BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

"The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. " Developed nations have obligation to clean up, but developing countries don't? This does not really make sense to me. "Are you going to let the climate go on how it is going and have a 1.9 trillion dollar cost of global warming in the next century." How can we take action if we do not even know if global warming exists? There is evidence both for and against this. "the renewable industries created 35 M jobs in 2011- UN" In my last argument, I said that as oil prices rise, people can't afford it and instead start buying alternate fuels. This could be caused by that. The government did not need to do anything. "If we cut funding into oil, then terrorists will lose money and stop killing innocent lives. I value lives greatly over money, Judge" The terrorists are only indirectly caused by oil. Plus, not all oil cause terrorism. Here are some examples of places that have a lot of oil and little terrorists: U.S (3rd) Canada (6th) U.K. (19th) [1] "Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation." Again, so developing nations don't need to? "They said to my terrorism subpoint that oil comapnies will lose their induestries and that green energy is not linked." You misunderstood my point: Oil gets more expensive as it gets scarcer, so people will switch to green energy without even the government telling them to do so. My point is the government is not required to tell people to do so as they will do it, NOT that big oil corporations will go bankrupt. Green energy sure does help, but that is another separate topic. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Plagiarism Should be Penalized on DDO

This debate is in response to comments made by DDO user TinyBudha [1], who may present his As per my usual, I'll have section headings underlined, contention headings and opponent quotes in bold, source quotes in italics. I have no opposition to the definitions provided, nor to my opponent sharing in the BoP. However regarding the claim "there are no set rules for plagiarism on the site," my case will firmly prove this false. Argument: My case is rather simple... All DDO agreed to the Terms of Service. Enough said. Said terms, prohibit plagiarism. From the Terms, all users on DDO have agreed they: "Will not impersonate any person or entity" [3], and further agreed that "All material you post on Debate.org, including debate arguments… becomes the property of Debate.org" [3]. Those two highlights closely match my opponent's provided definition of plagiarism "...the representation of that author's work as one's own..." Penalty Those who commit plagiarism, have broken the social contract of the site. To not penalize their misdeeds in any way, would be to leave them with the full benefit they sought to gain, thereby encouraging even more rule violations. My suggested penalty, as I've previously written on the subject, is in short for voters to "give conduct to the side which did not commit plagiarism" [4]. After all, conduct includes the ability to punish "bad sportsmanlike behavior" [5]. There are many other potential ways to handle it, but the fact that there should be penalties for crimes will remain true for all of them. Sources: [3] http://www.debate.org... [4] https://docs.google.com... [5] http://www.debate.org...
Plagiarism Should be Penalized on DDO

The first thing I will say is that within my debate there was No plagiarism. Having given credit to the author for the direct words which I copied, there is no reasonable definition which could accept what I did as plagiarism......As the opponent hasn't specified, the Burden of Proof will from here on out shared. I believe this is fair to require, as Ragnar hasn't secified and if the BOP is any other way then I will have accepted under false pretences, and futhermore, there are no set rules for plagiarism on the site, meaning we are both making propositions.....Also, I don't need or appreciate an extra round for an extra-advatange, as I won't need one for this debate. If I'm going to debate it will be on equal terms. Ragnar will present his case next round.These definitions will be singular, meaning they are the exclusive definition, there can be no further addition to them. They should be accepted for the same reason burden of proof should be accepted.Plagiarism: an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author.Should: what ought to be done in regards to what is the best thing to do. Penalize: subject to some form of punishment.
Plagiarism Should be Penalized on DDO

This debate is in response to comments made by DDO user TinyBudha [1], who may present his or her case in R1 (giving them the signifigant advantage of one more round than I).Definitions are common English, if in doubt, Merriam-Webster dictionary.My case shall borrow heavily from a previous argument of mine on the same subject, which my opponent has criticized [2].Sources:[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...
Victimless crimes are not crimes at all.

I appreciate your maturity in not reverting to semantic games, and will clarify my premise. I agree with your definition of victimless crime as an activity which produces no apparent negative result/damage, but is still somehow unlawful. However, when I introduce the question of whether they should be crimes, I am obviously not confused as to whether or not they are currently illegal. If this debate simply asked if prostitution, suicide, and drug use were illegal, you would have only the simple task of citing the laws that criminalize them. However, my premise is that these actions do not harm objecting parties, that the purpose of the law is to protect an individual"s autonomy and not to allow others to infringe on it, and that any law forbidding an individual to practice free choice (as long as he is not interfering with another"s right to) is an unjust law. I disagree with your assertion that the purpose of the law is directly correlated to individual safety. If that were so, then smoking, drinking, and even unhealthy foods would be banned. In fact, exercise would become mandatory, as sedentary lifestyle is far more likely to cause health problems. The reason that all of that sounds so absurd is that the law has never existed to promote safety, and if the law did proactively force individuals to behave in ways like I mention above, the public outcry would be tumultuous, as it would be viewed as an infringement on the individual"s freedom of choice. Safety relies solely on the discretion of the individual. The law exists to protect the individual"s freedom from being infringed upon. Laws against murder, rape, thievery, etc. must exist to protect individuals from one another. This is exactly why victimless crimes should not be crimes at all. The examples of victimless crimes that I have listed are not protecting anyone"s freedom, but restricting it. Therefore, given my definition of the purpose of the law as a tool with which to protect individual freedom, and the given laws against victimless crimes (restricting individual freedoms), it must be understood that these laws are what must be criminalized, not the liberties of the individual.
Victimless crimes are not crimes at all.

I accept the debate, but would like to have some definitions to avoid semantics, as well as state my premise.Legally speaking, victimless crimes are crimes. So semantically speaking, you have already lost, but seeing as I'm not an insidious debater, I presume you are saying that victimless crimes should not be crimes. In which case, BOP is then shared between us unlike before when it was solely on you. If this is the case then please say so in the comments.DefinitionsVictimless Crime -"An infraction of criminalwithout any identifiable evidence of an individualthat has suffered damage in the infraction." -http://www.princeton.edu...Crime - "An action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law" -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...My premise is that victimless crimes should remain crimes, due to the fundamenal purpose of law, which is regarding the safety of each and every person within the state. I look forward to a good debate.
Victimless crimes are not crimes at all.

Hello all. My premise is that victimless crimes are not crimes at all. A victimless crime is an action that is currently criminal, but one that harms no one other than the individual(s) willingly participating in said activity. Examples of such crimes are drug use, prostitution, and suicide. Individuals are still held accountable for subsequent actions that interfere with the autonomy of others, similar to current laws that apply to persons under the influence of alcohol. I look forward to a good debate.
these bible verses r contradictory

Here is Genisis 30:22-30 "Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When he saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob's thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him. Then he said, "Let me go, for the dawn is breaking." But he said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." So he said to him, "What is your name?" And he said, "Jacob." He said, "Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed." Then Jacob asked him and said, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And he blessed him there. So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, "I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved." So this is making an exception for Jacob because he did not actually see the face of God, he saw God in the form of an angel so he DID see God face to face just not in his natural form, Jacob saw him in the form of an angel. I believe that is all the context needed. I do not think that you have any more verses though. it seems like you based all of your argument on one two verses.
There is no universal moral standard.

This is my first created debate at this website, so please bear with me as I experiment. I apologize for my possible miscategorization. At first blush, the most common arguments for moral absolutism will be from a theistic standpoint, but I address the biological con as well. This is a debate that I will be performing very soon in public, and wanted to test drive it here! This particular debate boils down to the universality of a moral code amongst members of the human race. For the purposes of debate, my position is that all moral conceptions are relative, hence established by cultural/geographical/etc. schema, rather than via a priori knowledge or knowledge otherwise transmitted by a deity, whichever you will. Since I'm not sure how much detail goes into my initial post, I will simplify my answer for the purposes of beginning a debate and refine my position as needed. Essentially, there is simply too much moral variance in the world to believe that a supreme being has instilled in us, via a priori methods, divination, holy communication, etc., any sort of universally right or wrong moral code. The issue of the death penalty is a very illustrative example. Though most first world countries have eliminated capital punishment from the punitive menu, and though Western religions clearly forbid murder (the commandments are often cited as a universal code of ethics), the United States, to the chagrin of the first world, still allows murder by the state in exchange for extreme criminal activity. I will even go so far as to say that moral universalism based on human biology is also flawed. Though I have a decent fundamental knowledge of genetic histories of human beings and especially of our behavioral and genetic tendencies to being social, evolution clearly negates the possibility of a universal moral code. After all, societies routinely incorporate what some of us would call "morally objectionable" actions into their daily lives, and they still exist and thrive. Again, murder becomes my example of choice, specifically in the context of warring tribes & other, more rural societies. Warring tribes in sub-Saharan Africa conflicted naturally and "normally" for centuries prior to Western invasion. Those tribes thrived via their "uncivilized" and often "barbaric" conflict codes. It was not until their value and societal systems were crushed and supplanted with Western systems that they were devastated. In fact, it could be said that attempting to promote, or especially enforce, a universal moral code actually leads to more violations of human rights and human dignity than leaving a culture to its own devices. The fact that countries are even able to hegemonically spread their cultural belief systems negates the existence of a universal moral code. Have at me! :D
the validity of transsexuality and identification

This can be taken into two contexts: one, if the person born male is a transvestite, and two, if they are transgender. Transvestism is simply a lifestyle choice to dress as the opposite gender; if the male is a transvestite, he only chooses to dress as a woman, and this has no effect on his sexuality and gender, which would make him straight in this instance. If the person is transgender, she was born with the body of a male, but with similar internal chemical structure to a female, making their gender female. Transgenders often choose to dress as the gender they are transitioning to before they make the full biological transition. In this case, it would make the transgender female a lesbian.
the validity of transsexuality and identification

I was walking down a sidewalk and found myself behind a boy who dressed like a girl and holding hands with a girl who was dressed like a girl. Obviously for me to make any assumptions (which i guess I already have.. sorry!) about that particular situation is wrong, but it did spark this question in my mind: If a person who was born a male and has a sex change to female has sexual relations with a person who was born female and is still female, who if anyone, is gay? I believe that the female is gay because she is not having sex with a partner with a penis, but the boy who now is female is in fact straight because he was born a male, therefore he is having sex with the opposite organ of which he was born to. Thought are appreciated though!
cats or dogs (cats yes dogs no)

cats are better than dogs it is plain and simple anyone who cant see that is stupid. for one cats don't go to the bathroom an your floor and they don't wake you up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom. They require less care when you go to work for the whole day, they require less attention they can fit in smaller apartments their life expectancy is higher than dogs they are adorable they are smarter than dogs and they stay out of your way so you don't trip on them. They stay high on refridgerators.
No-one should be an organ donor in the event of their death

My opponent has tried to refute my claims by saying that posthomulously donating organs will cheapen the meaning of life and is a disrespectful act to the donor. My opponent explains this by stating that posthomulously donating organs will "cause pain to those you love since other people will damage your gravestone." Again, he fails to explain how this will hurt your loved ones and "damage your gravestone." On the contrary, I believe that donating organs will increase the meaning of your life. Donating organs posthumously can save lives. In that way, you have selflessly improved the lives of others. I believe that families would honor that decision, and not see it as an act of "damaging your gravestone." He also tries to make the claim that "[Doctors] may even choose to kill you so more lives can be saved." However, my opponent has failed to provide any evidence or discuss specific events.In conclusion, as I have stated in the second round, organ donations are very beneficial. In a society where we have over 119,000 people awaiting organs, and 22 of these people dying each day, we need organ donations. The fact that one donor can save up to eight lives is astounding.
No-one should be an organ donor in the event of their death

To conclude: Just because something is yours doesn't mean you should do whatever you want, you should consider whether it is right or wrong, how your actions affect others. When you donate organs upon dying you will not just be saving lives or making people healthier like the adverts say, and like my opponent says. The consequences of being a deceased organ donor = you will not be respected after you die, and thus cause pain to those you love since other people will damage your gravestone. What other consequences did I mention? Hmm you will be giving an organ to someone who will think their life is more important than yours as you are dead so don't need the organ, whereas they do, being a deceased organ donor encourages people to be selfish i.e. not live a happy healthy life. The greatest consequence in my opinion is that people will not try their best to save your life! They may even choose to kill you so more lives can be saved. Murder is never right, do you want people to believe it is acceptable? Do you want to put people in a position whereby they will make the wrong choice? The aim to save as many lives as possible is flawed, it devalues human life, and consequently destroys life that should live. It might be comforting knowing you will save 8 lives, but what about the lives you are not aware of that suffer as a result? If you choose to not donate organs in the event you die, you not responsible for the death of someone who is awaiting an organ transplant! My opponent supports my argument, people who sign the organ register want to believe they are better than others, and hate people who don't sign the organ register. Is it right to create this hatred? No. Will it make people happy? No. If your organs are taken when you die without your permission, people won't be bothered, they will think that shouldn't stop you from donating organs, so basically a deceased organ donor's life is devalued Living life to the fullest is what matters, not living as long as you can
No-one should be an organ donor in the event of their death

My opponent begins the third round by saying that my claims are not refutable, and therefore I must lose conduct points. Odd. All I brought to the table were some statistics and valid sources which support my argument. My opponent has also misinterpreted my argument, saying "I introduced my argument by using a simple example about terrorism to merely point out that just because something belongs to you such as money does not mean you 'should' or assume it is right to do whatever you want with it, and this is true for your body too, which is why this topic is debatable... What Cons fails to realise is that holding a gun to someone"s head does not remove someone"s choice to do the right thing i.e. prevent them from stopping others being in the same situation via not complying." My opponent refers to my remark about how organ donations are completely optional. It is up to the decision of the individual considering donating organs. I still do not see how organs are like money, where, as he says, just because you can donate them doesn't mean you should. My opponent fails to expand upon this claim and explain any consequences of being an organ donor while alive or posthumously. My opponent proceeds to ask "The question is: should someone be an organ donor in the event of their death?" And yet my opponent still doesn't answer why people should not donate their organs. Then, my opponent posts a fair amount of my argument, yet hardly addresses or responds to specific points in it. My opponent concludes his argument with "People should not be encouraged to believe that there are times when murder or negligence, is okay." Honestly, I feel that this comment should only support my argument. If we fail to tend to the 120,000 people in need of new organs simply because we think "organ donations are wrong," then we're basically neglecting their needs and leave them to die, or spend the rest of their lives being reliant on artificial organs. My opponent failed to refute all of my claims and has yet to bring any evidence as to why we should condemn organ donations, preferably with valid sources and data.
No-one should be an organ donor in the event of their death

Organ donation is a personal choice, I have no problem with living people donating blood etc to loved ones. But people can decide what happens to their organs when they die - . https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk.... If you do not take your name off the NHS organ register or discuss with family what you wish to happen to your organs when you die then family will decide what they think you would have wanted. This is wrong in my opinion, nobody should be an organ donor, and those on the register should take their names off. Con will try to convince me and voters to sign the organ register.
Call of duty is the most frusterating FPS ever.

Thank you for your argument Pro. "the pistol kills are unrealistic because the bullets should curve after about 10 feet, but in this game every gun has infinite range"seriously? Infinite range? I do not think so. Unwarranted argument as no source is backing it up. Even if it is true... Unrealistic things are very important in a game! Actually realistic things make a frustrating FPS... Such as Red orchestra 2 which requires so much skill that one will actually feel proud if he kills someone... http://www.pcgamer.com... Really... It has done it authentic. No HUD. No Crosshair. No Info map. Nothing. One has to manually check how many bullets are left and the health is like "I am dead already" "And the lag is because of the hosts crappy connection, not mine. A lot of cod players complain about lag."Again no source... Do few lags on online play make a game the most frustrating? What about games which do not contain a multiplayer option? Skyrim is one and it isn't bad at all...In fact it is far from it! It is the game of the year! So, we conclude by saying that few lags on the server do not make a game the worst or the most frustrating. "COD is probable worse."Was that meant as a joke? Anyone with a meagre IQ will say that the FPS is far worse than COD.
Call of duty is the most frusterating FPS ever.

the pistol kills are unrealistic because the bullets should curve after about 10 feet, but in this game every gun has infinite range. And the lag is because of the hosts crappy connection, not mine. A lot of cod players complain about lag. This is why COD should be server based, not host based. and while game in the video oesk terrible (9999 bullets seriously O.o) COD is probable worse.
Call of duty is the most frusterating FPS ever.

Thank you for your argument..."COD is the most frusterating FPS ever because of all the across the map unrealistic pistol kills and lag." Unrealistic pistol kills? What is pro trying to say here? Headshots? Headshots are realistic... and so is point-blank kill.Lag? That depends on the machine which one plays the game and not on the game... I think the worst and most frustuating FPS is Daikatana (PC). http://www.joystickdivision.com... http://www.youtube.com...; Try these... I am sure they will get the vote instead of COD.