BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sherlock Holmes (Pro) is a "better" detective than Batman (Con)

"Sherlock Holmes is a better detective than Batman"DefinitionsSherlock Holmes- A fictional character created by author Sir Arthur Conan DoyleBatman- A fictional character created by DC comics Better- Of superior quality or excellence (http://dictionary.reference.com...) *Please note that I left the definition of "better" open to interpretation by the voters and readers, as they can make a choice of who is better based on the arguments presented*Detective- a private investigator whose functionis to obtain information and evidence, as of offenses against the lawRules1.) Con agree's to support the notion "Batman is a better detective than Sherlock Holmes".2.) Arguments can be used from any REAL source of media (comics, TV, movies, etc.), but the source must be cited to show that the information is legitimate and not made up (I ask the voters to also take the quality of the sources into consideration, meaning if the sources are actually real of just made up).3.) BUT common knowledge about these two characters need not be cited (such as Sherlock Holmes uses drugs or Batman wears a mask).4.) Con agree's to forfeit the 5th round.5.) Con agree's to the definitions stated above.ClosingI would like to thank Con in advance for accepting this debate, and the readers and voters for also participating in the debate. I would also like to ask the voters to put aside their bias when voting for who is "better".
Abortion is Morally Permissible/Ethical

I accept Grapes challenge, and take the "Con" side, or the side arguing that Abortion is morally wrong and unethical. You mentioned earlier Grape that any questions could be posed during this first round. I therefore submit the following questions for clarification. Is there a specific time that the abortion takes place? (i.e. Late Term Abortion) Or we speaking of abortion generally? Is there a base line for morals and or ethics? Do we define them by societal norms and opinions, religions, or specific cultural feelings? Or are definitions of "moral" and "ethical" open to debate?
Operation Wrath of God Was a Justified Operation by Israeli Mossad Agents

Thank you to Con for his acceptance. My apologies for my slow reply--Summer classes are far more demanding than I expected. I shall endeavor to be more timely in future rounds, and I thank Con for his patience.After the 1972 Munich massacre, Israeli agents, at the behest of Prime Minister Golda Meir, waged a campaign to break the terror network in Europe by systematically assassinating everyone who was directly or indirectly involved in the Munich attack. There were 35 total targets, and the list for one of the assassin teams had 11 targets on it. (Also included in the overall Wrath of God operation was the Spring of Youth action, which involved commandos going to Beirut and hunting down three of the PLO's top leaders in their homes. Their mission was also successful, accomplished in 30 minutes from insertion to extraction.Israel's action, even counting the one case of mistaken identity and the one extra killing of a female assassin who killed one of the Mossad agents, was a rousing success. The terrorist network in Europe was broken, and all targets were eliminated except one. The point of Israel's actions were not only to serve justice to those responsible for the deaths of innocent Israelis, but to strike fear and terror into the hearts of the terrorists by hitting them in their safehouses, their residences, and inside their own network. It was Israel's intent to send a message--that terrorists were not safe anywhere, and they would pay for their actions. It was justice, revenge, and future deterrent all in one.Israel's actions were justified for three reasons:1) The lives of the Olympic athletes were worth justice. ""Because it cannot be that people can terrorize other people and kill them. And there is no price to be paid." [1]2) In killing those responsible, Israel thwarted future attacks and saved more innocent lives.3) "Israel, surrounded by hostile borders, must take extraordinary precautions to protect itself...What may be an unacceptable response in a certain situation can, and does, become not only acceptable but morally right, under other circumstances." [2]Israel's actions were "the most daring assassination campaign of our time," and since then, "Israeli tactics have become an object lesson in Washington." [1] In short, Israel had no choice. To allow terrorists to brazenly storm into the Olympics and murder innocents without answering for their actions would have resulted in Israel signing her own death warrant.http://www.cbsnews.com...;http://www.fas.org...;
Operation Wrath of God Was a Justified Operation by Israeli Mossad Agents

This debate will be on the justification of Operation Wrath of God, the name given the actions taken by Mossad agents after the 1972 Black September attack at the Munich Olympics.I will argue the Pro position, and show that in light of the events of Munich, the retributive actions of Israel's government in sending agents after the perpetrators was absolutely called for in terms of terrorism prevention, national morale, and the interests of justice.The first round will be for acceptance, 2nd round is opening arguments, 3rd is rebuttal and cross examination, and the final round will be reserved for final arguments with no new points being made.I look forward to the debate!
Operation Wrath of God Was a Justified Operation by Israeli Mossad Agents

Since my opponent's arguments haven't been refuted yet, I will do so here. Since this is the last round, I will make sure to not introduce any new points.1) The lives of the Olympic athletes were worth justice. If the lives of the Olympic Athletes were worth anything to the Israeli government, they should have negotiated with the terrorists for their release. Instead they played hardball and let the athletes die. I believe that they cared more about their political reputation than the athletes lives.2) In killing those responsible, Israel thwarted future attacks and saved more innocent lives.No sources given by my opponent. Just a statement. I on the other hand am giving a source which shows that there were plenty of attacks on Israel since Wrath of God. [1]3) "Israel, surrounded by hostile borders, must take extraordinary precautions to protect itselfWhile it is true that Israel is surrounded by hostile borders, the Munich massacre did not even occer within those borders. It occurred in Germany. So I fail to see the connection between the two and "hostile borders" as a justification for killing innocent people and violated other nation's sovereignity during Wrath of God.My opponents arguments have been refuted while mine stand unchallenged. Vote Con.Sources[1]http://www.adl.org...
Humanity ought to allow animals access to basic rights.

Someone call the presses! Zaradi's not making an LD debate! Zaradi: Not exactly true, since this is basically the Sept/Oct resolution from last year but it won't be done in LD format. Definitions: Humanity - Fairly obvious. Ought - a moral obligation to do something. Animals - Non-human creatures (excluding insects and such) Basic rights - Right to Life, right not to be treated inhumanly, etc. Besides what consitutes "basic rights", all the definitions are fairly obvious. Semantics will thusly be met with an instant loss. First Round acceptance. Second round cases. Third and fourth round rebuttals. No new arguments in the fourth round. No going over the character limit (or 'glitching') will be allowed. Anyone convicted of it will auto-lose. I await an opponent.
legalizing abortion

Thanks, and good luck in the debate. First I would like to point out that my personal belief is that abortion is wrong. I believe that every human life should have the chance to become a beautiful human being, and if my girlfriend was ever impregnated, I would do everything in my power to preserve the life of my child. That being said, I still respect others choice to get an abortion. This is due to a variety of reasons: 1) We do not know the reason for a woman's choice 2) The illegal nature of abortions endangers women 3) There are better ways to reduce the amount of abortions in society I do not believe that government should have any say in a woman's choice. There are a variety of reasons why a woman could believe an abortion to be necessary. There could be a case of rape, incest, or some other situation. Some say that we should only allow abortion in these special cases,; however, it is very difficult to prove a woman was or was not raped. It is wrong to state that the governments know better than the woman about her personal situation. Although we should discourage it, it should be up to the individual about what she should do with her body. Simply making the practice of abortion illegal does not stop it from happening. Women who believe that the baby will be so detrimental to her life that they are willing to eradicate their fetus, which is a very tough decision, will do so regardless of the law. By making it illegal, Women would be forced to go to unregulated and shady doctors for the procedure. This dramatically increases the chance of the woman dying because the practice is unregulated. Doesn't it make more sense to keep abortion safe and legal for women who truly believe that the procedure is necessary by have these operations regulated, instead of putting their lives at risk? Finally, even with all the reason to keep abortion legal, I still think we should attempt to lessen the number of abortions. Simply saying "you can't do this" does nothing to address the underlying issues of abortion. We should have informative advertisements to convince women that abortion is not morally correct instead of putting taxpayers money towards funding the operations. This way our society can lessen the amounts of abortion without putting the lives and bodies of women at risk and making them criminals.
The Omnipotence Paradox is Self-Refuting

Introduction Greetings to my competitor and all those interested in the topic. In this debate, the proposition in dispute will be whether or not the supposed omnipotence paradox is self-refuting. That is to say, whether or not any number of the central premises involved in the forming of the paradox surreptitiously, yet necessarily, undermine its conclusion. The omnipotence paradox is typically formed like the following: Can an omnipotent God create a stone so heavy that she (he or it if you prefer) cannot lift it? The argument attempts to create a dilemma wherein either answer proves that omnipotence is logically impossible and therefore illusory. A yes answer shows that God can cease to be omnipotent wherein she can create a task that she is unable to perform and a no answer shows that God was never really omnipotent in the first place. My burden in this debate is to give strong reasons for believing that the abovementioned paradox is self-defeating, inasmuch as its own premises refute its conclusion. I look forward to debating this topic with whomever it may be. If you do not understand my position fully or are concerned with some semantic rendering, please clarify with me before accepting. InquireTruth For more information on the omnipotence paradox, please refer to the following link: http://rationalwiki.org...
End the Drug War.....All drugs should be legal.

Cigarettes kill people. Alcohol kills people. Pharmaceuticals kill people. Obesity kills people. Food in stores have harmful chemicals. Flouride is a poison, but still put in the public water supply. If it has a chance to kill you that doesn't mean it needs to be illegal. If something is poisonous its not illegal, you would be an idiot to ingest it. Dangerous drugs dont need to be illegal, an education about the harmful affects of drugs should be enough. What is illegal doesn't always mean its wrong or bad. Some laws are just in place to protect the interest of the rich😓
End the Drug War.....All drugs should be legal.

In my opponents argument, he said that although being physically dependent on a drug is bad, it shouldn't be criminalized. This I agree with. No consumer of a drug should be criminalized and it should be considered a medical issue - of addiction and dependence. Those selling, growing and distributing that drug though, should be criminalized. If it were legal, as the proposition says, then it would only take one try of that drug to become addicted - or frequent use will have the same effect. To per-empt, that physical addiction and spare many the painful steps of withdrawal, it should be banned from being sold. Now, my position is that no-one should be criminally prosecuted for taking drugs. Instead they should be offered medical help. For those drugs that are too addictive, it should be stopped from being sold (or at least be changed and regulated to make it less addictive). Think about it this way. If a product doesn't fit with food/drink/drug regulations to make them safer and less addictive, then it can't be sold and is as such "illegal". Why should drugs be any different. If some drugs are too dangerous or addictive and it fails to be regulated to change that, then it shouldn't be sold and should be "illegal". Therefore, to argue that all drugs should be legal to consume, you are therefore arguing that there would be no regulation. If you tried to regulate it, some drugs will still not be allowed to be sold and go into the black-market, making it illegal. For all drugs therefore to be legal all regulation on medical, recreational or pharmaceutical drugs would have to be taken away. Not everything can be legal. Are companies allowed to put anything they want into our food or medical drugs? No, and rightly so. Some drugs and food do not meet our regulations and are illegal. This shouldn't change.
End the Drug War.....All drugs should be legal.

Drugs that cause physical dependence are bad drugs. Addicts who do hard drugs shouldn't be seen as criminals though. People who are addicted should be helped. If a sudden increase of people start dying from addiction and overdose then people become aware of the dangers of the substance. Common sense will keep people from trying hard drugs. Laws scare people into following them by enforcement and intimidation. Why have laws banning dangerous drugs when education and common sense should be enough. Laws make criminals. Prohibition gave the mafia more business. Making drugs illegal doesn't help stopping people from doing them, clearly. Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.~socrates. How much can the government control our lives and we still say we're free? They let companies posion us, drug laws aren't there to protect citizens. Drug laws exist to make the system money and turn addicts and recreational drug users into criminals. The system is made to keep the wealthy on top using money to control the poor.
End the Drug War.....All drugs should be legal.

Great to be debating with you. First, it is all about choice. If someone decided to take a drug, use it and get high then it is completely up to them. Government should regulate it so that companies do not produce too harmful drugs but even then if someone wants to take a harmful drug then who are we to stop them. It is their choice. You may be thinking, then you are on my side? No. There are victims. In some cases a drug can be so addictive, that you have no choice. You lose your ability to stop or make rational judgement and you physically need to take a drug. People break down, they spend everything they have to get more drugs and it becomes literally impossible for them to stop. Therefore those who can stop taking a drug at anytime are not victims. They have obvious weighed up the options and decided they choose the drug (for pleasure) over their health. However, people become victims when they lose that ability to choose for themselves and are instead incapable of stopping. This happens often with hard drugs and it has been proven that a physical addiction develops. What should we do then? We should come up with some sort of test to see how capable they are of stopping. If it is clear that they cannot decide for themselves, we force them to stop and put them with doctors were they are given treatment. And, of course, government cracks down on the trade of those substances capable of doing that. I hope I have shown as clearly as possible why some drug need to be banned and why not all drugs can be legal.
End the Drug War.....All drugs should be legal.

What is a victim-less crime. My body, my choice. Cannabis should definitely be legal. Even with the government having patents on some of medical capabilities of cannabis it is still a schedule 1 drug stating :The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. How can a government own medical patents on cannabis and say it has no medical benefits. People should learn by example from other countries i.e Paraguay. Drugs do not hurt anyone but the people using them. Drugs being illegal makes more criminals, from the user being considered a criminal and the business behind drugs such as the Cartel. It is not illegal for me to go out in the woods and eat some Fly Amanita even though it could kill me. I can't smoke a plant(Cannabis) even though it has never killed anyone, even though it has a plethora of medical properties. Why can't I smoke meth? If it was killing 100,00 people a year then common sense would tell people it would probably kill me and not do it. All drugs should be legal. People would be more aware of the dangers without laws making drugs scary.
The Apostle Paul: Shinning example of a Christian

Rebuttal 1) The High Priest and the Sanhedrin did not have the authority to execute Jesus of Nazareth because that power was reserved for Roman authority. Pro has not shown that this agreement between Rome and Jerusalem changed making it legal for Steven to be executed. 2) Just because Saul of Tarsus did not throw any stones at Steven doesn't mean a thing. Saul of Tarsus consented to the slaying and had charge of the clothes, (Acts 7:54-8:2). a) Accomplice b) Aiding and Abetting 3) Even though Jesus forgave the thief on the cross, Jesus let the law take its course and the forgiven thief died for crimes against Roman law. 4) Deuteronomy 13:6-11 is not applicable to the time frame. The Law of Moses was not effective during Roman occupation. Rome allowed for some religious practices but capital punishment was not one of them. The only law that applies is the Treaty between Rome and Jerusalem. Rome conquered Jerusalem and installed Herod as King an Edomite, Herod was not even Jewish. Herod died and Rome took direct control over Jerusalem. Jerusalem rebelled against Roman authority and Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. What was Jerusalem doing that offended Rome. For one thing Jerusalem was executing people unlawfully. (Israel lost self rule when Babylon occupied Jerusalem. Except for a short time during the Maccabean Revolt Israel has never legally been able to stone people to death. Not even to this very day.) Final Argument: Nowhere can we find Saul/Paul making restitution for the death of Steven or for arresting and persecuting Christians. Exodus 22:1-8 Leviticus 6:1-5 Leviticus 5:16 Numbers 5:5-8 Deuteronomy 22:13-19 Luke 19:1-9 Matthew 5:23-24 Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee. He was born a Pharisee. He died a Pharisee. Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead." (Acts 23:6) Several times Jesus said the Pharisees were hypocrites.
The Apostle Paul: Shinning example of a Christian

The Herodian Kingdom in Palestine was a Client of Rome or a Province of Rome. Either way the government in Palestine Jerusalem was denied the power to exact capital punishment. Rome reserved the capital punishment thing for itself. Example: The Crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. When the authorities in Jerusalem executed Steven by stoning him to death that was an act of the vigilante. In modern terms if a group other than the proper authorities kills someone as an execution that is a felony. There are many people right here in the U.S. who are incarcerated for committing just such crimes. Any Government that would excuse the crime of vigilantism and let the criminal walk the streets free just because they claim to have had a Christian experience, that Government would/should not be taken seriously. Rome was a serious Government. The Roman Government clearly told the client state in Jerusalem not to execute anyone. Just look at the hoops the High Priest had to jump through in order to get Christ executed. We will never know if the High Priest and Paul could have talked Rome into executing Steven because Steven's life was taken without due process. No Church forgives felonious acts in the way that Pro is presenting. Christ will forgive, this is true. We as Christians forgive, this is true. But the Government does not forgive felony murder. Even if the guilty party changes his identity. Even if he is a Pharisee turned Christian and then back to Pharisee. Even Roman citizens at the time of Steven's death did not have the right/authority to execute Steven. If Pro wants to protect Saul/Paul he must give a law, Judean/Roman/Christian that would have allowed Saul/Paul to execute Steven. Steven was a good person who was innocent. Steven's only crime was that he believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah.
The Apostle Paul: Shinning example of a Christian

Thanks to my opponent for hosting this debate. As he has posted what seems to be an outline of his argument, I will do so as well in this first round. Though my opponent is con, he still has the BoP, as he is trying to argue a stance opposed to the view of the masses. Paul is a Shining Example of Christianity (this was the resolution, and this is what we will be arguing) 1) Paul sinned in persecuting Christians as "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23) BUT 2) The Christian Church does not uphold an "eye for an eye" policy "You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42) 3) Instead, it upholds a policy of forgiveness "For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." (Matthew 6:14) Therefore, although Paul sinned against the church (as all people do), he repented and was forgiven. This is an example of what to do, as a Christian, if you have sinned. Furthermore, "...If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1:7) Therefore, by Paul's repentance and his decision to "walk in the light" of Christ (Not by a name change, he never actually did change his name...he had a Hebrew name, Saul, and a Greek name Paul. He preferred the Greek name when preaching [1]), his sin and actions against the church were erased. Therefore he is no longer guilty of crimes against the Church, according to Church principles. 4) Paul in several ways showed he was a true Christian A) Paul was absolutely instrumental in creating the Christian Church. He set up churches, wrote 13 books of the New Testament, and was a guiding theological voice in the early ages of the church [2]. B) Paul showed himself to be a true Christian when he died for his faith by the hands of the Romans in somewhere around 65 A.D. [2]. Conclusion Therefore, Paul is not guilty of crimes against the church, is a shining example of Christian conversion, and demonstrated great devotion to his faith. Sources [1]http://www.auburn.edu... [2]http://christianity.about.com...