BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is impossible to fully win this debate.

To start off with, I'd like to make it clear that I don't agree with my opponent's opinion. This makes his first point irrelevant to any part of this debate, as I am not going to concede. I negate, "It is impossible to fully win this debate." Observation 1: The topic says nothing about an actor, so it applies to both me and my opponent as we are both participating in this debate. Observation 2: Since the resolution states "impossible" and I am on the CON, all I need to do to win the debate is provide a way to fully win the debate. It doesn't matter at all whether or not we decide to take the possibility; only that there is a way. Let's look to what the PRO says in R1. "A) To win I must win both the round and I must make my opponent concede to my opinion B) if my opponent concedes and I win the debate then I lose the debate and if he argues and I lose, Then I win. But I haven't fully won." 1) No warrants for why this should determine who wins; drop the points. I win. 2) This is basically a circular case, and the point being made is that no matter what happens, no one can really win a circular debate. I don't agree that is true. My sole argument against the resolution is that fully win[ning] is completely dependent on a point of view. And to fully win this debate, it's fairly simple. All that we have to do is believe that we won. How we see the world is how our world appears to us. If we feel like seeing sadness in the world, then we see it. If we feel like seeing happiness, then that's what we see. Translating all that into debate.org and the debate we're having right now, we can fully win by just thinking that we won our debates. For me, that's trying hard and finding loopholes/flaws/etc with my opponents arguments and getting my brain to adapt to different positions on different debates, and in my mind, I've already won all my debates. In my mind, I've only lost 2 debates, and those are when I forfeited. But again, that's just my point of view. It's all based on the point of view we use as we encounter life's situations. I'm not the only one that thinks this, either: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt "They cannot take away our self respect if we do not give it to them" - Mohandas Ghandi The winning of a debate has NEVER been dependent on what the vote count is; it has NEVER been dependent on who gets the most approval rating; it has NEVER been dependent on who is more "with the crowd". We can all fully win our debates: If we just think about it that way.
The United States judicial system is seriously flawed.

Okay, I think that our judicial system is seriously flawed. There are two reasons for this: 1. The Supreme Court According to "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constituion", the Founding Fathers had intended for the judicial branch to be the weakest branch of the federal government. Until, of course, Marshall devised the idea of judicial review. http://en.wikipedia.org... This now makes the judicial branch the most powerful branch, as it has the power to interpret the Constitution, using any wording flaws they choose. Additionaly, the president has the power to appoint a Justice to the Supreme Court for life, with approval from Senate. Because the Supreme Court usually only reviews highly controversial subjects, the only thing that really matters is whoever was president at the time a Justice died or retired, as long as he also had control of the Senate. This potential abuse of power is a serious flaw. 2. Jury Selection http://en.wikipedia.org... Basically, some random citizens who qualify for jury duty are placed in a "pool", and twelve of them are randomly decided. Then, they investigate each potential juror. If a lawyer is afraid of that person being on the jury, usually because he knows that his client is guilty and that the potential juror is smart enough to realize this, then he will remove that person from the pool for a new person. In this way, the majority of the jury usually ends up being unintelligent. Usually, once the "guilty lawyer" recognizes someone as an engineer, who can actually interpret facts correctly and recognize that the defendant is guilty, he is automatically ejected. This entire process results in a less competent jury than could be hoped, which leads to less court cases reaching the verdict that they should have. These are two major flaws of our judicial system. It is seriously flawed. Thank you for reading.
The United States judicial system is seriously flawed.

My opponent has taken the position that our judicial system is seriously flawed, and there are two things wrong with it, and that my position is not a disagreement with his. My position is that when the judicial system says the judicial system is "all but collapsed," it is actually much worse. It cannot be saved, and that there are many things wrong with it, and that my position is a disagreement with his. The Constitution spells out our rights. If something is unconstitutional it probably is so because it infringes on our rights in some way. Therefore, in general, a ruling that a law is unconstitutional is in the direction of protecting our rights. This is often a good thing. The sign says "Where Law Ends Tyranny Begins." It should say "Where Law Ends Freedom Begins." I went inside anyway. I didn't know it at the time, but I ended up talking to the gentleman who had argued, years earlier, that it wasn't really necessary to advise Mr. Miranda of his right to an attorney. What do you think? I asked. "Of letting grand juries have an attorney? No," he interrupted. That was in fact my question. "No," he continued, "They'll just indict everyone from the governor on down." That was also what I had in mind. The grand jury at least needs to know what is going on, which they do not. And that is the bottom line. You cannot say the system does not work if you don't use it properly. And in order for that to happen everyone has to take an interest and participate and demand the best. You're supposed to be fighting in support of our judicial system. You're attacking it. You're conceding the entire debate, pretty much. The rules are that I must disagree with my opponent, not oppose entirely as is commonly supposed. The reasoning is that the opposition gets to take a stand just like the other guy.
The United States judicial system is seriously flawed.

Thank you for finally responding. "Sorry I overslept but that did not prevent my opponent from posting." Why would it? "The way a debate works is first one side takes a position and defends it; then the opposition takes a stand disagreeing with them and they take turns admiring their own stand and trashing the other guy's." I always thought that the way a debate works is that one guy says his contentions, then the other guy counters those contentions, and present his own contentions, then the first guy would defend his contentions and attack the other guy's contentions, and so on. "It will take a long time for this to become accepted in debate.com land and it certainly is terribly unfair to let the opposition take a stand just like the other guy but that's just the way these unfair rules are written..." I really don't care about your murder case. Sorry. "I have failed to counter my opponent's argument and he has failed to address mine so I believe his description of the consequences of this may be somewhat exaggerated." I addressed your argument by calling it irrelevant. "The jury pool is not randomly selected." I see nothing in your source that addresses the whole of the United States. Additionally: "The public knows 'the criminal justice system has all but collapsed'... those convicted of crimes know that too --------Espinoza v Martin, 182 Ariz. 145 at 155" I would say that something that has "all but collapsed" is seriously flawed, wouldn't you? "The one thing attorneys can agree on is that if law were to be decided based on the law they would all be out of a job. The system you describe is at least equally unfair to both sides. Researching the philosophy of preemtory challenge might be enlightening but if my opponent asserts this is a flaw that argument must be supported." Not really; with only removals and not protection; it becomes very easy for the guilty to remove the intelligent jurors, but it is difficult for the prosecutors to keep the intelligent. You will almost never see an engineer on a jury; I know a man who never got into an actual court jury until he retired. "My opponent asserts that there are two major flaws to our judicial system. There are many. Where shall I start?" That was my resolution. You're supposed to be fighting in support of our judicial system. You're attacking it. You're conceding the entire debate, pretty much. So, because you agree with the resolution, you probably would have wanted to be CON, not PRO. I think I win this debate now. Thank you for your time.
The United States judicial system is seriously flawed.

Sorry I overslept but that did not prevent my opponent from posting. The way a debate works is first one side takes a position and defends it; then the opposition takes a stand disagreeing with them and they take turns admiring their own stand and trashing the other guy's. I am really considered quite a radical in these parts when I insist this is the way it works. It will take a long time for this to become accepted in debate.com land and it certainly is terribly unfair to let the opposition take a stand just like the other guy but that's just the way these unfair rules are written. These unfair rules should be changed becuse better debates happen when all you have to do is make some stupid statement like "Murder is wrong" and no matter what happens at the end of the debate it is scored by stupidly asking if you still believe that murder is wrong. http://www.debate.org... But I argued that since murder is the illegal killing of another person with malice aforethought that a better statement would be that ANY killing of another person with malice aforethought is wrong. It's a good thing this sleasy tactic was soundly defeated by the judges. Everyone knows that murder is wrong. I have failed to counter my opponent's argument and he has failed to address mine so I believe his description of the consequences of this may be somewhat exaggerated. My position must disagree with my opponent's. My opponent states that the judicial system is seriously flawed. My response is that it is in need of dismantling. This is certainly a disagreement. Similarly, my position on the grand jury system is at odds with that of my opponent. If it turns out to be a contest of who can trash the system the worst that would be fun too. The jury pool is not randomly selected. http://www.finitesite.com... The prosecutin attorney keeps a list of favorable jurors. I'm pretty safe. The one thing attorneys can agree on is that if law were to be decided based on the law they would all be out of a job. The system you describe is at least equally unfair to both sides. Researching the philosophy of preemtory challenge might be enlightening but if my opponent asserts this is a flaw that argument must be supported. My opponent asserts that there are two major flaws to our judicial system. There are many. Where shall I start? The Mumia Exception http://www.thiscantbehappening.net... Where is my opponent from? Omigod Texas. So I suppose our Admin http://www.mysanantonio.com... and court systems are just fine then. Here's http://www.lonestaricon.com... the best thing out of Crawford, Texas. That's http://www.finitesite.com... all for now.
The United States judicial system is seriously flawed.

Thank you for responding. Notice how you completely ignored Contention 1: The Supreme Court. This means that you have conceded every single point within that contention. I stated ,"This potential abuse of power is a serious flaw," which you agreed with. Thus, you conceded that the United States judicial system is seriously flawed, which is the resolution, so you basically just conceded the ENTIRE debate. Also, for a list of criteria for a good democratic institution, this should be added: The jury and judge frequently find the proper person guilty, and press charges where they are due. Yes, we may have Grand Juries to determine whether there is enough evidence to do a trial in the first place. . http://en.wikipedia.org... However, a petit jury (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) is required to actually press charges on the defendant. You did not attack the point I made about the power lawyers have over choosing the petit jury in a way that pleases them, usually through eliminating anyone who could actually discover that their client was guilty. Because you never attacked the power of lawyers, you conceded Contention 2: Jury Selection, which was another serious flaw. You have conceded the debate by not discussing the issues at hand, but rather clarifying a part of the Judicial System which may or may not be flawed. It's flaws are irrelevant, as I have already proved that the United States judicial system is seriously flawed. I have won this debate.
Terminally ill patients should be given the option of assisted death

I will begin this debate by defining Terminal Illness. A Terminal illness is a disease that cannot be cured or treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient ( most terminal patients have about 6 months to live ). With that definition you can see that there is no treatment for a patient who is considered terminal. The only thing they can do is sit and wait to die. In that time there pain will worsen. There are few things that doctors can do to help the patient. They could place them on a respirator to help them breath or they can give them drugs to ease the pain. However as the disease progresses the drugs will no longer help the pain. That is why assisted death should be an option. Imagine you had a loved one with terminal cancer. The doctors told you they had six months to live, and they are now in there 5 month of being diagnosed. They are in so much pain it hurts them to even move an inch, and the drugs the doctors have them on are no longer working. They want to die. What would you do? To not let them die because you want to spend more time with them would be selfish and inhumane. They are in pain. They are no longer the person you once knew. If they where given the option of assisted death and they wanted it, you should respect that. http://www.lonestar.edu... https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Terminally ill patients should be given the option of assisted death

We should give terminally ill patients physiological care, not the option to kill themself: "A scientific study of people with terminal illness published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that fewer than one in four expressed a wish to die, and all of those who did had clinically diagnosable depression.... Effective psychotherapeutic treatment is possible with the terminally ill" [1] My opponent says there is no treatment available when drugs don't work, but pain can be managed, and in the worst case scenario a person can be frozen until a cure is found. Letting someone give up on hope is wrong, It is also wrong to put someone in a position where they have to help someone end their life. No-one can accurately say how long someone has to live, and whether a cure will be found in time. We should not give up on anybody or have a negative view of life. People who don't want someone to die who want to spend more time with someone are not selfish, they love that person, and love is not selfish. Women may say if you love/respect me you'll do this or that. But doing what they tell you to do i.e. "respecting their choice" would end a relationship with them, as respect is not shown by simply doing what someone wants you to. Telling a terminally ill person that you understand their pain and will let a doctor kill them is the same. You are not actually respecting their choice. Think about the message it would send to everyone else if it were legal to assist someone in killing them self, you'd be saying that a disabled person's life is less precious when in fact all life is equal and worth living. If assisted suicide is legal and considered okay, people are more likely to feel a burden to other people due to there being an option to end their life. People will have less respect for life especially disabled or older people, which leads to misery, which leads to a weakened immune system, which then leads to illness. So basically more people will be terminally ill if it is legal for someone to assist someone killing them self. If you want less people to suffer then assisting someone to kill them self should remain illegal. My opponent says 'They are no longer the person you once knew' which I think devalues terminally ill people. Everyone changes, no-one can be like before, pain is what makes us who we are, and is the reason we can be loved. A natural death is therefore something that no-one should fear. sources: [1] http://www.nrlc.org...
Jesus Had Sex With apostle Paul

My opponent states that merely because of the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was surrounding by his male apostles that he was in fact a homosexual. There's multitudes of problems with this. First, abstinence from relations was common in rabbinic culture and Jewish tradition. Second, it was oft said that Christ was in marriage between himself and the Church. Third, he was a homeless migrant without funds nor money and he probably hadn't had a shower in a while, meaning he wasn't exactly a Romeo. Arranged marriage was likely impossible as others write in the Gospels that his parents didn't buy his supposed act and con job and believed him to be a fraud. It was unlikely he was going to get any help from them. Regardless, he wasn't wealthy enough to suade fathers to deflower their daughters, as appropriation was the norm. Forth, if he was in fact as pure as lamb and white as snow, this would be deviated by him having sexual relations. Under the (shaky) assumption that Jesus of Nazareth engaged in relations, Paul isn't the most viable option. First, Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus and the good works afterwards were all after the crucifixion. At no point does Paul meet a material Christ as recorded in the Gospels. Second, the disciple which Jesus loved such as in John 23, was one of the 12, oft interpreted to be John. Third, the non canonical Coptic Gospel of Thomas in the Nag Hammadi library stated that he was married to his wife. Many have speculated that the Galilean carpenter was with Mary Magdalene too. Overall, the likelihood in which Jesus had relations are equivalent to that of a camel going through the eye of a needle, and even if that was the case, there are multiple, much more viable options as compared to Paul.
Jesus Had Sex With apostle Paul

Jesus chooses to be surrounded by Males, all his apostles was Males, isn't that shows to us that Jesus had a Homosexual behavior, or at least that he hates womens ? isn't that make it obvious why in the bible mention about 7 times that homosexuality is sin, so he can cover himself because the society he lived it wasn't pro with gay sex and he will exposed if he don't mention that he hates homos?
The troop surge is working

You say to define working. I know that you know what i mean by working, but I will define it anyway. Working is it (the surge) is doing what it was ment to do. Another word, it isn't exactly like it, helping. "what is it ultimately accomplishing? "-Dairygirl The surge is ultimately accomplishing a safer Iraq for not only their citizens, but our troops too. I bet you that our troops feel safer in Iraq than they did before the surge. There is ultimately less chance of an attack. You may say that we already have a safe Iraq than before. That was before. It is still dangerous there. The is still chances for bombs, murders, tortures of Iraqi citizens. The surge is just a large step on the latter to a safe Iraq. I don't see how your argument is saying that the surge ISN'T working. I think it sounds more like why the surge shoud have never happened. But I will try to respond to it. "cut out the extra fluff"-dairygirl What is the extra fluff? Why should we cut it out? Please explain more. If Britain is pulling out, why should we? America is the greatest country on earth. We are the power house. We lead the way. So why should we follow Britain? There are many effects of the surge. Of course we have the obvious, less casualties and more security. Then there are other things that there are no facts for. More Iraqis are getting seriouser about security than ever before. Time Magazine said in an article in February that Baghdad was too quiet. Yes that is too quiet. The month with the highest death rate, April and November 2004. That was 3 years ago, so the surge has lowered the death rate. Your argument, wasn't really about why the debate isn't working.
The troop surge is working

i think we should keep tropps in iraq, but doubt we should keep the surge. how do you define "working"? obviously, by the stats you provide, and general consensus, he surge is accomplishing something. the real question is what is it ultimately accomplishing? if not what we want, then it's not "working". is it simply mitigating an unavoidable bad situation that iraq is doomedd to deal with? if the violence isn't going to be going stop or next to stop anytime soon, then it could be rationally viewed as simply mitigating taht unavoidable hell. our duty to our own soldiers trumps our concerns for iraq. we have a duty to the iraqis since we created the problem. and we have a duty to ourselves for intelligence purposes, to create some semblence of stability, and to combat al quida. our duty to our own tropps is greater than to the iraqis though. so, we take the surge back, and take care of those other points i mentioned. we just cut out the extra fluff. now, is that extra fluff crucial for "some semblece of stability"? maybe, i don't know the details enough. it'd seem we could get some seblemce without a surage. if we accept this surge, why not a greater surge? it should the argibrariness. if arbitrary, to a egree, we should defer to our own troops. plus, britian is largely pulling out, and staying only to help out iraqi soldiers at times. now, i don't know if their situation is similar to ours, if they have more solider or what, but it'd seem we maight be able to do the same. i reallyu need more info, and it'd be big of all sides to admit this when reasoning to points like this. i'm not sure if this is what you wanted in the debate, if this is "war in genereal" or not that you wanted to avoid. but, i think it could meet what you're looking for.
The troop surge is working

Potentiol debaters: First, this is a debate about is the surge working. This isn't about the war in general or anything like that, it is just the surge and is it or isn't working. I can't see how the trooop surge isn't working. Please all you anti Bush tree hugging liberals, tell me how the surge isn't working. In November, violence in Baghdad was down by 55% since the surge began. At the end of September, Deaths and casultiers were down dramaticly. Atttacks have been reduce too. A Colorado Army BIrgade lost 80 or so vichels to IED's before the surge, now they have only lost 1 since then. We are in control now, so may you prove that the surge isn't working.