BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is the fault of rape victims that rape happens

Definitions Pros definition of rape is flawed, as it does not address the issue of consent. As such I propose this addition to Pros definition of rape. Please note this is an add on to Pros definition not a replacement. Rape = Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent [1] CA: Premise 1: In order for a rape to occur, some form of sexual intercourse must be forced on to a recipient. From definition This premise is wrong, its possible to rape some one without using "force" for instance some one who is asleep or passed out. This is why I added lack of consent to the definition of rape. From wikipedia. .. .. .. . "the act may be carried out by force, under threat, or with a person who is incapable of valid consent. The term is most often defined in criminal law. " [2] Rape is possible without force, consider this excerpt from an article in The Age. .. .. "Attorney-General Rob Hulls told The Age: "If you want to have sex, you have to ensure that your partner is agreeing to that sexual act. It's not rocket science. There's an obligation, under this legislation, to turn your mind to the issue. " Mr Hulls said the change relating to unconsciousness addressed cases in which accused claimed they did not think about consent because the victim was asleep. " [3] CA: Premise 3: To be a rape victim, one would have to be resistant to the idea of a sexual act with the rapist. As shown above, the rape victim does not need to be resistant, the lack of consent by the victim is sufficient criteria to be a rape victim. Both Premise 1 and Premise 3 are shown false, thus the argument is unsound. "An argument is sound if and only if The argument is valid. All of its premises are true. " [4] The rape victim is not at fault for rape Seeing that I am required to make this argument as per rules. 1) A victim is not at fault for the crime committed against them 2) Rape is a crime 3) There fore a someone who is raped is not at fault for the rape. The rapist is at fault for the rape 1) Rape is a crime 2) Some one who has committed a crime is at fault for that crime (absent any extenuating circumstances) 3) A rapist is some one who has committed rape 4) Therefore the rapist is at fault for that rape (absent any extenuating circumstances) I look forward (not really) to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.theage.com.au... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
It is the fault of rape victims that rape happens

Definitions Rape: any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.[1] Fault: esponsibility for failure or a wrongful act.[2] Victim: a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency.[3] Argument Premise 1: In order for a rape to occur, some form of sexual intercourse must be forced on to a recipient. From definition Premise 2: It is logically impossible to forcefully impose sex on a willing agent. From definition Premise 3: To be a rape victim, one would have to be resistant to the idea of a sexual act with the rapist. From definition Conclusion 1: Because rape victims are resistant to the idea of a sexual act with a 'rapist', rape occurs. From definition Conclusion 2: Rape victims cause rape. From Con2 Conclusion 3: It is the fault of rape victims that rape occurs. From Con3 I await my opponent's response. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Should Brutus have killed Julius Caesar

As Lestat from interview with a vampire said "evil is a point of view". Hero"s and villains are determined more by dates and victories than actions. A traitor to one person may be a hero to another. Brutus thought he was serving a noble cause by defending the republic from a dictator. A beloved dictator but a dictator never the less. Caesar was changing the game. The people loved him, he seemed undefeatable in battle and he seemed to be rising to uncontrollable heights. Him and his fellow conspirator felt drastic action was necessary. Now did he accomplish his goal? In a way, Caesar was dead but a new dictator Augustus took his place. Who knows what would have happened if Caesar had not been assassinated, and murder is never the answer to one"s problems but the motivation for his actions are understandable however ultimately unsuccessful, in that he could not restore the republic. Should Brutus have done what he did is an objective question but he did what he felt was necessary to preserve and idea and way of life he felt was important enough to kill a friend for. However any action weather successful or failure is looked at through 20/20 lenses.
Should Brutus have killed Julius Caesar

"It is better to create than to learn. Creating is the essence of life." ~Julius Caesar. This quote reflected throughout Caesar"s life through the uprising of his empire, which he created, and even in his death he taught his subjects that being creative is an honor and that through creation many beautiful things are conceived .Caesar"s rule and death had a positive impact on the people of the Roman Empire therefore ruling Caesar"s death criminal. The murder of Julius Caesar by Brutus was not justified considering the empire was flourishing under his rule, he was a brilliant commander, and he had a strong connection with the local people. Under the rule of Caesar, the Roman Empire thrived. As a result of Caesar"s love for public speaking, he was adored by his fellow people and surrounding empires.Furthermore, as Caesar conquered a piece of land, the inhabitants were encouraged to join the Roman society and be part of government offices. " Thus he would join in one circle of his empire, bounded on all sides by the ocean." ( plutarch) After he had conquered the Parthians, he marched them through Hyrcania,took them across the Caspian Sea,the Caucasus, and the Coast of the Black Sea to attack Scythia, then with the new recruits he conquered Germany, accepting all of those who wanted to join his empire. The economy was also fair to the people with the reduction of taxes and his vigilant eye over the governors making, it so that they could not plunder the wealth of the people of the Roman Empire.
The Death Penalty should be illegal

First off I would like to apologize for adding to religion into this debate. Secondly I am going to keep this short. My opponent states that he believes living in confinement for an entire lifetime is a better punishment then the death penalty because then the inmate has some time to do his/her thinking and feel bad about what he/she did. However, sentencing someone to a lifetime in jail with no parole is the death penalty only its stretched out to wait until you die instead of just ending it. I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. It has been fun.
The Death Penalty should be illegal

Valid points however: 1. "The answer to that question is simple. The "eye for an eye" way of thinking is immoral. Very immoral. Killing a murderer makes you no better than the murderer." The "eye for an eye" way of thinking is not always immoral. If a kid were to steal something and then you steal something from him. That would not be the correct way to punish him. However, when a person kills another person, something needs to be done. Dying is a very final thing, and allowing a person that ended someone else's life to live out his entire life even if it is in jail will not fully punish him. Let him face the death penalty and be judged by God. 2. "Closure to the family? What kind of family would get closure from watching a person die? That's sick. A truly mature and moral family would take comfort in knowing that the particular inmate that killed their family member had issues and his/her issues are being fixed and that the murderer would not harm anyone else. Any family that takes comfort in watching a human being gets killed should, themselves, be arrested and imprisoned for their crumbling mental health." How would you feel knowing that the person that murdered your family member is still living, breathing, and walking on this planet? Not all people have issues that can get fixed by sitting in a cell. The death penalty may not be acceptable for all cases, but when a person knowingly kills another, they should be punished to the full extent. People don't enjoy watching other humans being killed. However, sometimes it is necessary. It allows the family to finally end the dreams that haunt you after a family member is killed. It also allows them to see the face of the murder and if he does apologize and feel bad for what he did. May God have mercy on him. 3. "My opponent clearly states that he believes that dying is worse than living in confinement. I haven't heard a more ignorant statement. Death is very final in nature, while life is full of opportunities. For example, a man murders another man at while attending college. He is sentenced to life in prison without option of parole. He, at first, feels no regret in killing the unfortunate victim. But, after living the same routine every day, and having plenty of thinking time, the murderer thinks on his action and feels great regret. He lives the rest of his life feeling terrible about what he did. That, in my opinion, is the best possible punishment for a murderer." Dying doesn't have to be worse than confinement. Dying can be a new beginning. If the person feels bad for what he did God will forgive him. Also, a life in confinement is not full of opportunities. It is just torture. That is immoral. If he has to take his entire life to realize that what he did is wrong then he really has problems. It also sounds like you feel that locking a man away for his life is a better form of revenge. It isn't about revenge. It is about the correct punishment.
The Death Penalty should be illegal

My refutations:1. "If you take another persons life without an acceptable reason why should you be allowed to continue your own?"The answer to that question is simple. The "eye for an eye" way of thinking is inmoral. Very inmoral. Killing a murderer makes you no better than the murderer. 2. "Even though the death penalty may be expensive it gives a sense of closure for the victims family."Closure to the family? What kind of family would get closure from watching a person die? That's sick. A truly mature and moral family would take comfort in knowing that the particular inmate that killed their family member had issues and his/her issues are being fixed and that the murderer would not harm anyone else. Any family that takes comfort in watching a human being gets killed should, themselves, be arrested and imprisoned for their crumbling mental health. 3. "Also instead of just ending the inmates life, you force him/her to live the rest of his/her life in a cell. I believe this to be like caging an animal and waiting for it to die. This is inhumane and cruel."My opponent clearly states that he believes that dying is worse than living in confinement. I haven't heard a more ignorant statement. Death is very final in nature, while life is full of oppurtunities. For example, a man murders another man at while attending college. He is sentenced to life in prison without option of parole. He, at first, feels no regret in killing the unfortunate victom. But, after living the same routine every day, and having plenty of thinking time, the murderer thinks on his action and feels great regret. He lives the rest of his life feeling terrible about what he did. That, in my opinion, is the best possible punishment for a murderer.
The Death Penalty should be illegal

I believe the death penalty is acceptable. I believe this based on 3 major reasons. 1. If you take another persons life without an acceptable reason why should you be allowed to continue your own? 2. Even though the death penalty may be expensive it gives a sense of closure for the victims family. 3. Also instead of just ending the inmates life, you force him/her to live the rest of his/her life in a cell. I believe this to be like caging an animal and waiting for it to die. This is inhumane and cruel. Best of luck. Lets have a good debate.
The Death Penalty should be illegal

As the topic states, I, pro, am strongly against the Death Penalty based on 2 major reasons. 1. The cost of executing an inmate costs much more than the cost of keeping that prisoner for a life term. Thus, the Death Penalty is extremely inefficient. 2. Killing an inmate as an act of revenge is extremely immoral. Saying otherwise is hypocritical and ignorant. I wish Con good luck, and I hope for a great debate!
Sex Ed should be taught in schools

Sorry, but if you wanted that to change you should have commented. I can't change that now. The reason I made in 5000 was because I didn't want this to be too formal. School is a place of learning School is no doubt a place of education. That's where we send our students to learn. We learn about mostly everything in school why would you oppose something as basic as human sexuality. Parents have limited knowledge about sex Ask your parents about this right now and see how many they get right. All the parts of the female reproductive system, all the parts of the male reproductive system, all glands responsible in reproduction and puberty, all the stages in male and female puberty, what are all of the major STDs, their causes, their signs and symptoms and how to prevent them, what protection do you need to use during Cunnilingus, all of the major birth control methods, their cost, effectiveness and how to use them. Unless you have a doctor or sex ed teacher for a parent then most likely they got half of these wrong. My arguments are going to be mostly based of of the Ontario curriculum. Maybe if you ask an american sex ed teacher this they wouldn't know, but a Canadian or a least an Ontarian one would. These are the things that students learn in sex ed and though they might not think it is important some of this information can save their life. Knowing the parts of the reproductive system can help them better communicate with doctors if they have any problems, knowing the forms of birth control can help them know what's best for them, knowing symptoms of an STD can help them know if they need to go to the doctors. Most teens most likely wouldn't seek out this information they know condoms exist and heterosexual sex is penis in vagina, but if all of the sudden they got blisters and fever symptoms they wouldn't know they had herpes until it was too late. We don't ask parents to teach their kids how the respiration system works. Why should we tell them to teach kids about sexuality. Teens are sexually active 46% of teens have had sexual intercourse[1]. So the least we can do is make sure that they know how to be safe when they have it. Citation [1]https://www.dosomething.org...
People on debate.org need to get their resolutions/arguments straight.

Greetings. The way people make their arguments on debate.org is their choice, and it's fine how it is. There are a few assertions my opponent has made; he was kind enough to list them at the bottom of his opening argument. The first on the list is that "Members should not create topics that have grammatical errors." However, my opponent has completely failed to mention any reason for this. as far as I'm concerned, a naked assertion is not a valid argument. I ask my opponent to please back it up in round two. Next on the list, my opponent asserts that "[Members should not create topics that have] double-negatives" In his first paragraph, this is pretty much the point he attempts to make. However, it is the duty of the "Contender" to fully understand what position their acceptance of a challenge places them in. If you don't want to have to be against "Income tax is not unconstitutional," don't accept the challenge. Not only that, but consider the following: at least from some people's perspectives, there is almost always a point in the middle. For example... Tedddy bears. While they're surely not unconstitutional, many people would not see them as 'constitutional' either, since they have nothing to do with the constitution. Therefore, "Teddy bears are not unconstitutional" would have very different implications than "Teddy bears are constitutional." Another problem you bring up is people including 'not' in their topics. Apparently this is too confusing for you. However, while it may take a few extra seconds to understand the position, the confusion ends there. I think you and hopefully all of us here are smart enough to figure out what a double negative means. Also, in some cases, it completely changes the meaning of the debate. Take, for instance, the recent debate between my opponent and myself: "PS3 is a bad system to own." As con, I only had to show that it was at least mediocre. However, if the topic was "PS3 is not a good system to own," I would have had to show that the PS3 was in fact good. Using or not using not determines which side of the fence the middle ground is located. The "neither constitutional nor unconstitutional," the "neither good nor bad." To wrap it up, I'd like to say that my opponent is placing an unnecessary burden on debate-makers. If you, as potential contenders, do not want to take a certain topic, you don't have to. While some might prefer not having the confusion, some others might enjoy it. What an instigator should and should not do in his/her topics rests solely in the hands of the instigator. Whether or not they will get a challenger rests solely in the hands of potential contenders. If a topic doesn't make sense to you, don't contend in it.
People on debate.org need to get their resolutions/arguments straight.

A lot of people on debate.org make their arguments things such as double-negatives. It gets very confusing. For instance, consider this: "Income tax is not unconstitutional." The person who accepted this round thought he was debating that it was constitutional and 'Conceded' the round. Also, take a more simple one: The big bang theroy is not true. People, they give you a choice to be pro or con. On the description of 'Con' here, it says I am against the topic. So are you against the big bang or against the against big bang? What? It's just way to confusing. My advocacy: Members should not create topics that have grammatical errors, double-negatives, or that just don't make sense. Be open to taking Con on your own debate.
An officer exersizing self defense should not be condemed with the title "Police Brutality"

The other team is pro, meaning they agree that an officer exercizing self defense should NOT be condemed with the title of police brutality. I, as the con team, agree that an officer exercizing self defense SHOULD be condemned with the title of police brutality. I gave serveral reasons for my side all of which con has ignored, meaning he agrees to them (silence is concession in debates). Thus pro agrees that we can actually reduce and stop the problem of police brutality being that the labeling of all police self defense as brutality will lead to political change. Secondly he conceedes that the very action of exercizing those rights to vote is enough to vote con. I do NOT agree to pro's side, pro clearly didn't read my argument at all and he can no longer refute these claims in the last round, as this is unfair to me, and gives me no time to refute his arguments, PRO has lost this without a doubt. Thanks for reading.
Phoenix Wright is a better lawyer than Miles Edgeworth

I thank LM for this debate. OBJECTION! http://i223.photobucket.com... "The final case in the second Phoenix Wright game most clearly demonstrates Edgeworth's superiority over Mr. Wright. He could have won that trial at any time, yet chose to prolong it to get to the truth. Even in the end, Phoenix canonically lost the trial." HOLD IT! You state Edgeworth is superior to Phoenix, however, in the first game, Phoenix squares of against Edgeworth twice, and wins both times. Phoenix is currently 2-0. In the second game, Edgeworth wins in the canonic ending. Now it's 2-1. In the third game, Phoenix does not face Edgeworth, therefore, Phoenix has beaten Edgweworth twice, but Edgeworth has only beaten Phoenix once. So, when they go head to head, Phoenix is ultimately prevalent, TAKE THAT! http://i153.photobucket.com... "The only times Phoenix has successfully gotten a "not guilty" against Edgeworth has been due to outside factors that have nothing to do with Phoenix's own skill (i.e. Maya showing to effectively finish the trial, Edgeworth cross-examining his own witness right when the judge was about to end the trial in Edgeworth's favor, etc). Luck/outside help does not equal skill." HOLD IT! While this may be true, Phoenix displays his skills in other trials. In the fist trial of Apollo Justice, he effectively wins he trial for Apollo. He has also lost only 1 case, and Egdeworth has lost 2. However, when we factor in the fact you say Mia Fey helped him, that still only means he "lost" 2 cases, and that puts him on equal ground with Edgeworth, which still negates the resolution. TAKE THAT!
Phoenix Wright is a better lawyer than Miles Edgeworth

http://www.youtube.com... With this being the final round, I'm gonna wrap up a few things in terms of what you ought to vote off of: 1) The final case in the second Phoenix Wright game most clearly demonstrates Edgeworth's superiority over Mr. Wright. He could have won that trial at any time, yet chose to prolong it to get to the truth. Even in the end, Phoenix canonically lost the trial. 2) The only times Phoenix has successfully gotten a "not guilty" against Edgeworth has been due to outside factors that have nothing to do with Phoenix's own skill (i.e. Maya showing to effectively finish the trial, Edgeworth cross-examining his own witness right when the judge was about to end the trial in Edgeworth's favor, etc). Luck/outside help does not equal skill. Keeping these points in mind, there may be reason to suspect that Phoenix is simply a better character or has a better heart than Edgeworth. However, a better lawyer? Not a chance as the games clearly indicate otherwise. ME: http://i153.photobucket.com...