BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth is round and you can't prove otherwise.

If you really believe it, you could go to that site I mentioned earlier and try to win a million dollars- but I think the site's a joke. You can't prove something that's impossible. You can't deny proof. If you want to photo graph your flat Earth, buy a model rocket at a hobby shop for roughly $100, strap a camera to it, send it up, and take some pictures. really, it's not that hard. Aside from the site I provided, there's thousands of pictures we've taken. You can't deny all of them. Go ahead, wallow in your ignorance. saying something is correct doesn't mean it's correct. There's also the official NASA site: https://www.nasa.gov...
Doctor Who debate

Sorry abut that, my computer broke and I just regained internet access. Ace McShane was a great companion for the following reasons 1. She followed a companion most consider awful. While I personally don't mind Mel, she is widely considered one of the worst companions, while Ace is considered one of the best. 2. She spared interest back into the show. If you go on a forum or message bard, and are trying to get into Classic Who, people will tell you the essential episodes for each Doctor. These are normally every regeneration episode, Aztecs, Mind Robber, Tomb of the Cybermen, Spearhead from Space, Inferno, quite a bit of Tom Baker, Earthshock, Caves of Androzani, Two Docstor, Vengeance on Varos, and Trial of a Time Lord. Something interesting happens when you hit Sylvester McCoy, though. The majority of times, people are told to watch all of seasons 25 and 26. These seasons are considered some of the best Who of all time, and with good reason. Not only does McCoy's Doctor become a much more interesting character, but Ace is shown to be an excellent companion.
Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change. I. The affirmative is wrong in that recycling decreases demand for paper. 1. The demand for paper is constantly rising as the population rises. 2. At worst, reycling would cause no more commercial forests to be planted (and these forests are not that good, as proven later). 3. Because it will end up balancing, recycling is not harming the environment, and this point of the affirmative's is null. II. Why recycling helps the environment. 1. To begin with, I will say that trees from naturally growing forests are important to the climate whereas those made by companies are not as beneficial. A. They are made quickly, as to maximize profit, require massive amounts of fertilizer, and will soon be cut down. They also do not manage carbon dioxide as well as other trees since their only purpose is to be made into paper. B. Because of this, they are only temporarily beneficial to the environment, whereas "virgin trees", or natural forests (or any forest that has been established for awhile) are far more beneficial. C. Because these forests will not be cut down, they continuously manage carbon dioxide levels. D. These trees also have spread their roots, and in doing so, can provide more managing of carbon dioxide. As well, this root system helps prevent erosion, and these forests generally have more biodiversity. So in essence, trees grown by corporations are not grown to help manage carbon dioxide, but to be made into paper. Trees that have been planted otherwise contribute more to the environment. 2. The earth's population is in a state of rapid expansion. This means the consumption of paper will continually rise, and, the amount of land needed for farming rise as well. A. This necessary increase in farming land will mean that more and more land efficiency will be required. B. Because much of this growth is less developed countries, there will not be companies planting trees (which obviously are not that useful to the environment anyway). C. Many native forests will be cut down, and this will increase climate change. 3. This can be prevented by encouraging recycling. A. The affirmative might object by saying that corporations for planting trees should be made, however... B. Recycling paper is cheaper than making new paper. C. These poorer countries would therefore it would be in that countries interests to recycle rather than to engage in a new commercial industry (which again, is not that beneficial in regulating carbon dioxide). D. Recycling will reduce the amount of native forests cut down (especially in developing countries), and in doing so will help fight climate change. III. Finally, it should be recognized that in reality, much of the current climate change is occurring in developing countries, not developed ones. The affirmative totally ignores the non-developed world which does not have these industries. So vote for me. My arguments make more sense, and do not ignore half the world (or even more) as the affirmative does.
Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

Recycled paper is artificially supported by the government. When this source of paper competes with paper that comes from trees, it pushes the demand for tree farming down. To compensate, tree farmers have to lower prices. This lowers profits margins, and as such, firms leave the industry. Land that was once used to cultivate trees is now turned into farming something else or sold to real estate developers. Hence, there are less trees, all other things being equal, and if trees are important for regulating carbon dioxide, then recycling paper is bad for fighting climate change. If you have any thoughts or just like to argue for the sake of arguing, let me know.
Pornography is A Disgusting Habit

I believe we could accomplish much more in a debate with a duration of more than one round, and if you feel the same way I would be happy to accept a challenge from you on this or similar topics. Pornography is the explicit description or exhibition of sexual subjects or activity in literature, painting, films, etc. , in a manner intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic feelings (Oxford English Dictionary). That being established, I will begin by addressing my opponents contentions against pornography. 1. The Bible Is Not The Objective Scale For Morality While the Bible may be a sufficient moral code for those who choose to believe in it, it must be assumed that some concept of morality must exist for non-Bible believers. Morality is (in a philosophical sense) something outside of religion that stands on its own as an objective system of rights and wrongs. Therefore, we may dismiss any Biblical discouragement of pornographic indulgence. 2. Lessons From Porn My opponent makes the false assertion that pornography teaches that sex has no consequences. I would address the claim that it gives false hope in exotic positions, but I cannot imagine what that could mean. Pornography teaches promiscuity and STD immunity to the same extent that video games teach us that we can allow recover instantaneously from bullet wounds. Even less so than video games however, pornography has no real direct message or didactic content. It is merely the portrayal of something sexual to erotically stimulate the viewer. Such a medium is actually a healthy option to those that do not wish to indulge in prostitution or those that wish to abstain from actual physical sex. To call such a healthy outlet of release for sexual tension that affects no individuals negatively disgusting is baseless. Conclusion: Pornography is not objectively immoral and does not encourage users to behave in higher-risk activities sexually than they would have without it. Pornography is not only not disgusting, but it is not wrong.
Pornography is A Disgusting Habit

Pornography is a disgusting habit. It is against the Bible and just plain inappropriate. It is immoral to watch one have sex with another or have sex with another out of wedlock. I would like to see this disgusting and perverted habit die. Not only is it disgusting, but it is teaching people that sex has no consequences. It gives people false hope about exotic positions. It teaches people that it is okay to go out and have sex without getting a STD.
Euthanasia should never be considered.

Hey, So first of all everyone will endure pain in life and everyone will eventually die. Thus according to what you wrote, everyone can be euthanized because we all qualify. This pain you mention can vary between a paper cut and a terminal disease. Second, there are several objectives good to suffering that I would like to present: 1: Enlightenment~ one realizes how precious life is 2: Detachment~detaches us from the things in this life that are not necessary 3: Reparation~to fix our lives (suffering that one might endure as a penance or such) 4:Character building~how one responds to suffering can help build character 5: Humility 6:Compassion 7:Drawing out love in others who help the person suffering Thus, one should not end his life in order to avoid or end suffering. Third, we did not begin our life and so we have no right to take it away. There is a difference between rights and freedoms. A right is something that we are entitled to, while a freedom is something that we are capable of doing. We are able to kill ourselves, but that does not mean that we should.
Euthanasia should never be considered.

Euthanasia is helpful for people who don't want to endure pain anymore. Mental from knowing they are going to die anyway and physical from the pain itself. That combination is the worst you can have unless your religious then spiritual can be added as well. IT should be considered because Americans should have the right to choose weather they want to endure pain and live a bit longer before death or not. I have no stated my point of view like my opponent did so now it is time for my opponent to paste his case for the next round. I will respond with my own case after.
R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

I Deny/Negate: that it is or would be morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. Denial of Consequentialism Consequentialism fails to appropriately take into account the people affected by a particular action. The individual being sacrificed for the benefit of several could quantitatively be worth more than the others combined. The individual being sacraficed may be at present worth more and/or in the future be worth more. Both the future worth the individual may have and the actual worth the individual has is with-out measure and difficult, if not impossible, to obtain, thus no one can conclude the individual being sacrificed is actually worth more or less than the individuals being saved. Example: Sacrifice a young Medical Doctor in an effort to save 2 elderly patients in need of organ transplant. If we assumed all of the individuals worth is equal and future worth will be equal we still have to deal with the unknown future events. Example: Kill the one to save the several but moments later an unforseen event occurs that kills the several that would not have killed the one. To accept said action as morally permissible one must know the future of events, an obvious impossibility. Consequence denies itself. The benefit of the saved individual is their life which is a consequence of the other individuals death. If Consequentialism determines morallity by consequence then the saved individuals benefit of life was obtained by the taking of another individuals innocent life, thus the action of saving life had a consequence of innocent death; concluding this action is NOT morally permissible. Impossibility by Definition of Innocent/Innocence For the several innocent to know that one innocent life was taken, not given, for their benefit would negate their innocence. For the innocent not to give his life, to the point it had to be taken, for the benefit of others may negate his innocence as well. Innocence defines itself as purity with out moral crime, thus both cannot be innocent. It would be a moral crime for an individual to knowingly benefit from the death of another innocent, by definition provided by Affirmer. Example: Several innocent people need different organs, where as one individual could give them all a different one of his/her own to save the several. Shall we justify taking his/her life for the benefit of the others? If the several innocent people had knowingly taken the life for their own benefit they would no longer be innocent for their selfish rational.
R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

I affirm: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. [Definitons] Morally permissible: Conforming to right behavior. Sub-sector of morality that is circumstancial as opposed to moral normativity. -Permissible: allowable Kill: Take away the life of. Save: To prevent death. More: Larger quantitative amount. Innocent: Pure in the sense of no crimes, either legal or moral. [Analysis] According to the resolution, it is asking if killing an innocent to save the lives of more innocent people is morally permissible not morally normative. The difference is that a morally permissible action changes to each circumstance while a morally normative action is in a sense an imperative. Therefore, in the implied senario, is it morally permissible to kill an innocent to save more innocents. [Values] Value: Moral Permissibility The affirmative values moral permissibility because it is the clearest value implied by the reoslution. It is utmost in either an affirmation or negation. Value Criterion: Consequentialism The value of moral permissiblity is upheld by the criterion of consequentialism. Since moral permissibility is circumstancial, then when faced with a moral dillema, the outcome of an action must be evaluated foremost. In the implied senario there will be deaths. However the number of deaths is what will matter. The consequence of the affirmative's action is the saving of more lives, which is clearly a good consequence. [Contentions] Contention I: The affirmative side results in better consequences A) Protection of Life The affirmative clearly maximizes the protection of life. By acting, more people are saved, as oppsoed to inaction which will result in more deaths. Life is a fundemental criterion in upholding moral permissiblity. It is very much allowable of an action that saves more people. B) Protection of Rights The affirmative maximizes right protection. In deciding a morally permissible action, right vioaltion must be taken into account. On both the affirmative and negative side, rights will be violated. Since all rights spring from the right to life, then death vioaltes all possible rights. The affirmative protects more people thus maximizing more protection of rights. Contention II: Siuational Ethics According to siuational ethics, when faced with a moral decision, 2 things must be taken into account. 1) THe action itself and 2) the consequences. However, according to situationa ethics, when faced with a moral dillema in which an action will be immoral normative, then the consequences mnake it morally permissible. From contention I, the consequences are better, thus making killing the innocent a morally permissible action. For these reasons I affirm. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Thank you for allowing me to debate you Cirro, I don't believe I mentioned that. I apologize for not being as familiar as you with LD, so in that regard you have the benefit. I will say just because I did not specifically label my arguments does not mean I haven't infact disputed or negated yours. Further, just because you continue to push the point that more lives lost is more immoral than less lives lost does not repudiate my claim that it is impossible to determine worth simply by quantity. LD debate also requires a judge, you have made yourself the judge. I would have no objection with you as judge, except you seem to side with your side rather than mine, imagine that. I will close with this 1. My opponent has yet to explain how one would determine worth of an individual. Quantity of individuals does not equate to worth of said individuals. Using the logic my opponent has set forth the most Influential World Leader or One Young Doctor is worth LESS than 2 elderly individuals in need of organ transplant. Using such logic you must ask yourself daily shall I kill the young doctor to harvest his organs to save my two dieing grandparents? My opponent says it would not be immoral for you to do so because the number dieing is less than the number you would be saving. My opponent states "there will be deaths, It is the NUMBER of deaths that will matter" 2.It is ok to make regular moral decisions with-out knowing the future, however when you choose to make an immoral decision such as killing an innocent individual you can only justify the action if you KNOW the future. My opponent says it will save 2 lives....but does he really KNOW that at the time of the action?...No he does not. The debate ask is it morally permissible to kill one innocent to save more innocent lives. The question does not imply it is an absolute that you will save more lives but rather an ATTEMPT to save lives and there in lies the answer to the question. With-out knowing with absolute certainty the future of all things one can not make a morally permissible decision to end a innocent persons life. In every example and situation one could present based on reality there will NEVER be an absolute knowledge of future events to guarantee lives will be saved. There is always a chance the innocent life was taken in vain. Thus negating moral permissibility.
R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

My opponent unfortunately assumes that I think the innocent people being saved are the ones who killed the individual. In one example I elude that the innocent knowingly killing the other innocent would negate his or her own innocence, thus arguing impossibility. This was one example when arguing the impossibility. I simply have established that the individual doing the killing cannot be one of the innocent. I never assume that it could not be someone else, in fact my other arguments assume the opposite, so as to cover all basis. My opponent has resorted to demands to drop the below "attack". Yet this attack refutes my opponents value and contentions. Me/Con "If we assumed all of the individuals worth is equal and future worth will be equal we still have to deal with the unknown future events. Example: Kill the one to save the several but moments later an unforeseen event occurs that kills the several that would not have killed the one. To accept said action as morally permissible one must know the future of events, an obvious impossibility." My opponents only recourse to justify the unknown future events is to offer the below statement statement. Opponent/Pro: "That's like saying let's not kill a terrorist hijacking a plane because those people may die in the near future. Drop this attack." This makes no since as the Hijacker is not innocent, as defined by my opponent. In order for my opponent to offer examples or refute the assertation made in my rebuttal one must remain with in the confines of the Debate. A hijacker is not innocent. I doubt my opponent or anyone else can offer an example without flaw. In summary 1.The person doing the killing cannot be one of the innocent. 2.Determining worth of each individual involved is not possible. The quantity of life is not equivalent to quality, thus making the assumption that "saving more lives is better than saving less lives" a flawed statement. One could argue that the Presidents' life is worth more than 10 average people. 3.It is impossible to know future events, which may negate moral permissibility. Even assuming that not only is the quantity of life to be saved more but also the quality of the individual to be saved more, future events may negate moral permissibility. Lets suppose one average person is killed to save 10 influential leaders, but moments later all 10 influential leaders are killed by another circumstance which would not have affected the one average person. You have ended up with more death, thus making the prior action morally not permissible.
R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

[Rebuttal] "Denial of Consequentialism" My Response: This can be broken down into 2 main part. 1. Saving people can lead to bad consequences. - This is an inherently flawed attack because the idea of consequentialism in the realm of moral dilemmas is that between the 2 choices, what has the better outcome. Obviously saving more people is the moral of the 2 actions. By inaction, death would occur, which is inherently immoral. 2. Secondary Outcome - This is an interesting point, however very unrealistic. Say my oppoent was in the given scenario. I highly doubt that my opponent would kill the people off jsut to make sure they don't die afterward. My opponent would, therefore acting immorally by an assumption of bad events. That's like saying let's not kill a terrorist hijacking a plane because those people may die in the near future. Drop this attack. "Impossibility by Definition of Innocent/Innocence" My Response: My opponent makes a horrible assumption in this case. My opponent assumes that the innocent people being saved are the ones who killed the individual. This is nowhere implied the resolution. Drop this point because it makes a flaw and an assumption. [Rebuttal 2] My opponent has not established a value or value criterion. Therefore, in an ideal LD round, he should lose automatically because he has not put forth a way that the negative values the resolution. [Extensions] 1. Extend my value for the round. (Haven't been refuted) 2. Extend all 3 of my contentions. (Haven't been refuted) 3. Since my opponent has dropped my 3 contentions, my VC is still held for the round regardless of his first attack. My 3 contentions uphold my VC. Therefore, extend my VC for the remaining rounds. Thank you ladies and gentlemen
Child birth should not be considered morally wrong

Quick rebuttals Case 1: We need it for reproduction! Child birth is essential for the survival of the species. Even in vitro, they have to have a woman to carry it. (1) the species would die because no reproduction. Why is the survival of our species necessary? I've argued that because life is always more negative than positive, the perpetuation of our species would by extention, be immoral. Case 2: New Life Bring a new life in the world is joy for not only the baby, but the world. The baby has so much to do. For example: Fall in love Reproduce Make an impact on the world Impact people Make a difference Ban the Kardashians! (This is optional :P) New life doesn’t bring about an overall positive thing. Sure, there are positive aspects, but the overall meme of life is one of deprivation and discomfort. I was going to write-up other arguments, but I simply don’t have the time, and it appears that my opponent has no intention of addressing my original argument (he forfeited his round, yet was online for at least 2 of the 3 days.
Child birth should not be considered morally wrong

Thank you for accepting. Case 1: We need it for reproduction! Child birth is essential for the survival of the species. Even in vitro, they have to have a woman to carry it. (1) the species would die because no reproduction. Case 2: New Life Bring a new life in the world is joy for not only the baby, but the world. The baby has so much to do. For example: Fall in love Reproduce Make an impact on the world Impact people Make a difference Ban the Kardashians! (This is optional :P) This is why child birth should be considered moral. Thank you ladies and gentleman! (sorry it was short!) 1. http://health.howstuffworks.com...