BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ron Paul's Economic Policies are Superior to Barack Obama's

I am just going to give you the win. My fever is back up to 102.7 and I need rest. I can still win my other two debates since they are one, easier opponents and two, I haven't forfeited in them. I am sorry for this sad debate. I look forward to debating this topic with you in the future and also debating the topic ""A small but positive rate of inflation can be good for an economy." Wasn't there someother topic you wanted to debate with me? Anyway, I will try to get these challenges around a few weeks from now. Can you open up your messages so I can message you something?
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent

I'll refute my opponent's points, then move on to mine. 1. Thank you. You have just conceded when you said that killing is never right. That is what I am arguing. So if either way is still killing, like you say, then you have just proved my point. Because neither side is moral, and both choices are immoral, you have lost the debate. Here is a chain of logic for you: Killing is immoral(conceded by you) Killing can never be justified (conceded by you) If you kill that one person, you are immoral (extension of logic) If you do not, it is the same as killing those many others(you said it yourself) Neither choice is moral(extension of logic) You have to prove that killing that one person is moral.(Topic) You have just conceded that that is not possible(you said it yourself that you can't justify killing) I win.(extension of logic.) 2. Again, you concede because you have admitted that killing is never justified. You have said it can never be justified. Here is another chain of logic for you: Killing can never be justified(conceded by you) I win (extension of logic) So to your refutes of my refutes of your points. (sorry, I just had to.) 1. Ok, but that doesn't prove why it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person. 2. Thanks. You just conceded. Killing is wrong, but letting killing happend when you can stop it is also wrong. So you just said yourself that either choice is wrong. Thanks for the debate. So in the end, I provided points, the main one being that killing can never be justified. My opponent conceded that point. I have proved why his points also support my case. I win. Thanks for the debate.
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent

1). I will start off with your first point. You are right you cant justify killing, killing is never right. But letting someone you know is going to die just die when you know you could have saved them is just as bad as killing them yourself. 2). No killing can never be justified but standing back and watching as someone is being killed when you could save them can never be justified nor moral. No matter what someone is going to die, it's just a matter of how many. In my opinion 1 person dying is better than many people dying. Even if it is just 2, 1 person dead is better than 2. So to your refutes on my points: 1). Yes indeed life is the most valuable thing, but isn't 2life better than 1life. No matter how you look at it 2 or more is always more valuable than 1. 2). Yes killing is wrong, but letting killing happen when you can stop it is also wrong. We will be responsible for the deaths of all the people who die that we could have stopped. So no matter how you look at it we will feel guilty for someone's death.
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent

First off I am a novice ld debater and i need practice so another ld debater would be great. So lets get started. It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent. First i will start with some definitions. All definitions are from www. thefreedictionary. com. morï¿½al (mï¿½rl, mr-) adj. 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. 3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. 4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. 5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support. 6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty. n. 1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event. 2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim. 3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals perï¿½misï¿½siï¿½ble (pr-ms-bl) adj. Permitted; allowable: permissible tax deductions; permissible behavior in school. Ok, so lets get started. 1st arguement- Life is valuable. When we are young we are taught that life is the most valuable thing. So saving the most lives would be the right and logical thing to do. 2nd arguement-Lives are lost on both sides. No matter which side you choose someone is going to die. There is no way around it.
Evolution Shouldn't Be Taught In School.

My opponent assers "I believe that evolution should not be taught in school. " I do believe that evolution should be taught in school as a theory. Since my opponent has not provided any points as to why evolution should not be taught in school, I will not post any points this round as to why it should be taught in school. I assume that I don't have to prove my points, but that I simply have to disprove your points. If you have a problem with this statement, please specify so next round. I await your contentions, good luck.
Evolution Shouldn't Be Taught In School.

My opponent says, "Evolution should be taught in school. .. ," but the topic that he is pro for is "Evolution Shouldn't Be Taught In School. " Umm, do I need to say more. He has clearly gone against his original side of the debate and changed contentions mid round. <> Ok, but your side of the debate says that evolution should not be taught in school. Yet you say right here that as long as Creationism is taught with it you can teach evolution. I agree that Creationism should be taught in school, as a theory. You have provided no evidence to say that evolution should not be taught in school besides saying it shouldn't because something else isn't. Well, this isn't really an argument. You haven't explained why Evolution should not be taught in school as a theory so I have nothing to really refute. Thanks again for the debate. If anyone is interested on the two theories, here are some good websites to check out: . http://www.talkorigins.org... . http://www.allaboutscience.org... . http://www.allaboutcreation.org...
Evolution Shouldn't Be Taught In School.

Thank you for posting your second round in a timely manner. My opponent asserts that "Evolution is nothing but pure THEORY." A huge portion of Science is theory. Some examples inlcude: 1. The Atomic Theory 2. The Theory of Matter and Energy: Conservation of Matter and Energy 3. The Cell Theory 4. The Germ Theory 5. The Theory of Plate Tectonics 6. The Theory of Evolution 7. The Big Bang Theory 8. Chaos Theory 9. The "Gaia" Theory of a Sustainable Earth which is illustrated with the idea of Spaceship Earth 10. The Theory of Quantum Mechanics 11. The Theory of Special Relativity which subsumes The Theory of General Relativity which subsumes Newtonian theories of motion 12. The Photon Theory of Light Energy and its speed of light 13. The Theory of Electromagnetism as begun by Maxwell and continued with the work of others 14. The Theory of Radioactivity or Nuclear Theory 15. The Theory of Molecular Bonds 16. The Theory of States of Matter—or is this part of the Atomic Theory and the Molecular Bond Theory? 17. The Theory of Thermodynamics—hey, I guess this theory takes care of the States of Matter and the Molecular Bond theories. 18. The Theory of Homeostasis within Living Organisms 19. The Constructivist Theory of Learning 20. The theories of self and development of mental processes in the brain. 21. Theory of Gravity 22. Continental Drift Theory Just because something is theory doesn't mean its wrong. Evolution is taught in school because it is the leading theory at the moment. However, you're correct, Creationism should be taught in school with Evolution. The basis of your argument is that Evolution should not be taught in school. However, you now say, " So if you teach Evolution at least teach Creationism along with it." Well, I agree. Both Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools. You give me nothing to contend as we both agree that Evolution and Creationism should be taught in schools, which is totally against your side of this debate.
Murder should stay illegal.

Murder is, first of all, immoral. If murder was legal, imagine everyone being able to kill whoever they wanted to. It would be awful. Also, the crime rate would be out of the roof because people could steal and if anyone tried to do anything, they could get killed. People would be scared every day, every hour, every minute, and every second. Also this is a real debate, because I have heard people say murder should be legal. Anyways, your turn.
Jews and Christians worship the same God

Many thanks for the interesting topic on Judaism Vs Christianity to my opponent. I was so eager and wondering if there are some unbelieving Jew or rather counter missionary Jews on this website so that we can have those debates. I don’t think about the counter missionaries; but the topic suddenly came and it was clearly meant for me. Though Con, my opponent is not a Jew but a secular person having a Christian background. I am sure this debate will be interesting and educative for many readers. Let me make some clarifications with Con beforehand to make certain arguments and terms straight. To summarize his contention, it is quite clear that when he is arguing Jews and Christians don’t worship same God; that actually means his contention is – Jesus is a false Messiah and Christianity therefore is a false religion. Some points are not clear like when he said “My main contention is that until Jews accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, the bond that is held between Jews and Christians, is one that is not supported by the Bible. Meaning, that once Jews accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they thereby become Christians and are accepted as worshiping the same God.” If I understood correctly; I think he meant that if majority of Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah, the debate is finished and we should believe that he was the true promised Messiah and Christianity is true. That would be confusing Jews with Judaism. The source of Judaism is the Scripture, and not the majority of their community beliefs. However he correctly understands the authority of Judaism and Christianity that is the Bible, Canonical Scripture. And it is good that he also assume the textual integrity of the New Testament, not questioning it’s textual authenticity, as some argue that NT was written in later centuries and disciples falsely wrote things about Jesus (That is a poor contention actually). I assume then he will be mainly raising the Theological objections to Jesus, arguing only on doctrines, and that the Prophesies are not fulfilled by him hence he is a false Messiah. I’d also suggest him to point out the major contentions and arguments he will be defending to make the case clear. Also I’d like to remind readers: if any counter missionary Jew or Rabbi or ex-christian Jew wants to have a topic against Christianity, then contact me or send me the debate challenge. Let us hear his case.
Jews and Christians worship the same God

I want to debate with a Christian on this, but atheists/agnostics/Jews who are well versed are welcome to accept as well. I am suggesting that the ties that are normally considered between Jews and Christians are not supported by the Holy Bible, and specifically, the New Testament. The God that is worshipped by Jews and by Christians cannot be considered the same God. Plainly, saying that Jews worship YWHW and Christians worship YWHW+Jesus+Holy Ghost is not an acceptable viewpoint. I am arguing that the God that is worshipped by Christians is now and always was a separate God than YWHW. Additionally, the God of Islam (Allah) is separate as well, but I don't think I'd find as many takers to argue that they are one-in-the-same... but this debate is welcome to side-debates regarding that fact. My main contention is that until Jews accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, the bond that is held between Jews and Christians, is one that is not supported by the Bible. Meaning, that once Jews accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they thereby become Christians and are accepted as worshiping the same God. Additionally, with the coming of Jesus Christ, the Jewish people claim to "the chosen people" (in the eyes of the New Testament and thus Christianity) should not be accepted. Lastly, I'm contending that with the coming of the the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, all responsibility of humanity to follow the laws and commandments set forth by the Old Testament (the Tanakh) have been eliminated. It should be mentioned that I am not a Christian/Jew/Muslim, but was raised with a Christian upbringing and still attend Christian functions occasionally with purely familial or secular interests. First round is for acceptance and the last round for closing arguments (no new arguments) I hate having to say it, but I really want to hear good arguments so, please... no trolls, arguing over semantics, and if you accept the debate, please take it seriously and have the time to answer fully. BOP is entirely on CON here since I think PRO is the status quo. If you think you can estabilish proof, by all means. But, simply effectively refuting my arguments will be sufficient for your win. Additionally, one argument that I will not accept is that they are different descriptions of the same God (meaning, that they just misunderstood what was being told to them by their creator). This argument can be extrapolated to all Gods (including even calling science a God) and it doesn't help the purpose of the argument... which is ultimately, there is no religious reason that Jews and Christian should be on the same "team" as compared to other religions. However, at the request of my opponent, we can save a round for why the difference between YWHW and Jesus is different than the differences between the sects of Judiasm and Christianity. This arguement assumes that all things in both the Old Testament and New Testament are true. Thanks! and I look forward to hearing your arguments.
University education should be free

My opponent has failed to present an actual argument but just threw sources into this round. He kept repeating "College should be free" and "it should be free". This is not an argument, I will say he forfeit.Now my summaryCollege should not be free for these reasons.i. University education should require paymentCalifornia's board of Education claims they have increased their prior balance for education by $1474 million from 2013-14. Their revenue has also increased by around $4,000 million.[http://www.cde.ca.gov......]As of right now, they have about $109,391 million in resources (books, supplies, etc.). California's student loan debt is around...$20,000. Since their revenue is $105,488 million this includes student loans being paid off. Imagine no more student loans. Around...60%-70% students go to college in California. Now, let's do the math. We can estimate in the future this will cost Universities in California about...$1,149 per person that attends college. Take this into account with the percentage of people that will go to college and the colleges will lose a lot of money. About a few million. Eventually, the colleges and universities will have to close, and then no more free university education. The population will not receive sufficient education due to this. While the idea of the free university education is to let the lower class go to college, it will eventually back fire to the point where not even the upper class will be able to go to college.[http://quickfacts.census.gov......]ii. The taxesAs mentioned often through this argument, the taxes.To pay for EVERY college in the USA for every one's education is costly. Not to mention the supplies, services, and possible transportation for each college. This will have a backwards effect on the economy than what is expected. Instead of people getting jobs, they'll start losing houses. A simple $15 per hour job can get pushed down to a $12 per hour job to pay for the education. As the population grows, this tax is supposed to increase to match the amount of people that need an education. Eventually expect $10 per hour jobs. Businesses will eventually close down, thus getting rid of HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of jobs. Eventually, colleges will close because the government won't be able to fund them because no one will have a job to pay for the tax that funds them.
University education should be free

Here awesome sources I have used through this debate. I hope that once you read these we can side with me and say all yes college should be free. College free and affording it http://www.washingtonpost.com... 67% of the population agrees with me and what people have to say http://www.debate.org... Do the Math: Free Public Higher Education Should be Considered http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Should college education be free? Yes. http://www.denverpost.com... Should college be free for everyone? http://www.aei-ideas.org... How we could solve the riddle of higher education funding http://www.theguardian.com... Why Education Should Be Free by Scott Hines, Co-Founder, President and COO, World Education University http://gettingsmart.com... There are so many ther sources that also say free college is a great idea. Just go to google and type this phrase I. The search engine. "why college should be free". Read through all the pages and see what they and others just like us have to say about free college. Also once again free college, more study time, better grades, more knowledge, more graduates, more people helping us advance our ways and become better people in a better place. Please side with pro on this debate. Here is a few links to the rules. http://teachers.sduhsd.net... http://www.nflonline.org... http://www.neisd.net.... (Page 9)
University education should be free

My opponent has refused to meet my demands about providing the NFL (National Forensic league) rules. I have no choice, but to ignore this request. If I violate an NFL rule, I shall be exempt as I do not know the rules and I could not find any rules and Pro never provided any link to the rules. Sadly, this had to be done. I apologize.I'd like to state my opponent had plagiarised his entire argument (if that's an NFL rule it's an odd rule). This is plagiarism. I won't stand for it, he should lose the debate. I don't think plagiarism would be used in the NFL. However Pro can't prove plagiarism is used in the NFL without providing a source. Thus, he loses the debate unless he can provide the rules with a link. I will still have an argument.i. University education should require paymentCalifornia's board of Education claims they have increased their prior balance for education by $1474 million from 2013-14. Their revenue has also increased by around $4,000 million.[http://www.cde.ca.gov...]As of right now, they have about $109,391 million in resources (books, supplies, etc.). California's student loan debt is around...$20,000. Since their revenue is $105,488 million this includes student loans being paid off. Imagine no more student loans. Around...60%-70% students go to college in California. Now, let's do the math. We can estimate in the future this will cost Universities in California about...$1,149 per person that attends college. Take this into account with the percentage of people that will go to college and the colleges will lose a lot of money. About a few million. Eventually, the colleges and universities will have to close, and then no more free university education. The population will not receive sufficient education due to this. While the idea of the free university education is to let the lower class go to college, it will eventually back fire to the point where not even the upper class will be able to go to college.[http://quickfacts.census.gov...]Final notes to Pro1-Provide links to the NFL rules2-Don't plagiarise.
Burden of proof should be on both claims, not just the positive.

I agree that the burden of proof is essential for debating the existence of god; however, it is also essential for those claiming the opposite. Even though you and I seem to be in the same boat, I'm going have to disagree with your coin logic. The concept of whether or not a claim is positive depends on the nature of the claim. Saying I got heads or tails are pretty much positive claims because they're both the same perspective from two different point of view. Regardless, both positive and negative claims have the burden of proof. As far as the rest goes, it seems we really don't have anything to debate on. I notice that you claim there is evidence of god. Why don't we debate about that instead? Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
Burden of proof should be on both claims, not just the positive.

It is often believed that the burden of proof should only lie on a person claiming a positive. That is, if I claim X exists, then it is up to me to prove that X exists because I'm the one possessing the burden of proof. This technique is widely used by atheists and skeptics. Although I do agree that the burden of proof should lie on the person making a positive claim, I also think the burden should be on those who claim the contrary. Now before I proceed the reasons why I think this way, I will first let my opponent Con make his case.
Small children should not compete in pageants

I thank Con for his comments. Unfortunately, that's how some children are dressed for pageants. Layers of make-up to hide flaws, absurd outfits to attract attention, and flippers to give them perfect smiles. There are some pageants which have contestants with only a small amount of makeup and no fake eyelashes of hair-extensions, but most are full glitz. I read your article, and you are right. Pageantry isn't the only thing mothers are fierce about. But pageantry gives girls low-self esteem. If they don't win the pageant, they aren't winners at anything. Also, the children are sometimes forced to get eyebrows waxed, put on fake eyelashes, and get spray tans. At full glitz pageants, girls are put through all these things. It's true that pageantry has whys and woes (link 1), but I assure you, there are far more woes. Some moms make it to the "woes" list (link 2). I thank Con for this debate. http://www.news.harvard.edu... http://today.msnbc.msn.com...