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

Before I defend my case by rebutting my opponent's critiques and later go on to critique the NEG I will say thank Vitalsign789 for participating in this debate. You have presented an intelligent argument and I look forward to seeing how this debate plays out. First before I refute my opponents critique I have to answer the off hand remark in the comment section about my case. I wrote my case and do not plagiarize at all. So any way back to the debate; The NEG arguments: •It is immoral to kill life •The murder individual is "innocent" and should not be killed •You can not preserve life by killing a life The AFF will not show how the NEG arguments are of weaker reasoning: •It is immoral to kill a life. The AFF agrees with that contention the NEG presents. The AFF does not stand for killing or murder rather the AFF stands for sacrificing. Murder and sacrifice are two different things. Murder is immoral and sacrificing is not when it will achieve the greater good. The resolution implies a scenario where by sacrificing one individual you will save many more individuals. Also the NEG case would allow the more innocent people to die rather than sacrifice one other person to save them. That reasoning contradicts his entire argument of killing is immoral. By letting those other people die you are killing them as well. "You don't have to shoot a child with a gun" as the NEG so put it to kill some body. By noting helping the people who are going to do you are killing them. To not help the dying people to best of your resources you killing them. The AFF suggest that you aim to save the most life and sacrifice one person to save more people. Compared to the NEG who says it is immoral to kill one innocent life and murders a lot of innocent lives. •The Resolution implies that the people in this scenario are only innocent of being put in this position. The resolution uses innocent as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The NEG implies a society of Angels and Demons and suggest that resolution will murder the saints of the world to save the lives of whomever. The NEG needs to stop looking at the world thrown black and white stain glasses and fully understand the resolution. The scenario the resolution implies is that society can either sacrifice an innocent person to save the lives of others, or let the others die. The innocent person clearly means that the people are on equal standings. Innocent is written into the resolution to keep this debate from starting an argument about sacrificing a child molester to save one hundred doctors. •The NEG implies that if you murder a life you are not preserving life. NEG is correct on that reasoning but fails to understand the full implications of the resolution. The resolution implies that by sacrificing a life you will preserve more life by doing so. Sacrificing that life to save more life is morally correct and preserves the most life. So the NEG logic pales in comparison to the AFF ideology of saving the most life.
I am a panda

Firstly, He claims that in the first photo (I will label the photos 1,2, and 3 respectively as opposed to re-pasting them) I would have been able to been seen. However, he does not consider who might be behind the camera. Alas, it was me, though I didn't take the picture (these hands can only do so much...) I was next to the camerawoman. I believe the mixed pressure of me (a life-threatening master) and her (a very sexy girl) more than kept him where he was. His second claim states that I would never be able to live in Arizona since there is insufficient bamboo. http://www.debate.org... In this album, I show the bamboo in my yard. As for the guitar, well, you really haven't heard him. He's terrible.
I am a panda

I thank Charlie for his response. My opponent claims that he is a Panda who uses the human Charlie Wanless as a slave. I will disprove this claim: In this Photo (http://tinyurl.com...), Charlie is clearly in a public area. Any Panda would be quickly spotted. Charlie would also have a chance to make his big escape. Charlie also lives in Arizona. Arizona is primarily comprised of desert (http://tinyurl.com...). This is not prime bamboo growing area. Therefore, it is unlikely Charlie, or his Panda master would have to funds to acquire edible bamboo to keep the Master Panda alive, without people noticing. Slaves don't play guitar to the skill this photo shows: http://tinyurl.com... Negated.
I am a panda

Like I stated in my constructive, I disguise myself as a human to avoid the crushing media attention I would otherwise receive. The links my opponent posted are, in fact, in my possession, but the human who acts in them is under my control. If you watch closely in the video, and rate it five-stars, you can see how nervous he gets, knowing that if he screws the video up, he will be tortured again. He is basically a p*ssy, so he obeys my rule. In short, my opponent has not, and cannot, prove that I am the actual one in these videos, pictures, and blogs, because it is actually the human that I keep as a slave to perform my bidding. Thus you affirm.
I am a panda

I thank Charlie Danger for this debate. I am currently in the understanding I must negate the resolution by proving Charlie Danger is indeed, not a Panda. Firstly, I will show you proof Charlie Danger is in fact a human: http://www.youtube.com... The name of that Youtube channel - CharlieWanlessVideos (http://www.youtube.com...) - Matches Charlie Dangers given name on DDO - Charlie Wanless (http://www.debate.org...). Furthermore, he acknowledges it's his video in this forum (http://www.debate.org...) It is clear Charlie Danger isn't a Panda. Back to my opponent.
I am a panda

I thank Charlie for this date I will disprove him in one shot. Picture 1(http://www.debate.org...) contains people in the background, two to the upper right corner, one below Charles chin, and another and what appears to be a human figure to the centre far left. If a Panda and a sexy woman were behind the camera, the police would be rung and the Panda would be put in captivity followed by Charlies' escape. Clearly, there isn't a Panda behind the camera, thus Charlie wouldn't be in this picture (http://www.debate.org...) other than to fool people is a Panda. Ergo, Charlie is not a Panda. NEGATED
Polygamy should be legal in the United States

It seems my opponent has forfeited the second round/argument phase. I do hope they take the opportunity to make a case in the third round. As my conclusion I would like to reiterate my stance on this topic. I think it is financially and emotionally potential for those who would desire to have multiple partners in their marriage. The concept of love should not be bound by the state. I look forward to the arguments against my case if they are to be presented. Thank you and may the best arguments win. Innkeep
Polygamy should be legal in the United States

Welcome to the debate. When we look at matters of love and affairs we have little knowledge on why or how people choose their significant others. In today's society many marriages end in divorce for a multitude of reasons financial, sexual impotency, change in life style or even "falling out of love". There is also the rise of an Internet service, Ashley Madison, which caters to those seeming a marital affair. With marriage being a very difficult and faulty combination of two individuals in society I do not see the issue in allowing any and all who would want to strive to a better life in love. Financially having multiple employed individuals in a single household would be beneficial not only economically but also for the raising and care of the children. Sexual Impotency would no longer be more of a heavy burden upon those involved having many partners to engage and reproduce with. When looking at reproduction the offspring would have multiple siblings without one parent birthing them all. This could be a beneficial system not just for the individuals but also the children. Thank you and may the best arguments win.
Polygamy should be legal in the United States

There should be no limitations as to how many individuals are allowed to join in matrimony. Define: Polygamy noun 1. the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. This is to say any combination i. e. 2 male 3 female; 3 female 2 male; not limited to 1 male with multiple females or 1 female with multiple males.
Soft drinks should be sold at school

Ah the final round. Let's look at your first statement "Schools do cares about their student's achievements and wellbeing, because if their students is healthy and achieves more, it can really made the schools be extremely proud" The first sentence has mistakes in spelling and grammar. Now, the schools only care about the grades and money. Teachers and staff do care about the students, they do have hearts and will help you if you have issues. However, they won't hurt their income. Also there are smart fat kids, so "health" isn't a big part that determines how smart they are; mental illnesses and how quickly they learn and their choice to learn determines how smart they are. "You are just saying schools should feeds its students sugary drinks and made them overweight." Sugary drinks will hardly make you super obese. While they do increase weight, it isn't on the scale of eating a whole cake. It's also to lose the weight you've obtained from one or two cans of soda. Run for 30 minutes. "Then, the student's parents gonna blame the schools or perhaps put school to a judgement in the migration." Honestly, I doubt this. They're going to blame their own child for being careless. THE SCHOOLS DON'T FORCE YOU TO DRINK THE SODA. It's up to you to drink it. "Schools should banned soft drinks, because if they not care for their student's wellbeing, it is against the law." Spelling errors again. Also, it's legal now to sell sodas, and no teachers or staff members are getting arrested for it. It's perfectly fine to sell soda in schools.
Soft drinks should be sold at school

Schools do cares about their student's achievements and wellbeing, because if their students is healthy and achieves more, it can really made the schools be extremely proud. You are just saying schools should feeds its students sugary drinks and made them overweight. Then, the student's parents gonna blame the schools or perhaps put school to a judgement in the migration. Schools should banned soft drinks, because if they not care for their student's wellbeing, it is against the law.
Soft drinks should be sold at school

Let's look at your argument "First, I confidently believe that soft drinks shouldn"t be sold at schools, because soft drinks are causing troubles on our behaviours, concentrations, learning abilities, inhibitions and overall general health issues caused by the ingredients of sugars, carbon dioxide, artificial sweeteners, acids, sodium, artificial flavourings & colours and preservatives in each can or bottle of soft drink. Also, due to scientific researches showing on http://www.rethinksugarydrink.org.au......, it stated if a student drinks one can of 600ml of regular soft drink every day for a year this equals to 23kg of sugar and 6.75kg of fats, or one can of 250ml of energy drink equals to 24g of sugar and a 1600ml bottle of regular soft drink equals to 64g of sugar. It also stated that..." A279;Assuming that someone does drink everyday for a year. Not everyone drinks one can a day for a year your source is targeting Australian citizens, not citizens abroad. "Also, bone breaking causing by carbonate from soft drinks corroding bones in our body and made bones loss of calcium & vitamin D; and tooth decay caused by sugar from the soft drinks stuck in our tooth and grows bacteria in the plague, which gives us horrible yellow tooth and smelling breath; are some examples that messed up our growth process." Yet again, not everyone drinks soda every day. Moderation is key. "So, I thought there is no use for schools to offer such expensive drinks, instead schools should using the money on sporting equipment, library books, stationaries, camps, excursions, uniforms and heaps more healthy choices for us" Schools will keep selling soft drinks TO OBTAIN money. If they bought stuff to help us, they'd lose money. They don't care too much about you unless it makes them lose money or gain money. "FEEDBACK FROM MY TEACHER!!!" I'm stopping you right there. I don't care what your teacher has to say. I want to know what YOU have to say. Leave him/her out of it. Now my argument. The average vending machine in schools earn around $15,000 a year{http://www.districtadministration.com...} . That's a lot for the school, including the expenses. I see you want to keep the vending machines but sell something else. However, most students would prefer soda over juice. Soda is more addictive, so they'll buy it more often. That's why the schools sell soda and not juice. To make money. Juice isn't as addictive as soda, not a lot of caffeine in them. So by removing soda, you're still hurting the school. The sales of juice wouldn't be as high as soda.
Soft drinks should be sold at school

In my opinion, I strongly believe that soft drinks shouldn"t be sold at schools, because soft drinks damage our behaviours, concentrations, inhibitions, learning abilities and overall general health issues due to the community comments on www.debate.org/opinions/should-soda-be-sold-at-schools. For instance, it makes us aggressive, stimulant and disruptive; as well as it could distract student from concentrate on what they are doing. First, I confidently believe that soft drinks shouldn"t be sold at schools, because soft drinks are causing troubles on our behaviours, concentrations, learning abilities, inhibitions and overall general health issues caused by the ingredients of sugars, carbon dioxide, artificial sweeteners, acids, sodium, artificial flavourings & colours and preservatives in each can or bottle of soft drink. Also, due to scientific researches showing on http://www.rethinksugarydrink.org.au..., it stated if a student drinks one can of 600ml of regular soft drink every day for a year this equals to 23kg of sugar and 6.75kg of fats, or one can of 250ml of energy drink equals to 24g of sugar and a 1600ml bottle of regular soft drink equals to 64g of sugar. It also stated that In the end, I strongly suggest schools should brought buy fresh fruits for the caf" to sell as an energy booster, because the sugar in fruits are natural and fruits give us heaps of vitamins and minerals, not fats. Also, bone breaking causing by carbonate from soft drinks corroding bones in our body and made bones loss of calcium & vitamin D; and tooth decay caused by sugar from the soft drinks stuck in our tooth and grows bacteria in the plague, which gives us horrible yellow tooth and smelling breath; are some examples that messed up our growth process. So, I thought there is no use for schools to offer such expensive drinks, instead schools should using the money on sporting equipment, library books, stationaries, camps, excursions, uniforms and heaps more healthy choices for us. Overall, I absolutely believe that soft drinks shouldn"t be sold at schools, because soft drinks gives us more harm than good and have no nutritional benefits; if you need energy to boost you up, eats fruits, they are natural energy booster! FEEDBACK FROM MY TEACHER!!! Well Done! You have put in a lot of time and effort to create a persuasive text with detailed evidence and explanations to support your arguments. You have also used extensive technical vocabulary and precise word groups that strengthens the credibility. Your introduction has clearly stated your opinion and arguments to be discussed in the text. Please include a rhetorical question at the beginning or in the title to further engage the reader. I really like how you included a solution to help persuade the reader, for example selling health food in the cafe as an energy booster. Great idea! Using connective words to link your paragraphs will help the reader to understand and follow your arguments. For example, Firstly (argument 1), Secondly (argument 2), and Thirdly (argument 3).
Soft drinks should be sold at school

Students not adults? What about COLLEGE students huh? Anyone viewing this debate in college? University/college students could use the caffeine from soft drinks to get a boost of energy. Wether they need late night studying or late night making out. Also, you are not pulling much facts or sources to prove your points. You are saying you want soft drinks banned because they are "bad". Fine lets get rid of food because they contain fats which are bad. Ever heard of pleasure? People drink beer which is bad but in moderation it's good. If students abroad drink soft drinks with moderation there won't be any or at least a lot of bad effects. In fact in moderation they have POSITIVE effects http://www.livestrong.com... Your want for banning soft drinks has weak support.
Soft drinks should be sold at school

"School principals think and cared most about student's health rather than schools funds" let me stop you there. How can you be so sure that they "care" about the student's health more than money? That is a hasty generalization. Let me add, very hasty. http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com... If a principal rapes a student are they concerning for their health and well being? I will admit, not all principals are greedy or horrible. Some do care about the students. But NOT EVERY SINGLE ONE. You also said that "It is harmful to the government" Um? Wait what? Drugs are harmful to people not the government but SODA is? You have less of a chance of dying from soda than drugs. Also most are illegal.
Soft drinks should be sold at school

School principals think and cared most about student's health rather than schools funds, schools could sell healthier foods for their student to eat and could earn heaps more money than selling soft drinks. I strongly believe that World's governments should banned or restricted soft drinks and alcohol, because it is harmful to yourself and the government. Government shouldn't banned drugs, because drugs only harm yourself, not others; I am sure people could make right choices for themselves not others. By the way, I still confidently thought soft drinks id bad for all of us, because of the nasty ingredients the Coca-Cola company has put into it to harm students and adults. Soft drinks should be banned!!!
Soft drinks should be sold at school

I accept your challenge. First, even though you don't like soft drinks and it causes health issues you can't do much to stop it. I'll throw you an example. Alcohol. Even though many people don't like it, are against it, and hate it, it is still sold in stores, bars, and clubs. It causes liver failure, kills brain cells, and is the reason for drunk driving (what else would cause it?) that killed 10,322 people http://www.madd.org... Also think of the economy. http://en.wikipedia.org... Coca Cola as of 2010 sells 1.6 BILLION beverages a day. According to http://www.businessinsider.com... they make $35.1 BILLION in revenue (Income minus Expenses) If schools stopped selling Coca Cola products they'd lose a lot of money. Let's talk about schools now... If schools stopped selling Soft Drinks, they'd lose a lot of money too. They make a small, but decent profit from the vending machines that sell the Soft Drinks. I do understand that you realize that soft drinks can cause health issues, but consider these factors first.
Soft drinks should be sold at school

In my opinion, I strongly believe that soft drinks shouldn"t be sold at schools, because soft drinks damages student"s behaviour, concentration, inhibitions, learning abilities and overall general health issues due to the community comments on www.debate.org/opinions/should-soda-be-sold-at-schools. For instance, it makes students aggressive, hyper, stimulant, defiant and disruptive; as well as it could distract student from concentrate on what they are doing. Firstly, I confidently believe that soft drinks shouldn"t be sold at schools, because soft drinks are causing troubles on our behaviour, concentration, inhibition, learning abilities, overall general health caused by the ingredients of sugar, caffeine, additives and chemicals in the soft drinks. Bone breaking caused by the carbonate from soft drinks corrosion bones in our body and made our bones loss calcium & vitamin D; tooth decay caused by sugar from the soft drinks stuck in our tooth and grows bacteria in the plague, which gives us horrible yellow and smelling breath. So, I thought there is no use for schools to offer such expensive drinks that giving us more harm than good and no nutritional benefits, instead schools should using the money on sporting equipment, library books, stationaries, camps, excursions, uniforms and heaps more healthy choices for their students. For instance, soft drinks increasing obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, kidney stones, caramel cancer, disabilities and other life damaging problems to us; all of these problems or issues. Due to scientific reports, if student drinks one can of 600ml of regular soft drink every day for a year is equals to 23kg of sugar and 6.75kg of fats, one can of 250ml equals to 24g of sugar and 1600ml bottle of regular soft drink equals to 64g of sugar. In the end, I strongly suggest schools should brought fruits for the caf" to sell as energy booster, because the sugar in fruits are natural and gives us heaps of vitamins and minerals. Overall, I absolutely believe that soft drinks shouldn"t be sold at schools, because of distraction to behaviour, concentration, learning abilities, inhibitions and overall general health. It also effects students with increasing of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, kidney stones, caramel cancer, disabilities, diseases and other life damaging or heart problems for students. Just as I said before, soft drinks gives us more harm than good and have no nutritional benefits; if you need energy to boost you up, eats fruits, they are natural energy booster of sugar.
Overall Les Claypool is a better bassist the Flea.

fenderjazzguy, You have failed to show us how les claypool is a better bassist. We just have your opinion. This whole debate has been based on your opinion. I repeat: THIS WHOLE DEBATE HAS BEEN BASED ON YOUR OPINION. I have given evidence in the form of youtube videos, history, and lists. I alone in this debate understood the subjectivity of music and thus have allowed the voter to watch the videos and decide for themselves. As for who is the better bassist, I will reiterate and clarify: Technically and creatively, they are equal. They are better than any bassist around. Judging one "better" than the other is completely subjective and is undebatable with words. That is why I've compared them with video so people can see. Fortunately, there is more to being a bassist than just playing bass. Flea is lively on stage, he is funny, and he has a persona outside music such as acting and musical compatibility with many, many artists. Whether RHCP is sold out or not (again, a subjective opinion) or whether you agree with Flea's personal choices in life is of no relevance to this debate. You have not said anything meaningful. In essence, your entire agrument is: "Dude, Les Claypool's playing is so rad on 'these' songs and that's why he rules. Also he plays a 6 string rainbow bass! Sick duuude"