BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That it is rightfully moral and just to kill one innocent person to save many innocent persons.

I sincerely regret that my opponent was unable to develop a response in time, so the final argument is left to me with nothing to provide a rebuttal to. There are certain private rights that should not be surrendered to the public good, except by the willful consent of the private citizen. Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness are among these. No one should be able to take your life from you, unless you forfeited your life by taking someone else's. No one should be able to take your liberty from you, unless you forfeited your liberty through a serious crime. No one should be able to take your persuit of happiness from you, unless you took away someone else's. There are people very sick in this world with no medical insurance to give them traditional treatments, who offer their bodies to sacrifice for experiments as well as several who donate their bodies to science after they die. These are important, but they differ greatly from Pro's argument in one powerful regard: the person /willingly/ surrenders their bodies to science. Its their consent and decision. What Pro is talking about is killing an innocent person without their will or consent. That it might save a lot more could be used to excuse the German medical experiments on Jews and other political prisoners during World War II. Beneficial or not, the ends do not justify the means in this case to me, and I hope you, the voter, agrees. I thank you for participating, as well as my opponent and hope all is well with them. I know real life has an irritating renown for interrupting online activities. I certainly hope none of you are abducted for involuntary medical experiments! Read the arguments, try to be objective (I know we all have opinions going in, else we wouldn't go to DDO!) and vote as your judgement tells you who made the better argument.
That it is rightfully moral and just to kill one innocent person to save many innocent persons.

I wouldn't trust any policeman who would knowingly shoot an innocent person to death, that's for certain, regardless of how much of a burden they are. The "greater good is served" argument could be logically, rationally applied to support Adolf Hitler's efforts against the Jewish minority of Germany. The medical experiments doubtlessly greatly advanced medicine "for the greater good." The sudden transfer of expensive labor to free slave labor doubtlessly helped Germany become strong in the wake of the economic devastation it endured following its defeat in World War I; certainly there was a "greater good" served for the white German majority. Based on pro's criteria, the German Nazi party made necessary sacrifices for a greater good, and thus their efforts were justified regardless of the minority population they sacrificed. I'm not going to even bother responding to his rebuttals, as he seemed to miss the point -- I was asking whether Pro was comfortable with the "Yes, make the involuntary sacrifice of innocents" in each of those cases. Clearly he mis-interpreted them to mean I would take the "pro" side to each and all of them since I took the "pro" side to a triage situation -- but I would take the con side. I would like Pro to discuss why, in much more detail than he gave above, he would take the "Pro" side in each of those cases. I intentionally didn't answer the question, because I wanted Pro to answer first. For the last, it was a hypothetical scenario, and I'm not sure why "Pro" has such confidence in intelligence reports, certainly we've seen very harsh real-world examples of the world's sole supowerpower flubbing Intelligence in persuit of an agenda. Going to that real-world example, I ask Pro to consider whether the "sacrifice of innocents" in Iraq was worth it? It was supposedly a retaliation for 9-11, and both the American People and the world were told that Hussein had links to al-Qaeda and the 9-11 attacks. We were also told "slam dunk" that Saddam was developing new WMDs beyond the ones we gave him. We were led to believe Saddam was helping, participating or planning on attacks to threaten America and kill Americans. The sacrifice has been high ... in addition to thousands of American troops, more than half a million Iraqis have been killed as a result of the chaos and anarchy we created in the wake of destroying Hussein's regime. Terrible as it had been, Hussein's regime kept the country from descending into civil war. Are all these deaths worth now knowing Hussein most definitely poses no threat to anyone again?
That it is rightfully moral and just to kill one innocent person to save many innocent persons.

Hello, I am a public forum debater that decided to take on a Lincoln Douglas topic. Remember that Lincoln Douglas is about morality and acceptance in society so don't count on little tubs of evidence to win. :) Accept if you want a good debate about morality. Best of luck and may the best debater win. Think about this scenario - a terrorist wants to bomb a building. He prepares the bomb puts it inside and makes a detonator which he is running with( because let's say you are a police man and you caught him. ) He tosses he detonator in the bushes and runs away. Suddenly a little boy walks up and starts playing with it trying to push the button. There are 200 people inside the building. Is it rightfully moral and just to shoot the little boy to save the 200 people? Yes, it is. Think about it if you're the policeman. Its a very difficult decision to make but you haven't got much time and there are 200 people inside that building. One life against 200. This is acceptable because we must think of the greater good. If you shoot the little boy you will be saving 200 lives. People with families. Yes, it would be tragedy for the family of this boy, but how much more of a tragedy if 200 others are dead. If you vote con you will be killing 200 others for the sake of saving one. If you vote pro the greater good is accomplished. Vote pro :) I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. First of all- the reality of the scenario doesn't necessarily matter; it still falls under the resolution. We can use his if he wants. The point= is it right. Second- he said that there might be other ways to stop the boy- well lets assume he is too far for him to hear you. Lets assume you have two options. .. as i stated in round one. I believe/assume my opponent has nothing else to say considering he is not attacking my arguments directly; instead he is trying to beat around the bush by telling the voters that my scenario "isn't real enough". Again thats not the point. Point= is it right. Third- My opponent admits himself that since we have two options he would take the pro. "If these are the two and only two options, then in this specific case (given those unrealistic boundaries), then yes, in that situation, killing the boy to save 200 is an unfortunate, tragic lesser of two evils and the one I would take. " Fourth- In his example about the disease he argues the pro by saying that a cure will probably be found. Fifth- In his last example he (as in all the others) he gives the question but doesn't answer it. As for the pro- First of all you don't have to nuke every inch of that country- there is such thing as intelligence so we could have an idea of where they were located to start taking them down. Would some innocent people be killed? Yes. Would it be worth possibly saving our country or the surrounding countries from acts of terrorism, invasion, and deaths? Yes. Thank you for your time. :)
That it is rightfully moral and just to kill one innocent person to save many innocent persons.

"Pro" has not given any exceptions to the case, so I submit that sort of example he gave of an immediate situation is not the only one covered by the official debate title: That it is rightfully moral and just to kill one innocent person to save many innocent persons. == CRITICISMS & REBUTTAL TO PRO'S HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO == First, there are a number of alternatives to shooting the boy. Shout at the boy to get him to stop, run at the boy (assuming he isn't mute) should give enough time to take the trigger from his hands, or if there is not enough time to run at the boy, if you happened to be so equipped, a non-lethal meas such as throwing a stone or firing a "bean bag gun". And even if you had to shoot, why not just shoot the boy's arms? However, in the event that Pro intends this hypothetical example to be bounded by the two options of "Shoot to kill the boy to stop him OR do nothing and allow the boy to accidentally kill 200 people. " If these are the two and only two options, then in this specific case (given those unrealistic boundaries), then yes, in that situation, killing the boy to save 200 is an unfortunate, tragic lesser of two evils and the one I would take; I would view it as a form of triage. I submit, however, this is far from conclusively proving the subject of this debate. Referring to the scenario, the hypothetical scenario is simply unrealistic. I thus present a hypothetical situations of my own for Pro to disprove as being an example that disproves the totality of the debate topic: == CON'S HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO #1 == A cure for a terrible disease that kills 100,000 people every year if lethal medical experiments were performed on 20,000 people. (Presume somehow you magically know this to be true, and the only way to get the cure is through these experiments) Should it be legal? == HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO #1 EXTENSION #1 == A lot less messier, less-labratoristic-fake situation: Give the above situation, but everything is less than certain. You don't know for certain that a cure would come, but there's certainly a good chance that if you conduct enough lethal experiments, a cure might be found. == HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO #2 == Instead of a disease, let's take a more brutal real-life example: Islaamist terrorist extremists. If we knew somehow that all the terrorists were in one single country, would it be worth the loss of innocent lives if we were to nuke every last inch of that country, thus killing all of the terrorists (though you would, along with the terrorists, kill all the innocent people of that country)? This, too, falls under the "That it is rightfully moral and just to kill one innocent person to save many innocent persons. " subject of this debate. I eagerly await Pro's response.
the abrahamic religions corrupts and destroys society, if there is a god, he is evil

it is just not right to wipe out an entire species and race. there is no possible way to justify the slaughter of children by the actions of their fathers, people simply change in due time. genocide can not be defended in any way possible. i find it quite ironic with you saying that you preach the word of peacefull god and love for you fellow man,and then you go on defending genoice. jesus said that non believers will burn in an everlasting hell. and do you really think it makes a difference if the victim is tortured 1000 years or an eternity? of recorded history, about 894 million people have died in religious wars. in the taiping rebellion,caused by a man thinking he was the brother of jesus, a 100 million people died. the spanish/portugese conquest of america 138 million died. in ww2 a war started by a catholic austrian strongly supported by the catholic church, 85 million people died in that war. between 800-900 million people have died in religious wars. https://en.wikipedia.org... i simply do not understand how u can stand here and defend genocide. i understand clearer and clearer day by day that it is the people who practise it, apologizers like you.defending genocide. supporting god by whatever he may command, however immoral they seem. can you learn to think for yourself? do you not see that this is wrong, god is wrong,religion is wrong,religious killings are wrong. you are wrong what you stand by is immoral, it is apphauling. these are communist regimes, governed by evil people. there are evil people, atheist and religous. yes suicide bombings, religious suicide. muslims, ur brothers, followers of abraham. i do not find what you preach any better! any less disgusting! yes united states have the most religious people. look whats happening to it? drifting further and further into ignorance and anti-semitism, into hate. what you preach, what man you are. if you really stand by this, you are a disgusting human being. im not religious person. i do not believe in a god, and certainly not a god one. if u seek to banish me too hell go ahead. i believe i will find my companionship alot more intresting
the abrahamic religions corrupts and destroys society, if there is a god, he is evil

your first argument. the only thing you have done by these arguments are ridiciuling yourself. im embarassed how you in the one moment says the the christian god is a peace loving god, then u continue in ur argument by posing muslim beheadings and calling allah the antichrist. do you think us christians are any better? have you forgotten the Srebrenica massacre.have u forgotten how christians fundamentalists shoot up abortion clinics that support women making their own choices and taking control over their own body. u laugh at her argument. while your argument is just as ridiculous? you see god as strong leader? really? god is jealous. wanting adulterers put to death is not strength. it is weakness a god is not a strong leader of a family? what did he do with his first son that started asking? that did oppose him instead of trying to reconcile with him? cast him out and banish him to hell what happened to his son and daughter adam an eve? those who got cast out of eden for eating his favorite apple. i he seeks death and punishment on those who oppose him, on those who left him. the so called apostates he is not even impressive as a Semitic warlord, less as a god And now 1/3 of the world is under this construct. yes, they are called third world countries. espionage? is this theory supposed to defend genocide? no i dont want to be under god. i cast him away as nothing serious. when i die i will be turned to ash and that will it, that will be the end of my existence. childlike tantrums I will execute great vengeance on them with wrathful rebukes. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon them." ezekiel 25:17 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. Hosea 13:16 Deuteronomy 20:16-17 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, gods vengeance is abit harsh, dont u think? yea and that last point, i dont see how condemning apostates to death is being a "gentleman"
the abrahamic religions corrupts and destroys society, if there is a god, he is evil

the abrahamic religions. the jew,the christian, the muslim three fools that praise a fear mongering god. a god that applauds genocide and sees women as cattle. their holy men spreading the fear of god into their believers. God is evil,corrupts society,he is big brother. you are not even allowed to have you own free will because "god has a plan for us all" god has chosen a path for you, if you do his will and pray he will see you well in heaven. where is your god? was god watching as josef fritzl molested his poor daughter while their children born of incest watched their mother being raped, how many times did you think she pray to god? how many times did he answer? there was not a god who rescued her, it was human beings. God is a racist, God is a misogynist, God is a xenophobe, God is a warmonger, God is a tyrant, God is unjust, God is egocentric, God is a psychopath. God is the exact opposite of a politically correct being.
Existence of God.

You said in your thread that there is a god, and you can assure me that. Well, I want you to assure me. Please, try to refrain from scripture, as you would need to prove it for it to have any relevance. By assure, I mean for you to present a very convincing argument, or at least a well thought out one. I want you to present such an argument that it will win you the majority of votes, or at least impress me.
Taoism is the One True Religon

1. RebuttalMy opponent admits that he is not able to prove his original assertion that "Taoism is the One True Religion". As I stated in the previous round, my opponent should have made a more modest claim, such as "Taoism is most likely the true religion", to begin with. As it seems he has now changed his position from trying to show that "Taoism is the One True Religion" to something like "There is evidence that Taoism might be the one true religion", we can move on and look at the arguments. However, it should be noted that my opponent is still responsible for carrying the burden of proof in showing that there is evidence to believe that Taoism is the one true religion. So far, my opponent has failed to carry this burden of proof.Next, my opponent admits that he does not have an answer to the dilemma I posed regarding his knowledge of what is "good" and what is "evil". He simply changes the topic and begins asking questions about proof. I am not asking for proof of anything, a simple answer will do. I urge my opponent to come up with an answer for the dilemma I presented in the opening round.My opponent continues to assert that logic and thought cannot exist independently of Taoism:"logic" cannot have existed independently of the Tao or its following (Taoism)"When I asked my opponent how this could be possible when Taoism has only been in existence for less than 3,000 years, he was unable to provide an answer. If my opponent is correct, then it would follow that logic and thought have existed for less than 3,000 years. This, of course, is trivially false. 2. SummaryIt seems as though my opponent's predispositions cloud his judgement, as he has thus far been unable to recognize the obvious falsities within his very own arguments. At the beginning of the debate, my opponent provided 5 arguments to support his position that "Taoism is the One True Religion". He then posed this challenge:"The opponent must show that the claims of 1-5 are logically inconsistent, factually incorrect, or contain implications that a decent human being could not live with or be proud to acknowledge." I successfully refuted each of my opponent's five arguments, and so it follows that there is not one good reason to believe that Taoism is true, much less any reason to believe that "Taoism is the One True Religion" as my opponent originally asserted. My opponent conceded two of his arguments in the last round, and he has not even attempted to defend the remaining three arguments in this round. Surely my opponent is able to recognize that there is no good reason to believe that "Taoism is the One True Religion".
Taoism is the One True Religon

Taoism is the One True Religion, as defined solely by the Holy Scriptures of the Tao-teh-ching, the Chuang-tzu and the Lieh-tzu. (This is to distinguish Philosophical Taoism from Popular Taoism. The former is perfect. The latter is imperfect). Or, if "is" is too strong a word for you, "is most likely" will be better. Points of my argument: 1. These books are infallibly correct. 2. These books possess all that is good in other religions, and none of what is bad (like offensive violence, char-broiling in hell, etc.) 3. If Taoism is not true, in fact, then there is no possibility for using logic and reason, for logic and reason already assume the existence of the Great and Mysterious Tao. Even those unacquainted with the Three Holy Scriptures of Taoism use the Tao without being aware of it. Therefore, Taoism is the Mother Truth of all human thought. 4. Nicholas Cage is a Taoist. 5. Haikus are neat. If you need clarification on any of these points, please ask in comment section. The opponent must show that the claims of 1-5 are logically inconsistent, factually incorrect, or contain implications that a decent human being could not live with or be proud to acknowledge. I agree that there is no actual proof Taoism is true --- I simply argue that it is the most likely religion of being true, provided you stick the Three Holy Scriptures. The opponent may address her or his arguments or rebuttle against these points in round one. My rebutta-buttle will occur in round three, and so on and so on. Please no "Taoism is a philosophy, not a religion, maaan" arguments. This isn't the 60s. Get a job. This is a serious debate, so hit with your best shot!
The Chicago Blackhawks are the best team left in the NHL playoffs

Been wanting to take part in an NHL debate for some time now, so thanks for starting this. Unfortunately for me, the Canucks are my team, and I could probably go on for hours about them, but I don't think it'd be smart to consider the Canucks better than the Hawks, even though we beat you guys 2/3 games this season and outscored you 10-8 ;) But all joking aside, my Canucks got #rekt by the Flames somehow, and although it was a great series, I was left crying myself to sleep night after night. And as much as I'd love to see the Flames get destroyed by the Ducks, Kesler is with them and if he wins the cup I probably will just lie down and die. Okay actually all joking aside... I figured I'd just have to show some teams that have had a better regular seasons (six teams) or higher differential (Lightning, Blues and Rangers), but considering you want your opponent to pick one team to compare to the Hawks, I'll pick the New York Rangers. Not necessarily because they were awarded the cursed Presidents' Trophy, although that does play a factor, but because of the record between the Rangers and Hawks this year, as well as plenty of other factors. It's unfortunate they only played two games this year, but we'll work with those. I'm assuming we'll only use this season? I think that'd be most reasonable, sticking to the most current rosters. Or can we go back a certain number of years? I'm sure if we do that you can use your cup(s) for a big boost but that'll be up to you to decide if we can only refer to this season or not. I also guess the playoffs aren't helping my argument that well but I'll figure something out. Either way, this has been my incredibly long acceptance round, so I'm looking forward to a good debate. Let's see if the Rangers can theoretically defeat the Blackhawks.
The Chicago Blackhawks are the best team left in the NHL playoffs

This debate is as of May 4th, 2015. Anything that happens after today cannot be referred to in the debate. "Best" is defined as "better than all others in quality or value" (1) BOP is shared, because Con must argue for a team he/she feels is better than Chicago, who is left: NYR, Washington, Montreal, TB, Anaheim, Calgary, or Minnesota. Con must reveal this team in the first round. First round is acceptance only. 1-http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Republican policies are more economically sound than Democratic policies

I gladly accept your challenge. My argument begins here: Democratic economic policies are more sound as they minutely raise takes on the middle class, but raise taxes much higher for rich americans. This extra tax money from the rich circulates back to the poor and middle class for social security, infrastructure, funding for hospitals, schools, airports and other helpful parties. These taxes on the rich will barley put a dent in their gold plated pockets while greatly helping worse off Americans. Also Democratic economic policies spend more money on social services instead of the military, which is good because if we downsize the military we will save very much money and help reverse the national debt.