BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should not live forever

==Interpretation of Immortality== What my opponent has basically told us is that immortality is the ability to live as long as you are not killed, continue to eat, continue to sleep, continue to etc. The only real difference between normal life and immortality would be a prolonged life span, as we all can acknowledge that resources are limited and accidents will eventually happen over time. However, immortal is defined as "exempt from death" [1]. In pro's scenario, we are far from exempt from death.My counter-intrepretation of the topic would be that all humans would become death-less and under no circumstance die.==Advantages of Immortality==The first and most obvious benefit would be on the emotional scale. No longer would we have to witness tragic events where a son could lose their dad, or best friends losing one another. The neverending length of our lives would simply give us more time to enjoy the company of more people. There are around 7 billion people on Earth, compared to our little social circles of maybe hundreds. The second impact would be economic. People would no longer have to cultivate food or keep animals, meaning more switches to technology development. On the other hand, people will no longer have to pay for medical costs, reducing fees. One might say that they would lose their jobs, but making the switch to another industry would be rather easy. Furthermore, in the face of immortality, their jobs become minisculely immportant to them as time passes by, and it is a small price to pay for the millions of lives saved. Another idea would be that perhaps the human race would evolve into something unlike other races. We would no longer have to live for survival and fight for necessities like food, but rather we would exist for our own enjoyment. Unbound by Earthly desires, mainly because they will no longer have any effect on your life, we could achieve to become something else. ==My Opponent's Arguments==The Pro brings up the argument of overpopulation and the necessary resources. On the other hand, we cannot give up lives on the basis that "we do not have enough to share with them". That is an unethical choice, to choose to end the lives of others simply because you do not want the trouble of sharing the resources.Looking through the eyes of my interpretation, this problem of resources would never occur. And overpopulation will also bring more innovation and new technological developments would be able to accompany rapid population growth. Perhaps the colonization of Mars, better use of land (not to mention that we would have the farm land that we would no longer need), or improved designs of buildings. Another answer would be birth control.Thank you, and I now turn the debate over to the Pro.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
People should not live forever

The premise is: it is possible for everyone to live forever. Let's me explain it clearer. That means people would not die because of aging-associated diseases. Only active intervention would cause to death. And if there are no active intervention like accident (implying no unreasonable voluntary risk), misadventure (accident following a willful and dangerous risk), suicide, or homicide..., people could be immortal. But in my opinion, even if we could, we should not live forever. The main reason is we've been already facing the consequences of overpopulation. The number in the population have been exceeding the natural resources available to sustain it. If natural causes could not lead to death, that means a great decline in mortality rates that leads to a faster population growth rate. The consequences of such an event will be much more severe and major.
Funny Video/Song Debate

This will be a video debate, where we debate on weather or not certain videos are better than the other. First lets lay down some rules.Rules1 video per round that's basicly it.Rd 1-3 is Funny SongsRd. 4-5 is funny videosAny questions can be asked and addressed.No trollin'.Video Title must be posted http://www.youtube.com...After Ever After by Paint.
The Ultimate Question

For the 40 years of ecstatic years that also means you could for eternal painful life. So the real question is would you rather have pain for 80 years at the start or 40 years of the best time of your life and then infinite years of painful agony. I stand by my point. The horrible, nasty, painful end would also be your worst nightmare so think of the worst thing you could go through and X that by 10. So which would you pick?
The Ultimate Question

Ok my friend, Imagine it: Living life filled with ecstatic experiences, with no drama whatsoever. I know you jealous, you already asking about the..: Money Sexual Encounters Drug Highs Fine Dining 5 * ACCOMMODATION EVERY DAY Do you know that the saying goes: Life is a tragedy for the poor, a game for the fool, but a comedy for the rich, and I will live and breathe in richness... Living the fast life will be such an adrenaline rush, and it'l be so liberating, as I won't have to see people die left right and centre in this horrible world, I can just do my own thing, unlike you. I can act like a King, and travel this sphere shaped globe. Man can literally buy DDO and rig the votes in my favour. Can do that to the feds aswell, MWAHAHAHA. I'll be laughing all the way to my casinos in Monaco, Vegas, and Macau. Oh Yeahh.
Religion is preventing societal progression

Not only are you irrational and narcissistic, but now we see deluded and a sexual pervert. But you ran from the Q as I knew you would. You are unable to tell me why it is ok for you to harm a child but not me a sodkmite. Of course you cannot, for your position is hedonistic, not rational. Only a moron would want society based on self-love and hedonism. That is not progress, but destruction.
Religion is preventing societal progression

I'm using far more logic than you, in actual fact. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, but that is irrelevant to the to debate. I don't kill babies nor do I condone it, but a baby is different to a foetus. As a semi-sodomite myself (bisexual), I hope you know that your blatant intolerance to myself or other members of the LGBTQIA+ community will not make me feel any sort of hatred towards myself- in fact, it merely makes me pity you. Have you nothing better to do than to harass a 17 year old on the internet because she agrees with a woman's right to choose what happens to her body and also finds people of her own gender attractive? Also, seeing as you are incapable of understanding my arguments without consulting a dictionary every two seconds, here is a definition of harm: Harm NOUN physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted:
Religion is preventing societal progression

"Hey, moron" Backatcha, buddy. "I am not interested in what you think is progress" Fair enough, but I gave a definition and stated that I was saying religion holds society back from acheiving equality "I want an objective standard" The standard is a fair society where everyone is free to do as they wish so long as it doesn't non-consensually harm others (e.g dealing drugs, murder, assault etc.) which is, I think we can agree, is what society wants on the whole. Who doesn't want to live knowing they're just as invaluable and entitled to do/say what they want as the next person?
Religion is preventing societal progression

Forgive me, I was not specific enough. I meant to say that religion is holding society back from progressing towards equality. It is by no means the only reason that equality is such a distant prospect, but it's certainly a big part. noun: progression; plural noun: progressions 1. the process of developing gradually towards a more advanced state (sourced from Google) Just a few examples are: 1.Gay (wo)men are not given the same freedoms as straight (wo)men in regions that oppose gay marriage- coincidentally, this tends to be places where religion is at the core of society [1]. Conclusion: religion is preventing the gay community from getting equal treatment/rights to heterosexuals. 2.Women are unable to get an abortion without medical reason (even in cases of rape) in Ireland because of the condemnation of abortion by Catholicism[2]. Conclusion: religion is preventing Irish women from getting abortions. This conflicts with bodily autonomy. 3. Women are not allowed to become Pope etc, simply for being born with the wrong genitalia, and are therefore not being given equal chance to hold high-up positions, even in their own religions [3]. Conclusion: gender inequality exists in religion itself . 4. Boys of certain faiths are circumcised as babies in order to meet societal expectations of 'purity', and can be ostracized for non-conformity [4]. Conclusion: boys are non-consensually circumcised on religious grounds, which goes against the right to bodily autonomy. 5. The idea of chastity is (mostly) fuelled by religion [5]. Conclusion: sex outside of wedlock is seen as dirty or immoral mostly down to religion. In fact, Again, this conflicts with bodily autonomy. ----- [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.ifpa.ie... [3] http://www.dummies.com... [4] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Practicablity of Youth Offenders Should be Imprisoned

you said "crimes will not reduce" well quite the contrary because over the years there have been a lot of youths whom have committed serious crimes simply because they made the assumption they couldn't go to prison, there was a young boy you watch porn at the age of 7 and when he got home he raped his 5 year old sister, there was another instance where 2 10 year old boys maliciously attacked, mutilated and murdered a young boy going home from school. NOW TELL ME, WITH SHYT LIKE THIS HAPPENING IN THE WORLD DO YOU BELIEVE THEY SHOULD GO UNPUNISHED SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR FREAKING AGE, WELL IF YOU YOU DO TO YOU SIR I SAY GO F*CK YOURSELF BECAUSE EVEN I MYSELF AT THE AGE OF 14 KNOW THAT THIS IS INJUSTICE AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS THAT THESE CHILDREN GOT LET OFF WITH NOTHING BUT BEING TOLD OFF AND PUT INTO A JUVENILE FACILITY WHERE THEY GET COUNSELING. DON'T GET ME WRONG I'M NOT ASKING FOR THE DEATH PENALTY, JUST HARSHER PUNISHMENT.
LD Debates

I defend my case, and then refute my opponent's. First he attacks my Value Criterion by interpreting the grammar of the resolution. He says "to" can mean "in order to" which means "with the intention of." So basically, under his interpretation, the resolution means that we kill an innocent person with the intention of saving more innocent lives. So my intention was to save lives, and as I have already, the intention to do good justifies an action. This analysis doesn't refute my argument, it only strengthens it. My intention was to save lives. In the process of carrying my intention, I was forced to kill. My intention was not to kill, but to save lives, and my action was saving lives, as well as killing an innocent, it's the distinction between an intended action and an unintended one. I did not intend to kill, I was forced to kill in order to fulfill my intention. Kant, and all other deontologists judge actions on the intention behind the action, not the consequences of the action. As my earlier scenario about the gas leak showed, killing can be unintentional, and can be justified because of the killer's goal to do the right thing by saving lives. So here's what the moral reasoning is: Intention: Save lives Action: Save lives, kill an innocent Consequence: Death of an innocent, lives saved. Under deontology the action's intentions are what matter. Kant calls this the maxim. While the maxim "If I kill one, I will save more lives" cannot be made a deontological imperative, but the maxim "If I save lives, I am doing the right thing" can. So if we simply act under the latter maxim, we are achieving the resolution, but we are still acting upon a morally sound maxim. This is what deontology calls for. Only that we act on a moral maxim, and the affirmative does this. The affirmative upholds the criterion of both Negative and my criterion. He then claims that I fully intend to kill. That is just false. I intend to save lives. I am aware that that means killing, but my intention is not to kill, killing is one of my actions. Note, my maxim does not mention killing, it only mentions saving lives. This is most certainly a good intention. Kant judges an action on its maxim. There are a number of possible maxims behind the resolution, and my maxim, "If I save lives I am doing the right thing" is a morally sound maxim under deontology. He attacks my contention, by again saying that I intend to kill. My maxim is my intention for the purposes of deontology, and my maxim does not mention killing. I do not, for the purposes of deontology, intend to kill. Onto my opponent's case. We have the same value, and our criterions are basically the same, as Kantianism is deontology. So basically, since the affirmative can fit under both frameworks, the affirmative clearly wins. You vote affirmative without a doubt, I have fit my case under both frameworks, and defended my case, while I have shown that my opponent is wrong in interpreting my intention.
The Marxist concept of "The Means of Production" is a bunch of nonsense.

I don't really understand that beginning argument but u said that "means of production" doesn't exist. It does. U said humans are the common factor in production and you are right (unless u consider machines) but means of production isn't as complex as u think. It just means all the resources and tools etc. To create that product. Example: Mr. Krabs is the business owner Spongebob and Squidward are the workers, and u guessed it. Krabby patties are the product. The means of production: spatula, lettuce, the meat, buns, pickles, etc. U can even get as detailed to say the means of production is the oven that baked the buns, the machine that shaped the spatula. That's what means of production is.
The Marxist concept of "The Means of Production" is a bunch of nonsense.

There is no such thing as specific or defined "Means of Production", they aren't some scarce objects that the so called 'bourgeois' confiscated or found laying around as Marxists tend to imply, anything can be a means of production and humans utilize and do anything they can in order to produce and profit. The only constant variable that exists in any function that leads to production is humans, and as such the only way production can be owned is through the ownership and subjugation of humans. That's why virtually all attempts at initiating communism resulted in totalitarian hellholes. How can you seize the means of production if anything can be used as a means of production? You can't seize everything, but you can seize the one thing that is integral to production: humans. The idea that the rich posses some miraculous object that allows production while production isn't possible without it is ridiculous. A business is dynamic and is composed of different external and internal variables that are integral for its substantiation, the moment you cease a business these variable change and it itself ceases to exist. Imagine someone making a business out of buying something from one person and selling it to another, what can you seize here? You can't. That's the basis of all businesses, some people sell labor and others products.
Battlefield 3 is better than MW3

I think battlefield 3 is better than Modern Warfare 3 because of one little word, "Realism". Infinity ward prides it's self on making "realistic shooters". but in what universe can you survive two barret fifty cal bullets to the head? whereas in battlefield if you die, it can be two things, one you glitched, or two you would have actually died if you pulled that off in real life. so now i would love to see the counter argument. who will step up and defend infinity ward?
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

This is a much deeper topic and, i'll say again, this is a scientific debates. Just because politicians have used it to pick sides, doesn't mean it has to be political. I don't feel you've sufficiently countered my points and I'll go a step further. I've found a nice article showing that it's a much deeper issue than what you have alluded to and there is plenty of evidence that, while we are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, you're idea of threat does not have enough to stand on. http://www.americantraditions.org...(CO2)%20Does%20Not%20Cause%20Global%20Warming.htm
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

"I like how you reference a democrat to put doubt into my "conservative" site. This is a scientific issue, not a political one." Yes, it is. Global climate change is one of the dividing lines between liberals and conservatives. "Nature still produces FAR more CO2 than man. 2014 NASA satellite supports this. Everything portraying us destroying the world centers years earlier without adequate research and a documentary (cited by my opponent) where it's shown to have inaccuracies and flat out lies to get the agenda across." JcMagic2015 Climate change is complicated. The overall trend is higher temperatures and higher amounts of CO2. The rate is changing fast enough that its dangerous. Couldn't get first graph, still haven't figured out pictures on this website. https://images.duckduckgo.com... s://images.duckduckgo.com...; alt="Climate hits 400ppm of CO2 for first time in 3 million years ..." />Tempature graph.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

I like how you reference a democrat to put doubt into my "conservative" site. This is a scientific issue, not a political one. Supporting evidence that the claims of manmade global climate change are dramatically overstated: We've seen record total amounts of ice, snow, and cold. Polar bears are thriving. Oceans are rising much less than predicted. -Further note here. I've shown multiple times that the predictions of those claiming manmade climate change is going to destroy the world have been incorrect. If these predictions based on the scientific findings are incorrect, perhaps some of their overall claim is also incorrect. If I said something was going to happen and here's what we expect to see to show it is happening, but then none of my predictions came true, you might assume my overall premise/hypothesis is also incorrect. Again, I'm not saying manmade climate change is not real. We are warming the client. I, again, take issue with the "threat" that everyone is blowing out of proportion. Further evidence: 31,000 Scientists signed a petition saying they do not support CATASTROPIC global warming. http://www.petitionproject.org... (including over 9,000 with PhD's. Perhaps there's more to the story? Nature still produces FAR more CO2 than man. 2014 NASA satellite supports this. Everything portraying us destroying the world centers years earlier without adequate research and a documentary (cited by my opponent) where it's shown to have inaccuracies and flat out lies to get the agenda across. Urban Heat Island effect leads to falsely high readings which global warming catastrophists run with.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent is correct the Earth's temperature has been hotter a long time ago. This falls into the stage 4a of climate change denial. [2] Meaning my opponent accepts the first part of the resolution but rejects the second half.The problem is not the temperature itself, but the rate of change. High rate of temperature change historically has lead to mass extinction. In summary, species including humans will struggle to adapt to such changes, if adaptation to such a change is even possible. [3]Impact, high rate of temperature change equals mass extinctions, which are a threat. Next my opponent uses information sourced from an ultra conservative website called the dailycaller.com I will first attack the source of the argument and then the argument itself. The dailycaller is an ultra-conservative website. You can verify this yourself by seeing the news story against Hilary placed first on the dailycaller.com."ultra-conservative Daily Caller" [4]Next, lets take a look at the argument. Basically this is a reiteration of the first argument and again falls into stage 4a of denial. [2]Yes, not all the predictions came true. Yet, the overall premise, that co2 and temperature are rising an alarming rates is true. Thank you for taking the time to debate. I think it takes real courage to speak what you perceive is the truth against the majority. Sources.2. http://grist.org...3. http://grist.org...4. http://www.newscorpse.com...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

I will agree that humans have had a measurable (not stating how measurable) effect on the Earth. However, where I disagree is the threat. The Earth has been SIGNFICANTLY hotter in the past (and more dynamic for that matter), see http://www.wrsc.org.... Do I think being "more green" is helpful, sure. However, we are not destroying the planet to the degree the stated "documentary" says. Rather than an inconvenient truth, an inaccurate partial-truth. Let's look at what's happened in the 10 years since this mess was released. http://dailycaller.com... sums it up VERY well.
Womens in India should avoid using the dress showing their body parts outside.

The actual cause of rape is not the dressing of women. My opponent didn't have much knowledge about Indian culture. Also Indian women. I am not trying to make sure that such dressing pattern creates rape. Wearing a dress, which showing tempting body parts of female, is to attract men. When the men who attacted to them, will appear infront of them. some men tries to touch certain parts, which were projected by using tit dress. Then the Indian womens says that"I actually not mean to wear this to attract men." It is a true fact that, in India men sees such dressing is to attract men. It cannot can be seen in western countries. In western countries women wearing sexy dress did'nt try to hide their actual needs. Only things to do to a country like India are, *1. If wearing sexy dress, women must accept that, what they actually mean. If so the country should give more hard punishment to men who attack women. or The women should wear 'parduh' which covers whole body. Another factor is, in India culture sex is a bad thing. My opponent still taking world women, and not Indian women as topic. He better watch the movie 'OUT SOURCED' which is a good example for some Indian culture.