BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the golden rule in application is unclear

You are making a claim. Burden of Proof rests on you. As such, I’ll simply clarify the things that you are claiming are unclear, as you only seem to be asking questions. However, it is not on me a case for the clarity of the Golden Rule. I must simply show that your arguments fail to show that the Golden Rule is unclear in application. So, to this example with Bob and John: This example doesn’t seem at all unclear to me. Rather, you are making it unclear. So, Bob likes to do cocaine, and finds it absolutely undebatable that a person who wants to do cocaine can do it. John doesn’t like cocaine, and finds it absolutely undebatable that no person should do cocaine. If John were to take the cocaine from Bob, he would be asserting his will over Bob. Basically, placing his desires over Bob. Of course, were John in a similar situation, where someone is placing their will over John’s, John surely would not approve. So, if John is to do unto others as he would have them do unto him, he must treat Bob in such a way that Bob’s desires are put first. John could surely talk to Bob and make Bob desire to stop taking cocaine. However, if Bob is to stay true to the Golden Rule (GR), he cannot do this. The key is not the facts of the issue, but rather the facts of the action taken in regard to the issue. For, in order to follow the Golden Rule, we must consider actions (do unto others). Only by taking action can we “do” anything, and only by apply the GR to the action can we examine its effects. Of course, the situation must be examined, which is a complicated matter, but this is far from lack of clarity. Perhaps your next set of arguments will provide a better case. As for these questions below the line: None of these are really arguments. Rather, these all assume that there is some kind of ambiguity as relates to the question. You will have to explore this.However, I would like to say that something being debatable does not mean the Golden Rule cannot be applied. The Golden Rule is a normative principle [1]. That means that it directly relates to the actions that you take, and states what is morally permissible and morally prohibited. "If you don't want people doing it to you, don't do it to them", is essentially the rule stated by the GR. One could also say "If you do want people doing it to you, do it to them". Both would apply. Looking forward to further arguments.[1] http://www.encyclopedia.com...;
Scientology is a scam

I do not know if you are aware of the fact that as the instigator, you bear the burden of proof. You offer no definition for the word "scam", and you offer no proof that Scientology could be considered one, with the sole exception of your quote. Even without a definition of a scam, I can still say that simply because the religions founder said "the way to make a million dollars is to start a religion. " If we are arguing whether or not Scientology is a scam, we must assume that it is a business offering a service to its clients. Ergo, if client pay to hear, practice, and participate in Scientology, Pro must prove that the clients are not satisfied with their product. Because Scientology is treated as a business like any other, simply because its founding member stated that giving consumers his particular product is the easiest way to get rich holds no bearing. If another entrepreneur such as Bill Gates were to say the same thing for his product, no one would contest. Pro assumes that because Scientology is a religion, it is not a business. If Pro wishes to debate, Pro must offer a definition for what a scam is, and evidence that Scientology is a scam.
Scientology is a scam

Scientology is for sure a scam. Its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, is quoted saying, "the way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." Source: www.don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html This is why it cost money to join, and participate in Scientology. I look forward to my opponent's responses and for the debate to get started.
A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased

Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased.This is an LD debate. All LD cases are acceptable.The round structure will go like this:First Round: Acceptance.Second Round: Aff Case, Neg case and rebuttalsThird Round: Aff rebuttals, neg rebuttals.Fourth Round: Aff rebuttals, Neg passes round.Anything typed in the final round for the neg will be considered as passing. GL to my opponent!
anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT anger can cause anxiety however anxiety is nothing but worry and concern and IT IS POSSIBLE THAT that can cause for motivation. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY that it will cause anxiety. Anger is good because it serve as a arm an a weapon. Anger is good as long as you know the reason you are angry. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT anger causes courage because when one is angry they seek for better. Anger is moral motivation because we says that it is not. Who are we to judge what is moral or not.
anger can be a good moral motivation

when a person is angry it does no god. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY the case to be angry when you need motivation to Do good things according to Seneca. for example if you are running to be a president of the united states there is no need to be angry to win the campaign you can be just motivated and driven to reach your goal. when anger is defined it has two descriptive emotions in it pain and pleasure and they cause anger. for presidency if you can have all pleasure if your doing everything for a good cause there is no reason to experience pain. when you experience pain it increases anxiety and certain conditions in which your are not able to control yourself you can cause yourself lots of necessary stress which Seneca states.
anger can be a good moral motivation

Anger is a good moral motivation IT IS POSSIBLE THAT 1) it is a emotion that helps set change for a person when a person is angry they want to change what they are angy about they are unhappy about something so basically anger change men and their judgements. 2) anger trigger eagerness when a person is angry they are eager to do anything they can to get pleasure 3) anger makes you aim for things when you are angry you aim for change you do anything you can to get your self happy therefore IT IS POSSIBLE THAT Anger is a good moral motivation because it sets for eagerness, aim, motivation and change Anger is a good moral motivation IT IS POSSIBLE THAT 1) when a person is angry they feel they are lacking so they get motivated 2)person is angry they seek for power 3) when a a person is angry they become just or unjust and engage in activities that shows who they are therefore IT IS POSSIBLE THAT anger is a good moral motivation because they become just or unjust , engage in activities , get motivated
anger can be a good moral motivation

it is IRRELEVANT to have anger to define what motivates someone. Someone can wake up day to day and work hard to provide and raise a child but It IS NOT NECESARILY the case that it is anger that produce the motivation. It can simply be the love for that child or being a mother and taking on motherly recipes that motivates a certain individual to do so. when someone is motivated and when someone is angry I don't think the two should be intertwined like which was stated before by Seneca when there is a good virtue being done there is no other neccesary conditions with it. so in the example I sated above makes that claim true you don't need anger to complete the virtue of taking care of your child its just natural.
anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT anger is not needed but again in everyday life people get stressed so they get angry why don't they have anxiety? they have motivation right? they have motivation because they get up out of their bed everyday even is they are not in school or do not have a job they was angry at least once in their lifetime . IT IS POSSIBLE THAT anger is not needed but it is away to relieve stress since you are motivated to live life which have stressful situations in it. Some one getting anxiety is IRRELAVANT to argue anger is not a good moral motivation
anger can be a good moral motivation

Anger can cause anxiety because the emotions that are involved are pain and pleasure when you put those two emotions together this can cause Anxiety which makes it NOT NECESARILY THE CASE THAT it is good to have anger. When you experience anxiety it produces alt of worry and stress. According to Seneca anger does no one any good if you are looking to do something good which is virtue IT IS NOT NECESARILY THE CASE THAT you need to have anger. Virtue dose not need anything to assist itself in it so anger is not needed. when a persons family member is wronged according to Seneca there is no need to cause anger because it will not solve the problem if they use vengeance. and vengeance is a bad form of anger.
is social networking sites really a boon or bane

Seeing as my opponent forfeited (and I feel they shall again), I shall not put too much here. 1) Social Networks allow us to connect with all our old friends and family that we lose contact with.2) Social Networks gave way for the innovation of "social gaming". Gaming like Farmville could only come about through social Networks.3) Social Networks allow New social movements (NSMs) to form. NSMs are political movements which put huge pressure on the government in order to act in certain ways, usually reactionary to go against laws. They also work against many corporations as well. For example, the 2009 charts led with "Killing in the Name", which only came about due to facebook campaigns, and the general pro-piracy movements.
is social networking sites really a boon or bane

For reference, all of my opponent's previous statements is taken from the guardian (. http://www.guardian.co.uk...) so I assume out of grace they were not trying to win a debate through plagiarism and giving a summary of the debate as it currently is. I await my opponent's first round when they present it in the second, and hope it is just not going to be claiming that it already has been made. I also wish to ask for no plagiarism at this point in the debate. Thank you.
Smoking Ban

Con claims in regard to the harm principle that he doesn’t “really agree with it.” This is problematic for him as he used it for the basis of his original argument. Likewise, he uses it as an attempt to turn my argument. Clearly, this debate is intended to be weighed by the harm principle. For clarity, the harm principle as con stated in his opening round states “We have the liberty to do what we want unless it harms others.” I demonstrated that smoking harms others. In fact, so much so that 40,000 deaths per year in the USA are the result of second hand smoking. Con attempts to argue that banning smoking would harm smokers as it could harm them physically or mentally. This is easily refuted, considering 1 in 5 in the USA die due to smoking per year. Also consider the following benifits listed. http://www.debate.org...(For some reason it would not let me post the pic, I saved it in my DDO photo's) Clearly the benefits to smokers to quit outweighs any “harms” to quitting. That aside, it is not necessary for me to argue a specific type of smoking ban. Con’s counter plan is a smoking ban. Remember a smoking ban in this debate has been defined as “a public policy that includes criminal laws and health regulations that prohibit smoking in certain public places and workspaces.” I am under no burden to argue for a type of ban that con randomly decides late in the debate. The resolution simply says “smoking ban.” If con wanted to argue a certain type of ban, he should have worded the resolution differently. For example, see this debate. (1) Clearly outlined in that debate is the type of ban being argued for. In this debate no such specifications were given. Thus I just have to affirm any smoking ban. This becomes especially easy as con’s counterplan is a smoking ban. Thus, either you buy con’s argument which is a smoking ban, or you don’t buy his argument and he still loses. Either way, I win this debate. Con presented a liberty/harm principle argument. I did not have to refute this argument as I have shown it to affirm the resolution. Thus it is turned in my favor. As far as con’s other three “arguments” if you could call them that, I have shown that his proposed smoking ban is already the status quo and thus that smoking ban will not impact those 3 things positively or negatively, so those arguments have zero impact on this debate. All we have from con then is a proposed smoking ban. The harm principle supports the concept of smoking bans as do The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institutes of Health. When we observe the burdens in this debate, we see that ample justification and reasoning has been giving to fill pro’s burden. There is absolutely no reasonable way to vote con in this debate. I win! Thanks for reading and voting. (1) http://www.debate.org...
Smoking Ban

I will make my arguments, and my defense in this debate. RebuttalsMy opponent says that we both agree with the harm principle. That was just one example of my argument, I don't really agree with it. My opponent says that all the deaths show that there is harm, and we should ban smoking. The harm principle can work in another way in this. The non-smokers harming the smokers by banning smoking, it will harm smokers physically, and mentally, when it will only harm people physically. Therefore, as the harm principle, it is not actually only the non-smokers, also the smokers, and smokers are harmed mentally too, so we shouldn't ban smoking. My opponent says there is a lot of secondhand smoking. I don't know why my opponent made this argument, when it is already refuted by my counterplan. Therefore, vote Con. DefenseYeah, I C&Ped it, sorry. And, it does make sense, saying that we have the liberty of choice, self-ownership, and the right to do anything we want, maybe I worded it wrong, but you'll get it. My opponent doesn't refute that actual liberty arugment, only pointing a grammar mistake, and that does not make it refuted. Pro says that designated smoking areas are a type of smoking ban. It says Smoking Ban, not smoking bans. Therefore, because it is one, obviously, we are talking about a whole smoking ban. One place smoking ban does not qualify. Therefore, my opponent's rebuttal is false. Pro agrees with liberty. Then of course, he has to vote Con, as we have the liberty of choice! !! Pro says that there will be no economic impact, or dependency, but doesn't make some proof, when I do, therefore you need to vote Con for that argument. Pro concedes illegal tobacco, so you have to vote Con for that too. ConclusionPro simply drops to much. He drops my liberty of choice, only attacking a grammar error, standing nonetheless, economic impact and dependency saying it won't work, but gives no proof, therefore not rebutted, and concedes illegal tobacco. All my arguments are unrefuted. However, I refuted Pro's arugments about secondhand impact, and about the harm principle. SummaryMine- Liberty, unrefuted by Pro-Economy/ Dependency, unrefuted by Pro, only saying it won't happen- illegal tobacco, unrefuted, conceded- counterplan, unrefuted, and makes a major impact to Pro's arguments, and rebuts few of them-Harm principle, refuted, by my backwards arugment- Secondhand impact, refuted, by my counterplanAs I refuted all, when my opponent failed to refute any, the reason stands clear. Vote Con! !! !
Superman is one of the best cartoon heroes of all time.

NOTE: I ask that the audience vote on who provided the better arguments rather than what you personally believe. Since my opponent has forfeited his round, I'd like to extend all of my arguments and clarify on a few. First, when my opponent accepted my nine super-hero challenge, he only managed to present two actual super-heroes which were inspired by Superman in terms of their television series. The other 7 heroes don't apply as I've shown. Thus, my opponent's implication that many heroes ripped off Superman is hardly supported. I would again like to remind the audience that my opponent's condition was "heroes" since his resolution states that Superman is one of the best heroes of all time. This is in response to his claim that my point concerning street heroes can be thrown out since he was talking about super heroes. My opponent didn't provide any link to his google search concerning Superman, so you can dismiss his point. However, if you don't buy this, you can also read my reasons for why such a conclusion would be erroneous. I realize that I had in incomplete sentence in my previous round. It was the one that said "That means he must . . ." I apologize for the mistake and will clarify on what I had meant to say. I meant to say that Superman's popularity must has to always been phenomenal in order for my opponent's popularity arguments to work. As suggested in my "mile high comics" citation, it was likely the "The Death of Superman" comic which comic book sells to plummet. My opponent doesn't present his source for "The Death of Superman" comic book's success, thus you can dismiss his statements concerning the dvd, that it sold more copies than the Bible. Again, if you don't buy this, you can check out my counter argument which I had presented in the previous round. On top of all that, my opponent did not respond within the allotted time. Since his arguments don't address my arguments in both round 2 or 3, his forfeit is essentially the equivalent to conceding to my case. I maintain that Superman is not one of the best cartoon heroes of all time. As I've suggested earlier, Superman is character who has no flaws. The man of steel is a character who can never do wrong and who is practically invincible. In short, he is the equivalent to the character one might find in a bad fan fiction; he is essentially a mary-sue. As I've suggested previously, a character with flaws and weaknesses is far more likable. Not only can we (the audience) relate to this character(as which one of us doesn't have flaws and weaknesses?), but there's always a high level of suspense as we don't have to wait for a middle aged bald man to get his grubby hands on a green rock (to know that the protagonists is in trouble). With that said, I thank my opponent for the two rounds he put into this debate and I thank the audience for reading. Good night! :D By the way, for those who don't know what a mary-sue is, you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Superman is one of the best cartoon heroes of all time.

I was in a rush before but no more obviously I have to refine my thinking for you. Anyway let's jump back in. First of all my opponent quoted me on saying every superhero is modeled after superman but that is wrong what I said was that most modern day heroes are modeled after Superman and I still stand by that and furthermore when I say modeled after Superman I mean they have at least a few of their traits are from Superman. 1. Capitan America one of marvels first attempts at creating a superman figure of their own. 2. the Iron Man another bad attempt to make their own superman 3. The Hulk has his strength (also most people did not know his true identity depending on which story you look at. ) 4. Booster Gold dc Comics 5. J'onn J'onzz 6. Power girl 7. Thor 8. Diana, Princess of Themyscira AKA Wonder Woman 9. Supergirl There are your 9 heroes. (but I could have added more) As for the street heroes you mentioned they are just that street heroes If they don't have powers they are not superheroes because the definition for a Superhero is: Someone who has superhuman powers and uses them to fight crime or evil. This would mean people like Batman, Nightwing, and He-man are not counted as Superheroes, and things like all off the (TMNT) and Optimus Prime seeing as they are not human and you can't have superhuman powers if you are not human and if you don't have superhuman powers you can't be a superhero. Now I would like to stop momentarily to mention that you listed Supergirl as non flying but she can just watch justice league unlimited. Though I was not basing my opinion I can and now I will. You've said that superman is not what the world of today wants. If that is so then why on my last trip to google Superman got more hits than almost every other major Hero. And you talk about the movie as if that alone shows how popular it is. Wrong. The movie just sucked even I say so it was more like a corny chick flick what you should look at is the hype the movie created before it came out before we found out the move sucked a lot of people wanted to go. Then there is the death and life of Superman a short comic in which he finally dies as hinted in the title and this comic broke the record and sold more than the bible the only one to do so and to this day even though its old it still sells a record number of copies. It was so popular it was turned into a book and just recently a movie and again it broke a record this time it was the most movies sold for a straight to DVD movie. And all of my facts about the comic you can check by getting the book. I await your rebuttal.
Superman is one of the best cartoon heroes of all time.

Superman is the base for just about all modern day superheroes and villains. Superman's always been one of the most popular heroes thats why every hero is modeled after him. Here's the list of his powers so you can see for your self. 1) Heat vision Just about every Superhero has laser eyes now. 2) Super strength even spider man has that and he sucks 3) Flight theres only about 12 heroes who don't have that. 4) Super speed enough said 5) Secret Identity this isn't really a power but every hero has one As you can see he basically made the other heroes. Infact it was because of him the word Superhero came into being the name for superheroes in comics were vigilantes. Also Superman was the one to start the now popular tradition of tights.
psp is the best game system

PSP is the best game system because it is portable and has good graphics almost as good as ps2. You would have to go home and play your ps2, and psp also can go on the internet, play games, hold music and watch videos No, the ORIGINAL NINTENDO 8 BIT SYSTEM is the best. When your games got messed up, what did you have to do? Nothing but blow on the cartridges! You didn't have any of these ridiculously overpriced games to buy. It was Duck Hunt, Mario, and stuff like Monopoly. I got a nintendo when I was 5, which was in 1993, and it STILL works so BOOYAH. The Original Nintendo System is the best game system. The PSP may be the best portable system, but for sure not the best system overall. You can't hook up a gun and shoot at crazy flying ducks on it, can you? Did you ever think about THAT?
psp is the best game system

yeah but you can't beat the classic amazingness of the original Nintendo system can you no you can't and I think I proved that pretty much The PSP is not better because it costs a lot, its games costs a lot, its not intuitive, its slow, it drinks heavily on the weekends, and it'll probably just be upgraded in a year and cost even more! However, the Nintendo Game System, the classic one, is cheap, its games are cheap, and it runs like a 1980s Volvo-- smoothly, and foreverly! I think we all know I am completley and totally right.
The Theory of Evolution Has Many Flaws

Resolve: The Theory of Evolution Has Many Flaws I am pro, and therefore my opponent is con. I would like to start off by saying thank you to my future opponent for accepting this debate, and I hope that it will be a well constructed, criticism-free debate. During my 2nd round, I will be asking multiple questions and providing explanations to them to prove that evolution is a theory with many flaws. I will also be refuting some of the evidence that evolution has in that round, and during my 3rd round, I will be rebuttling my opponents arguments.