BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kony a good person who is doing the right thing

I shall approach this round in 3 quick sections. 1) Re-addressing my arguments My opponent has basically accepted my definitions and value system ("...i am glad he defined everything and whatnot."). My opponent has also admitted that Kony is doing what he believes is best for his people. He is not acting in his own self interest and masking it as "good for his people," he truly believes that what he is doing is right. Now, under the virtue moral system laid out in R1, this is an acceptance that he is a good person who is doing the right thing. Technically, this is all that is needed for this debate, but I shall continue with my opponent's arguments for the sake of debating. 2) Addressing my opponent's arguments My opponent claims that Kony "rapes" and "kills" but offers no sources for those claims. I will counter these arguments regardless in two fold. First, it does not matter if these are the most efficient means to achieve his desired results, as the results justify the means under our given moral system, and as long as his desired results are moral, than ANY means to achieve them are moral. Second, you've provided no sources for Kony raping or killing anyone. While this technically counts as a strawman, I will counter what I believe you mean. There are plenty of sources for Kony's forces killing people and whatnot, but those are the actions of his followers, not him. It is illogical to claim that because his followers do something, that HE does something. For example, one could not logically say that Patrick Doyle (CEO of Domino's Pizza) delivered pizza to my front door just because one of his employees did so under the policy that he supports. One could also not say that Obama took a piss on some dead Taliban soldiers just because some US soldiers did (though not under our policy). We can conclude that you cannot simply pass the buck up the chain. One is only responsible for the actions that one makes. 3) Recommendations for my opponent. I will admit that I'm slightly put off that my opponent wouldn't read my entire arguments (when they weren't even that long) and would actually admit it in the debate. If my opponent is not interested in a serious debate and just wants to hear what some people think, a forum thread might be a better option for future questions like this. Anyway, since no new facts were presented in my argument, no sources were needed for them. I pass back to my opponent for their final round.
Kony a good person who is doing the right thing

However, his methods ARE questionable. The topic of the debate is that Kony is a good person, which could be simply defined as a human overall positive things. The lesser of two evils, at least. However, does rape and killing acheive this in the best way? Morally? Economically? Politically? Thought not. i dont think this needs to be a debate about philosophy (country A invades country B, who is right ect. ) but rather a collection of opinions on the matter. Sorry for the somewhat laidback attitude and genaral casual approach but as i said, i am curios to see the possible pros of Kony rather than have a serious debate. Plus, i am fairly young and have no desire to commit completely to this topic, or simply any topic.
Kony a good person who is doing the right thing

Since I am PRO, and my opponent has not bothered to do so, I shall define some of the words in my resolution. "Kony", of course, is referring to Joseph Kony, leader of the LRA [1]. "Good" is a moral statement. Since I am pro and defending the resolution, I get to decide what moral code "good" falls under. Unless my opponent wishes to argue for an objective moral code (which he would have the BOP), this is what we will measure by. We shall use Machiavellian Virtue ethics code [2][3]. To simplify, Machiavellianism can be summed up by his single most famous line "The end justifies the means. " And Viture ethics can be summed up as the intent of an action determines its moral standing, rather than any results or rules that are followed/broken. Following this, we can state that the end intent justifies any means. A simple example would be if a girl asks "does this dress make me look fat? " Saying "no" would be morally acceptable since the end you were attempting to reach out weighs the act of lying, and you had a good intent on not wanting to hurt her feelings (unless you were saying "no" so that she would go around town and have others laugh at her, that's not cool dude). Now that we have Kony and the our moral compass defined and set, we can get going with this debate. The rest of the words should be understood by their common modern meaning (no semantics). I shall also like to state (though it should be understood, I will still state it) that to be a "good person" one must not be 100% good, just like to be a "bad person" one must not be 100% bad. It is not a one or the other dichotomy, but a sliding scale, where a "good person" is one who does mostly good, and a "bad person" is one who does mostly bad. This is being stated so that there is no impression in my opponent's (or the voters') mind that all he has to do is show a single "bad" thing. I shall now argue that Kony is, indeed, a good person who is doing the morally right thing. All of Kony's work is for the purpose of "cleans[ing] the Acholi people. " [4] Under our moral code, Kony has set an ethical goal with an ethical intent. We may not agree with the means that he uses, but that does not matter when it comes to the morals of the person. This single line of argument is all that is needed for now. I will let my opponent now make their counter arguments and remind them that anything they claim needs to be supported (like claiming that he kills and rapes). [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] . http://news.bbc.co.uk...
That we should restrict free speech to combat the rise of right-wing populism

Physical harm should be illegal, as it is, and so should speech advocating violence, as it is. So if somebody says "all Jews should be exterminated," that should be illegal. Saying "white people are the superior race" is racist, but it should not be illegal because it does not advocate violence or cause physical harm to someone. People who say this stuff are not responsible for what others do after they listen to what the former has said (again, unless the person is telling people to commit violence). If I say "let's replace democracy with dictatorship" that would be threatening democracy, and according to you it should be illegal, but again, it does not physically threaten or harm anyone and therefore putting someone in jail for saying that violates their rights.
That we should restrict free speech to combat the rise of right-wing populism

I think your characterization of the right-wing is a bit off but that's beside the point. By restricting free speech you're saying you wanna throw someone in jail for saying a certain thing, or at least throw them out of business. Obviously not all speech should be free; physical threats, child porn, and some other egregious things should not be allowed. However, part of having a free society is being able to freely exchange ideas and restricting free speech restricts the communication of views. It's also a slippery slope: if right-wingers are a threat according to some, can I say leftists are a threat and restrict their speech too?
That we should restrict free speech to combat the rise of right-wing populism

Words don't harm people, actions do. Again, if any action brings physical harm to somebody then it should be illegal but words do not do that. What you're saying is we should censor certain things that you don't like. I'm onto you; you're purposely making your argument super long and wordy so I won't have time to counter it all. Come on, somebody who's honest about debating would not do that. Bottom line: it violates people's rights to ban them from saying things that are inconvenient to you. Actions that threaten democracy can be illegal, but not words.
That COD is better than BF3

Well I have ps3 and Xbox both have host problems. So also call of duty comes out with a game almost each year witch means almost the same exact graphics as last and a almost the same type of game play every time , battlefield comes out with a game it takes a few years because they want to perfect there games so that its different and better than the last. All's I and most gamers of the world love better graphics it makes us feel like were there on the battlefield ourselves playing as a team (this is multiplayer, and call of duty dose not play as a team there always scattered) on big maps and vehicles that you and your team can use to your advantage but the other team has the same advantages making the whole game fair and fun for most if not all players on multiplayer
That COD is better than BF3

First of all people who play COD do not look for its campaign they look at their multiplayer. BF3 its tries to be realistic as possible, secondly if you play on a PC then the servers work great but i'm not sure about xbox and ps3. Thirdly in any game that has multiplayer there are gonna be small kids acting big, thats why the companies put mute option in the game for a reason.For my computer finding a host takes less than 10 seconds but like i said before not sure about consoles
That COD is better than BF3

Well I am a avid gamer I play both call of duty and battlefield 3. There is much more to bf3 than its graphics. The campaign gives you a sense of what is really going on now in the world and for me it gives me more respect to our service men and women over seas (by the way this tis my first debate) . Also off the general game play call of duty servers are overly terrible .. finding hosts all the time and most people who play that are children, young kids who say faggot like a homophobic machine gun and its too cartoony getting closer to halo graphics than real life. Also people are more immature and quit the game constantly and gos back to finding host and wasteing my time. Call of duty is a arcade game compared to bf3.
That COD is better than BF3

Call of Duty is better than Battlefield 3 not because its realistic but because its fun and action packed, but BF3, it tries to make the game as realistic as it can and that is the flaw about BF3, a games point is to make you entertained not to make a real life world inside a black box. BF3 terrains are live so it constantly changing the terrain some people may say that's action packed but imagine shooting someone then the building falls in between you two and you have to go around and then get the kill.
My opinions are more important, accurate, and meaningful, than your opinions

Congratulations, you quoted the bible, a book written by a bunch of superstitious men with almost no grasp on reality. Since you're using the bible as your source, if a christian votes on this debate then you'll win, if an atheist votes then i'll win. The world is biased on these things one way or another. Just because an ancient book says you're better than non-believers(yet at the same time says everyone is equal or, "all god's children") does not mean it is true. You need facts to back your claim up, not ifs and maybes from a book with ridiculous claims.
Sexuality is not a big deal

Pro ,I am not homophobic. READ THE RESOLUTIONDear voters the resolution. "Sexuality is not a big deal"You are PRO for the resolution...which means you do NOT think it is....I however, do.How can sexuality not be a "Big Deal" if we would not exist without it?Surely if our existance is dependant upon sex, then this must at the very least qualify as a "BIG DEAL" ...Somthing that is essential to our existance...is certaintly somthing of enough substance to be described as a BIG DEAL....Therfore the resolution is clearly affirmed.Note that PRO has STILL yet to provide any arguments for the motion.
Sexuality is not a big deal

Pro , although i agree entirely with you regarding homosexuality, this debate is NOT about homosexuality...Dear voters the resolution. "Sexuality is not a big deal"You are PRO for the resolution...which means you do NOT think it is....I however, do.How can sexuality not be a "Big Deal" if we would not exist without it?Surely if our existance is dependant upon sex, then this must at the very least qualify as a "BIG DEAL" ...Somthing that is essential to our existance...is certaintly somthing of enough substance to be described as a BIG DEAL....Therfore the resolution is clearly affirmed.Further note that PRO has yet to provide any arguments for the motion.
Sexuality is not a big deal

Sexuality, there are lot but here are a few, Heterosexual-someone who is attracted to those of the opposite gender Homosexual-someone who is attracted to those of the same se Bisexual-Someone who is attracted both genders Why are the last two mentioned so much and hated? Bullies, that's all, homophobes. A homophobe is someone who has a dislike, fear, or prejudice against homosexuals. Usually because of religious reasons. People like infamous westboro baptist church who are highly hateful on homos and America as a whole. It begs the one question, why is it such a big deal? You are no more then the guy bullying the fat kid on the playground. I feel that the reason people hate homophobes is because they have nothing better to do in life. Research shows people who are racist or homophobic, or anything involving a prejudice against anyone actually decreases your lifespan, because of cardiovascular problems. I've looked everywhere on the Internet for answers telling me why it's wrong and not one mention a good reason, the bible is not a credible source because if religion is why, does your book not clearly state "you shall not judge because only Jesus can judge" the living and the dead, so why all the hypocrisy? If you can honestly can tell me being a homosexual is a choice, you yourself would have to be a closeted bisexual because they are the only ones who can clearly state that. There are people who seriously don't give the waitress a tip at the restaurant because they have to write a note that says "I'm sorry but I cannot tip you because I do not agree with your lifestyle" that is disgusting. You don't not tip someone because of their lifestyle but on service. You have no right to control other peoples' lives. Homosexuals don't control your life, so you don't control theirs. The fact that homophobia can actually KILL you is bad enough is it not? What happens is another persons bed is not your buissness. The fact that apparently criminals used to get more rights then homosexuals was disgusting. Why do we worry about these people so much? What about criminals? And the fact that homophobes immediately say you're gay for defending their rights and,they are just plain ignorant. The new children of the next generation were interviewed about a video about homosexuality, kids from around 5-13 years of age. Looking at them, children, are way more mature then some adults. They are saying its okay, because it is, humans, all of them, should be loved, pursue happiness and love their life to the fullest. The fact that LGB people of young age have a 4 times more likely suicide rate in homophobic areas, confused teens have 3 times more likely chance in homophobic areas. Or the fact the 19.3% of homocides involve some form of sexual bias, that is plain gross and disgusting. It makes me happy to hear that they're are some decent people who agree with me. When will the U.S. Truly be a free country?
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Global Temparture and solar activity: And here is manmade co2 emmissions compared to natural co2 emmissions: CO2 emmissions are a byproduct of capitalism, which creates wealth and a higher quality of living for people around the globe, co2 emmissions also create more plantlife. So by arguing for reduced co2 emmissions my opponent is arguing for global poverty and deforestation.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

First newmax.com is ultra conservative. "CEO of the uber-rightist Newsmax" [2]Second, temperatures are rising. Third, Antarctica ice increasing is consistent with global warming and in fact provides additional evidence that temperatures are rising. My opponent is in stage 1b of climate change denial. [3]You can read further about Antarctica ice here. [4] As for temperatures rising this seems like "Objection: Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over." [5]As you can see newsmax and John Casey cherry picked the evidence by starting at the hottest year and an anomaly. [6] This is a classic cherry picking fallacy. Picture should be here if not use link to see the cherry picked data s://grist.files.wordpress.com...; alt="https://grist.files.wordpress.com...; />https://grist.files.wordpress.com...Thanks for debating, it takes bravery to go against the grain. Sources.2. http://www.newscorpse.com...3. http://grist.org...4. http://grist.org...5. http://grist.org...6. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

First of all, what scientists say dis irrelevant, scientists used to think that the earth is flat, and even today they are telling us that GMO's are safe, even though foreign scientists have proven time and time againthat they are in fact not safe. Yet, this is the general concensus. Second of all, in Round 2 you tried to disregard my citation that global tempartures are in fact dropping because "newsmax is a conservative news site," as if someone being a conservative automatically discredits them. So this is prettty much just an ad-hominim attack. I could say that because all your citations are highly liberal that they are false. Either way, you claim that CO2 levels are increasing, which is true, and that tempartures are increasing, which is partialy true. But you are yet to prove that these temparture increases are caused by CO2 emmissions. I could say that since 1700 the number of Pirates on the high seas have decreased while global warming has increased, therefor pirates reduce the global temparture. Also do the math, if 3.25% of CO2 emmissions are man made, and 0.04% of ouratmosphere is CO2, {1} then the global temparture can only increase by 0.0013% as a result of CO2 emmissions. Mathmatically speaking, it makes no sense that such a small influence on the atmosphere can cause gobal warming. And look at this graph: It looks like the tempartures are increasing t a rapid rate, but if you accountfor the highest temparture anomaly we have is less than 1 degree celcius, and that it has developed over 76 years, then the idea of global warming being a threat to humanity is shewn to be completely absurd. {1}. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

"Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim." harrytrumanSunspots play a minimal role. As for CO2 levels only being a small part of the greenhouse gases this is true. Neverthless, naturally occuring CO2 is balanced out. Human industry made CO2 is not. Thanks for the debate.http://www.scientificamerican.com...
The minimum wage should not be raised to $15/hr for fast food workers

I accept with some reservations. Firstly, I'd like to point out that Pro is upholding the status quo, while I am trying to change that. Therefore, I have BOP in this case, unless pro advocates for abolishing Minimum wage entirely. I do not think that is his case, and thus I have BOP. The only reason why I am not making a case right now is due to the rules, otherwise with standard debate conventions I would be here. Secondly, I'd like to point out that I'm on debate dot org doing this debate. I think at this point it's well noted that I'm at a distinct disadvantage to that of my opponent who is a well noted Republican HOF'er, and that this website is well noted for favoring Republican ideology. I only ask, that instead of using the bias to dictate who did and did not win, that we remove it and only go by the merits of the debate it's self rather than ones bias. Thirdly, I also ask that we consider sources. I think that it isn't unreasonable to ask that the sources be considered for the audience due to how much "junk" is used on the internet to justify a position. I think we can agree to dismiss heavy partisan sources as illegitimate here today. Citing fox news or MSNBC for the impacts of minimum wage shouldn't be used here due to their intense bias'.Finally, I think it's important to note that internationally, New Zeland was the first country to impliment a minimum wage in the international community. While I agree with my opponent that we should assume the context of this debate takes place in the US, I think I ought to point out that the impacts of other countries in a similar situation to the US (mostly wealthy developed countries as well) ought to be considered legitimate as a form of a "controlled" experiment should the debaters wish to do so. A minimum wage is the lowest hourly, daily or monthly remuneration that employers may legally pay to workers. Equivalently, it is the lowest wage at which workers may sell their labor. should - Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions: "he should have been careful". Indicating a desirable or expected state: "by now students should be able to read". Fast food -Fast food is the term given to food that can be prepared and served very quickly, first popularized in the 1950s in the United States. While any meal with low preparation time can be considered to be fast food, typically the term refers to food sold in a restaurant or store with preheated or precooked ingredients, and served to the customer in a packaged form for take-out/take-away.And with those notes, I accept the debate challengeI wish my opponent the best of luck within this debate. Let's get it on!