BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Snipers are cowards

"Zaphod did not want to tangle with them and, deciding that just as discretion is the better part of valor, so was cowardice is the better part of discretion, he valiantly hid himself in a closet." R13; Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything I start with this quote for several reasons. Zaphod, as a character in the classic Douglas Adams novel"s, exhibits bravery and cowardice throughout. He is neither always one nor the other. Also, cowardice, while undeniably a negative term, is not necessarily always a poor choice given a situation. Any individual that voluntary goes to war can be described as brave. They are moving closer to danger, enduring "dangerous or unpleasant things". However, every action they take may not be brave, many may be acts of cowardice, and may be a good choice. The story of war post World War II is primarily a story of asymmetrical war. The western world possessing technical and tactical superiority, with the United States undeniably the leader. We deploy to battlefields with monstrous advantages over almost any foe. The response to our superiorities is unconventional tactics and weapons. IED are a current example. IED are often described as cowardly[1][2][3][4], and I agree. Often the weapon is triggered by a combatant some distance from the device with enough visibility of the situation to know when best to detonate the device. The IED as I have described, I find disturbing close to the action of the sniper. Each can be said to be not a "fair fight", or just not cricket. "The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy." - Sun Tzu. Let"s stare down the scope of the snipers rifle, or the binoculars of the combatant holding the trigger for an IED. Each has attempted to remove himself as best as possible from danger, he has done this to lay in wait. The only way for his tactical advantage to be useful is to remain as far away, and as unseen as possible. The enemy, his target, may be involved in almost any activity when they move within range of his weapon. He may be preparing to attack my fellow men, or eating a cheeseburger. He is my enemy, and any attempt to discuss morality of killing someone eating a cheeseburger is folly in something as generally horrific as war. If I identify him as an enemy, killing him is part of my job description. It may not be a "fair fight" but war is hell and sometimes cowardly. The enemy has no chance to defend himself, or even know the attack is coming. Lacking the courage to endure the danger of what might be described as a "fair fight" is smart and cowardly. "The real hero is always a hero by mistake; he dreams of being an honest coward like everybody else." R13; Umberto Eco. It is natural and smart to remove yourself from danger " even in war. It is human to fear danger and pain. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] http://www.breitbart.com... [3] http://rationalselfdefense.com... [4] http://blog.al.com...
Snipers are cowards

Thanks to TBR for accepting this controversial topic. I will prove my position that snipers are not cowards through the following three points. 1. When deployed, snipers are still in a war zone. 2. Snipers are often made targets. 3. Snipers suffer more outside of combat. 1. When deployed, snipers are still in a war zone. This is pretty obvious. War zones are chaotic, unpredictable environments, and snipers aren't necessarily safe in such situations just because they use long-range weapons. Circumstances are unpredictable, and the fact that they would put themselves in such a high-risk situation proves that they aren't "lacing courage to do dangerous or unpleasant things." Go to 2:50 in the attached video, snipers don't have long after making a shot before the enemy hones in on their position. [1] 2. Snipers are often made targets. Snipers are extremely lethal, as about 70% of sniper targets are killed. [2] It makes sense, then, that snipers are made targets by the enemy. For example, if you start at 4:20 on the video [1] you will see Chris Kyle tell Conan that the Iraqi insurgents put a $20,000 reward on the head of all American snipers. When you've got a $20,000 reward offered for your death, but keep fighting, again this disproves that snipers lack courage to do dangerous things. 3. Snipers suffer more outside of combat. Snipers obviously use long range rifles with powerful scopes so that they can accurately aim at their target. This also means that snipers can watch as their bullet kills the enemy soldier, up close and personal. Snipers oftentimes were unable to dehumanize their enemies like common foot soldiers did, calling them humans rather than targets. [3] It's harder to feel justified killing a human than a target. Short and sweet. Snipers go through both dangerous and uncomfortable situations, and therefore are not cowards. Thank you. [1] http://totalfratmove.com... [2] http://www.captainsjournal.com... [3] http://www.bbc.com...
Snipers are cowards

This debate was inspired by director Michael Moore's tweet calling snipers cowards who will shoot you in the back. *Note, the "shoot you in the back" part is not a part of the resolution, but rather used to provide some more context. The full resolution is "Snipers are cowards."* http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Round 1: Acceptance (and any definitions Pro would like to make) *If Pro wishes to start arguments here, push each other round forward one and for the final round put something to the effect of "Left blank as agreed upon"* Round 2: Contructives Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Conclusions No new arguments in the final round! No trolling. Only accept if you actually want to debate this topic.
Snipers are cowards

First, I truly thank con for opening the debate. I have been sitting on this conclusion for some time now. Rethinking, questioning. The entire debate made me rework points I wanted to included, jettisoning what was overly argumentative, or inflammatory. This happens with subjects that are perceived as insulting. Charging people as "cowards" sure seems insulting. The main points discussed have to do with anyone attempting to remove themselves as completely from danger as possible. I have stated that is behavior is very natural. It is understandable. It is also cowardly. An attempt to kill another person without risking one"s own life. Putting oneself in the most removed position possible and killing without any ability for my foe to defend. IEDs are a good example of this, a good parallel with snipers. We feel comfortable calling the use "cowardly" with good reason. It is cowardly. From the perspective of the force using the tactic, it is understandable, wise, and cowardly too. That some IEDs are triggered by other means is not entirely relevant. Others, most, are very similar to the tactic of the sniper. Cowardice is based on actions and behavior. It has a nasty feel to call someone a coward. It"s hard to argue this point knowing people reading might have served, and feel personally insulted. My effort is not to insult. My position is, cowardice as defined is a natural action. War is no game. Taking a life, or losing your own. If saving one"s life included cowardly behavior, then be a coward.
Snipers are cowards

Now for my conclusion. I will provide three key voting issues as to why the voters should go Con.1. Snipers endure danger. As proven in my constructive and agreed to by Pro, snipers are placed in an unstable warzone. The situations are unpredictable and snipers may be in danger at any moment. After they take a shot, they are targeted almost instantaneously, and therefore endure a dangerous situation. Though Pro brings up how the snipers are removed from the situation, as soon as their bullet leaves their rifle, the enemy knows exactly where the sniper is hidden, and a $20,000 incentive is put for the enemy to kill that sniper. the sniper is put into danger.2. Snipers endure unpleasantries. I'd like to refute my opponent's claim that my third point flows to his side of the debate. Watching your enemy die, up close, without any doubt that it was in fact you bullet that ended his or her life, is without a doubt unpleasant, as the inherent mental health effects conceded by Pro in the previous round. All of these are unpleasant.3. IEDs are dissimilar. As proven in the previous round, IEDs are too different from snipers due to the fact that IED users utilize more of a hit-and-run tactic, and some IEDs are automatically detonated. They are different, and shouldn't be considered similar enough to compare. Additionally, consider the fact that Pro admitted that anyone who goes to war voluntarily can be described as brave. We aren't comparing snipers' bravery to that of their comrades. We are merely debating whether they themselves are brave. The resolution has been negated.
Snipers are cowards

I rebut my opponent’s points not without empathy for the individual sniper. Before addressing each, I would like to reiterate a point I have made. Cowardice is not consistent state, neither is bravery. Actions within a war or battle can be brave or cowardly. One minuet a coward may behave bravely, or the brave man behave as a coward. These are human reactions, often smart and understandable. 1) When deployed, snipers are still in a war zone. The bulk of section 1 of my opponent’s argument is not denied. War is a chaotic dangerous place. Snipers, like any other combatants is not safe at all times. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that cowardice exists in a war zone, or that a sniper operates from relative safety when working. The second point, which is after firing a sniper becomes vulnerable to detection and must move. Why must he move? He must move from increased danger to safety again. It’s smart to move, I don’t ask that he stay to prove bravery, but say it’s not bravery either. 2) Snipers are often made targets.In a warzone, every combatant is a target. If the enemy puts a “bounty” on the head of sniper, or every helicopters downed, that may provide incentive for additional bravery on behalf of the enemy, but also proves that the sniper or helicopter are difficult to kill because of their relative operational safety. 3) Snipers suffer more outside of combat.On first read of this point, I couldn’t make any connection with it to the subject at hand. As I read it fresh today, I think I understand better what my opponent is saying. Let me start with my initial confusion on this point. I have no doubt that snipers suffer from watching unsuspecting victims fall through their long-range scope. Killing is a terrible thing. In a fury battle a regular infantryman may not even know it was his shot that hit an enemy. There can be little doubt with the sniper. How this aligns with bravery or cowards at first eluded me. Now I see it more as my point. A sniper killing at distance, seeing his kill from distance, is cowardly. He knows that he is NOT in danger from his victim. That he sees the grizzly results may affect his mental health more, a byproduct of killing people who have no knowledge they are about to die. I will save most of my praise of my opponent for the summary round, but I can’t help but offer that this has been the best debate today for me on this site and I look forward to the conclusion round.
There is no Legally Tenable Position for Denying Homosexuals the Right to Marry Each Other

The proposition on offer is that there are no legally tenable positions for denying homosexuals, transsexuals, etc... the right to marry individuals of the same gender. ********************* If one accepts that the right to marry is a fundamental right, or that homosexuals constitute a suspect class of individual, the burden of proof falls on the state (CON) to show that their legislation is narrowly tailored to effectuate only an end that remedies some "evil" posed by allowing homosexuals to marry each other. In Round 1, I shall assert the former, that the right to marry whom you choose is a fundamental right, and thus, CON has a burden to show a good legal case or exclude marriage as a fundamental right. Otherwise, a gay couple must show that the state's regulation fails under the "rational relation" test. The most common argument put forth by the state on this point is that there is some protectiveness issue concerning children and the familial unit. However, there is little evidence to support any protective notion of children, as homosexuality has nothing to do with domestic violence. Furthermore, the solemnization of a relationship in marriage would STRENGTHEN the familial unit. Any objections to homosexuality on basis of morality can be similarly ignored, as the court has already ruled in Lawrence v Texas that consensual acts, even of sodomy are legally permissible. An appeal to any higher morality may similarly be ignored on grounds of separation of church and state. *********************** I challenge my opponent to bring forth legal argumentation on this point. No legally tenable position exists for denying homosexuals and transsexuals the right to marry each other. AFFIRMED.
Evidence suggests an Old Earth

"This is nonsense! I'll be debating on the behalf of the south! The earth is only some odd 200 years! Get a brain "moran"! You must be wanna dem fancy scientists making up some limbo jumbo 'bout the earth gettin' warm! Was it called? Global farmin' or some'm like dat? Now you lookey here son, da earth ain't no old! My history teacher, ya mighta heard of'em, JESUS, a white man might I add, sais the world is some 5 years old! This has been proven by them meteorologists! And you tell them global farmin', atheist, world is old fellers ta keep ther hands off my guns! WHIIIIIIIITE POWEWWWEER! !! ! ROOLLLLLL TIIIIDE! "My opponent has ignored all of my points and is clearly trolling in a serious debate.
Evidence suggests an Old Earth

This is nonsense! I'll be debating on the behalf of the south! The earth is only some odd 200 years! Get a brain "moran"! You must be wanna dem fancy scientists making up some limbo jumbo 'bout the earth gettin' warm! Was it called? Global farmin' or some'm like dat? Now you lookey here son, da earth ain't no old! My history teacher, ya mighta heard of'em, JESUS, a white man might I add, sais the world is some 5 years old! This has been proven by them meteorologists! And you tell them global farmin', atheist, world is old fellers ta keep ther hands off my guns! WHIIIIIIIITE POWEWWWEER!!!! ROOLLLLLL TIIIIDE!
Evidence suggests an Old Earth

This debate will be on the age of the Earth. I will be defending that the Earth is old. Radiometric dating According to radiometric dating, the oldest rocks on the Earth are about 3.8-3.9 billion years old. [1] However, if radiometric dating is not reliable, then that data is false. Now, I will prove that it is reliable. 1. No big changes in decay rates found Emery (1972) has found little changes in decay rates, and even the biggest changes are not enough radiometric dating to not be reliable. [2] Plus, the biggest changes reported are not from the isotopes used in the source I cited [3], and are therefore irrelevant. 2. The agreement of different radiometric dating methods Dalrymple (1986) has found that five different radiometric dating methods agreed on the age of a very old rock.[4] If radiometric dating is not reliable, then different dating methods won’t agree at all. 3. Scientists try to keep it reliable Isochron dating, which is radiometric dating with an added measurement, has a built in check for contamination. [5] [1] http://www.talkorigins.org... [2] Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202. [3] http://www.talkorigins.org... [4] Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp. [5] http://www.talkorigins.org...
The United States Should Switch To The Metric System

So this debate will be about whether or not the United States of America should make the switch to the metric system. This first round will be used as an introduction to lay out the format and rules of the debate. The second round will be used to lay down opening arguments. The third round will be used to provide refutations to the second round arguments. The fourth round will be used to counter refutations and to provide closing arguments. There will be a 3 day period to provide your argument. Failure to provide an argument during this time period will mean forfeiting the debate.
Medea is responsible for her actions.

1. Anger is an emotional feeling of being displeasured when the person experiences a wrong-doing. 2. There are different stages of being angry starting from ignoring the person to display acts of violence towards the person. 3. Anger could at times be controlled but overall it is a natural instinct when living organism feels betrayed. 4. Anger can stem from discontent of certain outcomes that comes out negative when you hoped for a positive. 5. Medea's anger stems from being betrayed by her children who she thought would take care of her in her later years as she has done for them in their earlier years. 6. Although Medea was slighted in some way by her family the deaths of her children is entirely her fault without any excuses. 7. Medea has the capability of practicing self-control whenever placed in a a difficult situation however difficult it might have been and should not act out of impulse. 8. Medea is the adult in the situation in the narrative and should know the difference between right and wrong. 9. Medea is responsible for her actions because as a mother her main concern should be taking care of her children and never letting them get into any harm which she did the opposite. 10. Medea consciously knew she was wrong because she would at times talk herself out of committing this crime. 11. Medea did this crime out of spite and greed because she only worried about herself and did not take into consideration the needs and wants of her children. 12. Therefore, Medea is fully responsible for her actions since she is the one who is physically and mentally more capable then the children themselves. I have made my point very clear in declaring Medea guilty as my opponent has agreed with me on several premises. Medes actions were driven solely on selfishness. A big problem my opponent had against my claim was that she strongly believed Medea was only acting out on Anger because she could not control that emotion which is proven to not be true. There has been many philosophical teaching such as Seneca and Buddhism that firmly believe anger is controllable and it should not be an action in which us humans act on or let define us. Referencing to Senecas teachings Medea should have already expected for her children to not understand her pain since they are indeed children who are only beginning to understand things in life. Referencing to Buddhism Medea should have taken the time to step back analyze and meditate with breathing excesses for her to come at peace with herself and would have probably not committed this crime at all. Unlike animals humans should not be accustomed to acting on impulse for it shows a bad judge of character and often makes the situation worse then it already was. Confronting problems in a civilized manner comes a long way in preventing any altercations.
Medea is responsible for her actions.

3. Medea could have controlled her anger but she didn"t. The feeling was too strong for her to ignore it. She could have meditated on her thoughts. Meditation has been proven to work to suppress anger but she did not do it because she didn"t have any thoughts on meditating on it. She believed what she was doing was the right thing to do. Maybe she knew deep down it was wrong, but the anger made her act on it immediately. 6. What about her reasonings made you believe she was depressed? I do not believe it was due to years of depression. It was due to the fact that she was upset. She was upset that her husband left her for another woman and she had to hurt him somehow. It was mainly his fault and partly the children"s fault. She had a thought about how her children wouldn"t care for her as she did for them, and this upset her. If her children were good kids, then maybe she would have spared their life in her ridiculous idea for revenge. This feeling of sadness then turned into anger. I believe her anger towards her children was something that grew over a certain time period, maybe a few days. I do not believe that her depression grew, or that she was depressed at all. At least, that is not how I understood the text. Her anger probably grew and she finally came to a decision. We do see this in the text because she continuously contemplates on killing her children. 7. If this case were to go to jail, she would go to jail anyway because killing is against the law. However, that still would not change the fact that her kids had it coming because their father left the family. You cannot only count Medea responsible. Yes, the court would but that is a different case. Medea is a grown up but not all grown ups have the capability to behave like the bigger person. Medea was obviously a very incompetent, and immature grown-up. She did not act like the bigger person and she also didn"t know how to control her anger. But we still cannot avoid the father"s faults in all of this. Their father slighted her. She was their mother and she deserved to be treated the way she treated them. Their father broke her trust by not doing this. She probably thought her kids would turn out just like their father since they are of the same blood. 11. Yes, Medea was wrong to rush her kids to be grown-ups. However, as a mother she had some expectations. Mothers have expectations for their kids as soon as they are born. Medea also had these expectations. Medea was just upset earlier about knowing that these kids weren"t what she expected. Most parents come to this conclusion much later, like when their kids graduate from college. However, Medea did not just kill her children because she was disappointed in them. She killed them to take revenge on their father, who had left them. That is mainly why she contemplated on killing them because she didn"t want to kill the kids just for that reason but she convinced herself that her kids will never do anything for her anyway. You cannot blame her for taking revenge. It seems like her husband deserved it for leaving the family. She had to hurt him somehow.