BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Res: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people

To my esteemed opponent. I thank you for this debate, and am somewhat sad that it is ending. For this last round, I will let my argumentation stand as is, but will give the voters reasons to accept my argumentation and analysis, and ultimately vote for me. My first reason to accept the pro side of this argument is because of my opponent's failure to show how his value gives him access to his criterion. In his last speech, he argues how his criterion upholds his value, but this isn't the purpose of a criterion. Look back to my first speech where I show exactly what a value and criterion are intended to do. My opponent doesn't realize that his criterion is what should be voted upon, not the value. The value is what is given in order to uphold the criterion. so as soon as he gets this backward, he loses. He hasn't upheld his criterion through he value. He seems to have mixed up what they are. Now let's look to the opposite side, mine. I have upheld my criterion of greater good by proving how one person dying will be saving more people's lives. One person dying is never going to be worse than multiple people dying, even if it's only two people. So by advocating the fact that I am saving more people's lives, I have reached my criterion. The reason I gain access to this through morality, is by showing the presence of individual morality in society. As soon as people realize that each individual has their own sense of morality, we find that it is moral for someone to kill one person to save multiple lives. The resolution never specifies that it has to be broader than an individual aspect, therefore I am advocating under the resolution. This means that I have upheld my burden, and should win this round. My opponent makes the argument that I didn't argue my standpoints. But by arguing his, I reiterate my own. Not only that, but I have shown each round how I access my criterion through my value. This means that even if I dropped my contentions, which I didn't, then I win because of how I have proven the resolution true. My opponent hasn't done this, and therefore deserves to lose this round. Thank you very much for this debate, and wish you luck in future debates. It was both fun and educational. Vote for me.
exploration of the elegant application of the english language

Over the course of these 5 rounds, I shall affirm that I hold within me a prodigious level of rhetoric versatility. For throughout my being, I have annexed for my utilization a prodigious assortment of words and phrases. This vast glossary is what allows me to proclaim my ideas in an elegant and ornate manner, as you may observe already from the text preceding. It is unlikely that any individual such as yourself could hold a vocabulary nearly as adept as mine. In fact, it is my humble opinion that through the comparison of our respective grasps of the finer points of the written language that we are now participating in, your meager abilities will become null in relative to my own. That is not to say I do not respect those like yourself who attempt to assert that they are of a higher class of intellectual thought, but those of us who are in such a position ultimately triumph over those who only feign this endowment. For the time being I have little else to declare, but I wait expectantly for my opponents argument to, as they say, speak for itself.
The fine-tuning argument for the existence of God is sound

The debate hinges on Con’s misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the original argument of fine-tuning. And he seems to be unwilling to accept that blatant error. As he assumes:When I say all/any, I mean everything that falls under a certain category. In this instance the category is intelligent life, so if someone says that all intelligent life depends on a fine-tuned universe, then to me that means everything that is an intelligent life requires a fine-tuned universe”When we talk about the intelligent life in that argument, we are careful to define what we mean by intelligent life. Hence insofar the argument concerns we must maintain correct terminologies and meanings of those premises of the arguments such as “intelligent life”. Our beliefs in other forms of (intelligent) life are absolutely irrelevant with regard to the fine-tuning argument. For example: if David argues something about oranges; the truths concerning those argument is totally independent with David’s beliefs about aliens, mangoes, fairies etc. David can believe bizarre things like eternal-universe, tooth fairies; he can believe non-living beings like chairs, planets, rocks too have life in them, yet he can defend fine-tuning argument. And the reliability and truth about fine-tuning argument would be totally independent of his beliefs about those things.A person can believe in whatever category of life besides the form of life considered in the fine-tuning argument and the fine-tuning argument would remain independent of the beliefs of that person.I believe soul doesn’t depend on universe at all since it is immaterial. Mind body dualism is irrelevant to the fine-tuning argument. That is why his objections are completely red herring, missing the original argument altogether. The argument was not whether “intelligence” can exist without fine-tuned life permitting universe but whether a certain intelligent life (which is predefined and presumed clearly, to be organic life which can reproduce and adapt etc). That is why the error on his part on equivocation and association fallacy. He has either been either misinformed or misunderstood the argument. We should be very clear, if we argue about apples then our beliefs (mangoes, fairies or even absurd and impossible beliefs like 2+2=5, or new-atheism) independent to that argument remains irrelevant to the truth of that apple argument. I thank Con, and appreciate the debate, and I hope all enjoyed and learned some good basic concepts of these arguments and reasoning. Thanks for reading, and don't forget to vote for me for being more reasonable position.
The fine-tuning argument for the existence of God is sound

In my rebuttal, I aim to show that the argument presented by William Lane Craig and defended by Pro is self-refuting. To start with, the definition of God being used describes God as a "being". Using the OED, "being" is defined as follows: noun 1 [mass noun] existence: the railway brought many towns into being the single market came into being in 1993 "being alive; living:holism promotes a unified way of being (1) Following this definition, we can see that while existence doesn't necessarily mean being alive, I would suggest that God is being used as an entity that is alive and therefore is a life. I don"t expect this to be a point of contention, but if Pro is willing to argue that God isn't a life then I will counter that in the next round. Next, the argument from fine-tuning is sometimes referred to as the argument from intelligent design (ID), the designer in this instance being God. I refer back to a source in my opening statement to show that Craig also refers to intelligent design: "In order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation. In fact, when you think about it, such a requirement would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. For before any explanation could be acceptable, you'd need an explanation of the explanation, and then an explanation of the explanation of the explanation, and then - well, nothing could ever be explained. So, in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe, one needn't be able to explain the Designer. Whether the Designer has an explanation can simply be left an open question for future inquiry. " (2) As with before, I would suggest that this is alluding to God as being intelligent, and again, I don"t expect this to be a point of contention. Based on these suggestions it can be concluded that God is a life and is intelligent, so therefore God is an intelligent life. It"s from this conclusion that I can show that the argument is self-refuting. If life/intelligent life can not exist without a fine-tuned universe, then either what I have concluded is wrong (and God isn't a life and isn't intelligent), or God also exists within a fine-tuned universe. If God is an intelligent life and doesn't exist within the confines of a fine-tuned universe, then it follows that a fine-tuned universe is not needed for intelligent life to exist and therefore life/intelligent life can exist without a fine-tuned universe, ergo the argument refutes itself. (1) . http://oxforddictionaries.com... (2) . http://www.abc.net.au...
The fine-tuning argument for the existence of God is sound

I'm of the opinion that the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life argument is flawed when a creator/God is concluded as the most plausible explanation. My rebuttal will be based on my inference of the following comments, attributed to William Lane Craig: "Over the last fifty years or so, scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the existence of intelligent, interactive life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. Scientists once believed that whatever the initial conditions of the universe, eventually intelligent life might evolve. But we now know that our existence is balanced on a knife's edge. The existence of intelligent life depends upon a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable." (1) "That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By "fine-tuning" one does not mean "designed" but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair"s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist." (2) From these two sources I infer that, according to his arguments, life/intelligent life can not exist without a fine-tuned universe. I am defining God as WLC defines God, that is an uncaused, changeless, timeless and immaterial being. Pro must agree with this definition and also the inference. ----------------- (1) http://www.abc.net.au... (2) http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Big pharmaceutical companies don't want cannabis legalized, but want profit from it.

Besides finding your foreword to the debate to be contradictory and your non specificity with the use of "Big Pharmaceutical Companies" leaves much undefined. It would be absurd to think all these ambiguous Pharmaceutical Companies share a common interest on this topic since not all sell pharmaceuticals that could be considered to have cannabis as an alternative, with such competition for their product being the only way the legalization and subsequent sales of cannabis might harm them. For the other pharmaceutical corporations with no such issue, if cannabis wasn't legalized how would they make a profit from it? What would they have to gain from selling it covertly if they can"t access the whole market in fear of being caught? Due to this, such companies have nothing to gain from cannabis staying illegal.
Dave Ramsey should be the focus of a new era of financial video games.

As "Should" is included in the title I expect this will be a largely opinion based debate. Pro states "This new genre of game would allow children to learn how to effectively manage money at an early age." as the only argument of the first round. A game of this kind could possible teach children to manage money if produced correctly. The challenge would be to find companies that would support or produce such a video game. I will leave it to the Pro to find examples of entire successful genres based on a real life identity such as Dave Ramsey. My first two arguments counter the idea that is presented in the title:"Dave Ramsey should be the focus of a new era of financial video games." 1) You can't focus an era of video games on anything. The video game industry is completely based on the demands of the consumers - what sells the best is developed and sold. Nobody controls the video game market. 2) An era of video games cannot be based on one genre and one character. Dave Ramsey as the focus of ONE financial game could be interesting. An entire era, or even just a genre of Dave Ramsey financial video games would be repetitive and not interesting.
Dave Ramsey should be the focus of a new era of financial video games.

In round 3 I will rebut my opponents final argument, and provide a summary of the debate. In round 3 my opponent presents his/hers final argument, "[Dave Ramsey is] very capable of running his own video game series". I would like to see a source for this evaluation of Ramsey's capability to run a video game series. But as this is the last round I will accept it as a fact. However, the question was whether he should be the focus of an entire era of video games. An era and a series is not the same. I would like to sum up this debate. My opponent showed that a game series based on a real life character is possible (the Tony Hawk series). However, - Pro dropped my first argument; Nobody chooses what a era of video games is focused on. - Pro dropped my second argument; One character as the focus of an entire era of video games would be repetitive and not interesting - Pro dropped my third argument; Why would they focus an entire era of games on Dave Ramsey? I requested an example of a series based on a character such as Dave Ramsey, which my opponent provided. Except for this, my opponent has ignored all my arguments. My opponent also tried to change the subject of the debate halfway in.
Dave Ramsey should be the focus of a new era of financial video games.

Pro suggests a change to the phrasing of the subject to "Should Dave Ramsey be incorporated into a video game." This "rephrasing" means literally changing the subject itself. It is not possible to change the subject of a debate. By changing the criteria and/or the subject of the debate, the opposing's side's stand on the subject will naturally differ. If the Pro wishes to debate around a different subject, he/she will have to start a new debate. Proposing a theme for a single game is something completely different to proposing an entire genre of games, even an era of games based on the same theme. The two sentences have completely different meanings. This is why I do not accept the rephrasing. The two arguments given in the First Round are thus still valid. I accept the Tony Hawk series as a successful genre, and if required, I am sure Dave Ramsey's company could support this project. But why would they focus an entire era of video games on Dave Ramsey? Arguments 1) and 2) extended to Round 2.
The United States needs Universal Healthcare.

I will take it easy on you. Lets face it man, we all want to help people and everyone should be given care in our society. We try and do what we can but everyone cannot be happy. It is ridiculous the amount of money it costs for things these days. Some would say that is because only the strong can survive. I know this cynical but it really is the truth. I wish that people could afford care but sometimes technology use causes payments to excessive. Many people are extremely quick to jump on the "free" health care bandwagon. The only thing that attracts these people is one word, "free". What these people fail to realize is that with free health care comes inadequate doctors, third-rate facilities, months of waiting for care, and a higher cost of living in general. Though it is easy to say the government should be expected to pay for health care, it is not so easy to tell a doctor who has dedicated his entire life to medicine, that he does not deserve to get paid for his efforts. The reason we find the majority of the best doctors in the United States, is because they get paid for their craft, and they get paid well. Why would a doctor who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in schooling, and the better part of the first thirty years of his life learning, go work in a place where he cannot maximize his income, or make a greater benefit to his cause? There is enough need in the United States and the rest of the world for any doctor who wants to donate his service for free, to do so, and they do. I can only assume that most want to get paid. History has shown that socialized health care does not work. If we had free health care in the United States, our economy would pay the price, as would the people. We complain about having to wait three or four hours to see a doctor, could you imagine waiting three or four months to see a doctor who you knew wasn't the best? We would wait a lot longer than a few hours if nobody was paying for their services. The reason we have so many hospitals, and doctors to fill them, is because we pay. Before you ask for something for free, make sure you see what you're getting.
The United States needs Universal Healthcare.

First, I would like to start off by saying you are well versed on this issue and would like to compliment you on that. Second, I'm not saying that we should completely move towards socialized medicine like that of Sweden or France or England. I'm saying that we need something that costs less for the people, the health of our country gets better, and we become the best in the world through medical advances (like we should be). It is not right for someone with Muscular Dystrophy to have to pay 1200 dollars for a pill that they have to take daily. We as a nation need to move towards a system that is more patient friendly and willing to help patients without focusing on insurance abilities. To refute your statement on mandatory ER care, yes we are able have ER visits. but the ambulance ride is WAY too much, the operations (if needed) will cost more than a thousand dollars and how are these people supposed to pay for that? they can't. plain and simple. (And now I wish I had made this debate 3 rounds since you will more than likely demolish my argument)
The United States needs Universal Healthcare.

the United states needs universal healthcare because #1. our system now is crap #2. The deductables and copays are way too excessive. #3. doctors arent focused on treating the patient as much as making sure the hospital gets paid #4. With Universal healthcare, sure the gov't would run the system, but couldnt we be like France where they pay their doctors bonuses to help their patients (i.e. if a doctor get 5 of his/her patients to stop smoking = bonus) #5. It would raise the care our citizens recieve
Racists slurs are taken to seriously in our community (Pro) Agree (con) Disagree

This is 2015, the generations who lived out the salve years are likely not around to experience these racial slurs and using terms such as Wog or Nigger in a non-aggressive manner should be received as a form of communication, for example if I was at a party that was predominantly Caucasian figures and I needed to ask someone if they had seen my black friend, I would generalise by the use of one of these racial slurs. It is not being used as an insult nor an aggressive act against my black friend but it is being used for communicational purposes, now while I think a majority of people would be shocked by my language I do not chose to believe they should be. Generalizing somebody by their appearance through the use of racial slang should be accepted on a wider level by the community that we live in, especially when the receiver of the racism is okay with it. Having said all of this I do agree with you that it depends on the persons background on situation, and when you mentioned someone getting a right hook to the face that is highly unlikely due to the risks of the victim sewing you for assault. Believe it or not it is against the law to abuse someone in the case of racial statements.
Racists slurs are taken to seriously in our community (Pro) Agree (con) Disagree

I believe it really comes down to a few things that determine whether it is taken to heart and is offensive. Socially it is incorrect to go around and call black people, nigger you will end up getting a right hook to the face. The words themselves may or may not be offensive to each individual. Also often these words have other meaning behind them and could also have a personal offense to an individual. I believe that if the individual doesn't mind and embraces where they came from and don't mind being called Wog or nigger then it is ok. For example Nigger can be take offense because in pervious years black slaves were often called and abused with the name nigger! I believe Racists Slurs should only be used if the individual consents and embraces there heritage!
Racists slurs are taken to seriously in our community (Pro) Agree (con) Disagree

Whilst a majority of the time I chose not to use racist slurs or slang so to say to refer to the people in my community, I do not believe that its a problem to do so. Just to clarify what I mean by "Racists Slang", I am referring to the use of words such as, Abbo, Wog, Nigger, ching, yakee ect. I do not believe that these racists slurs should be taken to heart as insults and I am in search for someone who disagrees. Which I honestly think is not hard due to the amount of people who take racism heavily to heart.