BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is better to die trying to be free than to live in captivity

My opponent mentions the afterlife in his argument. First of all you will get to the afterlife regardless of whether or not you die trying to be free becausee you will die anyway and it will not necessarily be good. My opponent assumes that life in captivity will be negative. This may not be the case. A slave may or may not have a good life without his freedom. Though freedom would be better captivity would necessarily be so bad that even death would be better. My opponent says that the future would only be better if you attempt to free yourself. That would probably not be the case. A person held in prison, by state or terrorist, could be released after some time. A slave could be released, or somehow gain freedom later in his lifetime. Attempting to free yourself would be better if the odds were of success were good but my opponent argues that death in attempt to free oneself is better than remaining in captivity.
It is better to die trying to be free than to live in captivity

My opponent states "if you are dead you will enjoy nothing. " First of all my opponent, mathematically, sets the enjoyment in death at 0 or nothing. Therefore, my opponent must be assuming there is no afterlife. Though this is an entirely different channel to this debate, I will agree with my opponents statement that "if you are dead you will enjoy nothing. "Living on the other hand can be either a positive or negative thing. This can be proven by suicide. If living could only be considered either zero or positive, and dying could only be considered zero, there would be no reason to taking your own life. In this case suicide would be worse than whatever awful life you are living. However, suicide does occur. Therefore, life can be a negative entity. If life is negative, as it would be in this "enslaved (1)" state. It is better to try to improve your life into enjoyment and die trying because even death, at "nothing", would be better than the negatively valued life lived in captivity. My opponent also stated, "if you live, even in captivity you will be able to enjoy a little of your life. " This was proven fictional in my previous argument. If it was only possible to enjoy life and not hate it, suicide would not exist. My opponent then talks about the future. He is correct to say that, "it (your life) may change in the future" This is only possible if one thing occurs, you must attempt to free yourself, and in attempting to free yourself, you may die, but that is better than staying in captivity and being miserable. Thank you
It is better to die trying to be free than to live in captivity

I believe that it is far better to die fighting to be free than to live enslaved. First to clarify some definitions, free - enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not enslaved (1). captivity - the state or period of being held, imprisoned, enslaved, or confined. (2) I will allow my opponent to state his or her argument first. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Politicians should be required to take random drug tests

Your plan erodes the importance of the electorate and perpetuates a lack of trust in the people. First, let's talk about Marion Barry. His re-election occurred for one simple reason: the people he represents love him. According to the New York Times on September 17th, 1992, Barry's won his election with over %70 of the vote in his favor. That's a landslide. Political pundits have speculated that Barry's ethnicity played heavily in his re-election, and not necessarily his record. I find this to be a mute point. If a heavy minority community wants to elect a minority politician to office because they feel they can identify with him or her, that's called Democracy. His re-election was Democracy in action. Despite his drug use, it seems the people of the 8th Ward in Washington DC identified closet with the ideals of Barry, and that's freedom. Now let's discuss William Jefferson, a black democrat from Louisiana. He wasn't even involved in any drug related crime, so I don't even know why he was mentioned. His crime involved financial corruption, the trademark of our favorite Republican scandals such as Bush's friends at Enron (who contributed $736,800 to his 2000 campaign) or Jack Abramoff and friends at Tyco. I'm guessing the point your trying to make has to do with black, criminal democrats "getting away" and getting re-elected. First of all, both Barry and Jefferson spent their due time in jail and went through the court system like any other American. They didn't enjoy a Scooter Libby style pardon. After serving their prison sentence, they had the legal ability to be re-elected if they chose to run again. It was the choice of a free electorate to decide if these gentlemen deserved another term. If we question the electorate, we question Democracy itself. I'm not ready to do that.
Politicians should be required to take random drug tests

you said If a politician is performing poorly the people vote them out of office. How about Marion Barry ? Convicted on tape by the FBI of smoking crack- reelected how about Jefferson (D, La) - indicted on 22 counts by the Feds , caught on tape taking a 90K bribe - reelected, protected by his democrat colleagues how about supreme court justices and other judges- appointed for life? I am really taking ther devils advocate here as I am for legalization of drugs and against drug tests in general I think that if we could force the politicians to show how they are on prozac and cocaine, etc they would be more motivated to take the legalization question seriously I DO THINK that alot of politicans (esp demcorats like Kennedy for example) have DRINKING PROBLEMS and DRUG PROBLEMS cheers
Politicians should be required to take random drug tests

The difference between bureaucrats and politicians is the means of accountability to which they are held. Bureaucrats are held accountable by the hierarchy of our federal government. This hierarchy is made up of employed workers, some of which are directly employed by the President. Politicians on the other hand are held accountable by the electorate directly. This is the major difference. Drug testing's purpose is to insure that bureaucrats are performing their "public service" competently. The test itself holds these employees accountable. This is not the way our elected officials are, or should be held accountable. If a politician is performing poorly the people vote them out of office.
Politicians should be required to take random drug tests

This is completely unnecessary. If a politician is doing drugs, the only negative consequence that effects the American people would be that politician is falling behind in their work. If that is the case, the voters have the freedom to discharge them from their office. This is called Democracy. If their performance in office is below par, they are voted out. That is it. Introducing any tests of this kind would only burden our politicians and add to the inefficiency of our government.
Going to prison is not more voluntary than so.

Honestly, MisterDeku, resorting to the logical fallacy of Appeal to Emotion and actually asking the readers to vote for you solely on the base of saying that is both ludicrous and sad. And I'm not insulting you. If I was, I'd say you were dum* or something. But did I? No. In fact, if you can find even one sentence in any of my arguments which insults you(and not your arguments), I'll believe you. But you see, that's the thing: you can't. My arguments are unjustified? Says the guy who doesn't want to rebut to any of my rebuttals. I've provided more than enough examples and points to back up my arguments. You have interpreted the resolution wrongly. You're just too stubborn to admit it, even though you know that consequences have nothing to do with voluntariness. I responded to the 'force' argument. If an officer knocks you out, it must be because of a crime. Even so, officers mostly ask you to put your hands up and walk you to their police car where they'll take you to court. If an officer knocks you out, it's probably because you tried to retaliate against them. If you're taken to court, you then know what your crime was and what you did wrong. As such, you will know the 'consequences', but you will still have the choice on whether you want to go to jail or not. And what did I say after I thought it was a joke? I dissected it and rebutted to that point, though you probably didn't read that part. Even if false imprisonment happens, you still have a choice. And you choose to go to prison, even though you may not like it. Liking something and doing something are quite different. So you're saying that they shouldn't take my arguments into consideration just because you can't rebut to them? It wasn't like you were going to rebut to them anyway. What should stop them from taking MY arguments into account alongside yours? I deserve three rounds of arguments. You already had three, but you tell them to not take my arguments into consideration. That would deprive me of a third round, and would give you the upper hand. However, doing such a thing would technically be trying to get the reader to not read my arguments, which I find to be quite disturbing. In fact, who would actually not want to take someone else's arguments into consideration? I think of this more as a discussion, really. But as you are excluding my last points from the discussion, you are effectively trying to win this discussion through any means necessary, even if it means asking the readers to ignore my argument. Frankly, telling people to vote for you solely because you want them to is sad. They shouldn't judge you based on how much they like you, but instead on how good your arguments are and how much better you rebutted to the other. With that, I end my last case.
Going to prison is not more voluntary than so.

I want to remain as cordial as possible in this debate, but to be frank I don't even know where to begin. Con's arguments are largely unwarranted and insulting which ends up bringing the debate down to a he-said, she-said level. Con previews many of his arguments with off-handed comments which mostly say something to the effect of 'Pro is wrong or he must be dumb'. I'm not going to try to rehash everything right here, In fact I'm done with the on-case arguments entirely. Because Con is so insistent that I've interpreted the resolution wrong a good deal of my arguments go untouched. Con doesn't respond to the force argument. Even if you will be taken to court eventually, you have to be put in a holding cell. Con doesn't respond to the unknown consequences argument. While I can be pretty I'll go to prison if I murder or steal, I may not break a law on purpose. Con actually states he assumes this to be a joke. What? Con doesn't respond to the false imprisonment argument. The first time he says that false imprisonment doesn't happen, and when then when I provide proof he drops the argument entirely. This is my last round. I don't get to talk again in this debate. In the event that Con speaks on these arguments again in his next round, don't take them into consideration. I won't have a chance to refute them. Thank you for reading.
Going to prison is not more voluntary than so.

I could point out the obvious foul play in trying to circumvent my prior arguments by 'redefining the resolution' after I had already made my case, but we've got bigger fish to fry right now; Con makes a fatal assumption before he even begins to argue, and that is in his analysis of the resolution. Con claims that that the resolution means that going to prison has no connection with free will, however the full resolution states that 'Assuming the validity of free will, going to prison within the USA is not more voluntary than so.' Free will is something we assume to be an element of the debate, the real clash here comes on the voluntary clause. Something Con barely touches on. This places emphasis on the initial actions which leads one to go to prison at all. Even if a crime were committed so explicitly that there was no doubt the crime was committed on purpose, it doesn't mean that the person committing the crime fully understands what the consequences for his or her actions will be. Because one doesn't know what the consequences will be, he or she cannot very well chose them voluntarily. So yeah, consequences are pretty important. Back to the box analogy; if there is a mysterious box in my living room, then I don't know what's in that box. So while I may be responsible for the action of opening the box, I cannot change the consequences of having opened the box; there are spiders or cake in there no matter what I personally want. Con never responds to this argument, so it's a pretty good reason to vote Pro. With the importance of consequences restored, the only argument Con has on the table is that one ultimately makes the decision to accept the consequences of his or her actions them self. However this is pretty weak for several reasons; First, if one does not accept the consequence of going to prison, then they aren't within the realm of this discussion. After all, you can't discuss whether or not something was voluntary if it never happened. We are assuming that the person actually went to prison here. Second, Con seems to be ignoring the element of force. No matter how much I opposed an officer trying to take me to prison, if he or she is able to knock me out with a taser, there's not much I can do. As for my opponent's request for evidence of one being jailed falsely, here a couple of articles I found just by googling 'wrongful arrest' [ http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.tricities.com... http://www.parentdish.co.uk...] I'm not sure why my opponent finds this so shocking, but being arrested because of false accusations isn't uncommon. On another note, if the only alternative to going to prison is death, it proves my point that it isn't voluntary. Cut the truisms Con, they aren't going to work. Finally I'd like to point out that my opponent only used this round to attack the arguments I put forward in the previous round. Con didn't even try to present any arguments of his own. Remember, the BOP in this debate is balanced so Con just refuting my arguments isn't enough. The he could hope for there is a tie. Vote Pro! Back to you Con.
Going to prison is not more voluntary than so.

Welcome to DDO! While free will indicates that one would have control over the actions which guide him or her to go to prison, it does not indicate that one would maintain control over the consequences of said actions. Free will guarantees one to have control over the basic actions he or she commits, but does not warrant that one committing such actions will always be conscious of their action's consequences. If there is a mysterious box in my living room, I don't know what will happen if I open that box. There may be delicious cake waiting inside for me, and by opening the box I would get to the cake. There might also be several agitated black widows inside and I may instead be killed for having opened the box. The point is that even though I am in control as to whether or not I open the box, I have no control over the consequences of opening the box. The same is true about the actions which lead one to go to prison. While I am a free agent and have control over my actions, I don't have control over the consequences of my actions. Even if I can guess with a high degree of certainty what will happen as a result of my actions, I still can't say for sure what will happen until after I've already experienced the consequences. Put another way, having control over one's actions does not put one in control of their action's consequences. As a free agent, I can do whatever I please so long as it is actually within my power to do what I want to do. I could walk outside and start jumping rope because it is within my power to do so. I could not however walk outside and fly off into the sunset because that is not something I am physically capable of. First, because I have no means of flight, and second because it is currently after 11pm where I live and the sun has already set. The point to this discussion of free will and consequences is that going to prison is not voluntary, but a consequence of one's actions. If I were an immigrant who had just moved to the United States, I may not know that it is illegal to trespass on the property of another person; I may have taken walks in the woods around my old home all the time, not thinking anything of it. So then if I were arrested for trespassing, it would have come straight out of left field for me. It wouldn't have been a voluntary conclusion to my walk because I didn't even know that what I was doing was illegal. Another example would be accidentally trespassing while taking a walk in a park adjacent to private property. I may have even been fully aware that trespassing was illegal, but have thought I was in a public park. Finally there is the example of being wrongfully jailed that must be taken into account. While it's easy enough to argue that those who are sent to jail under just premises went there voluntarily, to argue that one jailed under false accusations went there voluntarily is absurd. With that I hand the debate over to my opponent and look forward to the ensuing clash. Good luck!
Going to prison is not more voluntary than so.

Ragnar declined my challenge, so now it's an open debate. = Full Resolution = Assuming the validity of free will, going to prison within the USA is not more voluntary than so. = Disambiguation = The first time my opponent instigated this debate, I accepted but forfeited every round on accident (Summer. Whatcha gonna do?). http://www.debate.org... This debate is me making up for that blunder. = First round = This round is acceptance and clarity only. If you the as the contender decide to accept this debate, you may only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in the your first round. Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points of the debate. If there is a need for clarity, it should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting the debate and if I find it reasonable I will post it here before Con accepts. I repeat, Con should only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in his first round. I will add clarifications as necessary. = Rules = 1. This will be a public debate. The emphasis will be one clear communication and effective on-case arguments. There should be no discussion of framework, or use of debate jargon in the round. 2. The BOP will be balanced between the Pro and the Con. Neither side will maintain presumption so if at the end you believe the debate to be a tie no vote should be cast. 3. No semantics! = Definitions = Voluntary: of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Prison: a correctional institution where persons are confined while on trial or for punishment http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... Free Will: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
The Catholic Church is the Authentic Church of Christ

I will agree with you that the Catholic Church is the oldest unified church, but if you look at Christianity at its start it wasn't a unified church, Paul and the other apostles had to go out and teach in secret out of fear that the Roman's would kill them. The thing that I would like to point out is that the practices of the Catholic church aren't in the bible and are wrong. Praying to Marry, having a Pope who will speak to god and can get you out of purgatory, are just a few things taught in the catholic church that are wrong. Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 Catholics also believe that you can get into heaven by your works witch is also not true, For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I will argue all day with you about Catholic teachings and such but you need to clarify, is this debate about Catholicism being the one true christian religion? or is it about the Catholic church being the oldest organised christian church.
The Catholic Church is the Authentic Church of Christ

God our Father wills that "all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth" (1 Timothy 2:4), and to me, this of course means that God our Fathers will that all His children embrace the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church. This Church alone teaches the fullness of the Truth, this Church alone is the Church in which Christ didst institute and give the promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18), this Church alone is fully biblical, this Church alone can be traced back to the Early Church, this Church alone is the Church of the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers, this Church, the Catholic Church, is the true and AUTHENTIC Church of Christ and I wish to discuss this issue with anyone who disagrees with this affirmation particularly, a Protestant Christian.
The Catholic Church is the Authentic Church of Christ

"There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be." - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen "Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be there also. Just as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." - St. Ignatius of Antioch, "Epistle to the Smyrnaeans," c. 105 A.D. The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (ST. Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]). "The church of God that sojourns at Smyrna, to the church of God sojourning in Philomelium - and to all of the congregations of the holy and Catholic Church in every place." St. Polycarp, "The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp," c. 135 A.D. "Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Savior of our souls, the Governor of our bodies, and the Shepherd of the Catholic Church throughout the world." St. Polycarp, "The Martyrdom Of St. Polycarp," c. 135 A.D. "The Catholic church is one." St. Victorinus, "Against Arius," c. 280 A.D. "It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the Earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one end and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness and the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul and body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts." St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures," c. 350 A.D. "Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian." St. Athanasius, "Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuisc," c. 360 A.D.