BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Victimess crimes

Maybe these weren't the best examples but I stand by them. I will present better examples in round 2 as well. Me: "This might encourage pedophiles to post pictures of their own kids, and this crime would not be victimless." "I do not see the connection. Your drawing a conclusion too far out." Not really, I knew a creep back in high school who got addicted to kiddie porn online and started posting molestation videos of his little sister. So yeah, it may not be universally true but there's at least one example. Me: "Further this might increase incidences of children being molested or abused. " "That is a slippery slope fallacy." Not really, if it's supported by evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org... I'm glad you haven't disagreed that not punishing the crimes will increase the crime. But I stick with my argument that these victimless crimes are for the safety of the public. Take prostititution for example. Women are putting themselves in dangerous situations and are at an increased risk of being murdered. I think it's fair for the government to try to reduce extremely risky activity. Drugs, DWI, speeding, parking in no parking zones. All are victimless crimes and all increase danger to other citizens of the public, so it would be absurd to not punish any of these. It doesn't matter that no one was hurt, the fact is more dangerous acts are being prevented. And no this is not a slippery slope each have a direct causal relationship and are proven to increase danger. http://en.wikipedia.org.... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... "But is it really right for some [highly religious] person to take the joy out of other people's life because of what they believe?" How do you know they're highly religious? A lot of non-religious people believe in punishing these crimes. But yeah it's OK if their punishments are going to decrease dangers for other people. My opponents negations have been negated.
Victimess crimes

Refutations: "This might encourage pedophiles to post pictures of their own kids, and this crime would not be victimless." I do not see the connection. Your drawing a conclusion too far out. "Further this might increase incidences of children being molested or abused. " That is a slippery slope fallacy. "To not punish at all would be to not acknowledge there is any offense at all" The million dollar question is, is there an offense in victim-less crimes? =Contentions= 1. Victimless Crimes by definition are victimless. 2. Victimless crimes do not hurt anybody. (more points may be brought up in later rounds) Contention one (short): Victimless crimes by definition are victimless. Victimless crimes: A term sometimes used for various acts that are considered crimes under the law but apparently have no victim. [1] If a victimless crime has no victim, then who are you protecting by penalizing it? Contention two: Victimless crimes do not hurt anybody. Victimless crimes as stated before, have no victim. Therefore they do not hurt anybody (maybe the 'criminal' but there are many things that hurt the doer that are deemed legal, such as smoking) Victimless crimes are simply, somebody who has a personal belief that contradicts the law. If someone has a personal belief that sex before marriage is wrong, and they get into the government, they might make a law that you cannot have sex before marriage (they will most likely call it a form of rape, but that is irrelevant.) This is an example of a victimless crime. But is it really right for some [highly religious] person to take the joy out of other people's life because of what they believe? Of course not. And for these reasons, victimless crimes should have no penalty. My opponent's case has been negated. Sources: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Victimess crimes

Alright, I have reluctantly accepted the challenge. My argument is that even though no one is necessarily harmed in a victimless crime it is still technically labeled a 'crime.' Whether or not each of these individual crimes should be questioned as to whether it is legal or not should be another question for another time. To not penalize the crime at all even after acknowledging it is a crime would be to encourage future crime. I think that very small and very reasonable punishment should be used to deter crime. Let me explain: Pretend you as a state decide to say: "Prostitution is illegal" but you refuse to even arrest prostitutes, tell them they're breaking the law and give them at least a very small amount of punishment. You can already see there would be more prostitution in that case if no arrests were even made to let anyone know it was illegal than if any prostitutes were arrested at all. In fact, victimless crimes can even encourage non-victimless crimes. Pretend a 12-year-old boy takes snap shots of himself nude and puts the pictures on the Internet. In this case there is not necessarily a victim at all. He taken snapshots willingly of himself. To not at least ground him for a few days or make him work community service for an hour or two would be to encourage him or at least not discourage him from posting nude photos on the Internet again. This might encourage pedophiles to post pictures of their own kids, and this crime would not be victimless. Further this might increase incidences of children being molested or abused. That's why congress ruled on child pornography in 2003 with the "Protect Act." (http://www.nytimes.com...). So to conclude I think reasonable punishments could discourage future crime. To not punish at all would be to not acknowledge there is any offense at all, and as I have already shown there are cases where a victimless crime might lead to more non-victimless crimes. To conclude, small and proper, carefully thought out punishments on 'victimless crimes' can discourage further victimless crime and even non-victimless or regular crimes.
War on drugs should be abolished

Pro CaseBefore moving on to the arguments presented by Pro, I would just like to acknowledge that Pro has the burden of proof in this debate as they are trying to make a change to the status quo. 1) Money is spent to keep harmless drug offenders in jail. It's not accurate to say that drug offenders are "harmless." First of all, drug users obviously cause harm to themselves by their usage of drugs. Secondly, it is not uncommon for drug users to cause harm to other people. Take for example, the fact that about 8,000 people are killed each year as a direct result of drug-related auto accidents. [1] [2] Additionally, the use of drugs results in more than 400,000 visits to the emergency room each year. [3] The fact that so many drug users are desparate enough to have to seek emergency medical attention is very concerning. Keep in mind, this is under the current system where we are fighting a war on drugs. If the war on drugs was abolished, surely these numbers would rise as people would have an incentive to do drugs.2) The average man in prison is a father.That's unfortunate but this argument isn't even relevant to the drug war. You say "the average man in prison," but what we should actually be looking at is the average drug offender in prison because that is relevant to the resolution. I understand that fatherless homes generally yield negative outcomes, but abolishing the war on drugs is not going to change that. Perhaps instead of abolishing the war on drugs, we should put more focus on treating and rehabilitating drug users as opposed to throwing harsh prison citizens at them. Why abolish when we can reform?3) Making drugs legal would make crime rates go down. There is no evidence for this claim so it can easily be dismissed as a bare assertion.As for drugs losing appeal, that doesn't even make sense. When a substance is illegal and entails a prison sentence, it is not appealing. On the contrary, when a substance is legal and more easily available, it is much more appealing. I do agree that addiction is a medical issue and should be treated as such, but that does not warrant the complete abolition of the war on drugs.I have more than adequately refuted Pro's arguments so this should be an easy vote for Con. Thank you.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources1) http://www.cdc.gov...2) http://www.census.gov...3) http://thedea.org...
War on drugs should be abolished

The war on drugs is officially the most ridiculous war being fought at the time.1) Money is spent to keep harmless drug offenders in jail.Over $19 billion was spent on the war on drugs by the federal government in 2003, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This equates to $600 per second. Of this money, 61% went to criminal justice, and 30% went for treatment and prevention programs. As we all know tax payers money pays to keep people in jail, originally prison was meant for people who are a threat to society. I don't see how somebody who smokes a joint one night but is able to go out and work to provide money for his family is at all a threat to society.2) The average man in prison is a father and keeping children away from there fathers only leads to more crime in the long run.If a father is in prison he is not able to be at home with his kids63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes --14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average. (Rainbows for All God’s Children)70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988)85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction)3) Making drugs legal would make crime rates go down.If you lent a car to someone but they never returned it you could call the police and report a stolen car, however, when somebody lends drugs to someone but they don't get paid back they cannot go and report it, therefore resorting to violence. If drugs were legalized violence would go down and also, I think drugs would lose appeal.Whatever the case, prison does not help drug abusers as it wouldn't for compulsive eaters or anorexics. They need medical help if there is an addiction.
Resolved: The Affirmative Debator is Not Required by DDO Rules to the Term "Burden of Proof"

Argument 1: There are things I know upon which I discuss. And there are things I don't know upon which I avoid speculation. I know that this debate is titled "Resolved: The Affirmative Debater is Not Required by DDO Rules to the Term "Burden of Proof"". I know that the title is the resolution upon which I present a fact & upon which shall guide my argumentation. I know that my opponent did not present evidence of one (1) DDO rule that employs the term "burden of proof" as a requirement in an Affirmative Debater's debate.Validity of Argument 1:I know that the absence of such a rule from DDO, as evidence, un-submitted by my opponent has so far resolved: Con HAS NOT presented convincing evidence the term "burden of proof" IS REQUIRED by DDO debate OR voting requirements for the Affirmative Debater. I know that my opponent has so far in Round 1, speculated & assumed DDO stipulates on the Affirmative Debater the term "burden of proof."Argument 2:It has be presented clearly Con must show from DDO's debate & voting requirements the term "burden of proof" is a requirement for the Affirmative Debater. It has be presented clearly Pro must show such a term & its requirement does not exist in DDO debate & voting requirements.Point 1.Requirement- a thing that is compulsory; a necessary condition. If we turn to this website's "Tips for a Better Debate"[1] page we shall find the author, commissioned by DDO, has detailed a number of "word terms" & set forth a number of "requirements--necessary conditions" for debaters.A Few "word terms" are:Grammar, spelling, punctuation, facts, quotes, sources, topic, forfeit, passion, emotion, strategy, review, etc.A few requirements are:We should "review [our] argument" for spelling & grammar errors; we should "cite all [sic] significant facts, quotes and sources"; our debates "should be a controversial statement"; all debaters "should imply that there are only two sides to the argument"; "all debates should follow a strategy or outline"; etc.[1]- All quotations are direct quotes. http://www.debate.org...Point 2.Now the crux of this second argument is that this DDO page, written in an affirmative tone, bears an 800 pound gorilla, in fact three of them! The words "prove", "proof", or term "burden of proof" are completely absent from its publication. In addition the word "affirmative" is not present. There is no rule bearing the term "burden of proof" or its requirement to an affirmative debater "Tips for a Better Debate."Hmmm, curious.Validity of Argument 2:No term "burden of proof" nor a direct affirmation by DDO & its representatives states "the Affirmative Debater must prove his/her debate". Summation:Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." (http://www.brainyquote.com...)Okay then, so far one of DDO's official authoritative help pages does not mention any rules about a burden of proof required by the affirmative debater. Hmmm, very curious.
Resolved: The Affirmative Debator is Not Required by DDO Rules to the Term "Burden of Proof"

If you make an affirmative statement (regardless of being the debate instigator or not which I am happy you defined as clearly distinct) then you immediately take the stance that your side is true. The other side merely has to prove that you failed to prove the truth, to win. For example, if you are asserting that milk is white, you must prove that milk is white, if the debate ends and neither side has successfully proven what color milk is, the side contradicting that milk is white automatically wins because the side stating that milk is white had to prove milk was white. Every debate with a resolution to be affirmed, requires that the one affirming it has to prove that it is true, the other side is not responsible for proving the opposite true (unless this is specifically stated in round one) but is, instead, required to prove that the affirmative side failed to meet their burden of rpoof. Essentially the burden of proof of the non-affirmative side is to explain why the other side didn't meet their burden of proof. So both sides have a BoP but the BoP of the non-affirmative is the simply prove that the affirmative never met theirs whereas the affirmative must prove the resolution to be true (unless it's a negative resolution where truth is being affirmed by Con/Opp). The concept of "DDO rules" is simple. This site's debating rules, aside from no porn and the other stuff, is essentially that if the debate proceeds it has to be possible in the first place to establish what each side's purpose is. The entire purpose is the affirmative meet their BoP, the non-affirmative side is solely destructive. Any constructive points the non-affirmative raises is simply to discredit th affirmative' validity, as opposed to asserting their own.
Resolved: The Affirmative Debator is Not Required by DDO Rules to the Term "Burden of Proof"

Simple. Each debater must provide their best evidence that the "Burden of Proof" is Stipulated or Not Stipulated in Debate.org rules for the Affirmative Debater. Pro must present convincing evidence the term BoP is not required by DDO debate or voting requirements for the Affirmative Debater.Con must present convincing evidence the term BoP is not required by DDO debate or voting requirements for the Affirmative Debater.DDO- this website host.Stipulate- demand or specify (a requirement).Instigator- the person who initially starts the debate.Affirmative- a statement asserting that something is true of the subject of a proposition.Requirement- a thing that is compulsory; a necessary condition.[Accepting this debate means you agree to the definitions of the above bold faced words.]Con must present his/her case in Round 1. Your argument is your acceptance. Writing just your "acceptance" or anything of the like in Round 1 is an automatic forfeiture. You must pass Round 3. The is NOT a troll debate. Any such trolling constitutes automatic forfeiture.NO NULL VOTES.JUDGES FOR THIS DEBATE (If They Accept the Honor):1. Bladerunner060 - DDO President / Impartial2. Airmax 1227 - DDO Mod / Impartial3. Ragnar - Impartial Voter4. Mishapqueen - Impartial Voter5. Richard Cypher - Impartial Voter6. Doomswatter - Impartial Voter / The Only Person to Defeat Me other than Michelle.Now, enter & prove your case.
Morality cannot logically exist without God

"Evolution actually has an explanation of how morality developed" The question is not how morality developed, the question is how it can exist as an objective obligation on human actions. Its not about why we all seem to think murder is wrong, it is: why murder is actually wrong? Why is rape always wrong? Regardless of survival or laws or majority agreement or what day of the week it is, why is rape always wrong? I am assuming that you know rape is always wrong. Its wrongness must somehow transcend human thoughts an actions in order for condemnation of it to be Justice as opposed to vengance. How is anything wrong? Not why do we think things are wrong, why ARE they wrong? Unless you don't believe right and wrong can actually exist outside the human mind in, which case, you prove my point. I'm not interested in the ex post facto reasoning as to why we all agree rape murder (both of which can aid survival) is considered wrong almost unanimously. "I think everyone can agree that compassion is a huge part of morality." Yes I agree with you but why is compassion so important? Not why do we feel this way in terms of some evolutionist fairy tale. Why is compassion virtuous in actuality? in reality, not just in our own heads. On what basis can you say to someone who isn't compassiote that they should be compassionate? What if their lack of compassion has gotten them everything he wants in life? What if your compassion has gotten you nowhere? Why is compassion superiour to non-compassion? "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18). The laws Moses gave to the people of Isreal were a covenant which was fulfilled by Jesus coming to earth and dying. Those laws where only addressed to a group of people (Isreal), they did not apply to Gentiles or Pagans. That Covenant served arguably the most important purpose of anything ever but it was fulfilled with Jesus. If it were for all people and all time it would not have been a Covenant but a Commandment. You even say tht the Bible is the universal unchanging word of God so even by your own logic, a passage from the Bible which quotes Jesus saying he fulfilled the law must be true. Please answer the questions above. I did not post this debate so I could argue theology. I want to know what the rational basis for seemingly a objective morality is without God. Not why we have the concept, why is our concept of it True?
Morality cannot logically exist without God

The question is not about which God. It is about God vs no God. I believe the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God and that he came to earth, was crucified and rose again in penance for the sins of mankind but this is not the point. God is there to mean the moral standard which derives authority from being the creator of heaven, earth, and mankind and is all knowing. I'll use an analogy. If we are competing at something, in order to determine the winner we need an objective authority. Without this authority we can never know who won because we don't even know what the goal was or what the winning means. So in terms of morality, it's not that if there is no God it is therefore difficult or impossible to determine right from wrong. It is that without God, right and wrong cannot exist so you can't criticize any value system or any action beyond a personal opinion.Do I consider the crusades to be moral? I am not well read regarding the crusades but from what I have seen they were in defense of Muslim conquests of Europe. If this is true then I do not consider them to be immoral but I am not a moral authority. Were the Spanish Inquisitions moral? Again I'm not well read on the subject and nobody can know for sure but they were probably very immoral. If you are waiting to pounce on the idea that immoral things were done in the name of God let me just say that anyone can do anything in the name of God. What matters is if its consistant with the tools he's given us to determine what is right.I consider abuse of children immoral regardless of who does it. I have a rational basis for this. Human beings are created in the image of God and as such have inherent value. My worldview can rationally support condemnation for certain actions. I cannot say the same for an athiestic worldview or see how any of the previous actions could be condemned from an athiestic point of view.I believe the entire bible is the inspired word of God and as such I believe Leviticus 20:10:16 was moral for those people at that time. Jesus came and fulfilled the law (mathew 5:17-20) and because of this, salvation is available to anyone who accepts his sacrifice. Because of Jesus' death, rules like those detailed in Leviticus are fulfilled and no longer necessary.You have disproved nothing. The question is not concerning the rules attributed to this God or that God but to the existance of objective morality without God. In your response ou made a number of judgements as to wether something is moral (stoning homosexual, adulterers, the first commandment, the crusades) but you have given no explanation as to why these things are immoral. The Christian basis for condemnation for these things that it is against Rules and creation. You have only succeeded in dodging the question.You have not addressed anything I put forth I posted in rounds 1 or 2 and I have answered all of your questions despite them being beside the point. Could you explain to me how an atheist can condemn anything as wrong? Why is murder or child abuse wrong if the perpertrator finds it entertaining or beneficial to their survival?
Morality cannot logically exist without God

Without God, there is no moral authority above human beings. This leaves each person with the option for their own personal moral standard or lack thereof. Without God this would leave survival and the passing on of genes as the highest priority. If God is not real and the moral authority, any action is justified and even encouraged if it improves the survival of the individual and their offspring. Human beings are in competition for resources which makes genocide of other races justified since it furthers the survival of people who are more closely related to you. i.e your genes. Without an objective, unchanging, moral standard there is no basis to condemn rape and it is even a valid method of furthering ones own genetics at the expense of competing males. I could continue but I think you get the point. No activity is wrong without God and activities which improve chances of survival and numbers of offspring could be considered virtuous in a way.