BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Ethics are not universal. September Beginner's Tournament Round 1

The resolution: Ethics are not universal Definitions Ethics : rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Universal:done or experienced by everyone : existing or available for everyone existing or true at all times or in all places (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I want to thank Lannan for hosting this tournament, for debate for being my opponent, and for Romanii being my mentor. I appologize for not doing this sooner. Now, unto the debate!
Online is better than sitting in on classes.

I don't know exactly what you want since you were not clear, so I will assume you are talking about moving these schools to online instead of on campus. While I agree that online schooling can be more beneficial to some students, I also believe if a student wants to they should have the option to take a class with a professor in person. Some students learn better in person, and they also like the structure the classes give you this way it involves less procrastination, among other things. Another thing is that if their is only online schooling this makes classes like physical science classes harder to do. Another thing is that many schools already have have some sort of online schooling. So to summarize I believe that having just online schooling is a worse option than using just in class schooling.
Homosexuality is a Choice.

Hello. I am Mr.DeBatEr (I don't mean to be offensive by the username at all, I am a serious individual). I chose to accept this debate, because it is one of great controversy. This is my first debate in debate.org, and I'll see how this goes. :) I'll start by stating, that my opponent has to prove that it is NOT a choice 100% of the time, by him being CON. All the PRO side has to do, is state that sometimes it is not a choice, and that it overrules the times where it is not a choice CONTENTION 1) Of course, it is scientifically proven that some people are born with the homosexual "germ", so to speak. This doesn't mean they turn gay. Some people go all their lives without saying that they're homosexual. Hiding it, so that they don't feel embarrassed. Others, think it's cool to be different, and so, they choose their own path, even though it's not the one it's meant to be. http://www.religioustolerance.org... http://www.suite101.com...;' CONTENTION 2) There is living evidence of people who have chosen to live part of their lives in a straight manner. This is the strongest evidence PRO can come up with; living proof. Ricky Martin, recently said he's gay, but in fact, he dated a woman in the past, so even though he is gay, he chose to be straight. This is the proof that should get the PRO side to win the debate, since you can't argue this, essentially http://news.softpedia.com...; -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now to attack my opponent. He does not bring up a case, yet all he brings up is the population of the people that believe being homosexual is a choice. This is not a case, and something that I can not attack. 1) ". I am a person with first hand experience and for a fact KNOW that homosexuality is definitely NOT a choice" You may be a person with an experience, but there are others that take the choice to be homosexual, as I have stated in my case. You are one, out of millions that are with this condition. 2) " KNOW that homosexuality is definitely NOT a choice" It wasn't a choice for you, but who are we to judge by saying that it's not a choice for everyone? Everyone's different, you can't judge for them With this, I believe, that even though science proves that you are born gay, some people take a different path, and go against what nature really has in them, and take a choice to go the opposite way. ~Mr.DeBaTeR44
Homosexuality is a Choice.

It has come to my attention that there are people in this world who view the state of being homosexual or bisexual a choice that people can make. For example, the very well known politicians, Sarah Palin and Bill Richardson both believes this.(1 and 3) This belief however, is a very false misconception but unfortunately is a very widely accepted theory to the origination of homosexuality and so, is a very large problem in society. I am a person with first hand experience and for a fact KNOW that homosexuality is definitely NOT a choice. Every single other member of the LGBT community knows that in their heart also. A staggering 59% of the population believe that it is a choice for a man to be attracted to another man or a woman to another woman.(2) Sadly, this ignorance is quite widespread and is quite sickeningly untrue. I must commend the population though for the decrease in this misunderstanding as the people who thought homosexuality was a choice in 1977 took up 87% of the population.(2) I await my opponent for their response and am intrigued to see what their opinion would be on this topic. 1. http://www.youtube.com... 2. http://www.westernherald.com... (statistics in 7th paragraph) 3. http://www.youtube.com...
Abortion should be Illegal in cases that do not threaten the life of the mother/baby

Legend: If statement is named p1.1 it means it is a premise which follows from p1If statement is named c(p1+p2) it means it is a conclusion made from p1 and p2Arguments:1) p1: Fetus is inside of woman's body. p2: Everyone owns themselves. c1(p1+p2): Women has a right to throw the fetus out of her. p3: Even if it wasn't caused a smallest harm during its removal, fetus will still die when removed from woman's body. c2(c1+p3): By abortion. woman is not killing fetus, she is only removing it from her body. 2) p1: Fetus is taking food from woman. p2: Taking something from person without their consent is theft. c1(p1+p2): If woman doesn't want to give her food to fetus, it is stealing from her. p3: Theft ought to be punished. c2(c1+p3): Unwanted fetus ought to be aborted. p4: Further thefts ought to be prevented if possible. c2(c1+p4) 3) p1: Removing unwanted fetuses from women reduces number of people. p2: US has already much unemployed people c1(p1+p2): By allowing abortion, we are decreasing unemployment p3: There are many Americans who dislike unemployment. c2(c1+p3): Allowing abortion is beneficial to many Americans.4) p1: Even if abortion was illegal, some woman would still abort. p1.1: Some women would get caught by police. c1(p1+p1.1): Some women would end up in prison because abortion was illegal. p2: Those women do not want to go to prison c2(c1+ p2): Making abortion illegal is harmful to some women. p1.2: Some of these women would abort in worse circumstances, with their health at greater risk. p3: Those women do not want their health at risk. c2(p1.2+p3)p1.3 Some of those women would travel to foreign country, in order to abort. c3(p1.3): Their fetuses would not benefit from abortion being illegal, and those women would waste their money.
Abortion should be Illegal in cases that do not threaten the life of the mother/baby

Introduction of Case: Abortion Should Be Illegal in the United States of America, barring a few special circumstances. This is comparable to medicinal vs. recreational marijuana. Abortion should only be needed in cases of medical necessity rather than because a child is not wanted. Arguments: I'll open with an outline of my argument, then in later rounds defend the premises that my opponent attacks. P1. A fetus will become a human child if not aborted. 1)There is no chance for it to become anything else, nor for it not to become a human child if uninterrupted by unnatural forces. Therefore, no matter whether this fetus is yet a "person" or not, it undebatably will become a person, as all healthy fetuses do. P2. Human Children, under the Declaration of Independence, have an unalienable right to life 1) The Declaration of Independence, arguably the document that best embodies the Spirit of America, states that the human right to life is unalienable [1]. C1. By aborting a fetus in full knowledge that it will become a human being at any point, you are stripping it of its human right to life 1) That fetus will unequivocally at some point become human. Whether the human life began at conception or will shortly begin, you are ending a human life that would definitely exist. If the fetus was healthy, there was no chance for that life not to exist. Therefore, from a logical standpoint, you are stripping the child of its future or present right to life, a right it will undeniably have. Plus, there's no need logical for abortion: A Major Alternative to abortion: Adoption -The mother still does not need to keep the baby. -Cheaper. Abortions can cost thousands of dollars, while adoptions are free [2]. -Much Less Chance of Emotional scarring for the mother [2]. -Safer. Abortions can be incomplete, cause blood clots, torn cervixes, infections, future pregnancy complications, etc. [3]. Conclusion Therefore, abortion violates American rights and should be illegal. Adoption is a better, safer and more legal way to deal with an unwanted baby. Thank you. Sources [1]. http://www.ushistory.org... [2]. http://www.americanadoptions.com... [3]. http://dhh.louisiana.gov...
Abortion should be Illegal in cases that do not threaten the life of the mother/baby

DDO mechanics - In order to message a user or comment on his profile, one first needs to send friend request and have their request accepted.If my opponent can really write 4k characters of pure arguments/rebuttals, I see no reason to ask for lower character limit.If my opponent starts posting links and graphs that back up premises I did not challenge, long appeals to emotions, or stories in place of arguments, I will not bother reading, even when it would be harmful to my chance of winning.
Abortion should be Illegal in cases that do not threaten the life of the mother/baby

I recently read your debate on abortion, and I'd like to argue this with you. Since I couldn't PM you or comment on your profile, I decided to just challenge you on it. You don't have to accept, and if you have any questions you can post on my profile or PM me. I'll lay out the debate structure in case you decide to head straight into acceptance: Rounds 1) Acceptance Only 2) Opening Arguments (No rebuttals) 3) Rebuttals 4) Closing Arguments/Final Rebuttals There will be a 4,000 character limit and a 48 hour debating period. I wish to keep this debate from being extremely long winded. For reference, the country up for discussion is the United States of America.
Abortion should be Illegal in cases that do not threaten the life of the mother/baby

healthy" is not Boolean value. It is on scale. Fetus can be born blind and deaf, or with finger missing, or with weak heart, or with low level of chromosomes. Who is to say if baby is healthy or not? I never agreed there is natural right. This is a bald face lie. In fact, I am saying concept of natural rights is fallacious almost on daily basis. We can have a debate about natural rights if my opponent wants, I will for now just ignore all statements with "natural rights", because my opponent has not given valid definition and I claim that there is no valid definition. 1) By my logic, society should only protect its members, while they are its members. Even if someone would almost certainly become member of society, society is not mandatory to try to protect him as long as he is not a member. Abortion can cause physical harm, but society should not try to prevent individuals from harming themselves. Only from harming others, who are not consenting to being physically harmed. 2) I did not concede, I made argument why my opponent's definition is worse than mine. 3) My opponent has called my logic flawed, but of course, has not pointed out any my mistake. I never said reduction of unemployment rate makes something a good idea when it harms people (more than it benefits). Reduction of unemployment is good, and we should reduce unemployment with all means that do not cause greater harm. 4) Society is regulating physical harm. Not moral harm. Even if small majority of people declare themselves as pro-life, vast majority of people believes in principle of liberty, which is violated by forcing women to bare fetuses. By my opponent's logic (on adoption), retirement home is alternative to elementary schools. Both are dealing with same issue (where should people spend their time), with one premise change. Women who abort, do not want to bare fetus. By adoption, unwanted fetus is not gone. Future citizens do not and should not have a rights that citizens do. Conclusion: I rebutted my opponent's only original argument in both P1 and C1. My arguments: 1) c1 stands, c2 stands if my definition of killing is better. 2) is rebutted by semantics. 3) c1 is stair to c2, c2 stands. 4) c1 is step to c2, c2 stands, c3 stands. If voters disagree with some item of my conclusion, I ask them to cite my opponent's statement that refutes the particular listed item (if any).
Communism

I will now begin my argument... LOW CRIME RATES .I Communist countries due to the nature of large government have very large police systems. More police, less crime. Policies adopted by Communist countries made them have little to no crime. INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION .I When the USSR took over Russia, medicine was vastly advanced and made safe places to give birth, more medicine, better treatment, etc. etc. .II Collectivised work places and more benefits. The government managed everything so no monopolies or dangerous business practices. No scams etc. etc.
The Death Penalty is the Law

The resolution remains negated. Pro says “Yes you, good sir, have got me there. It does seem as though I should have titled this debate carefully, due to the fact that I did say "Is Law" which should have stated "Is Justice". As I do not participate in debates just to win, or to play semantics, I accept the new resolution. So long as I have understood pro, the new resolution is as follows… “The death penalty is Justice.” I am assuming that pro means to argue that the death penalty is Just. (please clarify if I am wrong.) I remind pro that he has the burden of proof as he has made the positive claim. Pro asks “where Con stands in this debate.” Even though my opinion should have no bearing on this debate, I will indulge the question. I am opposed to capital punishment, I do not believe it is just. More importantly I have taken the position of con. This makes my purpose in this debate to rebutte your arguments in such a way that leave the resolution negated. Rebuttals: Pro says “lethal injection (the most human death as possible), cannot be considered inhuman.” 1:Leathel injection “In the USA, a number of lethal injection executions have been botched. Some executions have lasted between 20 minutes to over an hour and prisoners have been seen gasping for air, grimacing and convulsing during executions. Autopsies have shown severe, foot long chemical burns to the skin and needles have been found in soft tissue.” “Lethal injection was designed to prevent many of the disturbing images associated with other forms of execution. However, lethal injection increases the risk that medical personnel will be involved in killing for the state, in breach of long-standing principles of medical ethics.”(1) Due to the pain felt, and the amount of time it can take to die via lethal injection, it is clear that if there do exist ways to humanely kill, lethal injection is not one of them. 2: Justice I am not a philosopher by any means of the word, and so will not attempt defining Justice myself as it is a very deep concept. Instead I will just use the definition from an online dictionary. “the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness:”(2) By this definition, It becomes clear that to determine if the Death Penalty is or is not just, we must answer the following questions. A. Is capital punishment a demonstration of righteousness? B. Is capital punishment a demonstration of equitableness? C. Is capital punishment a demonstration of moral rightness? 3: Burden of proof I will end my rebuttal here because... A: This is the second round of a five round debate, meaning we still have time. B: This is my opponents first debate C: My opponent has the burden of proof.D: I have nothing left to refute. Due to these reasons, I fell it is right to let him address these questions and build his case before I present mine. (1) http://www.amnestyusa.org...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Death Penalty is the Law

Thank you for noticing, and thank you for the welcome. I"m going to address this debate short and simple, many of our audiences do not wish to read an essay I"m going to get straight to the points. Yes you, good sir, have got me there. It does seem as though I should have titled this debate carefully, due to the fact that I did say "Is Law" which should have stated "Is Justice". You are correct sir that in states, they have abolished this sentence. Federally though, this penalty is still in effect. Also know it is those that cannot sympathize are those who oppose that right. As it is ones right to an education, Brown vs. Board, states were against that right until it went to the Supreme Court. On the contrary, besides it being the law of the state that is issuing the death, putting down a lethal killer by lethal injection (the most human death as possible), cannot be considered inhuman. There are no lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion because if there were the jury probably would have not voted unanimously against someone. For it being unconstitutional, that is already out of the question, because at this very moment, Federally is support. Thus how can something be stated unconstitutional until the supreme court rules it unconstitutional. Also pro would like to clarify where Con stands in this debate, rather than arguing Pro"s reasoning. Pro: For, in support of, indicating favor for some party, system, and idea. Con: Against, in opposition or disagreement; in other words you are in support of the death penalty being injustice? Where are your reasoning might I ask you? http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The Death Penalty is the Law

I have noticed that this is your first debate… welcome to debate.org. Thanks for the Debate topic and good luck! 1:The Resolution The resolution states “The Death Penalty is the Law.” Burden of proof on pro… It is empirically evident that in the United States, there are some States that this is true. However, there are States that the Death penalty is against the law. “Capital punishment is legal in 32 U.S. states.”(1) This implies illegal in 28 States. Many countries do allow capital punishment. However many do not.(2) From these facts it is not possible to conclude that On balance “The Death Penalty is the Law.” As there are many countries were that is not the law. The Resolution being stated as an absolute with no indication of where my opponent is referencing, must be meant to include everywhere. As such the resolution is negated. My opponent does reference “unconstitutional” so it seems reasonable that he may be referring to the U.S. The Resolution applied to the U.S. is also negated as there are many states where the death penalty is against the law. 2: Rebuttal A: Definitions Inhuman: “lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like; cruel; brutal:”(3) Unconstitutional: “not constitutional; unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution, as of a country. “(4) B: Addressing pro’s argument Pro says that when people argue that the death penalty is “inhuman or unconstitutional,” their argument is “invalid and unrealistic.” His reasoning being… “this is the Law people, a law thought out carefully to uphold our justice, protecting our rights.” If I understand pro correctly, (as he verified in the comments) pro is saying that because the Death Penalty is allowed under some State laws, it is invalid and unrealistic to say the Death Penalty is inhuman or unconstitutional. Many laws in human history have been inhuman. Many laws have been struck down as unconstitutional. A law, simply being a law does not exclude the possibility of being inhuman or unconstitutional. Specifically the Death Penalty can easily be deemed “inhuman” as havingthe death penalty being executed lacks “qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like…” (definition of inhuman) Likewise, States have their own constitutions; Many of which outlaw the death penalty. Therefore, the death penalty can be labeled unconstitutional. 3: Conclusion Pro’s assumes that if something is law it cannot be referred to as inhuman or unconstitutional. This is not a reasonable conclusion as a law, simply being a law does not exclude the possibility of being inhuman or unconstitutional. The death penalty can easily be described as inhuman. The resolution is negated as it cannot be proven in its absolute form. There are many U.S. states, and several countries worldwide where the death penalty is against the law. (1)https://www.google.com... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)http://dictionary.reference.com... (4)http://dictionary.reference.com...
Cuphead is a Kirby ripoff

I'm sorry if i was unclear with my "different bosses" argument, every boss in it's own game is different. Ex: the Devil is different from the onion or Magolor is different from Whispy Woods. I made that argument beacause many people say it's the uniqueness of each boss that make it a good game while it isn't unique in that genre. My opponent states that different phases aren't unique to Kirby. That is true, but there aren't many 2d platforming games with very unique multiple stages bosses with many attack patterns that you could find exept for these two because the majority of multiple phases bosses are in 3d. My opponent also states that the shrinking mechanics are unique to cuphead, this isn't true, shrinking has also been seen in other kirby games. As for the super moves, they are also used in Kirby's space stage as you can see in this video at 00:28 : While i agree Cuphead isn't a Kirby ripoff, i think it stole alot of it's mechanics.
Cuphead is a Kirby ripoff

First we must address, similaritys doesn't mean a ripoff. Pro makes make an argument that Kirby and Cuphead holds similarity in bosses mechanics. My opponent admits that each boss is different, as such if each bosses are different they're not a ripoff. He than says each boss has alot of health, this is true to most video games, the boss will always have the most health, the boss is suppose to be a buildup, and it would make sense if the boss would have the most health. Different phases is not a unique game mechanic for Kirby. My opponent than makes an argument of the similaritys of Kirby Dreamland flying stage. This is different, in Cuphead flying stages their is a mechanic of shrinking, and uses super moves. My opponent makes an final argument that it holds alot of mechanics of Kirby. This is true, since they're both platforms it would make sense for similar mechanics, that doesn't mean it is a ripoff.
Cuphead is a Kirby ripoff

Since i first saw Cuphed, i thought it was a nice game. But it felt very familiar. It was in the second boss fight i noticed: it is really similar to Kirby bosses. Each boss is very different, has a lot of health, has different fases depending on their health, has multiple attack pattern and sometimes multiple bosses in one level. And you might argue: yeah, but how about the plane levels huh? And i'll respond saying: kirby has one that is also similar: in Kirby returns to Dream Land (Kirby's adventure Wii for the eastern) the last level in Halcandra before the final boss, there is a space level where Kirby is riding a dragon shooting projectiles forward. I'll however give Cuphead some credit beacause of it's unique art style, platforming levels, upgrading and shooting mechanics. Even IF Cuphead isn't a Kirby ripoff, it uses a lot of it's mechanics in it's game but people never think of that beacause Kirby games are frequently forgotten. You decide!