BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If a deceased person's wealth can be inherited, then so should their debts.

A few things: First, Brian says that the woman who died simply did so before ever being able to write his friend a check. That seems unlikely since she apparently got beat up so badly to the point where she died, but more importantly, you'll notice that back in R1 Pro wrote, "Since the police agreed that my friend was totally blameless... the court duly found in his favour." Since the court ruled in the plaintiff's favor, it implies that at least some type of official legal action was taken, and as such my point about the woman's son being responsible for the debt stands (especially if there were any types of records or documents, which there is for every legal endeavor). Second, Brian provides an example of a purchase (debt) which would not have to be paid off upon the person dying. He is completely right; I thought I already addressed that in R1 when mentioning the "tough luck" kinds of debts, but it seems I forgot to include that specifically when talking about how any credit purchase is bad for the creditor. Regardless, the same argument still applies; I'm not offering a new one. As I said, there is some assumed and accepted risk when giving credit to someone. As such, the creditor makes a decision to accept that risk in the hope that they'll profit from the interest of the credit. Because they do that willingly, then the risk is part of the deal and I don't think that's a decent enough argument to burden someone else with the debt when they had nothing to do with it in the first place. Meanwhile, the creditor did and is in fact responsible for that existing debt. Regarding the example with the outstanding fines for stealing chickens, I stand by my statement that all debts in the form of fines must first be paid [1], as that isn't so much a debt that a creditor chose to take a risk on, but rather something on the record for which the deceased was responsible (similar to her responsibility to Brian's friend). Additionally, if we have a problem with credit rate being increased because of debts that aren't paid, we can simply choose not to buy anything on credit or choose a provider with a lower rate. Additionally, Brian never proved why someone should be responsible for a debt that they had nothing to do with. Suppose the deceased's assets and estate did not cover the total amount of the debt owed. The living would then be burdened; and further, I've already asked (and didn't receive an answer) as to whom that living should be, especially in the case where there was no estate/assets to be inherited. For instance, if I were estranged from my father for 20 years, but then he died and I inherited his debt, that would not only be incredibly cruel but also undoubtedly an infringement of rights -- you simply cannot impose another's debt onto someone outside of legal parameters. [1] http://www.betterbudgeting.com...
If a deceased person's wealth can be inherited, then so should their debts.

Hello again theLwerd and thanks for taking this debate. In reply to my opponent's contribution, I wouldn't say my friend's solicitor is a lousy lawyer, rather that my friend is very unlucky, as she rightly observed. Indeed, he's always been unlucky - I reckon if he fell into a bag of t!ts he'd come out sucking his thumb! In his case, had the woman that caused the damage to his car up refused to pay, he could have taken a charge on her house and forced her to sell it to get his money but she didn't refuse to pay, she just died before she had a chance to write him a cheque. No, it is her grasping, insensitive son who my friend has got an issue with, although, in fairness, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place if his late mother had been more careful when crossing the road, although in fairness to her, she had just been to the rotisserie to pick up a freshly cooked chicken and was being chased down the street by a pack of stray dogs immediately prior to the accident, which might have distracted her a bit. So, my opponent is right in saying that if debts are secured against the property, the beneficiary would be liable to pay, but is wrong to say that all debts must be paid from the deceased's estate - the executor of the will need not settle unsecured any loans or debts. For example, say this woman had bought on credit a stair-lift so she could get upstairs to the bathroom; the retailer couldn't demand that the outstanding payments be made from her estate when she died. They could go round to her house and take it back, but they probably wouldn't bother because each unit is made bespoke and the chair itself wouldn't be worth much, especially if she was incontinent. Or say the woman had outstanding fines that the courts had imposed upon her for thieving roasted chickens or for driving her wheelchair recklessly, her son wouldn't have to pay them off when she snuffed it. At the end of the day, we all suffer when the beneficiaries of a will don't cough up. The parties who have to write off their debts are often companies that provide unsecured credit on their goods and services. This means they have to increase their prices to cover bad debts. In other words, ordinary, hard-working consumers have to pay more for goods and services just so people who inherit unearned property and cash can dodge their financial liabilities. In effect, decent honest people are paying for the posh to quaff champagne and gorge themselves on fois gras, white truffles and caviar. No, that's not fair and I, therefore, reaffirm that if someone can inherit a deceased persons' wealth, they should also be liable for their debts. Thank you.
If a deceased person's wealth can be inherited, then so should their debts.

It seems as if Brian's friend had a terrible attorney. When someone dies, their estate is left for someone to handle (typically a spouse, child or lawyer). That individual -- in this case, it would be the woman's son -- is responsible for making sure that all final bills are paid on behalf of the deceased. The first thing to pay off are secured debts, i.e. mortgages, car payments, or any debts that were expected to be paid off over a certain amount of time. Next, any medical bills or other debts are required to be paid off; it seems as if Brian's friend had the court on his side in this one in determining that the woman did indeed have a debt to him. As such, Brian's friend should have had no trouble in legally collecting all money presumed owed to him. Now, because this resolution encompasses more than just Brian's friend, I'll continue. You cannot inherit a debt unless (a) you were a party to it prior to the debtor's death, or (b) you have a joint credit card or bank account with the indebted deceased. This is for obvious reasons. If it's not clear to you, I'll explain: Why should someone be responsible for another's debt when they had absolutely nothing to do with it or no say/decision in the matter? More importantly, who gets to decide who that responsible someone is? Surely one would say, "Well the person benefiting from the deceased's assets, of course!" Well, yes and no. The beneficiary is responsible by law to use those assets, i.e. sell them for money, to pay off ANY debt on behalf of the dead. In that case, the debt wouldn't be inherited - it would be paid off using whatever the dead left behind first and foremost before any type of inheritance could take place. Now, in a situation where there were no assets, the answer is "Tough luck" to any creditors who don't get paid (that's why credit is bad in the first place -- it's an assumed and accepted risk). Similarly, if there were no assets in this case, then Brian's friend would simply unfortunately have to accept the loss. It would be a tragic accident, the same way a tree falling on Brian's friend's car would be a tragic accident, but he would not be entitled to anything further than what his insurance company was willing or required to pay. Indeed there's a lot of bad ck out there and sometimes we're the recipients of it. It happens. In this case, I'm very surprised that the debt is even an issue. Nevertheless, this bad luck is not enough to take legal action to punish an innocent party monetarily. I'll stand by that statement until my opponent responds. Good luck!
Gun Control for Semi-Automatic Rifles

When you talk about a thing like gun control you need to realize that its not about guns in gun control, it's about control. Look at most totalitarian or otherwise "evil" regimes that exist or have existed and you will notice that most if not all have either completely disarmed or are disarming their population. They do this because when a people have no weaponry to fight back or to stand up for themselves they not only loss hope and grow more fearful by the day but revolt and civil disobedience become increasingly harder to accomplish or maintain thereby keeping the tyrant in a continuous place of power and authority and allows him to seize more and more power, more and more freedoms, more and more information, and more and more rights. There is a quote: "When the citizens fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the citizens there is liberty" which has some grain of truth as seen with my previous points. The people in power, They want to take away guns not because they wish and care for their people to be safe but because they want to erase another variable, another possible risk to the status quo that might remove them from those places of power. When we give away our guns, we are not getting safety, we are losing both safety and liberty. As Benjamin Franklin once said "A man who wishes to trade some of his liberty for safety will loss both and gain none"
Gun Control for Semi-Automatic Rifles

Very original topic, I know. I wish to bring up the point that weapons, like most other tools, are built to serve a purpose and make tasks easier to perform. Firearms are built specifically to kill, injure, or otherwise incapacitate a target, be that for hunting, warfighting, or self-defense. Specific guns serve as specialized tools for specialized purposes: handguns for self defense, rifles and shotguns for hunting, and all can be used in warfare as weapons against enemy combatants. By that logic, firearms should be distributed to be used for their specific purpose. The purpose of semi-automatic and automatic weapons is to put multiple targets down at long range as quickly as possible. They are built to be lethal and easy to use, using more powerful ammunition than a handgun while being easier to fire and maintain accuracy with. Therefore, their place rests with people who need a weapon capable of those things. I see no reason why any civilian would reasonably need access to this type of tool.
Gun Control for Semi-Automatic Rifles

I would not have the audacity to suggest that we prevent the citizens of America from possessing firearms in general. After all, the ability to defend oneself should never be taken away. The key is to find a balance between ensuring that we can defend ourselves, and ensuring that we are in an environment in which that doesn't need to happen. Handguns and non semi-automatic rifles are more than enough to provide citizens with the ability to defend themselves from all manner of threats. Should the government ask that we give up all types of weapons I think we would genuinely have an uprising on our hands, but that is not my argument. My argument is that semi-automatic rifles are particularly destructive in the wrong hands, and are not very practical for self-defense purposes. As for defending against the government should it become tyrannical, I'm afraid our first and last line of defense would be our state-owned militia, the National Guard. Should the federal government become so corrupt as to be reduced to tyranny, the idea is that the states would be able to resist the federal system, keeping a strong line of defense against abuse of federal power and allowing the states a certain level of military power to resist federal powers if need be. Should the National Guard fail in this duty to defend the states, then responsibility would fall to the citizens. Now, in the days that the Constitution was first written, an organized militia of armed men would be able to resist occupation effectively because of the technology of the time. There were no tanks, no helicopters, no proper artillery, and certainly no ballistic missiles. There are now, and unless we as citizens have the means to counter these advanced threats, which will never be the case, than we cannot even hope to make a dent in federal forces with mere small arms. So, we rely on our National Guard to defend us from federal tyranny, which may not seem like a great option, but it is about the only one we have. A better way to fight government corruption, would be for the citizens of the US to take a greater role in our democracy, and to push for more transparency throughout the federal level. In conclusion, I state that semi-automatic rifles would not give us the means to effectively resist a hypothetical tyrannical government, and that we should instead be more active in our current government to keep it a democracy. I push that semi-automatic rifles should not be handled by private citizens (due to their destructive potential towards soft targets), but by trained professionals in the Militia of the United States. Citizens should retain the right to possess handguns, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles for the purpose of self defense, sport-shooting, and hunting.
Communism works if applied correctly pt. 2

I think before I start, the term "humanitarian" should be defined. a. Concern for human welfare, especially as manifested through philanthropy(1) With the definition of communism you presented, and the definition I gave of humanitarianism makes them both remarkably simple to understand, so my opening argument will be simple. So, humanitarianism concerns the overall good of the people, right? But communism seems to be the opposite no matter how it's looked at. It could work two ways: everyone becomes rich, or everyone becomes poor. As history has repeatedly demonstrated, the latter almost always wins out. In communism, nobody has more than each other, whether or not they worked or they were lazy. With this mindset, the rich will bring the poor up, or vice versa. Either way, no one is their own person in this system. If the money system were eliminated, however, there couldn't be any rich people. So in that case poverty would ensue. Essentially what I'm getting at here is that communism, the way you put it, would lead to poverty; and dueto the hardworking rich being dragged down to poverty, more social injustce would rage within the communist society. It simply wouldn't fit the definition of humanitarianism, which is supposed to provide welfare for the people, not poverty. I look forward to hearing your rebuttals. (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Communism works if applied correctly pt. 2

Due to my previous opponent de-activating his account, I have decided to hold this debate for the second timeMy argument is that Communism is a system that can work in a way that is humanitarian if used in it's traditional sense, that being defined as:Communism: the belief in the creation of a stateless, classless, money-less society, where private property (save for personal property) is collectively owned, and the wage system abolished.
The affirmative side will win this debate round.

I did not read carefully and I am a fault for that. There weren't really any rules so I do not contest them. Now, on to Pro's argument:It is possible to do better than someone in a particular round, but that does not constitute winning the round. There is no way to strictly determine who 'wins' a round by weighing arguments, especially in debates where both sides post an affirmative and don't even directly address each other in some rounds. There is a reason why you never see people discussing who wins a round in an RFD: it is not a useful way of determining who won the debate. Instead, we usually refer to winning specific arguments, which carry across rounds. Therefore, no one wins rounds on DDO. There is no official method and it is never even considered in judging. The winner of the debate is who wins the most important arguments, not who 'wins' however many rounds. The only purpose of the rounds is to give a structure and format to the debate. This does not even touch the greatest problem in the resolution, though. Pro claims he will win a round. His winning a round his contingent on his proving to us that he will win a round. He must prove to us that he will prove to us that he will prove to us . .. that he will win a round. This is so confusing I can't tell if it's circular or an infinite regress, but either way the resolution is clearly impossible to sustain. There is no argument that can sustain the resolution "I will win this debate. " If Pro can resolve this logical problem to my satisfaction I will be very impressed and thankful for his having shown me the solution, but I don't believe it is possible.
The affirmative side will win this debate round.

The next three rounds will consist of actual debating. " My opponent did not refute this and thus has accepted it as fact. Therefore, any opinion on who has won the first round is entirely irrelevant, because in the context of this debate, the first round did not exist. But even if you don't accept that, allow me to continue my point. There is no reason to suggest that a person can not win an individual debate round. For example, if I were to post the first part of a round with a list of contentions and my opponent failed to acknowledge a single one ad ranted about his/her love of Megan Fox, would I not have won the round? While there is no official method on debate. org of deciding who is the winner of an individual round, that does not mean rounds cannot be won. For if I were to win all of the rounds in a debate, then thus, I would win the debate. The very fact that the winners of these debates is open to user interpretation means that these users will see who has indeed won the round. Simply put, you cannot claim a round cannot be won or lost because, if that were the case, it would be impossible to deem whether or not the debate as a whole has been won by a certain side, if at all.
The affirmative side will win this debate round.

It is not possible to win the individual rounds of a debate. Only the entire debate as a whole is scored. For that reason, the affirmative will not win this round or any other. Because the affirmative has not won the round, it has lost the debate.If you disagree with my definition of the word 'round,' I invite you to glance to the right and notice that the rounds are clearly labeled and color coded.
Resolved: Employers should be legally allowed to deny employment based on visible bodily tattoos

You keep saying that a persons right do not trump an employers rights, when they both have the same rights. They just have more authority over them. I'm saying that the employer should be forced to accept them, i'm saying that to deny them a job because of how they look is wrong. Again the employer and the employee have the same rights, they are no different, the only thing that is different is the power. Now you took what i said and completely jumbled it up, i did not say that, " My opponent also mentions that she can understand if the tattoo is 'visible'. However, if it were not visible, how would the employer know about the tattoo in the first place?" This was what i said, "You are completely right, employers have every right to deny someone a job because of a visible tattoo. If it were offensive." I said i could understand if it were offensive. not just visible. You right, you can not choose your race or gender, but getting a tattoo, is making it apart of you, it is who you are, you are denying someone because of who they are. Your not forcing anyone to hire them, you always have the option to hire someone or not too, but not based off what they look like. Let me clarify what i mean a little more when i say, "You are completely right, employers have every right to deny someone a job because of a visible tattoo. If it were offensive." What i am saying is that, if you go to a job where you have to deal with customers face to face everyday, for example being a waiter or waitress. And that person had tattoos that had swears in them, or something like that. That could be offensive to certain people they are waiting on, so no they wouldn't be right for that particular job. But, if they applied to the same place to work in the back of the house, then why should they be denied? The employer is violating your rights by judging how you look, it shouldn't matter what they look like if they can get the job done. property owner or not, your infringing on my rights.
Resolved: Employers should be legally allowed to deny employment based on visible bodily tattoos

I apologize for making an opening argument, i misread the previous message. Discrimination is defined as- the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex: You are completely right, employers have every right to deny someone a job because of a visible tattoo. If it were offensive. If it is not offensive in any way then they are discriminating. I refer to this article- http://www.careerealism.com... As of right now there are no laws to protect against this kind of discrimination, but there is a law to protect you from stereotyping(http://www.eeoc.gov... ). When the employer deny's that person a job because of their tattoo, what could be their reasoning? If it's not offensive what other reasoning can there be? It's not professional? What is professionalism exactly? Professionalism- the competence or skill expected of a professional: This does not state that you have to look a certain way in order to be professional. If you have full sleeve tattoos, yet you can dress appropriately and do the job correctly what is the problem? A person can have their property rights all they want but everyone still has their own rights, just because you are an employer does not mean your rights trump mine, only your authority does. Thank you for this opportunity to debate this topic with you, i look forward to hearing your next argument. Sources- http://dictionary.reference.com... http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Resolved: Employers should be legally allowed to deny employment based on visible bodily tattoos

To start off thank you for this opportunity, Employers should not be allowed to deny employment because of visible tattoos. Deny a person a job because of tattoos is wrong for multiple reasons, 1) you would be denying someone the right to be themselves and display that. and 2) Its discriminating against that person Reason 1- As you should know, body modification is a huge part of our society today. Everyday people are modifying their bodies,people are ether getting tattoos, having plastic sugary done, piercings or anything like that. For you to go into a job and be denied that job that your are perfectly qualified for because you have tattoos is wrong. Now, i can completely understand why an employer would deny that person if the have offensive, or inappropriate tattoos, that were visible. But if someone have full sleeve tattoos, in which non are inappropriate, and they are better for the job then any other person in that room. Why would you deny them that job? 2) It is defiantly discriminating against the person with the tattoos. Because they are being judged on what they look like rather then what they can do.