BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cell phone use while driving should stay legal activity

I greet my opponent and welcome him to this site warmheartedly! I look forward to a debate of high quality and interesting facts. Unfortunately, I have come online and have only five minutes to write my arguments, which would not be long, and I want to save them for the next round. I was unable to write arguments before now because I needed to fix some hardware issues, and the only way I could write was through a game console, which would waste a lot of my time. I apologize for this, and hope that we can continue debating successfully in the next rounds.
Cell phone use while driving should stay legal activity

I want to first take this opportunity to say thank you to this forum and its participants. I look forward to this debate. Currently there are 7 states (Calif., Conn., Md., N.J., N.Y., Ore. and Wash.), D.C. and the Virgin Islands that prohibit all drivers from using hand held cell phones while driving. I wish to debate this type of legislation. I believe that cell phone use while driving should be not become illegal in any form. I oppose actually doing the action, but do not see where making it illegal will help. I find that holding a conversation on a cell phone while driving is no more distracting or different than being engaged with a passenger or kids in the back seat, eating fast food or messing around with a music tape, CD or MP3 player. To legally prohibit cell phones being used while operating a vehicle infringes on my personal rights as a motorist. I know that it is distracting and therefore will not use it in my car. Do we have to place a law on all "unacceptable" behaviors. People still drink and drive, smoke marijuana, etc... even though it's illegal. Thank you for whoever decides to side with "Making Cell phone usage while driving illegal". I'll be looking forward to the debate.
The USSR played a more important role in winning WWII in Europe than the western allies.

My first two arguments were not very strong. But my next two will be much better. Yes, the Soviet Union did come in later in the war but the fact is that it did MORE to win the war than any other country. The most significant and decisive battles were fought on the eastern front and when I say "significant" I'm not talking about some kind of D-Day where 150,000 allied troops assaulted a German front of 10,000 men. Nor am I talking about the Battle of the Bulge where Germany lost 160,000 men. The Battles that I am talking about are the Battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk. For example lets look at Moscow: the largest battle in history. In the fields around Moscow, the axis suffered as many casualties in that single battle as they did throughout the three years they spent in Africa. Or the Battle of Stalingrad (the bloodiest in history) where the 800,000 axis soldiers were killed and 90,000 more were captured. The fact is that Stalingrad was the turning point in the war. Yes that's right, Stalingrad not D-day. By 1944, the outcome of the war had been decided in the east. The allied landing in Normandy had absolutely no affect on the outcome of the war. As for the Battle of Kursk (largest tank battle in history), it was definitely more significant than any of the Battles that the WA fought. Most of the remaining German armour was destroyed. This proves that your statement that the western allies did more to defeat the axis because they were in the war from the very beginning is completely false. The fact is that the outcome of the war was decided in the east and the eastern front is where Germany suffered the most of its casualties. If you are still not convinced who won the second world war then my fourth argument will prove that. ..
The USSR played a more important role in winning WWII in Europe than the western allies.

I will first address the new argument, then move on to the rest of the debate. Just because the USSR dealt the final blow does not mean that they did the most work or were the most important. I will refer you to this article about kill stealing to explain why this does not prove that the USSR was more important. http://en.wikipedia.org... Unless Pro can give some better reasoning, this point falls. On the standing arguments, I have two rebuttals. The first rebuttal is that the identity of the instigator of a war does not determine who contributed more to winning. This debate is about who played a more important role in WINNING WWII, not STARTING it. My second rebuttal is that the WA did not do more to cause the war than the USSR. Pro claims that the WA caused the war by allowing Hitler to break the treaty of Versailles and annex other countries. This is illogical because the USSR did nothing to stop these either. The USSR actually contributed more to the start of WWII because the convinced Hitler that they would not try to stop him. Hitler knew that the WA would oppose him, but if he thought the USSR would as well then he might not have started the war. With the USSR out of the picture, he would not have to fight a two front war. Pro did not really address my argument, so it still stands. I would advise the Pro to post all of his arguments in the next round instead of posting one/round. The way things are going, we would only have one round to argue your strongest arguments and five rounds to argue you weakest.
The USSR played a more important role in winning WWII in Europe than the western allies.

The reason that I chose this topic to debate is because I always found it very interesting. I am new to this site. This is my first debate. Ok you are completely right. The Soviets signed a non-agression pact with Germany. You also say that this argument works against me. The reason that I posted this particular argument is to show that the western allies did not play the most important role in winning the war because they were partially responsible for starting it in the first place. I know this is not a strong argument but I would like to have four which will go in order from weakest to strongest. The Soviet Union signed a non-agression pact with Germany for several reasons. First of all, the USSR was not ready for a war. Also, it was none of Stalin's business what happened in France as long as Hitler did not attack him. The USA was part of the WA and it came into the war about half a year after the Soviet Union did. Just like the USSR, the United States wanted to stay out of the war. Statement that the USSR remained out of it all for some time makes no sense. Ok now my second argument: it was the Soviet Union who captured Berlin. The fall of Berlin was what caused Hitler to commit suicide. The fall of Berlin was what finally ended the war in Europe. The western allies were 50 miles away from the German capital when it fell. Although this is once again not a strong argument, it shows who destroyed Nazi Germany in the end.
The USSR played a more important role in winning WWII in Europe than the western allies.

Ok, before I start my arguments, I am curious why you challenged me to this debate. As far as I can remember, I don't know you. Either way, I am happy to debate this against you. Pro's first argument actually works against him. He claims that the Western Allies (which I will abbreviate WA from now on) allowed Hitler to gain land and build up power, therefore the USSR was more important to victory. This is wrong for two reasons. The first reason is that the USSR did nothing to stop Hitler's initial land grabs either. They even went as far as to sign a non aggression pact with Hitler. The second reason that Pro's claim is wrong is that this does not show how the USSR played a more important role in winning WWII. The next point that Pro makes is that, because of WA incompetence, Hitler took over most of Europe early on. There are three reasons that this claim is false. The first reason is that Germany was actually more prepared for war than most other countries in 1939. Hitler had been planning his conquest for years by then. The next reason is that the USSR once again did nothing to help here. The USSR just hid behind their non-aggression pact while the WA were at least trying to fight back. Finally, even if this were true, it does not show how the USSR's role was more important than that of the WA. The main reason that the WA played a more important role in winning WWII than the USSR is the constant fighting with the Germans. As I pointed out earlier, the WA had been fighting Hitler since the very beginning while the USSR was still hiding behind its treaty. Even after being pushed out of Europe, the WA continued the fight in the air and in northern africa. It wasn't until latter that the USSR joined in the fighting. Even when the USSR was fighting, they only had Hitler in a frozen stalemate for a long time while the WA were invading in Italy and Normandy. It is clear that the WA did more to win WWII because Pro has no solid arguments and the USSR did not actually fight the Germans as much.
The USSR played a more important role in winning WWII in Europe than the western allies.

Let"s start with my weakest argument. My first argument is that it was the western countries, particularly Britain and France that allowed Germany to become so powerful in the first place. Their policy of appeasement allowed Hitler to gain land. They remained silent when Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles and began building up their military. In 1939, Germany felt unready for a war and it was but due to the incompetence of the western allies, it defeated Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, and France in around an year. The Germans were outnumbered yet they easily defeated multiple countries. Now Germany set its sight on Europe, particularly the Soviet Union. The thing is that Nazi Germany could have been stopped from the very beginning.
The USSR played a more important role in winning WWII in Europe than the western allies.

You surprise me Gordun. You mention nothing about WA bombings and the Lend-Lease act. Although I would be able to counter them, they would be stronger arguments than saying that Russia came to the war late. All you do it counter my arguments. Now speaking of Russia coming in late. Yes Russia did come late, but it also killed more axis troops in one year than the WA killed in three. In 1941 alone, the axis suffered 800,000-1,000,000,000 casualties and as a result, Germany moved 800,000 men to the eastern front and abandoned all plans for a future invasion of Britain. But none of that says much which is where my fourth argument comes in: Russia killed by far more axis soldiers than the western allies did. Let's face it: Germany lost 80% of its men including some of its best divisions in the east. In addition to this, half the Italian casualties, most of the Hungarian casualties, all the Romanian, Slovakian, Spanish (yes they sent the blue division), Finnish, and Bulgarian casualties were on the eastern front. Many troops from Vichy France also perished in the east. Not only was Russia fighting the axis, it was also fighting itself. When the Germans invaded, the soviet republics of Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia , Lithuania, and Estonia who were very unhappy with Stalin's rule turned against Russia and treated the Germans as liberators. They joined the Wehrmacht, worked in concentration camps, and helped the Germans find Jews and Communists. Russia was up against a far greater number of axis troops. You lack sufficient arguments. All you say is that Russia had a non-aggression pact and that the WA were fighting from the very beginning which doesn't make sense because the USA was also staying out of the war, even longer than the USSR. You don't have any solid facts in terms of how much damage the WA actually DID to Germany and the other axis countries. I basically win the debate unless you can come up with something. But you really do surprise me.
suicide is morally permissible

Sorry, I had to sleep sometime :P. So you seem to have gotten some of my arguments mixed up. When I gave examples of suicides in the past and cited your statistics, this was to prove the point that it was possible to have a negative value to life, because of all of these people who have had negative values, and decided death was a better option than a continued life. values can be negative, such as having a negative balance in your bank account. You can have a negative value to life when you're still alive, I don't know what you're trying to say here. I'm not trying to say that just because someone has done something that makes it ok. Thanks for clarifying what point you were trying to make by stating that suicide is illegal. First off, I'd actually like to point out your article actually has disputed results for whether suicide is legal or not, your evidence doesn't really support your point at all. Moral permissibility: 1) You say that morally permissible means the behaviors the public tolerates, but this is obviously flawed. I'll give you a famous examples that disproves this idea. Say you're in a situation where you are forced to either kill one innocent or a larger number of innocent. under a utilitarian framework, one would obviously choose to save the largest number of people, hence maximizing the potential for value to life. However, under what you say, the public does not tolerate murder. This means that if we followed what you said, the person wouldn't save anyone, and would simply leave all of the people to die. If this is your idea of something being morally permissible then there's probably something wrong with it. 2) Once again, you say that you don't think according to the mindset that we should simply follow the status quo, but you contradict yourself by saying that we should follow laws and assuming that laws must be correct. If those laws are created by a corrupt government or individual, that doesn't justify it and make it morally permissible. If a dictator decrees that every monday there will be sacrifice, that's not morally permissible just because the public tolerates it. 3) Whether something is morally permissible has nothing to do with whether society accepts it or not. There have been lincoln douglas debate (LD debate) resolutions about things such as targeted killings and animal rights. People have not always accepted these issues, yet it is our desire to debate about whether these actions are actually morally permissible or not. You have conceded that the benefits outweigh any external effects on the individual's environment a suicide might have, so i'm assuming we've settled that matter. I think the crucial point for you and the judge to understand in this debate is that when life becomes unbearable, death is a better option and is therefore morally permissible.
suicide is morally permissible

Time for me to attack >xD. You say that there are some empirical example eg japanese people, Jewish suicide. How does these examples show that this is morally permissible? That is like saying since a group of people killed 100 people it is permissible as others do or , or saying like that a group of adults vandalised a house it makes it ok as they do it. When you said that's a terrible mindset for thinking ill like to say that i never said the "since it's illegal, it must be bad for some reason" Also the law is set up or the public. Morally permissable means the behaviors the public tolerates, like smoking and drinking. Since the law is made for the public, and morally permissable means behavior that the public tolerates, it should not be permissable as the law that the public follows does not permit suicide. You have evidence that one's life value can be negactive... It probely isnt possible as value to LIFE is Living not death. (Thats why it called living x D) lol. Anyway thanks for responding fast. =D.
suicide is morally permissible

Hello, so thanks for responding. Heres the answer to your questions. Suicide is the act of one harming oneself, even if the attemp is not fatal it is still suicide. Hence attemp suicide. 2: There is no need for evidence. It is plainly obvious that it wont only effect the individual, but also friends and family but for arguement sake here is some anecdotes on the internet. "I lost an uncle to suicide when I was 10. There were signs with him. I'm still haunted by his death, and not one day goes by that I don't think of him and what might have been. I'm turning 32 at the end of the month."---- this is found on http://forums.families.com... and there are plenty more out there. I dont understand what you mean by "do you agree that a person's value to life is 0 when they are dead" Now Ill counter some of your statements. "The issue we are questioning here is whether it is right for an indivduals to commit suicide"------ I am saying that the indivdual does not have to right to take away his life as it will effect others. Also you say that "suicide makes their state better by dying, and setting their value to life to zero"---- So you are saying that suiciding makes the victim's state somehow better by dying and that when they are living their "value to life" is less then zero? Also you have not any evidence on proving there is really a case where "living is worse then death". Ill also like to point out the obvious fact that suicide is illgeal. To relate back to arguement the person who suicides does not have the right to do so as it is against the law in nearly every country.---http://en.wikipedia.org...
suicide is morally permissible

Hey thanks for accepting, this is also my first debate, so sorry if i miss any formalities or procedures. I have a few questions: If a suicide fails (is not fatal) then is it still considered suicide under your definition? does any of your evidence state that suicide affects all individuals friends/family in a negative way? Do you agree that a person's value to life is 0 when they are dead? I'll now counter some of your arguments Your main argument is basically that death is bad, however, in the case of suicide, when an individuals value to life(i can clarify on this subject if you want) becomes less than 0, life is worth than death, which makes suicide morally permissible. When your life becomes worse than death, it is morally permissible to take your own life. I'll give some empirical examples, such as the Japanese and their hara-kiri, or the Jewish suicide at Masada. Both of these examples are of when people decided their life was worth than death, and their value to life was below zero, and they decided to take their lives. Another argument you made is that suicide being morally permissible will lead to more people dying, but this is not true. we are not debating about a piece of legislature mandating that suicide become legal or even encourage suicide. this debate is solely for the purpose of education and entertainment, when the judge(s) vote that suicide is morally permissible, suicide rates will not suddenly increase. The issue we are questioning here is whether it is right for an individual to commit suicide. you say that suicide has negative effects on others, however this is outweighed by the fact that the actual individual who commits suicide makes their "state" better by dying, and setting their value to life to 0. Also, your own argument here actually makes suicide seem good, because suicides lead to education about suicides, and more people becoming aware about what to do. such as in health class in school, where some people learn about drugs, bullying, suicides, and other issues and how to deal with them. Suicides could also have positive impacts on others, it is impossible to accurately weigh the impacts on others. this argument is irrelevant anyways, suicide being morally permissible won't actually cause people to die therefore there's no link to the argument that it will change others lives. once again, you assume death is bad, but in the case that living is worse than death, suicide is morally permissible.
suicide is morally permissible

Hello, this is my first debate. So I am arguing that suicide is not morally permissible. Over one million people die by suicide every year. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that it is the 13th leading cause of death worldwide[3] and the National Safety Council rates it sixth in the United States.[4] It is a leading cause of death among teenagers and adults under 35---Wiki There are an estimated 10 to 20 million non-fatal attempted suicides every year worldwide----Wiki If suicide would be permissible then it would almost certainly kill many people every year which would effect the victim's family and close friends. Suicide wil inflict strong emotional repurcussions for its survivors and for families of its victims. This may lead to more suicide and depression which will effect the victims family dramitically. If suicide is morraly permissible many more people will die and that will dramitcally change other people's lives.
America Focused in the WRONG areas

Negating Case:America is not focused in the WRONG areas; here is an example:Read this article: http://www.wmcactionnews5.com...Also, to disprove the resolution, I will show that America is, in fact, focused on other issues.1. ISIS and the Jihad: http://www.nytimes.com...2. Presidentail Politics: http://www.foxnews.com...3. Ukraine and the Crimea: http://www.reuters.com...I figure 3 examples is enough. I await your refutes.
America Focused in the WRONG areas

Semantics:Since there is an apparent lack of definitions, I will establish definitions in order to maintain an equal understanding of the Semantics. America: The United States of America, an independent sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere. Focused: Paying particular attention to something. WRONG: An acronym standing for 'Women Rapped by Only Negro Gangstas. 'Area: A region or specific topic. Rules: Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening ArgumentsRound 3 - RebuttalsRound 4 - Counter-rebuttalsRound 5 - ConclusionSince the meanings of words have been established, we can no longer debate semantics. No kritiks/K's. Keep an approrotate conduct. My opponent may begin the debate next round. No new arguments can be made after Round 2. Failure to follow the rules will result in a complete forfeiture of the debateNote to Voters:Just for clarification, my opponent is for America being focused in the WRONG areas, although his Pro/Con stance says otherwise. Do not penalize me or my opponent for this.
legally there should only be two genders male and female

Part of my point is that: you are talking about "gender" but the concept you seem to mean is "biological sex". Biological Sex determines what set of genitals you have, and certain biological and physical characteristics. "Gender Identity" is what gender you assign to yourself. Sex cannot be changed, but gender can be. To answer your question about pedophiles using this as an exception, yes, they will. But any one thing cannot stop them, and I have seen no reported cases of this kind of thing happening. Also, this is what has led to the rise in popularity of genderless, individual washrooms. In any washroom, there is still a risk of pedophilia, by gay men, or gay women.
legally there should only be two genders male and female

I don't believe in a god either just trying to help people see my point from another view and i'm not even talking about gays they don't try to be something they're not but trans i don't understand why you would need to be a girl you can just act ;like one and dress like one that's basically the only thing that you would need to do does it matter if they call you a guy if you know deep down you are a girl then why are they trying to confuse so many people why do you want to be legally a female for why? its just a bit ridiculous they gay marriage was okay and people liking the same sex but this is a whole new concept . and those same people will say " don't try to be something you're not " well ... you wanna be a legal hypocrite too? also i don't understand what you are trying to say here mate how can the state of being male or female change when there are only male and female to be... lastly... there are some really great racist memes out there.. that doesn't make them right tho \(@-@)/