BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should send troops to Syria

Operation Provide Promise was a humanitarian effort that provided medical support to hundreds of people and tons of food / medical supplies to needy people in Bosnia [1]. Operation Silver Anvil evacuated 400 people from danger [2]. Only 23 U. S. troops were killed in Operation Provide Comfort [3], in defense of dozens of thousands of Kurds under threat of massacre. Only 43 U. S. troops were killed in operation Restore Hope, which provided life-saving humanitarian support to an estimated 100,000 people [4]. Only 482 U. S. and coalition troops were killed in the Gulf War, which restored the entire nation of Kuwait in defense against Saddam Hussein, who at the time controlled an indisputably powerful military force. My opponent assumes that a military operation in Syria would be identical to the full-fledged invasion of Iraq, a conflict that was politically motivated only by fiction and fear. A closer observation of military history shows that military action with humanitarian motive typically involves far less effort, fewer lives and minimal cost, but provides dramatically positive global effects. Most military operations prior to George W. Bush did not cost trillions of dollars or thousands of lives, nor did they extend for over a decade. My opponent also assumes that air strikes are the most effective form of action, but drone strikes do not offer medical expertise, and do a poor job of filtering the guilty from the innocent (drone strikes in Pakistan have killed a median estimate of 585 civilians and 160 children [6]). In addition to being a poor solution for the human race, this contributes to anti-American sentiments, from which Al-Qaeda and Taliban draw political, financial and capital support. We should learn from the recent rebellion in Northern Mali [7], where the rebels fought for democracy, but turned to five Islamist militant groups for support because they had weak ties with the west. These groups enforced Sharia law as soon as they gained a foothold of power, which prompted the same rebels who had asked the extremists for support to ally with the government they'd sought to overthrow. The militant groups aiding Syria similarly threaten to oppress the Syrian people after establishing power, but early U. N. / U. S. involvement can inhibit their influence. We cannot let the mistakes of a single president make us too fearful to continue our efforts for international aid. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The United States should send troops to Syria

The U.S. Military should set up bases in Syria to draw Syrian military focus from rebel and civilian populations, offer refuge to civilian populations, undermine political leverage of the Islamic militant groups participating in the Syrian rebellion, avoid the susceptibility to I.E.D.s caused by regular vehicle transportation, provide transitional infrastructure and living necessities for the Syrian people, avoid obligatory involvement in Syrian politics, and sidestep accusations of over-involvement that typically fund anti-western terrorist organizations. I'm admittedly plagiarizing myself for this argument - I typed this same opinion three days ago: http://www.debate.org.... I fortunately plan to forgive me in the near future.
It is morally permissible to kill Nelson Mandela to save the lives of innocent orphans.

Your first argument would be correct if it was in real life, however you agreed to Absolutes and Definitions. Knowing the future allows one to justify taking Mandelas life. This would not be possible in real life but we do have the absolutes to govern us in your hypothetical situation. Your second argument, does not work. As you stated Nelson Mandela is old and soom to die of natural causes anyway. Nelson Manela has influenced so many that his death may in fact promote others to continue his legacy thus resulting in more helped orphans. Nelson Mandela has already set up several organizations that will likely continue in the event of his passing. A death can create a martyr. A martyr can have more influence than when he was alive. This can be observed with other famous individuals such as Martin Luther, John F Kennedy, Curt Cobain, Elvis Presley, and Marilyn Monroe. Excuse grammatical errors, I didn't spell check!!!
It is morally permissible to kill Nelson Mandela to save the lives of innocent orphans.

My opponent observed that my scenario "establishes several absolutes that do not occur in real life. " I agree with my opponent's observation – it is highly unlikely that the air traffic controller would be able to determine with absolute certainty that the plane would hit the orphanage. For example, a crosswind could alter the aircraft's course by several degrees and cause it to crash miles away. Naturally, the whole story is ridiculous – Nelson Mandela is 90 years old and walks with a stick - I haven't checked, but I'm pretty confident that he doesn't fly stunt planes, and even if he did, he wouldn't be able to leap from one that was about to crash and still survive, even if he were fortunate enough to have a bouncy castle to break his fall! Never mind that, though, that's not the point. The point is to debate the ethics of killing him to save some orphans and I contend that to do so would be immoral, even if by not killing him would mean that a number of innocent children would die. My first argument to support my contention is that, while everybody has the moral right to save lives, nobody has the moral right to take a life, no matter what the circumstances. I realise this could open up a whole new can of worms with regard to religious beliefs and the death penalty controversy, but in everyday life, I believe my contention stands. My second argument is that by saving Nelson Mandela, the air traffic controller would actually save the lives of many more orphans whose parents have died from AIDS than will die in the orphanage. This is because of Mandela's tireless work for AIDS charities. The loss of Nelson Mandela as the leading figurehead and voice in the international fight against AIDS would not mean the charities he is involved with would close, but it would mean that they would have a lower profile and, therefore, raise less funds, and so be able to help fewer AIDS orphans. My third argument is that there is, in any event, no moral duty to save lives. To do so is admirable – one is usually hailed as a hero – but to fail to do so is not immoral. Let me illustrate my point with a (somewhat far-fetched) hypothetical example. Say you are standing outside the Adlon Hotel in Berlin with a bratwurst in one hand and a bottle of Pilsner in the other when you notice Michael Jackson appear on the balcony above you. He is carrying a baby and, for some unfathomable reason, he decides to dangle it over the balcony. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... Now, let's say he loses his grip and the baby plummets towards the ground in front of you. You could drop your sausage sandwich and bottle of beer and catch the hapless infant (you hero! ) or you could continue scoffing your grub and slurping your booze and watch as the baby goes splat on the floor by your feet (you b*stard! ) The most admirable course of action would, naturally, to be to sacrifice your meal in order to save the baby's life, but you would not be morally duty-bound to do so. I therefore reiterate that it would not be morally permissible to kill Nelson Mandela to save the lives of some innocent orphans.
It is morally permissible to kill Nelson Mandela to save the lives of innocent orphans.

Well I am a debater in the debate that inspired this debate, so I will give it a go. I choose the Pro for the following reasons. Absolutes Your hypothetical situation assumes the following. 1.The orphans WILL die, if the plane is not shot down. There is not a 1 in 1 billion chance of them living. They have ZERO chance in infinity. 2. The air traffic controller only has 2 choices of either (no other choices) a)Save the orphans lives with a consequence that ends Nelson Mandelas life or b)End the orphans lives with a consequence that saves Nelson Mandelas life 3.The outcome is KNOWN absolutely. There is no doubt or question. The decision maker has divine knowledge of these outcomes Definitions Orphans= Children, innocent, not of age, and not capable of making decisions of self sacrifice Nelson Mandela= Grown man, capable of making decisions in regard to self-sacrifice. Popular man that has demonstrated self-sacrifice. All evidenced in his writings, speaking engagements, friends, family, co-workers, and the world. If you agree on these Absolutes and Definitions in you Hypothetical Situation then I Affirm: It is morally permissible to kill Nelson Mandela to save the lives of innocent orphans. By knowing the outcomes of the decision and knowing Nelson Mandela by his word and deed he has publicly presented the World, I conclude it would be morally acceptable to Kill Nelson Mandela for the sake of the children. In reality no one can ever know outcomes with such certainty. By not knowing the outcome, the air traffic controller would never question the decision; he/she would chose the same my opponent has chosen. There would also be more choices than what the hypothetical question lends us. It is also important to note this hypothetical is quite different than the "It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people" In that it establishes several absolutes that do not occur in real life. Fictional absolutes that are not observed.
Your vote for presidential candidates do not count.

Pro points out that the state laws that punish faithless electors have never been enacted. He fails to point out that this is simply because they have not had the opportunity to implement laws since their conception. He then argues that because there is no federal law regarding faithless electors that these electors wont be punished. In tenth grade NSL we learned that we have a system of Federalism in the United States in which there is a national, state, and local government. State governments can make and enforce laws the same way that the federal government does so long as the two do not conflict. The laws in these states that punish faithless electors do not conflict with federal law and therefore can be enforced should someone break the law. My opponent asks," do you trust your vote in the hands of a stranger who can very easily get away with changing your vote? "Ironically the source that he used points out an interesting fact about these electors. The source states that "Electors are often chosen to recognize service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate. " [1] In short these electors have a high status and power within their party. I cant see any incentive to vote against their own party and destroy the position they have established for themselves. It would be counter productive and simply doesn't make sense. My opponent makes multiple claims that it is "highly likely" presidents are chosen by higher powers and gives no empirical evidence and no argument to prove this is true. After calling me "naive" the whole subject of higher powers gets dropped. Pro then goes on to talk about the delegates and and although it technically isn't relevant to the topic I feel the need to respond. Delegates are essentially an electoral college for selecting the parties candidate for president. State party members vote for a primary candidate and depending on how they do a certain number of state supporters for that person go as delegates to the RNC. Pro has provided little evidence to back his claims that presidents are put into place by higher powers or that the electoral process doesn't count the vote of the people at all. Sources:[1]- . http://www.archives.gov...
Your vote for presidential candidates do not count.

Concerning the electoral college, I would like to point out that there are 27 states which supposedly require electors to stay true to the popular vote. However, I use the term "supposedly" because even though these 27 states claim that electors are bound by state law or by pledge to vote honestly, there is still no constitutional or federal law that actually requires electors to vote the way they pledge to. For that reason, there has never been any real punishment for what they call faithless voters, regardless of the state law. So in reality, what it comes down to is how much do you trust your vote in the hands of a stranger who can very easily get away with changing your vote? As for the presidential process itself, it leaves more than enough of room for corruption and it is highly likely that presidents are chosen by higher powers. My opponent seems to be very naive when speaking about this process. But voting, Just like everything else in government, along with the entire presidential process, has a strict hierarchical platform. And in this hierarchical platform, we the people are the least effective in choosing our president. First we have the primaries, where delegates and even superdelegates vote in presidential nominees. Again, we the people have little to no say so as to who chooses these delegates to choose our candidates, or as to what candidates they choose. So right from the start we have the ability for the puppet master (higher power) to step in and choose his presidential puppet. So by the time the general elections come around, a president can already be paid for and sold into office, and we the people would never know it. My opponent seems to underestimate the power of special interest groups and the power of the almighty dollar within politics. Money is what rules over all government affairs, it's what influences the media and controls what people see. Any higher power who wants a certain candidate to win, can easily make sure that the candidate of his choosing takes office. Again, what the whole thing comes down to is how much do you trust these people to do the right thing? Sources: . http://www.archives.gov... . http://www.cfr.org...
Your vote for presidential candidates do not count.

The vote is a powerful tool used in any representative government. It can be used for the benefit or harm of society depending on who is voted for and who is voting. My opponent makes the claim that the electoral college nullifies or makes the popular vote useless. This is incorrect. The electoral college is an assembly of electors who represent their parties nominees and are sent based on who wins a states popular vote to vote for president. Essentially whoever wins the popular vote in a state receives those electoral votes. Note that there a few states where electoral votes can be divided depending on percentage as opposed to winner taking all. Because the members of the electoral college are sent depending on the popular vote, our vote does matter in selecting the next president. It may not be the best system but it is false to say that our vote literally doesn't count. [1]Pro also states that " Those in the position of power have always pre-picked presidents"This assertion shows a lack of knowledge of the presidential process. A political party will nominate a candidate to run for the presidency. It may be a party with a strong foothold in congress or a party member who previously held the presidency. Also the incumbent may not even be the parties nominee. President Pierce lost the democratic nomination as the incumbent. Getting back to the point, once a party has delegates vote for their candidate they run for the actual presidency. Once in the actual campaign the candidates may receive funds from certain special interests but this doesn't mean they are being picked by higher powers. It just means they are accepting a bribe more or less to act a certain way and pass legislation in office. The same thing is done on every level of government but in no way is the president being chosen by some higher power other than the people (or at least pro gives no evidence to prove otherwise). Pro goes on to say in regards to the electoral vote "it was written into law in the constitution largely because the founding fathers were worried about the American public's ability to choose wisely" Well yes. Its essentially a safety net to keep uneducated voters from electing a leader who would act malevolent in office or be tyrannical. The safety net that is the electoral college has been heavily diluted today because as of now a majority of states actually punish faithless electors (electors who don't vote for the candidate they were supposed to based on popular vote and their placement as an elector for that candidate). This doesn't necessarily mean our vote doesn't count. Just that if we get to the point where we vote for someone who is just honestly terrible, the electors can come together and stop that from happening. Its just highly unlikely to happen. I hold that our vote does count based on this analysis. I await Pros response. Sources: [1] . http://www.archives.gov...
Your vote for presidential candidates do not count.

I would like to argue that the people's vote is worthless; it is merely an illusion of power that the U.S. government has given to the public. Those in the position of power have always pre-picked presidents, and the concept of a popular vote, or a "one vote one count" system, is just an elaborate show. So far, there has been only four U.S. presidents who lost by popular vote but still won elections. The most recent example would be George W. Bush. In spite of this small number, I would still argue that elections have been rigged since the very beginning, and were designed to be that way. The Electoral College is the mechanism which best supports my argument, it was written into law in the constitution largely because the founding fathers were worried about the American public's ability to choose wisely. And that should really tell you something. The ruling powers have always been afraid of giving the public the power to choose, so instead they gave us the illusion of having that power. Also, you would be very naive to believe that money and power has no influence on the way elections turn out. Presidents are bought and sold like items on a shelf, the amount of lobbying involved in politics period should tell you something. So, does anyone disagree with my argument that the people's vote doesn't count?
The Earth is not millions or billions of years old.

1. Radiometric dating "Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites." - My opponents source goes on to state that this only works; IF the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios. Thus my opponent would have to prove that; 1.1 "the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios." - My opponents source also states that this only works; IF the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, Thus my opponent would have to prove that; 1.2 "the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios," Therefore this data is based on Assumptions. And could be manipulated to produce whatever conclusion the researcher is looking for. note: "duplicate studies on identical meteorite types omitted." - They also admit to omitting data from the study probably to select the data that agrees with the desired outcome and omit the data that doesn't. (selective dating) furthermore; - "less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error." note: 18,000 to 84,000 meteorites bigger than 10 grams hit earth each year! http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... You are going to base your data on 70??? This is a clear example of selective science to fit a preconceived hypothesis. This data is tortured, selective, misleading and false. It involves massive assumptions about the early solar system and uses such a tiny percentage of the available data as to be impermissible. This is equivalent to assuming the age of a car by guessing the age of a single pebble stuck in the tire. This is not evidence that the Earth is millions or billions of years old. 2. Ice Core "Using the methods listed above the bottom of the ice-core was laid down 160,000 +- 15,000 years ago." - This is neither millions nor billions of years old. BONUS: Lack of population III stars "The populations were named in the order they were discovered, which is the reverse of the order of their formation. Thus, the first stars in the universe (low metal content) were population"III, and recent stars (high metallicity) are population"I." My opponents source goes on to state that; "the fact that all stars observed have some heavier elements poses something of a puzzle, and the current explanation for this proposes the existence of hypothetical metal-free Population"III stars in the early universe." Thus, by admission these stars are "hypothetical" CONCLUSION: I have easily and thoroughly disproven my opponents absolute BEST "evidence" for an Earth millions or billions of years in age. No further argument on my part is necessary at this time.