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

I though we could use this as a questioning period, so i guess i will go first :) -You define your value of morality as "what is right or good",yet who exactly decides that? Pertaining to each individual person, morality is not exactly consistent, so whose morality gets to be right and whose wrong? -Morality is also based upon on rational and ethical decisions, as you say, yet what is the basis of rational and ethical thinking? Does rational and ethical decisions not stem from personal conviction? -You use The Synderesis as your criterion, right? How does one determine if all tiers are met by said action to be determined moral or immoral? -Where does it imply in the resolution that the governemnt is allowing the killing of said innocent person? -Define murder for me please. -Does this resolution imply that a person is being murder (against their will) or killed (causing death of said person)? -In a democracy, the people (all of them) have a say in the government, right? Yet, laws are placed by majority consent, so does that make a democracy an immoral system of government? -Is that act of killing in war illegal? -How many people are implied to being killed in the resolution? -Can you please expand on the ideal of "the dignity of mankind". -Do you idealize that sacrifice and murder are the same thing? Ok....so you can just post up your questions now and i will answer yours, so that way you can answer mine. Apparently, the affirmamtion always has to make the next arguement first. Enjoy :)
Robert Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken" sends a positive message

Precondition: Because there are no authorities for literature, do not use an outside source to defend your argument. Any citations posted will be considered to be an automatic forfeit. The Road Not Taken, by Robert Frost Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½5 ï¿½ Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same, ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½10 ï¿½ And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back. ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½15 ï¿½ I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½ ï¿½20 You can find the poem here: . http://www.bartleby.com... If you have any questions for me before accepting, ask in the comments. I've never really done a debate about literature before so I could be going about this completely wrong.
wumbology being a class in all schools

You don't need Wumbo for that. It doesn't take "wumbo-jumbo" (+3 pun points) to see the difference in size. You just need eyes to do that. Also, even if it is basic math, it's still math. I listed all of those subjects in Round 2 as subjects you need to be successful in the real world? Do you really think working at McDonald's flipping burgers is a success? I sure hope not. You will barely make any money. The American average income is $81,400 per year. The average for a McDonald's worker is $20,000 per year, $61,400 below the American average. In conclusion, Wumbology is not a needed class because a person is not learning anything, is pointless by the fact that humans can already tell the difference in size, and a waste of time students could use on learning in more important classes. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.careerbliss.com...
Christians and Atheist are more alike than different! Both serving Satan in blind ignorance.

However I fully understand the belief systems of Atheist and Christian people, and this debate is about how the to are the same in many ways. Atheist copying = trying to be like Christians. . https://www.google.com... Notice atheist choose not to copy Islam nor Buddha or create a new style of their own. The wanted to look like or be like Christians. . https://www.google.com... Here is another example of Atheist wanting to copy Christianity. . https://www.google.com...
Christians and Atheist are more alike than different! Both serving Satan in blind ignorance.

I believe that 99.9% of the Christian religious right, may as well be atheist. Because they do not follow God or any bible about the God there in. Atheist deny God because of what false traditions of man did in the name of religion. Neither have a working knowledge of the bible or can give and answer on the Key of David. Or the facts that through the root of David came the free nations of the today, who are blessed by God.
Dr-WHO is the doctor

In this debate you took the stance of Con. I'm not sure if that indicates that you feel this scenario is not possible, but the scenario described above seems quite plausible to me.As a species that reproduces sexually, human beings (Homo sapiens) must have two biological parents. (Any religious beliefs such as immaculate conception should not be considered here, as such things have no scientific basis).The child, or son in this case, has both a father and a mother. It has already been stated that the father needs an operation and is in a different department. Therefore, this eliminates the father as a possible candidate for the identity of the doctor.Now we must consider two other possibilities: the doctor can either be speaking the truth, or the doctor could be lying.The first scenario is simple-- if the doctor speaks the truth, then the doctor must be the child's mother. Humans only have two parents, and the child was with his father moments before (indicating any adoption scenarios unlikely). So in the case of the doctor telling the truth, the doctor must be the mother by process of elimination.In the second scenario, the doctor is not telling the truth. In this case, the most likely possibility is that the doctor is not actually a doctor either. A board certified doctor would probably have nothing to gain by claiming that the child is his/her son. With the father also in the hospital, this lie would probably also not be convincing unless this doctor was also a female.But for the doctor to be called in to the operating room should indicate that the doctor is a genuine doctor. An impostor would most likely be noticed by the hospital staff. Furthermore, if the doctor is a true doctor, lying about the patient is extremely unlikely.Therefore, we must conclude that the doctor is the mother of the child. Consequently, this scenario is extremely plausible and I take the Pro stance in favor of this scenario.*Note: I only clicked on this argument because I thought it was about the television series "Doctor Who." But after reading, I felt I could give a good reply.
I am a bad debater.

Thanks for the debate. Here's something you should be taught. .. ALWAYS offer your own definitions. I will be defining "bad" using the "street" context. "Bad" could be considered a shortened form of bad@ss. Urban dictionary supports this claim, with the second defintion being: " dope, good, tight" [1]. Further evidence for this can be found in the songs "Bad, Bad, Leroy Brown" . http://www.youtube.com... "Big Bad John" . http://www.youtube.com...As you can see given my Opponents opening arguments, he is not a "bad" (as in bad@ss) debater due to his low win ratio. Therefore since I've offered a definiton and he hasn't, I win. Further consider that dropped arguments are concessions. My opponent cannot respond to any arguments I make, fallacious or not. 1. Debaters with default avatars ought to lose their debates. Viper-King has a default avatarTherefore Viper-King ought to lose this debate.2. Debaters named thett3 should win every debate. I am thett3. I should win this debate.3. If Kim Jong Il just died, you need to vote for thett3Kim Jong Il just diedTherefore you need to vote for thett34. If kittens are cute, I winKittens are cuteTherefore I win.
Global Warming is a Serious Issue

My opponent does not give any particular evidence that global warming exists he just encourages that we should do something about it without even proving that it exists in the first place. My casemy argument will be that global warming doesn't exist. I will give severial contentions that prove that global warming is not happening. C1: Is the Earth really heating up? The answer is no, the exact opposite is happening the temperatures are dropping. Christopher Booker a reporter for Telegragh a UK newspaper said this in one of his reveiws: 'temperatures have been dropping in a wholly unpredicted way over the past year. Last winter, the northern hemisphere saw its greatest snow cover since 1966, which in the northern US states and Canada was dubbed the “winter from hell”. This winter looks set to be even worse. 'This report is prooof that the Earth is not heating up. [1]C2: Is ice disapearing? The answer is negative. The exact opposite is occuring, 500,000 sq km more than last year. Also, Anartic sea-ice reached its highest levels this year. This report was posted by Cryosphere Today. [2]ConclusionDo to this evidence that the Earth is not actually heating up. It is safe to say that Global warming isn't actually occuring. Vote Con! [1] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[2] . http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...
The Death Penalty, is unjust and should be removed

In observance of your lack of argument for the second round, I will keep mine short. As previously stated, the death penalty deals with the emotions of man, and not with the justice that law is supposed to seek. An eye for an eye is emotionally satisfying. It is often the bigger man who receives a wronging, and seeks the high road. It is the duty of the law to take the high road.
The Death Penalty, is unjust and should be removed

Let us present our definitions for just and moral. I define just as merriam-webster defines it, among other sources, acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good. I define moral as merriam-webster defines it, among other sources, of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. Based on the definitions provided a just punishment must be a moral punishment. I am glad to see your defense revolves around your definition of murder. It is necessary to rephrase "The death penalty cannot be just, as just is to be morally good. And it is universally accepted that to kill in and of itself is morally wrong." Please keep the issue in context. The issue is one of morals. Killing, though possibly emotionally satisfying to the wronged, is an unmoral and therefore unjust act.
The Death Penalty, is unjust and should be removed

It seems this is the first debate for myself and my opponent. I was surprised to see the clock running down from an hour immediately after accepting so I will make a brief opening argument in response to what pro has stated. The death penalty is a just punishment for those who have committed 1st degree murder. Rather than abolishing this penalty, it should more common and carried out more swiftly. Assuming that my opponent is speaking of the death penalty being carried out legally by a government, it cannot be considered murder since murder is the illegal taking of a life. Based on my opponents opening statement, it seems we have different understandings of justice as well. I look forward to the debate. Blessings.
The Death Penalty, is unjust and should be removed

The death penalty should be eliminated. Murder in and of itself is morally wrong. Justice cannot be morally wrong. The death penalty deals with the emotion of man, and not with the justice law is supposed to seek. When we feel a person has done to us or society a grand wronging, we feel it is necessary for this person to be punished to the utmost of our capability. I concede this, as I would feel the same if I were wronged to a high degree. If my Mother were killed, I would want death to her assailant. However, the law is not an emotional tool, it is meant to implement a just punishment. The death penalty cannot be just, as just is to be morally good. And it is universally accepted that murder in and of itself is morally wrong.
Should weed be legalized in canada in 2017

I assume you mean for recreational purposes and not medicinal. Well marijuana is a drug, so of course it's gonna have side effects (but it doesn't make you "crazy" lol) if abused. But the benefits greatly outnumber the drawbacks. Here are a few examples; marijuana can help people suffering from epileptic seizures, anxiety, muscle spasms, tremors, Parkinson's, and my favorite: pain. Marijuana allows people suffering from severe pain, for whatever reason, to feel normal and pain free without the need of taking countless pills a week. Why wouldn't you want to replace taking numerous synthetic drugs for smoking a natural herb that works BETTER. And I'm pretty sure marijuana is illegal for anyone under 18. So don't worry about their performance in school (they're still gonna do drugs anyways, no matter how illegal they are). Also, those "premature deaths" (if that's real) is only talking about individuals who took a lot of marijuana in their teens and adolescence; when their brain was still developing. I think I covered all your points.
British Columbia's Family Day Should Be Moved to Match the Rest of Canada's

I'd like to point out to the judges that Con's arguments had absolutely nothing to do with the resolution, "British Columbia's Family Day Should Be Moved to Match the Rest of Canada's" and therefore are irrelevant. No new arguments in the final round, so Con's entire case is Canada is stupid and the country is entirely hobos. Even if those were true, it doesn't change the reasons I provided that BC should move the date of its Family Day, so vote Pro. It also may be worth pointing out Con's arguments were uncited and both Ahsoka and Lao Zi were not around when Canada was a country and didn't even know it existed. Plus, only between 150,000-300,000 Canadians are homeless, yet over 35 million people live in Canada. (1) 1-http://www.homelesshub.ca...
British Columbia's Family Day Should Be Moved to Match the Rest of Canada's

Con asserts that Family Day is stupid. However, Family Day allows Canada to have a holiday that lines up with President's Day in the United States. (1) This is useful due to closeness of Canada & the US's border, economic ties, etc. For example, before Canada had Family Day, the TSX and other Canadian markets would be open while New York and other American markets are closed. This is also inconvenient because while earlier in the month when most Canadians and Americans are working, those in BC will have to catch up to their colleagues out of the province. (2) Therefore, BC should move Family Day to match the rest of Canada's. 1-http://en.wikipedia.org...(Canada) 2-http://www.cbc.ca...
Abortion

As this is your first debate I'll ease you into it. Since this is a multi-round debate with plenty of characters we have lots of time for back and forth.Since your first round was just laying out a few statistics and basic premises I'll do the same. That way we are equal with each other. Next round, the gloves come off! As of the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade there have been over 55.7 million abortions in the USA alone. [1]This averages out to roughly 278 abortions per 1000 live births. [2] Thus over 1 in 5 people under 40 were denied the right to life.As we know that life begins at fertilization, the US has permitted the legal murder of more than:3 x 15-17 million who died in WWI [3]5 x 11 million who died in the Holocaust [4]1.6 x the entire population of Canada [5]I'll leave it at that for now.I look forward to your opening arguments and will provide mine along with a rebuttal in the next round.[1] http://www.lifenews.com...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[4] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...;[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Abortion

"Back-alley" abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths each year in the 33 countries where abortion is not legal or available, according to the World Health Organization in Oct. 2006 Abortion is a safe medical procedure. The vast majority of women - 88% - who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth. In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim. Often a woman is too afraid to speak up or is unaware she is pregnant, thus the morning after pill is ineffective in these situations.
Resolved: The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures" ought pass in the state of Arkansas.

And with that we shall begin. Sir, have you considered the health risks that having a tattoo poses and the effect that it has only employability. It's a well known fact that if needles are infected with contaminated blood, then blood borne diseases, such as tetanus, syphilis, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C could be contracted. An STD for the sake of looking rebellious: really? In addition, a lack of tattoos results in a higher employability. Managers would no longer need to worry about employees having to cover up their 'body art', in order to comply with dress codes. When it comes to interviews, tattoos leave a bad impression on future employees, due to their association with the criminal world. With more people able to work, more people will. This would result in a higher employment percentage for the state, meaning that the rate of poverty would also also be reduced. And so, by banning dermal implants and scarification, the health risk to the population would be lowered and yet the employment rate of the state would rise. Your turn, Horseman!
Resolved: The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures" ought pass in the state of Arkansas.

Before continuing in this debate, we need to understand SB-387 in Arkansas and exactly what the bill is banning. The prohibited practices in question are defined as the following: “An artist licensed by the Department of Health shall not perform or attempt to perform: The insertion of a dermal implant or scarification.” Before explicitly stating the form of practices that are going to banned in the state of Arkansas, the bill places the following definitions on the following terms: Scarification: “injury of the skin involving scratching, etching, or cutting of designs to produce a scar on a human being for ornamentation or decoration.” Tattooing: “Any method of placing designs, letters, scrolls, figures, symbols, or any other marks upon or under the skin by introducing pigments or by the production of scars to form indelible marks with the aid of needles or other instruments.” Although it’s specifically mentioning that scarification and dermal implants are directly going to be banned by this act, the vague wording of the bill itself leaves room for other bodily procedures to be banned, including other types of tattoos, maybe even tattoos in general considering the procedure for a tattoo corresponds with the definition of scarification. These restrictions ultimately hinder the First Amendment as the bill hinders on free expression via bodily art. For any health reasons in particular, they can be addressed with proper regulation of the practice rather than total bans “Problems most often are the result of a lack of experience or hygienic practice of the practitioner, materials used or a lack of proper aftercare by the recipient.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)
Resolved: The "Act to Limit Body Art Procedures" ought pass in the state of Arkansas.

The bill that the resolution is in reference to is a bill in the state of Arkansas designed to place restrictions on bodily art and piercings. The Pro will argue for the passage of this bill through the Arkansas state government. Acceptance to this resolution means acceptances to the following rules:(1) First round is for the acceptance of the resolution only.(2) Forfeiting rounds will not constitute automatic loss of the debate, but any arguments that do not receive rebuttals counts as an automatic concession.
Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States

Rebuttal Con's main argument is the negative impact of prohibition. I will address it here. http://city-journal.org... Con cites prison populations and overcriminalization, however, only 1% of drug users are in jail ONLY for drugs. Drug offenders are only 16% of the population. Con cites that prohibition could possibly lead to more deaths. However this is outweighed by the effects of tobacco on people, and that tobacco kills millions of people a year. He is correct that 6 million is global deaths, but hundreds of thousands die a year from tobacco, outweighing prohibition. Con also claims that prohibition will not actually lower the use of drugs. However, there is ample evidence proving that the criminalization of something indeed reduces the usage. http://exclusive.multibriefs.com... http://www.dea.gov... http://www.rand.org... http://www.dare.org... Drug control has lowered demand and drug usage by 25% since 2001. Drug control laws reduce use of drugs by 50%. Since legalization of marijuana DUIs jumped 25-50%. This is evidence that legalization makes people more apt to doing something. Logically, this makes sense because most people are rational and do not want to be criminals. Lastly Con says that cartels would form.However, there already is a cigarette cartel, despite being legal. Cartels still exist under legalization. In fact, according to a large analysis, cartels adapt to legalization to increase their revenue. Con suggests using smokeless tobacco. However, there is still a sizable population of millions who still smoke, endangering the lives of their fellow citizens. Must we wait until people die until we act? Extend opening arguments. Secondhand smoke: The Surgeon General Report concluded that 2.5 million American citizens died of secondhand smoke since 1964. CDC states that 34,000 people die a year because secondhand smoke heart disease and thousands more of lung cancer. Even if usage is down people are still using tobacco, which is harming the lives of fellow citizens. Environmental: Cigarettes produce a significant amount of air pollution and litter, which is toxic to ecosystems Economic: BIllions a year are lost due to medical cost Users: Over 90% addiction, number 1 leading cause of death In conclusion, vote Con because secondhand smoke harms people, not just the user. Tobacco is negative environmentally and economically, and makes people addicted. Sorry for short case, ran out of time I await 16k
Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States

Con may rebut my opening arguments in their first speechRules1. No forfeits2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e. g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc. )7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP will be shared10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossPro in this debate will advocate a ban, Con will support the status quoGood luck to 16kadams, surely a formidable debater.