BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ectopioc pregnancies: 'removing baby' is the moral equivalent of removing the tubes with baby in it

people say the ends do not justify the means. they use the principle of double effect as a way around what might otherwise be thought of a an evil means etc. but at least as applied in any cases I can see, and probably in theory too, it opens up to a slippery slope. people like to say these hardline rules, the ends don't justify the means but principle of double effect works, help avoid "slippery slopes" etc. but even these "principle of double effect" arguments open up a can of worms, a slippery slope an example is ectopic pregnancies. they say you can just remove the tubes with the baby inside. so couldn't the principle be extended to removing uterus's with the baby in it, when the baby poses a risk to the mother? isn't that just an end run around the rule that you can't have an abortion etc? and if you could just remove the uterus with the mother in it, why couldn't you just remove the baby without the uterus? how is there really any difference between removing a uterus with the baby in it, and removing the baby itself? [not killing it directly as w an abortion] directly killing a child could be seen as inherently evil, but just pulling the baby out is very arguably completely different. it's so much more like pulling it out in a uterus, than it is directly killing it, that it's essentially the same thing.
Shakespeare should be taught to students, starting at a younger age

Shakespeare has a very difficult literary style. I can tell you that as a former student the vast majority despised reading Shakespeare. Not because the subject matter wasn't interesting, but because the prose and style of old English is enough to confuse the student to not care about what the subject matter is. Students at the college level or students who have a firm grasp on English wouldn't be deterred as much as your typical high-school student. Shakespeare has had a very important contribution but his work should only be read by those who are ready for the challenge.
Socialism is a step backwards in human evolution

It is taught that evolution is how life started and that god and religion are just archaic ways of thinking. With evolution now established as fact in our schools, I thought it be a most logical argument that socialism is a step backwards in human evolution. Socialism has been tried and tried over hundreds of years and history has proved that it brings all human life to the least common denominator as it requires in the end that everyone have no more or no less than the next person in order to be fair. There are no examples of socialist countries that can even come close to the prosperity of a capitalist society. Even poor people in capitalist societies are 10 times to 100 times richer than poor people in socialist or communist societies. America has elected a govt that is taking this countries population a step back on the ladder of human evolution. A step back from a wildly prosperous capitalist society to a begging from the govt, dependent on the govt weak and helpless existence.
Resolved: Texas would best serve its interest by seceding from the Union

This is part of the SPinko Tournament, Round 2. Resolved: Texas would best serve its interest by seceding from the Union 1st round is terms/acceptance, final round is half length to encourage more closing-style type arguments. (This means three full length rounds and a half length round).1) No restriction on argumentative strategy except for semantics and similiar abusive tactics.2) Burden of Proof is shared*3) New arguments in the final round must be ignored by the judge4) R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Rules and Definitions in R1 are binding. Substantively violating the R1 agreements will result in loss of both argument and conduct.5) Spelling/Grammer and Conduct will NOT be voted on unless gross violation of either one.6) Sources must be posted or linked in the debate round. Voting on Sources should be reserved for extreme discrepancy in quality of sources.
There are no such thing as viruses

G wiz, you are really splitting hairs! I stated that bacteria and viruses are both terms used for organisms that infect things, drawing from them sustenance and harming them. The difference between diseases and fuels, as they are both alive, is that the one helps while the other harms. Since they are both only trying to survive, the disease through eating and the fuels by symbiosis where they ascend to the bodies functions, they are not trying to help or harm anyone, they are both just reacting with natural phenomenon. This flexing thing, well, if you were to squeeze a lump of clay, you would find that it will change shape, yes? Imagine squeezing a little zygote, hey? That would disfigure it, but that was just a example. The real thing is bacteria in the air they breathe in, as viruses are spread through matter or a solids or liquid, they would need to eat or drink something in the food supply to get affected. This stands to reason then that viruses will die if they are exposed to dead things, so, the reason they are sick is not because they ate dead animals or drank polluted water, but rather that they got the advanced bacteria into their bodies, or the disease, mind you, by some other means. The aids virus, as you brought up, is spread through sex and blood transfusion, the blood transfusion is active as it is insulated. This keeps activity of a living sort active. Dead meat or polluted water is exposed to air which has oxygen in it that will age anything exposed to it, as, the oxygen is very reactive to brining reactions in things - that is why it is so sought in the bodies of people, they need it to help with osmosis of cells and stuff like that. Then, the actual case we are dealing with is is there such a thing as a virus, and, you can quote any doctor or page on the net that says that diseases are usually 'bacteria' or 'viruses,' but, they are both only terms for little living things that eat away at matter instead of 'harmonizing' with them. It is like saying there is a Santa Claus because there is some guy dressed up as him.
There are no such thing as viruses

Issue one: I could call the sky orange and I would be right, is that what you are saying? An advanced bacteria is not a virus, as, that would mean that names mean nothing - they are both "organisms." Rebuttal to question one: A lot of people died with the same symptoms, this does not mean it was a 'virus' that would have the same outcome as other 'infecting' gases or foods. Rebuttal to question two: If the mother is eating a lot, the baby will get a lot of fuels, yes? If the mother was to have a baby with an irregular shaped head, it would be more likely due to the way she flexes her body when the baby is in the womb, as, that would lead to the baby physically having it's habitat changed, and, thus finding the liveable area changing, there fore changing it's 'head shape.' This would mean that if the habitat can change with bacteria affecting the baby, them other germs could also lead to this happening. This would be down to a lot of helium, I reckon, as that will swell things no end.
There are no such thing as viruses

Argument:A few months ago in Singapore there was a flu bug going around the country. If the flu is not a virus or if viruses dont exist for the matter, how did so many singaporeans fall ill? H1N1 was another example. And bear in mind I was one of the many who fell victim after coming into contact with someone with the virus. So how can we deny the existence of viruses? Rebuttals: "Viruses are actually 'hard bacteria.' "Question for my opponent:So you just affirmed the fact that viruses do exist just that hard bacteria is another name for it. Is that what you just said? If so I just won this debate. Rebuttal for question one:So when people fall sick its a coincidence hundreds of thousands of people died of the same illnes? Rebuttal for question 2: "The Zikka Virus is actually a birth defect condition of the reproductive system where the mother will be influenced by the outside world, and, affect her body, including the baby she has inside of her. " Although I agree with the fact that activities like smoking affects the baby,but Im pretty sure there isnt an activity where the baby ends up with an odd shaped head.
There are no such thing as viruses

Whoops, seems I read the topic wrong - I thought i would be debating that viruses do exist and get an easy win! But, seeing as how it is the other way around, and, I have plenty of time on my hands, let's give it a right royal go, yes? Viruses are actually 'hard bacteria.' if you observe that viruses are diseases that have a soft centre and a hard outside, to protect them from antibodies and white blood cells, while at the same time being less intelligent than a reactive bacteria, you could say they are like stupid hard bacteria, okay? Answer one: I cannot remember what the first question was, but, I think it was about 'sick people?' People get sick all the time and, these viruses are nothing more than bacteria that have evolved with the prey to become more potent, so, they are actually just bacteria with a mutation. Answer two: The Zikka Virus is actually a birth defect condition of the reproductive system where the mother will be influenced by the outside world, and, affect her body, including the baby she has inside of her. As the baby grows with the mother, the mother will influence the baby with her movements and so forth; if she smokes, she will give the baby weaker lungs, if she exercises, the baby's heart might be better off. This means 'the virus' is merely related to her having the same environment as the other mothers, and, that includes the air they breathe and food they eat, the most likely sources of these conditions to their children. The answer would be to rectify the children by, as they are still young, injecting them with cells and blood from other relatives of theirs, especially children, as, this will bring about changes in their bodies, making them 'more normal' as they grow to maturity.
There are no such thing as viruses

Rules for debate:No forfeting(if youd like to forfeit a round just state I forfeit),each round must always have one argument. Argument:In 2003,there were hundreds of thousands of deaths due to SARS. Question for my opponent: If viruses dont exist,is it plausible to say that these deaths were coincidences? In 2014/2015,the zika virus came about affecting people around the globe. Those infected especially pregnent women had odd shaped kids. Question(s) for my opponent: Is there a scientific explanation for this if viruses dont exist? If there is,which parent would want their kids to have odd shaped heads?
There are no such thing as viruses

You really are making this easy for me, as Ebola is 'a messy disease.' It is basically the most dirty disease you can imagine, as, it is where cells divide at a accelerated rate by quickly grabbing what they can from living cells. This is like a 'market crash,' with everybody unloading stocks to get out with as much money as they can, okay? So, they just infect and move on as quickly as possible, caring little for what the cells look like after they have been through. This is evidence of something that is alive, as, all diseases are alive little living things - yes, organisms - that eat and divide via cellular division to 'spread their cause.' Every living things seeks to dominate the world through cellular division, as is evidenced in things like predation. These terms we use to describe diseases are just that, as the terms of the opening post show, these things are just names, and, names count for zip. It is the definitions that matter.
There are no such thing as viruses

Well no argument from you but yea Im just gonna go on. Argument:Is there any other sickness that can replace ebola? No other sickness will have all these syntoms:https://www.mayoclinic.org.... Question for my opponent:If a sickness like this would be that simple, why was it so bad in africa which was the hotspot for ebola? Only africa had so many cases compared to other countries which barely had any cases. Statement:ladies and gentlemen,note that when I asked my opponent to paste a link to support his claim on the advanced bacteria he just gave me his point of view and not evidence from links? Which brings me to question:Have other people given scientific evidence of this advanced bacteria and that its not a virus? Or is my opponent making B.S up(which he/she should understand since he gave me a definition of his advanced bacteria which to me is still a hypothesis or a claim with no evidence)
There are no such thing as viruses

Argument:Coming back to the topic on SARS:if it were that simple,why did docters take that long to find out it was a new illness in the flowchart? Let me explain: By flowchart I mean something doctors use. For example if you sweat alot, the doctors will go down the chart and continue asking questions if you feel weak. If so the doctor can classify it under a fever. If we talk about SARS,in 2003 there were no arrows down the flowchart of syntoms which could classify the virus as something as simple as the common cold. So if viruses like SARS dont exist, why couldnt doctors successfully go down the flowchart and classify the sickness as the common cold(or other things like a fever,a dry cough,sore throats,etc)? Rebuttals: "Then, the actual case we are dealing with is is there such a thing as a virus, and, you can quote any doctor or page on the net that says that diseases are usually 'bacteria' or 'viruses,' but, they are both only terms for little living things that eat away at matter instead of 'harmonizing' with them." So there are such things as viruses just that doctors call them diseases or in your case just known as organisms. "This flexing thing, well, if you were to squeeze a lump of clay, you would find that it will change shape, yes? Imagine squeezing a little zygote, hey? That would disfigure it, but that was just a example. "I agree what you say is right. But if you had read all the links,you can see that people(children to be specific)who were infected by the(in your case) fairy tale called zika suffered things from seizures to blindness. Not to mention hard to the brain as well:https://www.theatlantic.com.... So when you gave the example of the mother flexing,there was no evidence of that harming the brain versus when a toddler is infected with zika the brain is affected. "The aids virus..." if viruses dont exist,you wouldnt have used the term virus. Instead you would have used something else(not too sure what you"d use but definetly not the term virus since youre in pro choice). Question: "I stated that bacteria and viruses are both terms used for organisms that infect things, drawing from them sustenance and harming them." So what are you trying to say exactly? "Viruses" exist but we need to use another name called organisms? Please use a link so its easier for me to understand.
Free will probably exists in humans.

Free will: "...a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) To define further, this means that the choice of this rational agent (in this case a human) is not being influenced by any force, and is acting on its own. I negate the resolution: Free will probably exists in humans. Since my opponent has the burden of proof, I will allow my opponent to make the first argument. If my opponent uses a religious argument, my opponent must first prove that religion is a sound foundation to make arguments upon.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Challenging kasmic so he can take the side he wants.Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.Definitions will be debatable and presented within the debate.Round structure will be like this:Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Pro case, Con case + rebuttalsRound Three: Rebuttals all aroundRound Four: Rebuttals all around. No new arguments at this point.72 hours. 10k Characters. Minimum 2k elo to vote.
Resolution TBA.

Keeping in line with the last 2 speeches I will go in the same order as before. ================= My opponent's case ================= 1. My problem with is first point not that China is not committing human right abuses, rather instead it about how they are portrayed. At the top of the main article it says that article is not from a natural view and doesn't show the other side, which is that many of the Chinese see this as a necessary evil and that if losing their helps the community as a whole then they are willing to lose their rights as it talks about in the article. 2a. because this is part of their cultural ideals so the US should not intervene 2b. the problem is that the US is dependent on China and not supporting them would in turn hurt the US 2c. what I'm saying is that they are not directly hurting the US directly so the US should not be acting. And the second part of this I will talk about later 3. The US still should attend the opening ceremonies to support it athletes ========= My case ======= a.First China is stable, there are not revolutions trying to over through the government. Next the fact is that they are respecting the people because the people don't see this as a bad thing. b.On this point group the 2 arguments, the fact is while this is a Chinese it is polling the people, it is the people who say they don't like the foreign people talking about their country and they believe that there is nothing wrong with the Chinese government's actions c. I will answer this in the same place as my opponent a.I really don't know what this is saying but I think my opponent is trying to say that the US doesn't need China, but while the US does have skilled workers they don't work at the low prices b.Extend these two points across because my opponent has not answered them. My opponent's assumption that my arguments are based on the China stopping all trade is untrue. My relations advantage has nothing to do with trade what it is talking about is how boycotting the Olympic will show how the US doesn't like what China is doing and hurts our relations. On the econ da doesn't rely on the end of trade, what the da says happens is that if China is no longer able to have cheap labor because of its low human rights which cause prices around the world to go up and causing the impacts. Next once again my opponent try to use an example to show how these impacts will not happen but again he misshapes this example because if the US doesn't attend the ceremonies because of the human right abuses then it will cause the relations to go down dramatically.
Resolution TBA.

OK. The U.S. should boycott the Beijing Olympics. China has an unethical human rights record. http://en.wikipedia.org... According to this article, China has a habit of violating what would be our first, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments. Now let's look at similar situation: You talk to your friend in school often. However, one day he starts to insult you in front of his other friends. You start to not talk to him anymore. If you kept talking to him, you'd be inadvertently letting him know that it's ok to insult you. The same goes for the U.S. and China. To attend a Chinese-held ceremony would be saying that we are perfectly alright with their treatment of humans. To support our advocacy of human rights and to make a peaceful statement about China's actions, the U.S. should not take part in the Beijing 2008 Olympics.
Resolution TBA.

Gonna take an idea from some other people and do this, because I'm bored and don't know what to debate about. As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. In the contender's round 1, he/she will propose 3 different topics of debate that COVER VARIOUS FIELDS. (I don't want 3 debates about abortion but worded differently, for example. Then in my round 2, I will choose one of the debates to well...debate on. In the contender's round 2, he/she will choose a stance on the choice (PRO or CON) and choose whether to go first or second. If he/she goes first, to keep the number of arguments per person equal, he/she must include the opening argument in the response, and cannot post an argument in the final round. (Either forfeit or spam, or something.) However, if I am forced to go first, the debate will proceed as normal. So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 3 rounds to debate.
vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

What have men voluntarily surrendered their lives, liberty, and property all around the world to coercive organizations known as governments? It is because they expect governments to protect these treasured rights better than they could themselves. A government's primary purpose is to uphold the rule of law. Political thought dating from the Enlightenment asserts that when a government either positively seizes the people's inalienable rights or allows these rights to be taken away through inaction, it is the right and duty of the people to either abolish or alter that government. In a democratic government, representatives of the people create a set of laws that their constituents believe are necessary or beneficial in guaranteeing rights to life, liberty, and property. The aforementioned inalienable rights may be infringed upon if and only if the infringement protects another inalienable right to a proportionally greater degree. When a government fails to enforce the laws it has created, it has failed the people who legitimize it. Justice is a concept more fundamental than government. The rule of government cannot be put before the basic principles of fairness and reciprocity. Crimes cannot go unpunished. One of the main differences between reasoning men and crude animals is that men, as a collective, punish individuals for behaving in reckless or destructive ways. Humans have been able to create societies not because they are intelligent and thoughtful enough to perceive the consequences of their actions for others, but because they have developed systems of morality and ethics that guarantee individuals are able to keep what is rightfully theirs. If a government fails to create a system of justice, the people are bound in the name of human civilization to punish offenders proportionally for their crimes, and restore a society where there is the rule of law. Not all vigilantism is acceptable. The vigilantes should never punish criminals out of proportion to the crime, and they should never enforce justice so arbitrarily and capriciously that they themselves fail to enforce the rule of natural law. But the general concept of extra-governmental judicial action remains acceptable.
Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America

Rebuttals.1. "It is certainly not "fair" for them to both pay the same rate of taxation due to their vastly different circumstances."Yes it is and infact they would be paying less on a flat tax than they normally would. 2: Economic Conditions And Loopholes Decreaseing the percentage at which the wealthy get taxed, will cause a favorable impact on the middle class and actually make it easier for most to afford homes.3: The Poor! Refer to my P3) Economic success.The poor would do the opposite and thrive with a flat tax not to mention the would pay about the same % wise that they are currently paying.