BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is wrong to kill a person in cold blood for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

First of all, it is quite possible to kill for the proverbial "no reason" however this generally relates to some sort of psychological disorder. Sexual sadism, "daddy issues," etc. But, that being said, even killing out of your control (if you believe in a disorder that makes it beyond your control) is, in fact, killing for a reason (the reason being that you're psychologically drawn to these actions and can't bring your conscious mind to control your unconscious mind). Morality is relative, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A murderer may believe murdering is acceptable, but that doesn't mean others have to consider it acceptable. Morals are dependent on the person but social norms are known by everyone, which is why psychopaths have no guilt as they have lost the social plot. Secondly, with or without morality - if you believe it is impossible to kill for no reason then you in fact believe that it is wrong or unnatural to kill for "absolutely no reason whatsoever. " The base question in this argument is purely reliant on if you have or do not have morals. Let me ask you a question: "If someone were to kill you tomorrow because you looked at them wrong, would you want them to be punished? " If you answer yes I would like to make the following response: "Then, you must really believe that it is wrong to kill for no reason or you wouldn't see it fair to punish someone for such an act. " Dear voters, please consider your decision carefully. If you choose con you are not saying it is okay to kill, but you are saying that is not wrong to kill.
It is wrong to kill a person in cold blood for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I'll make this as brief as I can. Dropped Argument: 1. My opponent completely dropped my first argument that tells you there is no such situation as selfless killing. Since it is impossible for such a situation to exist, we can not make a statement as to whether it is moral or not, and thus you default Con as I told you previously. Refutations (these will go by paragraph): 1. My opponent makes a hasty generalization and assumes that people agree with his position, however in the context of a debate one can not make such a claim without proper justification. Furthermore, imaginary morality is not a legitimate argument because a. my opponent can change his interpretation of it at any point in this debate and b. it is unfair to assume I can argue against a state of moral thought that my opponent can create and change at will. 2. Dude, if morality had such a strong hold on people then we wouldn't have human rights abuses, pretty straight forward. 3. This basically contradicts with my opponent's position, my opponent is trying to prove a universal norm by affirming the resolution. However, here he admits that morality is infinitely subjective and is not equivalent for each human being. Thus, he admits that objective morality does not exist and thus we can not make a statement that appeals to objective morality.
It is wrong to kill a person in cold blood for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

I will accede that for (PRO) to be true then morality must also exist. My opponent makes the statement that morality does not exist, yet, I would naturally assume that a vast percentage of people would (morally) agree that PRO is correct. Isn't that interesting? I further state that morality exists, even if it only exists in an imaginary sense. Real, or imaginary morality, it still has a strong hold on perhaps every thinking human in some way, whether they wish to admit it or not. In addition, if imaginary morality has such a strong foothold and effect, I state that morality indeed does exist but has different rules for each individual human being.
It is wrong to kill a person in cold blood for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Hope everybody had a lovely winter break, and on that note let's get rolling with the debate. 1. I contend that there is no such situation where a person can be killed with no real intentions, gain, etc. Even a cold-blooded murderer kills either for amusement or to satisfy some psychological problem. Other murders include those to acquire retribution, where one kills to satisfy there own sense of justice. Additionally, punitive murder seeks to punish somebody for a wrong. What we see now is that it is impossible for one to be killed for absolutely no reason whatsoever. My opponent must first prove that there is a situation in the real world where one can be killed for a selfless cause, if not you default Con since the resolution is negated if the situation is impossible to carry out to begin with. 2. Assuming Pro proves that such a situation exists, my opponent has never proved that objective morality exists. The statement that "it is wrong to do so" establishes an ideal that no matter where such a crime occurs, it is wrong. This is a form of objective morality, that is, a morality not dependent on individual factors. If we ignore for a moment compelling religious arguments on this subject, one sees that in the world today different countries have their own law and legal systems.They also all have different notions on what is morally wrong and/or morally correct. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is frequently abused and ignored, thus this is not a valid justification for objective morality. In light of all this evidence, it's clear that there is no such thing as objective morality and thus there is no universal moral wrong with the situation my opponent has depicted. Summary: 1. It's impossible for one to kill selflessly. 2. Objective Morality does not exist.
is it wise for NATO forces to threaten Russia with a missile defense shield in Europe

The Nato Defense shield is pretty defensive. Putin knows it is defensive and he knows it is not a threat. By focusing on these shields he can take the focus of voters off of his bad leadership skills and the shape of his country. http://www.nato.int...NATO says "Moscow’s confrontational position on missile defence has proven politically expedient for a Russian government that has built its legitimacy on the necessity to defend Russia from external enemies. Now, when Russia is entering a full-fledged economic crisis that could affect the political allegiances of the Russian population, the Kremlin needs to revive the issue of BMD – a welcome enemy that contributes to the justification for government survival. The Kremlin has been formally opposing the deployment of BMD on the basis that it would pose a threat to Russia’s nuclear deterrent and Russian security. Moscow has been using this strategy to prove Russia is a besieged nation surrounded by hostile powers. Putin used the example of missile defence in his February 2007 speech at the G8 Security Conference in Munich, while Medvedev referred to missile defence as a justification for military upgrades in 2011."
Video Game tutorials

Well in reference to the VR section in ArmA 3, You are engaged in combat various times, some being unexpected. I'm calling that in game since you're actually in the action. In that point, I do believe it's a smart idea to have a player start off with an advantage which is essential what the idea of that is. However there is an extremely bad reason to that, and it lets the players think that the game will be easy and overall, let the players guard down, It's a smart plan. Further on, having a proper tutorial, like in the old game Battalion wars. They gave you a mission right off the start of the game to destroy enemy defenses, as the person showing you how to play game was giving you idiot-proof instructions on how to play. In this mission you weren't overpowered, but he showed to strategic movements and ways to get around enemy attacks, which is what players should learn in the game, and not learn to just rely on an overpowered start to win. With the logic the games that you gave an example from, you're putting in the players mind "Don't worry, with all this powerful gear, you'll be unstoppable! Who needs strategy? You've got POOOOWWEEEER!". Tutorials should have strategy and control mixed together to make you a smarter player.
Video Game tutorials

In your first post, you referenced a vr section in Arma 3. I assumed you meant a separate section from the game in that way. Super Mario had a genius opening level which allowed the player to quickly grasp mechanics; the screen off center initially so the player learns to move right, the first enemy being clear and the first mushroom difficult to avoid, ensuring the payer understands to jump on goombas and collect mushrooms. Assassin's Creed 1 began with every item and a full healthbar so the player had time in the opening defence of Masayaf to understand the basics of combat and later of climbing. These features were removed and the given back piece by piece, so that the opening was not as much a tutorial as it was an opening narrative, and the sudden loss of power fitting for both balance and story. Tutorials in your sense are a break in the flow of a game, and distance the learning of controls from the rest of the game.
Video Game tutorials

I get the idea of that. Some games do have a tutorial mode before you get into any real action, which is another thing that I'm going against and have failed to specify in the base argument. The tutorial should be something that gives you a lesson on how to play, while playing the game. ie: "Hey man, lets play a round of basketball, make sure to press the A button at the right time to shoot the ball!". Eventually in that stage of the game, you'd win based on what the tutorial stage has been telling you. Right there you have: 1. Learned the basic or advanced ways of playing the game. 2. Gotten hands on experience in the action 3. You won! Yay!
Video Game tutorials

The issue with literal tutorials such as this is that they separate the learning of mechanics from the game not against the game having a section which allows the player to get to grips with the controls. The last game I recall which had a literal tutorial was System Shock. It's bee phased out for a much more seamless alternative, the intro stage. Most games allow the learning of a mechanic to be a part of the narrative, a change in the story brought on in a literal context. The point of a game is to play, but is there any real difference between reading a manual and playing a separate stage solely for the purpose of teaching controls before playing the actual game?
Video Game tutorials

Video games need tutorials, recently a game called "ArmA 3" came out with an in game VR system that is a tutorial. People have argued that the game needs more items rather than a tutorial, and players can just look at the controls or look it up online on how to play the game. Having an in game tutorial allows you to play the game while learning advanced tactics and controls. The point of any game is to play it, and not have to read control mappings or look it up online for ways to play.
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

"ROUND 3" 3) There are better ways to help people reflect. 6) Yes they are but putting someone in a room alone with no windows is not the best way to do that. 7) I agree but that can happen without solitary confinement. 8) Vague in the sense that the rules can be taken advantage of by superiors. 11) It still creates a stressful environment that damages the inmate psychologically. 13) Reflection induced with other methods are frequently used because solitary confinement is not the best way. 14) If they have to go back into society and assimilate after their sentence shouldn't we help them feel like they are accepted? Having a certain amount of understanding is necessary. C) Solitary confinement is not an appropriate system of reform. "ROUND 4" 1.)Solitary Confinement is a form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is isolated from any human contact though often with the exception of members of prison staff. 2.)Solitary confinement is just a cheap and easy way to punish inmates. 3.)Solitary confinement has little to no benefits in regards to rehabilitation. 4.)Solitary confinement is psychologically damaging and can create more unneeded tension in prisons. 5.)There are better and more productive ways to handle violent situations. 6.)The damage caused by solitary confinement can cause more aggressive behavior with inmates. C) Solitary confinement is not a useful method for Rehabilitating inmates.
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

1.) Solitary Confiinement is a form of imprisoment in which a prisoner is isolated from any human contact though often with the exception of memebers of prison staff. 2.) Solitary confinement was insituted around 1818 as an alternative to public floggins. 3.) This punishment iallows inmates to relfect on their misdeeds. 4.) Prison is a rehabilitaion center and reflection is part of any rehabilitation center. 5.) Solitary confibnement protects the other inmates and the prison staff as well. 6.) It is a form of punishment that does not involve physical pain and still punishes an inmate for their misconduct. 7.) Soliatry confinement would be illegal if it were a form of torture. 8.) Soliatry confinement is a way to offer an opportunity for the inmate to reflect on their misdeeds and protect other peoples safety. (C) Solitary Confinement is an appropriate punishmant to any inmate that violates a prisons code of conduct.
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

3)Reflection of someones actions doesn't mean they would change therefore it isnt a good method of discipline. 4)I agree 6) These "solutions" are damaging to the inmate and can potentially make them more aggressive. 7) improving conduct does no mean they have reformed in any way, it simply means that they are more careful about their actions. 8) these rules are too vague and does not protect the inmates from corrupt or targeted punishment. 9) Until recently the psychological state of a person did not come into account when defining torture. Water-boarding is a torture with an extreme effect on the mind of the person but little on the physical. Water-boarding was illegal for many years. 10) Personalized or more condensed counseling with actual programs intended to improve their way of life Rather then bunching them up together like cattle and making them wait to leave. 11) Not bunching them all together and creating an aggressive environment will fix this issue. 13) Their are better ways to get people to reflect. 14) If it was beneficial enough to ignore the obvious negative effects then other people and institutions other then prisons would be using it. 15)Solitary confinement is only being used because they cant think of another way to deal with troubling inmates and because the ideas that are brought us cost too much money.
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

3.) Reflection is a step in the right direction for change doesn't neccesarily mean they will change right away. 6.) How are they more damaging? Isn't the saftey and importance of other inmates and staff important? 7.) Not all the time. Most people do change their ways naturally. 8.) Not vague. Each prison has a code of conduct that's read to each inmate before they are taken to their cell. So if they break it's on them. They have to take responsibility. 11.) There is no bunching in Solitary Confinement. 13.) Reflection is the best and most used method to help a person in rehab change. 14.) Being lienent on the inmates isn't hepful either. (C) Solitary Confinement is an appropriate punishment to any inmate that violates a prisons code of conduct.
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

3.) The statement claimed that it was a period in time for the inmate to reflect on their conduct not to necessarily repent. 4.) It is a punishment and also a way of keeping the inmates and prison staff safe which is also important. 6.) This improves their safety for the time being and if this does not work permantely then other measures can be taken but first you have to try lesser solutions. 7.) There are more studies on how solitary confinement has improved behavioral conduct than studies proving that it has psychological trauma. 8.) Any inmate that breaks the code of conduct of the facilitate that they are in. 9.) If solitary was considered a mild form of torture then it would have been removed years ago for violating the 8th amendment of no cruel and unusual punishment. 10.) What type of methods would you suggest? 11.) The safety of other inmates and prison staff is also important. 13.) Exactly reflection is a method used in any rehabilitation center. 14.) Where"s the proof of it not helping? (C) This, Solitary Confinement is an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

1) Agree 2)agree 3) Not necessarily true because putting them in solitary confinement doesn't always result in them regretting their actions. 4) solitary confinement is more of a punishment then a reflection process because it is more useful as a method of separating an inmate from the rest. 5)Agree 6)The inmates cannot be in solitary confinement forever and to even be in solitary in the first place the inmate would have to already hurt someone. 7)Solitary confinement is psychologically damaging and shows no signs of rehabilitating anyone. 8)Any inmate can be placed in solitary confinement for little to no reason. 9)Solitary is a mild form of torture. 10) Their are better methods of reforming an inmate than locking them in a room with no windows for 24 hours. 11) Solitary confinement is really intended to keep inmates away from the others and avoid fights then reform. 13)Rehabilitation is the reason people are placed in prisons in the first place 14) Their are no real positive results to solitary confinement in relation to rehabilitation or reform. C)Solitary confinement should no longer be used in prisons because it is damaging to the person subjected to it.
Is Solitary Confinement an Appropriate Punishment for an Inmate who Breaks a Prisons Code of Conduct

1.Solitary Confinement is a form of imprisonment in which a prisoner is isolated from any human contact though often with the exception of members of prison staff. 2.Solitary Confinement has been around since 1818 as an alternative to public floggings. 3.This punishment allows inmates to reflect on their misdeeds. 4.Prisons are a rehabilitation center and reflection is a method of rehabilitation. 5.Solitary Confinement is implemented on inmates who are considered dangerous to themselves and those around them. 6.This can improve the safety of inmates and prison staff alike. 7.It is a form of punishment that does not involve physical pain and still punished an inmate for their misconduct. (C) Thus, Solitary Confinement is an appropriate punishment to any inmate that breaks a prisons code of conduct. Non Controversial: Premises 1 2, 4 and 5 Controversial: Premises 3,6 and 7
Religion should be banned.

Dear Con, sorry for forfeiting the last two rounds. Now I will give you my reasons why I think religion should be banned. 1. A lot of wars were caused by religious causes throughout history. The Crusades (Catholic vs Islam), the 30 years war (Protestant vs Catholic), and all the terrorism caused today is because of religion. These wars have been major, and they have left lasting damage. 2. There are religions which do crazy stuff. In South Korea, a few years ago, a small group of people believing in a certain religion, released a poison gas inside a train station in the name of serving their god, causing deaths and injuries. There are extremely dangerous to other people and should be stopped immediately.
should all guns be banned

All guns should be banned given the fact that more guns mean more violence.'One recent study suggests that stricter state gun laws do make a difference. In a study published in the May 13, 2013 issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers concluded that states with the most firearm legislation have the lowest rates of firearm-associated deaths, as well as the lowest rates of both murders and suicides with guns. The quarter of states with the strictest laws had 6.64 fewer deaths per 100,000 inhabitants than the quarter with the least regulation.'' [1]'There were 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 270,237 suicides (58.2% of total deaths); 174,773 homicides (37.7%); and 9,983 unintentional deaths (2.2%). Guns were the leading cause of death by homicide (66.6% of all homicides) and by suicide (52.2% of all suicides). Firearms were the 12th leading cause of all deaths, representing 1.3% of total deaths topping liver disease, hypertension, and Parkinson’s disease, as well as deaths from fires, drowning, and machinery accidents.' [2]Moreover, it must be known that guns are responsible for over 31,000 deaths in America. It must also be noted that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Of course, banning all guns will not bring world peace, but it certainly will help.[1] https://people.howstuffworks.com...[2] https://gun-control.procon.org...
The Electoral College Should Be Replace By Direct Popular Vote

The form of government that America has, contrary to common misconception, was never a democracy, and still isn't. As stated in the pledge of allegiance, america is a republic. However, the electoral college is fairly old, but still meets our needs. We still have states and candidates don't we? Yes, it does favor the majority in a state, but if it were to represent every single minority, it would, again, as the new york time states, "fragment the electorate and make it difficult to forge a majority coalition, much less secure a mandate, thereby weakening the winner"s capacity to govern. " And, could you please rephrase your 3rd sentence, I'm unclear to its meaning. And yes the constitution could be amended, Except that it doesn't meet the requirements for its amending to be legal. Granted, Bush was one of the worst presidents, but you have no evidence showing that Gore would've prevented the future collapse. Besides, this is 1 out of about 50 presidential elections. Also, its not just any politicians voting on other politicians, those "politicians" are elected. Lastly, as stated in the pledge of allegiance, America is a firstly a republic, not a democracy. Granted, it has some democratic features, and is sometimes considered a democratic republic, it is still a republic, its just that the election of people to represent us is democratic, but because we are electing people to represent us, we are not a democracy. And, permeated through what? Now, how about voter fraud? It is undeniable that it would be encouraged and increase with the abolishment of the electoral college. It has also served us well for over two centuries and would be against the law to change. I think legality is a pretty big concern. And if it were abolished, a bunch of independent candidates would run, and many experts predict that it would be impossible to have any candidate to win over 50% of the votes. A resolution for this dilemma could be that we could just put the candidate with the highest amount of votes in office, so for example, if 20% voted for candidate A and 10% for candidates B-I, A would be put into office. But, then 90% of the state wouldn't support him. He would not receive the acceptance of the public, and his influence would be meager. Not to mention, he'd have about 6 times less donation funds than our electoral college candidates.