BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
For a grown man to step on a kitten is a morally neutral act

The first thing to establish is whether or not a kitten counts as a thinking being under our definitions. The criteria for a thinking being is active response to stimuli. Kittens demonstrate this when interacting with other kittens, not running into walls when walking, and chasing laser lights. Therefore kittens are thinking beings under my definition. The second thing to establish is whether stepping on a kitten causes something negative or positive to said kitten. I forgot to include definitions for positive and negative, but I think we can agree that pain and possible death is a negative thing. So stepping on a kitten can be conclusively shown to cause a negative thing to a thinking being. But that does not conclude this debate, because our definition of morality involves INTENTIONALLY causing harm or good. Therefore, to negate the resolution, con must show beyond a reasonable doubt that every time a grown man steps on a kitten they must have done so intentionally. If they are unable to do this then the resolution is upheld. Expected argument by con: Some people step on kittens on purpose, and what they do is wrong by your definition. My response to this argument: The resolution states "For a grown man to step on a kitten is a morally neutral act" This debate is therefore not limited to just those who do so intentionally. It must include ALL times a man has stepped on a kitten. The definition of a morally neutral act is "Any act which cannot be shown to fall into one of these categories." If con cannot show that ALL acts of a man stepping on a kitten are either morally good or bad, the resolution is upheld.
For a grown man to step on a kitten is a morally neutral act

(we both have one round to argue) con also accepts all definitions. 2000 character limit can be increased on request to whatever Con desires before accepting. Two rounds is non-negotiable. Our definitions will be vastly oversimplified, but that is just because I want this to be a short debate. I don't have enough real life time to make long, complicated definitions and arguments. Thinking being - A lifeform which can be shown to actively respond to external stimuli from its environment. Morally evil act - Intentionally causing something negative to a thinking being. Morally good act -Intentionally causing something positive to a thinking being. Morally neutral act - Any act which cannot be shown to fall into one of these categories. Failure to follow round structure or definitions results in victory given to the offenders opponent.
health care:if we get health care for all in this country, we will be like canada. scrued up forever

First of all, you didn't really post any legitimate arguments, so I have nothing to rebuttal. But here it goes anyways. To win this debate, you have to do two things: 1) prove that Canada is "scrued [sic] forever" and 2) prove that health care would not benefit all US citizens. If you don't do this, you lose. I'm just saying to make sure that this is a real debate and not a pointless internet fight. Second, health care is a necessity for all people. There are thousands upon thousands who die or are not treated for severe injuries, simply because they cannot 1) pay for insurance or 2) be covered by their insurance company. Is this fair? Is this just? Money should not be the priority; human lives are what really matter. If everyone pitched in a little more from their taxes, everyone can gain the right to medical help. I mean, it doesn't make sense not to provide health care. "We have a cure for your illness, but we can't give it to you because we need to make sure that the pharmaceutical/insurance companies make 5000% profit." Is this what this country has become? Again, I don't know how you can prove Canada is "scrued" up. It is a great country that looks out for its citizens. What's wrong with providing people with long, healthy lives, and the ability to keep working? Also, many other countries have adopted nationalized health care, and their just fine. I think America is on the decline in terms of international status, because we are afraid to move away from our capitalist past. Not to say that things like socialism/communism are good, but why has this country prioritized gross profits over human lives? Is this what America has become?
health care:if we get health care for all in this country, we will be like canada. scrued up forever

My opponent failed to respond, so I guess I just have to reiterate these (oversimplified) points. 1) How is Canada screwed up? If anything, they are doing much better than we are. They may not be an economic or military powerhouse, but their citizens/domestic affairs are must more successful than ours. They seem to know what their doing. 2) Isn't health care a necessity to live? I think it's unjust to deny someone medicine that costs next to nothing to produce because greedy and corrupted insurance companies are trying to save a pretty penny. Lives > money.
Running is a better exercise than biking

My opponent wishes to start with the safety of these two exercise options. First, to address injuries. It is true that runners do have a pretty solid per year injury rate, but what is not often recognized is that bikers are injured far more often, and one can imagine, more seriously. One can imagine this because injuries on a bike would usually entail crashing your bike, whereas a running injury would usually include straining a muscle to the point that you can't use it. But anyways, to the facts. When we consider injuries or deaths involving cars, it turns out that cyclists are more likely to be injured or killed. From 2004 to 2010, only 40 runners have been killed by a motor vehicle. In one year alone (2007), nearly 700 cyclists were killed by motor vehicles[1]. If we expand the types of injuries to incidents outside of car accidents, we see that cyclists still lead. Though the statistic is from 1998, we know that bikers are still on bikes, runners are still running with their feet, and they all do the same races they always have. The numbers may be a little different now, but we can be pretty safe in assuming that this graph[2] carries relevance even today. We can see that cyclist are about twice as likely to end up in the ER than runners are[2].In closing, I'd like to ask this: Would you rather do an exercise that kills 700 people a year, or do an exercise that kills 40 people in 6 years? Perhaps the case can be made that bikers are injured less, but their injuries are clearly more severe, based off of car accident statistics and ER visits. Sources:[1] http://firststridesvermont.com...[2] http://www.scientificpsychic.com...
Running is a better exercise than biking

"...the number of cycling accidents will decrease, until it will eventually become significantly low."Here is one of my opponent's main defenses for against the fact that cyclist accidents are far more prevalent than runner accidents. Contrary to his idea that 'things have improved since 1998', in a 2012 report on cyclist accidents, it is shown that cyclist accidents are on the rise[1]. Even if that weren't the case, is it really logical to think that cycling and its awareness can be so fundamentally changed as to lower that 700 per year statistic to less than 40 per 6 years?"...most cycling accidents occur when the cyclist is biking for other purposes rather than training, which could be going to work, going to school, or simply meeting up with some friends in different parts of the city, amongst other reasons. Thus, this is out of topic..."Here my opponent is trying to nullify the 700 per year number by saying that most of the people hit aren't serious bikers, and therefore their deaths do not apply. My response is three-fold. First, how can we know that the people hit within the cities aren't serious bikers? If you're training for a race, but live in a big city like New York, you may not have a lot of options as to where to go. Second, just because someone isn't biking to train, doesn't mean it's not exercise. There's several types of exercise, one of which is recreational (i.e. riding your bike to your friend's house). Lastly, even if you refuse to acknowledge that recreational exercise is exercise, there's still (according to my opponent source's) 25% of bikers who are training getting hit. That's still well over 100 bikers killed in 2007."Moreover, I'd like to throw a cheap argument as well, cyclist can always train inside the gym on the machines, hence spinning classes being so successful, the effect is much closer to cycling outside than a running machines effect is to real running outside."Proof? Additionally, saying that they could do something is invalid, because they're not. I could say that runners should stop buying Nike, because they're causing all our injuries, but I don't, because saying what the sport should be doing is not a good way to advocate the sport in its current form. It's like saying, "Yeah you should totally go Bear Wrestling because they should make it a lot safer." "While running accidents are less frequent, running injuries are more frequent."And yet the part where you die is what you should be more worried about. And more cyclists die than runners. This concept can apply to my opponent's third section too.Source:[1] http://www.rospa.com...
Running is a better exercise than biking

First of all, thank you for accepting my challenge. I'd like to define some concepts of this debate to help our arguments be more specific, as I just realised it can be a broad topic. So, first lets separate and define for the purposes of this debate "injuries" with "accidents" I would consider injuries as getting hurt in the act of training and by the act of training either on a bike or by running. Accidents would be getting hurt by external factors that do not include the act of training either on a bike or by running as a cause for it. However, I am more than willing to address the issue of accidents as well. 1. The cycling accidents Your sources are from 1998, and even though after my research, it shows that cycling still has the highest numbers of accidents, many things have improved from 1998, due to awareness, better cycling infrastructure, better gadgets for cyclist detection at night, and better bikes. Thus, my main argument for this particular point of view is that while the technology advances, roads improve and become better suited for cyclists, both cyclists and drivers become more aware, the number of cycling accidents will decrease, until it will eventually become significantly low. Whereas the running injuries issues will remain the same (with slower improvements) as it is an issue related to the human body, not the environment and society around it. Moreover, there is an overlooked fact which I'd like to present to the argument. "Around 75% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents occur in urban areas." (Rospa.com). This means that most cycling accidents occur when the cyclist is biking for other purposes rather than training, which could be going to work, going to school, or simply meeting up with some friends in different parts of the city, amongst other reasons. Thus, this is out of topic, as the debate is built on what type of sport is a better exercise, meaning taking the bike or running for the sole purpose of training and not running from the police. This article (rospa.com) shows statistics with the most common cycling accidents involving urban areas and car driving, and usually being the drivers fault. So, having clarified that, I would like to take into account the fact that only about half of the cycling accidents happen when training on a bike. Moreover, I'd like to throw a cheap argument as well, cyclist can always train inside the gym on the machines, hence spinning classes being so successful, the effect is much closer to cycling outside than a running machines effect is to real running outside. 2. The running injuries While running accidents are less frequent, running injuries are more frequent. 3. On the pro side of the debate I found out that running injuries get better after 3 years, as runners get less injuries of consistent running, however cycling causes less injuries (as defined above) from the start. Sources: (http://postinjuryrunning.com...) (http://www.wilkpt.com...) (http://www.rospa.com...)
The Sikhist God is the christian god

The Sikhs have no issue believing that Jesus is the Messiah, they don't believe he is God, they believe he is the Son of God, but not God himself, which is apparently different. For example, the Old Testament does not acknowledge Jesus died and rose again, but you don't try to say that Yahweh is a false God, do you? You don't undermine it's being the Word of God do you? Neither should you do so with the Sikhism Scriptures.
The Sikhist God is the christian god

Again, if the written texts of the Sikist religion do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as God who died and rose again, then any comparison you try to make is moot. Christ Crucified is the foremost principle of the Christian faith, second only to Scripture being the infallible and inspired Written Word of God. You keep trying to make comparisons between texes, but such comparisons are futile if you do not first acknowledge Christ crucified and risen. A few possibly similar passages in the Bible, taken out of context and with no understanding, aren't proof that THE God of heaven and earth is the same God as taught in your book. It's just not that simple. God himself does not allow for such, and makes it clear that He is a jealous God, and that we are to have no other gods before him, and no other doctrines other than what He has revealed in scrioture.
The Sikhist God is the christian god

To the contrary, God as revealed in Scripture does not allow for other ways. The only way that the god as taught in Sakhism could be the same God that Christians worship is if the teachings of Sakhism surrounded Jesus' death on the cross and His resurrection. Do they? No. That fact alone confirms that the teachings are not the same and those who follow the teachings of Sakhism do not worship God. For as Schrpture says, all the law and the prophets point to or speak of or reveal Christ.
The Sikhist God is the christian god

No, it Cleary says "you are the light", as in God, God is the light of the world, but even if it was referring internal light, th is would not be wrong, because the bible refers to us as smaller lights. I also found a good Sikhism scripture: "It is a woman who keeps the race going; we should not consider women cursed and condemned, from women are born leaders and rulers." - Guru Nanak, Founder of Sikhism Maybe the chauvinistic pig Christians should go learn a thing or two from the Sikhists,
The Sikhist God is the christian god

I will compare Sikhism scripture against biblical scriptures: Sikhism scripture: "Amongst all is the Light-You are that Light. By this Illumination, that Light is radiant within all." Biblical scripture: John 8:12: "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." Sikhism Scripture: "God is One. He is the Supreme Truth." Biblical scripture: 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".
Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24.

Whats the title of this argument? "Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24." not Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 19. If you want to debate for U.S. citizens should start military training when they turn 18, start another debate and put that as your title. The fact is you stated not only in the title of the debate, but also in your conclusion of the first round, that every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24. So no I am not confused When I give you a graph of the population of U.S. citizens ages 18-24. I wish you were right about cost of building basic training camps but sadly you are wrong. Federal contracting is a thousand times harder than commercial. Where you might be able to freely substitute materials and systems on commercial work you better not go into a federal contract thinking that you are going to get by with anything less than what is called for. You will be held accountable for everything in the Contract Documents whether you picked it up or not. Above this contractors have to deal with government inspectors, which are sticklers for making workers comply to every aspect in the contract document. So, what does this all translate to? time and a butt load of money. I am not arguing that mandatory training has the potential to boost the populations physical and mental fitness. But the fact that the amount of money it would cost to create these facilities, feed these people, cloth them, train them and then pay for their college education is just to costly for the American government. At a time when the American population is asking to reduce the amount of money the U.S. military is burning, razing the budget for any means is the wrong action. For all these reasons, I strongly believe that there should not be any form of mandatory training for any U.S. citizen before the age of 24
Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24.

P1) Having mandatory military training for all US citizens would be expensive. As of 2013 the United States Department of Defense requested 0.5 billion dollars for force development and training. Yes, there could be over 50 million trained men and women, but If US started mandatory military training for people ranging 18-24 years old, there would well over 25 million trained men and woman at any given year. America is already 17 trillion dollars, and counting, in debt. Mandatory military training would only put fuel on the already huge fire that America set under themselves. If we ever want to shorten the national deficit mandatory training would not be the step in the right direction. http://www.defense.gov...... http://www.newgeography.com...... P2) Forcing citizens to go into military training would take away from allowing them choose the education they want to go into. US universities are world renowned for their flexibility. Students are encouraged to take broad assortment of classes, allowing them to paint a better picture for what they want in life. By placing citizens in mandatory military training you take away from allowing them to find what they want in university. C) Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training before the age of 24.
Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24.

P1) There are many benefits to a year of mandatory military training and service. First, US citizens would gain a mental and physical health boost from the motivation and rigors of military training. Second, US citizens would gain a healthy respect for discipline, and an understanding of group work, which could help boost our economy due to a motivated population. https://www.cypanthers.org...... P2) Having your population well-trained for combat is certainly a benefit within itself. If ever threatened, the US would have well over 50 million trained, battle-ready soldiers at any given moment, ready to respond to any threats. This would give the US political leverage during international deliberations. http://www.studymode.com...... C) Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training before the age of 24.
The Bible is Historically Accurate

By calculating the genealogy in the Bible, from Adam to Christ, the Earth is approximately 4,000 years old [1]. From Christ to present, the total age of the Earth from Creation to now is 6,000 years old.Using Radioactive decay, scientists estimate that the Earth is about 4.56 billions years old [2]. This approach is preferable to the Bible because the science is falsifiable and transparent. Anyone can criticize the methods or results of the research using evidence, which has not successfully occurred. Even a skeptic of the radioactive decay model can empirically observe the fossil record, and the fact that it is much older than 6,000 years old. Therefore, I have proven that in one instance the Bible is not historically accurate. Therefore the Bible is not historically accurate. Pro can only contest this point since pro did not open argumentation last round. [1] http://www.missiontoamerica.org... [2] http://www.earthhistory.org.uk...
Tertiary Education Should Be Free

Although it might not be agreed upon that basic education should be free, according to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Article 13, everyone does have the right to free education. [1,2] No teacher would pursue a career in teaching if they were forced to do it in the first place. It is a choice to become a teacher. People who pay tax don't get a say in where their money goes. In saying that, by proper planning from the Federal Reserve, money can be put towards the maintenance and salaries instead of millions of dollars being spent of unnecessary expenses. [3] If students save thousands of dollars on tuition, that same money can go towards books and supplies and their living costs thereby making college more affordable. [4] The top most popular careers require an extensive knowledge of the work they are doing. Experience does play an important role in getting a job however, between choosing someone with a degree and experience and someone with only experience, most companies would go for the former because having extensive theoretical knowledge of the work you are doing puts you at a distinctive advantage. [5,6] No company would choose someone in any Financial, IT, Medical or Engineering field if they only have work experience. By eradicating the concept of "loan" students will feel they can focus more on their studies than on their debt. There are many European countries that have extremely low student debt, more college attendance and a higher graduation rate. [4] [7] But to back myself up, the government increases the price of tuition because they profit from student loans thereby increasing student debt. [8] Con stated that you don't have to go to a college to receive an education thanks to the internet, no job will employ a person on the basis of a Google education. Online courses however, are available but at a cost. Although cheaper, you need to look at the availability and affordability of unlimited internet access and the cost of equipment such as computers, webcams etc as well as application fees. Traditional education however, provides more career options, environments that allow for experimentation, interaction and practical work. [9,10] [1] http://www.ohchr.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.forbes.com... [4] http://www.businessinsider.com... [5] http://www.alec.co.uk... [6] http://www.investopedia.com... [7] http://www.topuniversities.com... [8] https://berniesanders.com... [9] http://learn.org... [10] https://www.reference.com...