BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teleological Morality is Superior to Deontological Morality

Given my opponent has forfeited this round, I will post only a brief argument this round. Deontological Morality is far superior as it judges the character of the action and not just the outcome. For example, a man donates large amounts of money to charity. This seems to be a good action to do. However, say that the man did this action to boast of his wealth, or to improve his popularity. The situation has completely changed, as the intent of the action was not moral at all. Using a teleological system, that man would be praised, when in fact his character is flawed and he didn't do the action for any moral reason Furthermore, there may be a case whereby a person has the intent of doing a good deed which, due to bad luck, turns out to go wrong. An example could be a person helping someone across the road. Whilst they are in the road a madman in a car bulldozes them down. Using a teleological system, the helper would be condemned, as his actions have caused a death. However, this is plainly ridiculous, as the outcome was out of his control. We cannot blame the person for this event, so a deontological system is plainly superior.
Teleological Morality is Superior to Deontological Morality

Important clarifications and definitions: This debate is not about whether teleological or deontological morality is correct, it is about which is superior of the two. Teleological morality is the moral framework(s) under which the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. Deontological morality is the moral framework(s) under which the morality of an action is determined by the intent of the actor. 1st Round is for acceptance. 2nd Round is for opening arguments. 3rd Round is for cross-ex. 4th Round is for rebuttals. 5th Round is for encapsulation.
Democracy is a form of Tyranny

The pro seems to misunderstand the con's actual argument about democracy and the U.S. Since the U.S. is not a democracy we should not even be having this debate. To further prove how the U.S. is not a democracy the con used the Constitution of the Roman Republic[1] and pointed out the similarities between it and the U.S. Constitution. Then the con further proved how the U.S. was not a democracy and exactly like Rome with the slavery and political parties example. Regarding the pro's Rebuttal about Rome, I was actually referring to Rome in the early stages of the republic and not the empire. Contrary to what the pro says, my sources deal only with the Roman Republic and not the Roman Empire. The specifically say the Roman Republic and not the Empire and point out the empire having slaves[2] and political parties[3]. Slaves Quote(First sentence, Third paragraph, under Social Structure) "Slavery and slaves were part of the social order; there were slave markets where they could be bought and sold." Political parties quote(Final Sentence, First paragraph, under The populares and the optimedes) "The populares party took full advantage of this opportunity by allying itself with Marius." These quotes prove what the pro flatly denied and could suggest either the pro lied or did not read the sources. That verdict is left up to the judges. The brief rebuttal the pro presented about the Bill of Rights and constitutional limits does not apply to this round simply because these articles address Tyranny of the Majority and not slavery or political parties. Since the pro says that the Democracy in the U.S. is tyrannical yet also says the Electoral College(Something the U.S.) constrains democracy properly the con can only see this as a contradiction and this entire argument must be dropped into neither sides favor. Closing Dealing with the resolution, we can not see exactly how Democracy is tyrannical. We can see how the U.S. might be tyrannical but the U.S. is a constitutional republic similar to it's predecessor the Roman Republic. The burden of proof was on pro to sufficiently prove how democracy was Tyrannical yet he merely gave negate examples about the U.S. These examples backfired when his model for an ideal society(Roman Republic) also had these particular example and the pro tried to shun away the evidence. So the con sees no other vote then a con vote. Sources are the same as opening round(Sorry I ran out of space)
Democracy is a form of Tyranny

Thank you to my esteemed opponent for honoring me with his valuable time. Let us proceed, without further ado, to the artful path of affirmative argumentation and advocacy. The Rome issue was not intended to be a major point, however, since my opponent has spent a good portion of his precious word allotment arguing this, I believe it wise to address. My estimable rival has proposed the idea that Rome is equivalent to America today. This is true, when looking at certain time periods. However, as the reader should note, I was referring to the Roman Republic at its early foundation, whereas my opponent has gotten this time period confused with the later Roman Empire. The original republic did not have slaves or political parties whatsoever. It was an institution of a near perfect constitutional republic. As time passed, Rome's power increased, leading to a situation we see in America today, as my opponent so wisely descried. But, I was simply referring to the very early stages of Rome, before they were internationally recognized. Under my opponents second point, his sword of words is again deflected by the armor of the pro. Constitutional limits and the Bill of Rights did not stop slavery or centralized political power. Point won by Affirmative, end of story. The Electoral College is a very valuable point, and one that I am thankful he brought up. However, it supports the Affirmative. The Electoral College shows exactly what happens when democracy is limited. With an Electoral College, we have equal voting rights for all who live under the government (and support the Donkeys or Elephants), regardless of what the majority believes. Democracy, and thereby Tyranny of the Majority, is thwarted. I would finally like to address some issues with my opponent's refutation. Neither of my rival's arguments presented direct refutation to mine. My examples are, in essence, dropped arguments. And since it has been shown that the Con case is fundamentally flawed, and the only valid negative example supports the pro, an affirmative ballot is warranted. Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's final rebuttal and then the outcome of the judging!
Democracy is a form of Tyranny

Now on to the debate. Argument 1-The United States is identical to Rome at it's foundingToday, my opponent says the perfect example of what the United States should be is old Rome. Let's take a look at the standards introduced by the Constitution of the Roman Republic. [1] We can see many similarities between Rome's and the U. S. 's way of governing, primarily the fact that both have legislative assemblies(Congress), Court(Justice system) and lastly an emperor(President). So these three similarities already prove that the U. S. is already meets the pro's criteria for an ideal country. The similarities go even further as both countries introduced "checks and balances" to maintain that neither branch had superiority over another. Another way we can interpet this point is the fact that Rome had slaves[2] and polarized political parties[3] just like the U. S. The reason this point is important and crucial to today's debate is that it cripples the entire pro case. The pro can not say the U. S. is tyrannical without saying Rome is tyrannical. If he does then he has already disregarded what the U. S. should look to and must insist that there is nothing wrong with the U. S. It also makes the example the pro introduced null and void since the U. S. is not a democracy. Argument 2-Tyranny of the majorityThe problem the pro introduced is actually called Tyranny of the majority. [4] While this is a valid concern for democracy, most democratic governments put in things such as Constitutional limits and Bill of Rights to protect the minority. The U. S. has both of these to protect it's minority of people. Another part of the tyranny of majority is that it can't exist when you have a Constitutional republic like the U. S. This is why someone who receives the majorities vote might not become president. (Electoral College)Wrap-upThe con has proven many points this round, primarily how America is exactly like Rome and not a democracy. Another point would be how Tyranny of the majority does not really happen as in my example the minorty does win and is not trampled on. I thank the pro for their time and await their response. [1]-. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]-http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]-http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]-http://en.wikipedia.org...
Democracy is a form of Tyranny

Throughout the duration of this debate round, it shall be the stance of the Affirmative, me, that Democracy is a form of tyranny. I request that this debate remain common man, and that my opponent and I shall enter this debate using only preexisting head-knowledge. To prove the resolution true, I offer the following logic and examples. Democracy is tyranny because, inevitably, the majority will overrule the minority. Within the system of democracy, the largest party is right, and forces its opinions on others. For example, the United States is very democratic. And it was the will of the people, for the first century of America's existence, that the negro population was so inferior to the aryans, they were considered inhuman. As such, they were brutally enslaved and abused for generations, until the 13th amendment was passed in 1865. Even then, society ruled that blacks were second class, and not until the late fifties were negroes given equal rights. The democracy of America subjected the minority to tyrannical rule. The resolution has been proven true. Today, in America, we still operate under the same democracy. And the people are still oppressed. The Republican and Democratic parties entirely control our political system, and because of this, one who does not subscribe to either party's kool-aid will not see fair representation in government. Once again, democracy, by denying the rights of minorities, grants tyrannical power to the majority. In conclusion, we see that democracy is a failed system when it comes to ensuring that all have equal rights, and as such is a form of tyranny. Our only hope is to turn to the principles of a constitutional republic, such as Rome was at its founding. The resolution stands. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from my opponent!
It Is Possible To Kill Deadpool

I never stated that Deadpool can regenerate from one drop of blood at the minimum. In fact, he probably can even regenerate from a molecular level. And how would you dehydrate the blood fast enough? Heat? That will dehydrate the blood but like I said earlier Deadpool can regenerate pretty quickly. And how would you pull off Deadpools arms off and throw them into space fast enough? He'll just generate new arms before they even escape Earths atmosphere. And for the heat to be strong enough to "dry out" the body parts before Deadpool could regenerate you would need to be very close to the sun (so close that no one has ever even been there).
It Is Possible To Kill Deadpool

I think that killing dead pool is very hard but it is completely possible. You could destroy every single part of his body and dehydrate the blood left over. There wouldn't be anything else left to grow back from and he would officially be dead. There is also a way by just sending all his body parts off to space or even in the sun and the heat would destroy everything. Dead pool may be able to regenerate with one drop of blood but he can't regenerate if there is nothing left to regenerate from.
It Is Possible To Kill Deadpool

This is the first argument for the resolution: It Is Possible To Kill Deadpool and I'm on the con side. First off, look at his skill set, in the comics he literally generates his whole body from a single drop of blood. Trying to kill Deadpool is like trying to kill air with a knife, you can't do it. In the movie Deadpool he gets shot in the arm, he feels the pain but the hole in his arm slowly comes together and he's back to normal, Deadpool is considered to be immortal just like Wolverine. I don't see how it's possible to kill an immortal if all of his body parts can regenerate within seconds.
Athenian Democracy

What about women? You're a woman so I'm sure you understand how it feels to just be forgotten. I know that in our democracy woman weren't always allowed to vote, but we eventually got to that point. Athenian "Democracy" never got to the point of women being able to vote. Also, their government should in fact be called an oligarchy. Which means, a form of government in which a small group of people have power and control. I think that 12% is definitely a small amount of people. Also, what the heck is up with voting people out of office every year? They would be executed for ten years! how is that a democracy? Just because the people with higher power don't like what person has to say or they don't agree with their opinion. Everyone should get a say in freedom of speech. Not just oh we don't like your opinion so you're being sent to an island for ten years! Happy Vacation!
Athenian Democracy

That is what the Athenian constitution states, but then following that it also says that the current citizens get to vote on whether the new candidates get to vote or have to be sent back to the ranks of boys. The government shouldn't get a say on whether who can vote, as long as they are of age and have been through military training. The Athenian citizens have to much say in who can vote. Our Democracy has a say in who gets put into office, but does not have a say in who can vote as long as they are of age.
The initial gaining of consciousness is required for rights.

I accept. I first want to thank Mouthwash for starting this debate. This is my first debate, and I am excited to begin. Personally, I do not think any reasonable person would say anything without the capacity for consciousness is deserving of rights. Nevertheless, I will do my best to offer a challenging debate. Consciousness is not a pre-requisite of obtainting rights. First of all, the term "rights" has multiple meanings. The purpose of rights is to protect an individual from the oppression of another, or ensure certain privaleges. Without a clear definition of the rights being discussed, it could be said that trees have rights because it is illegal to set fire to them or cut them down in forests. Similar things could be said for water, and other fellow inanimate objects.
The initial gaining of consciousness is required for rights.

One pro-life argument that fetuses have the inherent capacity for intelligence and should thus be considered humans. But to point out that fetuses have an 'inherent capacity for intelligence', and therefore deserve protections creates a weird philosophical concern. Bread has an inherent capacity for intelligence, because if you convert the calories in bread through a human digestive system, a decent proportion of those carbon atoms become integrated into a thinking, sentient system. This leads to the absurd conclusion that bread should be given rights as well.I thank my opponent in advance. All the usual rules apply.
Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US

The main argument people have that are against legalizing marijuana will say that it is bad for your health. Statistics show that smoking cigarettes is much more harmful to the body that marijuana is. Heavy marijuana smokers show less evidence of lung injury than people who smokes cigarettes everyday. There hasn't been one case of lung cancer that has been linked to marijuana use. Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any damage to the air passageways in the lungs. Studies also show that some chemicals in marijuana help fight inflammation and can counteract the effects of more irritating chemicals in marijuana.
Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US

Recreational use of marijuana should not be legalized because it leads to the use of other drugs such as cocaine, heroine, and other hard drugs. While the use of marijuana may not have adverse health effects on a person and no addictive chemicals it is as afore mentioned a gateway drug. Many people who use hard drugs started out smoking marijuana and wondered "If i have this much fun being high on pot what could cocaine do for me?" I understand this isn't the case for everyone who uses marijuana but it is a growing problem in the US.
Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US

The use of marijuana should be legal in the United States because there are little to no arguments based on scientific fact to say why it shouldn't be. Many people in the United States use marijuana whether it be legal via prescription or illegal, there are no statistics to show a death toll from marijuana use. If marijuana were legal in the same way that alcohol is it may take it out of the category of "illegal drugs" therefore somewhat nullifying the "gateway drug" argument.
Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US

Marijuana may not be lethal in and of itself but it isn't completely healthy for you, physicians may see the health issues caused by marijuana use as a much more minuscule problem compared to what is already wrong with them. As I said before even though the health aspect may not be a major issue with legalizing marijuana the fact still stands that it can trigger curiosity in less informed people to try harder drugs which most certainly are not good for you and will never be able to be legal. My point being if marijuana were to be made legal what is to stop people from convincing law makers to make cocaine or heroine legal.
Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US

I disagree with the statement that smoking marijuana kills brain cells. Long term and even daily marijuana users don't have any permanent brain damage. Marijuana can be prescribed for effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, I doubt doctors would put their patients brain cells in any danger. Studies show that there is almost no impairment in memory and learning among long-term marijuana users. Holding your breath, drinking, jumping, all of these things damage brain cells but aren't illegal. There has been so much effort and money put into the prohibition of marijuana but has failed to control the use and production. The government tried to use penalties to prevent marijuana use but statistics show that marijuana is now used by over 25 million people annually. It is unfair that marijuana is illegal because it is not a lethal drug and is safer than alcohol; marijuana overdose is almost 99% impossible. Marijuana is not nearly as addictive as alcohol or tobacco and there are cold hard facts to prove it. Marijuana should be legalized.
Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US

Although it may be true that there isn't any evidence linking marijuana smoke to lung cancer we must keep in mind that many people who use marijuana on a daily basis also smoke cigarettes, due to the nature of cancer it is difficult to tell exactly what causes it. Smoking marijuana has been proved to decrease brain function due to loss of brain cells, also smoking anything will effect blood pressure negatively, smoke from anywhere is obviously not oxygen. Oxygen is an essential part of cell growth and brain function, putting anything into the lungs/blood stream that lead to the brain will have horrible effects on lung, blood, and brain cells even though these cells may not die they are damaged and take a long period of time to repair.
Gay marriage should be legal in every state.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...homosexualty aint been proovin by science to be genitic man, ur lieing check real scienctific sorces bro2. wether u like it or not our cuntry was made bassed on religus morrals and u cant change dat, mariage is parta dat3. u bein HIPPOCRITICAL MAN, u say "must be human" so u b "descriminatin" against ppl who want to marry things dat aint human, duble standard man.. u want equlety but u keep sum ppl out. u cant say the currint rule is wrong n then say dat ur rule is superier cuz ur stil excludin ppl!4. i won on da 4th pt n dis guy addmits itt.
Gay marriage should be legal in every state.

First of all, there is evidence that homosexuality is genetic. If you noticed, I cited my source[1]. But I will read off the line from the article anyway: "A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother.""The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities." There is your proof that homosexuality is genetic. While it is not completely genetic, I was still right. Okay. Yes, the US is a country of religious values. But the founding fathers made it so religion would not interfere with government. They specifically wrote the constitution in such a way that religious values would have no part in the government. So it is not right to make a law that says homosexuals cannot get married because of God. That is actually unconstitutional. Of course you cannot marry a table or a dog. They are not human. But homosexuals are perfectly human. The boundary is: They must be human. I know I stated earlier that I would give you my other points. I now feel that those are not needed, which is why I did not state them. It seems this is the last round. I will hear your response. Then, it will be time for the people to vote. Thank you for debating with me. [1]http://www.usnews.com...
Gay marriage should be legal in every state.

1. there aint no real evidance dat homosexulity is genitic man stop makin those asumptions ferreal 2. usa is a country of judiochristian values since it began, our morrals r bassed on Gods values.. alota ppl forget dat when they talk bout gay marraige3. ok so wheres the boundery then man? why cant u marry ur table or ur dog? u be playin favorits man... make a boundery4. word now u gota give up on da other ppoints lol,.
Gay marriage should be legal in every state.

Hello and thank you for responding. First of all, people cannot stop being gay. You cannot override genetic code without the use of extremely advanced tools. I am not lying. That is a fact. The tools used are: Agarose gels, polyacrylamide gels, PFE, etc.[1] The whole "sin in the eyes of God" thing is poor rationale. Like I already said in the previous round: "[T]he bible also says that if you do an activity other than church and God on Sunday, you should be stoned to death." Do we still do activities on Sunday? Of course. I know I do and I'm pretty sure you do since you responded to this debate twice today. I did not say there was 'no boundary'. I said there was no 'clear' boundary. Of course there's a boundary. There's a boundary to everything. What I mean by 'There were no moral laws placing boundaries on marriage' is that the boundaries are unsettled and do not have an indefinite boundary. It changes. I understand your point on majority view. I will grant you a win on that one. [1]http://dwb4.unl.edu...
Gay marriage should be legal in every state.

1. gay ppl can stop being gay. being gay has been proovin 2 b genitic. dats just not true. your lying. 2. its imoral cuz its a sin n da eyez of God. america is a christian nation n we cant stand 4 marrage between homos.3. no boundary? so shood ppl be able to mary animals n stufff????????4. the majority view dont matter.. the majority of da world think US freedum of speech is 2 strong but that dont mean dat the US gotta change it's laws.... feel me?