BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lying is always Immoral

So... final round to post arguments?1. People don't want to dieYou say it helps improving the world? No! Corpses go everywhere, and if a zombie acopolypse happens, you can't stop it due to the huge amount of people dying! Lying in nature only helps the zombie rebellion.I mean, there's only few people on earth who are capable of standing against the zombie rebellion. But Sir Obama is obviously outnumbered and cannot defeat them with reason. His nuclear missiles will be suicide to himself. This shows that if you die, the world will be doomed, as even president Obama cannot handle the zombie apocolypse. The zombies are much smarter than we think, they even already prepared a secret plan that I barely got--with a ton of pain and wounds, of course. In conclusion laying down in nature, which leads to death, which leads to the zombie apocalypse, is immoral. And please read more carefully, I stated "unless you want to suicide, or you have already lived life to its fullest, you do not commonly accept dying." But because most people don't want to suicide, it is "common" for people to not accept death. Furthermore, if people who suicided knew about the zombie apocalypse, there's no way they'd kill themselves. I mean, nobody wants to help zombies!2. Lying in a bed Dilbert comics--it's a satire work which is meant to be humorous, not realistic. I mean, when have you seen weasels getting hired by people to work on game systems? Even the soldier from Monty Python agrees. Doing extra work gains you more money to buy (nearly) whatever you want. Who doesn't want to be able to buy food, clothing, extra vacation, and other stuff? It helps! We humans love help! Thus, it is commonly accepted. Err....except for Jim Carrey, who only "likes it a lot". But the difference is like nothing, and it only helps demonstrate how even famous peopel accept help. 3. Online lyingYes there is. You just can't see him, because he's VIRTUAL. The internet space is so humongous you might as well never find him.CONCLUSIONI have used troll arguments and proved lying down to be immoral. Good debate.
Lying is always Immoral

REBUTTALS1. Lying in natureYou need good balance, as stated by my opponent. This shows how nature tries to prevent us from doing this action against its laws. Koalas sleep on trees. Meekats sleep on trees. However, humans are not meant to sleep on trees, and because such, we need good balance, which restricts who can sleep on the trees, showing us even nature is trying to limit us with its laws, and if we do not respect nature, we are going "proper boundaries", fulfilling my definition of immoral. Lying in a flat plain--well, there are weird bugs and stuff hidden in the grass everywhere. Bacteria as well. Plus, you can get sunburn, or get chilly, depending on which season you decide to lay down. These, once again, show nature's limits, trying to get us to NOT lay down. If we lay down on a flat plain, we are disrepecting nature's laws, going beyound the "proper boundaries", and fulfilling the definition of immoral.Dying being immoral--unless you want to suicide, or you have already lived life to its fullest, you do not commonly accept dying. You try to avoid it at all costs, going to the doctors for medication when sick, resting when having broken bones....all of these acts show people wanting to live, and not accepting death. Thus, "commonly accept" fulfills my definition of immoral.2. Lying in a bedThis is the hardest argument to prove, as I stated. When being counterproductive, you aren't doing anything and wasting your body's energy. Take students, for example. They try to go back to lying in bed, but their parents tell them to get out. Why? You can't learn by lying in bed! Teachers won't take you seriously because they think you're slacking off! In addition, even if you work, you will be tempted to just go to sleep or rest any time. Based on http://www.recruiter.com... down has these effects: Zero perceived stress or discomfort along my spine No stiffening or dullness in my legs No dangling arms Fully supported neck and shoulders Easier, more enjoyable NEAT movements, e.g., bending and extending my legs, rotating my ankles More robust exercise upon standing [since getting up from a reclining position involves greater exertion than from a seated position] No butt fatigue Much less thigh compression No gravitationally-induced pooling of blood in legs. Because these cause lying down to be so comfortable instead of perhaps sitting, which causes stress, which makes you actually want to complete your job, you are likely to enjoy the bed for a bit longer before actually working. Your parents or bosses do not want you to slack off, in other words, do not COMMONLY ACCEPT slacking off, which, fulfills my definition of immoral.3. Online lyingThis is how you "lay down" online: "I lay down on the bed, and think about the good things that I've done throughout the day, sighing about how heroic I was." Again, I stress that computers aren't natural, and typing even this one sentence oversteps the laws of nature, and fulfills my definition of immoral.Onto you again, con!
Lying is always Immoral

It seems that Pro has decided to troll...I shall play along, since he is using valid dictionary definitions of "lying" and "immoral", and so I have pretty much no chance of getting this debate back on track... Let's see how I do in my first real troll debate on this site... R1) Lying in NaturePro argues that lying down in nature could result in falling and dying (which is supposedly an immoral act), demonstrating his point with a picture of people lying down in a tree.There are several problems with this argument...1. Lying down on a tree does not automatically mean you're going to fall down and die; if you have good balance you can lie down up there in a perfectly moral and comfortable manner.2. Lying down in nature does not equate to lying down on a tree. You can lie down on a flat plain somewhere where there is no chance of falling and dying, thus making lying down there completely moral.3. Dying is not immoral, even by Pro's definition (i.e. going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits). More than a hundred people are dying every minute around the world from different causes; it is not at all uncustomary to die. Thus neither death nor the lying down that leads up to it is immoral. R2) Lying in a Bed Pro's argument here basically boils down to: "If you are LYING, you are probably sleeping, which isn't commonly accepted due to the fact that you can't work"1. I am lying down on a bed right now and writing my argument to this debate on my phone; I am not sleeping even though I am lying down. Even if sleeping is immoral, that does not extend to lying down.2. Not being productive is not uncustomary at all... being unproductive or even counterproductive is common practice in today's world, especially in office settings. The lack of productivity that comes from sleeping and/or lying down does not make them immoral at all.The rest of Pro's argumentation in this section is too incoherent for me to understand exactly what he is saying and how it has anything to do with the resolution... R3) Online LyingPro attempts to make some point about people lying down in an online virtual cyberspace of some sort, but that makes no sense, as no such technology has been developed yet, nor is it in the process of being developed... I don't get it... CONCLUSIONAny one of my objections to Pro's first and second contentions can function to negate the resolution all by itself by implicating one or more instances in which lying is not immoral, based on the definitions used by Pro. P.S. The reason I can't be funnier in this troll debate is because of Pro's definition of "immoral"... I had some mildly amusing rebuttals I could have offered had I been allowed to use a different interpretation of morality... Apologies to anyone who is disappointed :/
Lying is always Immoral

Romanii failed to define any word, and he never said trolling wan't allowed....and so, I will define the words and defeat Romanii troll wise! That is the punishment! *laughs maliciously*I define lying as "(of a person or animal) be in or assume a horizontal or resting position on a supporting surface." (From google search results), and I define immoral as "going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules." (From dictionary.com)So, you may be wondering, why did I choose "lying down"? Would not it be harder than "speaking what is not the truth"?Well, I want to have some fun! This topic is so over-used, time to do something new! Opening arguments:1. Lying somewhere in nature You could easily fall over and die by hitting the ground. Plus, this is not commonly accepted, fitting the definition of immoral.2. Lying in BedThis would probably be the hardest thing to prove immoral. I mean, how do you prove lying down in beds not what is "commonly accepted"? I mean, look at this guy--he's happy! My point should be impossible to prove! However I have faith in myself--I know I can prove lying in bed to be immoral. Why is it immoral, you might ask? Well, the heap of this argument is based on the word "LYING". He is lyING. This is not the proper "bound", or rather, the way to say it correctly. If you go to sleep, you LAY DOWN. If you woke up, you LAY DOWN before getting up. If you are LYING, you are probably sleeping, which isn't commonly accepted due to the fact that you can't work, you can sleep walk and accidentally suicide, and nobody is going to care if you are LYING. Here's my point--if you are lying down, you are sleeping, or you just don't care about what others are going to do, since laying back is a relaxed motion (see picture above). Nobody is going to watch you when you sleep (except Santa), so it doesn't really matter, unless an assassin is going to kill you when you are LYING down, in which case, he or she has overstepped his or her boundaries, fulfilling my definition of immoral. Even if you aren't sleeping, you're staring at the ceiling in boredom, or closing your eyes, attempting to go to sleep, which is very bad if you had a tiring day and you are troubled to go to sleep. In this scenario, you do not commonly accept being awake and wish to go to sleep, and thus, fulfill my definition of immoral. (not commonly accepted)3. Lying onlineThis final one is very difficult to prove too: what if a person is lying online in a virtual space? Will it then still be overbounding the rules? The answer is simple: yes. The computer is invented by the human. The computer was not there in the first place, as well as factories, the lightbulb, the wheel, etc. These weird man-made inventions overstep the laws of nature, and thus, follow my definition of immoral.I have fulfilled my BoP and give Romanii a chance of rebuttal.
Help!

<h4><font face=red>Ave.</font></h4>I'm gonna post some easy tips in the debate. I'm gonna accept, and argue in the first round, and explain the burden of proof in this debate. <h4><font face=red>The Burden of Proof.</font></h4>Pro is asking me to help, and if I help him, or try, then I win this debate. My opponent wins if I do not provide anything, but if I do provide something, I win this debate, as that is the resolution. <h4><font face=red>Some tips.</font></h4>I'm gonna put some tips here.1. The Burden of Proof is important. If the burden of proof is on Pro, then Pro needs their arguments to be standing at the end, and Con needs to rebut them. Con is not required to provide offense (though I prefer they do provide offense.) If the Burden is shared, both sides are required to have offense.2. How to construct a case. I'm gonna do some of the basics, so you can be a okay debater in DDO.A framework: A framework is very important in a debate. A framework is a link to your arguments, or basically, it is an introduction. It is important, and it needs to be constructedArguments: I prefer around 3 arguments in the debate, the first argument needs to be the most important, the second needs to be the least important, and the third needs to be the second important. All arguments need a claim, a warrant, and an impact. A claim, is bascially a claim in your argument, a warrant is a source to help your argument, and the impact is how your arguments link to the resolution. This is the main point of a debate, there doesn't need to be much other things then that. ALWAYS SOURCE YOUR ARGUMENTS!!!Check your grammar, too. In the botomm, there is "Check your spelling", and it checks your spelling. 3. Conclusion A conclusion needs to explain all your points, why your arguments link, and the summary. Okay, I think that is enough for this round, I'll just post some links to help you debate, and vote. I hope you enjoy DDO!1: New members reading: http://www.debate.org...2: Voting http://www.debate.org... Therefore, vote <h4><font face=red>Con</font></h4>
Puplic obeasity in the soda ban of NY debate

You are a sick inconnciterate person! Yes i agree that obisity is a problem , but when you go and start describing a about those who are and say "Fat jokes" is uncivil. I am not one overweight , but the question is do I blabber about how fat people are? Is that what people go to for these days? The rate upon out origen? How ..How ! I can't begin to describe the burning passion that makes me angery about the "Full" jokes" . The soda ban is a con and your jokes are also. Now unless you can back up those stuck up words you layed on my table then I hope you will clean it up with a apologie not just to me but to those in the hospitals in a bed eating threw a straw and trying to get threw life with harmony! "Do you need some ice for that burn?"
Puplic obeasity in the soda ban of NY debate

Might as well do some debating as my opponent seems to be attacking me personally for a joke that I made. Quick summary, because of a joke my opponent wants me to apologize, though I had difficulty understanding through the veil of bad grammar and spelling. I will not apologize for a joke that is true and I will not “clean the table”. I do not understand why my opponent is attacking me for a true and “punny” (in my opinion) comment. I bet it took awile to find those words on google? You misspelled “awhile” and no, I did not need to use Google with a capital “g”. I have no apologie You misspelled “apology”. You can say it’s a joke, but you still said it! The fact that all you did was back yourself up with smart remarks about how your just “jokeing” well that is no apologie! I wasn’t trying to apologize, I was merely point out I was joking. I was just joking, I don’t need to apologize for something I don’t mean. That’s what a joke is. Try it sometime. So just clean the table with what ever words of wisdom you might have and be finished because i’m done with this topic I’m not quite sure what the topic is, are you trying to get me to apologize? By the way, I won't give in and most certainly will not apologize for a joke. Anyways, my joke was in no way shape or form necessarily “wrong”. Is it not true that America is full of fat people? 2/3 of Americans are overweight [1]! This is a serious issue! Should this not try and be resolved?? I for one think stigma is an acceptable way to deter obesity. For example, is smoking considered socially acceptable? Not anymore. Every since smoking was deemed “wrong”, stigma has been a key factor in lowering the number of smokers. In the 20th Century, lots of people smoked! Not today though. If society deems obesity wrong, perhaps we can fix the problem. And yes, I will occasionally crack a joke at the expense of someone whom is overweight. If they know that I’m kidding (as my friends do), I think it is OK. I never escalate it to something personal, mean, malicious, and I never repeat the comment over and over. I’m not a bully, I just like to have fun and joke around. If you like joking around and aren’t a stick in the mud, please VOTE PRO. SOURCES: http://frac.org...
Puplic obeasity in the soda ban of NY debate

Ok then .... thanks for commenting on the improper use of my grammer and I bet it took awile to find those words on google? I have no apologie nor do the others a joke can effect as a leech! You can say it's a joke , but you still said it! The fact that all you did was back yourself up with smart remarks about how your just "jokeing" well that is no apologie! For your underminded info I was so enraged that the reason i double spelled "wass" was because I could not be more angery about the way the phrase you typed was placed! So just clean the table with what ever words of wisdom you might have and be finished because i'm done with this topic you snotty smart """ !
Puplic obeasity in the soda ban of NY debate

My opponent's atrocious grammar and spelling have made it very hard for me to actually understand what we are debating, I am assuming it is about a joke I made in the comments section of my opponent's debate. The joke was:The soda ban will prevent more fat people (in theory). This is good as America is FULL of fat people. Heh heh heh, get the joke? Full? LOLOr something along those lines. I was merely making a joke, not sure why I was challenged, but I accepted anyways so I'm not considered a "wuss".Anyways, the point is it was only a joke that I had thought of and wanted to share with somebody else. Does this mean I find obesity funny? Does this mean I point and laugh openly at fat people? No, I was just making a joke. It was a little thing, it doesn't need to be blown out of proportion.My opponent I'm pretty sure insulted me, "Do you need some ice for that burn?" Thanks for the offer, but I don't think it will be necessary.If you found the joke relatively humourous, please post it in the COMMENTS BELOW!
A violent overthrow of the government is never acceptable

Since no set road map for the debate is established, I will respond with what I see as logical, and let my opponent object if he wishes to. 1. Burden of proof shall lie on my opponent, since this is the most likely scenario of his in class debate. This means he must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the resolution is correct, and I merely have to show how his reasoning is fallacious, not how the diametric opposite of the claim is correct. 2. Inferring from his reason for proposing this debate, he would like for an immediate start to this debate, since he would like as much of a chance to argue as possible. As such, my case will begin after this list is concluded. 3. The reason he is debating also leads me to infer that he would like for my case to be based around possible issues in his debate, so I will begin my rebuttal right away. If my opponent has any problems, he is free to challenge any of these assertions. However, we will need to reach a consensus if any dialogue of value is to be derived On to my opponent's case. My opponent claims that a violent overthrow would place the common man on the same level as their government. However, there are numerous cases in which this comparison rings hollow. If people are being executed, their lives destroyed, their livelihoods placed in jeopardy, a violent overthrow would not place us on their level. To do so would remove any sense of morality in intent from the discussion, as their intent was to stop the suffering of a group of people, as opposed to a lust for power*. In the same way a starving man may be considered justified for stealing food, the group of people would be justified in their actions if it establishes a better future. If the government will not listen to diplomacy and the suffering of a people is continually occurring, the good outweighs the con because all alternative means have been exhausted. * Because of the phrasing of the resolution, the pro side must prove every possible case of a violent overthrow of the government. As such, I chose an intent that would create an upper bound, showing the bar that my opponent can cross to prove his case. Pro's second contention is irrelevant to the resolution because it only concludes that violent overthrows in which the rebels have no leader are unacceptable, and he must conclude that, essentially, there is no conceivable violent overthrow of the government that is acceptable. I will let my case stand for now. Good luck to Pro on his debate in English.
A violent overthrow of the government is never acceptable

I'm trying to get a view of both sides as I have to debate this in my English class. A violent overthrow of the government is never acceptable as violence should never be a means to change something. If a dictator is in charge and the country under them violently attempt to overthrow the leader, the country would be stooping down to the same level as their leader. Secondly, a violent overthrow of the government doesn't solve issues unless you are able to restore into a democracy. This is difficult when a whole group of people are trying to be the leader. After a revolt, how do you possibly as a group without a leader, choose the right one? Any help with the other side of this debate would be greatly appreciated!
Minimum Wages Laws Having Economic Effect Should Be Abolished

There are two ways to determine "what people deserve." On way is to let the free market decide. In that case, the resolution is affirmed. Another way is for a democratic society to determine some arbitrary standard. If an arbitrary amount is determined by society, then the population as a whole should make the payment, and no attempt should be made to transfer society's burden to an individual employer. Society should provide welfare benefits, if that is to be done. All other arguments in favor of the resolution stand unrefuted.
Jainism is the World's oldest religion

Humans did exist at that time. Proofs: 1. if you believe god created humans then who created god and also god cannot create some thing out of nothing If god created something there has something already been existing. Therefore the earth was never created and has always existed. 2. If you say that evolution didn't happen at that time then prove that in a photo of human evolution from a monkey presently we see the monkey and the human where are the rest of the evolutionary beings. Then you say that your fore fathers never existed
Jainism is the World's oldest religion

The point that Jainism was founded in 500BC is a false statement Even historians say that before the 24rd tirthankara Mahavira the 23rd Tirthankar parshvanath was a historical figure who lived 250 years before Mahavira and there were 22 before them. The Wikipedia states that The 21st Tirthankar lived 580000 years ago Mahavira. Therefore, Jainism is the oldest religion
Books are better than browsing on internet

I say books are good than browsing on the internet because many say that if we put a data connection or wifi access it costs less than buying books but it may affect your brain and it costs lakhs and lakhs. Suppose if you are using you're the phone to study your the syllabus if one of your friend messages to you in WhatsApp you may distract to it. If you are searching some information some unwanted information would come. Suppose if you search in books nothing unwanted would be appearing in the books. So, I prefer to read books
Murder should stay illegal

Rebuttal 1) If murder is legal someone would become hitler I have no idea how to even respond to the invalidity of this because hitler became hitler when murder was illegal. It being legal would not stop dictators from rising, look around the world. Rebuttal 2 ) Murder is worse than slavery No it's not. Slaves were kept in cages, beaten, raped, had their eyes plucked out, dipped in hot oil, eaten alive by dogs, starved to death, and so many other inhumane things that I cannot even list. Death is a much better escape to slavery. Extend arguments, as they are still dropped and I'm having to respond to rebuttals that are non sequiturs to the actual resolution.