BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Deceased donor organ donation ought to be opt-out

I will be Pro. Arguments from first round, unless Con deems further clarification of the issue necessary before starting. I will first state my position then my arguments.Con is to argue that explicit consent should be required, on whatever grounds he/she wishes. I suppose it would be impossible to be Con if restricted to utilitarianism. But please try to choose arguments that lead to interesting debate.The proposition:The proposition is that organ donation from deceased person should not require explicit consent. Instead, those who do not wish their organs must provide explicit objection. The objections of next of kin should also be considered, just as today. More requirements on the authorities to inform the citizenry about these rules could reasonably be required for the system to be legitimate: everyone should be able to know the rules. The arguments:1: A dead body is not a person. The handling of it is not a question of its rights, but on the emotional comfort of the living related to respect for human decency/dignity. The dead body does not have any rights since death is by definition the end of personhood. Even if one would postulate an immortal soul, the soul loses its association with the body upon the moment of death. Thus, the proposal does not violate rights, and the possibility of opting out makes sure it does not harm anyones emotions or sense of dignity, whatever that may be defined as.2: The benefits are simply to increase the supply of organs. This results in greater quantity and quality of life. As a utilitarian, this is obviously the main argument for me. (1) is there to show that rights-based moralities are not violated to achieve this good and aimed at nonutilitarians.3: In at least some countries a broad majority state that they want their organs to be donated when asked in survey, but do not report their consent to national donator registries. In Sweden for example 80% say they want to donate, but only 20% sign up. Thus it is not really justified to regard "no" as the default answer. More persons would get thier will respected by making "yes" the default answer. Not that I myself consider consent to be important in the case of dead bodies, but to make the system broadly accepted it is necessary to consider the issue of consent.Limitations on the debate:I think the exact rules of which objections count is outside the scope of the debate. The deceased and his/her next of kin are allowed to object, we probably have no need for more clarification of that. One might argue to ignore certain objections but that would be another debate. Here we assume the right to objection.We should only consider deceased donors, defined as brain death.We also assume that organ trading stays illegal, and that artificial organs are not yet available despite seeming to become available in the foreseeable future. The current organ shortage is thus assumed.I have chosen 3 rounds since I think this will be enough with arguments presented in all three rounds.
Deceased donor organ donation ought to be opt-out

Sorry to say but I think your spelling and grammar in round three was just as bad as mine in round one so I think we should be tied on that vote as of now.I shall make a list of problems I found in the reasoning of your overall argument and then highlight why I feel you insufficiently defended them.Problem 1In the system of presumed consent it's impossible for the person to express an overriding consent to get their organs donate so as to cancel out the objections of their next of kin whereas this is possible in the system of informed consent (Con's system).My opponent offered an escape route of 'explicit consent' forms but explicit consent forms already exist in informed consent systems anyway.Problem 2It is hypocritical to base the system on the basis that a dead person has no moral value if you then allow them to deny their organ transplants so as to override the next of kin. If explicit consent forms and denial are allowed to override the wishes of the next of kin then it goes against the entire basis of Utilitarianism and thus contradicts my opponent's reasoning for presumed consent being an acceptable system in the first place.I did not find any sufficient contradiction to this issue and he never denied being a hypocrite.Problem 3My opponent was never able to deny that God shows all the characteristics of a dead person including having no emotions (for which physical hormones are required). Therefore, the moral guide of many people is actually a similar entity to a dead corpse and thus it is going against many belief system to regard such an entity, that feels no emotion and can not physically do anything, as incapable of being a moral agent.The argument about the burden of proof on God had nothing to do with the fact that God, whether he actually exists or not, is a moral guide of many people in a nation where presumed consent would be implemented.Problem 4The argument that it saves people doesn't address the fact that most people who are in such a situation have self-inflicted it and will just go out and get it again.Prevention>CureProblem 5My opponent want to completely tear down the entire concept of an age of consent and never justified doing so. My 18 year-old birthday dilemma still stands.Problem 6Testing is required to become an organ donor in almost every nation that has it, including the UK. Testing on top of requiring consent makes informed consent far more efficient ant ensuring the person who has informed consent is already certified to be healthy for transplant (leaving the only testing necessary to be blood types, etc et era) (http://www.nhs.uk...)In conclusion, Pro had many flaws in the case proposed for a system of presumed consent to take lace and thus I believe that a system of informed consent reigns superior to the proposed system of presumed consent.
salvation

I'm sorry for my opening statement i thought i wrote the proposition. I am new here. but i will start my opening statement in these words. Is a man saved by faith only? 1. The scriptures speak of many things as having a part in our salvation: God(I Tim. 2:3-4) Jesus (John 12:47; Matt. 18:11) Blood (Acts 20:28; I Pet. 1:18-19) The Gospel (Rom. 1:16; I Tim. 4:16; I Cor. 15:1-2) Obedience (Hebrews 5:8-9) Faith (John 3:16; Acts 16:31) Grace ( Ephesians 2:8-10; Tit. 2:11, 3:3-8) Baptism (Mark 16:15-16; I peter 3:21) Hope (Rom. 8:24) A Faithful obedient life( Matt. 10:22; Rev. 2:10) 2. To be saved we are expected and required to do ALL of Christ's Commandments Matt 28:18-20 John 12:48 Matt. 7:21- 29 Heb. 5:8-9 II Thess. 1:7-10 we see here that Scriptures clarify that we are not saved by faith only Once again I apologize for my in complete first statement
salvation

Thank you for issuing this open challenge. I accept your challenge and look forward to a cordial and rigorous debate. My opponent has left the resolution extremely vague so I shall clarify a few points of possible contention. Since the opponent's opening round states "the scriptures teach that salvation is NOT by faith alone." I, as Con, shall be arguing the opposite, that the Scriptures teach that salvation IS by faith alone. A few definitions: Scriptures - The 66 books of the Canon of Scripture, not including the Apocrapha Teaches - The prevailing message communicated in the Scripture Salvation - Reconciliation with God leading to Heaven after death and resurrection into the New Earth at the Eschaton Faith Alone - Faith must be means of salvation with nothing else required. Grace is the "active ingredient" in salvation, in both a Faith Alone (Protestant) or Faith and Works schema (Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) the question at hand is how do we gain access to the grace. A few boundaries - Since this debate is about what the Scriptures teach (according to Pro's opening comment), we must remain exclusively within the boundaries of the Scriptures.This means that because Pope Benedict may argue one thing, or John Calvin may argue another thing... is insignificant to this debate. Although those sources may be helpful in building the argument by demonstrating how one person has answered this question, they should not be viewed as an authority on the subject. The only authority on this subject is the Scripture. In order to secure victory, Pro will be required to prove beyond reasonable objection that the Prevailing message communicated in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments is that something other than Faith is required to access the saving Grace that leads to salvation. Con must only prove that, that is not the prevailing message and need not prove a competing prevailing message (burden of proof rests on Pro as instigator).
Should animals be kept in zoos

These days people tend to forget that animals have feelings. Animals at zoos have to deal with people staring at them every single day, kids making faces and making fun of them. If that happened to you now, you would try to stand up for yourself. These animals cant because they are stuck in a small enclosure or cage. These animals have nothing to do in their enclosures they can only sit there and do nothing and get made fun of till their at the point of stress. This is called Zoochosis. What is zoochosis? Well according to the Collins online dictionary it means psychological problems associated with animals kept in prolonged activities. More commonly-zoo animals exhibit signs of extreme depression and related psychological conditions as they struggle with the confines of their captivity. This behaviour includes bar biting, playing with faeces and also eating them, rocking and pacing. When the public sees this they complain to the zoo, and what do most zoos do? The inject them with substances that make the animals forget about things and also calm them and then in some cases they have to be put down because you cant help them. Now this wouldn't happen in the wild would it? They are free to do as they please and aren't forced to do anything. We are animals too, so why don't treat other animals with a bit of respect? Sorry if this doesnt give you much to work with, this is my first debate here so i dont exactly know what to do exactly, pls bear with me and thks for accepting https://storify.com... http://www.captiveanimals.org...
Should animals be kept in zoos

Animal, what are animals? They are anything that lives and moves incuding us! How would we feel like if we were stuck in cages, taken from our homes and families to be put in a cage? If we were made fun of everyday, we wouldnt fell good. So why on earth do we have to do it to other animals? We have no right to put them under enormous stress and other things If you think otherwise u know what to do
The death penalty should be abolished

Welcome, Mopi! I chanced upon one of your previous debates and I felt that your opponent missed out on several points of importance. For that reason, I would like to invite you to a debate on this topic, with you taking the same position of abolition of the law, that you had taken the previous time. The structure of the debate would be as follows: Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Opening Arguments Round 3 - Rebuttals and Counter-Arguments Round 4 - Defence of Opening Arguments Round 5 - Closing Statements I am hopeful that you will accept. For our benefit, I shall define the death penalty as the punishment of execution, carried out on anyone convicted of a capital crime. This includes both the death penalty as a judicial sentence and the mandatory death penalty.
Resolved: The Letter of the Law Ought to Have Priority Over the Spirit of the Law.

I am very happy to have participated in this debate. My opponent made very valid points and rebutted my arguments with very strong contentions. Nonetheless, the Spirit of the Law should unarguably take precedence over the letter of the law. My opponents first contention was that, "prioritizing the Letter of the Law over the Spirit of the Law ensures that all men are judged by the same standard." However, I rebutted this saying that the outcome of cases in the judicial system would set a standard as well, as it does with the Supreme Court in today's judicial system. Therefore, if the Spirit of the Law is prioritized, there will still be a standard set, as there is when prioritizing the Letter of the Law. His second contention was, "the Spirit of the Law should reside within the Letter of the Law." However, I don't find this valid because if you are prioritizing the Letter of the Law, and there is a case where someone technically followed the letter but broke the ethics and intention of the law, you are obligated to let them go. Therefore you cannot have "The best of both" if you will. Their third contention was,"a just government will not punish people for the purpose of maintaining ethics." In my opinion, a just government would write laws for the purpose of maintaining ethics, while making sure to maintain justice. This is an area of the debate that I failed to address with strength, and in hindsight I wish I could have argued against this point better. Throughout the rest of the debate, I felt the main focus was towards whether prioritizing the letter created loopholes that prioritizing the spirit would not. Though my opponent and I volleyed back and forth with contentions and examples, I feel that with reason, anyone can understand that my points still stand. No matter the outcome of this debate, I feel this has been very well structured, educational, and reasonable and I am very pleased to have been given the opportunity to debate with such an intelligent opponent. That being said, I still believe that the Spirit of the Law should be prioritized over the Letter of the Law, and if you feel this way too, make sure to show it with a vote. Thank you for this debate.
Resolved: The Letter of the Law Ought to Have Priority Over the Spirit of the Law.

I would like to begin by pointing out that due to being on the road so much today, I don't have access to my computer so I have to use my phone, so I may have multiple spelling errors and I am also going to keep it brief. First, I could evade taxes (as many wealthy people do) by creating what is called a "sell company" and registering it in a tax safe haven and then channeling money into it, very easy to do and only costs $50 I believe for a business license. I could also request payment in commodities such as gold and silk which wouldn't be taxed and then trade them for cash, which is also common. Unfortunately, as I am still on the road I will close this round off here. My opponent brought very good contentions, but I believe my points still stand.
Resolved: The Letter of the Law Ought to Have Priority Over the Spirit of the Law.

In today's society, the law is written to such specifics that multiple problems arise. It is ridiculous to think that the laws are so complex that you have to hire someone specially trained (a lawyer) to interpret them for you. That alone shows how flawed the legal system itself is. The spirit of the law should take presidence over the written words, or else loopholes form and the law essentially loses all meaning. Let me give you an example: If a law was written that said "Do not disturb your neighbor; respect their presence" it would be a good law. However, in today's world we have to be very specific so a law would have to say something like, "Do not play radios so loudly that it may bother your neighbors". This still isn't where we are today so it is revised to, "Do not play radios over 10 decibels." This is where loopholes form. What is I play 2 radios at 5 decibels each? (Assuming you could add decibels) As time would go on, the law would be revised again and again with new sections added and clauses explaining each one is detail. And as the law is continually revised, it becomes so complex that you end up with a mess like today's laws where they have to have specially trained people read them. But wait? What's missing at this point? The spirit of the law. The whole intention of the law was to respect your neighbors, not to control your radio volumes and ect. The law has become such a mess that the whole point of it is gone, and it's just another messy part of the rule book with numerous loopholes. In my opinion, if the legal system wrote laws that were broad and to the point like, "Respect your neighbors presence; do not disturb them" and we provided extensive training to allow judges to interpret in cases whether the law was followed, we would have a much cleaner legal system. In case you don't understand yet, let me present another example. You steal your friends iPod you see sitting on his table. He comes up to you and asks for it, but you say it's yours now rightfully. What do you do? You may ask another nearby friend "Hey, is this right?" Of course he will say no, and it's settled. It's a common moral rule not to steal, and requires no specially trained people to pull out a book of law and read off some extensive law, does it? Why shouldn't all laws be simple and easy to interpret like this? Why is it that we need lawyers to tell us what the law says? It's evidence of a seriously flawed system and it traces back to one main point: The spirit of the law is FAR more important than the letter of the law, and ought to take presidence.
Resolved: The Letter of the Law Ought to Have Priority Over the Spirit of the Law.

Hello! This debate is set up for the purpose of challenging me on a subject I know little about. I hope that whoever accepts, we'll have a polite, fun debate.The definitions are as follows:Letter of the Law: Interpreting the law literally; or as it is written.Spirit of the Law: Interpreting the law according to a social and moral consensus on the interpretation of the law.The rules are as follows:1. If one person violates a rule, his opponent must politely point out the violation to the voters, and proceed.2. No plagiarism. Sources must be properly cited.3. No cursing, swearing, or obscenity in general.4. No forfeiting rounds. (Doing this violates the debate structure, too.)5. Failure to address a point means that you concede it.6. No violating debate structure.7. Et cetera. Let's have a fun debate.Here is the structure:(Key: P = Pro, C = Con, Numbers specify the round.)P1: Rules, Definitions, Structure.C1: Acceptance, and Negative Argument.P2: Affirmative Argument. Rebuttal to Negative Argument.C2: Rebuttal to Affirmative Argument, Introduction of New Arguments.P3: Rebuttal to Negative Arguments, Response to Negative Rebuttals, Introduction of New Arguments.C3: Rebuttal to Affirmative Arguments, and Respones to Affirmative Rebuttals. NO introduction of new arguments.P4: Response to Negative Rebuttals. Summary of arguments, explanation to voters as to why they should choose Pro as winner. NO introduction of new arguments.C4: Summary of arguments, explanation to voters as to why they should choose Con as winner. NO introduction of new aguments.Thanks! Let's have a good debate!
The Rich Have a Moral Obligation to Donate to the Poor - *Fall Tier Tournament - Round 1*

The topic is pretty clear. Pro will argue that there is a moral obligation on the rich to donate to the poor. Con will argue that there is not a moral obligation on the rich to donate to the poor. Pro and Con have agreed on a shared burden of proof for this debate. Rules4 Rounds72 hrs per round10,000 Characters per roundOpen Select Winner Voting - min ELO 2500Standard debate rules apply.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillanc

Contention 1: Why we have them. http://www.nationalreview.com... Contention 2: How they work. https://nsa.gov1.info... Contention 3: Why we need them and must negate. https://www.washingtonpost.com... Conclusion: These companies are just doing their job. Please side with me. Any questions please message me.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillanc

Hello Esteemed Debaters and Observers Alike,My name is arrowjaw, and today I am presenting a debate topic I wish to argue with an opponent. This debate has been created in all seriousness and I expect it to be argued thus. Please only accept this debate if you wish to debate seriously, no trolls, jokers, or fakers. Rules and Regulations:No Ad Hominem: No attacking the moral, mental, or physical intentions or state of being of an opponent. No KritiksRespect all debaters, commenters, and othersAll unsupported evidence can and may be nullified: Provide citations, support, websites, etc...Forfeiting a single round for personal reason is excepted, just continue on, any more than one is considered an actual loss. Structure of the Round:Round 1: Opening Statements, Words of Acceptance, Thanks, etc... Round 2: Opening Arguments, Case Construction [Affirmative (Me) goes first) Round 3: Rebuttal To Opponents Cases Round 4: RebuttalsRound 5: Last Rebuttals, Closing Case Construction, and Closing Words A Note to the Voters/Judges: Do not vote for the side you agree with, but vote for the side that either convinced you or upheld their arguments the most.Thank you for either judging the round, actually debating it, or just observing.
Worst pick-up lines

"I hear you're looking for a stud. Well, I've got the STD and all I need is you." "Can you touch my hand? I want to tell my friends I've been touched by an angel." "I've lost my teddy bear! Can I sleep with you instead?" "Excuse me. My friend over there is a little embarrassed. He'd like your phone number. He wants to know where he can get ahold of me in the morning."
Deist (pro) vs theist (con)

How does that pertain to the debate? Providing a background to a God doesn't mean its better than a backgroundless God. That way any profile on linkedin is better than me on debate.org. Furthermore, the Bible is a source of Christian propaganda and what it says is true only if you consider it to be true. Another point to mention is that if we think God needs to be 'created', then we will be left with an infinite table of God, Godfather, God Grandfather, God Great Grandfather and so on. Deism is better than theism because- 1. It falls in parallel with free will, and we have free will. 2. It accounts for lack of evidence for God, because he is an observer in another area/realm/universe/world. 3. It also explains why God doesn't stop evil and misfortunes happening on Earth. Plausible reasons to what made God an observer- 1. Creating life on Earth drained his power (not omnipotent, this isn't theism) and he needs eons to recover. 2. Creating the Big Bang drained his power. 3. He has created multiverses and is seeing how would the world progress with various altered factors, in our world the absence of his tangible influence.
Deist (pro) vs theist (con)

This time, rather than atheism we'll be debating about theism vs deism. deist- a person who believes God doesn't exercise control over his universe theist- a person who believes in 3 omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God. (all powerful, knowing and controlling) Begin your arguments in round 1. I think deism is more rational than theism as we have free will I don't see God exercising full control over the universe. For ex. No government officer will ever resign for putting a more capable person in place.
Ron Paul is the best candidate in the current GOP race.

Resolved: Ron Paul is the best candidate in the current GOP race (for the 2012 presidential election). Rules: I am giving CON some leeway for his/her argument. CON can either propound on the faults of Ron Paul's policies, OR compare him to another candidate in the current GOP race. If CON is going to compare Ron Paul to another GOP candidate, he/she must be in this list: Mitt Romney / Herman Cain / Tim Pawlenty / Rick Santorum / Newt Gingrich/ Michele Bachmann / Sarah Palin / Rick Perry Definition of "best": ...that Ron Paul's policies will be better than those of other candidates in helping America recover and thrive.I look forward to an excellent, informative debate.