BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Suicide is Not a Sin

(I have set a minimum elo requirement for my opponent, but I may consider removing it. Post in the comments if you want to accept the debate but are unable to, and I'll consider you. )Resolution: Suicide is not a sin. DefinitionsSuicide: intentionally killing oneself either directly or indirectly (by proxy)Sin: An offense against God, as defined in the Bible. RulesFor my side of the debate, I will be referencing the NKJV Bible, but I don't care which version my opponent uses as long as this does not devolve into a version debate. Most English versions of the Bible agree with the NKJV. If my opponent foresees their argument resting on a rare translation in a single version, they should message me prior to accepting so that I can consider which version they wish to exclusively use. This is a debate about the sinfulness of suicide from a Biblical perspective. Extrabiblical sources of morality do not apply in this debate. For the purposes of this debate, it will be assumed that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. In the event that Con uses a Bible verse that seems to contradict one I have used, mine will stand as the correct one.
Suicide is Not a Sin

While I still do not agree with Suicide=Sacrifice, There is one final flaw Pro has not yet accounted for. My rebuttal this round for Pro's premise is the definitions he has put in place for himself. "Suicide: intentionally killing oneself either directly or indirectly (by proxy)" He has defined the indirect portion of suicide as with the help of a proxy. Jesus did not kill himself, therefore if he committed suicide, it would have to be indirectly. As my opponent has used Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary to define a term earlier, I will use the same source. This will be the only source I post, as it will be the only one I need. proxy noun : a person who is given the power or authority to do something (such as to vote) for someone else : power or authority that is given to allow a person to act for someone else Regardless of whatever plan was put in place for Jesus to die, he died at the hands of the Jews. Pro has been arguing that Jesus had laid down his life which would be a form of suicide. However, per Pro's definition of this 'indirect suicide", this could only be accomplished through a proxy. Those who crucified Jesus were in no way his proxy. They have no authority to make decisions for him. Jesus' death was not an indication of indirect suicide, as there was no proxy available to him. Just an angry mob asking for him to be crucified. There is no rebuttal to this point, as Pro has laid out the clear definition, by proxy, for us in Round 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The use of positive discrimination to increase diversity in the university should not be allowed.

I still believe that the affirmative action programs help to compensate for those students that have not had the opportunity to rack up a list of accomplishments. The culturally diverse environment among students that positive discrimination promotes adds to an ideal environment in the university setting. Until anything is proven effective about addressing the issue from the ground up, a system must be in place to correct the current minority attendance at universities. Implementing programs such as the ones mentioned will do nothing for high school to college age students right now. Affirmative action is a necessary step to advance diversity in the school setting and encourage ethnic academic equality in the future.
The use of positive discrimination to increase diversity in the university should not be allowed.

A scholarly and culture-rich atmosphere is certainly something that universities should strive for. However, members of every group or ethnicity should be in the environment because they worked for it. Surely it is arguable that unless one works for something, they will never truly appreciate it. How much better would it be for a student to surely say they have gotten where they are because of their mind and their motivation as opposed to always wondering if it was their race that set them apart from others? On the other side, how discouraging would it be for a majority member student to feel as though no matter what he or she did they would never get what they deserved because they were being discriminated against? The term "discrimination" came into this world with negative connotations. Just because activists put the term "positive" in front of it does not make it a good thing. In a world where it is accepted that any one person is just as capable as their neighbor, should we not just competency based on intellect and achievements? I have no doubt that my diverse peers are just as intellectual capable, perhaps even more so, than myself. When they are chosen over me, I would like to be happy for them as well as for them to be confident in themselves that they were chosen based on their talents. I advocate a "color-blind" philosophy when making selections. Certainly minorities should not be discriminated against, but I also do not believe they should be discriminated for. When you discriminate for someone, you are inevitably discriminating against someone else. And who should be the judge on which groups should get the worse end of the bargain. In summary, equal opportunity should be just that: equal. Injustice towards one race can never be undone by reverse injustice towards another. Race-conscious programs do not foster an environment of academic competition and excellence. As Stanford Magazine authors Davis Sacks and Peter Theil put it, "If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race." Chose students on the basis of achievement. Reward an individual for their hard work so that when someone is given an honor, they can believe they truly deserved it and they can be justifiably proud of their success.
The use of positive discrimination to increase diversity in the university should not be allowed.

It would be ideal to approach the issue from the where the problems occur, but feasibility needs to be considered. There is currently much debate and work being done in regards to the American school system so to come in with a "one size fits all" solution such as better funding is not an effective solution. I do not argue that minority students are incapable of reaching a standard of achievement that is comparable to their minority and majority member peers, but I do stand by assertion that affirmative action measures are necessary. Many exceptional minority students who realize that there is a status quo may decide to not even try in the college setting. Whether it is because they feel like will be discriminated against or because they are not comfortable attending a school where they would be an overwhelming minority, affirmative action can help relieve either stress. The positive discrimination measures make significant efforts to even out the student mix which creates a welcoming environment to other minority students and therefore a more scholarly and culture-rich atmosphere for all students in attendance.
The use of positive discrimination to increase diversity in the university should not be allowed.

There is no question that a diverse group of students is a good thing as far as social interaction and open-minded thinking goes. In fact, I agree that it is a good thing to have representation from all ethnicity groups for this very reason. What I am pointing out though is that these representatives should all be placed together in the university setting because they all worked equally as hard to get there. I have no doubt that a minority student can be just as capable as a majority member in his or her achievements—especially in today's society as things have been progressing. I argue, though, that because of affirmative action measures some minority students will not work as hard as they could and will not see a need to maximize their full potential because they see their status as a coattail upon which to ride into their desired slot. No, I am not saying that minorities slack off because they think they can. I am sure that many work extremely hard to get where they want to be. But I feel like handing positions out to minority students undermines the hardworking minority students even more than it does the majority member ones. If one minority student earns a spot fairly, should they not expect their fellow minority members to have to work equally as hard to do just as well? By emphasizing that minority groups need so much help to be placed in a university, the universities are basically saying, "this group is so academically far behind the rest that they need discrimination in their favor." I personally feel like this is belittling the efforts of the mentioned minority, especially the students who would have been accepted for their achievements without the extra help. Affirmative action is just masking a problem. If you want to argue that it is poor schools systems, family environment, and historical discrimination that creates a barrier for the minorities then that is what we need to be targeting. Better funding for minority schools and more attention as far as teacher quality and curriculum standards are concerned should be addressed. A non-profit organization or neighborhood volunteer efforts designed to promote a sense of educational importance among young children and families in impoverished areas could help the progress towards positive family influence. As far as historical discrimination is concerned, I believe there have already been huge strides made by the current generation. Cultural acceptance has become a norm. While there are still some that discriminate, they do not account for the majority of people. The movement towards total acceptance of different ethnicities in the United States has taken large strides. If we start focusing on improving things from the roots the theoretical need for affirmative action in the future will all but disappear.
The use of positive discrimination to increase diversity in the university should not be allowed.

I gladly accept this challenge. My opponent claims that majority member students are required to work harder to receive the same rewards that minority members do. However, it must be mentioned that students from majority groups typically have a higher probability of coming from better schools than a minority student. And, as supported by research, the schools that students are coming from do make a difference in the eyes of admissions boards. Also, random non-school related factors do significantly matter. A minority student is more likely to come from a less stable home or an environment that does not emphasize the importance of a college education. The likelihood of a majority member student coming from a home that stresses educational importance is much greater given historical culture precedence. It is also mentioned that discrimination is shown towards the majority member students. I would like to point out that having a diverse mix of ethnicities in a college environment would actually help those majority member students that are there. It exposes them to different cultures and different lifestyles and helps them become well rounded in a global environment. According to Max Kasriel, a graduate from Oxford University in the United Kingdom, affirmative action leads to a good mix of students who can facilitate "character development" and "broadening of the mind" whereas a group of majority students with little minority presence cannot accomplish this.
The use of positive discrimination to increase diversity in the university should not be allowed.

Affirmative action can be defined as actively favoring minority groups when choosing candidates for positions such as jobs or slots at a university. The term originated in the United States in 1961 during Kennedy's presidency and was used to refer to non-discrimination practices. Four years later President Johnson issued an executive order which required that people be hired "without regard to race, religion, and national origin." Later, gender was added to this list. Affirmative action is an attempt to promote equal opportunity among all citizens. At least, that was its original purpose. Now, affirmative action has been taken to an extreme. When I was applying to college and looking for scholarships it was almost impossible to find a single one that applied to me. Because I was not seen as a minority by any standard, I was out of luck. Now this may sound like a personal problem and that I am just complaining, but I worked myself to the point of having a non-existing social life in high school and a good case of sleep deprivation because I knew that if I did not get a scholarship, I would not be going to college. My 4.63 GPA and ten page resume of volunteer activities, awards, and work experience was not acceptable to almost 90% of the scholarships I researched. Positive discrimination is not a fair practice in regards to talented students from non-minority groups. When commonly accepted standards like exams and achievement tests are overlooked because precedence is given to new criteria irrelevant to academic performance, it undermines the work and effort that some students have put into their studies. Under the affirmative action system, students from the majority groups are required to achieve more and work harder to get the same rewards or placements. While affirmative action preferences are said to promote the advancement of minority groups, they do not do this without severely discriminating against the majorities. Justification for this is that the minorities are being compensated for past persecution, but why should the punishment fall on a generation who is not to blame? When two similar candidates are up for a spot but one is chosen over the other due to their minority status, where is the justification for the blatant discrimination against the majority group member? In a society where minorities press for equal treatment, I believe the system should be just that: equal. By handing or not handing out positions just because of ethnicity, we are not really being equal.
Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.

NC: https://docs.google.com... Attack: looking over my opponent's case, all she talks about is minimum wage, this is non-topical because UBI has nothing to do with minimum wage. A topical aff would be plan providing aid. Theory Shell on Topicality A: MY opponent must be topical B: Violation C: Standards 1. Ground: In order for my to be able to argue the resolution, My opponent must be topical so that the debate is fair. 2: Predictability: I cannot run DAs or CPs if I do not know Aff's ground. This makes it unfair D: voters Vote off of fairness because Aff makes it impossible for me to win because I do not have any ground. Thus, I negate
Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.

Good luck! !! The basis of my opponents proposal stems from the idea that what makes him/her happy is what should make us all happy, as if to say happiness is a "one size fits all" kinda thing. An idea that mediocrity should be good enough for everyone. I challenge my opponent to explain why someone whose idea of happiness is financial success or even endless wealth, is somehow immoral. What pedestal does my opponent get to stand on to claim that wealth is not a valid form of happiness, or ones pursuit of wealth somehow adversely affects everyone else? As long as those endeavors are done by legal means, then those pursuits do not affect others! It seems to me the United States has been trying to provide a universal basic income since the great depression, mostly by means of a minimum wage. Not to suggest that the minimum wage is the only factor that causes prices to rise, but it is the most effective factor to cause prices to rise. When the minimum wage goes up, then the cost of production goes up which then is past on to the consumer. I challenge my opponent to explain how causing prices to go up is an effective tool for helping those with lesser incomes. Furthermore, minimum wages can cause employers to have to forego hiring new employees. When the cost of production goes up, it causes business owners to go elsewhere for production. In the end, raising minimum wages only proves to make American workers less competitive on a global scale which causes jobs to disappear. I fail to see how stifling job growth is good for anybody. Many point to the industrial revolution as if it was a sad period for the American worker and point out the disproportionate nature of wealth distribution, yet they conveniently forget that it was an unprecedented achievement that took place. At no other point in written history has so many people been brought out of poverty so quickly. There were no minimum wages, so prices were low and so was the cost of living. Right now, China is on an industrious endeavor that could prove to dwarf the achievements of the industrial revolution. When production is left alone, it can prove to be very effective in bringing wealth to the masses. I noticed this is my opponents first debate on this site. I welcome you to the DDO community and good luck! !
Greenpeace Is Evil

Full resolution: On the whole, the environmental organization Greepeace has caused (or has attempted to cause) more harm than good in the world.First round for acceptance. The last round is for summarization; no new arguments. 48 hours to argue each of the 4 rounds. Greenpeace's website can be found at:www.greenpeace.org/usa/Definitions:Greenpeace: see abovecause: The source or reason of an event or action. (en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cause)harm: Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune; That which causes injury, damage, or loss; To cause injury to another; to hurt; to cause damage to something (en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harm)Thanks to whoever accepts this debate!
Greenpeace Is Evil

I'm going to keep this short, because I have other work to do. So my opponent is saying green peace did everything he listed above in his argument. Actually, he is wrong. The Government of the United States of America did[1] Green peace didn't pull the trigger in any event, they were just exercising free speech. They were opposed, yes, but they didn't do it, it all came into the hand of the politicians in the end. And last I checked, Golden rice project is still a-go[2]. Green peace Didn't do this either, they just cried and threw stuff, but they didn't do it. Its called protesting, it doesn't make anyone evil, as the title of this strongly worded debate suggests. Lets look at what green peace has done well. Stopped whaling which was violating an International ban on whaling. [3] Currently fighting small cetacean slaughter (dolphins and what have you)[4] fighting to stop illegal tuna fishing (Mediterranean) [5] And they are just asking for some things that should be basic knowledge: I'm asking world leaders to deliver an energy [r]evolution to save the climate at the G8 summit; I'm asking for a global treaty that cuts CO2 emissions in half by 2050; for Renewable Energy supplying half the world's power by 2050; for laws that double global energy efficiency, from light bulbs to automobiles; for powering the world with as little coal as possible and no nuclear power; and for protection of our forests.[6] They are fighting against destruction of the orang-utans habitat [7] they are fighting against over fishing of Yellow Fin and Big Eye tuna. (Pacific) [8] they are fighting to stop the destruction of Antarctica[9] they are working with people in third world countries to fight forest destruction [10] they are fighting against nuclear energy, and the negatives that come with it [11] At this point I need to get ready to shove off and do something, So I'll stop listing achievements here. Pro's argument is invalid on so many levels. Green peace is not evil, they didn't pull the trigger, they are not more harm then good. And I feel that there is much more then what I have posted here going on in this world. Greenpeace is doing the world much more good then you are, cowering behind your computer, mr Pro. And one last thing, I think this one comment on a thread just about sum's it all up. "SpeedJUN. 07, 2010 - 11:04AM JST This is getting interesting. The decision by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to allow the further depletion of bluefin tuna has once again made the actions of Green Peace, and now Sea Shepherd, necessary. This international committee should place a bit more importance on the "endangered species" aspect of their group's name instead of being bullied over by the blue fin tuna supplier/buyer countries." [12] 1 http://www.edf.org... 2 http://www.goldenrice.org... 3 http://www.seashepherd.org... 4 http://www.seashepherd.org... 5 http://www.usatoday.com... 6 http://www.greenpeace.org... 7 http://www.greenpeace.org... 8 http://www.greenpeace.org... 9 http://www.greenpeace.org... 10 http://www.greenpeace.org... 11 http://www.greenpeace.org... 12 http://www.japantoday.com...
Greenpeace Is Evil

Sorry for going off course in my argument- I actually wrote it before you published your argument. 1) Personally, I don't care if I'm downing arsenic or Iodine, It still and good for ya. Though DDT was found in these fish in parts per million, My opponent didn't take into account that these fish were at the bottom of the food chain, just above plankton, so when you sit down to eat your salon, it maybe has eaten over 3 thousand in its lifetime, And keep in mind that that was in 2007, things could increase. in number, and this toxin should be used cautiously. 2) My opponent is arguing that Greenpeace was wrong for hateing on GMOs. And for the record, I said he was arguing against organic food, never said he didn't like them. And lets hold up a second.. Round 1 "I think this quote from PRO accurately shows the problematic assumptions in his case. We can't do that. It's not practical, at all. Organizc food is much more expensive [*], and, without widespread pesticides or preservatives, not plausible for charitable use outside the US." Last I checked, greenpeace wasn't in charge of ending world hunger, and neither is US "We use non-violent confrontation to raise the level and quality of public debate." They are not evil, and they are not hurting or helping, just informing. Becasue of what Green peace has stopped, we dont know what they prevented. They started by protesting nucler weapons testing in Alaska, you think global warming is bad? just imagine what an Atomic bomb would do to our icecaps and polar bears. It could have contaminated the waters killing all the fishing. So intull Pro invents a way to travle to a parell deminsion whout green peace, we wont know what they prevented. But If man wants to keep hurting the natural ecosystems ov the oceans, well OGMs may be all we have left, and to be honest, your daughter could hit puberty at age 7.[2] becasue of gentically modified foods. This is what green peace is against, and to be honest, they arent working too well.. If you want to take your OGMs and make little African girls hit pubery at age 7, then go ahead. We dont even the full impact on these, and greenpeace being proactive could be a game changer. Look back to the discuvery of america, if the spanish had thake the procaution that the green peace is, you could be arguing "they wont let us take the bible in there?!?" when in accutality, the desiese spread and effective killing of 94% [3]of these native americans. 1http://www.greenpeace.org... 2 http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 3 http://www.straightdope.com...