BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

I would like to start my argument by asking the Negative why he did not write his case. He is only attacking me, but he is not providing contentions himself. This is unfair to the Affirmative since the Affirmative can't question the Negative's case. Nevertheless, this is my first affirmative rebuttal. Presuming consent is related to the social welfare system because the whole point of presuming consent is to provide care for needy individuals and families. They may not seem related, but fundamentally they are similar. I was just telling you presuming consent is not a legal obligation, therefore respecting people's fundamental rights. I gave you my source that very few medical conditions prevent you from being and organ donor. If health is a concern, then the individual would choose to opt-out. If the doctors see that the person can't have his or her organs donated, then he or she would simply be disqualified as an organ donor and their body would go back to their family for the funeral. Your argument about health concerns isn't enough to prove that an opt-out system is unjust. The doctors will still check the body extensively and after the transplant, the body will be returned to the family. That process is the same thing as the one in the current opt-in system. My second point supports my value, which is morality. I explained that a just society would respect an individual's freedom to choose. I also explained how presumed consent would raise organ donation rates while still giving people the freedom to opt-out. Therefore, presuming consent is morally justified. My second point is the most important point in my case, since we are debating about morality and justice. Your argument that my second point is nonsense is nonsense. For your argument against my third contention, you are assuming many facts there. Plus, you did not consider the fact that presuming consent still gives people the option to opt-out. No matter what you say, I can respond to it because presuming consent still gives people the choice to opt-out. If no such option was available, then yes, it is unjust. However, that is not the case here. If the people are angry about an opt-out system, than they can choose to opt-out. They can't say they were never given the option. Your argument against Spain is your personal opinion. Unless you present a reliable source, it is not true. Spain has the highest organ donation rate in the world, so more lives are saved in Spain. I think you are the one who's confused about the utilitarianism argument. My argument was logical, and I had sources to back it up. I conclude that Con's argument was insufficient to deal with my points. Also, he did not have a case of his own. Therefore, he has ignored the LD format, which I presented in Round 1. I urge an affirmative ballot for those reasons.
Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

This social welfare system point may as well be dropped as I see no relevance of it. It is blatantly not on the same moral level as social welfare as they do fundamentally different things by who they help and how they go about enforcing it.As for the legal obligation point, I don't see why on Earth that was even relevant to bring up in Round 2 and the reason I challenged you on it was simply to prove that it supports my case a little more than yours but overall was an unnecessary point to raise.To qualify as an organ donor you have to prove yourself to be healthy. This means that regardless of disease, the person suffering from it is healthy. the diseases are thus non-genetic as it is logically implausible for a genetically healthy individual is suffering form a disease that hits those genetically prone to ill health (which are the diseases that require transplant usually).As for this freedom nonsense, I do not understand how presumed consent not impeding people's freedom to opt out remotely justifies presuming consent to begin with. This is simply a point to counter an attack on the freedom of presumed consent which is something I never did attack.Presuming consent doesn't solve the problems that you raised as most people would be opting out. Aside from this, this is not morally correct in the slightest even if it were true. The people opting out are not ignorant of organ donation, they are apathetic to it. They are probably very aware that exists as an option but just don't care about donating their organs. If you established presumed consent these apathetics would merely become angry that their body would be switched off faster when in vegetative state after an accident and sign out of it with a disdain for the party in power at the time which would probably lose quite a few elections to come.What Spain did has helped nothing. It has allowed the genetically prone to illness to outlive the genetically prone to good health then mate with partners who could otherwise have mated with genetically healthy individuals. It's all about the bigger picture here.In fact you ignored my entire utilitarianism argument altogether.I conclude that Pro has failed to uphold their BoP thus far.
Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

First of all, I never said it was not a legal concern, I just said it is not a legal obligation. This idea supports my point that presuming consent does not legally force people to donate their organs. Con has misunderstood my point, so his refutation for that is useless. Presumed consent is about the social welfare system. Unless con wants to challenge a definition from a dictionary, presumed consent is related to social welfare, if not to the system itself. As to your refutation for my first point, I believe you are mistaken. According to a study by Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.org...), very few medical conditions prevent you from donating your organs. And if the donor has bad genetics, he will be disqualified as an organ donor, therefore none of the problems you mentioned would happen. Remember, the doctors extensively check if you are eligible. My second contention upholds my value, which is morality. I am explaining why presuming consent is not a violation of freedom and human autonomy, and why that makes presuming consent morally justified. To respond to "why a person wouldn't sign up as an organ donor when they have been given a chance," let me ask you a question: Do you know when you are going to die? Pretend you're 23. Do you think that you're going to die in a month? Often people are ignorant of the fact they can die very soon. What about people who were planning to donate their organs and they died before signing up as an organ donor? Presuming consent solves these problems. As to my final point, it is not really ridiculous. When there is a policy change this large, more people know about it. Spain tried it out and has the highest donation rate in the world. Isn't raising the organ donation rate the whole point of changing to an opt-out system? All the countries who chose this had their organ donation rates raised tremendously. I conclude that presuming consent for organ procurement from the deceased is just, and I must affirm the resolution. I urge voters to cast a ballot for pro. Thanks for accepting con and good luck!
Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

This debate should be impossible to accept. If you want to accept, please comment. I will challenge you in a week or two. Please do not forfeit (except for the last round) The debate will follow the Lincoln-Douglas Debate format: R1: Acceptance R2: Affirmative Constructive; Cross Examination (optional) R3: Negative Constructive (and first negative Rebuttal); Cross Examination (optional) R4: First Affirmative Rebuttal; The Negative Rebuttal R5: The Second Affirmative Rebuttal; the negative can forfeit this round (say " I forfeit the round as agreed upon.") Update: For the 3rd and 4th round, I will limit myself to 5,000 characters. Also, you only have 24 hours to post your argument, so be ready! Finally, cross examination will be optional. The questions can be answered in the following round. Thanks and good luck!!!
Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.

Actually if you count the rounds, it wouldn't have been fair in the first place because the rules said Con has to forfeit the rounds with 1 less round than Pro has but all in all I believe I have already won this debate because Pro never successfully rebutted my points and the entire Utilitarianism point that I flipped on his case went uncontested and is the only remaining point that anyone has in their favor right now.The Spain issue is negated by the utilitarianism point of genetic natural selection that I raised.That is all. :)The rest of Pro's case is simply nullified by the points I raised, he further nullifies it in Round 4.BoP has not been upheld so I urge you to vote Con.Regards,vwv.
Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing (+ Transformed) Is Better Than Mario Kart Franchise

My opponent says "Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing (and Transformed) is far superior to the Mario Kart franchise in every possible way. Better graphics, better music, better controls, better game modes, better vehicles, better items, better track design, better AI, better challenge, better mechanics...you get the idea. With the exception of Mario Kart: Double Dash, Mario Kart DS, and Mario Kart 8". He states that Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing (and Transformed) is far superior to the Mario Kart franchise in every possible way. then he goes on saying with the exception of Mario Kart: Double Dash, Mario Kart DS, and Mario Kart 8.
Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing (+ Transformed) Is Better Than Mario Kart Franchise

Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing (and Transformed) is far superior to the Mario Kart franchise in every possible way. Better graphics, better music, better controls, better game modes, better vehicles, better items, better track design, better AI, better challenge, better mechanics. .. you get the idea. With the exception of Mario Kart: Double Dash, Mario Kart DS, and Mario Kart 8, all other Mario Kart games are inferior to the two Sega clones that Sumo Digital has to offer.
What Thanos did was right.

I am sorry for wrong rules set given in my first argument. Yes he could create more resources but that would be wrong as the universe is constant and it is we who change. Changing the universe would be the violation of the laws of nature. Also, we people would take it as a good sign and reproduce more and the new resources would fall short before long. Making half the Universe sterile would wipe out a lot of people races. Thanks did not want that. He wanted each and every race peacefully. And we have no evidence of a meteor burning his planet. It may have been a war that did it. And he did not gamble his own life as he was the last Titan remaining. He wanted all races to live.
What Thanos did was right.

Thanos was paying attention to an important problem of overpopulation, but he was going about it the wrong way. Killing off half the universe wasn't the right way to approach the problem. The question on everyone's mind is if he could kill half the universe in a snap why not make more resources or convert dust into resources for everyone. He could have also made a large portion of the universe sterile to prevent them from mating. While his heart was seemingly in the right place he didn't take enough time to think of all the other options to solving the universes problem. The one example proving he was right in the movie was his home planet which we saw in ashes, BUT he may have been lying to try to convince the heroes not to fight him. There is no way we could confirm his story that overpopulation was the sole reason for the demise of his planet. It could have been an asteroid or something else that caused it's demise and he's just so delusional to the point he can't accept any other reasons for his people dying. It also is morally wrong. He didn't include himself in the half of the universe to be killed. He should have been willing to take the gamble that he would die as well if he wanted to speak for everyone else. We know that he didn't gamble his own life because he mentioned how the survivors would thank him, meaning he planned to live on. The creators of the movie also tried to get us to understand the "We don't trade lives" philosophy with spider man's tragic death. So many families separated because of Thanos being so closed minded.
What Thanos did was right.

Most of have watched the latest Marvel's Infinity War. Thanos was depicted as a villain who wanted to bring balance to the universe by killing have thy population in it. I strongly believe that what he did was for the right cause. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rules of debate: 1. NO abuses. 2. 1st round: Acceptance. 3. 2nd round: Starting Points 4. 3rd round: More points / Rebuttals 5. 4th round Conclusion / No new points. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Thanos did was right.

The fact is we don't know whether or not he was lying. No personal experience or analyzation can dtermnine that. The idea that preserving the laws of nature is more important than life is a completely opinion. One where he majority of people would probably disagree. Your arument against sterilization was that the population would go down, but he erased half the universe. If half the universe was sterile then half the population could still populate. The main reason I want to discuss this debat e is because of third world countries with overpopulation. I don't genocide to be even considered when the much better solution is to have people stop making babies. Another problem was the assumption that genocide would be to third world countries if Thanos existed and this happened you and I would also be at risk of dying.
What Thanos did was right.

How can it not make sense to you? He was wise enough to understand the laws of nature and not incur its wrath by changing the boundaries of the nature. The universe was already dieing. Making half the universe sterile would take time, untill then full populations would have become extinct. Thanks doesn't lie because for him he is all powerfully,no truth can harm him. No one lies when they are in grief. He told the reason after the death of Gamora. He was grieving. Also overpopulation is the worst problem ever. Densely populated countries like India and understand that.
What Thanos did was right.

To say it is wrong to create more resource to me doesn't make any sense, becauase he just wiped out half the universe. Making more resources would be worse than that. Also Thanos mentioned half of humanity would be spared so he ended up wiping out entire populations instead of half of every population. Making half the universe sterile would decrease the universes population without anyone having to die. Finally my point with Thanos's home planet is that overpopulation may not be as bad of a problem as he states if it was not the reason for his planet dying.
A Libertarian Society Would Benefit the United States of America.

I'll try to clarify as many of my views as possible. I don't want any censorship, I don't want any laws against: soft drugs, suicide, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, pre-third trimester abortions, flag/money burning, prostitution, or consented sex. The laws I want are laws against assault, murder, stealing, and damaging someone else's property without their consent. What I want is an overall Libertarian society for individuals with overall democratic economy. You keep bringing up the Grand Canyon example, so this is my final answer: I believe in the right to purchase land, but the current owners of national parks care more about preserving their land than money. They will hand down their land in their wills to people they trust not to ruin the land. "Who said the government will be making rehabilitation centers?" I didn't say the government will be making rehabilitation centers, I said they would probably need taxes to help pay for them. But even if we could keep rehabilitation centers open without taxes, that wouldn't be the only problem with hard drugs. Most hard drugs such as PCP make users very likely to hurt someone or their property. In my opinion, it would be better to keep hard drugs illegal but legalize soft drugs, than to legalize hard drugs and deal with all the problems it would create. "While what my opponent state may be true, it is also evident that many humans follow the greedier side of their nature and really couldn't care less about future generations." Not caring about the environment could affect people in the very near future, not the distant future. Many people care about how their kids' lives are going to be, or the grandkids' lives. The victims are valued more than the perpetrators, that's why it's illegal to murder and steal. "If you mean to say that in libertarianism that your talking about, not caring for the environment in your own property lands and not supporting a military etc. etc. are all illegal by law because it would end up hurting the future possibility of freedom, then I would have to tell you that what your saying is not libertarianism." I couldn't care less if you were pulling up all the plants in your backyard and cutting down all the trees, but if you built a giant factory on your property that polluted as much as it wanted, then there's no question that it would be hurting other people. I'm not saying people have to support the military, as I don't support it going to fight in Iraq. I'm saying people should pay taxes to support a military defending the country. If no one was paying to support defense, then we wouldn't be ready the next time terrorists attack because they think they'll get 72 virgins in heaven.
A Libertarian Society Would Benefit the United States of America.

I would like to ask my opponent one more time then to clarify his views about the list of topics the party platform provides as libertarianism. It is true not all members of the democratic or republican party follow the views of the party platform to the letter yet if we were to debate we would use the platform as a common frame of reference. I am sorry I find myself incapable of knowing my opponents specific views in all topics to provide possible counter arguments so I will contend myself with what he has made explicitly clear so far. "Your statement about the Grand Canyon also doesn't make sense because according to you, if you're rich then you can buy the Grand Canyon. The owners of the Grand Canyon obviously don't want it to be ruined, so they wouldn't let it be bought for any sum of money." Why would it be necessary that the owners of the Grand Canyon don't want it to be ruined? well what if they do its their canyon after all, what if they want to turn it into a money making scheme that will make them rich now filled with malls parking lots and the rest of our nice little industries? There is no guarantee what humans want or will want, holding such opinions is naive at least, dangerous at most. "Not paying taxes does hurt other people, along with using physically addictive drugs because of the tax dollars needed to pay for the rehabilitation centers." Who said the government will be making rehabilitation centers? as far so I know in a libertarianism society the government is only meant to hold a very minimal role in the lives of the people. "Not caring for the environment obviously hurts other people because it could eventually lead to the earth not being habitable for future generations." While what my opponent state may be true, it is also evident that many humans follow the greedier side of their nature and really couldn't care less about future generations. now if your saying that we should leave it to the human character and nature to care for nature and be good I would say your naive, wrong and history would serve as a giant example to disprove you. If you mean to say that in libertarianism that your talking about, not caring for the environment in your own property lands and not supporting a military etc. etc. are all illegal by law because it would end up hurting the future possibility of freedom, then I would have to tell you that what your saying is not libertarianism.
A Libertarian Society Would Benefit the United States of America.

You mentioned that if I don't completely agree with lp.org's ideas about Libertarianism, then I'm not arguing for Libertarianism. This is not true because there is no concrete definition for a Democracy or Republic either. Democrats have different opinions about issues, along with Republicans. You can still be a Democrat if you're Pro-Life, that doesn't make you a Republican. You can be labeled as a Democrat or Republican if you overall agree with most of one political party's ideas over another's. I overall agree with Libertarianism. If you aren't allowed to hurt anyone in a Libertarian Society, then why should you be the cause of government funded things such as roads and buildings going into disrepair because of not enough taxes to pay for them? And why should you be allowed to put others in danger by not helping with the upkeep of a military defending the country? Not paying taxes does hurt other people, along with using physically addictive drugs because of the tax dollars needed to pay for the rehabilitation centers. Not caring for the environment obviously hurts other people because it could eventually lead to the earth not being habitable for future generations. Your statement about the Grand Canyon also doesn't make sense because according to you, if you're rich then you can buy the Grand Canyon. The owners of the Grand Canyon obviously don't want it to be ruined, so they wouldn't let it be bought for any sum of money. My idea for this society isn't just a few borrowed Libertarian ideas, it's all of the individual rights of a basic Libertarian society with a different economic system.