BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Snelld7's Argument for the Immorality of Homosexuality is Incorrect.

There are many, many problems with my opponent's rebuttal... let's walk through them, shall we? >> "It's achieving it through vitro fertilization. If it can't happen without intervention, it isn't natural" Here, snelld7 condemns all in vitro fertilization, suggesting that even heterosexual couples who are unable to have a baby normally are immoral. Reproduction involves the production of "one or more other individuals of (a given kind of organism) by some process of generation or propagation, SEXUAL OR ASEXUAL" (http://dictionary.reference.com...) [emphasis added]. Thus, homosexuals practicing in vitro fertilization are able to reproduce. >> "So if sex in the ear is done by wild animals, and a few humans [...] Does that make it natural? Birth control, also, isn't natural." Actually, yes. It just happens that aural sex isn't something we commonly see. Eating one's poop is pretty freakin' weird, but lots of animals do that. The fact that something is unnatural does NOT make it immoral. Your computer is unnatural. So is the roof on your house. Your shoes, your car, your books, your Coke... are they all immoral? >> "Lust isn't bad? Is that your "proposition on offer" in this point? Well, then would you find it ok for your uncle to lust after your gf (or bf if that's what you have). Lust is not good for obvious reasons. Are you basically asking me to explain if cars have wheels, and why?" You misunderstand. Lust is bad, but YOUR argument stems from approbations on adultery. I'm asking you to show that all homosexuals engage each other at the level of carnal lust. Which, of course, you simply cannot do. >> "No, I just need to show that homosexuality is immoral through any of these 6. That was my point in posting it. Not to show that it must be BY ALL OF THESE criterion, be immoral. I was merely pointing out more than one reason. So, in order for me to be right, all I need is for one to stand." Try again... your argument as framed above goes like this: 1) Homosexuals are incapable of reproduction. 2) Homosexuals enter into relationships based ONLY on lust. 3) Anal sex is unnatural. 4) Oral sex is unnatural. 5) Anal and Oral sex are always acts of carnal lust (i.e. cannot be done from love). 6) Lust is categorically morally repugnant. (3 & 4) -> 5 (1 & 5) -> 2 (5 & 2) -> 6 6 -> Immoral. This argument obviously needs all the members of the conjuncts to stand. ****************************************** Snelld7's argument relies on two (fallacious) fundamental principles. First of these is that homosexuals are incapable of love. The second is that all things that are unnatural are immoral. Obviously, it is false that homosexuals are incapable of love. Equally obviously, it is false that all unnatural things are immoral. To succeed in this debate, Snelld7 must satisfy the six tenants of his own argument shown above. The loss of any one of these tenants loses the debate for him, as they cannot stand alone. AFFIRMED.
The use of torture is justified in ticking time bomb situations.

For the purposes of this debate "torture" is defined as those methods of interrogation revealed as being used by the CIA on GITMO detainees. These methods include physical and psychological stress, the most severe being water boarding. The methods are non-lethal. An ABC News article describes the methods, at least in general: [1. http://abcnews.go.com....] The article says that the methods were used to extract confessions, but that is doubtful. The present debate is restricted to interrogation to extract critical information, not confessions.The ticking time bomb scenario is one in which information is needed within a limited time to save human life. A Wikipedia article give some background on the scenario and the arguments that have been used in arguing it: [2. http://en.wikipedia.org...] In the present debate, past arguments may be used as well as new arguments. The article is for background, and all arguments must be presented in the debate.I will argue somewhat along the lines of what jurist Alan Dershowitz has argued. In particular, a provision is included that a warrant must be obtained from an independent judiciary permitting the use of torture on an individual.Whether the harsh interrogation methods are legally "torture" or not is outside of the scope of this debate. Calling them "torture" ends the semantic argument on that subject for this debate.The first round is for acceptance and background information only. The Pro case will be presented in R2. Standard debate.org rules and conventions apply. All arguments must be made in the debate, and not by referencing additional material. Each round is limited to 8000 characters, and all arguments and links to sources must be presented within the character limits of the debate. Any word not specifically defined in this challenge is taken in the ordinary dictionary sense that best fits the context. Pro may not make new arguments in R4, and may introduce new evidence only in rebuttal. Con may not make new arguments or introduce new evidence in R4.I welcome my opponent to debate.org. This is her first debate on the site, but she is a well-qualified experienced debater. I'm looking forward to a good debate.<trumpets blare> This debate is the first round of ClassicRoberts Gauntlet Tournament, [3. http://www.debate.org...] The quest for the gonfalon now begins! </trumpets>
Mario is NOT a psychopath!

First, I don't know what you mean. Anyways, MatPat said that "Mario is an abusive brother". Well, first, Mario said that Luigi is "number one" when he saved him at the end of Dark Moon. Next, there was a Thant You screen after Mario is Missing, so it can be inferred as Mario thanking Luigi. Finally, Mario grinding Luigi's foot is what brothers do! Brothers are mean sometimes, but still love you. Next, Mario being a murderer. First, Mario ditching Yoshi is the player's job, and Nintendo allows it, so it can't be Mario's fault. Next, if Mario touches a Goomba or Koopa or Wiggler, he dies or gets hurt, so of course he would kill it! Finally, he easily couldn't have known the brick blocks were toads, so he could have been unknowingly murdering them. Next, with Mario dating multiple women, Peach has never shown interest in Mario, Mario is just a friend with Pauline, and Luigi has stolen Daisy, so they didn't last long, and Peach is Mario's main goal with inference. Finally, Luigi cried tears of joy when he saved Mario, and what person would do that to their abusive brother? That is how Mario is not a psychopath.
Corvo (Dishonored) Could Beat Connor (AC)

Obviously you would, and you already gave in to my argument... I think. Contradicting yourself in the first two sentences isn't a good idea. HOWEVER: You obviously want to make it known you hate me, and yet you didn't even read the instructions. You failed to let it be known if you played both games or not, and "fuckk you" sounds like a troll, and not an opening statement. Although you did accept, the toleration I have for fuks like you isn't much. IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY WANTS TO DEBATE: PM me, and I will challenge you. I don't want to make an open one just so this cuntt can accept again. A video for kicks. http://www.youtube.com...
Corvo (Dishonored) Could Beat Connor (AC)

Corvo Attano, master assasin and ex-royal guard, has had a difficult life. He has also assasinated people held up in the most fortefied buildings. Connor is an assasin train from a boy. He is an expert with a tomahawk, and is very much a killer. My argument is that Corvo not only is a more perfect definition of an assasin but also that he is superior and would win in a battle between the two. ALL WEAPONS AND ABILITIES INCLUDED. Videos and links can be used. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... ROUNDS 1: Opening statement and Acceptance 2: Rebuttals/Arguments 3: Rebuttals/Closing STRICTLY NO TROLLING! You must have played BOTH games to argue either way. Failing to follow the rules will result in an IMMEDIATE LOSS. Voters, this is to be followed, for they accept to the rules when they agree to the debate. ***IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE PARAMETERS, PM ME AND IF I SAY SO I WILL STATE THE CHANGE AS OPENER OF ROUND II***
I call for the complete defunding and shuting down of planned parenthood.

Abortion, the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. A long debated issue, it is quite divisive in the US, with some being so against the issue to bomb and burn clinics for their beliefs. The latest shooting of a clinic was in 2015 in Colorado, leaving 3 dead and several injured. It surely is a divisive issue. Planned Parenthood and AbortionI say that we should continue to fund Planned Parenthood. According to my opponent, the primary procedure that Planned Parenthood partakes in is abortion. 35% of their total services goes into contraception. in 2013, 34% was for STD/STI screening and treatment. Cancer testing (pap smears, breast exams etc.) constituted 17% of their services. Abortion amounted to just under 3% of their total services. To add, to terminate the nonprofit would mean to have 4.5 million SDI tests/treatments and 935,573 cancer screenings done elsewhere. And to add, nearly 80% of patients had incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty level. Essentially you would be taking problem with a minority, and ignoring the problems of the majority. Even if one thinks that abortion is as morally repugnant as genocide (it isn't), helping stop the prevention of cancer and SDIs in the poor, isn't really a good idea.Consequences From DefundingEven if we defunded Planned Parenthood, that would not absolve their existence. Much like the Red Cross, it is an independent organization that is heavily funded by the government. It could very well survive on its own since the government only provides 1/3 of funding.Even if we could, to depose of Planned Parenthood would increase back alley abortions. If someone thinks that a pregnancy will ruin their life, there are some that will go to every length to make sure it doesn't. As of 2008, 21.6 million women experience an unsafe abortion worldwide each year; 18.5 million of these occur in developing countries, where it could have easily been safe. Deaths due to unsafe abortion remain close to 13% of all maternal deaths. That 13% could easily be prevented in the developed world. We could turn into Mexico, which before 2007, a former mother could be hand cuffed in a hospital bed upon discovery of a past abortion.MoralsA three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. At this stage, they do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. The blastocysts are most often used in embryonic stem cell research, due to their ability to become any tissue in the body. with the potential to cure a multitude of diseases. The U.S. has done this research all the time since the Obama administration lifted the ban on it from Bush. Of course, anyone who has been born knows it doesn't take three days to make a baby. There is the rest of the first trimester, as well as the second and third trimesters.http://www.who.int...http://www.factcheck.org...http://www.pewresearch.org...http://www.cnn.com...
I call for the complete defunding and shuting down of planned parenthood.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or Planned Parenthood, is a nonprofit organization that provides reproductive health care in the United States and globally. Known for several thing, the main procedure would be abbortions. I don't care how you start arguing, first round is not just acceptance. Rule 1: You shall not vote for yourself on another account. Rule 2: State sources such as websites or books, etc. Page if you can. Rule 3:No personal accounts, although subjective and speculative could be touched on lightly. You have 3 days per round, 5 rounds.
NK vs SK AOW

NOTE: The scenario Is still valid. Operation LANNAN NE JOCHU MASHALA! (Maps are links) http://img.yonhapnews.co.kr... Naval Invasion Will be blocked with this, Plan To Wear them off. North Korea, With more sumbarines that south korea claims mobillized, And It's patrol boats, Skirt Closely To the coast, Where Missile support can be found. Operation DAHANMINGOOK DELEN SIBAL http://i203.photobucket.com... After North Korea Moblizes And Calls Reserves, Infant and Tanks will hide quietly against Amphibious Or airborne Border raids. OPERATION PARKGENHAY WANGDA DANHELA! http://s1.ibtimes.com... http://s1.ibtimes.com... http://static5.businessinsider.com... My Planes will skirt low around the Mountainous Terrain, With Tanks and Boats. You See From the Map that North Korea will be prepared for A Attack from the east, And Has hidden it's 200,000 Men In the Mointainous East area, where Any Invasion will be hard. In addition, North Korea' s 6,000 Strong Cyber attackers Will attack The South's systems with DOOS Atyacks, Hampering Blitzkriegs. OPERATION LANNAN JOLA E SEKI! North Korea relases "Toy" Drones to get Information On siuthern lines and Disrupt them, Making advances on Terrain Even harder. In addition, I have Mass Produced and Moblized. Also, The Korean Operation names are creative.
Penguins are superior to all other birds

While the bald eagle does have some commendable traits, it is also one of the most exaggerated species on earth. The bald eagle also gets much undue attention due to its being the national animal of the United States of America. Penguins are able to survive in temperatures that a bald eagle would instantly die in, and penguins don't abandon their chicks in precariously precipitously positioned aeries while both parents are off gallivanting on short trips for fish. Penguins leave one behind.
Penguins are superior to all other birds

The Pro side of this debate argues that penguins are the most superior family of bird which currently inhabits the planet Earth. Penguins are able to swim, an ability not possessed by other aviary specimens. Penguins also do not sit on their eggs as other disrespectful feathered animals do, but the eggs sit on their feet covered in a layer of the fathers' feathers. The con side of this argument must select a kind of bird and convince the audience of said bird's superiority to penguins. Go.
Resolved, that castration be implemented to serial rapists

Public-safety argument: We chemically treat people with mental conditions with drugs that inhibit certain neurological stimuli and reactions to hormones for the protection of themselves and society. Serial rapists should be no different. Logic argument: Testosterone is produced in the testes. Testosterone is the main sexual-drive hormone of the human male. It produces aggressiveness and is directly related to arousing the male's genitalia which is used to procreate the rape. Removing the testes, removes testosterone production, thereby reducing the chemical impetus to aggressiveness and removes the chemical stimulation needed for an erection. Serial rapists have shown by their actions to be unable to control their actions. Removing a chemical trigger will greatly aid in helping them control their actions. Moral argument: Humanity and humane both contain the root word, human. Serial rapists (serial, as in prolific and chronic) have forsaken humanity by their inhumane acts. As such, they have forfeited their 'human' status and should be dealt with accordingly. Mathematical Argument: It is better to harm one and save many others than to save one who will then go on to harm many others. Remember, this is someone who has been found guilty of being a SERIAL rapist. Someone who does (or cannot) stop himself. Serial rapists fall in to two categories. Those that know it is wrong and want to stop but can't and those that don't want to stop. Therefore, in light of all above, removing the main chemical (or in this case, the organ that produces the chemical) that is a sex-drive and aggressive stimulator in criminals who have been shown to be repeat offenders is the right and moral thing to do. To do any less is a disservice to humanity and the rapist himself.
Death penalty is wrong.

Im going to keep this short and simple why the death penalty? A few people have said... It gives an easy way out? How would anyone know what an individual wants , noone wants to die. The death penalty is established in many countries in different ways..hanging ..legal injection , etc. This is humane Ive seen statistically how many teenagers.. are waiting in Death row, its preety dispicable people need rehabilitation Not just death people may think its an easy way out for prisoners. But no its an easy way out for the goverement who wants to waste there time with someone who is physically and mentally dangerous? People need to realise the death penalty is decreasing civilisation...Its people who rebel to this that ridicule it. These people call themself religious? 12 people from different backgrounds and beliefs (jury) been taken responsible for someone elses life? .....Get real.
There are no compelling objections to anarchism

I don't think it will be an issue, but I would like to clarify a definition by pulling a quote out of Pro's own source. Market Anarchism is a society where "law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics. " Naturally, this expands to any service would be provided by the open market, not just legal services. I know this round is for acceptance, however, with only 4 rounds, if I bring these up in my R2, my opponent will only have their R3 and R4 to discuss it, so I'd like make some assumptions that I believe my opponent will agree to (if not, we can debate them). 1) The open markets follow economic laws, such as supply and demand. 2) We are discussing hypothetical situations with hypothetical governmental structures (or lack there of). Any discussions of past failed attempt at either is outside the scope of this debate. 3) In our hypothetical situations, we must assume the modern human nature. I cannot claim that in my hypothetical government, that 100% of the population absolutely adores 100% of what the government does and it is run by 100% pure and honest people with no cases of fraud or abuse. Likewise, my opponent cannot do the same. With that, I will not make any arguments regarding the resolution and allow my opponent to start in R2. Thank you,
There are no compelling objections to anarchism

===Resolution===The resolution for this debate will deal with anarchism and whether it would have a legitimate possibility of effectively and qualitatively providing various social services which are generally recognized as necessary for the existence of civil society.In this debate, Pro is tasked with establishing a general framework for the effective production of these services (as well as their plausibility, just saying it's possible that everyone would get along is insufficient) while also refuting Con's arguments. Con's burden is to both attempt to refute Pro's framework, as well as to forward and defend one or more compelling objections to anarchism.===Definitions===Anarchism in the scope of this debate does not concur with the vulgar use of the term (referring to chaos or lawlessness), but instead with the political philosophy advocating a form of social organization without a territorial monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, or any other services. More specifically, I will be defending free market anarchism[1] when non-institutional specifics are brought up.The term State refers to an institution which holds an aggressive monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, and in most instance other services (such as roads or mail delivery). Aside from monocentric control of the provision of these services, a State also has the power to tax the inhabitants under its control.A compelling objection in this instance will refer to an objection levelled against anarchism which shows it to be incapable of providing necessary social services (such as law and order) effectively or qualitatively. I don't think Con will be guilty of this but just in case, an argument along the lines of saying that some service X would be 5% more efficient then anarchist service X wouldn't be considered compelling. The term compelling implies a strong difference between the respective provision of the given services which sways strongly in the State's favor.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.5. BoP is shared between Pro and Con.===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
There are no compelling objections to anarchism

Since this is the final round, I will use this only to address things brought up by my opponent in his R4 and to summarize. I will be addressing Pro's case and then only one section of my own. ==Pro's Case== Public Choice My opponent strawmans the argument here. I never claimed that centralization is "efficient forever" or will "never become inefficient. " I merely showed some reasons that a larger, more centralized company has an efficiency advantage. My opponent never refuted any of these, and they never provided a single open market force that pushes them smaller. He did provide some examples of how our current system can bolster them up, but not a single open market force that holds them down. Monopoly Pro says that these are basically washes and that they don't favor a state. That is true, but these were never my arguments, these were my opponent's which have failed to show any benefit of anarchy. ==Con's Case== Sub-street monopoly I would like to start this section with this quote from my opponent, "If I theorized any use of force in R3 I'm certainly ignorant of it and invite Con to point this out. " Pro makes the argument that there is no "force" to pay the neighborhood ("As defined in R1, it holds an "aggressive monopoly" i. e. , one held up by force or threat of force. .. however the voluntary nature of the above described community rules this out as well. "), when there is the exact same force or threat of force that we all face with taxes. As presented, the roads paid and maintained by the homeowner's association (or neighborhood, or whatever name you want to give it) and the cost goes to the homeowners. Since the roads are a natural monopoly, the people that live there have a simple choice. Pay up or move out, the exact same choice that all current states give. Pro also makes the claim that you don't have a choice at McDonalds (also brought up last round) so they can't be compared. The main difference is that you don't have private property inside the McDonalds, while your home is trapped inside the monopoly of the housing association (just like within state boarders). Pro does bring some points up in private arbitration just last round that I will tie into this. "You don't have an original choice in which country you're born into. " This also applies to a housing association. He also says "There's a much larger existential problem with relocating countries. " Anarchy is much different than Miniarchy. With Anarchy, there is no "small enough" the simple notion of having to move, even if it is only a few blocks away is the same as 3,000 miles. If moving a few blocks away was "okay" then we'd be arguing about objections to miniarchism, rather than anarchism. This is the most compelling objection, since the only provided solution is the basic layout of a state (albeit a very small state). Since this is the only section that my opponent invited me to continue upon, I will be forced to let the rest go.