BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Believes that Terrorism can be Justified

Well done, you managed to find a person, an amazing person, ONE person to justify your argument that the "end justifies the means". However where is he end? When will this end. As I said before (which you did not reply to), if we keep using violence it would just keep on going in an endless cycle. As for saying that terrorism can be justified by the terrorists is true but if that is the case what is the point of the debate? We might as well just say everyone has their own vies on justification and leave it at that. Also, by stating this you are also saying that murder can be justified, so can rape or kidnapping, which connects to terrorism and all can be justified by the person that commits the acts. However, surely the person that commits the act is not right to justify themselves? It's like how we don't let criminals to vote, why do you think that is?
This House Believes that Terrorism can be Justified

he probably killed some people and I am saying killing can never be justifiedOf course it can. Wars are often viewed as morally correct when all other diplomatic avenues have been taken. It is the right of every individual to express their views and show their discontent, but when the government downright refuses to listen to their POV it loses its legitimacy as a governing body. Furthermore, in the times of Nelson Mandela blacks were being oppressed and abused. If all other diplomatic attempts had failed then the only way that they could have their voices heard was through terrorism. In these cases it can be justified as morally correct.At his time people called him a terrorist because his group gave up being peaceful and fought for violence but it does not matter the causeIt always matters what the cause is. The only reason we view him as a freedom fighter today is because our modern society realises that the Apartheid was a terrible thing. The blacks were being oppressed and their voices were not heard. Would it not have been morally incorrect to let it happen? No peaceful attempts had worked, so should they have avoided a violent approach and let the atrocities continue?Con did not argue against the points I provided about the subjectivity of justification. In any situation terrorism can be justified by the terrorists and their supporters. Unless Con can prove that terrorism is repugnant to each and every person then he has failed, and the only logical course of action would be to support Pro.
This House Believes that Terrorism can be Justified

It is true that Nelson Mandela is an amazing man, a legend, he is my hero and, in the world's opinion today, he is a freedom fighter but at what cost? At his time people called him a terrorist because his group gave up being peaceful and fought for violence but it does not matter the cause, he probably killed some people and I am saying killing can never be justified as Martin Luther King once said "Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that" if we keep on using violence it will not drive out violence, it will go on in an endless cycle, killing thousands until the world is destroyed by hate.
This House Believes that Terrorism can be Justified

I thank con for taking this debate. Terrorism: the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. I also say that the terrorist attack would only be justified when fighting back against an oppressive government or regime. Let us look at the case of Nelson Mandela. The apartheid in South-Africa was cruel. The apartheid in South Africa was heartless. Nelson Mandela admitted to 156 acts of public violence at his trial, and organised many terrorist attacks on key government targets. This, by the definition given, is terrorism. But, as I said, I believe that terrorism is justified in certain situations. I am in no way saying that 9/11 should be commended, or that they were justified in any way for what they did. In the case of Mandela, the ends justify the means. They had tried a diplomatic approach. They had tried a non-violent approach but they were met with violence every time. In the end, the only way that they could actually gain the attention they deserved was through terrorism, which led to blacks and whites being able to discuss and challenge what atrocities were happening. Secondly, terrorism can always be justified by a certain group of people, as the justification of it is subjective. Again, I would never seek to say that 9/11 was good, and I would condemn it as quickly as the next person, but Al Qaeda would've sincerely thought that their actions were justified. As Gerald Seymour once said: 'One man's terrorist in another man's freedom fighter' To summarize this particular round: 1) Terrorism can be justified in certain situations when the end justifies the means 2) Terrorism can always be justified by certain groups, no matter what the situation entails
This House Believes that Terrorism can be Justified

Terrorism can never be justified. Terrorism is cruel, cold and heartless, it kills thousands of people, are saying that the death of thousand of people can be justified? What is your excuse for 9/11? This killed at least 3,000 people and was absolutely devastating. This also went on to kill thousands in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan because George Bush declared the "war on terror" and even now people are dying because of terrorist activity, please tell how that can ever be justified.
April PFD Topic

Indeed, it is very disappointing that I was so hyper-focused on the rules you set forth that I somehow didn't notice that I was taking the Pro position. On occasion I enjoy taking the devil's advocate position, but I can see no [good] justification for government involvement in organ donation for all the reasons you succinctly listed in Round 2. If you would like to take the Pro position in this debate, that would be fine with me, but it might be better that we started a fresh debate on a new topic. This one is tainted, and I could simply use the arguments you outlined in Round 2 and turn them against you. In either case, it's your call. But I owe you a good debate for the time you spent on this one, your topic of choice. FORFEIT.
April PFD Topic

The resolution is, "Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation." The rules are standard NFL PFD rules, and can be read in the [1]link below for any-one unfamiliar with the rules. The format is obviously adapted to this site's layout. Round 1 is for acceptance and clarification Round 2 is for constructive speeches, and constructive speeches alone. (No attacks made here) Round 3 is for attacking your opponent's case. Nothing else. Round 4 is for refutation of attacks made, and extensions Round 5 is for voters. That said, here's to a fun debate! [1] http://www.nflonline.org...
Lard is a healthy food

Lard is a hardcore punk/Industrial band founded in 1988 as a side project by Jello Biafra (vocals), Al Jourgensen (guitar), Paul Barker (bass), and Jeff Ward (drums). [1] Biafra is perhaps best known as the former frontman of the punk rock band Dead Kennedys. Jourgensen is the founder and only continuous member of industrial metal band Ministry, of which Barker was an official member between 1988 and 2004, and Ward was also once a touring member. Over the years, several other members of Ministry played with Lard, namely Bill Rieflin, Mike Scaccia, and Rey Washam. Like most of Biafra's work, Lard's songs are angrily political (the War on Drugs is a particularly common theme) but often have a tinge of humour. As of 2007[update], Lard have not officially toured and have only performed live a handful of times, mostly around the San Francisco area (where Jello lives and operates his Alternative Tentacles record label). The band played during Ministry's 1988 tour and throughout their 1989-1990 dates (Jello was a touring member), once in Chicago after wrapping the recording of The Last Temptation Of Reid, once at the conclusion of a Ministry concert in Los Angeles (March 24, 2003), and at the San Francisco (September 26, 2004) and Seattle (September 29, 2004) dates of Ministry's Evil Doer tour. Because its key members are active with other projects, it is unlikely that the band will tour. Which obviously means its unhealthy. It was fun and very excitable debating with you.
Lard is a healthy food

I do not appreciate the foul language you have used today. However I will still engage you in what I like to call WORD COMBAT. . http://www.foodandwine.com... Lard has little pork flavor, making it ideal for use in baked goods, where it is treasured for its ability to produce flaky, moist pie crusts. Unlike many margarines and vegetable shortenings, unhydrogenated lard contains no trans fat, which are very bad for you. Lard is one of the few edible oils with a relatively high smoke point, attributable to its high saturated fatty acids content. Pure lard is especially useful for cooking since it produces little smoke when heated and has a distinct taste when combined with other foods. Many chefs and bakers deem lard a superior cooking fat or shortening because of lard's range of applications and taste. Because of the relatively large fat crystals found in lard, it is extremely effective as a shortening in baking. Pie crusts made with lard tend to be more flaky than those made with butter. Many cooks employ both types of fat in their pastries to combine the shortening properties of lard with the flavor of butter. In British cuisine, lard is used as a traditional ingredient in mince pies and Christmas puddings, lardy cake and for frying fish and chips, as well as many other uses. Lard is traditionally one of the main ingredients in the Scandinavian pï¿½tï¿½ leverpostej. In Catalan cuisine lard is still used to make coca bases and typical cakes as ensaimades. Other uses: Rendered lard can be used to produce biofueland soap. Lard is also useful as a cutting fluid in machining. Its use in machining has declined since the mid-20th century as other specially engineered cutting fluids became prominent. However, it is still a viable option.
Lard is a healthy food

Lard has been labeled a bad fat for almost 100 years. But what many people don't realize is that lard has been a part of traditional diets for thousands of years. As we learn more about the health benefits of saturated fats, we can see that our ancestors knew all along what was healthy. When did it become bad for us? Around the time of the Civil War, butter and lard were the major fats Americans consumed. William Proctor (a candle maker) and James Gamble (a soap maker) went into business together to market cottonseed oil to compete with the monopoly on lard and tallow. A German chemist E. C. Kayser developed the hydrogenation process that transformed cottonseed oil into a solid form that looked like lard. So Proctor and Gamble decided to try to sell it as a food. By 1911 Crisco was on the market and advertised as being healthier than lard. The company even provided a cookbook with Crisco as the ingredient in the recipes (instead of lard) as part of their marketing ploy to get young homemakers to buy it. As the use of lard waned, the consumption of Crisco rose and so did heart disease, cancer and learning disorders. These diseases were rare before 1900. For many years, few people made the connection between these diseases and hydrogenated oils that became rampant in the food supply. HELL YEAH! !! SUCK IT BI**H!
Homosexuals should be allowed to have custody of children as easily as a Heterosexuals

There is nothing wrong with Homosexuality, so why shouldn't they be allowed to have custody of children like heterosexuals? It's been proven with 21 studies that children with homosexual parents are more empathetic to socialites problems and are less like to stereotype people because of their genders.(1) As of now courts are favoring Heterosexual over homosexual parents even if it isn't in the child's best interest. (2) A number of studies in recent years have purported to show that children raised in gay and lesbian households fare no worse than those reared in traditional families. (3) and Contrary to popular belief child molesters are overwhelmingly heterosexual males --95% according to LAPD figures; 97% according to FBI figures.(4) There's no good evidence that same-sex parents are any less fit than heterosexual parents, and some of them may provide subtle advantages. The only reason many studies show children raised by homosexual have emotional problem is because of them getting picked on by bigots. (5) (1) http://www.narth.com... (2) http://journals.indexcopernicus.com... (3) http://www.orthodoxytoday.org... (4) http://www.bidstrup.com... (5) http://www.beachpsych.com...
People told me to kill myself

OK for one, Your claimed actions are inappropriate and ungodly though you claim them as to be. Your an embarrassment to Christians, And show no love for God. You also have left a mark that even you claim as bad. If you continue and don't repent or turn from these actions you face judgement. If you have already repented then ask God for forgiveness and possibly post a sorry note. Just stop making poems on this and go to facebook.
People told me to kill myself

People told me to kill myself I am a pedophile, I am a poet When I share my poems with people I get faced with their hate They tell me how I am a monster They tell me how I deserve to die painfully They tell me how I should end it all They tell me to kill myself But these words do not affect me These words do not stop me I will not kill myself, I will continue To write my poems, To molest children Their words are just another obstacle to my dreams Obstacle that I shall overcome and not be stopped by it If they want me to die, They will have to kill me themselves I am a soldier that won't be stopped by words I am guided by my mind, Not by your words If you want to stop me, You will have to take a gun and kill me But not even that can stop me anymore Because I have already molested children I have already left a mark A mark that you cannot erase by killing me You cannot stop something that already happened You cannot stop me, I am the past and I am the future You cannot erase a past, You cannot stop the future I am a soldier commanded by my dreams And I will not let you take them away from me
anger can be a good moral motivation

Ok sure but you express that anger should be suppressed or even eradicated because it doesn't solve anything. But its impossible for someone to hide their emotions. The fact that someone will do something that may cause you to get upset or even arise a negative emotion in you is something that will happen. If we understand anger in the ways you express you will only cause more stress and grief to yourself. The point that Im trying to make is that our reaction to things isn't alway conscious and when its not we can't control our anger so its best to allow it to float freely instead of caging it in. It is easier to just allow for anger to present itself and then resolve because holding it in would make matters worse. Anger is not a caged emotion thus, why should one try to suppress something that is only momentary. One cannot not be mad forever but it will make life easier to release your anger.
anger can be a good moral motivation

So apparently. it is possible anger can be focused towards the wrong things, the wrong amount of time, and towards the wrong person. So if you get into a fight with a friend, and you angry at them, it is possible that you two do not make up. Is anger worth it? You say we should control our anger and use it for the right reason, are you saying that you should not do anything that anger dictates? If that is the case, then clearly, there is no need for anger. So if you are saying that you should be open to your emotions to express yourself NATURALLY, why should you control your anger? Clearly, anger is something meant to be ungoverned, and as our class has stressed, we should only focus on things in our control, such as reason.
anger can be a good moral motivation

Anger can be considered good if the focus is towards the right thing, for the right amount of time and towards the right person, according to Aristotle. Because anger is a fleeting emotion it is best spent focusing on the right things because wasting energy on the wrong things are pointless. For example, if you get into a fight with a friend then the anger should be directed towards that friend so when the two make up the relief would be even more pleasing. Because anger is such a natural emotion it is expected that we express anger but only in the ways where it matters. Angry can be seen as a good motivation to relieve built in stress and to always be open in your emotions as this brings forth a natural way to express yourself.
anger can be a good moral motivation

You have not answered my previous question of " You say we should control our anger and use it for the right reason, are you saying that you should not do anything that anger dictates?" So you stated "When I am only suggesting that anger happens impulsively thus it should be released in a proper manner. If we are mad at someone who stepped on our shoe we naturally react in an angry way maybe cursing at the person while cause relief to that person but either way it should only help the person who is angry at that moment." How can we control things that are impulsive? Impulsive things are acts done without forethought. You cannot control anger if it is impulsive, and undermine your statements in your first round when you say "Because anger is a fleeting emotion it is best spent focusing on the right things because wasting energy on the wrong things are pointless." What are these wrong things? Because apparently, the right things to get angry at are when people step on your shoe.
anger can be a good moral motivation

I am not suggesting that life will be easier or not even enabling crime such as murder. I am pretty sure that values hold no place in a person"s mind when their angry based on impulse. If you suggest that someone gets angry over coffee do you believe that they think about their moral values and the reasons why they should not be mad at this situation? NO! Because anger is an impulsive emotion that is meant to be released. You even suggest that my understanding of anger enablers murders and criminals to do bad things. When I am only suggesting that anger happens impulsively thus it should be released in a proper manner. If we are mad at someone who stepped on our shoe we naturally react in an angry way maybe cursing at the person while cause relief to that person but either way it should only help the person who is angry at that moment. If that person goes home with a sore foot the anger will only re surface and it will manifest into stress that is unwanted. The problem is learning how to control the way you handle anger. It doesn"t have to be violent but it is a way to release the anger when its there.
anger can be a good moral motivation

It is not necessarily impossible for someone to hide their emotions. It is typically VERY hard to do so in our society today, because we have so many distractions. However, it is clear that our values are in the wrong place. The fact that we will get angry because our coffee isn't hot enough isn't means to be in a negative state. And if you understand anger in my terms, you will hold value over what really matters. So you're saying that we cannot control anger sometimes and that we should let it flow freely. So we should kill people if we think them to deserve to die? I don't think so. And apparently, you believe anger should be a caged emotion when you say "Because anger is such a natural emotion it is expected that we express anger but only in the ways where it matters". Life will not actually be easier when you let your anger take over and you murder a dozen people and spend the rest of your life in prison.
Gay marriage

I'm straight, and for gay marriage and see no reason why people are against. If it doesn't affect your life why do you care if LGBT's get married. You should be happy that two people love each other. Stop worrying about other peoples life's. In some countries you can sign papers that show you are partners with another person of the same sex but your not allowed the actual marriage ceremony, and then the government/homophobic say your together so why are you still wanting the marriage? well marriage is a major milestone in someone's life, ok, so of coarse the LGBT's will still fight for marriage. Marriage doesn't have to be between man and woman, it can be between two people that love each other. There is no reason to hate them or be against it. And times have changed, because the bible says something that shows you god doesn't agree with gays, you don't have to think that as well, more and more people are accepting of LGBT's these days because they realize that nothing is bad about them and if god is real and doesn't agree with them, then why would he create gays. It's heartbreaking that in some countries people are killed for their sexuality, and most homophobic's don't care if they are killed. You are probably judgemental, unkind, and uncaring of other peoples differences if you think of LGBT's in a bad way and think they don't deserve the rights of straight people. I'm not telling you you have to be a fan of LGBT's but all I'm saying is, you dont have to agree with what they do, just let them have their rights, let them get married, accept them as humans, it doesn't affect you in anyway if they get married so just let them mind their own business and let this argument about other peoples love lives be done with.
gay marriage

NONE OF THIS PART IS MINE PLEASE DO NOT SAY I PLAGERIZED I DID NOT THIS IS NOT MY WRITING NOT MY WRITING"If two men are in love, and want to declare their commitment, why should we keep them from marrying each other?" "If two gays want to be married, aren't they upholding the institution of marriage rather than weakening it?" "If a pair of homosexuals want to marry and provide a home for children who would otherwise be without a family, then how can that be wrong?" In our ongoing cultural conversation about homosexuality and same-sex marriage, we will continue to have friends and family members who will be asking us questions like these. Unfortunately, many Christians today lack the ability to clearly articulate their views on marriage. We often find it difficult to respond to questions or arguments made by those who disagree with us. If we want to defend the centuries-old understanding of marriage, we should start by looking carefully at what God has to say about it. When we speak of the "sanctity of marriage," we mean to say that marriage is a holy and sacred institution created not by man, but by God. That means that no matter what legislators or justices say, the definition of marriage is not ours to tamper with. Before laying out a defense for marriage we need to make two very important points: First, we in the Christian community need to apologize for the way we have interacted with the LGBT community. As those who have been forgiven by God through Christ's sacrificial death on our behalf, we must exhibit the love of Christ to all men and women. We can stand for the truth and be loving at the same time. This we must do. Second, our authority to speak to the needs of our nation today is the Word of God. The Scriptures teach that there are absolutes and that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Truth is never tolerant of a lie. The real battleground around this debate on homosexual marriage begins with the question: Who is your authority? We believe that the timeless truth of Holy Scripture gives us the authoritative blueprints for life. We respect those who wish to deny the truth of Scripture. We would ask for a mutual respect in return."(familylife.com)