.

Moral argument: An argument that shows the morality or immorality of a certain position. Examples: Abortion is wrong because a fetus is a human being; gay marriage should be legalized because gays deserve equal rights; tobacco should be banned since it is harmful. Practical argument: An argument that shows the practical benefits or detriments of a certain position. Examples: Abortion is acceptable when childbirth is dangerous to the mother; gay marriage should be illegalized because intercourse between homosexuals can spread STDs; if we legalize tobacco, the government can make money by taxing it. I think this is an interesting and important topic, and it's about time someone settled it. I don't feel very strongly about either side, so I will be debating PRO. The resolution is meant to imply that the moral arguments and the practical arguments are roughly equal in significance. Contention 1: Morality is timeless. Morality is morality. It may be dependent on the situation, but it is still timeless, in a way. What is moral in some situation now will still be moral in another thousand years. But practicality is constantly changing. What we do today may not be done tomorrow. Social practices relevant to moral issues change frequently. Sometimes they take a long time, and sometimes they never change, but in practice things change a lot faster than in theory. Practicality is temporary, while morality is eternal: therefore, morality ought to be valued over practicality. Contention 2: The ends do not justify the means. We may be able to reap benefits from practical issues, but that does not make them right. We cannot do something simply because there are practical benefits: we developed public airlines because of WWII, but that does not justify the war. No, we cannot base our decisions solely on the outcome. Frequently, committing an immoral act for the practical benefits leads to unseen side effects. This can be avoided by weighing morality more highly than practicality. I affirm that when in conflict, moral arguments should be valued over practical arguments.
Planet Earth is older than six thousand years

Well Mike. I hope the judges take your back sided comments into consideration when the vote on conduct. I would like for you to show some besides what scientists say. After all, scientists get many things wrong. Just because these scientists, no matter if they are the cutting edge of today's knowledge of our Earth. Scientists have thought that smoking is good for you because it calms your nerves. However, this is thought by today's scientists to be absolutely ludicrous because smoking causes lung cancer. Who knows maybe in another hundred years scientists will say that the lung cancer was a complete coincidence. No matter how unlikely it seems right now it (people used to think it was unlikely for smoking to be bad for you), it still is a possibility. It's kind of arrogant to think that humans have everything figured out. Secondly, since either of us was not alive six thousand years ago, neither of us can make the assumption that the Earth is six thousand years old. We only know what we remember, and even that is questionable. How do we know what we are perceiving is true? We perceive by looking at the ground that the Earth is flat, when it is actually spherical. However, since we don't perceive a spherical Earth, we don't actually know that the Earth is spherical.
Planet Earth is older than six thousand years

If you want me to comment on your beloved rocks so much Mike, then I will. Who cares? They're rocks. Furthermore, an fine young man like you Mike needs to become more religiously educated. Use your powerful brain for a greater purpose and spread the word of Jesus Christ. Now for the debate. The 3.8 billion people do matter because if 3.8 billion people believe it, then that means that it has more credibility than what a bunch of scientists say. You need to take the lord more seriously, and not believe everything scientists tell you. What harm do you do if you believe?
Redistribution of Wealth

As a Capitalist society, the United States is a wealthy and one of the most prosperous countries in the entire world. This statement coan prove itself time and time again. Nowhere in the history of this iconic nation has any office or any public official been able to plunder the bounties of the rich to give to the lower class. This concept goes against everything our founding fathers outlined in our Constitution and in our Bill of Rights. How can a person hope to achieve any sort life or liberty when the government, which is the only realistic conduit that wealth can be redistributed, is taking most of what they worked for, and in most cases of socialism, dole it out to lazy, unincentivized competition. I am only outlining what would happen if the basic principles of socialism were to come to fruition. Most socialists do, in fact support larger government intervention, not just in terms of how people live, but with an emphasis on the individual's finances. Thank You, and I look foreword to your rebuttal.
Redistribution of Wealth

Redistribution of Wealth is not only one of the most poisonous things to a Capitalist society, but to a society in general. A society where one is taught to work hard and earn their living could not possibly flourish under such dictation. I am challenging Hayd on this particular issue because I couldn't help but noticed he supported distribution of wealth on his profile. While I can respect that we do, in fact, live in a world of varied economies, but is redistribution of wealth a morally responsible thing to do? Is reaping the benefits of another, so to speak, a lesson we should teach our children? Thank you for your time, God Bless.
Redistribution of Wealth

In this round, I will rebut my opponent’s case and defend my own case. OV1: Con uses many Bare Assertions; which is a logical fallacy. When a fact is asserted without supporting reasoning or evidence, obviously, the veracity of a claim cannot be trusted. It is a “bare” assertion. Thus, any bare assertions have no impact. RebuttalsThere are no arguments made in R1, just bare assertions which have no impact (OV1).In R2, Con argues that nowhere in America’s history has the government been able to do redistribution. And that the concept of redistribution goes against the Constitution in the Bill of Rights because the government is taking away people’s life and liberty by taking what people worked for, and giving it to lazy poor people. Con then says that redistribution is unfair because you can’t help everybody. This is a logical fallacy called The Nirvana Fallacy: rejecting a partial solution because it isn’t perfect. Redistribution does not help all people, but it helps most. A partial fix is better than no fix; something is always better than nothing. DefenseCon replies to my Moral Obligation argument by saying that morality is subjective. He says that murderers have the moral obligation to kill their victims, but does not explain why. This is another bare assertion and thus has no impact (OV1), my moral obligation argument still stands.Second, Con says that the rich worked for that money, and earned it. Thus, taking away from people that earned it is not justified. This argument only works if rich people work *more* than poor people do, and would thus deserve their goods more than poor people. This vital premise is never backed up by Con and thus the entire argument can be thrown out on bare assertion. But the premise can be destroyed further by proving that poor people work more than rich people, and thus negating the argument. “In reality, a large and growing share of the nation’s poor work full time — sometimes sixty or more hours a week – yet still don’t earn enough to lift themselves and their families out of poverty...and a large and growing portion of the super-rich have never broken a sweat. Their wealth has been handed to them.” [1]This is because 59 trillion dollars is passed to heirs [2]. Thus, since I have proven the poor work more than the rich, by Con’s logic, it is morally permissible to give them money, and I win the argument. ConclusionCon didn’t exactly have a case, and what little he had was entirely composed of bare assertions which was negated. Since he has no arguments left on his side, only one of mine has to avoid negation for me to win, and Con dropped “Political and Societal Stability”, so I win the debate. [1] http://www.alternet.org...[2] http://www.bc.edu...
Redistribution of Wealth

The most fatal flaw of redistribution is this: it's unfair. Not only is it unfair to those who are being taken from, but it is unfair to all of those who CAN'T be helped by it. You couldn't give to every starving person, or every homeless person, and it would be morally unjustifiable to leave those you can't help, without help. "The laboring people are only poor because they are numerous. Numbers in their nature imply poverty. In a fair distribution among a vast multitude none can have much. That class of dependent pensioners called the rich is so extremely small, that, if all their throats were cut, and a distribution made of all they consume in a year, it would not give a bit of bread and cheese for one night"s supper to those who labor, and who in reality feed both the pensioners and themselves." - Edmund Burke Moral Obligation is a subjective thing. Aren't murderers morally obligated to kill their victims? Aren't thieves morally obligated to steal? While giving to everybody who needs it is a very noble and just cause, taking from people who earned it is not. Who are we to say a rich person "doesn't need all that money." If you asked a starving African, he would tell you that you don't need all that food. But, subjectively, you worked for that food, and took the time to purchase it. The same logic can be applied to the rich, they worked for the money, they take the time to come up with ways to make MORE, therefore they need it. "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies and cuts through to the essence of the evolutionary spirit."- Gordon Gecko
Redistribution of Wealth

Moral Obligation People are morally obligated to provide money to the poor. Thus, the US is morally obligated to have redistribution of wealth. Peter Singer, in his paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” [1], formulates the following argument. 1) People dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad. 2) If one can prevent something bad from happening (such as dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care), without sacrificing anything of equal moral worth, then one is obligated to do so. 3) One can prevent something bad from happening (such as the givens), without sacrificing anything of equal moral worth by redistributing one's wealth. 4) Thus, one is morally obligated to practice distribution. I conclude therefore, that the US is morally obligated to have distribution of wealth. Political and Societal Stability The basic concept of redistribution is taking from those who have too much and giving it to those who don’t have enough, usually economically speaking. Redistribution helps lower the wealth gap. The wealth gap is the difference in wealth between the economic classes. For example, 2% of the population owns 90% of the country’s wealth. The greater the difference between the population and its wealth, the larger the wealth gap. This raises grave consequences such as societal and political instability. When their is a large wealth gap (the majority of the citizens have little and the minority of the citizens have much). Society revolts, and the social and political structure is overthrown. We see this happen throughout history, such as the French Revolution and Russian Revolution. Redistribution helps minimize the wealth gap by taking from those who have too much and giving it to those who don’t have enough. Thus, redistribution helps preserve societal and political stability. Conclusion I conclude that the United States should have redistribution of wealth because we are morally obligated to, and in order to preserve political and societal stability. [1] http://www.utilitarian.net...
any cause is caused by another cause

Again, my opponent has made no specific points, nor has he refuted any of my points, and by not disagreeing he has accepted both my weighing mechanism and definitions, showing that by default the Opposition should win this debate. The Pro has no points standing, although he is trying to say that everything is and there was no first cause, but scientifically speaking, there must have been a start to EVERYTHING, showing that indeed one thing was not caused by something, and it becomes obvious that the Con side should win this debate.
any cause is caused by another cause

INTRO I accept the Opposition or Con side of this debate, because before everything existed, something must have started EVERYTHING, and that could not have been caused by anything or else it would not be the first thing to happen. Therefore, it must have just BEEN, not caused. Also, since the Pro side has not laid out any definitions or a weighing mechanism, I will. DEFINITIONS Cause "A reason or start or spark a happening" - Oxford Dictionary, 2002. WEIGHING MECHANISM I would like this debate to be judged upon which side can best prove that at least one thing in this universe is/was a or not a cause. I will be proving that at least one thing is history was not a cause of something else, and the Pro side will be stating otherwise. POINTS 1) The first thing Judge, this world, this UNIVERSE, must have been started by something. And that thing must not have been caused by anything else, or it would be a cause as well, showing that the beginning of everything must have just BEEN, not Caused, or it would not exist. This supports the weighing mechanism because the beginning of everything must have started by something other than a cause, therefore meaning at least one thing in history was not a cause/ caused by anything. 2) Some things simply have no effect. http://www.nytimes.com... Judge, when you breathe out, you release about 5ml of CO2 into the air. This amount is so small and insignificant, that it virtually has no effect on ANYTHING, showing that it is not the cause of anything, and therefore supporting the weighing mechanism by stating that not everything is a cause or caused by something. Thank you for your time, and due to these reasons and many more, the Opposition, or Con, should win this debate.
any cause is caused by another cause

Throughout this entire debate, my opponent has merely stated the same thing wavin round, not even classifying it a point, so therefore my opponent has no points standing, where as I have two. I would like to start by strengthening my points, and then weighing this debate. 1) The first thing. The first thing was the cause of everything, but not caused, it just HAPPENED, which supports the weighing mechanism by stating that there is at least on cause that was not caused by anything 2) Some things simply have no effect. A single breath emits a very small amount of CO2 into the air, and that gas effects virtually NOTHING (. http://www.nytimes.com...) so therefore it is caused but not a cause, which is directly refuting the Proposition's case, and supporting the weighing mechanism. The weighing mechanism, which was defined earlier as 'which side can best prove that at least one thing that is a cause has or has not happened in history'. Judge, as you can see, only one side, the Opposition, has made any relevant points, so therefore the winner of this debate is clear.
any cause is caused by another cause

My opponent has stated that "a first cause can not be caused by a cause that is not a cause", but what he is failing to understand is that the first cause, seeing as it is the first, just HAPPENED and was not caused by anything. And again. The Pro side of this debate has not given any direct refutes to my points, nor specifically stated any of his own, showing that at this time the Opposition (Con) is winning this debate. Thank you.
Soft porn serves no useful purpose.

My opponent has made a fatal flaw. I will address it, and extend my other arguments from round 1 to this round since they were not disputed. You surely know that in the United States we have a criminal procedure. Not all criminals are arrested upon committing a crime, and many go un-arrested for the rest of their life because they were not caught. Jaywalking is illegal in certain places, but those that do it are not arrested moments later unless they are caught. If everyone that commits a crime is instantly arrested and convicted that assumes a hypercompetent, all knowing government, that we do not have. So I may or may not have ever viewed porn in my 17 years, but do not assume that just because it's illegal that means there's no way I couldn't have. Also, yes I am a student, but Juvenile Detention centers have school for the inmates to attend. I could very well be a convict spending my time in juvy and still be a student. In conclusion: -It is still possible to be a student and a criminal. -Not all criminals are arrested upon committing a crime. -I can say I am 119 years old on Debate. org, so do not trust the information on my profile to be accurate in the fist place. -One can read the Google results for "Softcore Porn" without visiting the sites and come to the conclusion that the vast majority of them are not anti softcore porn sites like my opponent claims. -I am aroused by softcore porn, and even if no one else is, it still serves a small purpose to me. Small but still a purpose nonetheless.