BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ethical dilemma about triage and rescue

Alright, you're going to win. Here will be final questions for thie debate on this ethical issue before we call off the day.If you were one of the kids, what would you do to help others, try to get out of the mudflats and find help with the other casualties and other thougts of the kids. Milton, age 12, wearing black swim trunks with ultramarine trims and blue and yellow highlights. Buried up in mud to his shoulders in mud. Andrea, age 12, wearing a dark red bikini. Suffering from hypothermia and trapped waist deep in mud trying to free legs. Lloyd, age 11, wearing yellow and black swim shorts with emerald highlights and trimes. Covered in mud and trying to get back to shore but failing because the mud keeps sinking. Wanda, age 10, wearing purple one-piece swimsuit. Wet and shivering from being trapped in a pool of water by mud jsut to remove mud from her body and bathing suit. Nicholas, age 12, wearing a lgiht blue speedo. Dire need of medical attention because of hypothermia and covered in mud from being buried and trapped to his neck. Carmen, age 12, wearing a red and white bandeau bikini. Closest to the sea and the rising tide, trapped to her waist. Gerard, age 10, wearing green and blue swim trunks. Trapped in deep and treacherous quicksand-like mud sludge with his sister, often sinking each time they get up above their necks. Davina, age 10, wearing blue and pink striped tankini and maroon boy shorts. Similiar situation with her brother in deep quicksand. And if you were the rescuers, what would you do and you other thoughts.If extra casualties come which is Joshua, age 12, wearing purple swim shorts. Trapped in mud and suffering from hypothermia from covered in mud and trying to walk to the sea. Charlotte (name changed from Lauren), age 12, wearing floral pattern purple bikini. Same situation as above with Joshua. What would the rescue team would do with the extra casualties if they found them while bringing the 8 kid causalties back to the rescue base.And miscellaneous questions. If you were the parents of one of the kids, what would you react if they: Realized your kid is trapped in the mudflats. Your kid is rescued. You find your kid alive and well from the rescued from the mudflats Would it make a good news story on TV, newspapers and other media. Would it make a good documentary or TV special about this incident. What would your parents react about this news. Ask any other questions, I'm done for this debate.
Ethical dilemma about triage and rescue

My solution: Rescue them all; it's possible."- The tide comes in 30 minutes, to reach the trapped kids require 15 minutes to reach and 15 minutes to return to base."False. Although it would take 15 to reach them, they do not need the 15 minutes to get back to base, they just need 10 seconds to get out of the way of the tide, they can start the return to the base after the tide comes through. This would allow for 14 minutes of extra time, more time to rescue more people."- The helicopter can only carry three casualties which means five children will be left, trapped in mud sludge, suffering from hypothermia and drowned when the tide comes."Also false. Although it says "maximum of three spots remaining", you could fit all eight in. For example, take my mom's van. it has seven seats available, but we have stuffed up to way more people than that, with some sitting on the floor, holding onto something, and other siting on other peoples' laps, we can hold more than double the amount of people. The same thing is the case with the helicopter. It is possible to stuff them all in. Sure, it would be uncomfortable for them (although maybe the ones with hypothermia would benefit by bodily warmth from the ones that don't have it), but you could do it."The rescue team authorizes the use of the helicopter to rescue the kids from the mudflats."This rescue team could also dispatch more than one helicopter, to fit more people if you don't like the idea of stuffing them in, plus you would have more people to help with the rescue, making an even quicker rescue.Also, assuming there is multiple crew members per helicopter, you could leave them behind (so that there is one crew member per helicopter) instead. They're not stuck, so they could swim to shore without touching the seafloor. This frees up more space. This will also work because knowing how to swim is a requirement to get on this rescue team.That's my solution. My outside of the box thinking has given an all eight children a chance to survive, instead of five children with a guaranteed death, and three children with a chance to survive.
Ethical dilemma about triage and rescue

A rescue team receives a 911 call from a beach warden about 8 swimsuit-clad kids, aged 10-12, are trapped in mud at seaside mudflats while straying off to go for a swim in the sea and play in the treacherous mudflats. The rescue team authorizes the use of the helicopter to rescue the kids from the mudflats, however there is catch to rescuing them: - The tide comes in 30 minutes, to reach the trapped kids require 15 minutes to reach and 15 minutes to return to base. - The helicopter can only carry three casualties which means five children will be left, trapped in mud sludge, suffering from hypothermia and drowned when the tide comes. 1. Milton, age 12: Buried up to his shoulders, his muddy hands are free, now struggling to free himself. 2. Andrea, age 12: Waist-deep in mud, trying to set her legs free while being unbalanced and suffering from hypothermia. 3. Lloyd, age 11: He is covered in mud, trying to walk back to shore but is futile because his feet keeps getting trapped in sinking mud. 4. Wanda, age 10: In extreme hypothermia, wet and shivering trying to struggle from the mud that she is trapped. 5. Nicholas, age 11: Is in dire need of medical attention due to hypothermia and covered in mud from being buried and trapped to his neck. 6. Carmen, age 12: She is stuck up to her waist, she is the closest to the water and the rising tide that is coming towards her first. 7. Gerard, age 10: Trapped with his sister, trying to help each other get out of the deep quicksand-like mud, often sinking back each time. 8. Davina, age 10: Like her brother, she is suffering from hypothermia and struggling to escape from the quicksand-like dark sludge with her brother. My answer is to take Milton, Lloyd and Carmen because they have the highest chance to be rushed in the hospital to be saved from hypothermia and drowning. What are your other arguments for the others who need to be rescued and chosen?
Prisoners should have to earn privileges with good behavior from the start as opposed to losing the

Prisoners can earn a lot of privileges over time. If they do something wrong a privilege is taken away .If they had all those privileges before they can assume if they are good that they will eventually get them back. Knowing that you will eventually get back what you had before, that it is only being taken away for a time makes it so prisoners are willing to act out in prison. Starting out with no privileges makes it so they no how uncomfortable it can be in prison and makes it so they never want to lose the privileges they gained.You keep getting privileges as you act respectively so you will continue to act respectively. The more you act out the less comfortable you get.
Prisoners should have to earn privileges with good behavior from the start as opposed to losing the

Prisoners should start out with privileges and lose them with bad behavior. The first few weeks are the hardest, self harm and suicide are common occurrences in the beginning. They should be able to do things and not be kept in a cell until their good behavior earns them the same privileges as prisoners who have been their longer. If they got privileges automatically and lost them with bad behavior, there would be a greater incentive to be good so you don't lose the privileges that you have. Some prisoners never earn privileges because they have a rough time when they first get to prison. They had no rights to begin with and may not try to work up to them because they may not seem worth it. When started with privileges that are then lost they want to be good to get the good privileges back.
Prisoners should have to earn privileges with good behavior from the start as opposed to losing the

If I went to jail to wait for my sentence I would love to have privileges to talk to and see my family. Being a prisoner is not fun without being able to talk to people from the outside prisoners would go crazy and attack each other, which they do. If punching someone in the face would get privileges to talk to family lost, I would be less likely to punch someone in the face. If I am not yet convicted or for a minor crime, I should have privileges to talk to family and get them removed if bad behavior occurs. Prisoners need something to keep them from going crazy.
Prisoners should have to earn privileges with good behavior from the start as opposed to losing the

People that end up in prison usually end up in there for a reason, the only exception is if they are actually innocent. It is there fault and their privileges shouldn't depend on how ready they are to be in prison. if they are new to prison they simply won't have the things they are used too. They did the crime so they get any penalties they are given for the crime. If being uncomfortable until they earn privileges is what they have to deal with, so be it because they are in prison for something they did.
Prisoners should have to earn privileges with good behavior from the start as opposed to losing the

When prisoners first get to jail most are not allowed to have phone calls or family visits. If they are good they get to have family visit and call their family. I think that prisoners should be allowed to have these privileges from the start. It is hard to go from the free world to being in a jail cell. They need to talk to family and be able to see them especially in the very beginning when they first get transferred to jail. If they do something bad, those rights of seeing and talking to family should be taken away. If they are good, they can get those privileges back. It's better to have those privileges and know how great they are to want to get them back after being bad
Should The Arizona Cardinals Win The Super Bowl

Stanton has hardly any NFL experience, and has none in the postseason. He is not seasoned enough to lead them to a title. When faced with a good offense such as the Patriots, Colts, Broncos, etc. Stanton will not be able to put points on the board to stay competitive. That being said, Arizona also has a below-average run game. With a below average QB and running backs, they are in no condition to win it all. If you look at the stats, in fact, Arizona is either average or below average in almost every category. The categories they're doing well in include: 9th in punt yards, which honestly isn't very important, 11 in passing, due mostly to Carson Palmer, and have a good ratio of turnovers lost to turnovers won. Pretty unimportant figures. On the other hand, they are ranked 31st in rushing yardage, 32nd in return yards, and 32nd in total tackles. Now when a team has a run game ranked 31st in a ground-focused league, there shouldn't even be a question as to whether they can come out on top. With Palmer they had a chance. Without him, there's nothing. Source: http://espn.go.com...
There are good logical and scientific arguments for why a fetus is not a human person

I am Con. The rules are simple - my opponent (Pro) will attempt to give logical or scientific evidence for why a fetus is not a human person (therefore proving abortion is an ethical procedure). I will attempt to refute such evidence. If Pro submits even a single piece of evidence that I cannot refute, they win. If not, I win. Pro agrees to begin by presenting their evidence in Round 1, and will only type "End of Debate" in Round 4 to equal out the entries for each side. == Definitions == "Human Person" - Go with whatever definition you want. It's on me to demonstrate why your definition is logically or scientifically inconsistent. "Good logical/scientific argument" - An argument that stands up to scrutiny and avoids fallacies. These should be all the definitions we need. Please no semantics. Good luck!
The United States Should Abolish The Federal Reserve

:D1. The Federal Reserve is Not Government Owned. Most people in the United States(including myself when I was an ignorant socialist), believed the Federal Reserve was "Government" Owned. When in reality, it is as government owned as the Bank of America. Which by the way, is also, not government owned. .. Source:. http://www.factcheck.org...2.The US had its Strongest Period of Economic Growth not when there was a Federal Reserve. As stated by Journalist Michael Snyder and his research, "The Gilded Age saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history. After the short-lived panic of 1873, the economy recovered with the advent of hard money policies and industrialization. From 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for real GDP and 4.5% for real GDP per capita, despite the panic of 1873. The economy repeated this period of growth in the 1880s, in which the wealth of the nation grew at an annual rate of 3.8%, while the GDP was also doubled. "During this time, the US Per Capita income was one of the highest in the world. Here are the major nations in order by Per Capita Income, United States was $377, Great Britain was $244, Germany was $184, and France was $153. That being in order in today's currency, US: $9,002.96, GB: $5,826.85, Ger: $4,394.02, Fra: $3,653.72. While yes, Britain remained the Economic Capital of the World, many foreigners asked the same question, "What was the United States Success? "Well I'll tell you, it wasn't a privately owned and operated Central Bank. It was the power of the free market, this was proven by famous Industrialist Carnegie and Rockefeller. The two grew some of the strongest economic empires not because of the Federal Reserve, but because the Free Market allowed them to. Source: . https://en.wikipedia.org...3. The Federal Reserve is Destroying the US DollarBefore 1913, the US's problem was not major, and when there was inflation is was usually caused by a major war, such as the American Civil War. Once the Federal Reserve was installed, the increasing of inflation has happened. Michael Snyder said the Federal Reserve installs inflation as a kind of "tax," in order to help in the stopping of inflation, and so far it has worked. As inflation as well besides affecting our income, affects pricings at stores. Since 1970 prices of basic goods have nearly tripled to quadripled in price. Here is a list of goods increasing in price from 2002 to 2012:- Beer: 25% Increase; 2002 - $.99; 2012 - $1.24- Coffee/Ground Roast: 90% Increase; 2002 - $2.92; 2012 - $5.58- Margarine: 143% Increase; 2002 - $.86; 2012 - $2.09Sources: . http://www.24hgold.com...http://www.theblaze.com...Also here is a Chart of the Inflation Rate since the early 1800s: click="document. location='/Scots_167/photos/album/6225/42069/'" src=". ./. ./. ./photos/albums/1/7/6225/322521-6225-ykc5h-a. jpg" alt="" />I would willing give another argument, but of coarse time is not my greatest friend at the moment. So sorry if you don't find this enough at the moment.
The United States Should Abolish The Federal Reserve

Hello welcome fellow Debate.org fans, if you noticed I've created a very contraversial topic to debate about. As it is a topic I so love to argue. If wanting to debate this topic, please comment below, as you should not be able to accept this debate.Of coarse here are the round rules:Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 - RebuttalRound 4 - Counter-Rebuttal(No New Arguments)Defintions...Federal Reserve: The Federal Reserve System, often referred to as the Federal Reserve or simply "the Fed," is the central bank of the United States. It was created by the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial systemAbolish: To formally put an end toBoth from Dictionary.com
Capital punishment as a form of justice

If you wish, you may take instances of the judiciary in United States, however, I'd like to point out that when speaks of capital punishment, it is applicable to every single judiciary in this world. Therefore, my arguments will be general. However, this does not mean that they will be nebulous. Let me now present my argument. I begin by thanking con for accepting this debate. Let us first consider the definition of capital punishment. "Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime." I have heard many activists cry out that capital punishment is a heinous crime. Most of them argue that condemning a person to death, even if he is responsible of crimes of the highest order is a crime in itself. It makes us no different from the people we are sending to the scaffold. However, I'd like to rubbish their argument on the basis that it is irrelevant as well as preposterous. Let me give you a scenario to drive home my point. Let us take the case of Anders Behring Breivik, the person behind the murder of at least 93 human beings. Make no mistake, we are talking about 93 precious human lives, cheerful and starry eyed people who had a future ahead of them, a home to go back to and in some cases, a family to feed. Some of them had ambitions, might have ended up achieving fame and enthralling all of us, however, all their dreams, their ambitions and their lives were put to an end at the hands of a madman, a murderer past redemption, who blatantly laughed and screamed "you must all die" as he decimated their bodies and extinguished the flame of life in them. During his trial, he exhibited no remorse and instead claimed that he be remembered as a martyr, one willing to sacrifice himself for a worthless and pathetic cause, and even after such outrageous acts, the most that court, the highest authority in a country, the scepter of justice could do to him was to imprison him for life. Is that a fitting and adequate punishment, my friend? Is that consolation to the bereaved families who were victimized by the heartless deeds of this mad man? I think not. You may claim that his death will change nothing, that it won't bring back those buried in their graves, however, it will go a long way in satisfying the bloodlust of those who suffered at his hands. It will help them sleep and achieve peace of mind. We must also keep in consideration the consequences of, let's say his escaping from the prison. If he were to again go on a killing spree, what on earth would you do? Who would be the scapegoat in that case? Would you then criticize the mobs baying for his blood? No I don't think so. I eagerly await your argument.
Islam is not a religion of peace, and does not have an appropriate system of justice

Definition of peace 1. The normal, nonwarring condition of a nation, group of nations, or the world. 2. ( often initial capital letter ) an agreement or treaty between warring or antagonistic nations, groups,etc., to end hostilities and abstain from further fighting or antagonism: the Peace of Ryswick. 3. a state of mutual harmony between people or groups, especially in personal relations: Try to live inpeace with your neighbors. 4. the normal freedom from civil commotion and violence of a community; public order and security: Hewas arrested for being drunk and disturbing the peace. 5. cessation of or freedom from any strife or dissension.http://dictionary.reference.com...I will be arguing that islam is not a religion of peace, and my opponent will be arguing that islam is a religion of peace. I will use Quran verses, verses from the hadith, and and actions of muslims in the real world as argument, and I encourage my oponent to do the same. I will also touch on the subject of justice in Islam, and my oponent will argue that Islam is just, while I will argue that it is unjust.First round is acceptance. Good luck.
Islam is not a religion of peace, and does not have an appropriate system of justice

I like how con has responded, and his info and his links have slightly changed my views on islam. I'm truly sorry that your religion has been rampant with disgusting radical individuals who have made islam look more evil than it is, but I stand by my belief that if the quran is to be taken literally, it is not meant for today's world.If the quran is to be taken literally, i would have my hands cut off because I have stolen before. If the quran is to be taken literally, I would have been lashed 80-100 times because I have commited adultury. So, am I sorry that Islam has many people who profess faith in it but commit acts of evil? yes.Am I sorry that the vatican used to kidnap women for being ugly and torture them to death? yes I am.....But does that mean the religion is worth believing in? No. Christianity has failed it's test, as seen above, and islam has failed it's test as well be producing piles of horse **** like the filth in Europe and Iran. We are no longer in the golden age of islam. Islam needs a reform to be suitable to mankind. Either another prophet needs to swoop down and say he's the next messiah, or the islamic authority need to reform islam.Thanks for your time IslamAhmadiyya, and I'd like to continue this over messages.
I am a monothestsic fundamentalists

"a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" My fundamentalism is based off of the belief that God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. People have been programmed to react negatively to the word "fundamentalism" and anything tied to it. In this same manner, people have been programmed to react negatively towards other concepts that they presume to understand. No one can attack my God, my God is Unapproachable in Majesty. My God is the God of all the saints and prophets, both known and unknown. My God is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. My God is The Lord of All Worlds, The Creator, The Sustainer, and The Destroyer. My God is Holy, set apart and pure from blemish. My God is The Incomparable, The Unique, and The Singular of whom there is no opposite or equal. My God is Perfection. Our relationship with God The Father is through God The Son, who is The Most Perfect Image of God who is in God and in you as well. The Spirit of Truth, That Holy Spirit is in all of this, and reveals how this mystery can be. The Truth of God is written in the hearts of all men, and The Gospel of God's Salvation has been preached to all creatures, so abandon your excuses, repent, and believe The Gospel! The Truth is what sets you free, and that is the good news!<< And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, You are basically right but let me suggest a couple of things. Fundamentalism is basically a doctrine that teaches the Bible is all true, but not all literally true. It also teaches the the Bible is man's only source for faith and practice. The truth of God is not written on the hearts of all men. l If it was they would all follow Him. The gospel has not been preached to all men. When that does happen then Jesus will return and the end of the age will begin.