BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Secular objective morality exists

This is really just a learning debate for me. For this debate both debaters will assume that there is no god or almighty arbiter of morality that exists outside of nature. Objective will mean to have the quality of existing independent of human thought or opinion. Morality will be defined as: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. [1] Please no semantical arguments, no forfeits, and no inappropriate conduct. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate. [1]. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Violent Video games cause desensitization

Once again you've provided no support for your claims. It is possible for the military to use video games for training reasons and not be possible that it desensitization towards killing. The virtual reality training allowed by video games creates a possibility at more cost effective training of soldiers. The training is no different than any other simulator, a flight simulator for example. There is no proven correlation between this kind of training and any sort of desensitization when it comes to taking someones life. http://articles.cnn.com...
Violent Video games cause desensitization

If the army doesn't use video games to desensitize soldiers, why did the army put 50 million dollars into research for video games? You said video games aren't used to get soldiers used to killing, but it teaches them what to expect. It doesn't help them get over killing, but it helps them expect killing? That sounds like circular thinking to me. Soldiers out of the military have said that the military uses video games to train. I think they know more than me or you about this subject.
Violent Video games cause desensitization

Where is the article from the Journal of the American Medical Association? Also even if the article does exist somewhere the claim is that television technology would hypothetically bring more deaths. The article is from 1993 before reasonable video games existed. Soldiers in the army do not play violent video games to get over killing. Soldiers play violent video games before they become soldiers and will continue to play after. There is no proof or support saying that Soldiers play video games for the reason of getting over killing. The website put as support is not a valid source. It doesn't support any of its claims with valid sources. "Studies were done" isn't valid support for your argument.
Violent Video games cause desensitization

The Journal of the American Medical Association claims that if, hypothetically, television technology had never been developed, there would be today 10,000 fewer homicides this year, and 700,000 fewer injurious assaults. Soldiers in the army play violent video games to get over killing. Finally, Studies were done. People playing games like Call of Duty reacted far less to violence, and were more prone to violence, than those who hadn't. Sources: http://www.killology.com...
Violent Video games cause desensitization

point 1 Predator Drones They are shaped like xbox controllers because that's the feel most kids going into the military know and they have great hand eye coordination with them point 2 Violent Video Games Have been around long before the military, they aren't to get soldiers used to killing but to give them an idea what they may expect in the military and as a recruiting tool as people find the games enjoyable. Point 3 Kids Kids have always pretended they were in the army, army men and toy guns have been around for as long as there has been war. Its something thats always been there. Support A study published on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 in Applied Cognitive Psychology suggests "that in the long run, gamers were just as likely to recall negative images in memory tests and to report the same levels of emotion in reaction to the pictures as the non-gamers." http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals

Without Further Details It Can Fit Into Either Framework"It doesn't say "We should invade them... unless we can first get them to change their minds", it simply says "If they execute homosexuals, invade them"."Right, simple and without any details, therefore you can not 100% infer that I mean to invade them right away or that I intend on us invading them tomorrow, ten years from now, or after other methods are chosen to try to get them to toe the line.Con is reading implications into my argument that were not expressed in the words.That the Groups We Appeal to Aren't Fond of Homosexuality EitherSome are, and some aren't. For example, I mentioned how in traditional African religion there is sometimes a special place for homosexuals. Furthermore, revolutions are typically launched by all groups with grievances against the established order. That would include homosexuals. The solution is simple, during the war effort covertly arm militant gay and pro-gay groups moreso and in ways that lead them to have a strategic advantage after the regime is defeated, including groups of homosexuals who have had enough and are ready to fight for their freedom. In that case even if they establish an anti-gay regime it will have to deal with armed homosexual militants afterwards. At some point in time they will notice these groups and if a plan is devised by Western governments we could strategically aim that point at a time where there's not much they could do about it, and then they may not believe it is worth the hassle to pass anti-gay laws when it means a continuation of civil war.A Lot to LoseAll we need is some fictional propaganda showing that these regimes are slowly moving towards ethnic cleansing and that this hate can be blamed at least in part on the initial homophobia. It need not be completely fictional if investigations find real ethnic cleansing, as is likely the case in Sudan. The international alarm and desire to prevent another Holocaust would attract the developed world's attention.The amount of support would mean that we would indeed have the money and resources, because people would be enthusiastic enough to provide it. People would be willing to go through steep tax increases and even nationalizations and conscription as necessary in order to fulfill the promise of "never again".
Nations Should Act With Military Force Against Countries That Execute Homosexuals

We would not tolerate a nation that executes Jews, or any other religion. We would tolerate a nation executing people for their ethnicity or their race. Why should we tolerate nations that execute people for being gay?I propose that countries that execute homosexuals should be invaded by, ideally an international coalition, but if necessary by the United States or which ever country takes up the cause unilaterally and forces them to legalize homosexuality and give them equal rights.We learned from Hitler's Germany, World War II, and the Holocaust that we can NOT just sit idly by as human rights are violated, especially when specific groups are targeted.Nobody should ever be killed or even punished just for their sexua orientation. We can't save the whole world at once, so for now we should tolerate nations who use lesser punishments against homosexuality, but those that execute them should we invaded and forced to treat homosexuals equally.
Since good secure more happiness, we should live good.

Indeed, we cannot anticipate the result of the action accurately, but that does not prove my definition is false. I did not know "some loss of life" means "hundreds of people be massacred". In that case, I expect that to frame and not to frame are evil both. The intent is also significant. The person who has that intention is evil. I expect that deed will ensure the person to act more badly. However, whether that act itself is good or not depends on specification.
Since good secure more happiness, we should live good.

The action increasing the amount of happiness than unhappiness is morally and ethically correct. I agree that the owner is unhappy and that stealing brings happiness to the middle class at a certain time. However, the action's impact should be evaluated not by certain figures or time, but by the entirety. The owner's deed will increase the amount of happiness and the stealing will decrease the amount of happiness from the world's point of view, in the long term. If he committed to framing the Negro, he is not a genuine utilitarian because that framing will bring more pain than pleasure to the world. My thoughts are similar to utilitarian's.
Since good secure more happiness, we should live good.

Before I start, I want to say that I am quite new to this and forgive me if I make any mistakes during this debate. First of all, I feel like we must define what is good because it is such a subjective term. One could view something as good if it allows them to feel happy, thereby rendering the whole proposition meaningless as it ultimately does not say anything. Consequently, I will assume that when you say "good", you mean morally and ethically correct. I disagree with the proposition that doing what is good will ultimately bring about happiness. An act which is morally correct can ultimately bring forth sadness because being altruistic or good means sacrificing oneself for others. A balance must be struck between carrying out good deeds and being able to live for oneself. Thus, I am refuting the assertion that doing what is good somehow brings about happiness and arguing that a balance between what is good and what is considered selfish must be met for the happiness of an individual.
Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

I have made this debate difficult to accept. Please message me if you are interested. If you find a way to accept this without my permission, you agree to receive an automatic loss. We will be able to verify this because I will issue a challenge to the person I accept, so if I did not issue a challenge to you, you have not legally accepted this debate. This is the 2013 NFL LD nationals topic. Definitions will be provided in Round 1. Feel free to contest them. No semantics. No bypassing the character limit using any means. No new arguments in the last round. I wanted to argue for the side I don't agree with because I haven't done that for a while.
The Vongola, Varia and Archobaleno could defeat Konoha and Akatsuki in an all-out fight

Before I begin the debate, I would like to define some key variables: 1) The future versions of the Vongola and Varia fighters will be included , but if the status of certain future fighters are dead, not unknown, they will not be included. The present versions of the combatants are all also to be considered alive. Also, in terms of the Naruto fighters, this takes place just before Pein invades, and all Akatsuki members except for Madara will be included. 2) The fight will take place in a fully-intact Konoha. 3) Friendly fire is impossible, the attacks will just phase through allies. 4) Vongola boxes and summons are legal, as they are part of their skills. As a courtesy, I will allow my opponent to make the first argument.
A woman's place is in the home

To begin, my opponent raises the issue of divorce and I accept the depressing statistics he provided. However, as you will see from the graph below, divorce rates have rocketed upwards since the early 1970's when it first became common for women to embark upon careers. . http://www.bsos.umd.edu... These figures demonstrate that a woman working outside the home has a detrimental effect on her family life which, all too often, results in divorce. The impact of the breakdown of a marriage can be devastating to children who will have a higher probability of: • being in poverty and poor housing; • being poorer when they are adults; • behavioural problems; • performing less well in school; • needing medical treatment; • leaving school/home when young; • becoming sexually active, pregnant, or a parent at an early age; • depressive symptoms, high levels of smoking and drinking, and drug use during adolescence and adulthood. . http://www.jrf.org.uk... My opponent makes the point that divorced women with work experience would be more capable of providing for her children post-divorce, but the reality is, the cost of professional childcare is so high that, for most single mothers, it makes full-time employment uneconomic and they are better off relying on welfare payments. In any case, surely prevention is better than cure? Wouldn't it be better for all concerned if women concentrated their time and efforts on their homes and families and left their husbands to bring home the bacon? My opponent pointed out that I failed to provide any evidence that children suffer as the result of their mothers going out to work, for which I apologise and refer you to a recent study conducted by researchers at Columbia University in New York who measured more than 50 skills in 3-year-old children and those whose mothers worked full-time more than 30 hours a week in the first nine months scored worst. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... He also notes that I failed to detail the feminine duties I referred to so, just to clarify, here is a list: 1 – Housework (cleaning, dusting and that sort of thing) 2 – Cooking 3 – Gardening / yard work 4 – Knitting and sewing 5 – Looking after children 6 – Washing and ironing 7 – Shopping for food Note that the above list does NOT include: 1 – Lazing about watching TV 2 – Chatting to friends on the phone 3 – Messing about on the internet 4 – Meeting friends for lunch 5 – Reading soppy romantic novels 6 – Going to bingo halls to waste time and money 7 – Shopping for clothes, shoes and handbags In conclusion, lasting and durable relationships providing stable platforms on which to raise families can only be achieved if society recognises that a woman's place is in the home. Thank you.
A woman's place is in the home

Research shows that the majority of people believe that a woman's place is in the home: looking after the children; attending to domestic duties and ensuring her husband's dinner is on the table when he comes in from work. [1] Sadly, many women these days have chosen to abandon their feminine duties and pursue careers in industry and commerce instead - and it stands to reason that their families have suffered as a result of their neglect. Meanwhile, there is mass unemployment with the resulting travesty of skilled men, who are willing to work, sitting idle at home. This scandalous waste of talent could be ended if women were to resume their traditional role as housewives: proud to tend the nest while their husbands are out at work, drinking down the pub or being entertained at a gentlemen's club. Obviously, there will always be plenty of jobs for single women to do: they can work as secretaries, barmaids or strippers for example. However, society as a whole should encourage young women to consider settling down and starting a family to be a worthy and fulfilling vocation in itself and not to trouble themselves with any notions of starting a career. Thank you. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk...
Bryan Mullins: The New Idea Called "Electocracy" Vs. Democracy

Concluding argument: Electocracy is an elective dictatorship where civilians hold no power over government decisions. The only power they hold is to vote. If the electocracy leader is corrupt or weak, the country will be serverly crippled by their ill decisions as this president has the powers of a dictator. Electocratic Presidents can not be impeached. Power is hugely uneqaul and can easily be abused as there is no checks and balances system. In Presidential Democracy civilians have a lot of say in the governement's decisions and there is a checks and balances system to eliminate abuse of power from one branch or individual. For these reasons it is clear that a Presidential Democracy is vastly superior. Final Remarks: Throughout this debate Pro has decided to copy and paste an entire round not once, not twice, but three times. All of the three sources Pro has used do not support his argument, which consist of "music inspiration" and a one paragraph wiki page. Out of all of the arguments I presented Pro did not address the vast majority of them. Who won this debate is painfully clear.
Bryan Mullins: The New Idea Called "Electocracy" Vs. Democracy

Electocracy is the new political belief of electing an actually well experienced person, instead of someone really popular, or someone very inexperienced. Electocracy is the new political belief of an election based not on opinion, but on fact. Electocracy is the new political belief in no political party to divide us, nor bring us together. But, to make things clear, bias should not be in anyway, the influence on hpwho and how we elect somebody we choose. Electocracy is the idea of no senate or house chamber, nor any politicians republican or democrat. For example, only real military experts lead our country into or out of war. Comparing that to Democracy: Democracy is only voting based on bias, no experience, and popularity. Democracy is only flawed when people disagree with other people. Democracy only depends on opinion and debate to determine war or not, if necessary. Democracy is wrong, Electocracy is right. Any con would do, let's debate!
Feminism Is Cancer

My opponent forfeit the last round. It also bears mentioning that they never provided examples suggesting that feminism is "evil" or difficult to curtail. If fact we can look to certain areas in the developing and developed world that show the exact opposite, that equality for women has difficulty taking root and expanding. Based on this forfeiture, and the preponderance of the examples provided, judges should vote Opp!Now on to some more festive celebrity bashing!Justin Beiber: What can be said about Justin Beiber that has not already been said about Cholera: He makes people vomit and defecate to the brink of death. Macaulay Culkin: Failed Justin Beiber attempt by evil scientists in the eighties. Thank God he got hooked on methadone and went away.Mark Zuckerberg: If you donate billions of dollars to yourself and get to write it off on your taxes, you should have to share a prison cell with Karl Rove for the duration.Karl Rove: Apparently his mother has apologized to the nation and the world. If saying your sorry makes it all better then my last two ex-wives should be back any moment. Tony Danza: Mr. Danza's recent suicide is tragic, but not at all unexpected. It was apparently his failure on the dating website E-harmony that finally pushed him over the edge.Business Cat: Largely responsible for the banking/mortgage meltdown of 2007/2008. This cat shows why so many faiths say greed is at the heart of evil. Lewis Ranieri: Don't think for a minute your gonna skate by Lew. Sure, it's not all your fault. But it was your idea without precaution that caused all that BS. You have to take your lashes like everyone else. I bet was his family pet. Purr nothing A-hole, and trim that ugly beard. You look like a just for men commercial. Too many to name.. I can't stand celebrities.
Feminism Is Cancer

I would like to say that this was my first debate upon this website, so I was not sure if I was the one with the starting argument, or if I was only to introduce a topic, my apologies. Since I was not descriptive enough in my opener I will now try to be more specific. I do not advocate the inequality between a males and females. I admire forms of feminism that are against genuine abuse, disempowerment, and exploitation. Western feminism in my opinion seems to be shrouded in a passive-aggressive "all bark no bite" resentment that criticizes women for embracing their femininity, disdains them for using their sexuality and bullies them into feeling weak and oppressed for choosing to be housewives, caretakers and full time mothers. I have found myself despising the majority of this movement because it is filled with hypocrisy and only see what they want to see. I have been in debates where common sense and logic was useless with them. Feminists state that men and women are identical when it comes down to the brain, but many feminists also support LGBT (transexuals specifically). This itself is contradictory because a transexual emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex, but how can you support this, and support the opinion that men and women are identical, and that society has made them different? I feel as if feminists are fueled by their hatred of white men. Many females at my college are feminists and tbh feminism has ruined relationships I have had with people. There are imbalances with both genders but feminism never seems to talk about the imbalances that men have. And to respond to your comment, my username represents my love for a journalist by the name of Milo Yiannopoulos, if you do so choose to look him up, then you could understand why I adore him!!
Feminism Is Cancer

The member offering this topic provided no definitions or context, so I will supply those here in my acceptance round. Resolution of Fact: The topic is a truth claim, and burden of proof is shared. When judging, voters should give the win to the competitor that best demonstrates the resolutions is accurate or not and provides the most compelling examples/evidence. The topic donates to rather provocative and troubling advocacy, that women should not be equal to men. As such critiques of the affirmative advocacy should be considered for votes as well. If the aff really wants to spend time/characters critiquing the negative advocacy, knock yourself out. Who am I to stop the Aff from shooting themselves in the foot ;-) Definitions: Feminism: ideology or social movement to define, establish and achieve equal political, economic, personal and social rights for women. **Note; conflating this definition of feminism with something more extreme should be viewed as fallacious and extra-topical. Cancer: (metaphorical; social) a practice or phenomenon perceived to be evil and/or destructive while being hard to contain or eradicate. I promise the voters some quality entertainment here, and encourage them to consider mentioning anything they found funny or clever in the comments or RFD. by the time we're done here the Aff's chronometers are going to be more sanitary than surgical instruments. Go Falls!
Apathy is not a f****** ideology!

Sorry for my forfit, revision took up my time and i do have much better things than sitting arguing at my PC with randomers, not that i dont love to argue with you :/ An again sorry who are you talking to? Your argumet is with me stop only refering to me, talk to me. An argument where you present your claim to whoever is reading isnt an argument i can agree with give me your arguments not the sad bastards judging us. It makes you come across as arrogent. Anyway from your two argument that you would much rather pick hole in my veiws than take a side. you are Con which says to me that you stand by Apathy as an ideology. Dont you think that degrades you as a human being. Doesnt it scare you that there are hundreds who, as you say from your oh so facinating deffinitions:/ (which it seems youve put far to much time into reaserarching), have a lack of consern for life. I find it sad that in light of the fact that religion is a load of very old b****cks that people lack enthusiasm for their one and only existance in this world. I know you may like to look down your nose at me and would more than happily type up your stuck up arrgument and click the subbmit button and feel a great sence of satisfaction, (for watever screwed up reason), than search you own soal and realise just how pointless this all is in the light of everything