BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Athens vs. Sparta (athens lets just say is pro, and Sparta is con)

I thank Brooke for starting this debate. Rebuttals Babies that are too weak and unhealthy were left to die. <1>. However, the baby is unhealthy. Thus, wouldn't it be better if we kill it off before it spreads diseases? Or use up more resources? Just like the phrase "Survival of the fittest," only the strongest may live. Babies should be killed because they are sick and unhealthy. It takes less than 7 days to be cured from sickness. Babies live for 10 days, and then are killed if they are not cured. Therefore, babies would be an invalid argument. Sparta would be better because killing off the weak and sick would be better than leaving the sick to affect others. Education. We now go to the phrase of: Street-smart vs. book-smart. Spartans = street-smart, and Athens = book-smart. Which is better: Survival or Knowing How Things Work? What is the use of intellect, when you cannot truly use it in times of crisis? Spartans have endured hardships and pain. Athenians? Nope. They think, while Spartans act. Did the Incas have a writing system? No. Were they very successful when it comes to military or uses of farmland? Yes. Thus, being literate would not make you a better civilization. Ideas are not better than armies, because the idea could not be applied. Knowledge is NOT power. Would this smart guy in your class be the leader of the school? No. Being street-smart though, would help you. Being able to steal and become very athletic is a helpful tool in life. Who is better, a bully, or the victim? Obviously bully. That's why you see people bullied every day. Markets? Who needs them? Spartans had enough food to survive. As long as a civilization can feed and nourish itself, it would not be considered better or worse. If the Spartans had enough food, the civilization would still be successful. Rather than having a surplus and trading it for jewelry and luxury items. Simplicity vs. Luxury. Contentions All in all, Spartans are much better than the Athens. In battle, Spartans are much more powerful. Even if Spartans aren't smart enough to develop art, they still had enough brain power to defeat the Athenians. They burned fields of crops. They stopped all waterways. They destroyed numerous fleets. They defeated the Athenians! <1> http://library.thinkquest.org... I await my opponents response.
Athens vs. Sparta (athens lets just say is pro, and Sparta is con)

Look...Athens is better than Sparta for a few reasons...1. Athens did not kill babies just because they looked "weak". Who is to say that they are nothing and that they don't have potential to become the next Plato and such? It sounds to me like the nazis who wanted a pure race...not so great... 2. Athens cared more about education. Where there any Spartans who bothered to write their history down...NO! It was Plutarch who did, and he wasn't even a Spartan! And they actually knew how to read and write, as opposed to the Spartans who taught their citizens P.E., stealing, and killing techniques. Ideas are better than armies, knowledge is power! My third reason is because Athens actually attempted to have an open market like the ones we have in the U.S. today! Look, Spartans told their citizens that they weren't allowed to trade... talk about terrible economic growth, and isolationism! Well yeah...I would write more but it's like 12 a.m. and I'm a freshman in high school...so I'm tired... At least I hope to make my point across.
THBT sex education must be taught in High School students in the Philippines

good day to you mr. jemual since you have forfeited your past round and this is the last round in our debate i will not make this short. i still believe that sex education must not be taught in High School students in the Philippines because of the following factors: a. maturity b. appropriateness of location c. necessity of sex education to be taught i have stressed this three factors in my past arguments and i will not elaborate further. i also believe that i have rebut all your arguments. thank you.
THBT sex education must be taught in High School students in the Philippines

I still believe that sex education must be thought to high school students because: 1.)Of what you've said that virginity is dignity. It is correct but in surveys on the Philippines, 33% engaging in premarital sex result to unwanted pregnancy and even abortion. This subject can help the students in preventing these results. We can never avoid issues about sex and besides the Filipinos have their own minds in choosing if to engage in sex or not. If you have the knowledge, you will be more careful because if you are conservative, you will never engage in see because you know the results and abstinence. 2.)The students are curious about sex, so they want to explore and result in premarital sex because they wanted to know what will be the result if they do that. Teaching them safe sex or abstinence of having sex is a better idea to reduce their curiousness. In modern times, we, Filipinos are already being liberated. 3.)Having subjects such as Anatomy or Health are covering topics of Reproductive system. If they won't learn about sex education, they will be ignorant hearing unfamiliar words that will make them say "eeewww!...yuck!" and more. To help them in being not impolite, teaching of sex education is better because they will know all those scientific terms such as those testosterone and estrogen and some other sex organs. 4.)Sex education could boost the mind of the youngsters on what the real world is really about. Teaching them about this subject will be a stepping stone on what may happen to them in the near future 5.)Sex educations don't tackle all about sex but it has limitations. They will not really go into complex topics. With that I end my speech. Seeing you forward for your reply.
THBT sex education must be taught in High School students in the Philippines

i believe that sex education should not be taught to high school students even if they are in the 3rd year of their high school or the 4th. especially in the Philippines since as i know from some Filipino friends that Filipinos are people who are conservative and values their virginity measuring it equal with their own dignity. i mean to say that when one teaches sex education to teenagers the cases of premarital sex will increase since they can perform sex with the following certain guidelines to prevent unwanted pregnancy. i am not saying that sex education teaches one to perform sex or to teach them of procedures in performing sex, what i am saying is that when one engage in sex education one can follow guidelines to prevent unwanted events to happen after intercourse and since Filipinos treasure virginity, they may be tempted to do it since they know how to prevent unwanted event that may occur after sex and this becomes a violation of tradition. i am also aware of your statement that conservative attitudes have led to more cases of STD and teenage pregnancy, but can you define "conservative attitudes" more since in general conservative attitudes is the rejection of sex education and therefore the rejection in partaking in any sexual activity that will help in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and spread of diseases. Thus, it will not be a point for you but a point for me. sex education should not be taught still to high school students since maturity of one person can not be based through ones age. in general, i may agree to teaching people of sex education but only the mentally prepared and people who voluntarily enrolls oneself to join lessons for sex education. finally, sex education should not be taught to high school students, not unless they can handle it individually, since they already have many school work, to handle another bundle of workload. school is also not the only place where you can learn or have sex education as your speech have said teaching them to high school students means teaching them in school. with that i end my speech. please forgive me for some errors since i haven't checked on it after i have typed it. hope to hear from you soon. thank you.
THBT sex education must be taught in High School students in the Philippines

What is sex education? Sex education is a broad term used to describe education about human sexual anatomy, sexual reproduction, sexual intercourse, and other aspects of human sexual behavior. Common avenues for sex education are parents or caregivers, school programs, and public health campaigns. Education about reproduction typically describes the creation and development of a new human being, from conception and the development of the embryo and fetus, through to childbirth. It often includes topics such as sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and how to avoid them, as well as birth control methods. Why sex education? Although some form of sex education is part of the curriculum at many schools, it remains a controversial issue in several countries, particularly with regard to the age at which children should start receiving such education, the amount of detail that is revealed, and topics dealing with human sexuality and behavior (eg. safe sex practices, masturbation and sexual ethics). In many countries, sexual education raises much contentious debate. Chief among the controversial points is whether covering child sexuality is valuable or detrimental; the use of birth control such as condoms and hormonal contraception. Increasing support for abstinence-only sex education by conservative groups has been one of the primary causes of this controversy. Countries with conservative attitudes towards sex education (including the UK and the U.S.) have a higher incidence of STIs and teenage pregnancy. Why in the Philippines and why high school students? It is a great issue in the Philippines because some say that students in high schools are to young to know about sex education. Elementary years are for childish things while in college is for maturity stage while in high school, they are easily taught, and they are curious, so, I chose high schools students Parameters: The parameter of this debate is that only to 3rd years and 4th years are to be allowed in knowing this kind of subject That will be all for now..
Firearms licences should not be granted to members of the public

There is absolutely no legitimate need for any member of the public to own a gun. British citizens do not benefit in any way from public gun ownership so why are firearms licences still being granted to private individuals? Since firearms can only be legitimately used in specific places and for specific purposes such as deer stalking or sports shooting, firearms should be securely stored on licensed premises where they can be rented to approved individuals. Under no circumstances should firearms leave those premises to be kept in the hands of private individuals. Sadly, the consequences of allowing members of the public to keep guns in their personal possession were graphically illustrated yesterday when the holder of a licensed firearm in rural Cumbria lost his temper and shot 12 people dead, injuring 11 others. Tragically, this is not the first time we have witnessed some clodhopping turnip-muncher with a gun licence run amok in the British countryside. As the BBC reported: "Michael Ryan's massacre of 16 people in Hungerford in 1987 led to the banning of all modern semi-automatic rifles and a range of guns that are capable of firing rapidly without needing to be reloaded. Nine years later, Thomas Hamilton killed 16 school children and their teacher when he opened fire at a school in Dunblane. Parliament banned all handguns and there is now a mandatory five year jail sentence for possession." http://news.bbc.co.uk... The only positive aspects of these atrocities were that they led to increased restrictions on the private possession of firearms. http://news.bbc.co.uk... However, Britain's gun ownership regulations are still very relaxed compared to other developed nations. For example, in Japan where private gun ownership is almost unheard of, guns only kill 0.06 people in every 100,000, whereas in England and Wales the figure is 0.38 – over 6 times more. Of course, there are developed countries where firearms laws are even more lenient than in the UK and this is reflected in the number of people that are killed by guns there. For example, in the USA where citizens have a constitutional right to "bear arms", a whopping 10.26 people in every 100,000 are killed by guns – that's 27 times more than in England and Wales and a staggering 171 times more than in Japan. http://www.gun-control-network.org... In the light of these startling statistics, the UK must adopt the Japanese model of gun control and introduce a total ban on the private possession of firearms in order to save innocent lives. Thank you.
The character of God in the Bible is essentially Adolph Hitler

This debate will address the morality or lack thereof of 'God' as described in the Bible. I as the Pro will be demonstrating how, as portrayed by the Bible, God is similar to Adolph Hitler. The burden of proof will accordingly be on me. My opponent will rebut and make any complementary case he or she wishes to make. Strictures: - Videos as evidence will be dismissed - Sources are to support points, not make them - Preaching, evangelism, and irrational appeals to emotion are discouraged Thank you.
Immigration DOES NOT work

The United States has no official religion. The United States has no official language. America has created to be a melting pot of ideas and cultures. There has not been a single country to accept as many immigrants as the United States has. To be honest with you, when you criticize the United States by saying it is becoming, "continental conclave of the most disparate and diverse peoples in all of history" I feel prideful that I live in a country that is turning into that. What is your data to support the idea that immigration does not work? Ethnic segregation was entirely due to redlining practices that occurred in American cities. High school drop out rates have no correlation to immigration, neither does high crime rates. What makes America special is the obsession with freedom. In a free society, there will be clashing of culture, there will be problems but that is simply a part of living with other humans. Nobody is encouraged to do one thing or another when they enter this country besides be the best person that they can be. In my opinion, not trying to be rude, but it is wildly against the spirit of this country to say some of the stuff you are saying as well. I am, I guess curious, as to what you're trying to say? I am a Libertarian, so I believe that anyone should be able to live freely as long as they respect other people's ability to do the same. In that, I include anyone that may not identify similarly to me culturally. In America, we are attempting to become more diverse because diversity is a great thing if you allow other people to live freely just as you are allowed to. Your issue seems to be with the freedom to live as one wishes to live in this country, but America is built on the idea that we all should be able to live freely. While that hasn't always been a reality for many people, we as a nation are growing closer and closer to that end goal. As to your final comments, it sounds like you want a place where everyone thinks the same way. If that is the case then I'm sorry but this country is not going to ever be that way, and if it is then it will not be America anymore.
Immigration DOES NOT work

Immigration DOES NOT WORK, all it does is create failure to assimilate, spontaneous ethnic segregation, adaptation problems such as school drop-out, unemployment, and high crime rates. Real integration is impossible when ethnic groups are encouraged to cling to customs, practices, even languages from their homeland If multiculturalism is right because minorities feel better among themselves, why have mass immigration at all, since it must obviously make everyone miserable? In North America we are attempting to convert a republic, European and Christian in its origins and character, into an egalitarian democracy of all the races, religions, cultures and tribes of planet Earth. We are turning America into a gargantuan replica of the U.N. General Assembly, a continental conclave of the most disparate and diverse peoples in all of history, who will have no common faith, no common moral code, no common language and no common culture.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

I believe in the principles of the Affirmative side that we need to preserve human life, however I don't believe in his permissibility in killing an innoccent person to save more innocent lives. Let's give stress to the word "innocent" in the topic and give an adequate definition to it. Innocent means "harmless in intention" and "unknowledgable or ignorant" to begin with. So the topic only means that we should allow the killing a harmless ignorant with no justification for the sake of saving others. That's why, in the Proposition we believe it's not perimissible to kill an innocent individual rather we appreciate life and believe "to live life alive..." Now, let's rebutt the pitiful whines of the Affirmative side. Do you really preserve human life? As far I can see, the Affirmative side's speech seems that there is a complete contradiction. In the principle level, how can you preserve life by killing an innocent soul? Well, if you want to preserve life you shouldn't kill another life especially an innocent one. Secondly, is it morally permissible to kill an innocent person? In the first place, nothing is morally permissible when killing is involved moreover, if the one whom to be killed is innocent. Even if you kill an innocent person for the sake of the world, this killing is not justified even if it's for the sake of the many because you killed an individual that who's not even accountable for anything and in fact the person is indeed harmless to begin with. It's totally unfair! As far as I am concerned, my opponent illiterated that socities have a moral and indestructible vow to protect its citizen and these socities are fully equip from foreign invaders, viruses and calamities. Is this even true? How come, that an innocent individual should be held responsible of protecting others? Now let me paint you a picture what does the affirmative side wants to do. To begin with, affirmative side wants you to believe that killing is MORALLY permissible and I think it's not. Because it's like killing a child with a gun and just saying "This is for the sake of others..." Do you think this killing is permissible? No! That innocent soul is not even knowlegable! In conclusion, I don't think that killing is morally permissible to begin with. Well if you want to save others society is fully equip anyway, stated by my opponent.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

This being the last round of the debate I will summaries my case and deeply explain why the affirmative has the stronger reasoning in this debate. The resolution implies a scenario where a third party has the option of sacrificing an innocent life to save more innocent lives. The innocent people are innocent of being placed into this situation. The individuals past or status are of no concern in the debate. The mentioning of innocence is to prevent an argument of sacrificing a child molester or murderer to save the lives of doctors or engineers. If you don't sacrifice the innocent person the other people will die. After evaluating the specific scenario the resolution illustrates, the affirmative panel would sacrifice the one individual to save the more individuals. The affirmative panel values life and will achieve my value my value criterion of protecting human life. Sacrificing the one innocent person to save more innocent lives is protecting the most human life and honors the highest amount of life. The affirmative panel contentions are it is important to preserve human life if we don't protest human life we are acting with no morals or values at all, we have to value life to truly understand its worth and societies have a moral and indestructible vow to protect its citizen. The affirmative ideology has the strongest reasoning in this match. It is morally correct to save the most life because if you don't you are killing the most life. Essentially to kill is to extinguish, as I defined early in the match and my opponent did not feel the need to refute. Your inactions will extinguish the lives of many people if you choose not to help them. Essentially if you agree with the negative you are killing life and not preserving life, by not acting to save lives. To stand for the affirmative you are preserving the most life and stand for morally correct standards. I encourage the judge(s) to vote AFF and stand for life and protecting it at all cost.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Before I precede to my well constructive speech I'll post questions for Affirmative side "Why in the first place are we to sacrifice?" and "What are the incentives of these sacrifices to others?" Well, I believe my opponent needs to study his case. Secondly, I am sorry if I said that you copy and pasted your argument because as far as I can see you never tried to link your points back to the motion/topic. Thirdly, I appreciate that you gave a definition even if I come late, however I will stick to my definition and probably get some definitions of the affirmative side. Let's weight and analyze what is the difference of sacrifice and murder? Whatever you could say, sacrifice or murder and what not it is still simply killing. Sacrifice happens when the person himself/herself is willing to give his/her life, it only means there is a prerogative or an authentic free of choice. In the affirmatives resolution, it seems that the said innocent person has no authentic freedom of choice, it only concludes that society or the government or others are dictating the death of the said innocent soul. In this case, murder happens because the said innocent soul doesn't even know why should he/she be "sacrificed" or killed in the first place. Could you even call this a sacrifice if indeed others are the one who decide your fate or death, even if you say that it's for the betterment of the many? I believe that innocent society or the people whom you offer the sacrifice sees murder or killing as immoral and I don't think they are willing to sacrifice/kill an innocent soul to begin with. Secondly, if you kill or sacrifice an innocent person is still not justified because the people that you are offering to are advocates of preserving life and morality, therefore they don't want blood shed. I don't think my opponent's so called sacrifice for the better good will be productive. There are alot of means and ways to save innocent souls you don't need to sacrifice one of them. Stated by Affirmative side that societies are secured and well protected however they want to "sacrifice/kill" an innocent soul. You know if they are secured already why do they need to kill. In Conclusion, both sides of the house are for preserving life then again which side preserve life better? Well it's definitely Opposition because we are not the one who is willing to sacrifice or in other terms "kill" an innocent soul, which is definitely Affirmative side. Secondly, we see other avenues to save lives we don't need to give up one. Thirdly, we follow societal morality which means we see what the majority sees and the majority wants is to preserve life and "make life alive!" So ask your self which side preserve life better? Is it Affirmative side that wants to kill an innocent soul or Opposition that sees alot of avenues to save life?