BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Current LD Topic: When in conflict personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security.

We will debate Lincoln-Douglas style and this will be our format.Round #1. Acceptance AC: Round #2 NC/NR1: Round 2 Cross-Ex Questions: Round 3 AR1: Round 4 NR2: Round 4 AR2/Affirmative Closing Statements: Round 5 Negative Closing Statements. Forfeits = Automatic Loss.
THW: allow euthanasia under the right circumstances

Clearly, no one would argue that euthanasia should be allowed in all circumstances, but I propose that in some situations, it is appropriate to allow it. Specifically, when an individual is deemed to be of sound mind, they should be allowed to describe circumstances under which they wish to be euthanized in future, or to ask to be euthanized immediately. For instance, one could leave a statement as follows: "In the event that I am subject to an illness or injury which causes me to be completely and permanently unable to communicate, but would otherwise leave me alive to suffer through such, it is my will that my attending physician ends my life using a lethal injection." Of course, one could always amend such a declaration at any time as circumstances change. In terms of implementing this legally, one would have to implement a number of criteria which must be met in order to allow euthanasia to take place; for instance, a list of reasons which may not be cited as justification for being euthanized (becoming a financial burden to one's family as an example), but the finer details of this are not being debated; only that such a finalisation could be reached to satisfy a reasonable person of the fact euthanasia would, in these circumstances, be the moral option. And clearly, euthanasia *IS* the most moral option under some circumstances; for instance, if someone is either going to die slowly and painfully of cancer which is certain to be terminal, or one could end one's life quickly, painlessly and with dignity and control, it would be cruel and irrational to deny someone that option. In short, euthanasia is the most moral option under some circumstances, and, accompanied with the necessary legal protections against abuse, could be implemented in a way which is fair to- and safe for- everyone.
Capital Punishment and should it be used in society

First I will negate all of my opponents points, dealing with his arguments, and then make some closing remarks. (Also, I will be getting all of my stats from http://www.karisable.com...) 1. My opponent stated that, including the appeals process, it is cheaper to use the death penalty (DP) instead of life without parole (LWP). However, even when taking into account the automatic appeals process, which is at the most $700,000 for LWP, and the cost of housing for the criminal, it is still much cheaper to be charged with LWP than DP when dealing with the OBSECE court fess the government has to pay for a capital punishment case. 2. I stated earlier that LWP in reduces murder and that DP increase them in nations, based on England and it's legal past. My opponent rebutted by saying that England s a different country, with a different culture, which I cannot argue against. However, in Texas and Oklahoma, where thare are the most executions in the US (24 and 14 in 2003, respectively), there was an increase in murders, and in other non-DP states, there was a decrease in murder rates. This is because criminals will kill all witnesses to a crime iin which they know they will receive the DP, but when the punishment is LWP, they will not feel they need to murder any of the witnesses. 3. My opponent staed that with new DNA technology, there will be more evidence, and therefore more accurate DP cases. However, in 2005 alone, 37% of all DP cases were appealed, even when they included DNA testing earlier. This shows that there is stilll a great deal of mistakes in our justice system, and in DP cases, you cannot reverse the punishment after you have killed the criminal. 4. While it is true that all criminals murdered by the government will never recommit a crime, it is also true that all criminals in jail with LWP ALSO never recommit a crime. 5. Yes, it is constitutional, however, we are not dealing with whether or not it is legal, but whether it is just, correct, and whether or not we should use it. Which leads me to my closing remarks. The death penalty is a barbaric, unjust, and awful punishment that is enacted under natural law and is a violation of everything we have fought for: Liberty, freedom, and peace. By allowing the capital punishment to continue, you are merely allowing government-sponsored murder to occur, and I end with a quote by the great Mahatma Ghandi, "An eye for an eye only leaves everybody blind." Thank you. PS. Please vote on who debated best, not on your own personal beliefs. Thank you again
Capital Punishment and should it be used in society

Hey its cool whatever ya gotta do ya gotta do, plus i think its lame to win on a technicality. Getting to the point 1.Thank you for conceding this point, but the way it will save money is through these lack of filled prisons. And as for the absurd legal fees, prisoners are all entitled to the appeals process. Lifers are usually entitled to one every 2-5 years, add that up and its a hell of a lot more than the couple of appeals that a death penalty case would. So thus saving the government money. 2.First thing i would like to point out that this happened in another country with its own traditions and legal systems. Second is that follow this link and it shows what happened in the US when the death penalty was temporaroly abolished. Plus it is really hard to show deterrence when out of the 18000 on death row only a few hundred die each year maybe if we actually executed these prisoners it would show a huge deterrence in crime. 3. I concede to the fact that new technologies have come about to help clear innocent peoples names. This happened almost 2 decades ago with DNA testing. Since then this should be an even more reason to vote for the death penalty because now that it is more accurate we can do so without worry. 4. Id also like to point out that my opponent dropped my reasoning that 0% of criminals sentenced to death will recommit a crime 5. I would also like to point out the first amendment, life liberty and pursuit of happiness, you can have these rights as long as you don't infringe upon these basic rights, the moment someone commits these hanus crimes they lose these rights, so it is legal within our constitution. Thank You Vote Affirmative
Capital Punishment and should it be used in society

First of all, I would just like to apologize for not adding anything for the past round, as I completely lost track of time and forgot about this one debate. Also I would like welcome you to this site, and your first debate. I will first negate some of my opponent's points, and then move on to some of my own. First, he states that capital punishment saves "millions of dollars". However, not only does it not save this much, it actually costs the government an obscene amount of money in legal fees. While my opponent makes a good point that it costs thousand of dollars to house a criminal for life, and the injection itself only costs 86 dollars, he is leaving out the vast amount that is spent for very successful lawyers for a very long trial, usually lasting a year or more. These costs, which are paid for by the government, can, and usually do, end up in the millions for each death penalty case, and cost the government an insurmountable amount of money, one of the many, MANY reasons we are in this deficit. Next, my opponent says that it is a deterrence to crime. However in the United Kingdom, where capital punishment has been abolished relatively recently, there has actually been a drop in murder and rape crimes (http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk...). This is caused to the criminal realizing he won't be killed for his crimes, and therefore does not wish to kill all of the victims or witnesses. So, the death penalty is in fact an encouragement for criminals to murder others. Finally, my opponent says how it will reduce crime on the whole and be beneficial to our justice system. However, capital punishment is something that cannot be taken back, as is the case for other punishments. There have been countless examples where the victim of the death penalty has actually been found innocent based on newer technologies. In addition, a fair amount of people on death row also have been acquited, acquitted with newer evidence and newer devices used by police, the accused have in fact been proved to be innocent all along. So in fact, it would only make our crime and punishment system worse, and would be much worse than life without parole. So, in conclusion, abolishing the death penalty would save us money, save us lives, would help deter crime, and would be beneficial on the whole to society. Thank you.
Capital Punishment and should it be used in society

Capital Punishment is a humane way to keep dangerous criminals off the street. In the end it ends up saving the government millions of dollars. To keep one cell open in prison its 24000 per cell 75000 for a maximum security cell. That is with out adding in costs for basic needs in prison like food and health services. Lethal Injection only costs 86 dollars and is a humane way to kill. This will act as a detterent to crime, right now its not working because it only kills a few hundred a year if all the criminals on death row were killed by the death penalty it would be a detterent on crime. Like in the 70's the government took the death penalty away and murders increased by over 15000 deaths once it was reinstituted the murder rate fell 130 percent. Also over 70% of most crimes are commited by a convicted felon who has been released from prison. This is why Capital Punishment should be mandatory because we must keep our streets safe from dangerous criminals like murderers and rapists. 0% of criminals who are sentenced to death recommit a crime.
Intelligent Design- Creation

Yes I agree completely that the theory of Evolution is based off of the mutations in DNA. However, saying DNA does not contain information is flawed. In fact, when defining information Merriam Webster uses DNA as an example " the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects " Also you were focusing more on the mutations in existing in DNA. Not the fact that original DNA before the countless mutations would contain information. As a matter of fact, DNA is defined as information "DNA-a substance that carries genetic INFORMATION in the cells of plants and animals". So by stating DNA does not contain information is in and of itself incorrect. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Intelligent Design- Creation

As this is my first debate on this site, I messed up the description of rounds and did not state my main argument about the flaws in the Evolutionary theory. Please excuse my mistake and move each description to the next round including closing remarks in the round of the second rebuttal. Again I apologize. One of the main flaws in Evolution when is that it claims information came to be without an intelligent creator. Information is not capable of producing itself, it must be produced by intelligence. One of the largest amounts of information in living organisms is contained in DNA. DNA itself contains an astonishing amount of information. Evolution claims that this information merely came to be through billions of years and generations of organisms without any intelligent intervention. For there to be information intelligence must be behind said information.
Intelligent Design- Creation

I'm looking for someone who will be willing to debate Evolution and Intelligent design/ Creation. I will take the side of Intelligent design/ Creation This will discuss the bigger picture instead of focusing on one particular aspect of either side. The rounds will go as follows- (1) Opening statement/ Main Argument (2) Rebuttals [ no new arguments ] (3) Secondary remark/ Minor Argument (4) Rebuttals [ no new arguments ] (5) Closing statements/ Final remarks. I am new to debating and am looking for someone of the same skill level and experience.
US Foreign Policy Values Democracy for the People in the Middle East

As I pointed out in the previous round, "Democracy is the one national interest that secures all others." Democracy and stability go hand in hand. You can't pursue and have one without the other. It's also important to remember that sometimes a nation is forced to take actions that do not show it's support for democracy clearly. We can see that in the Soviet Union/Taliban example.In conclusion, I would ask you to remember my first argument: that democracy is an end. Democracy is the end that all the other means are trying to achieve.Thanks to my opponent for a great debate!
US Foreign Policy Values Democracy for the People in the Middle East

My examples are in support of my main argument, which I believe still stands. That the US pursues a policy of stability over democracy. The examples were clear illustrations of situations in which the US government chose a policy which meant more regional stability or worked toward a strategic interest, rather than towards freedom or democracy for the occupants of said countries. To your points about official statements by both Bush and our state department, I don"t believe you can take their words at face value, as it"s been proven time and time again the US government and it"s politicians are willing to lie to advance an agenda. George Bushes claim about spreading Democracy in the middle east was a guise to open up oil rich Iraq to the allied nations. I would just refer back to my cases in which there are clear cut examples of hypocrisy in US foreign policy in the middle east. That is cases where the US supports nations who play ball and who don"t cause problems while only going out of it"s way to support democracy when it becomes necessary or convenient. The US does not have a proven track record of supporting democracy purely for the sake of the citizens of said nations.
US Foreign Policy Values Democracy for the People in the Middle East

First, I would argue that despite what some people say, democracy is very much an end in and of itself. Democracy “is the one national interest that helps to secure all others”. According to the U.S. Department of State, “Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health.” 1 Second, the US Foreign Policy’s ‘means’ do not always show their “end”. There are times when the 'present crisis' forces a county to make decisions that don’t always clearly show or perhaps even hide their “end” goals. I’m not saying that everything the US does that doesn’t clearly support democracy is necessary. Errare humanum est. For example, one of my opponent’s arguments stated that, “The US supported through foreign aid and weapons the Taliban rule over Afghanistan. A democratically elected government wasn’t as important to the US as preventing expansion of Soviet Russia into Afghanistan.” While I would agree that the US probably didn’t make the best choice, Soviet Russia has been a threat; in some ways, much more than the Taliban. While it is true that the US’s enthusiasm for in democracy has been dampened since events like 911 and enemies such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I would argue that it is still one of their goals.2 Supporting and endorsing democracy helps combat tyranny. Former President George W. Bush stated in his inaugural address that, “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” 3 I don’t think it’s necessary to look at each example my opponent cited, since they were examples to support his main point, which I believe I have refuted. In conclusion, the United States is a country known for its freedom and democracy. The US isn’t perfect, by any means, but it would seem illogical for the US not to value democracy in other nations, including the middle east. 1. http://www.state.gov... 2. http://www.cfr.org... 3. http://www.cnn.com...
Bhutto's assassination was as predictable as the the sun coming up tomorrow.

very good and detailed arguments, zarul- I am impressed nonetheless, I will still say that not only was her assassination highly predictable, I beleive actually she wanted to be martyred. Putting aside the 1 mph caravan through a huge crowd (where you make a false assumption that they have any kind of security there in Pak) where she SHOULD have been killed by the massive bomb attached to a baby that killed over 130, She was in a huge crowd, all close enough to touch the car, and had her unprotected head sticking up out of the car, where the assassin was able to walk up within 5 ft and blow holes in her head, and then detonate himself, to confuse the scene. Now, the pope for example travels with bullet proof glass around him and Musharraf has never made such personal apprearances. Thus, she clearly had a death wish is such a dangerous place as Pak. I dont think you are quite old enough to understand the history of Pak, or the current history there, and the incredibly dangrous and Jihadist place it is. She was warned by the US and ignored the warnings http://news.yahoo.com... There is plenty of references for the Bhutto family being corrupt, her father was hung for it for example, and it is said she and her minions took 1.5B$ in money out of the country when she was president. Proof : Now her son, only 19, has been appointed to lead the PPP, NOT a more qualified adult- this makes the family look incredibly corrupt- listen to the BBC bews reports about the reaction in Pakistan- they are not happy there is info that she was working with the US secret service on rigging the elections http://www.timesonline.co.uk... and so on. Anyhow, I will simply rest on the fact that, despite it being increidbly dangerous and someone trying already to bomb her, she persisted in taking stupid chances and thus, her death was as predictable as the sun coming up cheers and happy new year- I have enjoyed this debate solarman
Bhutto's assassination was as predictable as the the sun coming up tomorrow.

read the other debate- do you want me to repeat myself? fine here (1) they bombed her the day she showed up, traveling in a caravon at 1 mph- in a place like PAK , that is suicide (2) she presented a HUGE ongoing secutity risk (3) she was a woman- thats enough alone to get you killed there (4) she was pro-western and pro-woman (5) she was corrupt and came from a long line of corruption (6) her father was killed (hanged) for corruption In short, she knew this was going to happen and wanted to go out a marytr, OR she was totally naive, which was certianly possible, her being Ivy league educated there you go - it was VERY predictable, VERY cheers solarman
Event at Benghazi was more detrimental to US standing than any Bush Department of State incident

PRO regrets that CON has decided to quit the debate. PRO set out to prove the premise "Event at Benghazi was more detrimental to US standing than any Bush Department of State incident". To do so PRO has first listed the events that occurred under Bush 2. These 13 events were shown to have little or no detrimental effect on America's international standing. Several events were minor with no loss of life. None of the events led to a loss of control of Department of State facilities. Many of the events did not even involve DOS personnel or property. Most of the events were of short duration, some lasting under one minute. Where necessary the United States took quick and decisive action in response to the "13 Benghazis under Bush" Thus through either the attacks being minor and ineffective, or the attacks not involving the Department of State, there was little or no detriment to US standing. Where necessary, swift and effective action by the US demonstrated an American resolve to act against violations of international law. Contrasting all the above against : 1. The attack on Benghazi had a duration of several hours ( under Bush,most of the events were of short duration, some lasting under one minute.) 2. The attack on Benghazi resulted in the death of a US ambassador ( under Bush, no ambassador was killed ) 3. The attack on Benghazi resulted in the overrunning of US DOS property ( under Bush, no US DOS property was overrun) 4. The world saw little or no response from the US following Benghazi. PRO has provided several sources showing a degradation of US standing following Benghazi notably from, of all places, the British! Thus it can be seen that PRO has demonstrated and proved the premise "Event at Benghazi was more detrimental to US standing than any Bush Department of State incident ".
Event at Benghazi was more detrimental to US standing than any Bush Department of State incident

I don't think I can have this argument. You are fighting against a specific popular Meme which I have neither referenced nor used to back up any of my argument. Apart from absurdly criticizing me for pointing out that your statement above and subsequent discussion of death tolls seems to have little connection to US standing you haven't addressed anything I've said. If you had started this debate presenting the point "There were 13 Benghazis under Bush" and then taken the CON position, it would make infinitely more sense. But since I hate to bail on an argument, I'm going to blithely ignore your points about how many people were killed or that Benghazi was briefly over-run and continue to have the argument you offered me to begin with: Has Benghazi hurt US standing more than any incident under Bush? No. I re-iterate my point that relations with Benghazi have improved following the 2012 attack, and even seemingly in response to that, and as a new point I would like to question your assessment of the value of American life over "Foreign Nationals" in terms of assessing our standing. I would argue that any attack in which foreign nationals are killed rather than US personnel are more likely to result in outrage at the US. If the US has an embassy in, say, Spain, and there's an attack on the US embassy, and the US manages to hide or protect all Spanish people on the property while bravely sacrificing US life to do it, that could only be GOOD for relations between Spain and the US. On the other hand, if US officials are perceived as having cowered, perhaps allowing foreign nationals to die so that their own lives might be saved, that is going to cause great detriment to our standing with that country. Lastly, I point out again that this is really a zero-sum game. There is no empirical way to measure detriment to standing in relation to a single event. We can both have fun speculating, but there's nothing concrete to back up what either of us says. Your sources only show numbers on loss of life or officials reactions, but say nothing about the United State's overall standing in relation to any attack that happens.