BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Judging a book on its cover is injurious

So if you are saying judging a book by its cover is fine I either don't understand your argument or you are giving a pro argument by comparing it to humans. Because I think taking someone's character into account is the opposite of judging someone by its "cover" With humans the "cover" would be something like looks/appearance or ethnicity etc. But looking at someone's character is actually "opening the book" and looking inside them. Don't you think?
The man who killed Chris Kyle should be put in jail or given the death penalty.

Thank you for posting this topic - I look forward to debating with you. Although the proposition is stated somewhat ambiguously, I take from your introductory statement as a whole that you will be arguing that Mr. Routh should be found guilty of murder in connection with the shooting deaths of Mr. Kyle and Mr. Littlefield, and that a maximal sentence should be imposed. I will argue that from the available evidence, there appear to be facts sufficient to support a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. I will also argue that even if a guilty verdict is reached, mitigating factors in Mr. Routh's case warrant a lesser sentence than life in prison. As a corollary, I will argue that the specific factors you mention -- I.e., Mr. Kyle's status as a sniper and speculation about Mr. Routh's alleged Muslim conversion -- have no legal or moral bearing on Mr. Routh's potential sentencing. A few preliminaries: I understand that as the proponent, you bear the burden of proof. I also propose that the rounds proceed as follows: 1: Acceptance / introduction 2: Opening arguments 3: Rebuttal arguments 4: Conclusions I'll look forward to your opening argument.
The man who killed Chris Kyle should be put in jail or given the death penalty.

I believe that Eddie Routh should be sentenced to life for the killing of Chris Kyle, (considerably the deadliest sniper in US history). I also believe that he was a converted Muslim, for reasons I will soon enclose. First off, many mainstream media claim that Routh had PTSD when he never served in ANY military combat. Routh served as a prison guard on a military base in IRAQ and didn't have any documented traumatic experiences. An article on Allenbwest.com states that he is a converted muslim. This is because he often felt empathy for the prisoners and tried to help them. Good luck to you.
The man who killed Chris Kyle should be put in jail or given the death penalty.

I will now state my reasons as to why Mr. Routh should be prosecuted severely. 1. It seems fishy that he just killed two people out of the blue and I don't think he actually has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I don't even see how he would've gotten it because he worked in a jail watching Muslim extremists (terrorists). Maybe they raped him or something. Other accounts are stating that he was "mentally insane", but we need to know the reasons for it. It would take a lot of insanity to kill two guys that have been being nice to you ever since you just met them. He does have a right to a fair trial, so give him one right now. The people on your side are upset that the movie just came out because they feel it glorifies Chris Kyle, it could be seen as that but it is just a movie about his life made to honor him. 2. Reports have come out that Routh did indeed work at a prison in Iraq, and people seem to think that he was a converted Muslim, because he often felt bad for the prisoners and thought they should be treated better. If they can really prove that he was a converted Radical Muslim, I believe that closes the case. Mr. Routh had to have known who Chris Kyle from all the media Chris was getting so I think he had a plan when he went out there that day. Here are my two reasons for Routh's guiltiness, sorry I didn't do the last rounds.
The man who killed Chris Kyle should be put in jail or given the death penalty.

My opponent has forfeited Round 2, and has not advanced any of the arguments he outlined in his introductory remarks. I will gladly extend my opponent the courtesy of an extension. Round 3 should therefore be used for primary arguments, and Round 4 for rebuttals and a conclusion. Should my opponent forfeit Round 3, I will use Round 3 to advance my positive case for why Mr. Routh should be found not guilty by reason of insanity and, even if convicted, Mr. Routh's apparent mental illness should mitigate his sentence.
Morality MUST be objective.

Please note that when broken down, all three of the constituent notions are completely and totally false." 'When broken down'.. THIS sums up my opponent's tactic perfectly: Rather than face the argument head on he simply deconstructs the components and TA DA.. no argument! This does NOT help his case ONE iota: Because EVEN IF we concede the point that Hitler's actions are as permissible or desirable as Mother Theresa's actions then we MAY NOT CALL IT MORALITY: If nothing is higher or lower than anything else (the rape of a child is not lower than the giving of flowers to a relative) then IN WHAT SENSE is there morality? SO, arguing that there is no morality because it cannot be shown that one persons actions are better than anothers PROVES that morality (If YOU, unlike Kleptin, agree it exists) MUST be objective. Again, I simply implore YOU, (reader/voter) to ask yourself honestly, whether we can safely ASSUME some things? That some things are innately KNOWN; and that ONE of the things we can KNOW is that Mother Theresa's actions are infinitely HIGHER than Adolf Hitlers. IF you disagree with this statement I have already lost you and you MUST vote for Kleptin. IF you agree with this statement then I ask you: In which sense can something be above something else UNLESS there is an objective standard for it to be either closer to or further away from? REMEMBER: We can only deconstruct reality SO far before we have NOTHING left: not even words or letters or sounds etc.. We have to KNOW that we can KNOW some things: Or we have to swallow the ridiculous post-modern mantra that 'we cannot know and there is no ultimate truth'.. BUT we must take THIS statement as true! It may be too late for Kleptin.. but you?
Morality MUST be objective.

My opponents argument rests solely on the post-modern premise that we may not 'know' anything. "it is not an established premise that Mother Theresa's morality was more valid." Is this a true statement? Do YOU (the reader/voter) agree with it? Do YOU wish to exist in a reality where we do not KNOW that Mother Theresa's morality is ABOVE Adolf Hitler's? Do YOU wish to believe that we KNOW that we cannot know? (do you wish to believe an ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTION?) So, IF we believe that Mother Theresa's morality is higher than Hitler's then in WHAT sense is it higher UNLESS there is a universal standard for it to be closer or further away from? IF her morality is subjectively above his then it must be closer to the ideal OBJECTIVE morality. Therefore morality MUST be objective. A vote for Kleptin is a vote for NO morality and NEVER knowing.
Morality MUST be objective.

DEFINITIONS: (from http://dictionary.reference.com...) (1) MORALITY. 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. 2. moral quality or character. 3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity. 4. a doctrine or system of morals. 5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance. 6. morality play. Origin: 1350–1400; ME moralite < LL mōrālitās. See moral, -ity Synonyms: 1. See goodness. (2) OBJECTIVE. Of or having to do with a material object. Having actual existence or reality. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected. Grammar Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case. n. Something that actually exists. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention. Grammar The objective case. A noun or pronoun in the objective case. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens. obï¿½jec'tiveï¿½ly adv., obï¿½jec'tiveï¿½ness n. MY ARGUMENT: THAT in order for there to be morality (in any real sense at all) there MUST be an objective, universal standard. The alternative; that morality is subjective, (an 'each to his own' mentality) is too horrifying to contemplate: it means that Adolf Hitlers 'morality' is just as valid as Mother Theresas morality. EVEN if my opponent argues that Hitlers morality is 'subjectively' worse that Mother Theresas, he STILL has all of his work ahead of him AS: How can anytrhing be subjectively 'better' or subjectively 'worse' UNLESS there is an objective standard to measure them by? MY EXAMPLE: Kleptin makes me a cup of tea, (unlikely I know, but come with me on this) I complain that he has made the tea 'too strong'. As Kleptin has never made me a cup of tea before he, quite rightly, is indignant: 'how was I to know how you like your tea?' he replys. NOW, the statement 'too strong' is subjectively true in that, compared to how I usually take my tea, Kleptins effort was somewhat stronger.. BUT how about compared to the VERY FIRST CUP OF TEA EVER MADE? THAT is the 'Object'. Kleptins tea WILL have been EITHER stronger OR weaker than that first ever cuppa. THAT, I submit, IS objectivity. It is utterly inescapable.
There is no good reason for the Doctor (Doctor Who) to regenerate as a woman.

1. "Why not?" is not a valid reason. BOP is on you to explain why so. 2. "Choice", "accident" and "The Corsair" prove that he CAN become a woman, but they do not prove that he should. 3. "Blind casting" - actors must possess qualities of the characters they portray (e.g. the Queen must be an old white woman, not a young black man). The Doctor is, and always has been, a "mad MAN in a box". Time Lords are not genderless, they are firmly established as male or female (the Corsair is an exception, not the rule). Why should the Doctor change from his original gender? BOP is on you. 4. "Character focus" - what subjects (appropriate for a family audience) could a female Doctor explore that a female companion can't? We can always revive a female Time Lord if necessary. 5. "Not transgendered" - your information is flawed, fetuses have indeterminate gender before becoming male/female ("http://en.m.wikipedia.org... )."Also, the Doctor is still transitioning from male to female, so he would still be transgendered. Your point is irrelevant. 6. "Fan interest" - Barrowman is incorrect. Once a character becomes a girl, it's very difficult to go back ("http://tvtropes.org... ). We know the Doctor CAN become a woman, but you must prove that he should. Only two of your points (3 and 4) address this, and neither meets BOP without further elaboration. BOP is on you to prove that the Doctor should become a woman.
There is no good reason for the Doctor (Doctor Who) to regenerate as a woman.

Doctor Who is a family show. It is not a vehicle for shoving liberal/feminist values down people's throats (which a transgender Doctor would be, almost by definition). We shouldn't change the Doctor's gender without a good reason, and I don't believe there is one. Rules: - BOP is on Con to provide a valid reason. - Launch straight into argument in Round 1. - "Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death" is not valid for anything, as it was satire.
bible = fallible

You did not present any arguments and i do not think that your quotes speak for them selvs. i assume you intend to place those rules and what not in a modern day setting and compare them to our laws. of coarse they sound alien and strange and even barbaric. they are fro another culture thousands of years ago. i noticed how none of your quotes were from the new testament. the old law of moses that you used was supposed to be a letter of the law type system that taught principles through strict rules and regulations. when the Savior came in the new testament he abolished those rules as predicted in the old testament and instituted the ideas that we see today. for instance do not lie with an unmarried woman....ect. became do not cheat on your spose or have sex out of wedlock which is a very important rule that allowed societies to flourish. those outragious laws i assume you to think are wrong and bad for whatever reason served a purpose. the bible does not teach "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." i teaches do not have premarital sex. rules are placed there as an object lesson. like do not insult prophet of god, the husband is the leader of the family ect. so in the context that i think you are trying to argue the bible is not fallible. these actions and laws teach moral values and responsibilities. what do you mean by fallible anyway? who is to decide that? Because you think that the bible is wrong does not mean that others when they do what it says live happier and better lives.
This house would not ban smoking #1

It's been a long time since I've done a drug-related moot so this should be fun. It's also especially good to be debating somebody on this half of the Pacific. I completely agree to my opponent's rules in this debate. I'll be interpreting them kind of loosely, more as guidelines for what each round is generally for than a prescriptive exact rule for every single sentence. "Counter-attacks" sounds the same as "rebuttals" to me so that's what I'll just assume. My position in this debate is simple - the government should totally criminalize the inhalation of significant quantities of tobacco, cannabis, and other harmful drugs. No, it isn't about smoking fish or spontaneous human combustion. My guess is that this debate will mostly focus on tobacco, but I'll affirm the principle nonetheless. The law would be structured and enforced in a similar way to how most countries around the world enforce their drugs policies, with appropriate local variations in some jurisdictions to improve the impact of the policy. With that in mind I don't think this debate should be limited to any single country, but should take on more of a global perspective on the issue of smoking. At this point it's probably entirely self-evident that I accept my opponent's challenge.
This house would not ban smoking #1

My previous debate on this topic was forfeited so here I go again. I will be the Pro in this motion and I will carry the burden of proof to show why smoking should not be banned. The rules for each around is as follows. R1: AcceptanceR2: Arguments from both sides (Only arguments) R3: RebuttalsR4: Counter-attacks R5: Final Argument (without Rebuttals) I look for a great debate.I am going to open four debates on the same topic to investigate the aspect in this field more widely.
lesbian/gay love should be accepted in today's society

Rebuttal: Pro's approach is a sourceless manipulation of "relative truth". The nail in her coffin is this:As per the federal DOMA act (adopted by over 38 states) the voting American population believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore the "relative truth" of this country is that gay marriage is undesirable. [1], [2] I guess America thinks a blue sky is just fine. We don't need to amend our thinking and make it "aqua-marine."Pro ignored my sources. Arguments extended to next round. http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://www.stateline.org... [2]
lesbian/gay love should be accepted in today's society

To rebuddle my opponent: being gay or being straight are two totally different things that can apply to different people. Being gay is maybe normal to some people while being straight is considered the norm to others. This "normality" is known as one's own truth on the matter. For example : the sky is blue...right? The other person sees it as more of an aqua-marine colour. That is the truth to them. Where as a blue sky is the truth to us. Thus, if someone is gay, that is the way THEY are and the way THEY were made. Just like maybe to them, being straight isn't the way it should be. Bottom line, is that everyone and anyone can do what THEY want and what THEY feel is right to them. Therefore judging them in society doesn't make us better.
lesbian/gay love should be accepted in today's society

Character limit is restricting. Claims without proof: Being gay or lesbian (therefore being attracted to your own gender) is perfectly normal. It is a very natural, normal circumstance and it doesn't matter who we are... Not being mentally or physically attracted to the opposite sex doesn't mean we are weird or different. ...it means we are unique and special in our own little way. (Contradicts previous statement) ...is not a horrible deed and should be seen as a welcomed attribute. (Based on what aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, do you attribute virtue to gay love?) I argue: Homosexual love causes more disease - http://www.cdc.gov... It is not natural - http://www.cwfa.org...
lesbian/gay love should be accepted in today's society

I'm starting this debate because I strongly agree that gay/lesbian love should be accepted among society. There isn't anything wrong, in my opinion, with not being in a so called "straight" relationship. 1) Being gay or lesbian (therefore being attracted to your own gender) is perfectly normal and should be treated with the same respect as a relationship with opposite the opposite sex. It is a very natural, normal circumstance and it doesn't matter who we are, we should all have our fair chance at love. Not being mentally or physically attracted to the opposite sex doesn't mean we are weird or different...it means we are unique and special in our own little way. If being with our own gender makes us happy then SO BE IT, because we only live once. We are all people and everyone should be treated equally. Thus, being in love, marrying, or even just liking someone, of the same gender as yourself is not a horrible deed and should be seen as a welcomed attribute.
lesbian/gay love should be accepted in today's society

Pro said:. .. without having any negative physical effects. Answer: That's a pretty bold statement. Are we supposed to ignore the source that supports the STD statistics? The negative physical side-effects are an epidemic. That's not something we should bury in the sand for the sake of political correctness. Pro used zero sources until her last round. Pro is assuming that wikipedia will debate for her. I provided evidence that homosexual relations are statistically high disease vectors. I also provided evidence that the majority voting population does not support a gay union. Therefore I have supplied a problem and a solution. Non-acceptance based on voting statistics. I have confidence is a fair voting public.
Abortion is immoral

The burden of bearing a child is far greater than giving birth, unless you're suggesting women take morphine for 9 months. Furthermore, the poor disproportionately have unwanted pregnancies (http://tinyurl.com...), and it can lead to psychological issues for the mother (http://tinyurl.com...). Even if we say it is human at the moment of conception, that does not justify the belief that abortion is immoral. I am out of room, so I'll point you here for that: http://tinyurl.com...
Abortion is immoral

Financial issues have logical place in a woman's decision to give birth, only to raise it. (Orphanage) The severity of the burden is also up to her (Morphine) These consequences need to be appealed to in determining if its 'for no good reason' because they are a cold logistic with little room for interpretation. sadly the first point it is human is not as closed to interpretation. But we must treat it so in any case at conception to avoid Loki's Wager http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager
Abortion is immoral

I do not see how economic considerations provide good reason for women having to give birth, even if they do not wish to for whatever reason (such as financial issues or simply because of the heavy burden of bearing a child). As I said before, you're attempting to appeal to the supposed consequences of preventing women from having abortions. When something is "human" is arbitrary. Is it at conception, i.e., when the moment the sperm fertilizes the ovum? If so, why is it immoral at that moment
Abortion is immoral

Your appeal was that there is no good reason for women having to give birth, I showed that was false as we need more youth to support our old people in our economy. There is no reason to ever think it is not human, if we are to stray far from that track of thought it should be with good provocation. It is not irrational to think it human when there is no reason to think otherwise. I do thank you for correcting me though, it is in the uterus, not vagina. My bad.
Abortion is immoral

Morphine is really only for the deliver period itself, but I think we know they are milder drugs than morphine for the first 9 months. I fail to see why the ratio of poor and rich pregnantcies deal with morality. Your second article refutes itself. It asserts that the child must be loved and unwanted pregnacy causes that but then turns around to say unwanted pregnancy doesnt= unwanted birth. Those sperm&ovum die naturaly and thus would never be called immoral, but abortion is unatural.
"Classical Music Battle"

I have chosen "In the Hall of the Mountain King." LINK: This piece was composed by Edvard Grieg in 1876. This is actually a section of Act 2 to the play "Peer Grynt." The music is amazing with in a way "base drops" and a slow build up towards the "climax." I was first introduced to this song by my friend when he told me about it so at home I looked at it and fell in love with it. You almost feel at the beginning that all is well but than it all goes bonkers with loud but not to loud music, symbol clashes, and a symphony of violins. This piece is also Norwegian by origin. The further its gets along, the faster the tempo and the clash of the orchestra begins at the perfect moment of times. The lyrics for it are here: Slay him! The Christian's son has bewitched The Mountain King's fairest daughter! Slay him! Slay him! May I hack him on the fingers? May I tug him by the hair? Hu, hey, let me bite him in the haunches! Shall he be boiled into broth and bree to me Shall he roast on a spit or be browned in a stewpan? Ice to your blood, friends! This is mostly why I have chosen this piece of splendor music. WORKS CITED [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...