BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
LD Sept./Oct. (I've got a big invititational

I will defend my case and then attack my opponent's (I hate affirming). Value: Moral Permissibility is the same as morality and my criterion follows from both. Criterion: Although the resolution does not state the commonality of the event, we know a priori that this isn't an everyday occurrence. Contention 1: My opponent dropped my contention. Although he may argue that it was implicit when he attacked my criterion, he did not say the simple sentence "My opponent's contention falls with his criterion." Therefore you must flow it across. With that in mind, my case is proven, and I win this debate. Moving on to my opponent's case... Definitions: I accept all definitions. Ob 1: I disagree, my opponent has no basis to say that morality is normative, and therefore, this observation must be dropped off the flow. Ob 2: I disagree the resolution only asks if it is permissible to kill one innocent to save the lives of the many. It can be debated in any manner. Ob 3: I agree with this observation. Ob 4: The resolution does not state an agent. The agent does not have to be an innocent. Value: I accept his value Criterion: I disagree. The event in the resolution is by no means normal, so we cannot apply a normal moral standard to address this situation. Furthermore, no moral code is given by which to determine what the moral norms are. this gives us no weighing mechanism, and you drop his criterion. Contention 1: A. My opponent claims that violating one individuals right to life is always and inherently immoral, however he gives no reasoning as to why this is. This is an unfounded and baseless claim, and cannot be accepted. B. This does not relate back to his criterion. His contentions must stem from that criterion so this contention is dropped. C. This also does not go back to his criterion, and it is dropped. D. This is an unfounded claim and is not proven. You cannot accept it without evidence or logic showing why this is true. Voting issues: 1. My opponent dropped my contention. 2. My opponent has provided no weighing mechanism for this debate. 3. My opponent's claims are not backed up by logic or evidence.
LD Sept./Oct. (I've got a big invititational

This is an LD debate, minus the CX. Neg forfeits last round. Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of more innocent people. I affirm. To clarify the debate, I offer the following definitions: Morally Permissible: Defined by Deni Elliot, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Montana as "behavior within the bounds of a moral system." Innocent: harmless in effect or intention (Merriam-Webster) Kill: "cause the death of" (Merriam-Webster) Observation 1: The definition of morally permissible means simply that an action is not prohibited. If I can provide one example of a situation where clearly killing an innocent is permitted I win this debate. Negative has to prove that there is no situation where killing an innocent to save many is permitted. Observation 2: "Kill" does not imply intent. "Murder" implies intent. You can be killed by a train without the train "intending" to kill you. You can be killed by a drug overdose without intending to kill yourself. Observation 3: "Kill" is not agent specific. That means that in our examples, the killer and the victim can be any innocent person. In fact, someone could kill themselves in order to save more innocent people. Value: Moral Permissibility Justification: This debate is about whether an action (killing an innocent to save more innocent people) is morally permissible. This makes the assumption that moral permissibility is valued. Obviously then, it is my value. Criterion: Commonality of Event Justification: The Danish Philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, wrote in his famous work, Fear and Trembling, that moral judgment cannot be made on extreme circumstances—that is, that if someone does something that would normally be considered immoral, such as killing, but the circumstances in which he or she commits this action are rare, extenuating circumstances, we cannot judge that person. Moral judgment cannot give that person justice. That means that if an action is done in an extenuating circumstance, it is permissible. Contention One: The situation in the resolution is an extenuating circumstance. I mean really, how often do you actually have to decide whether or not to kill an innocent to save many innocent lives? Unless you're Jack Bauer, I would guess that you have never had to decide. How can you judge someone for that? Can you imagine the stress that person would be under, and in many instances, the situation would require a split-second decision. We cannot judge a person under these circumstances. That is not just. We must permit them to make any decision necessary to escape that circumstance. An old Sioux prayer reads: "You cannot judge a man until you walk a mile in his moccasins." We have not been in this situation; we cannot judge a man in this place. Conclusion: As the situation in the resolution is such an extenuating circumstance, we cannot make a moral judgment. We cannot say that killing the innocent is impermissible. I affirm.
Humility is thinking of oneself less.

In my two illustrations "false humility" & "actual humility" were just to point to the obvious as to what it is what it can be and what it is not. What I also wanted to point out is the difference between guilt can be a trigger for false humility and remorse can be a sign for actual humility. Between the two guilt can longer on forever but it doesn't mean a person truly has shown true intention of humility because it can just be a form of "I feel sorry for myself" rather than a "I did wrong and I'll take my punishment to learn from it" which the latter is more of having remorse for what was done. Guilt attempts to stay focused on oneself while being remorseful is acknowledging what you did wrong but being able to attain responsibility and accepting what's to come. It's not so much thinking of oneself in the remorseful manner, but more of taking responsibility for ones actions. This doesn't cause someone to think of oneself but rather to think less of oneself in a humble manner.
Humility is thinking of oneself less.

Pro defines Humility as modest opinion of one's own importance, rank and other things including self-worth and sexual prowess.Regarding the issue of false humility, it is interesting to understand false humility and how it works before analyzing what actual humility is. When one is using manipulation via false humility what they actually display is a huge ability to think of themselves but sacrificing their time and efforts knowingly and strategically in order to gain the reputation of someone who is always there for other because they are so aware of how they can individually, uniquely and personally contribute to their surroundings in a way that others can only dream of doing.I am not entirely sure what frustration has to do with this resolution so I will ignore it on grounds of irrelevance.Humility itself is actually something children are taught from a very young age. Children are very egotistic in their philosophy and decision making[1] because they have not yet understood that anyone other than themselves can have feelings or personalities of their own. They only perceive reality subjectively and make decisions on impulse.[2] As children grow into adolescents they begin to maintain some sense of narcissism but less than children have. This arrogance fades further away as they approach adulthood not because they think of themselves less but because their thought process itself alters.In essence, thinking of oneself less does not increase humility, it increases arrogance. Only an arrogant individual is able to say "I am better than everyone" and not think twice about it. The humble individual thinks *I have these attributes and this means I also have some weaknesses to go with my strengths".Humility requires no love, nor masochistic gratification. It merely requires to true analysis of oneself to see the unpleasant flaws that the arrogant refuse to think about in the first place within themselves.[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[2] http://www.hincksdellcrest.org...
Resolved: The USFG Should Act to Close the Gender Wage Gap

Wage DiscrepancyI thought it might be useful to first prove the severity of this institutionalized discrimination. "Some argue that the wage gap is purely due to 'women's choices,' but such a characterization hides the cultural and social factors that go into women's decisions to enter or stay in a particular job. Moreover, even when women choose the same jobs as men, the wage gap persists. .. male surgeons earn 37.76 percent more per week than their female counterparts. In real terms, this means that a female surgeon earns $756 less per week than her male colleague, which adds up to nearly $40,000 over the course of a year. " [1] We all know that a woman makes 78 cents to a man's dollar [2], but you say that thed gender gap disappears when you take into account whether or not men and women are working the same jobs. This is not so. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association conducted a study that concluded, "Gender differences in salary exist in this select, homogeneous cohort of mid-career academic physicians, even after adjustment for differences in specialty, institutional characteristics, academic productivity, academic rank, work hours, and other factors. "[3] Thus, your claim that ". .. men do the hard work and labor. And hard labor usually means more money" is simply untrue. The National Women's Law Center published a report in 2014 that said, "Women with only a high school degree are 24 percent of the low-wage workforce, double theirshare of the overall workforce (12 percent). Men with only a high school degree are underrepresented in the low-wage workforce: they are 12 percent of the low-wage workforce, 0.8 times their share of the overall workforce (15 percent). " [4] This means that women need more education than men simply to acheive equal pay. As the Washington Post puts it, "Men in the United States. .. require less education to achieve higher pay. " [5]I was planning to include several more arguments, but I am running out of time as I am going to be out of town for a few days. I will add more arguments in further rounds as necessary. I believe I have proven that the severity of discrimination is sufficient to warrant legislative action. Good luck with your opening arguments! Sources1. . http://www.newsweek.com...2. . http://www.aauw.org...3. . http://jama.jamanetwork.com...4. . http://www.nwlc.org...5. . https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Resolved: The USFG Should Act to Close the Gender Wage Gap

Yes, I accept your challenge. I think this will be fun. Good luck. Here's a few of my definitions that I think will come in handy: work (noun): the labor, task, or duty that is one's accustomed means of livelihood [1] money (noun): something (such as coins or bills) used as a way to pay for goods and services and to pay people for their work [2] cheeseburger (noun): a hamburger with a piece of cheese on top of the meat [3] Sources: *All of these definitions are from http://www.merriam-webster.com... . Just type in the word and the definition is there.
Resolved: The USFG Should Act to Close the Gender Wage Gap

Hello! I saw your post on this opinion (. http://www.debate.org...) and thought that this would make an interesting debate, should you accept it. DefinitionsUSFG: United States Federal Government (specifically the legislative and executive branches)Gender Wage Gap: The difference between the amounts of money paid to women and men, often for doing the same work: (. http://dictionary.cambridge.org...)First
Irish/English state exams are not as trustworthy as continuous assessment

Its very interesting, good arguments for both sides, and new. I will be Con the resolution, and will be arguing that exams are more trustworthy than continuous assessment. Since Pro has not defined terms in R1, I am granted the right to. Continuous assessment: a series of exams taken over the entire year to gauge educational level State exams: an individual exam taken once a year to gauge educational level Trustworthy: reliable to produce accurate result
Drake The Rapper is Overrated and Trash

Lets keep it simple anyone in young money is terrible 1. He can't rhyme with any other word other than the n word 2. His rhymes are simple, no sense of vocabulary 3. He is unoriginal, rapping about money, girls, gangs, treating womans as objects 4. Who the hell is Mikal 5. His fans say it all 6. He lied about starting from the bottom when he didn't experience a struggle 7. He cant FreeStyle Check the links below
Drake The Rapper is Overrated and Trash

In order for my opponent to win he must prove that not only is Drake over rated, but also that Drake is garbage. I assume the over rated part is about Drakes rapping skills being over rated. However drake started from the bottom now he's at the top. Plus he has better rhymes than Mikal who has 9000 ELO, entirely off rap battles he would have lost if he faced a single black guy during any of those battles. He must also prove Drake is also Garbage, since the over rated part is clearly about Drake's rap skills, garbage must refer to drake in another way. I somehow doubt my opponent means that Drake is literally garbage, so I assume it is an attack on Drakes character. My opponent must prove that Drake is not only an over rated rapper, but is an unethical person. Bottom line I seriously doubt my opponent can make an actual case, and will have to rely on subjectibe things, and since Drake started at the bottom and he is now at the top, he clearly must not only be a highly moral person, who people love so much they bestow opportunity after opportunity on, but he also must be an overwhelmingly good rapper. This handicapped kid's rise to the top is truly inspirational.
Drake The Rapper is Overrated and Trash

'Drake is overrated because he is a douchebag' There are many douchebaggish rappers who aren't even heard about cough cough Tyler the creator 'The kid who started off from a wheel chair and had to teach himself how to walk again' What does being in a wheel chair have to do with being lyrically skilled or talented? How exactly did he start from the bottom when he wasnt even low class. 'I"d say that Drake is arguably the greatest rapper of all time, for a variety of reasons. He actually did start from the bottom of the rap world if you think about it. People like their rappers to start out with extremely rough lives, and from tough backgrounds' Again how did he start from the bottom? You keep repeating everything you said but you arent supporting it. He was a actor who lived in a middle class neighborhood ' I"d say that if you look at the facts it will show that Drake is in fact, typically rated very low as a rapper, besides be the greatest selling rapper of all time. ' You just agreed with me, that Drake is garbage. How is he not overrated? When you hear someone talk about YOUNG MONEY, I bet you one of the first to three names they mention is Drake, the internet is full of trolls, people could be lying to piss off the fanbase, Drake is overrated, hes known by a lot, he gets that same Eminem overration, just because his beats sound good, watch, let Drake make another rap video and you'll see people on the radio putting on '0 -100' teenagers saying '0 - 100' Vine using '0-100 Listen to Drakes music, he can't rhyme without saying the same thing over and over, using simple rhymes, his vocabulary is very low, yet he was part of middle class, that's pretty sad, no wonder Eminem gets more popularity then YOUNG money combined, Why exactly would I say he is a bad person? When all rappers are bad people, what rappers do you see who don't swear? Or rappers that claim they are christian but collaborate with satanic beings. I just said hes overrated and garbage. You still haven't showed how Drake is a good rapper, its not your part to make the rules on a debate
Favourite/Best Villain

Well fine, but next time post this in the forum page.My #1 villain would be the Joker from the Batman franchise.I mean, what would be the perfect villain for a dark, brooding, shadowy and depressing superhero? That's right, a clown. Joker is the total opposite of Batman; he's insane, high profile, has a sense of humor and knows Batman inside out.Also despite having no powers or abilities whatsoever (only a few combat trainings), he is still the worthiest foe of Batman. It's mainly because Joker has no pattern or algorythym. This is perfectly explained in the Killing Joke. Joker just does things on impulse, that's why he's so insane. He does whatever he wants and that makes him hard to catch.Another great villain is Jigsaw.I must be one of a kind but I actually like the saw movies for it's plot. Jigsaw is not some power-crazed guy who strives for attention and ruling the world. He's a just an old fellow who happens to have an unfortunate illness which made him think about the value of lives. He decided people aren't as grateful for their lives as they should be. Determined by that thought he decided to make everyone battle for their lives.The great thing is that he's not a killer, sure he pushes people to the edge, but he always gives them a way out. So in a way, he actually helps us.He also has a way of twisting events around him, making him hard to catch, not to mention his three allies.That's two of my favorites.
Favourite/Best Villain

Hi! This is not actually a debate per se, it's more of pro making his argument of who his best villain is and why? (Comics, TV-Shows, Films, Video-Games, Anime etc.). It's for a school project, I'm going to make a list of favorite villains (I choose subject myself) and I'm just wondering what someone who knows a thing or two about this on this site thinks. You can also tell about more than one villain... Well it's only one round so just tell me who you think... I'm new at this site so please tell me if I'm doing anything wrong, and excuse my english, It's not my native language, hope you get the whole picture anyways. You don't have to vote, because I'm not going to debate against pro at all. Thanks :)
Rape should be a punishment for women

-Sex in other primates appears to be less consensual, and a lot of it involves prostitution, such as the female trading sex for food or influence. Women sell themselves for sex, it's nothing new. -Seeing as a woman's appearance (vanity) is their most valuable asset, wouldn't rape (or multiple rapes) be a fitting punishment for those who deserve? -Continually repeated in legal issues, we see men being wrongfully accused of rape, having their lives irreparably severed. What punishment could rectify their loss of life? -
The United States should limit the CIA's power based on there interrogation technique

I was out of town. Oh well. The affirmative's constructive is not sufficient to vote aff. In an aff world, there is a risk that all of the CIA's interrogation techniques would be limited, because he doesn't define which techniques would not be limited because of the subjective nature of his arguments. The mere threat of this outweighs any impact of voting neg. Also, he didn't answer the questions I posed in round 1, so the aff's plan cannot be looked to. The resolution and arguments by pro were riddled with grammar and spelling mistakes. The resolved is negated.
The United States should limit the CIA's power based on there interrogation technique

They are the following: 1. Which interrogation techniques are you reffering to? 2. What limits are you suggesting? 3. Can I run a K? Resolutional analysis may occur if I find that your interpretation of resolution is unbalanced. I kow that there were concerns in the comments section, and they were adressed. I just ask that you not be too limting when defining the resolution. I look forward to a fun and educational debate! Thank you.
in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

okay, first of all, I will go over my opponent's case and then my case then voting issues. His rebuttal to his first contention is that rehabilitation hardly has an effect. However, rehabilitation's purpose is to correct faults, otherwise we would not have rehab. this also makes his V/VC not stand does not support his second con. so that does not stand his 3rd contention doesn't stand because they will be tested by society (as mentioned in my observation) Now to my case My obs= by saying voting is just a privilege, my opponent just dismisses the significance of voting. The same can be said for the right to speak; that can be a "privilege". We need to respect all inalienable rights so my obs. stands Con 1= my opponent mis understands my contention and just trys to use my observation to contridict, which is errroneous. Since i have proven why inalienable rights are important, we can come to the conclusion that my opponent does not believe in alienable rights. In my first contention, i made it clear that one supports slavery if they do not believe in inalienable rights. Con 2= my opponent has not proven that a democratic society of 4 felons would not want felons to vote so this does not stand. My con 3 stands because it is unaddressed. Voting Issues: 1) By voting neg, you support slavery because you put greater instinsic value in different people; UNFAIR!! 2) If you do not let felons vote, you will be responsible for more felonys in the community (con 3) 3) My opponent cannot respect other humans 4) My opponent overlooks how heros could be felons. 5) My framework stands I urge you all to vote affirmative
in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

I will first address the affirmation and then lead into extensions and clarification on the neg. As it pertains my opponents observation, it is flawed for the following reason My opponent claims that every citizen has inalienable right, yet what you need consider is that voting does not apply. clearly every citizen doesn't have the right to vote or else four year olds and people of a mental iq 0f 20 could. Resulting in extremely inaccurate and pointless results. Sense there is such a requirement one must look to voting as a privilege rather then a right. Now onto the con1 of oppression you need to understand again that voting is a privilege not a right. Con2 redemption you need to see that felons don't need voting as a form of redemption just the mere fact that they have been released from prison gives them a chance to redeem themselves. defeating the entirety of con two now briefly to go over my case you need to extend my v and vc as being paramount for we need consider the victims rights in the situation. Equality as presented by the affirmative cant even be achieved with out looking to the opposition as well as the fact that natural rights as a vc doesn't apply as well. My def were not attacked therefore they still stand and will be used throughout the round which essentially in doing so agrees to the negative position in regards to the resolution interpretation. My con still stand as well for rehabilitation hardly has a great enough effect to make a difference, through examples such as background checks, not being able to bare arms, and not serve on jury. (all points opponent fails to address). As well as my con 2 as well as 3 for although its not mandated in the resolution its implicate why would you want kids to vote no society would ever allow people that are not even capable of spelling there name the PRIVELEGE to vote thank you