BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War is a necessary evil.

The world would not exist as we think of it without fighting for what is needed. If we didn't fight then there would be more deaths, and our nation would be under a different flag. War is necessary, war is necessary when there are no other options other then fight, or give up. I will tell you here I refuse to think that we should give up, and fall just becoming a memory. Now usually during a war civilians die, and usually there are some cases of rape. Now when it is a first would nation, they have better armies. They are better trained and work better under pressure. So there is less of a chance that these cases of rape, or killing of civilians happen. But when it is a third world nation, ruled by a dictor it can be a war based of evil. When these wars happen it is the civilians that if die the most. They are the ones to lose in those wars. A war is evil when it is not within the civilians best interests. The following are acts the prove war is usually evil. http://www.rollingstone.com... https://www.hrw.org... http://www.rt.com... http://www.globalresearch.ca... These are only some examples of the horrors of war. Now war is needed, if we didn't fight then there would be one government most likely a dictor who kills anyone who dose not agree with him. That goes against our constitution, and that is worth fighting for.
War is a necessary evil.

Pro begins this round stating that “By evil I mean morally not accepted.” I agree with the definition that evil is immoral. As Evil has been defined negatively… that is to say it is defined by what it is not (moral) it is important that we look at what morality is. Last round I mentioned that in Debates we often argue what “ought” to be. Or rather what the moral obligation is. Thus if something ought to be, it is a demonstration of morality. Pro argues that “If we never went to war then there would be more dictators, more wars, and more terrorism. If we didn't fight for what we believe in then there would be more chaos. We need to always stand up for what we believe in. Like it or not the usa is seen as the powerhouse of the west.” Clearly, if there is a case where we “ought” to go to war, that is synonymous with saying the moral obligations we have would compel us to go to war. Making such instances moral, not immoral. Or in terms of this debate not evil, but good. Thus the resolution is negated as pro has just presented an argument that War is moral. 1: Is War is Necessary? Pro rightly states that I argued “war is not necessary.” He argues that if that is the case using World war two as an example that if we had not fought that the world would be in bad shape. This does not argue war necessary, it argues war desired. Or rather that we “ought” to have fought. This is the same as saying that in the case of World War 2 my opponent thinks our involvement a moral imperative. In other words, not evil. This is confirmed when he states that “we need to try to make the world a better place.” This sounds to me like pro is arguing that war can be a moral imperative. 2: Is War Evil? Pro now provides a example of what he calls evil. “When you kill someone no matter why, it is still evil. You may have a good reason but it is still evil.” This is incoherent with other arguments made by pro. Evil is immoral Moral is what we ought to do Evil ought not be done. Pro has given examples when… we ought to go to war If we ought to do something it is moral War is moral It is incoherent for pro to say something is evil and we ought to do it. War cannot be both moral and immoral. That is to say it cannot be both moral and evil. Based on the definition of evil we have agreed to, war is not evil. Conclusion: Pro has still not warrented the case that war is necessary. We see there are times that war is moral. Therefore is cannot be concluded that War is evil. As pro has argued the concepts of necessary and evil it becomes clear that something cannot be both necessary and evil. Moral is what ought to be done. If something is necessary, as pro argues war is, and there are cases it ought to be done, then war is moral. Since evil has been defined as immoral the stance that war is a necessary evil is incoherent.
War is a necessary evil.

Now with round one as my intro, I will bring up point about why war is a necessary evil. By evil I mean moraly not accepted. Such as the killing of civilians. If we never went to war then there would be more dictators, more wars, and more terrorism. If we didn't fight for what we believe in then there would be more chaos. We need to always stand up for what we believe in. Like it or not the usa is seen as the powerhouse of the west. When we back down it makes the whole west look weak. Such as our inability to send troops to Ukraine to stop Russia. This means that Russian, oh I mean pro Russian rebles you just happen to Russian military equipment. Russia is expanding, even when it means war. They are threating the worlds stability. ISIS is a radical terrorist cell. China trying to force everyone to allow them to basically take the south chineas sea. Now you say that war is not necessary. You can not pick and choose what wars are, or not. Now you are saying that World war 2 was not necessary. If we didn't foght the war, if Britain gave up. There would be three super powers, Germany, Italy, and Japan. Germany and Italy, and Japan where killing civilians, they would kill you if you disagreed with them. The war was necessary, because if we didn't fight it more would have died. We where fighting for a cause worth fighting for, an war about what should happen. When you refuse to be willing to fight then you are allow your enemies to grow in numbers, and power. For example after WW1 France wanted the USA to have our troops in there land, and for us to attack Germany in case they break the treaty after the war. France knew that we needed to be ready for the worse case scenario. Yet we wanted our men back home, we didn't want a war. So when Germany rose in power France, and Britain sat back hoping Germany would stop. This hope everyone agrees without war is dumb. It can not work. Sure we sometimes lose, but we need to try to make the world a better place. We need to sometimes make an example of what will happen to a nation that has gone to far. That has crossed the invisible line that you should not cross. You need to go to war to remove the bad, to help create a safer world. Will it always work, no but we can not give up and head home. It is to late for that, we are no longer able to stay home ane hope that things turn out all right. We need to be ready for when our enemies attack us, or try to attack nations to weak to stop them. We need to help create a better place in this world. Even if it means kill, even if it means attack other nations. I believe that is we should make the world a safer better place. When you kill someone no matter why, it is still evil. You may have a good reason but it is still evil. Now back to you con. http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.atlanticcouncil.org... http://www.reasons.org...
War is a necessary evil.

The resolution presents two separate claims. Pro must warrant both to win this debate. 1: Is War is Necessary? "being essential, indispensable, or requisite" Pro argues that “Sometimes there is a cause worth fighting for.” Much of the argument follows this line of thinking. Leaving pro with a case that presents an argument that war might be desired. This however does not support the claim that War is necessary. Thus pro has not provided any warrant to the claim that war is necessary. This burden will be hard to fill as the concept of necessity creates or explains the relationship between multiple things. For example, it is necessary to eat, in order to live. Saying that war is necessary is a partial statement. Necessary for what? Considering the millions of years that the earth existed prior to “wars” it is fair to say war is not a necessity of nature, nor of existence. War is not essential, indispensable, or requisite. War is not necessary. 2: Is War Evil? "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked" Pro here leaves much open to opinion. He has not presented an ethic or moral standard by which to describe what evil is. He merely describes things that have happened in war that he thinks are evil. Unless he presents a concept that describes what evil is, or what makes something evil he cannot warrant the claim that War is Evil. So I ask Pro. How is evil determined? Can Necessary and Evil describe the same concept? The definition I provided seems to pit evil as the opposite of moral. In Debates we often argue what “ought” to be. Or rather what the moral obligation is. Thus if something ought to be, it is a demonstration of morality Ought implies can. It would be unjust impose impossible obligations. . If obligations were not achievable, agents would waste resources attempting to meet the burden imposed on them. Capacity to perform obligations is a prerequisite to any moral system. "[T]he point of uttering moral judgments disappears if the agents involved are not able to act as proposed." (1) If something is necessary we “ought” not try to change it. Such would be futile. Moral obligations cannot exceed the possible. Thus is something is necessary it is moral. Restated, something that is necessary cannot be immoral as we cannot change it and therefore “ought not” change it. This means that something that is necessary cannot be evil. Conclusion: Even if it is concluded that war is necessary or that war is evil (which has not happened.) it cannot be both. Pro has not warranted the claims on war made by the resolution. The resolution cannot be affirmed as Even if it is concluded that war is necessary or that war is evil it cannot be both (1) http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk...
Masturbation with your roomate present should be acceptable

First of all , we both have penises. It's time to be mature and realize that the male organ is nothing more than seeing an arm or a leg. Nothing taboo about it. Second of all, it is more logical to look up porn via laptop than school computer, as the school computer lab has other students, thus running into possiblity of being caught in the act by several people instead of just one person. Third, the feeling of being horny yet not being able to relive it is the worst feeling in the world. My roomate, being male should accept this and let me choke the chicken.
A disembodied afterlife would involve more downsides for the consciousness than biological life

Rebutting my opponent's arguments:My opponent forfeited this round so there was nothing to rebutt Continuing my case:Roller coasters: "During a roller coaster ride, your body is pushed, pulled, twisted, turned and even left weightless for a brief time. All of this is accomplished as the forces generated by the coaster interact with gravity" http://www.washingtonpost.com...grav·i·ty/ˈgravitē/ Noun: The force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass. For most purposes Newton's... The degree of intensity of this, measured by acceleration. Synonyms: seriousness - weight - gravitation - solemnity More info »Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster Spirits are defined as non physical:Definition for spirit - Oxford Dictionaries Online (World English) oxforddictionaries.com/definition/spirit 1the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and characterhttp://oxforddictionaries.com...So it logically follows that unless you are physical (biological life) then you cannot feel the effects of "flying" or being weightless because gravity is responsible for this and gravity only interects with physical things that have mass and a disembodied afterlife (spirit) is defined as non physical.Roller coasters and the effects of flying feel good and are a rush to many people, and there is no evidence that has been presented that proves this is possible without gravity interacting with something physical, which of course cancells out a spirit or disembodied afterlife.Conclusion: I have provided a solid case in regards to a disembodied afterlife involving more downsides for the consciousness than biological life. My opponent has presented no case.
A disembodied afterlife would involve more downsides for the consciousness than biological life

The consciousness would lose abilities it once had as part of a body: 1. Without a body there would be no reproductive organs, or any organs at all. This means no penis, no testicles, no vagina, no breasts, nothing. Without these biological functions working there can be no sexual reproduction, a consciousness without sex would surely be considered a downside. Why would this be a downside? Because there are nerves in you genitalia which give the feeling of pleasure just like being massaged. When this happens endorphins are released in the brain which give a feeling of happiness or comfort. A lack of happiness and comfort certainly would be a loss for the conscious experience. 2. Without a body there would be no taste buds. Taste buds contain the receptors for taste. They are located around the small structures on the upper surface of the tongue, soft palate, upper esophagus and epiglottis, which are called papillae. Have you ever had a steak? The stuff is delicious, since your taste buds are responsible this and taste buds are a biological factor, then this sensation logically cannot be experienced in a disembodied afterlife. 3. Blood flows to regions in the brain involved in dopamine release when people listen to music, which is the reason people enjoy it. So logically without dopamine release, enjoyment of music would not take place. Have you ever enjoyed a great album? You won't anymore in a disembodied afterlife. There is no evidence that sex, tasting great food, and enjoying music can take place after death to a disembodied consciousness, therefore there are 3 downsides I have mentioned in the first round. What evidence is there that there are upsides to a disembodied afterlife? None that I can name, but I'll leave it up to my opponent to try and present a case. Conclusion: Unless my opponent can discredit my 3 assertions (which as based on facts regarding the biological processes which fuel certain things we enjoy), and replace them with 3 assertions which are based on facts which credit the notion that a disembodied afterlife wouldn't involve more downsides than biological life, then I have the upper hand in this debate. Sources: http://goaskalice.columbia.edu... http://kidshealth.org... http://news.discovery.com...
A disembodied afterlife would involve more downsides for the consciousness than biological life

Context of the debate: We will define the afterlife as: A disembodied consciousness that continues to exist eternally after the body that hosted this consciousness meets death. We will define death as: Death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Death Death is the permanent termination of the biological functions that sustain a living organism. Death - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/death a : a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life If points made don't fit the criteria above then they are not valid to this debate.
Surrogacy saved my life

Well, thanks for answering my topic. I suppose your subjective point of view doesn't match other people's opinions. You might know that we are willing to choose whatever we want. of course, for you it's easy to say that adoption is better because you have never faced infertility issues and you have never been on one's woman shoes. You can't understand her inner world, it's too complicated for men's minds. I don't want to offend you in any case. I just want to cast light on this issue. We chose a surrogacy because it was easier for us. We had a chance to have a genetically related to us baby. My ovaries are still produce good quality eggs, my husband's sperm is fine, the one problem I can't carry. It's also expensive, time-consuming, nerve racking but it works for infertile couples, it gives them a hope. To my mind it is better than adoption because you have a chance to have your baby, your blood and flash and it worth everything. As for adoption, it's a very complicated process and it could take years and you can't adopt a newborn, don't you agree with me?
Surrogacy saved my life

Well, hello! I'm sorry about your problem but I can't agree with your decision. My wife is infertile and some 10 years ago she also wanted to do something to fix it. Fortunately, she considered my opinion and we adopted our first child. I'm sure that adoption is the best option for infertile couples. yes, it's a long process; yes, it's expensive; yes, not everyone can afford it BUT who said that surrogacy process is easier? 1. Our children, we have 2 now, were not born with the help of technologies. 2. We made our children happy after all they've been through but we didn't pay money to create them. We didn't exploit any women to become happier. 3. We didn't play god 4. We don't have to lie to our children about their origins 5. We didn't sponsor medical companies
Surrogacy saved my life

I was struggling with infertility issues for a long time of my life. We've been trying a lot of options but nothing has worked for us. we thought we would never feel the happiness of parenthood. After some time of searching and decisions we made up our minds for this option. I know this is a quite hard issue to accept because it invokes moral aspects but I believe it to be a miracle. I'm so grateful we earned a needed sum of money and started our journey. I even don't want other people telling a surrogacy is bad, no never it gives a hope, it gives a new life and I do believe it will help other people in future.
Alexander the great was more important in our history than Julius Caesar

Hello, I am arguing my point that Alexander the great was a more influential factor in our history, than the famous Roman, Julius Caesar. Alexander the great conquered 2/3 of the known world, accomplished the impossible and achieved what no man thought possible. In the words of a colleague of his, 'a man with no equal in all the world' Julius Caesar achieved a considerable amount, with the limitless funding of one of the biggest and most stable empires the world has ever seen. Caesar had it handed to him on a plate, so I do not believe that Caesars achievements come close to what Alexander did in his 15 year campaign. Anyone who dares to argue against, come on in!
Alexander the great was more important in our history than Julius Caesar

To start, good job. I actually did not know that Octavian was adopted. I also checked and found that Caesar was not the first emperor and thank you for that correction. Back to the debate: 1. I am going to see if I can change your's and other's minds about Caesar. One thing that was important to the Roman Republic was the fact that it was, in fact, a Republic. The people enjoyed the fact that they could vote, in the beginning. Then the government started to corrupt and the senators and consuls had gained more power than they were originally to have. The people realized this problem and so did Caesar. From an early age he knew this and made a campaign for life. He became a symbol of the people, creating reforms in favor of the people and mediating between Pompey and Sulla, the two consuls at the time. He gained the trust of both political figures and the people of Rome, and when he declared himself dictator for life, only his political opponents were part of his assasination. Caesar made a name for his family and got the influence that his adopted son Octavian used to his advantage. Octavian actually was famous for living like a commoner and actually called himself the Princeps Civitatis ("First Citizen"). As for the people who helped Octavian later on they actually did not make his rule much easier. Mark Antony commited suicide and Lepidus was exiled for treason. It then fell upon Octavian to create the empire. Augustus then created the Pax Romana or the "Roman Peace" with the help of the armies he recieved from Caesar. Upon further research I found that Caesar was the great uncle of Octavian but did make him his adopted son as well. Now to get away from tangents, back to Caesar and Alexander. Alexander the Great was great for several reasons: 1. He created an Empire that was and still is the largest recorded empire in history. 2. He (as you said) did destroy the Persian Empire quite quickly. The tactics that Alexander used, actually, were a mix of Ancient Roman and Greek tactics. Alexander was born hundreds of years before Caesars time, though, but the tactics used were still partly Roman. Another point is that both died and their death caused a civil war. The difference was that Caesar had given the tools to create peace while Alexander did not. The Romans continued on but the Macedonians lost most of their Empire. So far so good! Over to you Pro! -http://www.roman-empire.net... -Cassius Dio's Roman History: Books 45"56, English translation -Gallery of the Ancient Art: August Humor of Augustus -Life of Augustus by Nicolaus of Damascus, English translation Suetonius' biography of Augustus, Latin text with English translation -The Res Gestae Divi Augusti (The Deeds of Augustus, his own account: complete Latin and Greek texts with facing English translation) -The Via Iulia Augusta: road built by the Romans; constructed on the orders of Augustus between the 13"12 B.C. -http://en.wikipedia.org...
Alexander the great was more important in our history than Julius Caesar

1. Julius Caesar was in fact not the first emporer, it was his son Octavian, better known as Augustus. He did indeed lay down the foundations for Augustus to become emperor but the senate decided against it and assasinated Caesar, on the 15th of march, 44BC. This is where the ides of march comes from. Anyway in my opinion i believe it was more down to Marc Antony and Lepidus in the second triumvirate that helped Augustus take charge in Rome. They led a campaign against the senators who organized the assasination of Caesar, this helped to prevent another occurance of this sort. After this the triumvirate split up, Lepidus was exiled and Antony and Caesar went into a huge civil war. The winner would take the roman empire, the loser would lose everything. With the help of admiral Agrippa, Antony lost at the battle of Actium and Octavian took the Roman and set up a dynasty that would last hundreds of years. So to correct you, Caesar did not pave the way for Octavian and Octavian was not his nephew but in fact his adopted son. The third point i can not argue against, solid arguement. But Caesar conquering the barbaric tribes of Europe, does that compare to oblitterating the strongest and biggest empire ever? Alexander destroyed the persian empire in ten years, outnumbered and massivlely out equipped, he led a campaign against the global power of the world in his time. Caesar had the backup of the biggest and wealthiest empire in the known world, as well as this he was fighting against badly equipped, badly trained barbarians. 4. Julius did lay down the path for the republic to be formed, but it was infact down to Augustus that the Roman empire was estabilished.