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

I negate the resolution along the flow. I value morality with a conception based on deontology because it is always immoral to kill somebody. Contention 1: We wouldnt have a choice in the matter any way. If we don't kill to save many, everyone dies. So, there for, it is permissable. And on another note as you stated "no life Is lesser than the other" to state that to sacrifice one life for many is to make that person's life lesser then the group being saved is false, by stating that the person's life is equal to that of the whole groups combined lives is stating that every individual in the group's life is lesser than that one person, therefore contradicting what you just said. Contention 2: Before debating this, I would like to add another observation. "Innocent" is situationally guiltless, to put it in a legal sense. We cannot look at this morally because no one is truly innocent. However, because the resolution says that the people are innocent, we must look at this legally. Now, because that one person is innocent, does that person deserve to be killed? Being killed is not what he/she is due. He/She has committed no crime in this situation, thus the legal definition of innocent, and so he/she does not deserve death. It is not his/her fault if the other people die because he/she was not killed. Letting those other people die is a negative action (a negative action is letting the action simply happen), and thus it is morally neutral (meaning it has no effect on morality). Contention 3: Here's one more thing to think about: If YOU were the one that had to take the life of your friend in order to save yourself and some other friends, would YOU be able to do it? Would any of your friends be able to do it to you? Would you feel selfish if YOU were the one that was killing, partly in order to save your own life? Just some more mind food for you. Now allow me to finish my round with this: An action that is allowed and/or considered "right" by the moral code of conduct set by the society in question. Why would this be limited to "the society in question?" It seems odd to say that in one society it is morally permissible to kill one innocent to save the lives or more innocent people, but that in another society it is not. Doesn't the resolution encompass human society in general? It is weak, unnecessary, and irrelevant to bring in specific rules of specific societies.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent people.

My friend, Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to participate in this debate. This question is easy for me to answer. I'll respond with an absolute yes. In fact, I am astounded that this debate is asking for three rounds to prove why it is morally impermissible to kill an innocent person in order to save the lives of many innocent people. I am going to politely ask to shift the onus onto yourself to prove your position first. If you do not agree, I'll simply provide my basis next round. Thank you for your consideration.
should the death penalty be banned

The death penalty does put innocent lives at risk. However, overtime, when ways to find evidence become easier, innocent lives will not be at risk because we will find the right person. With the logic saying that we should abolish the death penalty because innocent people are being persecuted, you could say we shouldn't jail people because innocent people sometimes get put in jail for years. Why should we allow a serial killing, mass murderer live in a government led, tax-payed (by hard earning citizens of the United States), supplied jail at the expense of the people who have to pay for it? He isn't put to justice, which is my final statement, and that concludes my first (second) argument.
should the death penalty be banned

The death penalty puts innocent lives at risk. In the year of 1976, 138 innocent people were put on death row, and taken off minutes from execution. What if all of those innocent men and women had been executed for nothing? For example, There was two brothers, ages 19 and 15, who confessed of murder, but both of them were intellectually disabled. They maintained their innocence since the trial, claiming that they did not know that they were signing a confession. In 2010 Leon Brown contacted North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commision, which found DNA evidence tracing to the real murderer. Both men were freed in 2014 based on the DNA.
You = ugly boi

Ecks dee, you have wasted this entire debate round, because YOU R TRASH so git guud and I am awesome. Quotes will not save you now, Jedi.... Ultimately I win because i am so funny and NevaBrake is not and he is ugly so VOTE FOR ME PLZ PEOPLE because (in addition) if you vot for this other guy, you become ugly like him My only response is this: "Never trust quotes." "Ernest Hemingway (whether or not he actually said that is up to you)
You = ugly boi

Ey boi, stop quoting people... this is a debate where you take on me... no, I take you on... doesn't matter, but you are going to lose because you are bad and UGLYYYYYY (so ugly) so stop with the elon musk because he is one of your ugly friends or something because he isn't credible. (A quote regarding NevaBreak) "Ouch! What a terrible performance!" SohCahToa (the crab from that mOaNa movie)
You = ugly boi

No, that's not what Ghandi said... he said, quote, "NevaBrake is an ugly boi. I have seen him personally. He wuz a gr8 friend of mine, but then he got ugly, and now he bad like nothin' you eber known b4... so git guud mi now inemy." Git gud, you ugly boi. Do you think Ghandi is credible? IF so, then you are bad and you looz... but if not then you looz again.
Canada should help Libya before helping their own country first?!

As my opponent has stated, (canada's people should come together and solve the problem while the gouvernment helps the people with the guns to their heads) > I think the gouvernment should still be over all with there country before becoming a part of a " civil war". The reason why Canada is helping is because the president of Libya promised to them that he would not hurt anyone. When Canada found out he broke the promise, thats when they started to be involved, if you think of this : if he did not hurt anyone, but still didn't give the citizens wat they wanted would Canada have got involved? In my opinion, i don't think Canada WOULD have got involved. The hurting part of this problem would'nt turn into a "civil war" would it? :)
Canada should help Libya before helping their own country first?!

Canada has the resources (planes and bombs) to protect countless innocent civilians from being slaughtered before the eyes of the world. There are two types of modernized countries, one is noble and protects those in the world from murderous governments, and the other is cowardly/selfish and stands by while the noble nations do the dirty work and save lives. Canada's people should come together and help the starving while the government helps those who have guns to their heads.
Canada should help Libya before helping their own country first?!

In my opinion, Canada should help their own country first. They should help their country as quick as they can so then after that they could help Libya. I'm not saying that Canada should not help other countries although, if Canada has millions of dollars to send planes to Libya, can't they use some of that money to feed the hungry people that we have in Canada? Many people go home and not having anything to eat that night, the next night and/or the whole week! Although Libya is in danger as we speak, isn't starvation and other problems also as important to us Canadians?
Cultural Supremacy exists. Certain cultures are to dominate over others.

As you said, the prosperous economies have changed overtime due to what they have to export and it's based on geography. While that may be true for countries unable to export valuables such as gold and oil, Venezuela has the geographic location to export oil but however is far behind in GDP growth when compared to places such as Qatar and Bahrain. Why? Venezuelans are still following an idea of low economic freedom, anti-capitalism, and refuses anything from the western superpower USA. On the other hand, Japan was in a disfavoring geographic position with mainly rugged mountains and lacking valuable resources. However, when the Americans approached Japan, Japan accepted what America wanted to introduce and other powers started taking interest in Japan. Although Japan still lost the second World War, they sprung up again due to the fact they still had western technology that could be improved. So, even though Japan lacks a major natural resource, their economy grows from exporting artificial goods such as cars, video games, and machines. Therefore, there are cases where geography can be canceled out based on the choices people have made based on the culture/ideas they follow.
Cultural Supremacy exists. Certain cultures are to dominate over others.

I accept. Before going any further, I'd like to define some of the terms used in the title of this debate. Supremacy - 1. The quality or condition of being supreme. 2. Supreme power or authority. Authority - 1. a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge. to dominate - to have control of or power over (someone or something) In my opinion, no matter how advanced a culture is, it has no right to dominate any other culture, or to enforce laws or change customs of any other culture, because that is basically cultural genocide against weaker cultures. Destroying someone's culture because it may be weaker than others is a direct violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27. As for the reason for the difference in cultures and their strengths, we have to consider other factors, and not just the traditions and/or xenophobia. Wars are not won with cultural traits, they are won with money. Europe may have dominated the Qing dynasty, but today China is one of the world leaders in economics and manufacturing. Why has Africa never prospered? Because they have nothing to export, no agronomical potential whatsoever, and they are stuck far away from all the great historical trade routes. I agree fully that culture plays a role into how our history is written, but it is not the only role, and certainly not the most important one. So, in summary, cultural supremacy or cultural domination is not acceptable in any way. Some nations may be more developed than others, but we cannot blame that solely on a specific culture. There are other more important factors to consider. And if by any chance I misinterpreted the topic: of course that some cultures are always going to be better and more developed than others. Our world is an imperfect one, someone is always going to prosper while someone will suffer.And that is fine, as long as they don't act on it. As I've said before, the strength of cultures changes over time (China, Japan, even the US weren't always world leaders, but now they are). So, if this topic is about proving that some (unnamed) cultures are always going to be better than other unnamed cultures, then I consider it a moot point, and therefore not worth debating at all. So much for my argument for now. Let's start! :D
Cultural Supremacy exists. Certain cultures are to dominate over others.

Throughout the global history, wars have been fought. Whether it be over land, ideas, resources, or to create a puppet government , there is almost always a winner. I, the instigator of this debate believes that culture does play a role as well into how our history is written. A culture that focuses on innovation and accepts newer technology will triumph over a culture that is xenophobic and refuses to accept any foreign influence. Examples of this include Africa being dominated by Europe, the Qing dynasty losing wars to the European Powers and Japan, and now in the modern world with Japan, China, the US, and the EU dominating global economies. Why aren't places like Cuba, Ghana, Uganda, and Myanmar succeeding? It's because of the culture it had that clashed with its history.
Resolved: The United Kingdom should return Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.

This debate is inreqards to the "Irish" problem. I am hoping that someone from the UK would accept this debate, but others are truely welcomed. *Disclaimer: Despite my support for the Republic of Ireland to regain Northern Ireland I DO NOT support the Irish Republican Army or any other terroristic organization nor any attacks upon the UK.* Rules First Round is acceptance and definitions by Pro and acceptance by con. Second Round is Opening arguments, NO REBUTTALS. Third Round is rebuttals. Forth Round is rebuttals and conclusion. No trolling. No K's or Counter-plans No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used in this debate. BOP is shared. This is a History debate, not misc. If any of these points are violated then all 7 points shall go to the opposition of the one who has violated the rules. Republic of Ireland- a republic in NW Europe occupying most of Ireland: established as the Irish Free State (a British dominion) in 1921 and declared a republic in 1949; joined the European Community (now the European Union) in 1973. Official languages: Irish (Gaelic) and English. Currency: euro. Capital: Dublin. Pop: 4 775 982 (2013 est). Area: 70 285 sq km (27 137 sq miles) (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Northern Ireland- a political division of the United Kingdom, in the NE part of the island of Ireland. 5238 sq. mi. (13,565 sq. km).Capital: Belfast. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Should Shakespeare be taught in School

"Being dumb does not make us a happier person because if you were dumb = no qualifications = no job = bad financial ststus" Yeah, but you'd be too dumb to realize your life sucks. "WIthout our education we would be no where the pc wouldnt be invented we would be living with no house as to build a house you need to be qualified etc etc." Ignorance is bliss. What can I say? "To the point of shakespeare he makes us think we all need to think even if it is with the casul things like should i eat now or later .... that is THINKING! every thing we do is thinking we do not do anything without thinking." If you just don't think, instinct will take over, and you'll be fine. "Moreover Shakespeare trains that part of us to think to learn and to be educated." Or we could succumb to the id, let instant gratification rule our lives.
Should Shakespeare be taught in School

Being dumb does not make us a happier person because if you were dumb = no qualifications = no job = bad financial ststus WIthout our education we would be no where the pc wouldnt be invented we would be living with no house as to build a house you need to be qualified etc etc. To the point of shakespeare he makes us think we all need to think even if it is with the casul things like should i eat now or later .... that is THINKING! every thing we do is thinking we do not do anything without thinking. Moreover Shakespeare trains that part of us to think to learn and to be educated.
Should Shakespeare be taught in School

"You point out School is not for learning.... I Strongly disagree as school is an Educational place and put here in society so that we learn otherwise why wouldn't they let us stay at home all the time.... Also Teaching Shakespeare is not at all hard it is more the way you go around it and many teachers teach it in a good way that actually at the end of our year 9 tests everyone got very high..." First, I never said that schools weren't for learning, I just said learning was bad. Also "at the end of our year 9 tests everyone got very high..." see, delinquency is fun. "You can learn and be creative at the same time creativity isn't always drawing its thinking what if Romeo didn't fall in love ? What if... that is creativity too." Objection, relevance? "Learning has got us where we are today where would we be if the Internet/ computers etc etc where not built this was due to learning and how about books and other things. Einstein wouldn't be where he was if he was not educated neither would these people and without education you can not earn money or get a good job if you have no qualifications then your nothing in life." Education makes us think. We should be dumb, we'd be happier. Also, if education is so nice, why did Bill Gates drop out of Harvard? "Why should we stop teaching Shakespeare? IT is a key historical past and that we should never forget and he has been one of the greatest writers in history to date." He made us think. Thinking is bad.
Should Shakespeare be taught in School

You point out School is not for learning.... I Strongly disagree as school is an Educational place and put here in society so that we learn otherwise why wouldn't they let us stay at home all the time.... Also Teaching Shakespeare is not at all hard it is more the way you go around it and many teachers teach it in a good way that actually at the end of our year 9 tests everyone got very high... You can learn and be creative at the same time creativity isn't always drawing its thinking what if Romeo didn't fall in love ? What if... that is creativity too. Learning has got us where we are today where would we be if the Internet/ computers etc etc where not built this was due to learning and how about books and other things. Einstein wouldn't be where he was if he was not educated neither would these people and without education you can not earn money or get a good job if you have no qualifications then your nothing in life. Why should we stop teaching Shakespeare? IT is a key historical past and that we should never forget and he has been one of the greatest writers in history to date.
Should Shakespeare be taught in School

Shakespear should not be banned in schools as it teaches us about ENglish History, Our english culture and Shakespear even if it was a disguse made words up that today are in the english dictionary. English language was first coined by William Shakespeare which should be a good enough reason in itself. I think it's really important, we should be learning about anything that is so well known in the world, especially Shakespeare. I have found that all the analysing texts in English at my school are incredibly easy and the symbolism etc. is extremely obvious. Shakespeare is so much deeper, and to understand it you really have to get into the characters and think about every little thing, which is fantastic. And in Drama, Shakespeare in drama, I it is really fun, you know the character's motivations but it discovering your character doesn't just stop there, there is so much more and so many thoughts and desires and feelings that are shown. It would be so interesting to play. Apart from the educational things I think Shakespeare teaches us life lessons and helps us all learn the history, culture and everything about Shakespeare and our English past.
The Death Penalty

< > Once again, Jesus said he did not come to abolish the old law. Matthew 5:17 Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the Law of Moses or writings of the prophets. NO, I came to accomplish their purpose. Jesus tells us a situation in which killing is okay. Matthew 15:4-7 Matthew 7:9-11 Overall it can be seen that the old laws say to punish individuals with death for things like adultery, rape, murder, and kidnapping and that Jesus "did not come to abolish the Law of Moses". << Since God's will isn't necessarily expressed in the death penalty -- the killing of his children -- it is unbiblical.>> God's will is unchanging and so his feelings on the death penalty never change. <> Yes it does, especially in Exodus. The list includes but is not exclusively made of rape, murder, kidnapping, and adultery. The King James argument is unnecessary for the purposes of this debate. I have given you Biblical evidence and quotes to back up my argument while you use just what YOU think is right and wrong. This was a great debate and I'm happy to do it again sometime.
The Death Penalty

Once again, a good many of your quotes are the old law. IN your other quotes... Jesus, in these verses, is warning the people of their judgement. Jesus is warning them they will die id they do not repent. They will die not by man's killing, as is in the death penalty, but by God's will. Since God's will isn't necessarily expressed in the death penalty -- the killing of his children -- it is unbiblical. The KJV is the most accurate version available (see video.) http://www.youtube.com... ==== So obviously, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Bible as a whole says that in certain instances killing is alright. ==== Ah, but it does not say which circumstances it is permissable in. Until you know there circumstances, hyou cannot keep killing criminals because it is, as I stated before, unbiblical.
The Death Penalty

I apologize for the time taken to respond. I just finished three days of SATs. ==== Some benefits would be that it could help curb crime because of people fearing this punishment. Another benefit is to stop the overcrowding of jails (http://justana-justana.blogspot.com......). The death penalty can also help prevent further travesties from occuring. ==== (NOTE: Please let me know of some unbeneficial effects as I asked before. Thanks!) No matter what happens, a human is a person created by the divine God, who made us individually for our own purpose. (See next rebuttal) Jesus hung out with, if you excuse my language, thieves, corrupt men, sleazy prostitutes, and etc. He loved each and every one of them, and I am sure He did not want them killed. ==== Yes, I believe that Jesus would support the death penalty in certain situations. I believe this because Jesus is essentially God and God asks his people to kill the other evil nations and law-breakers throughout the old testament. ==== Mark 10:19 KJV Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. Luke 18:20 KJV Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. James 2:11 KJV For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. The Old Testament -- a history of God's people, is not the Law we as Christians follow. We do not go by "an eye for an eye," but rather "turn the other cheek." We follow the peaceful teachings of Jesus, which tell you to not hurt another person. God tells his people, "Do not kill" even in the Old Testament. He did, however, make exceptions for the evil. Not though that those he killed were nations of evil, not juyst one person. >> We follow the new law of Jesus; we do not kill as Christians. We do not follow the Old Law of the covenant.<< ==== The Bible promotes killing of people who've had more serious offences like adultery, rape, and murder. If my opponent wants me to source specific spots in The Bible in the next round, please say so. ==== I'd like to see a source outside of the Old Testament. The Bible, in the Commandments, forbids killing. I'd very much like to see a verse that "promotes killing." Thanks!