BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

Ethics, too, are nothing but reverence for life. That is what gives me the fundamental principle of morality, namely, that good ; consists in maintaining, promoting, and enhancing life, and that destroying, injuring, and limiting life are evil. - Albert Schweitzer, Civilization and Ethics; because I believe this quote is true I stand in affirmation of the resolution: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people. I will start with some definitions Permissible: that can be permitted; allowable Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of I reserve the right to clarify any definitions needed in this round Contention 1: Life is valuable. Since this country was created we believed life was a fundamental value. We looked towards it in all our major decisions made by the government. Why would we stop now? "Such a morality begins with the individual's life as the primary value and identifies the further values that are demonstrably required to sustain that life." (Peter Schwartz) Such a thing requires life first. Life is one of the utmost values and needs to be upheld. Contention 2: Life is taken away on the negative side They are preserving the life of one but condemning many to death. There is no logic that can be seen on the negative side. We need to do what we can to preserve life. If it involves something as consequential as killing some one you do what you need to. You have to look and see if the ends justify the means and of course they do in a circumstance like this. Contention 3: Killing and condemning to death are no different. Do you honestly think that people care weather you put a bullet in their chest or some one else did? Of course not people would look and see if they are dead as consequences not how they died. Condemning some on to death is no different because you could have done something. You chose to not save them which are causing them to die. With that I am ready to hear your debate.
Tea is better than coffee

Thanks for accepting the challenge. *Coffee may cause cancer, tea may prevent it.1.(http://m.huffpost.com...) 2.(http://www.nytimes.com...) *Tea calms you down, coffee turns you into a crazed caffeine lunatic. *Over-caffeinating can lead to feelings of impending doom. Life is doom-y enough WITHOUT caffeine-fueled existential freak-outs. (http://www.livestrong.com...) *Tea has caffeine, too. But unlike coffee, the caffeine in tea comes in manageable increments so you can drink more of it without turning into a total jitterbug. (http://www.greentea.com...) *Coffee stains teeth; most teas do not.(http://kenyasuharadds.com...) *Certain teas have antioxidants that are believed to slow down the aging process. (http://www.agedefyingworkouts.com...) *You can make tea out of a number of things. Coffee only comes from beans. (http://www.picstopin.com...)(http://charlestoncoffeeexchange.com...) *Making coffee is a lot more complicated than making tea (and therefore a lot more expensive). (http://cafeoflearning.wordpress.com...)(http://preparednesspro.wordpress.com...)
God is a more likely explanation for the existence of the universe

I am challenging Benshapiro because he seems to think that the existence of the universe implies that there is a god. Benshapiro, being Pro, has the burden of proof to show that the universe came from a god. I, being Con, have the burden of proof to show that it is more likely that the universe did not come from a god. Rules: 1. Burden of proof is shared 2. Source all claims 3. Stay on topic 4. If one of these rules is broken, loss of conduct. 5. If rules were broken in all rounds by an individual, award no points. 6. Follow the following format for the debate 7. No "God of the Gaps" arguments Format: Round 1- accept Rounds 2- Arguments Round 3- Arguments and Rebuttals Round 4- Arguments and Rebuttals Round 5- Con: No new arguments, make final Rebuttals, make conclusion Request to voters: When giving points to one of us I would like an explanation for the points. Conduct: What was poor conduct of the opponent? Spelling & Grammar: What were the spelling and/or grammar mistakes? Arguments: What makes the arguments better? Sources: Why are the sources more reliable? This will both make it so the votes can be seen to be fair or unfair votes and can also help both debaters improve for future debates.
LIVE:~England vs Panama Live Stream 2018 WORLD CUP

World Cup Live-Stream: How to Watch England vs. Panama – VarietyInformation for how to watch the England vs. Panama World Cup matchup.England vs. Panama live stream info, channel, news, odds: How to ...Don't miss a moment of the World Cup! Visit "My Teams" in your Settings and select your favorite team to set up scores and news alerts. @##########@ LIVE LINK: https://bit.ly... LIVE LINK: https://bit.ly... @##########@ %FRee%**England vs Panama Live Stream - Nomis Seismographsnomis.com › Topics › Support2 hours ago - Free Watch . Panama denoted their first since forever World Cup appearance with a 3-0 crush against ...England vs Panama, FIFA World Cup 2018 LIVE stream online: Latest ...England vs Panama LIVE, World Cup 2018: Latest score, goal updates, TV, watch online, highlights, team news, line-ups - Harry Kane leads ...England vs Panama: TV channel, live stream, squad news & preview ...England will be a confident side ahead of their meeting with Panama and a victory would be enough to secure a spot in the last 16.FIFA Live World Cup 2018 Live Streaming England vs Panama Live ...FIFA World Cup 2018 Live Streaming England vs Panama Live Score: For the first time in 12 years, England have started their World Cup ...How to watch England vs Panama in the World Cup on BBC todayThe England vs Panama match is the first fixture of the day and will ... not be able to stream the game live as BBC iPlayer is only available to ...England vs Panama, LIVE World Cup 2018: Prediction, how to watch ...England will be desperate to build on their dramatic late victory against Tunisia and take a commanding stance in Group G when they take on ... England vs Panama watch free stream England vs Panama live on tv score start time England vs Panama full match 2018 world cup qualifiers today watch England vs Panama live stream free online fifa world cup 2018 England vs Panama draw live stream youtube fifa world cup 2018 live streaming channels world cup schedule central time fox sports world cup England vs Panama 2018 full fifa world cup 2018 where to watch online England vs Panama England vs Panama world cup schedule England vs Panama youtube live world cup 2018 live fifa world cup world cup schedule printable fifa world cup 2018 England vs Panama live tv England vs Panama full game England vs Panama youtube stream world cup live stream free England vs Panama watch full match LIVE STREAM: How to watch World Cup 2018 online in 4K Ultra HD England vs Panama live online fifa world cup 2018 schedule
Anyone who accepts this debate agrees that he/she will lose

Pro has made an assertion. As with any assertion it requires proof. Therefore, the burden of proof is on Pro to prove why I was going to lose. The only argument given by Pro was that the resolution said I was to lose the debate. However, that resolution was his argument and original assertion. Not only that but Pro has also committed the "begging the question" fallacy in which (and I quote) "an informal fallacy where someone includes the conclusion they are attempting to prove in the initial premise of their argument"often in an indirect way that conceals it." Therefore not only has Pro failed to prove his claim, but has also committed a fallacy in his argument. I rest my case.
This House believes that Jesus of the Bible is Messiah

I intend to prove the validity of Jesus Christ of the Bible as Messiah through 5 means: Firstly, the claims that He made as well of his view of Himself; Secondly, the life and works of Jesus Christ; Thirdly, the death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ; Fourthly, the prophecies fulfilled by Him in His life; Lastly, the transformative power of Jesus Christ in the lives of those who believe in Him as Saviour, Messiah, and Lord.
Peta is a good organization.

Alright, I would just like to mention to any viewers of this debate that my opponent's entire final argument should be discredited because of brand new information and examples. It is unfair to the Pro if new examples and information is brought up at the conclusion of the debate. Also, you should see that my opponent has flipped on his argument for his final speech, has not been continuous throughout the debate and thus none of his arguments are topical, with the exception of his final speech, which I hope you will not include. However, for the sake of this debate, I will still continue refuting my opponent's arguments. 1) People Eating Tasty Animals doesn't support terrorism The organization, People Eating Tasty Animals, doesn't support terrorism just because one member has supported it. The organization doesn't have the ideal of supporting terrorism, just that one man! Thus the organization, rather than the man, is good. 2) Killing is not cruel Putting animals out of their misery is not a cruel process. If cows are to overpopulate, which they would do by themselves if mankind wasn't such a dominant force in nature, and they would eventually become extinct. Plus, it is just part of nature for one animal to eat another. If we eat apples, is it cruel to pick them from the tree? No, it's just in nature that we need nutrition. What is cruel, is torturing that animal to death. A quick and painless death isn't cruel. Furthermore, this ISN'T slavery. Are you kidding me? Again, it's just part of nature, animals are different, they are lower on the food chain and it's in our nature to take a huge bite out of an animal. That's it. 3) Cow farts are speeding up Global Warming I am personally against the theory that Global Warming is 100% our fault. However, it is a proven fact, that no matter how small, CO2 is speeding up Global Warming via the Greenhouse Effect. Cow farts are also contributing to this same effect. Again, I hope anyone viewing this debate votes according to who they believe is the best debater. I know that this is a ridiculous topic, nonetheless, I thank whoever was able to put up with this babbling.
Peta is a good organization.

Because you did provide a definition, i will argue all of your points. Your point 1)People eating tasty animals has not supported terrorism. Well, if we look at past members of the online facebook account, Chris McCourghy, a member of your PETA, sent around 50 dollars to the ELF. So technically they have supported terrorism. Secod Point) Killing in itself is cruel. Taking life in any form is wrong, destructful, and takes a person who has no morals or consience. Please tell me a humane way to take life. Please. And none of that 'lethal injection' is peaceful crap. So what other ways are there? Shooting an animal to death? Or how about putting poison in its food and watch it drown in its own liquids. The answer is if you aren't willing to kill a person, because it is inhumane, why would killing another creature the same way be humane? Because they don't look like you? Because they are different? Well where have i heard this before...hmmm....slavery (the imprisonment of people who were different) And for your arguement on the global warming theory, approximately 10,000 years ago, before cows, was the hottest temperature on record. It is shown through many of the top leading universities (such as Harvard, or Stanford) that global warming is a natural phenomenon. Not because of cow farts. One more thing, cows are not overpopulating by themselves. Have you ever seen a wild cow. No, simply because these are a domesticated animal. Without the humans breeding them or taking care of them, they would have become extinct a while back.
Peta is a good organization.

Thank you for your compliment of being a worthier opponent and I hope that you see that characteristic in this speech. First of all, you never provided a definition of PETA being People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals until your second speech, thus leaving that up to me. And, I don't know how to tell you this, but People Eating Tasty Animals is an organization. I will give you your definition of an organization as being an "administrative and functional structure," broad, yet still acceptable. Since your definition is so broad, you don't require a certain purpose or designation for said organization. Thus, it must be a group with an administrator and participants of the cause, correct? Well, if you go to Facebook, this is a link to the group - http://www.facebook.com..., there is a group with an administrator and people who participate in the cause. Thus, it is administrative and functional towards the same goal of "eating tasty animals." If this one group of close to 7,000 people isn't satisfactory, just type in People Eating Tasty Animals in the Facebook search engine and you will find over 500 divisions of this nation-wide group. Ultimately, according to your definition, People Eating Tasty Animals is an organization and, since it was my burden to clarify the round, you cannot accept the definition to be People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I hope I don't sound mean when saying this, but next time you start a debate with the major part being an acronym, I highly suggest clarifying what it is. 1) This point is only topical if we were still talking about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, however, we are not. Thus anyone voting on this debate cannot accept this argument. 2) People Eating Tasty Animals does not support dog killing, at least not in the US, and at that, they would do it humanely. People Eating Tasty Animals is mainly focusing on cows and chickens and your argument doesn't hold up. 3) This argument is on topic and you, my friend, have no argument. People Eating Tasty Animals is a good organization because it is preventing the over population of cows, and chickens, which may lead to their extinction by the theories of social Darwinism. Yes, Darwin believes in survival of the fittest, but if everyone is to survive, the availability of food will eventually become scarce and they will become extinct. People Eating Tasty Animals is beneficial to not only the general welfare of animals, but also humans. Thus, as you can see, my opponent is waaaaaaaay off topic since he is not following the grounds of the debate. He, as the instigator, had the possibility of properly setting the grounds of the debate, but since that is not the case, you MUST accept my clarification of the topic and not the clarification of my opponent, which came way too late. Thank you for your time and I will patiently await your response.
Peta is a good organization.

Hello my worthier opponent, To start off with your definition conflict, the definition you provide is 'people eating tasty animals'. I don't know how to tell you this, but this organization doesn't exist. I have found a single website, run by a single man claiming to make fun of the original organization. So for this definition to actually work, you would need to prove that this organization actually exists. just for clarification, organization is defined as 'an administrative and functional structure' to have either you would need members and a working group of people. So due to your lackluster definition (fancy word, eh james?), we must default to con's definition, which is provided at being P.E.T.A (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). So going on to your points. 1) For your first point, you state that there is no connection. Well since you provided no proof of your definition, and since we are now going by my definition, i would like to show you my evidence. According to their tax returns, the Spokesman-Review reported that PETA gave over 1,500 dollars to support the Earth Liberation Front, which the FBI (Federal Bereau of Investigation so there's no confusion) declared to be the number one domestic threat in the united states. They (ELF) have caused over 45 million dollars worth of damage, and have caused more than 600 felonies. 2)And for the humane way PETA kills animals, this is a joke right? North Carolina police found over 100 dead dogs in the DUMPSTER, an autopsy was performed and said that they were killed in a horrible way, tortured to death. Investigating, the police watched the dumpster and found PETA employees dumping the bodies. Also the autopsy reported that the majority of the animals were actually quite fit, not disturbed by sickness or illness. 3)There is no point three except for the cow arguement. I do agree with that, except that is topicality. In cause you missed it James, the topic is 'Peta is a good organization'. Nothing about cows destroying the earth with global warming. So as you can see, you can only vote for a con ballot. That was a pretty good arguement though.
Peta is a good organization.

Well hello there my worthy opponent. I would just like to begin this debate by clarifying one major part of the topic. My opponent mentions several times that P.E.T.A. is a horrible organization, but he never defined what Peta is. Since the first speech of each side is meant to set the grounds for the debate, anyone to vote on this debate must accept my definition of Peta as the group now known as "People Eating Tasty Animals." This group is the night to the day that is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; they are the exact opposites. Therefore, the group that we will be talking about in this round is People Eating Tasty Animals. Alright, I will now move on to my opponents arguments. 1) People Eating Tasty Animals is a group that doesn't support terrorist groups. Their only goal is to reduce the overpopulation of chickens and cows by eating them. There is no connection between People Eating Tasty Animals and terrorist groups. 2) People Eating Tasty Animals has never tried to save animals, rather kill them, humanely I want to remind you, and chow down! They have never been willing to kill animals inhumanely and cruelly, thus, this too is a rather false point. If you look at this debate, the group of people known as People Eating Tasty Animals is actually looking toward helping the environment and animals that live in it. If cows are to continue growing at an immense pace, then the methane from their farts would speed up the global warming theory and eventually would become extinct themselves if they were to eat all of the hay and grass and have no more food left for their species. Therefore, as you can see, People Eating Tasty Animals is beneficial and is a "good organization." Thank You
Peta is a good organization.

Peta is one of the worst organizations. First they have supported domestic terrorist groups. The two groups they have supported (with financing, information and legal teams) are ALF and ELF. Both groups have committed over 500 crimes (felony class). Second, despite the group wanting to talk about how many animals they are saving, they don't seem to mention the 17,400 animals they have put to death. Nor do they talk about the North Carolina animal cruelty trial against them. (they lost) I am in favor of environment protection, wildlife protection, animal protection period. That is one of the things that upsets me about PETA.
Patriotism

I didn't show Ultranationalism, since America does fight blindly for their country, knowing little about what their fighting for in the name of Patriotism, as you could see in the Korean War for the most part. Their love for their nation is part of the problem. Patriotism is a heavily opinion based term however, with an open interpretation. Patriotic american's invaded the foreign countries to save their own country and their own economy from the Communists, and to be the "Good guy" in a diplomacy aspect, or to save their reputation.
Patriotism

A true patriotist is identifying what is wrong with his/her (gender equality :D ) nation, and giving anything (sometimes even his/her life) to fix it.What you talk about is not called patriotism. You are talking about Ultranationalism.The main thing that patriotists and ultranationalists have in common is that they both love their nation. But there is a big gap between them. If a patriotist works to develop his country's economy, culture and the most important thing Reputation, a ultranationalists first goal is destroying neighbouring country's economy and culture, and if this goes wrong (which mostly happens) he/she (gender equality :D ) will have his nation destoryed.
Patriotism

Patriotism is harmful to a nations integrity and a persons knowledge about the outside world. Firstly, the nation aspect of patriotism. Nations, like venezuela, are generally very patriotic and encourage their citizens to do more for their country. This might mean fighting for their country in the name of patriotism, or doing wrong in the name of their country because they believe it's justified. The second part of it relates to the citizens of the country. As they grow accustomed to the Patriotism that they are surrounded with everyday, they will believe it more. This is what Patriotism does over time, and can be related or described as desensitization (Or a more slang term, brainwashing). It prevents outside knowledge to come in as well, since they are so dedicated to their own country. For example if a study shows that another country is doing better economically, the Patriotism that a person has inside of them would have told them prior that other countries are less significant.Finally, A patriotic mindset affects a country economically, because a "Pro Us" mentality also relates to a "Lesser them", which will discourage the patriotic peoples to invest in outside companies. That is a quarter of the reason of why venezuela is 33rd in gdp compared to the world[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[1]
3 > -5 : Change my Mind

Lets go with what she says- "The 3 is a negative number disguised as a positive number" So what you are saying is that 3 is in reality a negative number, But it is disguised(pretending) to be a positive number. Even if this were true, Negative 3 is still greater than negative 5. This contradicts your own point. Conclusion: Con concedes the debate by agreeing with me.
3 > -5 : Change my Mind

" 5 is bigger than 3, So -5 is bigger than 3" 5>3. This is correct. However, 3 is a positive number. A minus sign before a number indicates it is a negative number. By math law, Negative numbers are numbers below zero. This means positive numbers are greater than negative numbers. Therefore, If we plug in these numbers, 3>-5, Because 3 is positive and -5 is negative. I look forward to hearing your response.
God Exists

#1 round one is just for acceptance and stating your position #2 no ad hominems. #3 standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply #4 no new arguments in final rebuttals. I've seen you debate religion multiple times on this site and I'm interested in a challenge. if any of the terms of the debate don't appeal to you, we can discuss them in the comments. The burden of the pro will be to provide supporting evidence for the existence of God. the burden of con will be to refute said supporting evidence.
We should not use animals in war

My conscription argument is valid, as many countries still use it [1], and in times of war, many sovereign states are able to call upon conscription. Not only this, but to your "frightened" argument. A lot of humans become frightened during war.While we may be animals, we have shown to be far more organized than our furry friends. Finally, if animals didn't want to fight, they could flee easily. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
We should not use animals in war

Rebuttals: Humans are animals too so their lives are just as valuable as ours. As for the intelligence comment, animals can use tools and problem solve so they are clever too. Conscription is not common in many countries anymore, so the conscription part of your argument is not applicable. Animals may save human lives, but they are sentient beings and should be treated as such. They would be very frightened in war due to their heightened senses as everything would be louder to them, it is unfair!