BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is nothing that is Universally Good or Bad

I'm going to go ahead and break down this entire debate by using the title. ‘Nothing is universally good or bad.' Universal- adjective: used or understood by all. What pro is purposing then is that nobody can understand what good is, and nobody can understand what bad is. ‘Nothing is understood by all good or bad.' I am simply arguing just the opposite. Pro is correct as to say that the bank robber will receive good from a situation as the bank will see the situation as bad. My argument however is not that, but simply everybody does understand good and bad. Good and bad are universal. You yourself pro, have your own ideas as to what is good and bad. You can distinctively deceiver between the two. I myself have my own views and I can distinctively deceiver between the two, all of the readers of this debate, can for the most part distinctively deceiver between good and bad. Good and bad are universal, good and bad are ‘used or understood by all.' 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
There is nothing that is Universally Good or Bad

I've been trying to explain this to you, but it seems like you may not be understanding what I'm trying to say. In the eyes of the law, yes, bank robbing is bad. But, in the eyes of the robber, bank robbing is good. Neither of those two things alone or together are universal. One thing is not universal, everything is universal. You need to have a unanimous opinion from every possible viewpoint of a given situation for that situation to be universally good or bad.
There is nothing that is Universally Good or Bad

This debate is getting to repetitive, and i frankly am losing interest, however i don't see how somebody can agree to two different definitions, and still try and claim they are the same. There is a definition for good, there is a definition for bad. The bank robber, in the eyes of the law, it was bad, in the eyes of the robber, it was good. Depending on who you are good and bad may be different, however there is still a distinctive, clear, and obvious line between good and evil.
There is nothing that is Universally Good or Bad

I would like to start by saying that those definitions may be in their own respect completely solid, but the way people use those definitions to define other things is very skewed. To go back to what my opponent said about Robbing a bank: The robbing of a bank may be bad for the people who run the bank, or who have accounts at the bank, because they lose money. In that sense, the definition of bad is clearly in use. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of the robber, the robber would gain a lot of wealth from this endeavor. Thus, good and bad viewpoints can both come from something that may appear to be bad, such as a bank robbery. Also, for a future note, I would like to try to keep religion out of this, mainly because your religion is not the defining laws of what's good or bad, and honestly, I'm not entirely sure why religion was brought into this. Religion just offers another lens of what's good or bad, thus justifying my point even more. From a religious viewpoint, sleeping with another person out of wedlock is considered bad, from what I understand. But from the viewpoint of a teenager who isn't religious, sleeping with another person before marriage is considered normal, at least to most. In this sense, one action can be viewed differently by two different groups of people in two different ways, thus nothing is universally good or bad.
There is nothing that is Universally Good or Bad

I'm going to clear things up by posting two simple definitions. Good- –adjective 1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man. Bad- –adjective 1. not good in any manner or degree. By looking at these two definitions, there is absolutely a clear line between good and bad. In an nonreligious point of view, there is good and bad in regards to law. Robbing a bank, bad. Going to school, good. Robbing a bank is bad, because by definition, it is 'not good in any manner or degree'. Going to school is good, because by definition, 'morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious; a good man.' In a religious point of view, i will agree that the line between good and evil has been tremendously distorted. 300 years ago, what was once absolutely bad, is now the normal. There is an explanation for this phenomenon, God has explained that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So why then was it unbelievably horrid to sleep out of wedlock 300 years ago, but today if you are a virgin by the ago of 40 they make a movie out of it. The answer is this, Satan, is a master deceiver. He slowly threw out time has been clouding up that clear and definite line between good and evil, making it seem like it is one of the same. Like there is no definition between good and evil. God himself has explained "The Lord cannot look upon sin with the less degree of allowance." That definite line between good and evil is still there, but just as a fly fisherman, deceives his fish by pretending to be food. Satan has deceived the world by pretending there is no line between good and evil. Steven Michael Anderson 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. Hebrews 13:8 4. http://lds.org... 5. http://scripturalphraseguide.blogspot.com...
There is nothing that is Universally Good or Bad

I'm sorry I wasn't more specific in what I was saying. If you are to look from every possible perspective, there is always a good side to everything, as well as a bad side. To address what my opponent earlier said: "Murder is bad." Murder may be bad for the person being killed, but that's one less person on an extremely overpopulated earth. Or "Donating to charity, good." One downside to that would be that the same money wouldn't have gone to a possibly better cause. I look forward to the rebuttal, I hope everything is clear.
There is nothing that is Universally Good or Bad

This debate is quite simple, There is definitely a universal good or bad. No matter what religion you're in, no matter if you are theist, or not, you have things that are good, and things that are bad. Murder is bad. Donating to charity, good. You have things that are good for society, and things that are bad for society, you have things good for your body, and bad for your body. I guess this debate will start off by pro defining exactly what you'd like to debate?
Furries -- yes, I'm going there.

I sincerely apologize for that, some glitch deleted my whole argument there and only kept one line. It was such a shame to know this happened for I looked like an idiot last round.What I was meaning to say is that your statement They have their share of oddities and fetishes, but so does every other fandom. Contradicts itself, you say that furries are not as bad as homestuckers and bronies, 2 of the biggest online communities due to the fact that everyone hfas their own fetishes.The thing is though that if we follow that statement's logic, that would mean that all communties are equal since its members have their own oddities and fetishes. Also to prove my statement, here is a video to illistrate the oddities of the furry. http://www.youtube.com...g now its no surprise that other communties "cosplay" for events, but none have taken it to suchf extrems as the furry. They have even gone as far as to do full on cosplay sex with these outfits, again, something that other fanbases have not done before. Also heres a video of a jack black singing butterfly, so my argument is fully superior.http://www.youtube.com...
Furries -- yes, I'm going there.

Because I think this is what this site needs for it to have absolutely every argument. Furries aren't bad -- not as bad as, say, bronies or Homestucks. They have their share of oddities and fetishes, but so does every other fandom.And that's really all that I need to present my side with.An important note: This isn't meant to be taken seriously.I look foreward to, but rather doubt the possibility of, meeting an opponent.
Sex Education Should Be Taught Rather Than Abstinence only

Please be more specific on the term "student". Are we referring to any point in education or more specifically middle school to high school? In addition there are many different definitions of abstinence. Are we debating over abstinence programs that forbid all sexual behaviors or just avoiding sexual intercourse? I will argue that teaching abstinence will cause more individuals to chose this and therefore avoid many circumstances that that student may not be ready for. Circumstances that would be potentially harmful socially, psychologically and to ones overall health.
Sex Education Should Be Taught Rather Than Abstinence only

I will be arguing Pro, in that Sex Education is more beneficial to the student in that it will allow for a safer and healthier life-style. Con will be arguing the opposite that Abstinence only programs are more beneficial to the students. Abstinence-only sex education is defined as "a form of sex education that emphasizes abstinence from sex, and often excludes many other types of sexual and reproductive health education, particularly regarding birth control and safe sex." http://en.wikipedia.org...... Sex Education will be defined as a term used to describe education about human sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction, sexual intercourse, reproductive health, emotional relations, reproductive rights and responsibilities, abstinence, contraception, and other aspects of human sexual behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org...... Beneficial is defined as "conferring benefit; advantageous; helpful" http://dictionary.reference.com......
Sex Education Should Be Taught Rather Than Abstinence only

My position on the argument still sides with the undeniable fact abstinence is 100% effective against pregnancy and STD's. "Studies have shown that abstinent teens report, on average, better psychological well-being and higher educational attainment than those who are sexually active.4 Delaying the initiation of or reducing early sexual activity among teens can decrease their overall exposure to risks of unwed childbearing, STDs, and psycho-emotional harm. Authentic abstinence programs are therefore crucial to efforts aimed at reducing unwed childbearing and improving youth well-being (http://www.eric.ed.gov...)." In addition to being 100% safe they will feel less social pressure. There is no reason a child should be worried about sex. Students should be focused on there education, hobbies and sports. Peer pressure and unwanted influence is a realistic matter amongst kids and it just brings upon a completely avoidable stress. Talk about sex should come later in life when students are older and able to listen maturely. Sex education is not needed in high school because it opens the door for a subject that's students shouldn't be acting upon until after graduation. In addition, if a individual wants to have sex before marriage, because they have that freedom, they are certainly able to speak to an adult about the matter whether it be an older sibling, a counselor, a nurse, doctor or parent. If a parent agrees that is it important that there child learn to be safe than by all means teach them. Smoking comes with a chance a cancer. Sex comes with a chance of pregnancy or an STD. If you aren't old enough to join the army and defend our country than how can you be old enough to raise a child. Sex education comes with the assumption that teens will know and apply the information at the right time in the correct way. It certainly would not be enough to prevent students from making mistakes because overall that is all they are. They are only students, aged 12 and up. They just finished ordering off the kids meal at McDonald's and can finally ride safety in the front seat. Sexual behavior is for mature and consenting adults. By law the age of consent wouldn't even take effect until students are in there last years of high school and preparing for college. Let's leave adult topics at the door and let kids be kids.
Sex Education Should Be Taught Rather Than Abstinence only

It would also be an assumption saying, if people are told to remain abstinent until marriage they would. This is a big thing to ask of people, especially because humans do have hormones and natural urges, so it would also be an assumption to say that learning abstinence only is preventative. Asking a person to hold off from having sex seems a lot harder than asking them, if you do feel you are ready, and your partner is also, use protection. "If they skip a step..." This is a perfect statement, because it illustrates there are steps in having safe sex, under the guidelines of sex education. Within abstinence only, there is only one step, which is "Don't have sex until marriage", and if this step is skipped, odds are there will be pregnancies because contraception will not be used, because the individuals did not learn about it. Having the knowledge sex education provides at least allows the individuals the choice to have sex in a safe manner, and protect their bodies. This does not exist with abstinence only because there is no transfer of knowledge on how to be safe. Safe sex education does not advocate sex. It does not say " you now have the knowledge so go and use it and use it as soon as you can!" This would be completely absurd. What it is meant to do is provide knowledge for those who are ready, and those who will be ready in the future to be safe, and keep themselves healthy. The main goal is to allow individuals and students, when they are ready, and know they are, to be safe during intercourse. Safe sex education provides safety, and allows the students to make healthy decisions because they know the repercussions of having unprotected sex. They know the various STD's and how to get tested, and if there is ever any doubt about their safety, they know what to do. Those who learn abstinence only may not know the risks of unprotected sex, other than pregnancy. They may not know about STD's because they may not have been taught. Safe sex education allows the ability to protect, and prevent disease.
Sex Education Should Be Taught Rather Than Abstinence only

"They know how to use condoms and other contraceptives, and they do use them. They get tested for STD's prior to having intercourse, and their partners are also tested because they learned to be cautious through safe sex education." This is a complete assumption that students will take the knowledge and apply it. We teach our kids to use sunblock to protect themselves from sun poisoning but they will continue to leave the house without it. We also show a concrete link between cigarettes and smoking and yet 20% of teens are still smoking cigarettes according to the CDC. Just because we are arming them with directions doesn't mean that teens will follow them and see the importance behind them. Abstinence is a clear concept to advocate and it is 100% effective against pregnancy and STD's. There is nothing stopping teachers from teaching about STD's in school. By teaching students what could happen if they aren't safe they will have more understanding of why sex is a big decision. A decision that should only be brought up when a student is mature and ready to handle the emotional and social effects that follow. Overall, I am arguing that sex education is entrusting kids to follow what may be the most important directions of there life. If they skip a step than it could change there lives forever. There is a reason that age restrictions apply to legal contracts, consuming alcoholic beverages, joining the army or even owning a gun. All of these things require a level of responsibility and maturity that a student doesn't consistently posses. I am not implying that every person over the age of 18 is responsible but it is certain that an 18 year old will have more since of danger than a middle school student at 13 or 14 years of age. Teaching kids how to have sex is advocating it is okay as long as it is done right and there is not certainty it will be. Schools are teaching a 13 year old boy the steps in how not to impregnate his middle school girlfriend. Abstinence is advocating to refrain from sex till mature and emotionally ready.
Sex Education Should Be Taught Rather Than Abstinence only

When you arm students with the knowledge on how to deal with sex than there are certainly going to try it. Teaching teens about sex and how to prevent pregnancy and STDs while also encouraging them to not do it will confuses teens. You're saying "here is how" but "don't do it". When you learn about something it strikes a natural curiosity. If you then tell them it is completely safe to go forward in having sex than it will ultimately loose the importance in the eyes of the students. Sex is something that has to be handled with caution because even if contraceptives can make the situation 98% safer, there will always be teens who do not use contraceptives correctly or at all. According to the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (CDC), "In 2009, 34% of currently sexually active high school students did not use a condom during last sexual intercourse." When a teen can't remember to do there homework or study for test what makes them qualified and responsible enough to deal with mature decisions about sex. A "committed relationship" is not something you commonly find in a high school setting. Even if a high school is very passionate about each other that does not qualify them to be parents if the situation occurs. According to the CDC "In 2002, 12% of all pregnancies, or 757,000, occurred among adolescents aged 15-19." My argument still stands that abstinence is the best way to approach sex when dealing with students. It is 100% safe. Students are less likely to try and experiment when it isn't being discussed as an option. After all, if they have sex and make a mistake than they will have to live with that decision for the rest of there lives.
Sex Education Should Be Taught Rather Than Abstinence only

Abstinence is the only way to 100% avoid pregnancies, but abstinence does not teach you about safety when having sexual intercourse. Avoiding pregnancy is the key to safe sex education, because you are learning how to have sexual intercourse without ending in pregnancy. By teaching about contraceptives, these individuals learn how to use them properly and in a way that will and often does prevent pregnancy, but does allow those who are in a committed relationship, and are ready to take that next step. Safe sex education gives individuals knowledge about the prevention of STD's and how to check if you have one. Safe sex education advocates being tested regularly and before having intercourse. Safe sex provides a choice for students. Unlike abstinence, individuals have a choice as to what to do with their bodies. They can choose to have intercourse in a safe manner, or they may abstain. If they have sex or not is the choice, but either way, due to safe sex education, whether you have sex or not,you are armed with the knowledge of how to have sex safely, and how to protect yourself from the various STD's there are. "When used correctly, a male condom is about 98 per cent effective. This means that only about 2 in every 100 women would get pregnant in the course of a year." This is an interesting fact about how effective condoms alone are, and when paired with another contraceptive, such as birth control pills, pregnancy is practically obsolete. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...
Sex Education Should Be Taught Rather Than Abstinence only

When schools motivate students to avoid sexual intercourse they are presenting the healthiest way to handle sex at a young age. Abstinence is the ONLY certain way to 100% avoid teen pregnancy and sexual transmitted diseases. By refraining from sex, young people have the opportunity to build positive relationships with a boyfriend/girlfriend and avoid any pressures that it may entail. In addition they can see the maturity that involves with making the decision to engage in sex. If a young girl decides to have sex she should also be ready for any repercussions that may result. A teenager is not equip with the life skills needed to deal with pregnancy and a child if it comes of there actions. Teaching abstinence in schools promotes the importance and maturity that the decision to engage in sex entails. It doesn't give the teenagers any choices because there is no room for failure in a teens young life when it comes to sexual transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy.
Sex Education Should Be Taught Rather Than Abstinence only

By student I meant at any grade level, but more so Junior High or High School more when these techniques are more pertinent. And we are debating on abstinence programs which forbid sexual intercourse. I will argue that sex education provides individuals on how to stay safe during sexual intercourse, can prevent pregnancies, and will allow for a safe sex life for these teens, rather than just knowing "abstinence only".
Ultimate Team War - Ender's Game 2

Team Member 1: Wes [1] Wes has a hovering motorcycle, a Snag Machine [2] , Umbreon (LV.26, Bite, Secret Power, Taunt, Snatch) , Espeon (LV.25, Return, Confusion, Reflect, Helping Hand), and 999 of every item possible, including Master Ball. He also has explosives. The Snag Machine lets him capture Pokemon even if they belong to other people. http://www.youtube.com... Team Member 2: Alakazam [3] Alakazam is a Lv. 100 Psychic-type Pokemon. Its attacks are Psychic, Gravity, Protect, and Teleport. Its ability is Inner Focus, and its item is Focus Sash. Its nature is Modest. Its stats are 252 HP, 122 Attack, 126 Defense, 405 Special Attack, 206 Special Defense, and 339 Speed. Team Member 3: Moltres [4] Moltres is a Lv. 100 Fire/Flying-type Pokemon. Its attacks are Heat Wave, Solarbeam, Sunny Day, and Double Team. Its ability is Pressure, and its item is Life Orb. Its nature is Modest. Its stats are 322 HP, 212 Attack, 216 Defense, 383 Special Attack, 206 Special Defense, and 279 Speed. Team Member 4: Machamp [5] Machamp is a Lv. 100 Fighting-type Pokemon. Its attacks are Dynamic Punch, Earthquake, Stone Edge, and Bulk Up. Its ability is No Guard, and its item is Focus Sash. Its nature is Adamant. Its stats are 384 HP, 394 Attack, 196 Defense, 149 Special Attack, 207 Special Defense, and 146 Speed. Team Member 5: Dragonite [6] Dragonite is a Lv. 100 Dragon/Flying-type Pokemon. Its attacks are Dragon Claw, Waterfall, Aerial Ace, and Dragon Dance. Its ability is Inner Focus, and its item is Metronome. Its nature is Adamant. Its stats are 324 HP, 403 Attack, 226 Defense, 212 Special Attack, 236 Special Defense, and 259 Speed. [1] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... [2] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... [3] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon) [4] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon) [5] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon) [6] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon)