BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Age does not matter in a relationship

I accept.Proposed definitions.Age[1]: the length of time that a person has lived or a thing has existed.Matter[2]: be important or significant.Relationship[3]: the mutual dealings, connections, or feelings that existbetween two entities.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Resolved: Plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

As my opponent has forfeited the last round, I shall merely solidify the reasons that I have won this debate. 1. Plea bargaining results in the incarceration of major criminals. This contributes to the well-being of each person in society, maximizing individual justice. My opponent's only refutation was absurd and unwarranted. 2. Plea bargaining prevents the acquittal of criminals. Again, this maximizes individual justice, for the same reason. This point must be extended, as my opponent offered no refutation. 3. The justice system simply cannot function in a world without plea bargaining. As I've shown, the current system is already under a great strain, and to impose 10 times the current case-load would be logistically impossible. It would result in the collapse of the justice system, and thus, justice would not exist. This was the case in Canada. "Most legal professionals have come to grudgingly accept the system, warts and all. .. In 1975, the Law Reform Commission of Canada called plea bargaining ‘something for which a decent criminal justice system has no place. ' In 1989, faced with a system bogged down under its own weight, its position had completely reversed: ‘plea negotiation is not an inherently shameful practice,' the commission concluded…Most agree that…prosecutors have too much leeway in the games they can play to extract guilty pleas…Still, they say, the courts would grind to a halt without plea bargains. (2007)" This point has not been refuted, and therefore extends. It is apparent that plea bargaining creates justice, and in fact is necessary for justice to be achieved.
(ELO) Compassion is a more worthwhile human trait than intelligence

==My Case==My opponent in Rd. 2 said that Rd. 3 would be for rebuttals, and by implicit extension Rd. 4 would be used to address the rebuttals. However, my opponent did not touch my case in Rd. 3 at all. And remember the rules state that drops are concessions. That means my opponent has conceded the entirety of my case. Thus, extend all my arguments through as true. And dont let him try and respond because I have no recourse since this is my last round. ==His Case==C1Intelligence is gained over time. Compassion is a natural emotion that has become linked to our species.1. Intelligence is a gained trait as well, it just needs to be developed.2. The time at which a trait is gained doesnt matter. You give no justification as to why it would matter anyway. 3. Your argument is false; even compassion requires time and development. If a child isnt taught to compassionate they probably wont be. This can be seen within kids around the age of 2 who discover the "ego." This prevents them from sharing unless taught to do so. Social Bonds and nationsA country that is driven on a pure self interest status quo may hurt others in that process.1. And as my argument implies; countries which do do that are hurt in return. It wouldnt be intelligent for a nation to soley act out of sel-interest since it would create enemies. C2In an irrational society with day to day people that we live in societal backlash is inevitable with the idea of nihilism due to people thriving off of emotion.1. This doesnt answer how intelligence directly leads to nihlism. You give no justification.==Extensions==He dropped a lot of arguments from my rebuttal. Refer to my arguments in Rd. 3.These can be cleanly extended.==Voters==1. Since my case was extended fully this gives clear reason to vote Con. Contention 1 tells you that in two forms of moral decision calculuses intelligence takes priority to compassion. Contention 2 tells you that intelligence is the way to innovation. At this point the only way compassion means anything is if people can be innovative to help others. Thus prefer intelligence first. Contention 3 tells you that compassion without intelligence results in socialism, and refer to Rd. 2 for the list of harms. These outweigh because it destroys the economic enviornment which affects everyone.2. On-face negation. He dropped my argument that all the Con needs to do to negate is prove that compassion isnt MORE important than intelligence. Insofar as my kicks and turns on the Pro case have gone extended he gives no reason why compassionis more important - default Con.
(ELO) Compassion is a more worthwhile human trait than intelligence

C1 "3. TURN: Intelligence is first needed before compassion as a mechanism of survival. Intelligence gives humans the ability to overcome the environment and use it for its own gain and own survival. " Intelligence is gained over time. Compassion is a natural emotion that has become linked to our species. As a young child having this compassion may allow one grace for actions that one may have committed, sort of repentance. My point being that intelligence is gained from experience where as compassion is gained by birth, knowing when one has done something wrong or when to assist someone in need. By helping those who need it one may gain their grace and become an ally in life. On social bonds of people. "My opponent to prove this as valid would need to establish a prerequisite link between compassion and bonds. " Compassion as defined is sympathetic pity. As stated prior humans are prone to being social. One thing that comes with life is pain and suffering in various forms. Those that are suffering have a hard time coping alone since most people are not intelligence based humans. The act of compassion allows for he or she to cope and may develop into a friendship due to assisting. In response to turn. "...communication and other forms of rational mental processes. " People communicating rely upon knowing words and being able to make coherent sentences. A basic interaction may only be to talk about his or her day which will most likely lead to compassion due to it being unlikely that ones life is always happy. Unless the communication is a debate or discussion than intelligence is one step below personal discussion. On social bonds and nations. "Moreover, I would say this is untrue because nations act within realms of realism, i.e. nations act out of self-interest and survival." A country that is driven on a pure self interest status quo may hurt others in that process. Yes, World War One and World War Two lead to alliances to help dismantle the same threats. Though some nations are known to help less fortunate country's out of compassion such as Haiti. C2 "4. TURN: Intelligence solves whatever harms nihilism might produce because it protects against societal backlash. " In an irrational society with day to day people that we live in societal backlash is inevitable with the idea of nihilism due to people thriving off of emotion. In reality emotion is inescapable of our lives. Intelligence may have the ability to problem solve but it is incapable of solving person problems that help one another which leads me back to social bonds.
(ELO) Compassion is a more worthwhile human trait than intelligence

Resolved: Compassion is a more worthwhile human trait than intelligence [Definitions] Compassion: sympathetic pity Worthwhile: importance Intelligence: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity [Rules] 1. Drops are concessions 2. No new arguments in the 4th Round 3. Forfeit will result in a loss of all 7 pts 4. No semantics *Rd. 1 will be for acceptance. Rd. 2 will start argumentation*
Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent

Here's my response to my opponent's arguments. Yes, I accepted the resolution "Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent", but you never defined any of the terms. If you don't define them, then I'm allowed to. So technically you didn't lay out the debate fully. All you said in the first round that acceptance is the round and you said hypothetical what if scenarios. You never stated any rules so as your opponent, I'm allowed to set rules and define terms. Having clarity is good for both me, you, and readers. My terms don't change the way the debate can be interpreted, all they do is provide clarity. Anyway, let's go to the real rebuttal. All my opponent says is that the death row inmates are going to die anyway so we might as well use them in tests that can kill them. This logic is terribly flawed, as we're all going to die at some point, whether we're death row inmates or not. I'll plug in a different group of people into this argument and we can elaborate on that. "Because the elderly are going to die anyways we should use them for scientific or medical testing where the patients are at risk of dying." That sounds absolutely terrible, right? It's no different for death row. This is just a bare assertion. There's absolutely no evidence to support your argument. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's defense. In Round 3, I shall provide my opening statements.
Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent

Con spent the acceptance round defining terms, obviously in a way that was not the way they were originally intended to be defined. However, it doesn't really matter. Con accepted the debate under the resolution "Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent." Technically, as illustrated by Con, there is more than one way to interpret that. Con listing potential definitions for terms in the resolution doesn't mean that they should be interpreted that way though. Especially since Con was only suppose to accept the debate as it was laid out, by me, in the first round. Con may respond that the lack of definitions leave ambiguity and that I even admitted that the resolution can be interpreted differently. However, ambiguity does not mean she has the responsibility to make the debate clearer. Con did make a correct observation though, I have burden of proof. So I have to prove the statement "Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent," with the only assumptions being those laid out in the first round by me (as the debate creator I was the one to layout the debate, not my opponent). That was the debate Con accepted, even with its ambiguity. Had Con asked me to be clearer, I would have willingly done so, by the way. Because death row inmates are going to die anyways we should use them for scientific or medical testing where the patients are at risk of dying. There. I just provided a reason of why "Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent." Con can choose to rebut that and we can spend the remaining rounds debating the topic as originally intended or Con can attempt to show why her provided definitions of terms must be accepted.
Death Row Inmates Should be Used for Medical or Scientific Testing Without Consent

I accept.Death row - a prison block or section for prisoners sentenced to death.Inmates - a person confined to an institution such as a prison or hospital.Should - used to indicate what is probable.Be - occur; take place.Used - take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result; employ.For - with the object or purpose ofMedical - of or relating to the science of medicine, or to the treatment of illness and injuries.Or - used to link alternatives. Scientific - based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.Testing - the means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness of anything is determined; a means of trial.Without - in the absence of.Consent - permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.BoP is on Pro. Thank you.
Feminist movements are becoming detrimental to society.

Thank You for accepting, though I can't understand what is weird about the word feminist. I can understand the need for a Feminist movement 60 - 70 years ago though in our modern western societies such has become a liability to society, the rights of women in modern times are equal and in many cases greater than the rights of men, now this is not about a battle of the sexes, unfortunately it is seen in that way by many feminist activists. In this ense, many men are conditioned by society to treat women as being superior. Feminism centres, or was originally centred around liberating housewives and giving women the option to work, a reasonable goal that has been achieved by such movements in western countries, however feminist movements now push for further options for women. Compared to the single option of men (working), movements pressure women into working full time careers. Though this in itself is not harmful, modern feminist movements (particularly extreme movements) undermine the supposedly equal importance of reducing the man's burden to be the provider, whilst also undermining the value of male labour. I am not saying that male labour is more important than female labour, simply that the excessive focus on the rights of women is blinding society to the pressures on men, and potentially increasing them. Evidence: 1. Prostate cancer was estimated to kill 32,000 men in 2010, whereas breast cancer was estimated to kill 40,000 women and 400 men. Despite these statistics breast cancer receives twice the government funding of prostate cancer, furthermore prostate cancer awareness month receives very little coverage, and many people are not even aware of it's existence, whereas every October all sports events and media event parade pink outfits, and many perform fundraising events to raise money for breast cancer research. Vocal feminist movements put emphasis on awareness of female cancers, this marginalises male cancers further. http://dailycaller.com... 2. Whilst the following is rather biased : http://www.politicalcowardice.com... It makes a good point the ad show is incredibly sexist against men yet was (from what I can see, allowed), If the same was shown the other way around, the ad would be considered a sexist, misogynistic piece of work. However in modern society radical feminists are somehow aloud to do to men what they campaign to free women from; objectification and stereotypes. This sort of sexism is displayed throughout the media, men are constantly displayed as stupid brutes, whilst women are portrayed as smart and kind. If feminists wanted equality this sort of thing wouldn't be aloud to happen, but superiority is what feminism in todays society strives for. http://www.politicalcowardice.com... http://www.angryharry.com... The above is biased and slightly misogynist but makes some excellent points. I would post more but I'm tired and it's 2am. Thank you
Feminist movements are becoming detrimental to society.

I agree with the notion that feminist movements are becoming detrimental to society.I don't want to have to post a long list of rules, so please be reasonable and avoid semantics/twisting of words.I would also prefer to keep it short, and to the point.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Rebuttals + ArgumentsRound 4: Final Rebuttals Round 5: Summarising Keep it sensible please.Thank You.
Here is how Helen Keller REALLY got deaf dumb and blind.

Dear viewers, I would make the proposition that wikipedia is in fact more reliable than allretardsshoulddie. In fact, if Pro had clicked the link it would be revealed that the article on Helen Keller is protected against vandalism. Pro has no sources other than a psychopathic conviction that all historical figures were sexually abused as extremely young children. Furthermore, Pro has not refuted my accusation that it is medically impossible for deafblindness to be induced by rape. Thank you.
Here is how Helen Keller REALLY got deaf dumb and blind.

Firstly, Pro's argument is flawed. Pro cannot prove that Keller's father raped her nor that rape can induce the loss of hearing, speech, and sight at once. Therefore Pro's model is impossible. My alternative is that Helen Keller contracted an acute congestion of the stomach and brain at 19 months old[1] and I eagerly await Pro's counter argument. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion

This issue is not about the potential parent, it is about the child that had no choice in their making. If someone was to have an abortion, I believe that person was making the right decision for themselves but also for there child. If a person has too many doubts about having a child then I do not believe they deserve too; furthermore, I do not believe the child deserves a parent that is not prepared mentally, physically and financially to bring up this child with everything they need. My belief of "Pro-Choice" is because I am an advocate for children because that child does not have a choice.
Abortion

True, but it is not our choice to decide who lives and who dies, and especially not who never even has a chance to live. We cannot see into the future, therefore we cannot know what kind of life that child will have, we just have to hope for the best. Everyone knows that life is not easy, and abortion doesn't mean we are "saving" these potential children from it. I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say "don't have sex before marriage," because that is no longer the norm. However, if you are going to have sex before marriage, you should know, accept, and be aware of the potential consequences. I feel that the possibility of abortion causes people to make even worse decisions, because its basically telling our society that "any problem can be fixed with money." You had sex and you get pregnant, but luckily for you, you don't have to deal with it. Instead, you can just pay a doctor to "take care" of it.
Abortion

I understand what you are saying, however, I feel the best benefit that we may give a child is life itself. There are plenty of people who have grown up in poor conditions and made something of themselves. Abortion is wrong because it never even gives the child a chance. And even if the parents say there doing it so the child wont have to grow up with parents who aren't ready, in all honesty, they are most likely doing it for selfish reasons. Whether you are ready or not, you got pregnant, so that is the time to grow up and deal with it. Me personally, I feel that having a child by mistake would make me want to be an even better father. No matter what the conditions are that he/she will be brought up in, I'm sure they will find their place in the world. In the case of extenuating circumstances, for example, a child who will be born with down syndrome, or other conditions that would seriously inhibit their quality of life, then I feel that abortion is justified. However, if the only worry of the parents is that the child will be raised in unsuitable conditions, then it is not. We, as adults, have an obligation to ensure that the child does grow up in suitable conditions, rather then denying its right to life all together.
Abortion

I believe a child deserves the right to the opportunities, shelter, love and support in order to be a happy, nurturing and successful member of society. I believe that a child should only be brought into this world if such needs are able to be met. Although, I can understand one's argument against abortion I fully believe that raising a child in unsuitable conditions can result in a child that suffers from an unfulfilling childhood and bring those problems into adolescence. I believe that a child can be exposed these unsuitable conditions when a pregnancy was either unplanned or unwanted. For the sole benefit of the child, I believe everyone deserves the right to choose abortion because a child should only be brought into this world if they have the rights to a free, loving and supportive life.
Abortion

In my opinion, abortion is morally and ethically wrong, and should be illegal except in the case of extenuating circumstances, (explained later). Abortion being legal only teaches our society that rather then dealing with an accident or mistake, you can simply give some money to a doctor in order to "fix" the problem. Sure, there are arguments based on the fact that a fetus is not technically a human being yet, and that by aborting it, we are not denying its natural rights to life. But in all honesty, who are we to judge that. Sex, birth, and life are all natural processes, and the more we tamper with them, the worse the consequences will be. I feel that abortion simply makes people lazier. Rather then taking responsibility for what they have done, they'd rather deny a potential human being its right to life, because they do not want the responsibility of taking care of him/her.
Same sex marriage.

Burden of proof will be upon Con, my opponent 51%. This is due to the nature of morals, actions are considered moral until proven otherwise. Just as a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Structure Round one Acceptance and definitions Round two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet. Round three rebuttals respond directly to opponent's round two. Round four defense respond directly to opponent's round three. Definitions, use common definitions unless otherwise agreed upon. Sex "2. a. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions: How do you determine the sex of a lobster?" [0] Gay "1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." [1] Marriage "1. a. A legal union between two persons that confers certain privileges and entails certain obligations of each person to the other, formerly restricted in the United States to a union between a woman and a man." [2] Thanks in advance for accepting the debate. Previous debate for reference. [3] Sources. 0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://www.debate.org...
Same sex marriage.

Round 2 ArgumentsOutlineI. Benefits of marriageII. Being Gay is not a choiceIII. Financial gain to governmentIV. Separation of church and stateV. SourcesI. Benefits of marriageThe first question, is why would someone want to get married? The answer is there are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections available for married couples by federal law. Therefore, there are many logical reasons why people would seek to reap these benefits. "There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone" [4]II. Being gay is not a choiceThis might sound silly, but you can't just will yourself to be straight or gay. "Most scientists would disagree. Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studies suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis. " [5]"Gay conversion therapy, as it is known, supposedly helps gay people overcome same-sex attractions. But mainstream psychologists say the therapy is ineffective, unethical and often harmful, exacerbating anxiety and self-hatred among those treated for what is not a mental disorder." [6]That means by denying gays marriage we are practicing discrimination. Discrimination is unjust. III. Financial gain to governmentMarriages licenses are a source of revenue. This relieves tax burdens off of straights. Therefore, straight people gain a financial advantage from gay marriages.IV. Separation of church and stateAlmost all arguments against gays seem to originate from religion. Yet, the separation of church and state disallows religion to interfere with government affairs. Banning gay marriages on religious grounds would be a violation of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [7]By banning gay marriages based upon a religion, congress would be respecting an establishment of religion. V. Sources4. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...5. http://www.livescience.com...6. http://www.livescience.com...7. https://www.law.cornell.edu...