BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Puppy mills should be illegalized

" Actually, dogs (as well as other animals) have laws protecting them." And Jews once had laws persecuting them. The law is not inherently right by virtue of being the law. " If what you have written above is true, then why are there so many laws pertaining to animals? Because the government is wrong :). " 1. Puppy mills are inhumane, and most dogs and puppies are treated wrong. They are confined to small wire cages for thier entire lives, they are fed inadequetly, kept in unheated buildings, and denied basic vetanarian care. Why are these legal? (None of the 50 states have laws banning puppy mills) However, if you were to keep your dog in these situations, it would be illegal. " The answer I offer is legalizing "you keeping your dog in these situations." This renders the law consistent with both itself and rights. " 2. Dogs from puppy mills have health problems. "...These dogs always—without exception—have health problems, most of which have been chronic and neglected for years."" Irrelevant until it can be shown WHY they merit protection. " 3. {most} Dog mills just don't care." Nor is it the business of the law to, however often it may arrogate things not it's business to itself. " ...as you see, This is very sad for these dogs who have to live in these conditions." It is very sad that S0m31john constantly gets rejected by females. This does not justify outlawing female rejection of S0m31john. Certainly, puppy mills are not humane treatment of dogs. Lovely. But show why inhumane treatment should be-- not is, should be-- illegal.
Women should not be allowed to serve in Infantry

Conclusion:I think we have good grounds for thinking that Women should not serve in Combat-infantry roles in the Military. Personal Hygiene, Physical capacity(In terms of the Infantry Training and equipment), mental effectiveness(In terms of readiness, not intelligence), human anatomy, cost-effectiveness, and selective service, are all reasons why I don't think women should serve in infantry. There are plenty of effective roles right now in the Military. Some of which involve women in combat, but not on the front-line infantry. Why not keep it where it is?Also due to the increase of technology, war has now become more of an "air-warfare" with Drones and Advanced Fighter Jets advancing war in a heartbeat. There really is not much of a front-line anymore, so I don't see why women would be necessary as well as any more men. Infantry now-a-days is probably fought more "indirectly" than "directly".I would like to thank Con for having this pleasant debate with me. Remember to vote fairly.
Blind obedience is a threat to morality

I feel that I was slightly unclear in my last posting, and so I wish to clarify. My position is that morality itself is blind adherence to a set of rules. Now what these rules are may change, but the blind obedience to them does not. I am not arguing, as my opponent states, that people choose their moral systems blindly. Rather, once they have decided upon their systems, only by obedience to those systems can they be considered moral. Peoples systems may change, but in that case they are simply shifting obedience to another authority. My opponents responses are only responding to an argument that people choose their moral systems blindly, or accept whatever systems are given to that. I am dealing solely with the actions of people once they have chosen a system. In case my opponent has failed to notice, the world is currently in a state of chaos. Various moral systems are competing against one another, often religious systems, but some profoundly irreligious. Self-discovery simply determines which moral system you want to follow, not how you will act once you follow it. For that reason, blind obedience is not a threat to morality, because blind obedience is morality. Morality is adhering to a morally code, without exception, also known as blind obedience.
Blind obedience is a threat to morality

What I fail to see is why my opponent believes that the following of thouroughly researched ideas and opinions and morals is blind. I thought I had proven my statement both relevently and soundly when I previously stated that the essential foundation of belief in the afforementioned texts or theories of logic were not air-headed and unfounded, but rather based upon decades of experience. Morals, in essence, are a means of defining oneself. The basis and ultimate formation of morals centers around self discovery and how a person desires to interact with other people. One, through self experimentation and sociological interaction, slowly ove time begins to realize how they personally wish to relate to other people. Whether that person values human life or not dictates how they will be seen by other members of society and ultimately how they will be socialized. I state again that there is no blind obidience in the process of self-discovery associated with determining one's own morals. I the belief in morals was blind, everyone would supposedly value the exact same things that their parents before them valued. However, our society and societies thoughout the world continue to grow and change based upone the morphing necesities of their people. Morals are not inherent, they are not given by any higher power nor spoonfed to a flock-like following of unintelligent and blind people. Morals are learned through socialization. How one person wishes to be seen or wishes to interact with another person, how they personally want to live their life. What my opponent essentially describes is a state of chaos. Without any founding in the morals that a person has, or without the morals that drive a person to interact with the world in a certain way, society would lose what little order it has. Moral systems are no based upon the blind acceptence of moral principles as my opponent stated, but rather on the desires of individual people to interact either peacefully or confrontationally with their environment and society.
Blind obedience is a threat to morality

"Morals, even those observed by religious sects, are not structured blindly. Most popular religions base their moral founding on a religious text such as a Bible, Qur'an, Tanakh, or Talmud. These texts were not scribed by a single person lacking life experience. They were written over a period of time by many separate men based upon each of their individual experiences." This is true, but not relevant. What I am claiming is that the following of those texts is blind. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Especially in regards to logic and the defining principles of it, there is no blind obedience to be observed at all. Logic itself is defined as the systematic study of valid inference*. The founding of logic and logical thinking are almost exclusively formed through experimentation and observation. For example, man does not simply believe that fire burns, he learns it." Again, true but not relevant. Moral systems based on logic are still slaved to that logic. They assume that cause and effect is true, they assume humans have worth, they assume that things which are illogical cannot be true. Moral systems based around logic never justify that basis, thus making the moral systems blindly obedient to logic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Believing in a basic moral code that dictates that murder is wrong, is not blind belief but is rather a belief based upon the logic that a society that advocates systematic or unpunished murder would fall apart. The logic in that is not merely adhered to through some egotistical desire to 'take the high road' but rather was learned over time from the adverse effects that murder wrought on societies." It is blind belief. It blindly believes that murder is bad, that society is worth something. It does not indulge critical analysis of its assumptions, by claiming that those who challenge those assumptions are immoral. It is blind belief because, according to that system, in order to be moral you must follow the rules it has laid out. There is no other way, there cannot be a challenge to that system, there can only be interpretation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the last round, my opponent never rebutted the core of my argument, that morality is based around blind belief. She provided arguments that said that moral systems are not founded on blind belief, but that is irrelevant. Moral systems, regardless of how they are formed, are based around blind acceptance of certain principles, whether they be the existence of God, or of inherent human worth. If you do not accept those principles, you can never be moral. Blind obedience is therefore not damaging to morality because it is morality.
Blind obedience is a threat to morality

I refute the conclusion of my opponent on the truth that morals are not, in fact, blindly observed but rather obtained through life experience and the study of the experiences of others. Morals, even those observed by religious sects, are not structured blindly. Most popular religions base their moral founding on a religious text such as a Bible, Qur'an, Tanakh, or Talmud. These texts were not scribed by a single person lacking life experience. They were written over a period of time by many separate men based upon each of their individual experiences. Especially in regards to logic and the defining principles of it, there is no blind obedience to be observed at all. Logic itself is defined as the systematic study of valid inference*. The founding of logic and logical thinking are almost exclusively formed through experimentation and observation. For example, man does not simply believe that fire burns, he learns it. The critical analysis of supposedly unimportant things or occurrences has led to many significant discoveries. Maybe the study of distorted glass seems insignificant but bend that glass the right way and you have a magnifying glass or a telescope or even a pair of reading glasses. There is no instinct nor blindness in this creativity and discovery and creation. Believing in a basic moral code that dictates that murder is wrong, is not blind belief but is rather a belief based upon the logic that a society that advocates systematic or unpunished murder would fall apart. The logic in that is not merely adhered to through some egotistical desire to 'take the high road' but rather was learned over time from the adverse effects that murder wrought on societies. * http://www.referencecenter.com...
Blind obedience is a threat to morality

I would first like to take the opportunity to welcome SaintHavoc to Debate.org, and hope for a fruitful debate. I deny the truth of the resolution on the grounds that morality is blind obedience. I will rebut my opponent's examples, and then explain my advocacy. She provides two examples, first that of My Lai, second that of education. Now, the violation committed at My Lai was not that of blind obedience. It was of blind obedience to the wrong thing. Had the captain been blindly obedient to the laws of the United States, then he would have been morally correct. The only problem here with blind obedience is the person or thing that obedience is given to. The educational issue is slightly different, because it involves no breech of commonly accepted morality. Until my opponent shows how blind obedience here is immoral, or causes immoral actions to occur, then this has no relevance to this debate. Now, to my advocacy. I propose that all morality is based around the concept of blind obedience. Indeed, if we look at the definition of morality itself "concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles"(Princeton Wordnet) we see that it is based around the concept of obeying higher principles. Whether that obedience is to a God, multiple Gods, the laws of nature, "instinctive" moral rules, or reason, obedience without restraint is still advocated. Those who advocate a critical analysis of all things are themselves blindly obeying something, the principles of logic and reason. They assume, without justification, but only blind faith, that those principles can lead them to a just or moral outcome. If those principles are not followed, it will obviously, to them, lead to an immoral outcome. We see then, that the primary debate concerning morality is not whether to blindly obey or to use reason to determine for ourselves, but rather, it is about which thing we should blindly follow, the dictates of a God, nature, or some other being, or the dictates of reason, which are no less dictates for being self-formulated. The resolution is therefore inherently false, because morality comprises of blind obedience to one thing or another. Blind obedience cannot be a threat to morality, because it is morality.
Blind obedience is a threat to morality

The act of blindly obeying a superior officer or refusing to question the actions demanded of one's self by a person of higher authority is a trait that threatens the inherent intelligence and morality that is within all human beings. A perfect example of the point I'm trying to make is the massacre in My Lai, Vietnam. This horrifying display of morally corrupt submission resulted in the slaughter of an entire village in Vietnam; nearly 500 people were killed. The troops sent into the village were expecting a battalion of Vietcong forces but were instead presented with a village of women, elderly men, and children. The company had been previously instructed to kill anyone they encountered and proceeded to do so, with a few lapses in their blind faith. The leader of the company, an inexperienced captain by the name Calley, was later tried for the murder of 107 unarmed civilians. He blamed his actions on the blind faith that members of the United States forces are expected to give their superior officers. He described the concept as a 'shoot first, complain later' process. His actions, although explicitly illegal by the law of the United States service, seemed completely appropriate to himself. He was merely obeying a senior officer, an action repeatedly drilled into the heads of American troops. Even in public education, children are taught not to question the authority or the assignments they are given. They are expected to accept the authority upon the blind faith that 'adults know best'. This typical shepherd leading the sheep routine results in a completely disinterested society and a youth that is inactive and faithfully accepts anything given to them on the basis of 'teacher knows best'. Being a high school student, I can count on one hand how many times my teachers have encouraged me to question what they are teaching me or to question the meaning behind their instruction. I do understand that teenagers are rebellious by nature and that many do stand up to authority figures, but confrontation is not what I am trying to discuss. I believe that we need a more active society with members that are willing to stand up and voice their concerns and questions and ideas and not continue to consume the mind-numbing routine that is encouraged by social norm.
THB: Thanos' cause is morally justified in Avengers: Infinity War.

Thanos' goals can be considered a solution to "the balloon dilemma", whose premise is that you, and, say, 9 other people, are on a hot air balloon. However, your combined weight is too high for the balloon and so it is falling. If it continues to fall, you will all die. The moral question is, do you throw out one person to save everyone else? And how do you choose which person to throw out? (See sources 1:3 for more). Most people would recognise that the right thing to do is indeed to throw out one person to save the others. From a utilitarian perspective (source 4), it's clearly the only reasonable thing to do. Thanos' goals are similar- population levels are too high across the galaxy, and if nothing is done, the overpopulated planets will become uninhabitable and all of their occupants will die. However, Thanos has the solution- reduce the population of each planet until it is sustainable. That way, fewer beings will die. This is clearly the right thing to do- if you do it, some beings are removed from existence (it is clarified that Thanos does not kill anyone with the infinity stones, but rather prevent them from having ever existed in the first place), and if you fail to do it, everyone dies. Thanos' cause- erasing the existence of half the galaxy's beings- is the lesser of two evils, then, as if it is done, fewer beings die than if it is not done. Consider also that those who are removed by Thanos do not suffer anywhere near as much as someone who dies, say, because of floods cause by global warming or who was killed in a nuclear war over finite resources such as food. So not only do fewer people get removed from existence by Thanos than would have been by overpopulation had he not acted, but also those who were removed from existence suffer much less than they would have had they died as a result of overpopulation. They also suffer less than if they were to die of a regular cause, like cancer, heart disease, strokes, or dementia. So, to recap: 1: Thanos' cause is a solution to the balloon dilemma and is justified by utilitarianism. 2: Fewer beings cease to exist if Thanos does act than if he doesn't. 3: Those removed by Thanos suffer less than they would have had they been killed by the overpopulation Thanos was stopping. 4. Those removed by Thanos suffer less than if they died of natural causes. Thanos' cause is, therefore, just, as while it admittedly involves some difficult decisions, the ultimate result is better than if Thanos had not acted. Sources: [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]: https://www.kent.ac.uk... [3]: http://noisyclassroom.com... [4]:
Homework In Schools Should Be Optional

I think homework in schools should be optional because homework is a leading cause of stress in teens and tweens, and this generation is more stressed over school than the last. Also, I know homework is made for extra help, but what if students don't need that extra help? Should they risk failing school for not needing extra help? They come to school to learn, and most would enjoy that, but the homework is too much. it should at least be optional.
should doing be made legal in sports

"what do u mean when u say that its rampant and so be made legal. .. .rapes are also rampant so do you mean to say that they should also be made legal? "Well thats what you were saying in round 1, I dont see why you have an issue with it because heck you said it yourself"Another point in my view is that if doping is made legal then whether the spirit of sports will give up to the circumstances. "Excuse me, we are talking about DOING. Not DOPING. Theres a difference'Doping' is slang for taking steroidsExample "Mark and Alexis were doping in the closet just now"'Doing' is slang for having sexExample: "Mark and Alexis were doing it in the closet just now"See the difference? " The country which possess the advanced medicine will have a straight win and advanced medicines could only be achieved by the countries which have a hefty budget amount to support the industry. "Viagra is Viagra man, its all the same thing and its easy to get with one boner pill not doing much more then most other boner pills do. If youre in sports though you typically dont need Viagra to get it up. "The steroids will also have a degrading effect in the health of the sportsmen which will make them succumb to the particular drug and may even take his/her life . "1) Its not a steroid2) If it lasts for longer then four hours then thats the only time where your health may be degraded and that you should see a doctor. Other then that its perfectly safe and you can use it time and time again without having any adverse side effecrs from it. Doing is rampant and sports and we might as well just make it legal, as Con agreed in round 1.
should doing be made legal in sports

what do u mean when u say that its rampant and so be made legal. .. .rapes are also rampant so do you mean to say that they should also be made legal? Another point in my view is that if doping is made legal then whether the spirit of sports will give up to the circumstances. Then sports will transform from competition between the skills of the players to the wars between the pharmaceutical labs and industries of the two countries. The country which possess the advanced medicine will have a straight win and advanced medicines could only be achieved by the countries which have a hefty budget amount to support the industry. This will directly lead to deprive the economically weak countries to even dare to challenge the the so called developed countries and will be completely overshadowed by them. the world will then be confined to these rich countries which will snatch this very chance of the poor countries to make their presence felt. Use of steroids made legal will make the strong even stronger and weal negligible. I would like to make you recall the real motto of organizing sports to bring countries or organizations together together not to demean anyone. Yes winning should be the main thought, but the path used for achieving it should also be kept in mind. The steroids will also have a degrading effect in the health of the sportsmen which will make them succumb to the particular drug and may even take his/her life . Winning the game at the cost of someones life is not that should be done.
Anarchy is Detrimental to Freedom and the Growth of Society

Pro must prove that anarchy is detrimental to BOTH freedom and society’s growth. “Freedom” will be defined as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. “Growth of society” will be defined as the rate in which the quality of life will be improved. First round will be opening argument for Con. Second round will be rebuttals and opening argument for Pro. Third round will be rebuttals. Fourth round will be rebuttals and conclusion.
Torture (See for specifics)

It should be common knowledge that torture is not a 100% full-proof method of obtaining information. I totally agree with that idea, and I don't believe the US should just throw torture at their problems. I do however believe that groups like the CIA should be given restrictive rights to torture, given that there are certain circumstances where torture is the best method to obtain information, and save lives. For instance, what if there is an impending terrorist attack on American soil, and you have in custody a terrorist who has a fair possibility of having information useful in stopping the attack? If the attack will be very soon, and other methods such as extensive questioning would not acquire the information soon enough, why shouldn't you torture that man? Even though torture is not 100% reliable, if you're on a short time table, and it's the only way you could possibly acquire the information in time, you should be able to use torture to prevent the attack, and save lives. Another scenario: What if you've exhausted every information obtaining method that is an alternate to torture, and it hasn't worked? The person who has been able to resist extensive questioning and perhaps even chemical influence, may succumb to pain. The odds may not be very good, but they'd be better than if you just gave up short of using torture, and if lives can be saved, no stone should go unturned. Those are my scenarios. I believe the CIA should have limited access to torture for scenarios like these.