BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should children between the age 6 and 18 have rights.

children should have rights because they have great ideas and an natural right to justice. Children who have rights could choose if they wanted to do this or that. They could decide how they wanted there future to go and were they wanted to live even without parent guidelines. There is an news article about a young Tamolin boy who was interviewed in 2013 that told about one of his friends who had no rights and was forced into the army by his parents and ended up a week later dead. Children that had rights would be able to tell there parent that they only had to go into the army on there own account.
This skyscraper would claim the following: Mac and cheese is a vegetable.

Space hotel! Niiiiiiiccceeeeeeeeeee.Mac and the cheese is the vegie, the modal argue for the resolution titled: "This skyscraper would claim the following: Mac and cheese is a vegetable."David Hume (a scottish bro) while making Haggis came up with the idea of ideas. His idea was the idea that there exists relational knowledge witch say one idea links to the other idea. Let look at oneHomosexuals are gayThis is a true by definition. Homosex refers to the gay. One cannot be homogay without being gay. One idea relates to the other. We note this is absolutely true! In no possible world does it not trues!Let look at one ting mon MAc and cheese is a vegtableThis is relational. Mac and cheese relates to the idea of a vegie. Ifffff it is possible then its true because its relational. In the symbolic logics it look like a so.Iffffff <>McV then [] McV<> mcV[]McvQED[] McvMcV Eat MC and get the V.It is possible for mac and cheese (mc) to be a vegie (v) then nesscarily mac and cheese is a vegie and this skyscraper is correct.Mac and the cheese: The good argueVegetables are good for you. Now listens, when something is good for you then its good, if mac and cheese is a vegtable it would be good for you. Then we should say mac and cheese is a vegie so it would be good for you. Duh, call it a vegie and it becomes good for you!Mac and cheese do nothing argueMac and cheesse sits around and does nothing. You have to feed yourself with it, meaning its like a vegatable. It doesnt move, it is a vegie. There you go david hume and science says it should be a vegativable make it so I am the very model of a jedi!
setting a goal is necessary

agreed. now I have some questions and let me clarify a few things before i move on. Goal- is something you've decided to achieve. By decided i mean that you've given it a thought and it has made an impact on you and by deciding to achieve something that reinforces your reason to be there. (not an insecurity, There's a difference not many can make). Now that i've given it a thought it totally depends on the mentality of the person. This definition can be subjective. simply put, Why am i here. ? I am-was socially awkward and to blend in I do-did opt for things that made me less noticeable and more confident (insecurity) but overtime I've been thinking and realized what I really want. For me to come here is to learn all I can because life is really big and I want to think and explore and there's nothing for me like winning here, By learn I mean - think more radical questions if a goal is my main target why would I do something else. And if would then how would it make the goal the main target. ? explain goal. ? you said goal is winning. ? Elaborate more on that (the test example) you choose medicine if you want to become a doctor i am asking did you think why do want to become a doctor. ? closing statement: a goal can be something abstract not something short lived can you exemplify with some examples whether you've set a particular materialistic goal and how that worked out for you(not necessarily here, Text me if you'd like)
setting a goal is necessary

Having a goal doesn't mean having a fool proof plan. (I'm assuming you meant fool proof not full proof. ) It's just your main target. Like education. When you reach college, You are suppose to choose a course that will prepare you for the future. For example, You decided to become a doctor. So you choose Medicine. Everything that you will study is going to contribute towards that main goal. It's not foolproof, And there are sure going to be obstacles, Even after you become a doctor. But does that mean you should not have a goal instead? Nothing is foolproof, But it is better to be prepared. Another example is when we try to protect ourselves against burglars by locking our doors, Installing CCTVs, Alarms, Etc. In this example, Our goal is to protect ourselves against burglars. These aren't 100% foolproof, But it helps. Would you rather just leave you door unlocked at night? Having a goal doesn't mean that it will make us less observant to everything else. It's a goal, Not an obsession. Like a game, There is the main quest and other side quests that you can complete. These sidequests are optional, But we still do them. We still get to choose what we will do. In the end, We only progress the game when we finish our main goal. I guess the best example for this is Fallout 3 or 4. (I'm not really sure, Since I haven't played those games, But I've watched playthroughs. ) Now, Willing to do anything it takes? I think that would go into the "end justifies the means" philosophy. Of course, We will try to anything we can to complete our goal, But within a limit. Let's say, A school test. I'm sure you would like to get perfect, So you will prepare for the test by studying. But, If you were really willing to do WHATEVER it takes, You might cheat during the test. In that case, For me, It's no longer a goal anymore, But it would be an obsession. You would be obsessed with getting perfect at that point, To the point of doing anything, Like cheating. Another example is this debate. Of course, We are both trying to win this argument, But when one of us starts to defame the other, Or starts acting like a sore loser, I believe that we are no longer having the goal of winning, But having the obsession of winning. That is all. Good luck on this debate. I guess this is both our first debate, So whoever wins, We should respect the choice. Please remember that everything said here is just my opinion.
setting a goal is necessary

okay. So if you say you're planning for the future, Are you devising a full proof plan how to achieve what you've decided and what kind of obstacles can and will be there. (emphasis on obstacles, Can you fully predict what kind of obstacles will be there. I doubt that but in case you do are you sure you're capable enough to handle every possible obstacle) secondly, If you've set your eye on something wouldn't it make you less observant to everything happening around andmaybe finding something of a magnitude which you've never experienced and if you're saying about a life which you want to lay for yourself and WILLING TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES, I believe you understand what that means and if you are, I mean that really must be something worth achieving
USA should invade Canada (and destroy them)

This is for me to make it clear to you why it would be beneficial to the state to invade Canada and annex all resources. We shall give that region a republic to voice their opinions. 1: Canada would be useful. Canada has a population of 36.29 million (about equal to California, a STATE ((one of our biggest though))). Population wise, they are the 38th most populated country (behind countries such as Poland, Iraq, and Sudan. With that small work force they are yet able to have the 10th largest nominal GDP in the world. They pick up their slack and if we invade them we will receive this income (give or take depends on moral). My plan is to have the US government control all oil reserves, hydro electricity and solar plants (main sources of electricity). If they rebel we stop giving them heat and, well, they wont rebel for long. 2. We would have control of most northern pacific trade (more than we do at least). Without Canada who is certainly a player in the North American region, we would have more trade dominance, with less players more trade will be directed at us. Also, I'm not putting citations you can look this stuff up yourself (sorry). 3. Increases USA influence and makes them feared. With the USA taking most of Canada's territory, we will look larger on a map and have more forts and general territory. The USA is 3.8 million square miles, Canada is 3.86 million square miles. Combined this new USA would be 7.66 million square miles. Russia - the largest country in the world, is only 6.6 million square miles. We would be larger than Russia. This accounts for uninhabitable land and unfertile land but yet would look good on paper "The USA is the largest country in the world. " Okay but what will happen to Canada? We will provide for Canadian needs as much as we can. We will set up Canadian autonomous districts (in the old Canada region) where administrative districts were set in place before, but with the US Federal Government looking over. Canada will be seen as a constituent state. If the Canadians are not acting well, we are not afraid to make it a post Communist state. Also the currency will not be the US dollar due to inflation and deflation risks, it will be the Canadian dollar - to uphold economic standards and keep things as steady as possible. If it is not working we will change everything to USD. We will strip them of welfare and social services if they are acting up. Some might say more responsibility, more risk, more UNCERTAINTY. It is worth it for the possible economic output for the USA. We became powerful because of our imperialistic ideals. (think taking Mexico's territory in the West USA) Lets keep that up! Also: NATO and the EU will be fine with it. It will take some convincing for UN but they don't care about Canada. Thank you for reading this and vote this if you think it is a good Idea. (satire)
The bible is true

I will argue that the Bible is partially false as it contains false prophecies, errors and contradictions. I take it that Pro considers the Bible to be completely true and the word of God. I shall use this round as an acceptance round but also to raise some objections on Pro's opening statement which seems irrelevant to the topic at hand. Pro demands, "I belive[sic] in God. Please prove to me he is not real. "Response: Pro is asking his opponent to prove a negative and that violates the principle of the burden of proof. If Pro believes that X is true, then it is Pro who should prove that X is true and not Con to prove that Not X is true. Otherwise, I would get away with asking people to disprove the existence of a multi-coloured jewel in the Earth's crust that would emit a beautiful melody if put it in your mouth, since that is impossible to disprove unless there is some technology which allows us to observe every rock in the Earth's crust. Pro demands, "Also the Con must prove evolution correct. They must tell us why and how we evolved from monkeys. "Response: This is a side-discussion as many people accept evolution and yet believe in the Bible. But since Pro demanded it, I'm going to argue that we evolved from apes. By "monkeys", I take it that Pro means "apes" and not the modern-day monkeys which no evolutionist believes we evolved from. In summary, this round was simply an acceptance round with a few objections on Pro's opening statement. I shall present my arguments and rebuttals in the next round.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

"It's because "From that point on he most likely will make biased decisions based on what has happened to him." What "Most likely" happens is not a wrong, only what will happen can be :D. " Morality is agreeably a tool for something. But one cannot prove that morality is a tool for achieving life. One could argue that morality is a tool utilized to benefit one's selfishness" A, therefore non A? Selfishness, pursuit of self, requires pursuit of life of self :D. Many of Con's arguments are just altering my statements, not disproving or preventing me from proving mine. A few are. Mainly so I don't end up assenting to a falsehood by default. " And if a man was thrown at a window with a man behind it you can only assume something bad would happen. However, the man did not wish to be thrown at the window, meaning he's still innocent." The wishes do not alter whether he is free from wrong. The fact that he's headed toward that window is still a wrong, one he is not free from. Since he didn't choose it, he will be free from it when it's over, if he survives, but presently he is not free from it, not innocent. Nowhere in the provide definition of innocent does it include intent. "The thought of ending another's life never crossed his mind." What matter his mind? Where did the definition require that? His mind isn't what's in control of this situation. " I never even defined "morality". I defined "moral" and "morally". I apologize if the similarities between the words confused you." "Morality" is simply a different "Part of speech" than the word "moral." The definition of one is derived from the other. "And in the definition of "moral", "ethical" was used which means "conforming to accepted standards of society" Nope, you didn't set that definition as a precondition of the debate, as such, it cannot be sprung upon me :D. Ethical means conforming to the standards relevant to your goal. Nothing more, nothing less. Hitler conformed to the accepted standard of his society, yet clearly you do not consider him ethical. It seems I've distracted you. You've no rounds left, and you have yet to really argue your case according to the resolution, but the burden of proof is on you. Have a nice day :D
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

"in either case not helping your point" I used the reasoning of an innocent to explain why the infants in my later example "a plane full of completely innocent infants" would truly be innocent. I was merely explaining in that paragraph, not trying to prove a point. And it clearly states in the second sentence why "Once a human being experiences an act of hate or aggression, he loses his innocence." It's because "From that point on he most likely will make biased decisions based on what has happened to him." I'll put it another way. If a child is yelled at for running away, the next time he goes to make a decision he will consider the consequences before running away again. So from that point on, his actions are no longer unbiased and innocent actions. This is why punishment is almost always greater the second time one is caught for something - they're no longer innocent or oblivious to the action's wrongfulness. Morality is agreeably a tool for something. But one cannot prove that morality is a tool for achieving life. One could argue that morality is a tool utilized to benefit one's selfishness by implying one's values is superior over the another. Many of Con's arguments are just altering my statements, not disproving or preventing me from proving mine. And if a man was thrown at a window with a man behind it you can only assume something bad would happen. However, the man did not wish to be thrown at the window, meaning he's still innocent. If a man was sleep walking or was just thrown off a building while he was asleep only to land on someone and kill them, the man would still be innocent. The thought of ending another's life never crossed his mind. His body did what his mind had no control over. "Nowhere in the definition of morality you provided for the purpose of this debate is the word "Majority" used." I never even defined "morality". I defined "moral" and "morally". I apologize if the similarities between the words confused you. And in the definition of "moral", "ethical" was used which means "conforming to accepted standards of society". Which is mainly determined by the majority. It's a very rare case that society accepts standards of the minorities. This debate was fun and I enjoyed it very much. Good luck to Con and I appreciate any judges who took the time to read this.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Because my opponent provided no contentions of his own and only attempted to disprove mine, the debate has come down to nothing but me defending my contentions from his attacks. Con did not disagree with my definition for innocence so I'll assume his thought of an "innocent person" is one who is free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless. If you really want to get deep into innocence, most philosophers believe that only a newborn child is truly innocent. Once a human being experiences an act of hate or aggression, he loses his innocence. From that point on he most likely will make biased decisions based on what has happened to him. (con stated "if a person consents to be killed, they are not innocent- they have the guilt of that consent") If con continues playing the game he's playing, he can say even an infant is guilty of something such as breathing. Everyone has a guilt of something. But according to con, if a man is "guilty" of saving another man's life, then they are no longer innocent. I realize it is not necessary to bring the law into this, but the law is mainly there to protect morals. So, in most cases, if the law allows it, then it most likely is moral. And that's great that Con has a bump on his ear but I fail to see how he disproved my contention in any way. Con stated "Rights, by their very nature, only apply to those who respect the same rights in turn." When I said "One would argue that Hitler had no respect for human life and therefore, nobody should respect his human life." I mean the exact same thing. So if anything Con is just supporting my statement that if one does not respect your right to live, you, in turn, should not respect their right to live. And lastly, "They are guilty of the wrong of cascading toward someone else's property aboard an explosive."?? A man thrown at a building even at a rate of 300m/h wouldn't do much damage. The passengers are not flying towards that building by choice. The effect of 9/11 was structural damage and many deaths. The passengers did not wish to take any part in that. The ones guilty of hijacking an airplane and setting the entire thing into motion were the hijackers. So the passengers would most likely be completely innocent. Think about it... if there was a plane full of completely innocent infants and 3 terrorists headed towards the empire state building and the government shot it down, do you think the majority of the population would agree or disagree that it was the right thing to do? And you must remember that morals are created by what the majority thinks is right. So if more agreed that it was the right thing to do, then it would be morally permissible to kill an innocent to save the lives of more innocent people.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Contention one, it happens, doesn't do much, because if a person consents to be killed, they are not innocent- they have the guilt of that consent. Seeking death is a specific wrong, for which death is a just remedy. It's not necessary to bring the law into it of course, because no one is being forced into anything, and the law's only proper domain is retaliatory force. "Contention 2 - The right not to be killed is not absolute. Even if one does not consent to being killed, there are many ways that taking their life may be morally permissible. Ordinary human beings have a powerful moral claim against their fellows not to be killed and, under certain circumstances, to be saved from death or serious harm. The scope of that right is not, of course, unrestricted. For example, it arguably does not protect innocent people who threaten others or who would be killed by the removal of what threatens others, should those in danger, or third parties who wish to assist them, use necessary lethal force to eliminate the threat. That right not to be killed is also alienable. Unjustified aggression may forfeit its protection." Simply because something has a context does not mean it is not absolute. Rights, by their very nature, only apply to those who respect the same rights in turn. The term "Right" means "Proper limit on social relations." It is only proper to observe such a limit to secure the observation of same in the other direction. Nevertheless, it is absolute. The bump on my ear absolutely exists within the context of my ear, whether or not it also exists outside that context. " In the event of 9/11 happening again, would you honestly refuse to let the government shoot down a plane? Everyone on the plane is already certain to die. You can either kill 60 innocent people and save 2000 and a building and prevent all the repercussions that followed, or you can defend the 60 citizen's lives and watch the event happen as you refuse to do anything." The people on that plane are not, metaphysically, innocents. They are guilty of the wrong of cascading toward someone else's property aboard an explosive. Since they did not do this of their own free will, they are morally innocent, their guilt is no longer present if they happen to survive somehow and get out of that situation, as they are no longer forced into membership in a guilty party... but for their time on the plane, they cannot be described as "innocent" of wrong in relation to anyone except the hijackers, who of course don't care. Moral innocence is not the only criteria to qualify as "innocent" in the general sense, they are not metaphysically innocent. Slaves are not innocent until you have freed them, until such time, they are metaphysically party to the guilt. You cannot violate the rights of someone who is already being violated. I await reasons why actual INNOCENTS, those free from wrong, are fair game for the sacrificial pyre.