BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

con would surely state that self defense is permissible when killing. this goes against the general notion of 'you can't kill'. the point, there are exceptions to our rules and morals. why can't there be an exception when there's a break down of survial conditions? con has just argued that true morality should be able to pass the muster of tough conditions. there's a certain laudability to his standard, but it's self imposed and overly burdensome. the only way we can approach it is to look at hte natural order, as i did in the past post, and ask what makes most sense. i mean, morals are not always cut and dry. the greeks and man and boy sex and everyone thought it was natural. i'm not saying morality is arbitrary, but it's not always as clear cut as you think. perhaps they weren't lookin at the natural order and deceived theimselves, who knows. but we do know that here and now, while it may seem different tlike the man boy love thing, we know that the natural order and our own reason says it is probably permissible to kill and eat anoter person in those conditions.
if you were alone with someone, n there was no way 2 get food, u can morally kill an eat that person

Pigs and animals don't set up codes of morality either. Morals are a human construct not a natural one. Animals live in an immoral world according to humanities ideas of morals and do what they need to to survive. Harsh situations is why morals exist. Anyone can sit upon a pedestal and sling their opinions of morals and circumstance but the choice to be moral is easy when not faced with a tough situation. Morals in a lot of aspects go against logic and the natural order of things. Take apocalyptic movies for instance. What is a major theme? The breakdown of humanity. Well what does that mean? It means rape murder. Trapping people and killing them for food. Morality is challenged. Why? Because morality goes against survival. The bible was a guide to morality in a brutal and unfair world. But according to morality you should not kill. It is not your right to take someone's life unless they try and take yours. Morals are separated from logic and natural selection aka. Survival of the fittest. So no morally you can not kill someone for food in a tough situation. despite how logical it might be.
The U.S. should rejoice over the death of Osama Bin Laden

Resolved: The U.S. should rejoice over the death of OBL ==Definitions== 1. Should: provide outweighing reason for 2. Rejoice: to celebrate ==Rules== 1. No semantics. The debate will be about the known meaning of the resolution 2. Drops are concessions. We will be using the rule - "silence is consent." 3. New arguments cannot be brought up in the last round. That round is only for weighing, extensions and voters. *this round is for acceptance. Argumentation starts Rd. 2*
Ultimate Team War - High Altitude

Dark Magician fails My opponent never really responded to my analysis that Mahad did not have the same powers outside of the memory world, even though he existed in both the memory and real world, given by me last round. 2. Harry Potter fails My opponent rests his entire case for Harry beating bats on Dracula's inability to summon beyond a certain distance - yet he provides no source or analysis as to why not. 3. Mewtwo fails I think my opponent will find all Mewtwo's attacks are psychic. Also, I tend to think Team Rocket is a little less sophisticated than Optimus Prime: after all, they do "blast off" at the end of almost every single episode and their evil schemes never really work. As to the speed argument, the speed statistic on Bulbapedia cited by my opponent is an average of attack and defense speed, yet it is defense and attack that matters. As there is no film fight between Zapdos and Mewtwo, there is no film canon like my opponent asserts, so we must look to the statistics given by the creators of pokemon. Finally, my opponent should really respond to my analysis in round four about the barrier ability. (NB this is a valid new argument as it is in response to a new argument in round five) 4. Argarok fails Against Goku 5. Charmander fails Against Kevin (with electric and dark powers), Zapdos, Goku and Prime. 6. Zapdos is awesome Because he changes direction rather than decelerates, as I've said before - analysis that my opponent again didn't respond to. 7. Dracula is awesome My opponent says that Charmander's and Argarok's fire will kill the vampire army that I have created. As I said last round, it wouldn't matter because Mewtwo's fall will have caused my opponent to lose first. Besides, I claim my army is, on the whole, faster than my opponent's fire-breathers and therefore better able to dodge. Another unresponded argument I've made before. I find it really funny that when I point out my opponent added a new rule in round four, he added another rule in round five (Occam's Razor) to justify his insertion of a rule in round four. How is this NOT dirty tactics? 8. Optimus Prime is awesome Because, as I've proven, Mewtwo is powerless against him. 9. Kid Goku is awesome My opponent seems to have dropped his analysis that Goku is weaker than Argarok 10. Kevin 11 is awesome Because, with electric, dark and vampire powers, he is invincible.
Ultimate Team War - High Altitude

Optimus Prime can indeed fly. He was given flight parts by Jetfire, which were installed by Jolt. For your information, Zapotec has no intention of maintaining that altitude. I'd like to point out that Dark Magician does not have a Mystic Box. In the Yu-Gi-Oh cartoon and game, Mystic Box was a separate card, not part of the Dark Magician's repertoire. It follows that Dark Magician cannot use Mystic Box unless one is made available to him. As my opponent neglected to specifically give his Dark Magician a Mystic Box, Kevin 11 is safe. I'd also like to point out that Mewtwo is incapable of flight. Excellent. Now on to my strategy. Bear in mind that all of your units are about 3km beneath me. At the start of the battle, Dracula summons a vast swarm of bats to attack Harry Potter. Being undead, the bats are able to maintain the high altitude as they do not need to breathe (the major reason bats cannot fly very high is their small lungs - even so, bats do fly at about 900m above ground level). The bats are ordered to distract Harry from his spellcasting and snap his wand. At the same time, Zaptec will swoop down from high up to attack Mewtwo. While Mewtwo is concentrating on Optimus Prime (who, as a robot, is unaffected by Psychic attacks), Zaptec swoops at the speed of lightning and pierces him with his beak through the chest. Kevin then leaps off Zaptec and uses his new powers like an electromagnet, flying towards the nearest metal (Dark Magician's armor). The armor electrocutes the dark magician, and Kevin absorbs the magician's dark power, allowing him to fly. Zaptec and Kevin will then move to finish off the distracted Harry Potter. Meanwhile, Argorok flies up towards the mist, right into Goku's signature Kamehameha attack. The dragon is annihilated. If Goku's attack fails, Goku will keep trying again, safe in the knowledge that Dracula is no longer in the mist (he is, in fact, fleeing from the dragon's terrible sight, on the far side of the midst, towards Optimus Prime). If Goku cannot kill Argorok, Optimus will help. Charizard will see Mewtwo fail at his task and will try to use his flamethrower. Unfortunately, this attack has a range well short of the distance between him and Optimus. I'm guessing that instead he will aim at Zaptec or Kevin. No matter who he chooses, Optimus' long range missile will kill him moments later. If he chooses Zaptec, Zaptec uses his speed to dodge the attack, making it hit Harry instead. If he chooses Kevin, Kevin will be hit alongside Dark Magician, but as Dracula has already turned everyone on my team into vampires, only Dark Magician will be killed. In the highly unlikely event that a horde of hundreds of bats do not incapacitate Harry Potter, Goku will Kamehameha him, and Zaptec will finish him off soon after. Then Zaptec will attack Mewtwo, largely as a distraction while Kevin destroys the Dark Magician, before either Goku or Optimus Prime launches an attack from high up. With your entire team annihilated, I look forward to hearing your concession of defeat.
Ultimate Team War - High Altitude

Having previously lost to mongeese in a non-rule-breaking debate, I have assembled a small army. I gather from "clear skies and no oncoming weather conditions" that the wind speed is neglible and there are no clouds (this is very important for my strategy). I will first name all my characters, and their starting positions. Note that because one of the characters is not initially visible (for reasons which I will describe) I shall not list his position. My team: 1. Optimus Prime 2. Kevin 11 (Levin) 3. Count Dracula 4. Son Goku 5. Zapotec My positions are as follows: Optimus Prime is in robot configuration, centered at (500,900,4000). Kevin 11 is flying on Zapotec, having absorbed some of his electric power. Count Dracula is not visible, but you note a strange mist has appeared extending from (350,500,3500) to (650,700,4000), obscuring half of Optimus Prime. Son Goku is flying in the mist, only just visible at he is centered on (500,498,3800). Zapotec is above the mist, flying at (500,630,4100). I look forward to hearing your team and strategy.
Master Chief would defeat Marcus Fenix in combat

I believe that Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy SPARTAN-John-117 from Halo could defeat Marcus Fenix from Gears of War.RULES1. We are using all forms of canon for each participant (Games, Novels, Movies, etc.)2. Game mechanics are not to be considered canon3. Extending an arguement via link to another post is allowed (I encourage it)4. First round is for acceptance and declaration of the equipment that will be used5. Weapons and equipment must be able to be realistically carried6. Weapons and equipment must be considered standard weaponry (A SPARTAN Laser is not standard for Master Chief like the Hammer of Dawn is not standard for Marcus Fenix)LOCATIONThe battle takes place in a 2 mile by 2 mile area that contains urban and woodland environments. The combatants start at opposite ends of the area. Unlimited time is given, but the starting time is 12:00PM, and as time goes on the daylight changes accordingly.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Each combatant is trying to kill each other. They are not given any preparation time and have very limited knowledge of their foe. No other people are in the area and there are no drivable vehicles. Outside help is also forbidden.I shall begin by announcing John-117's gear: MJOLNIR Mark VI Armor: This is his current armor from the Halo games UNSC Military Specialized "dumb" AI: MJOLNIR Mark VI allows the use of an artificial intelligence. It is inserted into the back of the helmet/skull. MA5C Assault Rifle: This is a standard UNSC assault rifle serving beside the MA5B and MA2B. It is commonly fielded by all soldiers in the UNSC. BR55 Battle Rifle: This is the UNSC standard Battle Rifle, and is commonly fielded to both regular Marines and Special Forces. M6D "Upsized" Magnum: This pistol is a larger version of the M6D magnum specifically designed for the larger hands of SPARTANs. M7 Caseless SMG: This is the standard SMG for UNSC forces. 4 Fragmentation Grenades 1 UNSC Combat Knife: UNSC Forces, especially SPARTANS, are commonly equipped with a knife. 1 LOTUS Anti-Tank Mine: SPARTANs throughought the Halo novels are almost always equipped with these mines (Along with tactical nuclear bombs). The Master Chief can carry all of this for three main reasons.#1. Master Chief is a SPARTAN-II in MJOLNIR. He can lift weights of 200kg with ease with a single hand. The gear will not be of any burden to someone with such strength#2. MJOLNIR has magnetic holders. This allows him to attach his gear to both of his thighs and onto his back.#3. Game mechanics were the only things stopping you from carrying this much in-game. Otherwise, the game would have been unbalanced.
Gay marriage should be allowed.

Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits, and banning gay marriage increases rates of psychological disorders. So kids should have a mother and a father (in your opinion) but what if a foster child wasn't able to be provided with a mother and father, you'd rather them to just stay in foster care when statistics show abuse and neglect is high in foster care when gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care. Gay marriage legalization is correlated with lower divorce rates, while gay marriage bans are correlated with higher divorce rates. If the reason for marriage is strictly reproduction, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Marriage is a secular institution which should not be limited by religious objections to gay marriage. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them.
Gay marriage should be allowed.

IIt Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother It is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex "marriage." A child of a same-sex "marriage" will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex "marriage" ignores a child"s best interests. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle In the name of the "family," same-sex "marriage" serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone"s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s. This is false. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility. Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.
Gay marriage should be allowed.

1. Marriage is a union of love, not a union of genders. 2. Homosexuality is a human characteristic, not a crime. 3. 'Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual priviledge.' 4. Homosexuals(nor anyone else) are not able to control their feelings or affect to who they fall in love with, so they shouldn't be punished for that. 5. Many people are against Christian values and God, but it isn't illegal to believe in God. As well, many people are against gay rights, so it shouldn't be illegal for gays to get married. 6. If God doesn't exist, gays have been treated unequally for no reason. 7. Love is an emotion, justice and right, not a concept that can be controlled/denied by law or by an old book(bible). 8. Would it really bother anyone, if two people could celebrate their love equally? 9. Gays don't try to control straights' rights, so straights shouldn't try to control gays' rights. 10. Christianity is a choice, and religion is something you were taught. Homosexuality is something you were born with.
Gay marriage should be allowed.

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
Gay marriage should be allowed.

Gay marriage. Every one has their opinion on this topic. Mine is why not let them get married? The divorce rate in heterosexuals is very high, but I have know gays and lesbians that never break up. My opinion is there divorce rate would be much lover. The bible says god loves everyone, so why wouldn't he be o.k with this? If they want to get married, they should have that right. It shouldn't be taken away from them just because they like the same sex. I may not be gay and you may not be gay, you may think its gross but you still shouldn't take away their right. It's like abortion, I may not agree with it but doesn't mean that right should be taken away. Marriage is a civil right, and taking it away means your disobeying the constitution. Remember that? The act to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and taking away marriage crushes the dream of the pursuit of happiness.
Pedophiles that look at abusive images of children should not recieve lengthy jail sentences.

It is true that there is no concrete link between watching children being abused and actually committing the act, as I was surprised to learn when researching my reply. I would have thought it fairly obvious. However, every study I found on this could not conclude otherwise either, meaning, that there was no connection at all between child porn and abuse. The most common reason for that, it was said, is the people in charge of the study have to wonder if the pedophile is lying. But why would he lie? Why would he lie about when he last watched child porn and how often, and whether or not it turned him on to the point he had to play out the fantasy? Why would he not be forthcoming on the specifics of his ultimate shame? Quotes from the Kristen Carlson of the Michigan Law Review: ...psychological studies suggest a strong correlation between those who seek out child pornography and those who would be diagnosed as pedophiles. Studies also suggest that most pedophiles are unable to control their strong sexual urges. They are likely to seek out sexual relationships with children if they are not incapacitated in some way...Recent research has suggested that child pornography offenses have brought child molesters into the criminal justice system that otherwise would have gone undetected....(1) Now does child pornography cause someone to molest a child? Of course not, no more than a gun causes someone to shoot people. But people with violent histories can't have guns, and neither should child molesters have access to this material. (1) http://www.michiganlawreview.org...
Pedophiles that look at abusive images of children should not recieve lengthy jail sentences.

In the first paragraph my opponent admits that a desire to punishment paedophiles highly for the crime of possessing decision imaging motivates him. It states that as well as this the punishment should be high to prevent them doing it again. My opponent has yet to identify a anything in the act of viewing the abuse of children as in any way different from masturbation to the thought of abusing a child (the latter not being a crime and the forming being a crime that often attracts a sentence of over 10 years imprisonment). If we were to punish being for masturbating to the thought of abusing children this would also dissuade them from doing it again. However, I continue to expand the argument that as neither the masturbator or the viewer causes any then neither should demand a lengthy jail sentence that would dissuade them from doing it again. A high sentence to dissuade the recurrence of a disgusting act isn't justification enough. " slows down their urge to do it again, thus getting another conviction, and saves some innocent kid their childhood - perhaps their whole life." Note that the link between viewing sexual imagery and actually committed the acts viewed in this sexual imagery is yet unsubstantiated in this debate. There is no de facto link.
Pedophiles that look at abusive images of children should not recieve lengthy jail sentences.

"It is true that an image of someone being sexual abused is an image that should be kept private." I feel that they should not be kept private, but destroyed. My opponent is right in pointing out that disgust towards these images, as well as those who abuse children, affords me little sympathy. But it is not only disgust that makes me feel that the punishment for viewing these images should be severe for a pedophile. I believe that someone who is a threat to society should be denied anything that will inspire them to do it again. The higher the punishment, the less likely they will be to seek these images out. "'I maintain though that pedophiles will never change, can never be cured. They must be watched, and punished more severely than others for things that could lead them to commit another despicable crime.' I suppose you mean another despicable act of gratifying themselves to a child's abuse. " A child's suffering turns a pedophile on - that's what he wants, and he can't change anymore than you or I can change what does it for us. But when a pedophile gets turned on by child pornography, he needs a release in the real world sooner or later, and the more images he sees, the sooner he will seek out that release. Strict punishment against them seeing these images is probably doing them as much of a favor as it is society. It slows down their urge to do it again, thus getting another conviction, and saves some innocent kid their childhood - perhaps their whole life. It is a crime that warrants higher levels of prevention than most any other. If it can be prevented by someone being afraid to go to jail for even thinking about it, then so be it.