BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Non-Aggression Principle Is a Flawed Moral Position

I was seriously rushed for time in this response but I figured it was better to post something rather than concede it. I know I don't address all his points but I miscalculated on time so I'll just post some of the notes I have jotted down. 1A) I don't believe in meta-ethics. Like most of us, I hold certain truths to be self-evident, namely a thriving humanity is better than a suffering one. If you want humanity you thrive, in my view, your idea should account for consequences. 1B) Pro reiterates textbook criticisms to Utilitarianism here, even though I have already addressed all of them. Again, the right act is not the one that produces a benefit – it's the one that produces the most benefit. TURN – The turn here is the information gap criticism. Utilitarianism does not require that you act knowing all the information, and in this sense the theory transcends strict Consequentialism. You are only required to act in a way which given the available information, or through looking to the past, will produce the best consequences. All else being equal, it is better to kill 1 and save 5 than the reverse. Ethics would be utterly meaningless if we were required to have complete knowledge. 2b. The point we seem to be hung up on is "no right" issue and the role of rights in moral judgments. On one hand, I have consistently stressed the ought interpreting the "no right" as being synonymous with "not being in the right." Hence, the secondary definition "the non-initiation of force is universally preferable." Con has consistently attempted to remove the issue of ought and frame it purely from a rights-based perspective. However, Con does not have a monopoly on the definition of the term "no right." 2c. What definition of right is this? Your definition is simply one thinkers take on the word. 1right adj \ˈrīt1 : righteous, upright 2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper There is nothing about how in the grand scheme of things one person is – with rights – always completely in the right or completely in the wrong. In the balcony case, like in all moral situations, there is usually one right and one wrong action to take unless the actions happen to be morally equivalent. In NAP, if given from a moral standpoint, it implies falling is the correct action. The premise specifically is about NAP and its moral implications. 3. What if it was homesteaded and later lent out? The history of the estate is hardly relevant to its current conditions. I don't see this factor as satisfactory whatsoever, and unless you address this strongly in R5 I don't see it being a sufficient rebuttal. This one doesn't even fall under the Utilitarian part of the argument, but rather something you accepted yourself and then went onto argue that most feudal estates were not homesteaded. Is the feudal estate that was homesteaded several centuries ago and contains 30 families living on subsistence wages moral while the one that was not homesteaded and contains the same conditions immoral?
The Non-Aggression Principle Is a Flawed Moral Position

Res: The Non-Aggression Principle Is a flawed moral position. Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) - The idea that no matter how disgusting, immoral, or improper you believe an act to be, you have no right to use force to stop someone from committing that act, unless that act itself involves the initiation of force against another person (or person's property). Round one is just for acceptance.
Showers or baths

The resolution doesn't say: 'Showering VS Bathing. If it was showing vs bathing then I would have time argue about showing and bathing particular, since the resolution is about showers and baths in general I am allowed to argue about other details. My opponent has dropped all of my arguments. My opponent has provided no objective evidence to suggest that showers are quicker than baths. In order for this contention to bare any weight then it must have objective evidence supporting your case. It isn't always about speed, charity should be preferred over speed and since my charity argument was dropped it must bare its original weight. My opponent has also not sourced their claim that you get dirtier in a bath. Since no objective evidence has been provided this means that this should not affect the resolution. My opponent has also provided his subjective opinion on old sayings. This bares no weight since this is a subjective view and because this debate is an objective based debate. Unless my opponent can prove otherwise, this debate should currently be viewed objectively.
Showers or baths

And I applaud your attempts of changing my mind. But I still believe in shower power all the way. The first thing I noticed was that all the things that you mentioned have nothing to do with bathing at all. Most of the ideas that you mentioned are almost all phrases, not having to do with how good a bathing method is. This debate was not about how many sayings say that something is better. And also, you mentioned speed. How many times have you been late to something but you don't want to look like a wild raccoon. You would take a speedy shower and look just as well as a bath. And as I said earlier, baths might make you dirtier because it just spreads the filth around. Showers seem to have all the advantage in the matter. And old sayings I believe are not reliable sources. So in conclusion faster is better in the land of bathing, and bathing should be what it was meant for, not just sitting in your own filth.
Showers or baths

My opponent concedes that baths are more relaxing so I will not elaborate on this in much detail. Baths are more relaxing because you can sit down and rest in them whereas when you are in the shower, you have to stand up. This was conceded by my opponent as true.Baths have raised millions for charity over the years. From bank managers sitting in baths full of baked beans, to bank mangers sitting in baths full of custard, from bank managers being rolling down the High Street in a bath, to bank managers paddling down the local river in a bath, it’s all about the bath. In popular phraseology, showers are seen as a bad thing. Ever heard the phrase “you lot are a right shower?” It usually precedes some sort of punishment for tardiness. Being a shower is bad. There’s a popular phrase about baths too, “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”. In this phrase we are being urged not to do anything to harm the baby with the bathwater. The baby with the bathwater is something that we should preserve. The baby with the bathwater is something that shouldn’t be discarded. This is because bathwater is precious. The prime motive for using a shower is because it is fast. Being fast is often the wrong motive for doing anything. Go and stand outside your local branch of McDonald’s for a few minutes and look at the people who consume fast food, is fast good? Test cricket fans, is fast good? People who’ve been chased by a horse, is fast good? Hungry people, is fast good? The answer is no, fast is not good. Nor are showers.Sources http://7reasons.org...;
Showers or baths

When I was young, I couldn't wait to get home and take a nice warm bath, I always thought it was a great way to get relaxed. But I never noticed how it accuctually made the situation worse if you are trying to get clean. First of all, baths on average take about 72 gallons of water for only 1 bath! While a 10 minute shower only uses 21 gallons. As you can already see, showers are ahead for the envirenment. Secondly, when you are in a bath, all the filth that you are trying to get off just floated in the water and spreads all around your body, while a shower takes it off and immediately takes it down the drain, providing a better clean. The only thing that I can think of that baths can do better than showers is not having to stand and they are much more relaxing. But for the main purpose, I conclude that showers are better at doing their jobs than baths and are much more Eco freindly.
Showers or baths

My opponent has not sourced the statement claiming that showers are quicker than baths. This is problematic because I have a been given no reason to buy this claim. Since my opponent has asked for an example of when baths have been used for charity, I will provide one.http://www.getsurrey.co.uk...This is an example of baths raising money for charity. Regarding showers being cleaner than baths on hubpages.com, this article is completely bias and subjective. Anybody can upload an article on that site and the article provided by my opponent begins with the following: "I have to believe that showers would be better than baths" This is completely subjective. 'I have to believe' is subjective. The word 'better' is a subjective description. He continues to claim the following: " I decided to do a quick google search and found opinions on both sides of the debate." This is on my opponent's source. My opponent's source does not tell me about whether they are hygenic or not. My opponent's source only tells me that they got all of their argument from a google search and conveniently forgot to add the links to the websites that they used. This is very unreliable and I doubt that it is facutally correct because if it really was then baths wouldn't be continued to be used. My opponent clearly hasn't read my arguments because if they had read my arguments then they wouldn't have asked me why I am defending baths. Again, my opponent hasn't properly refuted my claim regarding old sayings. He states that they can be good and pointless but doesn't state why they are pointless in this particular scenario. This is basically a concession of this contention provided by me.Sourceshttp://hubpages.com...http://www.getsurrey.co.uk...
Showers or baths

Whell. Since my opponent clearly wants me to respond to his comments, I will. First, showers are proven quicker than baths. On average it takes about 5-7 minutes just to fill up a regular sized tub, not including bathing in general,(using soap and shampoo) while it takes no time at all to start a shower. So instantly and saving extreme amounts of water compared to 5-7 minutes wasting extreme amounts of water. And I fully support charity don't get me wrong but I could not find any evidence of anyone going down a river for charity. If my opponent would put a link to an example for my conveinence. And the site that I used to get my information that showers are cleaner than baths was hubpages.com. And finally, old sayings have no factual evidence that provides any proven content. Old sayings can be good or pointless. One question that I have for my opponent though is, why are you defending baths? I have found almost no evidence that baths are more popular or efficient time and water wise. Thank you!
Scientists have no proof that humans are responsible for a significant amount of global warming.

There, I said it. And it's true. Even scientists who "believe" humans are largely repsonsible for recent temperature changes will admit they do not have definitive proof. The PR campaign of the left claiming scientists "have reached" a consensus implies the research is finally complete. However, a "consensus" is only 51 percent, and no one is stopping to consider that legitimate science is a product of fact and not popularity or speculation in the absence of conclusive evidence. The liberals and environmentalists have swallowed the global warming theory hook, line and sinker, and accept it as though it were an undeniable truth. They even call opponents (who would rather rely on traditional standards of proof before making momentus policy decisions) "flat earthers." That is not a very good analogy considering flat earthers were the ones who relied on popular opinion ("consensus") versus real science.
Scientists have no proof that humans are responsible for a significant amount of global warming.

Since it looks like we're starting to throw around data, figures and historical graphs (all of the things that suck the life out of a good philosophical debate) let me just leave you with one link: http://www.speroforum.com... It is a list of the many respected scientist who disagree with much of the data you cite. You say CO2 (whatever its source) has increased a WHOPPING 37 PERCENT over the last 100 years. Since this last 100 years coincides with only a .6 degree celius temperature increase (well within the range of naturally occuring temperature changes), it could be easily argued that CO2 has a much more mild effect on temperature changes than claimed. And again, since this .6-degree change is well within historic levels, it could be argued that we do not even know if the increase in CO2 is reponsible. But let's get back on track. I am not hear to debate whether there is a good argument for global warming. There are very convincing arguments for and against it by many esteemed scientists. I am just submitting that a valid debate continues because neither side can (as of yet) conclusively prove its case. There is simply no definitive proof that humans make a significant contribution to global warming. There are only opposing viewpoints based on inconclusive evidence.
Scientists have no proof that humans are responsible for a significant amount of global warming.

"Certainly not in comparison to the amounts of CO2 that is created naturally on this planet." Well, the major natural emissions of CO2 come from volcanoes. Volcanoes are estimated to be releasing 200 million tons of C02 annually. Now, compare that to the estimated 26.8 BILLION TONS released by humans annually. That is about 130 times greater than the amount emitted by volcanoes. (http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov...- the US Geological Survey.) Since the start of the industrial revolution, there has been a climb in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere of about 280 ppm to 364 ppm. This clearly is larger than what is created naturally. "For example, if we could prove that humans and human activity give of 2% of the world's CO2, then we would have some information to act (or not act depending on whether one considers that a significant amount)." Well, as I have just shown that humans are the greatest contributers to CO2 output, now we have some information to act on. 27 billion tons annually is definitely a significant amount. "So far no one has been able to prove to what degree we contribute to global warming. " To what degree? How far does it need to go before it is considered a "degree"? 400,000 miles of the Arctic ice sea have melted, roughly the size of Texas. If we continue current projections, by 2030, there will be no glaciers left in glacier national park. Hurricanes and tropical storms have increased estimated 75% increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes since 1970 according to a study done by MIT. ( http://www.nature.com... ) "Well, since it can be proved that earth has gone through many large temperature swings, and long before humans were around, there would be a very strong case for "natural" global warming (and cooling)." Well, it would be a strong case for "natural" global warming....except for the fact that no natural causes have been found, and humans are emitting enough CO2 into the air to cause a definite and serious heating effect.
Scientists have no proof that humans are responsible for a significant amount of global warming.

"It has been proven that CO2 causes a heating effect in the environment, by absorbing and radiating heat onto earth!" This statement is debatable in the scientific community, but I will let it stand as true since it has nothing to do with my argument. "Man is releasing massive amounts of.....CO2" I agree, but in comparison to what? Certainly not in comparison to the amounts of CO2 that is created naturally on this planet. This is where we disagree. There are no scientist that have proved humans contribute a significant amount of CO2 in comparison to that which is created naturally. For example, if we could prove that humans and human activity give of 2% of the world's CO2, then we would have some information to act (or not act depending on whether one considers that a significant amount). So far no one has been able to prove to what degree we contribute to global warming. "It also helps that no natural effects for the heating have been given." Well, since it can be proved that earth has gone through many large temperature swings, and long before humans were around, there would be a very strong case for "natural" global warming (and cooling).
Scientists have no proof that humans are responsible for a significant amount of global warming.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that liberals and environmentalists have run away with global warming a bit, and it is becoming very political. However, that doesn't change the fact that its true. And not because a "consensus" has been reached about it either. I mean, a majority does not dictate what is right, history has shown us that time and time again. HOWEVER, there is conclusive evidence that man is creating significant global warming. It has been proven that CO2 causes a heating effect in the environment, by absorbing and radiating heat onto earth! Man is releasing massive amounts of.....CO2! From those two facts alone, we can deduce that man is creating global warming. It also helps that no natural effects for the heating have been given. There has always been opposition to new theories and ideas, as people naturally are resistant to change.
Mankind Is Devolving, Not Evolving

Someone wrote: "What are you talking about " I'm talking about mankind's proven devolution. What are you talking about? "the only thing you said in your post was that we lost complex language" That is not something that I said, actually, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. " and how to build great stuff like pyramids" I didn't say that either, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. " , and you saying you didn't all all here from you is this now" What??? You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Mankind Is Devolving, Not Evolving

Someone wrote: "Language is not proof that humans are becoming dumber." I never made that claim, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "THE evidence e you presented about us having lost our intellect of building great stuff like the pyramids" I never made that statement either, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Mankind Is Devolving, Not Evolving

Language is not proof that humans are becoming dumber. THE evidence e you presented about us having lost our intellect of building great stuff like the pyramids,Ever heard of the Twin towers, Eiffel tower, and the empire state building well suppressing the ancient pyramids . I dont fully understand what you were trying to say since we dont speak a ancient language anymore we are devolving and becoming dumber, but mankind are making robots, hover boards and soon we are going to mars but still somehow this is devolving.
Mankind Is Devolving, Not Evolving

Mankind's lifespan is constantly decreasing with time, along with bodily strength and intelligence -- not increasing (as the evo THEORY camp would have you believe): According to linguistic scholars, all modern languages devolved from more complex ancient languages. When God first revealed language, it was much, much more complex than any language in common modern use, because ancient mankind was much more intelligent than modern mankind is: Language was originally designed with intelligence by God, and it was given to mankind as a gift. The original language of mankind is called Sanskrit, and all of the other extant languages on the planet are derived from Sanskrit, either directly or indirectly. The Sanskrit language was mankind's original language, and it takes a total of 12 years to learn and speak fluently: It is presently known as a "dead language" because although it was once spoken all over the earth, by all human beings, it is currently spoken fluently by fewer than 100 people on the planet. This is because it is far too complex for the less intelligent modern mind to understand fully and speak fluently. Sanskrit is the most striking linguistic example of modern man's intelligence having devolved to lesser than that of ancient man. Other linguistic evidences include the other "dead languages," such as Latin and Hebrew, which are, to a lesser degree than Sanskrit, also very complex languages that are very difficult for modern man to understand fully and speak fluently. All of this linguistic evidence means that language has become less and less complex, over time, as mankind's intelligence level has decreased over time. This trend of diminishing intelligence, as evidenced by mankind's irrefutably diminishing linguistic aptitude, continues to this very day, with language skills gradually getting lesser and lesser with each new generation of humans. Not only that, but ancient societies with superior intelligence also produced superior technology to that of modern man. For example, modern man is unable to build structures such as giant stone pyramids, for lack of technological knowledge, but everyone knows that ancient cultures did indeed have that superior technological knowledge. Therefore the strange claims of Darwin were clearly false: Mankind is demonstrably getting less intelligent as time passes, and modern man clearly has less knowledge, less intelligence, and inferior language skills as well as inferior technology compared to those of ancient mankind.
Should Cuba be removed from the State's Sponsor of Terrorism List

So Cuba has been enlisted on the US State Sponsors of Terrorism List since 1982 back when the Cold War was a thing. The Cold War is no longer in effect today, so many of the reasons that we justified putting Cuba on the list are almost all but gone. My first point of observation in this debate is that Cuba no longer supports terrorism. We've seen from things like the peace talks between Colombian FARC rebels, as well as consolations for the victims of the Boston Marathon, that Cuba is no longer the "evil" nation that we use to consider them. They even signed all the UN denunciations of terrorism. My second point of observation is that keeping them on the list undermines our credibility as a nation in terms of foreign politics as well as prevents effective counter terrorism to real threats. Real threatening nations like Iran, Syria, and North Korea should all be looked at first before we even talk about Cuba. Cuba has not been involved in any type of terrorism act for a very long time, and yet we keep them on the list despite all these. The reason we look uncredible in foreign politics is our loose definition of the word terrorist, as well as not being able to effectively combat it since our resources are devoted to keeping countries like Cuba on the list. My third point of observation is justification. We've picked on Cuba for a very long time, and have a full fledged embargo on them. It has been proven multiple times that the embargo is a violation of human rights, but then the US feels the need to kick them when they are down by putting them on the terrorism list, which sanctions them from other types of trade like science diplomacy. We currently justify Cuba for being on the list with 3 reasons: that it has allowed Basque separatists to reside within its borders, that it has dealings with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and that it harbors fugitives wanted for crimes committed in the United States. The first two reasons are void because the countries concerned actually condone Cuba"s relationship with their adversaries. The third reason, being that Cuba harbors U.S. fugitives, barely has any merit for keeping them on the list. All of these are the reasons that I believe we should remove Cuba from the List.