BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S. should intervene in Darfur.

intervene-to interfere with the outcome or course especially of a condition or process-M.W. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Therefore, any U.S. action which affects the situation in Darfur is "intervention". Military trade sanctions against Sudan would affect said situation. My opponent is against any intervention in Darfur. Therefore, my case supports military trade sanctions only. The Sudanese government supplies Arab militias. These militias have raped, tortured, and murdered millions of Sudanese. The United States must condemn these acts by halting any and all military shipments to Sudan. I await your response.
Jury rights the judge won't tell you

"Prosecutors file charges in ALLEGED! violation of a law,And need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to a JURY!which the prosecutor believes but belief is not truth. RETARD!"Its their job to do exactly that f*ckwad. "more than 95% of the prosecutors wins are from many times unfair plea bargains. another mongolian idiotic claim That I fabricate problems which don't exist "You just fabricated a fake claim in the sentence right before you whine about me accusing you of making up false problems with the system that dont exist..... Thank you for proving my point." which in your idiotic world an innocent person can never be found or plea guilty.f*cking mongolian idiot"I never said that in this world an innocent person can never be found guilty. Were you dropped on your head as a child or thrown against the wall?"he main purpose of the military is to fight in wars and risk your life,not really worth those lovely benefits are they?"They are to everyone who volunteered to serve in the army..... Like seriously put two and two together already. "There are benefits to serving on the jury,your too stupid to know them!"claiming that there are benefits to serving in jury duty and then failing to list a single benefit not only makes you look as retarded as a rock, it also just proves my argument that if jury duty were voluntary no one would sign up for it. ========================================================================================List of arguments that dumba** over there dropped:- Pro fails to list a single benefit people receive from serving in a jury - Pro fails to counter the fact that if jury duty were voluntary, nobody would serve on it- Pro drops the argument that its not a bad thing that juries should adhere to the oath they take and carry out the job they were selected to do- Pro drops the argument that the job of the jury is to determine guilt or innocence, not the legality of the law that was violated- Pro drops the argument that taking the oath somehow scares people out of doing the right thing- Pro drops the argument that paying everyone on a jury handsomely would be horrendously expensive and that the country could never afford to do that- Pro drops that its not necessarily bad that prosecutors file charges against people suspected of committing a crimeVote Con
Jury rights the judge won't tell you

Prosecutors file charges in ALLEGED! violation of a law,And need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to a JURY!which the prosecutor believes but belief is not truth. RETARD! more than 95% of the prosecutors wins are from many times unfair plea bargains. another mongolian idiotic claim That I fabricate problems which don't exist ,tell that to the hundreds of people that's been found guilty did years or decades in prison and by some miracle found innocent according to the innocence project and other sources, read a book. which in your idiotic world an innocent person can never be found or plea guilty.f*cking mongolian idiot.The main purpose of the military is to fight in wars and risk your life,not really worth those lovely benefits are they?one can get those benefits without risking your life.There are benefits to serving on the jury,your too stupid to know them!
Jury rights the judge won't tell you

"your worried about juries wasting time while also judging a law!?"Way to completely miss the point of that argument..... Juries are meant to determine guilt or innocence of someone in violation of the law, the legality of the laws themselves are handled in completely different courts and by completely different means. "which is their right and prosecutors and judges keep secret because it takes power from them which you seem to love them to have an unlimited amount of with prosecutors typically overcharging defendants with the hopes that something will stick to drop some charges later to try to avoid the time and expense of a trial and seem merciful which they know it's very difficult to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."1) You really need to learn how to use some f*cking punctuation2) Youre entire argument is just an idiotic rant of everything you see wrong with the system by fabricating problems that dont exist, along with a gross misrepresentation of my position. 3) Theres also nothing wrong with prosecutors filing charges against defendants of the laws they violated. Thats kind of the point of the justice system....."With about 17 trillion dollars in debt and growing the usa is still not bankrupt!?better spend it on jurors than unnecessary wars,welfare state,et"Jesus christ youre an idiot..... The point is that making the government pay huge sums of money to jurors is something they cant afford. You cant just retardedly claim 'oh well maybe we could afford it without all these wars and welfare' because that doesnt defeat the point that paying jurors a lot of money would be way too expensive for the government to handle. "It was the same for the military nobody would volunteer to fight in wars and there is no draft yet people volunteer so your f*cking wrong"Ok now im sure that youre retarded...... People volunteer for the military for a variety of reasons, some of which includes health insurance, payment for college, patriotism, etc. You dont get those same benefits by volunteering for jury duty so making it completely voluntary will result in nobody choosing to do it. Just ask any adult if they would ever willingly volunteer for jury duty and 100% of them will say no. "some people are fearful of giving a ruling because of an oath one is afraid to reject in front of a judge.and afraid to hang the verdict if so desired."So you think its bad that jurors should do the job they should be tasked with rather then throw out an entire court case because they are forced to uphold the law, and you would change that so that jurors could do whatever they want with complete disregard to the courts.............Looks like this debate is already won.
Jury rights the judge won't tell you

your worried about juries wasting time while also judging a law!? which is their right and prosecutors and judges keep secret because it takes power from them which you seem to love them to have an unlimited amount of.with prosecutors typically overcharging defendants with the hopes that something will stick to drop some charges later to try to avoid the time and expense of a trial and seem merciful which they know it's very difficult to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. and mandatory sentencing a jury never waste time by carefully seeing every part of the story before ruining (possibly, innocent persons life for life)with only circumstantial evidence.which may or may not be true.not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.so companies if the jurors work foot the bill and don't go bankrupt!?With about 17 trillion dollars in debt and growing the usa is still not bankrupt!?better spend it on jurors than unnecessary wars,welfare state,etc.As for the nobody would ever f*cking volunteer.It was the same for the military nobody would volunteer to fight in wars and there is no draft yet people volunteer so your f*cking wrong.As for the 13th amendment you left out involuntary servitude which deals with jury duty and military draft that many people don't want to do.hence,involuntary servitude which is a kind of f*cking slavery.many people on the jury are unfortunately sheep when the oath is forced on one. so yes some people are fearful of giving a ruling because of an oath one is afraid to reject in front of a judge.and afraid to hang the verdict if so desired.
Jury rights the judge won't tell you

"Jurors should have the right to judge the law" They are meant to judge the innocence/guilt of people accused of breaking the law. Its the duty of the government to judge laws that are directly challenged rather then have juries waste time over it. "also get paid lots more money" Do you know how many trials there are in the US every day? there must be at least a couple million going on, and to pay all 12 or so jurors in each and every last case a handsome amount of money would drive the nation into bankruptcy. "also jury duty should be voluntary(not forced)" Nobody ever f*cking volunteers to be on jury duty, if it was voluntary then nobody would ever sign up for it. "and not have their 13th amendment violated fined and/or jailed."The f*ck does the 13th amendment have to do with anything? The 13th amendment is the amendment that abolished slavery, what the hell does it have to do with juries?"And refuse to take an oath to prevent the option of judging a law,then allowed to serve without fear."Does taking the oath even cause people to fear giving a ruling?
The United States is not the greatest country in the world.

Many Americans seem to believe that the United States of America is the greatest nation in the world. Nevertheless, it appears apparent to many Europeans and other people in the developed world that the USA's magnificence is a lie. Some Americans think that they live in the greatest country in the world because they are told that they do. "Great" is described as "wonderful; first-rate; very good. " On the assumption that my opponent in this debate is a patriot, I should mention that although "Patriotism" is defined as "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty", it seems to me to be both illogical and irrational. This is because patriotism is when someone assumes their country to be better than all others simply because they were born in it. Seeing as many Americans call themselves "patriots", could it be possible that they are basing their country's greatness on the fact that it is where they live? Many laws and political policies in the United States, such as the Second Amendment and the lack of good healthcare, is looked down upon by other developed countries. I will stick with one of these examples: the Second Amendment allows almost any American citizen to carry a gun and kill whomever they please. The USA has the highest murder rate in the developed world. People accuse video games and violent movies rather than guns because it inspires hatred. In Japan people play these video games and watch the same films (the same goes for the UK, France, Canada, Germany etc. ) but the murder rate there is less than 10% of what it is in the USA. I could go on to talk about why firearms should be banned. I was recently talking to an American patriot who claimed that he lived in the greatest country in the world because of its "freedom. " After searching about America's "freedom", I found that there are 46 countries with better freedom of the press than the USA, there are 9 countries with greater economic freedom, there are 21 countries better than the USA in freedom from corruption etc. The idea of Civil Rights is fairly new in the United States. New Zealand citizens have the greatest freedom in the world. I would go on with reasons why the USA is not the greatest country in the world but I might bring up my new arguments in later rounds. . http://en.rsf.org......http://www.heritage.org...;
Moral Relativism is philosophically weak

I wasn't going to accept this because I just debated a similar topic, but the way you set this one up is interesting, so I really wanted to debate this. Should be fun. Now, for the answer to your question: There is no true or provable justification for murder being right or wrong. It is simply an action. No deontological or consequential basis can make it right or wrong. And since this is only three rounds, I want to take this time to address your claim about philosophical weakness. Philosophy is a tool that we use to seek truth. If the truth is that there are no moral absolutes, then moral relativism (or even nihilism) is, in fact, the strongest philosophy, as it recognizes the truth that there are no moral absolutes. Your turn. :)
Moral Relativism is philosophically weak

Absolute and moral relativity seem to be a big topic here lately. Since I never seem to log in when anyone else starts a debate concerning this topic, I suppose making my own will have to suffice. A moral relativist is someone who applies relative ethics to a moral problem, and someone who denies that any thing has the ability to arbitrate what morals are indeed moral on an absolute level. Why is this? The answer is fairly simple. It is because that by believing something does arbitrate morality, it then would have to presuppose that something beyond human convention is the Judge. For many people that assumes God, something they are not comfortable with concluding. The inescapable conclusion that an avowed relativist would have to surmise is that if there are no moral absolutes, then morality ultimately boils down to mere opinion. Think of it this way: One culture alleges that you cannot starve your own people because it is so tragically immoral, where another culture may allege that to interfere in the affairs of another our culture is immoral. Who then is right? Is there an actual right answer to the question? Herein lies the crux of the situation. Each side is moralizing, appealing to the other in hopes that they will acquiesce to some sort of UNIVERSAL standard that we should all know and adhere to without rebuttal. Moral absolutism is not without its faults, however, which makes moral relativism appealing on a surface level for answering strictly practical questions about right and wrong. For instance, I cannot empirically prove WHICH morals are absolute anymore than I can prove, empirically, the existence or non-existence of God. This, for an absolutist, is its conundrum. Since this is the case, I will not attempt to "prove" which morals are absolute, rather, I will point out their philosophical necessity. In doing so, it will greatly imply that there is a final source and a framework by which morality comes to us. But make no mistake that it will not prove it. I will now give my opponent a simple question. How this individual answers the question will reveal the strength or weakness of their argument. The question is: "Is murder wrong?" If it is wrong, explain why it is wrong. If it is not wrong, at least on an absolute level, then please feel free to answer that question as well. From here we can segue in to the finer details of the debate.
This game is called "The Best Question Game in the Whole Wide World"

I) Queen Victoria II) Hydrogen peroxide III) Costa Rica IV) Yuri Gagarin? V) I don’t know. :/ VI) U.S. President Richard Nixon VII) Because of where it was found on the Mediterranean coast near Rosetta in Egypt. VIII) Chelsea Clinton IX) The equator X) Southern line of latitude near equator: a line of latitude that is 23° 26' south of the equator Now mine: I) Why isn’t predestination a real doctrine? II) If predestination is not a real doctrine but God put it in his book would that make God a liar? III) In your opinion when is something defined as too private? IV) Do you agree with the quotation that “it is more fearsome to be dying then to be dead?” V) Would God send someone to Hell if they never had a chance to learn about the gospel? VI) Expand on the quotation “Life begins at conception, but death arose before that.” What is the author talking about? VII) When do you think the US government shutdown will be over? VIII) When is the time that parents have to teach kids that there is a difference between possible dreams and impossible ones? IX) Should children be taught there is a Santa Clause? X) Why or why not?
This game is called "The Best Question Game in the Whole Wide World"

Answers to my second round questions are in the comment section.Answers to your questions:1) A fire fighting plane filled its tanks with water from a lake, sucking a scuba-diver in. He drown while the plane was in flight and was dumped onto a burning forest with the water. 2) Do you know the symbol for the 102nd chemical element? (Nobelium's symbol is No.)3) The letter "v"4) God has commanded us to; babies need forgiveness from original sin; baptism is a replacement to the conventional circumcision.5) I believe you need to talk to someone before you fall in love with them. It is dumb how people fall in love off of pure visual confrontation. So, no, I do not believe in love at first sight.6) I don't know much on this topic. but I will take a whack at it. We should not lift the embargo. Cuba, like many other countries, has different standards of safety and sanitation then America. If an oil spill were to come of this, then it would effect the hundreds of miles of coastline we have in the Gulf of Mexico and even on the Eastern Seaboard. The embargo discourages their offshore drilling to a degree.7) I am Catholic. 8) I believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic church under the Holy Trinity.9) I am an outgoing, fun person to be around. I get involved in everything I can and try to help the world. I am greatly interested in expressing my views through different mediums of Language. I have used Documentary Filmmaking, Creative Writing, speech, and debate. 10) I'd really rather not answer this for personal reasons. You can have that point.Next set of Questions:1) Who was the longest reigning british monarch?2) What is this compound? H2O23)The name of this country means "rich coast."4) This man went into space before Kennedy made his space race speech.5)This preserve was originally made from quince.6) Who made the first telephone call to the moon?7) What was Rosetta Stone named for? Person, place, or thing.8) Who was the first daughter in 1993.9) What is 0 degrees latitude?10) What is the tropic of capricorn?
This game is called "The Best Question Game in the Whole Wide World"

72 percent of all burglaries during the month of March in the city of Houston took place during day time hours. This war is special because it lasted 40 minutes and was the longest war in history. It was also unusual because the sultan's forces sustained roughly 500 casualties, while only one British sailor was injured. The Catholic Church sold indulgences to the people of London to temporarily take away punishment for their sins and the sins of their loved ones. This helped lead to the Protestant reformation by Martin Luther after he posted the 95 thesis on the door of the All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, Saxony. Assuming you don't mean Fruity Pebbles, chocolate rocks from the local candy store, or Pop Rocks I would have to say rock salt. J Friday evenings. A potato. Yes, that’s correct a potato because Mr. Potato Heads were first made with real potatoes at first it is also intresting that the first Mr. Potato Heads came with a pipe for smoking. Maine is the only state in which its name is a single syllable. Assuming that’s a trick question I would have to say New Hampshire. A mad buffalo and a sick joke. Well, it depends if strawberries are considered a fruit but that’s my answer. Now for my questions: 1) A man is lying drowned in a dead forest far from water. How did this happen? 2) The answer I give is yes but what I mean is no. What was the question? 3) I am the center of gravity, hold a capital situation in Vienna, and as I am foremost in every victory, am allowed by all to be invaluable. Though I am invisible, I am clearly seen in the midst of a river. I could name three who are in love with me and have three associates in vice. It is vain that you seek me for I have long been in heaven yet even now lie embalmed in the grave. What am I? 4) Why do Lutheran’s baptize their babies if it is not Biblical and they are apart from the Catholic Church? 5) Why do you or don’t you believe in love at first sight? 6) In your opinion why should the US government or why shouldn’t the US government lift the embargo on Cuba’s offshore oil drilling? 7) What is your religion? 8) Why is that so? 9) If you had to define yourself in 45 words what would they be? 10) Let’s say you have a list of your priority’s in life, what are the top 15?
This game is called "The Best Question Game in the Whole Wide World"

In which season do most burglaries take place? What’s so special about the 1896 war between Zanzibar andEngland? In the 1700s, what did some residents of London purchase to avoid going to hell? What is the only rock regularly eaten by humans? On what day of the week do the most auto accidents happen? What was featured in the first TV commercial advertizing a toy? What is the only state whose name is a single syllable? License plates in New Hampshire contain the motto “Live Free or Die.” Where are those license plates made? What do you get if you cross a goat with a sheep? There is only one kind of fruit that has its seeds on the outside. Name it.
This game is called "The Best Question Game in the Whole Wide World"

This is a game of thought, you must ask ten questions and answer 10 questions each round, 5 rounds means you will be asking 40 questions and answering 40 questions. Rules: 1. The questions have to be answerable. 2. You have to answer every single question you are asked no matter what. 3. You can ask anything you want (Except at what address do you live etc…). 4. Lol, if you forfeit you will die someday. ;) 5. You begin. I hope you accept this game, because it would suck if you left me hanging here. -Rebekah J
The gift of debating and speaking isn't necessarily good.

DUE TO UNCONTROLOABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AND AS PER AGREEMENT BETWEEN ME AND MY OPPONENT THIS DEBATE IS A TIE! I ask everyone that is viewing this debate to refrain from voting and keep this debate tied throughout the entire voting period. As per agreement between me and my opponent in a personal message we'll be reinstating the debate later this week: I'll leave a link to that debate in the comments of this debate one it has been created if anyone is interested in reading it.thank you for your co-operation and have a splendid evening.
The gift of debating and speaking isn't necessarily good.

My Position: The gift of speech and debate is necessarily good. As discussed in the comments, the question of what qualifies as "good" must be answered. My opponent and myself agreed that "good" must be defined as it applies to the public sphere, i. e. , those who are not gifted in speech and debate, the people on the recieving end of a speech, etc. I'm sure my opponent can agree that having a gift is good, so we will not debate this. Rather, we will be debating the implications and perceptions of speech and debate. I look forward to this debate, and hope it will be challenging and enlightening.