BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection

I'll go through a (main) line-by-line analysis, and then voting issues (I'll sign post as I go along) --> He is saying that morality is self-evident within the court system. This is flawed for two reasons: First, morality is subjective and relative to the beholder. Therefore, it isn't self-evident Second, the court system is based on justice, not morality. We give each their due, not what is "right," If this was true then all punishments would be dejustified because in some way all punishments have an immoral aspect. --> My opponenet concedes the idea of proportionality: "For example, we do not sentence life in prison for stealing a candy bar." THIS SHOWS THE IMPACT OF MY VC ONTO JUSTICE, HE CONCEDES IT. See previous statement. Justice is based on morality.> --> He never makes an apparent link; he says it is self-evident, but that is not good enough in a debate. About this my opponent is right although I still assumed it rather obvious. Morality is what is right or wrong; permissible or impermissible; should or should not.> --> Cant define it in his second speech, drop his definition. Thus his VC has no definitional analysis. --> I have 2 responses: First, I never say it is immeasurable, I say it is subjective. There is a difference between the two. Second, take your piano example, yes, you could think it is immeasurable, however isn't is subjective whether it is the best instrument to play? That is my argument. --> Agaisnt misses the point. If you follow my opponents logic, he is saying that killing is ALWAYS immoral. Thus, he logic extends to all examples, for instance self-defense. This proves that killing is not always immoral. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org......). Retribution means that the penalty fits the crime. We don't rape that person twice, instead they can be sentenced to death. This is clearly NOT retribution. Not proper retribution anyway.> --> Never refers to the term ought to. Just because the US uses the death penalty for rapists does not mean this what we ought to do. The resolution is what the US OUGHT to do, and this case, my argument is for murderers. This basically mitigates all offense from the Neg. dealing with the type of criminal. [Voters] 1. He never actually mitigates my offense to his VC, and thus you can drop it. He merely says morality is self-evident, however that doesn't hold as weight in an LD debate. Therefore, he has no way to link his contentions with his value. 2. His link between his value and VC is unclear at best, thus cannot achieve his value with his flawed VC. 3. He concedes the idea of proportionality being essential to justice, thus you can use my VC as the weighing mechanism in the round. Therefore, you must default to the aff. case. 4. Anything else you find appropriate to vote on. For these reasons you can affirm.
Resolved: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection

I affirm: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection --> Resolutional Change: Capitol should be Capital. [Definitions] Ought to: referring to a higher standard of obligation Capital Punishment: execution Lethal Injection: *refer to neg's definition [Resolutional Analysis] First, the evaluative statement in the resolution is: The United States Ought To Use Capital Punishment. This is where the clash should be in the debate. Second, the phrase "By Lethal Injection," is merely an advancement phrase within the resolution. Clash should not be developed in this part. This is true for two reasons: 1. It is much too open for negative abuse, and we don't want to waste our time on "theory debate." 2. It is not the "evaluative statement" as prescribed by NFL rules. [Observations] 1. Ought to, defined as referring to a higher standard of obligation impacts the resolution because the debate is over a standard, rather then necessity. 2. Even though the resolution is in a US framework, I can still affirm by proving the resolution in terms of standards, regardless of framework. The affirmative values Justice, giving each their due. Since the resolution is in a "punishment" framework the appropriate value is justice. Furthermore, since "ought to" is a higher standard, we must look at something beyond necessity. This plus the framework, leads to the value of justice. The value of justice is achieved by the criterion of proportionality. Proportionality is basically "equaling the scale." It is not equivalence, as some people might think. Proportionality has an inherent link to justice: Justice is giving each their due. Due is only appropriate when it is proportionate (when dealing with punishment) For example, it would not be just to give a rapist a slap on the wrist plus $10 fine. Contention I: Scale of Justice Argument Kant theorized that in order for punishment to be just it must make the scales equal. Basically this means that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. Proportionality is weighed by right violations, may it be negative or positive violations. Link this idea to capital punishment. The death penalty is administered to murderers, i.e. people that kill. When someone kills they violate all negative rights of their victims, and consequently all positive rights are violated as well. Thus, the only way to balance the scales is to kill the killer, because no other punishment can satisfy the right violations done to the victim. For these reasons you can affirm
Resolved: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection

>I will be negating the resolution: Resolved: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection >My opponent will be affirming the resolution: Resolved: The United States Ought To Use Capitol Punishment By Lethal Injection >This will be an LD style debate. If you do not understand an LD case or know how to write a case for LD, do not accept this debate. >This debate will be under the assumption that the United States uses the same method (lethal injections) for killing the criminal as it currently does: The intravenous injection is usually a sequence of drugs given in a set sequence, designed to first induce unconsciousness followed by death through paralysis of respiratory muscles and/or by cardiac arrest through depolarization of cardiac muscle cells. The execution of the condemned in most states involves three separate injections (in sequential order): Sodium thiopental: ultra-short action barbiturate, an anaesthesic agent capable of rendering the person unconscious in a few seconds. Pancuronium: non-depolarizing muscle relaxant, causes complete, fast and sustained paralysis of the skeletal striated muscles, including the diaphragm and the rest of the respiratory muscles; this would eventually cause death by asphyxiation. Potassium chloride: stops the heart, and thus causes death by cardiac arrest. >The round structure will be as follows: Neg 1: Rules/Procedures Aff 1: Constructive (limited to 6,000 characters) Neg 2: Constructive and Rebuttal (limited to 7,000 characters) Aff 2: Rebuttal (limited to 4,000 characters) Neg 3: Rebuttal (limited to 6,000 characters) Aff 3: Rebuttal (limited to 3,000 characters) Violations of the character limits should lead to deductions in the "conduct" section of voting.
Should they take "One nation under God" out of the pledge of allegiance

"if God wanted it out he would of not made the pledge with it in there" First of all, you are switching your points every round. Please stay with the same one(s). Anyway, this is very, very subjective. How do you know what God wants? As an example, take drug dealers. Does God want them in the world? According to your logic, he does. So you are therefore accepting that not everything God wants is what we would consider "good." Also, it is obvious that we cannot allow these drug dealers to thrive, so we interfere. How do you know that our interference is not what God wants? In summation, it is impossible to know what God wants, so your point is negated. As I have proven in Round 1, which is yet to be refuted, the foundation of the USA is threatened by this phrase. My opponent has failed to provide any valid reason as to why the threatening of the principles of this nation is justified. As such, please vote Pro. Thank you.
Should they take "One nation under God" out of the pledge of allegiance

Sorry, but your belief in God has absolutely no relevance to this issue. Also, I note that you have dropped all of your "contentions" in favor of only one. Again you say that there is no reason the government should take it out, but I feel that I have sufficiently demonstrated that the government should in Round One. Since apparently you like simplicity, I'll sum it up for you: It infringes upon the beliefs of those who are not monotheists as well as contradicting two values our nation holds (separation of church and state and (to a lesser but still relevant degree) religious freedom).
Fun is more important than work

1. fun - something that provides mirth or amusement [1] 2. work - labor; employment, as in some form of industry, esp. as a means of earning one's livelihood [2] 3. important - of much or great significance or consequence [3] ::Rebuttals:: 1. The claim that fun is somehow necessary for work is false, as the only real requirements for work are capability and willingness. Pro's argument here needs elaboration. 2. Pro's claim that work serves as a means for having fun is self-defeating and limited. Income generated from employment is the most reliable and continuous means of obtaining entertainment, so the precedence Pro places on fun makes work that much more essential. Also, in addition to supplying fun, working is generally an integral part of a plethora of other important factors (see: Arguments for Con 1). 3. Pro's final two points argue that work, and the goods obtained through work, are unnecessary if one is having fun. Let's imagine the feasibility of this scenario. The entertainment options available to an average individual (i. e. employed and possessing material goods) are far greater than one who has nothing. Factor in the dangers and stresses of being homeless, hungry, and unhealthy and the possibility of consistent fun becomes not only unlikely, but also irrelevant. ::Arguments for Con:: 1. Fun is a temporary personal experience. Work, on the other hand, benefits both the individual and society at large. Completed tasks garner a sense of pride and accomplishment, careers help establish social worth and integration, and wages earned are necessary to care for ourselves and our families. On a larger scale, the importance of work increases drastically; services rendered by one person aids others, whose own work aids still others and so on. Personal enjoyment has no such expansive influence on human communities and pales in comparison to the immeasurable positive impact made by employment. 2. The pursuit of fun is only realistic after certain human needs are addressed. As mentioned in my third rebuttal, enjoyment becomes secondary when faced with real concerns about one's well-being. This concept, though self-evident, is outlined by psychologist Abraham Maslow, whose hierarchy of needs depicts the importance of physiological and security needs above emotional ones [4]. Working is our primary means of satisfying our most basic necessities, making fun insignificant in comparison. I will likely introduce new arguments next round but for now, my 3,000 characters are up. ::References:: 1. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. . http://psychology.about.com...
Fun is more important than work

Given our country's unforgiving economic climate and the accumulating stresses of daily life, my opponent has thought it best to close his DDO account and spend his time on more important matters. In the mean time, he has forfeited the final round, demonstrated poor grammar, provided no sources, and posted no coherent arguments. Work has been shown to be much more important than fun and the resolution has been negated. Thank you for reading and please vote Con! ~Maikuru
Fun is more important than work

That wasn't exactly what I was hoping for but okay. ::Rebuttals:: Pro has opted to put our discussion on hold, drop each of his contentions, and claim my rebuttals address the wrong type of fun. Let's examine that. To start, "false fun" is a nonsense term, in this debate and the real world for that matter. The word was appropriately defined in the previous round and all my contentions relate to that definition. If Pro wished to classify different types of fun and how they each rank in terms of importance, he had two rounds to do so. Secondly, my arguments stand regardless of the intensity of fun someone is having. Wages earned through working are necessary for one's survival, which holds priority over temporary entertainment. Even the most enjoyable experience, if prioritized over one's health and security, becomes meaningless and detrimental. Add on the immeasurable benefits of our work-based society and the fact that working is necessary to finance fun in the first place and there is no competition. Lastly, Pro has yet to even explain the importance of fun, let alone how it triumphs over work. We may all like to enjoy ourselves, but there is a difference between preference and importance. Until my opponent gives some reason why a luxury such as fun is more important than obtaining basic needs such as food and water, this debate is over. ::Closing:: As it stands, Pro has no case. His points have been refuted and my contentions have yet to be addressed. I urge him to present some semblance of an argument next round.
Travelling back in time is possible.

RebuttalFirstly, one always takes a resolution at literal, face value.Secondly, it's an interesting resolution, but I'm not sure you understand your role as a debater. As Pro attempting to affirm a disputable resolution, you must provide arguments, backed up with evidence, that prove your case. You have not done this. You have stated your views and quoted a single physicist out of context.Furthermore, there is no evidence that wormholes exist. If there is, and I am mistaken, you must provide it.Negative CaseAs my opponent has not provided a coherent argument that dictates time-travel is possible, I shall refute a common argument. That is, utilising time dilation. This is the difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses. Effectively, this means that time is slower for an object that is travelling faster than another object. This makes forward time travel possible[1]. However this does not follow for, as the resolution puts it, "travelling back in time". This is because the universe has a speed limit, the speed of light[2], and to travel back in time using time dilation one would have to break the speed of light at which there would be some inertial frame of reference in which the signal or object was moving backward in time. It's impossible to break the speed of light because, according to special relativity, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a slower-than-light object to the speed of light[3].References[1] http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://web.archive.org...In conclusion, my opponent has not provide any evidence whatsoever, I have refuted a commonly used argument that would have it possible to travel back in time and backed up my case with evidence.As it stands, voting Con is the only sensible option. I hope my opponent can muster up some arguments in the next round that hold up to serious scrutiny.Over to Pro!
Travelling back in time is possible.

Before we begin, let's define some terms in order avoid unnecessary semantics. Resolution: Traveling back in time [for humans? ] is possible. Travel: to move or go from one place or point to another[1]. Time: the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future[2]. Possible: that may or can be[3]. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Rap Battle

Shadow is here, let's start this battle You just follow the crowd, like a herd of cattle My opponent thinks that he has a chance You aren't dope, you ain't no Lance Ready or not? This battle will go back quick I hope you got your vacine, my rhymes are sick I like you a lot, but your raps are a joke. You got little time, no time to choke You stood up to the fight, I appreciate that But can you handle the might, or fall down flat? Your fame has run out, you're no longer in. Your time of fame is over, like Jeremy LinCover your eyes, my words shineNo skills on your side, only mineCan you handle the pressure? I've set a high lineSo Shadow, it seems you copied ny nameToo bad only one of has will emerge with fameIt'll be your name in the Hall of ShameThey call me a Dragon, I breath fireWings of gold, I fly higherWanted alive or dead, I read the flyersThose who doubt me are all liers. ShadowKingStudios? A good rapper? this battle will showRun faster, the door will closeYou're not gonna win. You already know.Now, get ready, it's your time to goHe thinks he's the kingHe's all aloneI've got all the ringsI sit on the throne.
Rap Battle

http://www.debate.org... The mouse is cute / the cat a'frisky, the dog a'brute These are the nurse rhymes we read from you dude But I applaud you, dude, gaining a little respect for you too Cause like a real man you defended yo bittch through & through Now sit back and learn how to discern the art of composition Get that glass dildo our you're a$$ and pay attention First, Spain can only claim sexy booty bittches & Chris Columbus The US is at the top of the crest, everything we kiss, we encompass Spain gave birth to the worst writer on Debate dot Org America reared the soon to be feared lyrical Cyborg Madrid has no bid in the battle of the most potent text Oklahoma will put you in a coma for we are the apex It took the Spanish guy 18 hours to post his retaliation in Round 3 And when the English bloke awoke 4 hours later he penned 3 P's I"m going to rip, rend, & rape all you suckers that post rap battle debates You have made a mistake to take a trip into Hell, better pray God bless ya fate I done seen how all you flock of clucking geese write down ya mental words If you ever jock, cop, or mock my style I'll shitt on you big green turds So dragon you lackin' in precision militant lyrical assaults Grab a dictionary from the library and return with better insults When you switch up ya delivery pattern make sure it can work Or else I'll exploit it, devoid it, erode it and make ya hurt See, your skills are bleak, not neat / You vocab is weak, not unique Like they're Dollar Store treats processed to be overly sweet See, I'm diabetic so I'm gonna eat Elevate to me and complete a decent beat To give these people some real nutritious meat eat Even if I wrote you a lyrically superior rhyme You still couldn't rap it better than my previous 9 lines You a blind dragon, trying to define the cyphers of sublime rhythm Every verse I burst will make you thirst to glance through my prism But human talent like mine isn't cultivated--it's naturally born The reason why you lack it is because ya parents conceived you while watchin' porn I'm going to pardon you from this lethal lyrical assaulting debate My aim is against that fake Jewish cake / he's the enemy of the state A victim of circumstance here / you got caught in my cross-hairs Now you know at all cost to avoid this devouring Oklahoma Bear
Rap Battle

You curse too much, trying to hide your emotion I can mix you up like a magic potion You can't stop me, I'm an object in motion I've got you surrounded like sharks in an ocean. You compare yourself to the gods Cheat in COD, You play with mods Let's play a game, you're gonna get Saw'ed I'm gonna destroy you, Cut you in two You ain't got no clue But you're screwed I don't mean to be rude, dude. The 'dominant black male" is about to feel pain The winner will be Shadow is Spain I'll show you my power, this Dragon won't be slain You think you can beat me, you're insane. Why do you keep talking about gay? Do you have something to say? Did you ever get laid? On your knees like a dirty maid. The audience can see who's the master Shadow-Dragon flies, I go faster You seem to like Mikal, for no reason at all To him, you're just too small I don't like him, Why do you say that? Burst your bubbles, but that's that. I'm sorry I have to end you A helping hand, I will not lend you From my throne, a post card I will send you No doctor will be able to mend you Turn off the lights, the real Shadow is here Don't act tough, I know you'l be hidin' I'll be laughing, just like Joe Biden I come to town, I shut you down In a river of disgrace, this clown will drown.
Rap Battle

Bittch-nigga, don't be sayin' my mothafuckin' name like you Beyonce With a bottle of Alize / I'll crack it over ya gay-a$$ head today Unleashin' the fury / cause the previous jury / don't respect lyrical art Pure belittling insults / is all the salt they want to taste with farts Like you, them suckers ain't too clever or keen on smarts Little boy, you're lark / and need some guidance out of the dark Only Revic & the Doom have room for salvation on my Ark Like Zeus, you sons-of-bittches here comes my lightning darts I'm going to do to you / what I'm going to do to Mikal too Crucify on a cross you two metro-sexual shrews And annihilate you and that capital C--Cocksuckin' Jew in Round 1, Sequel 2 Like a chronic cough / you fhuckers done pissed me off, Burn off your Klansmen cloths / & roll U over in my Trans Am like Hasseloff First the Dragon's conceded head must get chopped off That kindergarten shitt that you spit is weaker than a moth Bittch go play some golf / Or watch yo mama's Golden Shower and jack off You loss because you salad toss / and can't gloss better than this Studio Boss Ya might have a better chance to advance if you take up Dance If you return in Round 2 I will expose you wear panties under yo pants Too late it's revealed in debate / that you let Mikal nibble on ya little dicky While you licky-licky on his feminine neckie / for a strawberry hickey Fire? Bittch you a liar--the only thing you breathe is the gas from Mikal's a$$ You femboys love them plastic toys more than a Damsel, Belle, or Lass Sorry that's too complex for you to comprehend / you need some phonics Since I'm a diamond to your onyx / with the superior harmonics King Regime / my Shadow Sting / will eliminate you with collegiate Ebonics Sorry, apologies. That's still too intricate for you / unlike Luke you have no Hope So let me help you put the rope around your throat, yes you will choke But your suicide will be less remembered than this capital murder I issue Your faggoty lover Mikal will miss you / cry into some Kleenix tissue But you and your boo can reunite for 69 in the 9th chamber of Hell Like Mikal, under scrutiny, your lyrics fell to craft a symmetrical tale So go sit ya dipsh*t a$$ on a well / drink some ale and ram ya head into a nail As the jury can now tell / the real lyrical king on this dot org is a dominant black male
The Use of Drones by the United States Military should be allowed.

Resolution:The Use of Drones by the United States Military should be allowed. I, as the Pro side, will argue for the resolution. The Con will argue against the resolution. Definitions:Drone: An unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate either autonomously or with human control (NOTE: The drones in this debate are specifically weponized)Rules:1. All standard DDO rules apply.2. The rules for Civil discourse are implied. (. http://www.harvestmoon.coop......)3.