BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is good for society (if determined by genetics)

Since you are arguing about genetics and not morality, the title of this topic should be "homosexuality is good for our species". In order for a gene to be passed on to the next generation, a person WITH THE GENE must successfully reproduce. In that case, how would a homosexual person reproduce successfully? The mere fact that homosexuals have relatives shows that biology alone does not determine whether you are homosexual or not. There are many gaps in your argument and I find it unclear. But so far, you are only saying that homosexuality is good for society because there are more homosexuals today than in the past. In that case, the fact that cancer is on the rise must show that cancer is somehow good for society? I argue that homosexuality is some sort of fluke in our biological database. Homosexuality takes genes out of the gene pool because homosexuals tend not successfully reproduce (naturally). Thus, evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality is BAD for our species because it limits successful reproduction.
Homosexuality is good for society (if determined by genetics)

Before opening arguments, I would like to remind the contender that this argument is based on the assumption that sexuality is an inherent characteristic. It's hardly a far fetched assumption. After all, who wakes up one day and goes, "I'm tired of having intercourse with the opposite sex. Today I feel like incurring the wrath and righteous hatred of many members of society by having intercourse with a member of my sex, just for kicks and giggles" So thus, I am assuming here that homosexuality is a genetic trait. If homosexuality is genetic, then it is anything but a self replicating gene. In fact, if it's genetic, every generation would be marked by a sharp decline in homosexuals. However, despite this, there exists homosexuality to this day. You would think over 200,000 years, there would be no homosexuals left. Yet there is one reasonable explanation for why this non replication gene replicates. If a homosexual individual does not replicate, the only way for the gene to replicate is if the relatives of a homosexual individual replicates in above average numbers. Therefore it reasons to stand that the existence of homosexuals causes the society/family in which they exist to propagate more successfully and in greater numbers.
burning building: test tube babies v. 6 yr old girl - saving girl inconsistent w prolife message

while it is stated that implatation is immoral, it is referring to the idea of doing implation as an overall procedure to produce kids purposefully. i would suppose it wouldn't be immoral to the catholic church to implant them only to save them if they are already created. i would argue that one is morally obgliated to give blood. i do so. i think others should too, at least enough time to ensure the supply is decently stocked as it usually is. so yes no acting is a choice. i still argue. con doesnt really even address the morality of saving the embryos irregardless of what teh cahtolic church teaches. i assume he must be a catholic and won't accept other positions. but, most noncatholic christians are not against embryonic implantation. if this is morally permissible, and you think the embryos will die otherwise, you have an obligation to save the most amount of people. i suppose we can refer to the trolly dilemma. not acting is an atrocious and i dare say vile act. you have an obligation to save the ten people. i'm sure God would be merciful to you for doing what you thought was right, but yuou are not right, if you dont save them. likewise, at least for them to be consistent, they would be obligated to save the testtubes. (playing devil's advocate as i do not have absolute beliefs regarding the personhood of the testtube fetuses) con's wasn't much of an opponent cause he seems to be inherently against implanting zygotes or whatever. i may have to screen those types in the next debate. i only am looking to debate consistency of prolife folks, who could allow for implantation, but would choose to save the girl instead.
burning building: test tube babies v. 6 yr old girl - saving girl inconsistent w prolife message

Rebuttal1. Catholicism on EmbryosWhile it has not been doctinally stated, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expressed serious moral reservations about implanting fertilized eggs in Dignitatis Personae. [1]2. MisunderstandingsPro seems to not fully understand that the Pro-Life position is one of respecting life from conception to natrual death. Thus one is not always obligated to prolong someone's life.Additionally, Pro does not seem to appreciate the difference between doing good and avoiding evil. If I choose to do one morally good act instead of another equivalent morally good act I haven't done something evil. The person who saves 1 instead of 10 hasn't done anything wrong.This is because Pro doesn't seem to appreciate the difference between justified and obligated. Is the person justified in doing A or B? Yes. Are they morally obligated to do B over A? No. That goes for the trolley problem as well. You can say that morally you are justified in diverting the trolley so that only one dies instead of 10. However, that does not mean that you are obligated to do so.Have you given blood recently? If not are you guilty of the death of someone who might have lived if you had given blood? One is morally justified in giving blood. One is not morally obligated to do so.3. 1 or 10Now back to the specifics of this case:• There is a fire.• I know that I have time to save one of two parties.• I have absolute surety that if I save one of the two my own life will not be in danger (this places an obligation on me to act)• If I save either one I cannot make it to the other one in time to save them.If we go back to the trolley question we can get clarification on this:If I pull the switch 1 dies instead of 10, however I didn't want even the 1 to die and it wasn't his death that caused the 10 to live. - Morally permissible.If I don't pull the switch and 10 die instead of the 1, I didn't want the 10 to die, and I did nothing to cause the 10 to die. I was under no obligation to pull the switch because my actions would result in the death of a person - even if unintentionally.So in both cases I have made a moral decision, even if the outcomes are different.Now in the case we are looking at, only indecision results in the maximum number of deaths. Thus any action that I take reduces the number of deaths. Thus any action that I take is morally licit as I do not cause the death of either the embryos or the little girl by choosing one over the otehr. I've always made a choice to save life.[1] http://www.vatican.va...;
burning building: test tube babies v. 6 yr old girl - saving girl inconsistent w prolife message

i would not agree that not acting is a moral choice. in the trolly dilemma and otherwise. it's still a choice with alterantives that you could have taken that would have saved many lives. i do not believe that catholic theology forbids implantation if it is only to save the conceived. if it's part of an overall scheme to do in vitro fertiliazation, then yes it's forbidden. not taking catholic stuff as the end all be all, you still have the moral point that the eggs could have been fertilzied and saved. this is the greatest good, if you are prolife as defined. also, you are still making a judgment call that one person saved for a lifetime, is worth ten saved for a short span. i think most would agree that the lifetime persons would be saved, but it doesn't necessarily force itself to that conclucsion. this is akin to people wanting to use our resources to save younger people in health care debates, and let the older ones die. i'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's still a judgment call. i htink the main point though, is that the eggs could and for the sake of argument would probably survive if implanted. thus, catholic stuff aside, if you are prolife, you have no choice but to go for the eggs. if your only arguemnt is that implatation is immoral, you are for sure an extreme outlier for prolife folks. aside from you, then, everyone else should agree with what i'm sayng.
burning building: test tube babies v. 6 yr old girl - saving girl inconsistent w prolife message

Arguments First ArgumentI believe this to be a straight forward argument. The argument put forward by Pro is that you have to do the greatest possible good otherwise you've been immoral. If we look at the classic trolley problem where a runaway mine trolley is heading towards a group of 10 miners (to stay in keeping with the debate). Now you can divert the trolley to another line where there is one person. If you do nothing the 10 will die. If you divert the trolley one will die. In this example both choices are actually moral. If you let the trolley kill the 10, you chose not to intervene and let events take their course. As both outcomes resulted in death, there is no obligation to save the 10 vs. the 1. Now it may seem callous, but it is not immoral to not intervene just as it is permissible to let someone die of natural causes. If you choose to intervene then it is still moral because while you do not intend the death of the single person you are saving a greater number of people by intervening. Now this is similar except that you essentially have 2 carts an you only have time to divert one of them. A good deed cannot become a bad deed because a percieved greater deed could have been done. You have an obligation to save one of the two groups, which one you choose is an equivalent moral action. Second ArgumentIf you are truly Pro-Life you further believe that In-Vitro Fertilization in also wrong. Catholic theology (which is the most Pro-Life theology) states that it is immoral to create life in this manner. They further believe that it is immoral to implant eggs fertilized from this process. Thus an accidental death in fire would provide a natural and ethical death to the frozen fertilized eggs in storage. The six year old girl would likely have a long fruitful life in front of her. Thus it could be argued that saving the 6 year old girl may actually be the more ethical of the two choices. ConclusionWhile this was a breif round (my apologies - time slipped away), I have shown two reasons why saving the little girl is consistent with the Pro-Life messge, thus refuting the argument.
burning building: test tube babies v. 6 yr old girl - saving girl inconsistent w prolife message

there is a burning building. you only are able to save a box of test tube babies with at least ten inside, or you can save a six year old girl. which is morally the right thing to do? i would say save the girl. i define prolife here. someone who is prolife at all points of pregnancy, where they think the laws should pretty much reflect that by mostly outlawing abortion..... should to be consistent save the test tubes. how would it be consistent for them to save the girl?
burning building: test tube babies v. 6 yr old girl - saving girl inconsistent w prolife message

I always find her debate topics interesting and I am glad to have had the pleasure of this debate with her. I also wish to apologize to Pro and the readers, as I accidentally hit submit instead of check spelling on the previous Round. This provided a somewhat incomplete argument in the previous round. RebuttalsPro seems to have an issue with Catholicism being used in this debate. I would venture to say that the Catholic Church is easily the most visible proponent of the Pro-life movement. With people in the Pro-Choice movement using slogans like, "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" it obvious that they recognize the Catholic Church as a primary opponent. Thus, if I can show that Catholic teaching (which is consistent in Pro-Life philosophy and theology) can show that there is an inconsistency then I have shown that the decision to save the girl is consistent with the Pro-Life message. As such, I contend that the Catholic Church's serious moral reservations against implanting already fertilized eggs is valid in the context of this debate. As previously noted, the trolley problem is about determining what is morally permissible, not what is morally obligatory. I had mentioned giving blood as example in my previous round because I had just returned from doing so at our local clinic. And while it is arguably a moral good (unless maybe your a Jehovah's Witness - different argument there), giving blood is not an explicit moral obligation, it is merely morally permissible with a relatively small sacrifice in order to achieve a substantial good. As previously noted, if the person does not act everyone dies. Thus, either of the two proposed actions is a moral good. Now, one can argue that one action may be morally superior to the others, but that does not mean that, like giving blood, one is morally obligated to perform the greatest possible action. Should the person save the girl, instead of the embryos, they have not committed a moral evil because they did not actually cause the death of anyone. They made a choice to save life when life was endangered. In stressful moments people have a variety of reasons for the choices they make. To make one of two morally permissible choices is not evil and is thus not inconsistent with the Pro-Life message. ConclusionI believe that I have clearly shown that one can be consistent in their Pro-Life stance and save the little girl instead of the frozen embryos. While there were other arguments based on circumstances that could have been made, I believe that the arguments that I did make stayed within the debate parameters that Pro was desiring. I must admit that I'm slightly disappointed that Pro has viewed me as "not much of an opponent", as I believe that I'm one of the most Pro-Life debaters on this site. I tried not to use semantics and to debate this straight-on in the manner that Pro laid the debate out in the resolution and Round 1.
Interventionism is Preferable to Isolationism

PrefaceThis debate concerns the foreign policy of the United States. I will be arguing for the stance that the U.S. should act as the world's "policeman" and be involved in foreign affairs. Con will argue for the military withdrawal of the U.S. and lack of engagement in other countries thereof.DefinitionsInterventionism - the policy or doctrine of intervening for the purposes of ending conflict, securing human rights, and stabilizing regions of unrestPreferable - desirable, betterIsolationism - the opposition to any military action that is not in direct response to an attack on U.S. soil and the reluctance to engage in foreign affairsRules1. BOP is on Pro. 2. No trolling/semantics/kritiks3. Voting is on arguments only4. Con accepts all definitionsStructureFirst round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round (rebuttals that follow from the previous round are allowed). Otherwise, arguments and counter-arguments are free to be used in the discretion of the debater.Thanks to AdventureExplorer for accepting! I'm hoping this will be a memorable one.
Revenge Solves Everything

My opponent did not even come to near in closing the gap as to how revenge solves the infinite amount of problems that exist in this world. But all in all, there is one reason my opponent can never win this debate. That is because what constitutes a problem Is highly subjective. For example, my opponent seems to think that overpopulation is a problem, but what if I told you that a problem is that we don’t have enough people on this plant? Obviously both are a matter of opinion and both may be considered a problem to different individuals. For my opponent to fulfill his BOP, he must show that revenge is the answer to every possible problem that may exist as an opinion among any individual in existence. Now to put the icing on the cake: If an individual finds revenge to be a problem on the world, for they believe that peace, love, and forgiveness are the answers to humanity’s problems, then my opponent can never justify revenge as a solution, for revenge is actually the problem itself. To take it further, I can use this example to rebut every one of my opponent’s arguments. 1. Revenge solves the problem of useless beings: If an individual believes that the problem is that useless beings should not be subjected to revenge, then revenge cannot be the solution. 2. Revenge brings closure: If an individual believes that the problem is that people think revenge brings closure when it ultimately does not, then revenge cannot be the solution. 3. Revenge solves the problem of hurting the planet (due to overpopulation): If an individual believes that every person should only die through natural death, then revenge cannot therefore be used as a means of population control. Also, revenge is not the solution to 3+2. This right here is enough to win, for even if you rebutted every one of my arguments above, you cannot rebut this. Even further, you still must show that revenge solves the infinite amount of problems in existence. That is a burden of proof, that simply cannot be fulfilled.
Revenge Solves Everything

Thank you for accepting. Before I begin, let me clarify. By revenge solves everything I mean the problems that humanity faces, because revenge is an abstract concept of the human mind it can not be applied on literal universal terms. Now I will begin with the debate. 1. Revenge solves the problem of useless beings_ Because we as humans cannot determine what a useless person inherently is, then those who have been wronged by said person may seek vengeance, thereby eliminating the need for people to go into fantastic wastes of time about whether someone is guilty or innocent, or should be allowed to continue living. These issues as a whole should still be debated, but having someone be put through an equal "eye for an eye tooth for a tooth" scenario, we are given more time to discuss and put closure on issues like the death penalty etc. Revenge does this and also solves a major problem in our society and all societies afterwards that do not use some means of population control. Revenge, in effect, weeds out those who have done great wrongs so that we may solves other issues. By great wrongs I mean murder, rape etc. not petty theft or anything like that. These do not classify as "great wrongs". 2. Revenge brings closure- Anyone who has ever had the pleasure of punching someone who has wronged them in some way knows the excellent feeling of a a fist full of passion, rage, and hatred flying into the face of your foe. As soon as this is over a great feeling of peace enters you, as if some cosmic wrong has been solved. Revenge solves the problem of not having closure, and has a feeling of subtle euphoria attached to it. 3. Revenge solves the problem (somewhat) of hurting the planet: Because of the dense population of the planet, we need a population control method. If we have less people on the planet then in turn the planet will stop being over taxed and slowly destroyed. Now I could go on for a while about why revenge solves everything, but the central use of it is as a population control method. Most of the issues in the world are caused by overpopulation, so this means that governments and the members in their society will not have to worry about moral conundrums because there own population will be solving it without them. Of course, new legal systems will have to be formed about whether or not a certain case is worth revenge, but overall to me it seems a cost effective and quick way to cut down the population without slaughtering innocents.
Revenge Solves Everything

Ave. I accept thine Challenge! Revenge - "the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands."[1]Note: The use of the words "solves everything" as written in the debate topic, implies that revenge is the solution to every problem in existence.The burden of proof is on my opponent to show that revenge solves every single problem in existence. Vale. [1] https://www.google.com...
Revenge Solves Everything

Problem - a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome. [1} A problem is subjective to the individual and this is proof. Anything that may be perceived as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with constitutes a problem. By definition, what constitutes a problem is of subjective nature. Therefore my arguments where I state that revenge cannot be the solution to a situation where revenge is the problem still stands. I need not even respond to my opponent’s arguments for he never fulfilled his burden of proof. He showed that perhaps some things can be solved by revenge, but at no point did he give any argument proving that every problem can be solved with revenge. In fact my opponent concedes to my argument that the solution to 3+2 is not revenge. In response my opponent states, “I agree” therefore conceding that revenge is not the solution to every problem and therefore loses this debate. He attempts to save himself by saying that revenge cannot be applied to “universal terms” but seems to just make that rule up in the middle of the debate. It says nowhere in the debate topic that revenge solves every problem except problems that exist within universal terms and it says that nowhere in Round 1. My opponent has a problem with me winning the debate in this fashion, but if he didn’t want to be given this argument then he simply should have specified his debate topic and clarified in round 1. [1] https://www.google.com...
Troll debate: Birdlandmemories has a better system of government than Spencerjoyage14

Two definitions that were failed to me brought up: Birdlandmemories: A user not found on debate.org. Spencerjoyage14: A user also not found on debate.org. What Pro has to do to win: Nothing, he can't possibly win a debate that really doesn’t exist. What Con has to do to win: Nothing, she already has proven in her definitions that 'Birdlandmemories' doesn't exist so he can't even possibly have a better system of government then 'Spencerjoyage14'.
Troll debate: Birdlandmemories has a better system of government than Spencerjoyage14

The resolution is that Birdlandmemories has a better system of government than Spencerjoyage14. The first round will be for acceptance, stating the rules and defining the terms: Definitions: Government (as defined by the Oxford Dictionary): the governing body of a nation, state, or community: an agency of the federal government [1] System (as defined by the oxford dictionary): a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole [2] Rules: 1: One forfeit results in the loss of the conduct point, two forfeits results in a loss of all seven points 2: Cursing is allowed 3: For voters, please provide a detailed RFD explaining your vote Good luck to Spencerjoyage14 in this debate. [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Disprove the Theory of Evolution

My opponent, through messaging, has, due to reasons that shall not be disclosed, requested that I do not write anything in this round, and that he will not write anything in Round 3. He also requested the cancellation of Rule Number 2:" Pro will abstain from posting any arguments or rebuttals in round 4 in order to ensure an equal number of rounds for both sides to debate." I grant both requests. The format of the debate is now: Round 2: Con rebuts (already done)Round 2: Pro does nothingRound 3: Con does nothingRound 3: Pro defends previous arguments and brings up 'Cambrian Explosion' argumentRound 4: Con countersRound 4: Pro defends 'Cambrian Explosion' argument only.