BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If you kill someone who was going to kill millions of people ok

Clearly I stand little to no chance of winning this debate, BUT, none the less I will strive to make this at least a tie. (P.S Thank you for the support and good luck getting your Master's Degree) Proverbs 13:2 From the fruit of a man's mouth he enjoys good (Thus means act good be good), But the desire of the treacherous is violence( Thus forth it concludes if someone is acting and about to act or deeply want to commit a massacre they could already have done so in God's eyes)Ok so maybe Psalm 35:3 was not a viable verse for this debate. But seeing as I have already established it I will continue to use bible verses.As you quoted "(humans or mankind) had corrupted their way upon earth. ( here corruption means to disobey the commands of God and follow other things or deities instead of God)"As god has said that whatever you say think or do can be used against you (Well not directly). None the less if you go to act on a thought you have already committed the sin. About your point on not punishing those who only think and don't tell, Mr.X yes he never acted only thought about it, in this debate this man is going to act on his or her emotion and thoughts. Mainly I'm focusing on the acting part of the act. You hold the boundary of stating the faults in my use of bible quotes but I would like to say murder can be spiritual, mental, and physical. Pushing a person on until the point where not there physical beings can't stand but mental being can't that is a type of murder.You are very wise and sincere and I respect that, not many people online can be polite and sincere.Thankfully yours,Furiousjay
If you kill someone who was going to kill millions of people ok

Thank you for accepting this debate and I look forward to seeing who wins(I would also like to state that I am a christian not Islamic)That's very very important to remember so I will only use bible versesGenesis 6:11-13 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. Psalm 35:3 Draw also the spear and the battle-axe to meet those who pursue me; Say to my soul, "I am your salvation."Proverbs 13:2 From the fruit of a man's mouth he enjoys good, But the desire of the treacherous is violence. (http://bible.knowing-jesus.com...) The reason why I chose these verses are because they all state that thinking and going to act on those thoughts are murder already. God also doesn't give a warning to every human but Noah. He does so without seeing the fact that restating himself in human nature may stop the murder. I will be using only these verses so let's stick to these please.I am in junior high 8th grade but I am advanced in reading, writing, and typing. Nice to meet ya
If you kill someone who was going to kill millions of people ok

I'll be brief because i want to read your argument and position on this topic......... i accept your challenge.... My name is Omer Farooq and i am studying currently and pursing a master's degree in business management.... i have a very sound knowledge of all the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) so its my request since you have brought God into this debate, please quote the exact verses of the scripture to base your argument upon....... My only statement now is that you have stated that "kill someone who WAS (and mark my emphasis on was) going to kill millions", well a person is not guilty of a crime in God's eyes until he has committed the act..... Just intent does not makes a person guilty of the crime so killing a person who has not yet acted on his intention to kill others is murder and a crime itself...... i believe you are wise enough to understand what i just wrote......... lastly please give me a brief introduction about yourself when you write your argument in the second round..... thank you!!!
If you kill someone who was going to kill millions of people ok

Please don't start immediatly with come back. I want to see if there is certain areas that you can kill someone and still be able to go to heaven (stay by god's rule) if in a scenario a person was going to kill millions but you kill them (you cannot neogotiate with this person) I say yes in this certain situation you canFirst round: IntroductionSecond Round: StandingThird Round: OffenseFourth Round: DefenseFifth Round: ConclusionI look forward to whoever might want to challenge me AND GOOD LUCK
Mexico's Problem With Drug Cartel Warrants United States Military Intervention

Thanks for a timely response. I'll now respond to Pro's objections.Defense LegalizationAdvantage one: Crime Down Pro argues that the drug cartels are involved in other crimes as well. I have a few responses.--> Granted, but what kind of impact does this have? I mean obviously the drug cartels specialize n drug crime, so the majority of their crime would go away. --> My CP would deprive the cartels of much of their revenue, making their abilities to commit crime go down. --> My CP frees up law enforcement and resources of the U.S., allowing us to migitate crime quicker.--> The New York Times card my opponent brought in supports my side, because it claims that the crime comes from "Mexico’s drug cartels and their trade."[Emphasis mine].--> He draws a really good example regarding prohibition, however it is turned to my side. Consider that since alcohol is now legal the black maret for it no longer exists. Granted, it may have continued to exist for a short time, but it n longer does. This historical precedent shows that the underground market for drugs would likely disappear as well.--> He makes another good argument about how prescription medication causes more deaths. However if you read his card, it only specifies abuse of perscription drugs (which is illegal) so the advantage is turned to my side. Advantage Two:Dropped.Advantage Three: Pro Argues: "our resources are not and should not be tied down in searching and destroying nuclear material."--> What? We shouldn't spend our resources preventing a deadly nuclear attack, but we should spend them invading a sovereign nation over different types of herbs?He further argues that preventing nuclear proliferation makes us appear controlling ....and invading our neighbors doesnt? My plan has by FAR less negative impact, especially considering how it already happens in the status quo.Border FencePro only argues that people can tunnel under the fence.--> Yes, but having a fence there in the first place still slows down the cartels and gives law enforcement a greater window of opportunity to capture them.Mandatory executions" Speaking of US hegemony, what do you the perception of the US would be when the rest of the world sees us killing someone with a gram of marijuana? "--> Refer to counterplan one. We could legalize the soft drugs if we wanted. --> It's true that my plan would reduce some diplomatic power of the U.S., but the Hard power gained outweighs. My Opponents plan leads to soft power being much decreased, because an unwarranted invasion makes the worldview of the U.S. decline substaintially, and Hard power goes down because our resources and soldiers are tied up in Mexico fighting a useless war.Note that my Opponent hasn't even presented a coherent case about how we could/why we should invade Mexico so even if you don't buy any of my arguments, still vote Con because it's the status quo. Thanks.
Mexico's Problem With Drug Cartel Warrants United States Military Intervention

The problems that the drug cartel are causing in Mexico have got out of hand and it appears the presence of the United States military may be the only answer at this point. The violence that the drug cartel are causing in Mexico is beginning to effect the United States and will only get worse should we not intervene. We are already on the defense with Mexico regarding the cartel and immigration so why shouldn't we become more proactive if they continue?
Eating both non-vegan and vegetarian diet for ethical reasons is hippopotamus.

That's what I meant that eating Lacto ovo vegetarian or Lacto vegetarian for ethical reasons is hippopotamus! Each year 400,000 dairy cows are killed in Australia alone. How is this any different than eating beef? "Most recent industry figures indicate that around 400,000 unwanted dairy calves, not wanted for herd replacement or rearing for pink veal, are slaughtered each year in Australia as 'waste-products' of the dairy industry"animalsaustralia.org "Based on this estimation, someone with a desire to modify their diet to reduce the number of animals killed for their food, or someone who is interested in gradually moving towards a plant-based diet for ethical reasons should start by removing chicken and eggs from their diet, but the most animal suffering and death can be prevented by following a vegan diet. " animalvisuals.org Effectively by still purchasing and drinking cow's milk you are contributing excessively and endorsing animal cruelty. At least meat eaters aren't hippopotamus. Some Lacto vegetarians proudly state "I am not responsible for any animal deaths." That's hippopotamus! Not only are Lacto vegetarians responsible for animal deaths, they are straight out telling a falsehood. If you want to save the most animal lives go vegan. If you think animals can be raised humanely look at the humanemyth.org website. Not only are lacto vegetarians responsible for animal deaths, they are responsible for animal suffering. Finally, there are plenty of perfectly health vegans. Calcium and vitamin D can be gained from other sources. Calcium from leafy greens. Vitamin D from the sun. "experts say going outside for 10 minutes in the midday sun"in shorts and a tank top with no sunscreen"will give you enough radiation to produce about 10,000 international units of the vitamin." usanews.com "Collard greens, cooked1 cup357" vrg.org http://www.dummies.com... http://www.animalsaustralia.org... http://www.animalvisuals.org... http://www.humanemyth.org... http://health.usnews.com... http://www.vrg.org...
Eating both non-vegan and vegetarian diet for ethical reasons is hippopotamus.

Lacto ovo vegetarian = hippopotamus: A lacto ovo vegetarian diet excludes meat, fish, and poultry but includes dairy products and eggs. So you say hippopotamus is lacto ovo vegetarian. Great! We have a place to start. Under your definition hippopotamus eat eggs, milk and cheese, but they are strictly vegan; they are just faking eating eggs and cheese to be cool. Hippopotamuses munch on grasses, water plants and such things. Yes, they sometimes bite on a person or alligator who get in their faces from time to time; but they do spit them out, just yucky. Did you know that a hippopotami"s closest relative is whales and porpoises, who are not non-vegan? They will eat just about anything that moves. So much for cousins taking up the ethical family"s eating habits in an effort to save animal lives. Also, the word hippopotamus is from an ancient Greek word (strange alphabet that does not cut and paste) which means water horse. A horse is a vegan also; yeah! Hippopotamus are classified along with other two toed animals such as camels, cattle, deer and pigs. Camels and cattle are vegans, pigs not so much; non-vegans. But, camels are related to llamas and alpacas; cows have their cousin the bison, deer are related to elks and gazelles; all are vegan. Bonus points for this group. So there you have it, horses, camels, deer, cattle, bison, alpacas, llamas, elks, gazelles and hippopotamus are hippopotamus therefore, vegans pretending to be Lacto ovo vegetarians who care about ethics by not eating other animals. Whereas, whales, porpoises, and pigs are unethical meat eating non-vegan nasty folk, also known as carnivors. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.dummies.com...
Eating both non-vegan and vegetarian diet for ethical reasons is hippopotamus.

"I will not argue that a vegetarian diet is healthy or in practice attainable for human heath but, you fail to connect that such practice is ethical. Presently you tout animal ethics is preferable without regard to the cascading effects that would precipitate greater harm against the human that is also an animal." Con An interesting point of view. Indeed there is vested interest in the meat industry. Yet, this doesn't mean change has to happen overnight. A chaotic situation would arise if massive change happened over night. A more gradual change could be implemented. As for the economy there are some who think people are much healthier on a vegan diet. That health care costs would be reduced. I know in the USA health care costs keep rising. "$245 billion: Total costs of diagnosed diabetes in the United States in 2012" diabetes.org To stay on topic though the main point is vegetarians indirectly cause animal deaths. Vegetarians have animal blood on their hands. It annoys me that some hold their-selves on their high horses thinking they are so grand. If you want to save animals go vegan. As you can see eating eggs is one of the highest causes of animal deaths from the below graph in the animal visuals link. Milk is much higher than vegetables, fruits, and grains.http://www.diabetes.org...http://www.animalvisuals.org...
Don't keep up with the Joneses!

Con CaseKeeping up with the Joneses will cause a great net benefit of good than evil. For example, Mr. Jones is a hero. We shall recount his conversation with Hitler before he brilliantly had him killed."Hello Mr. Hitler, how do you do?""I do rather well, thank you. Are you sir, a Jew?""No I am not. Why do you ask kind sir?""Because if you were, I would give you a lovely shower, out of the kindness of my heart.""Why would a Jew need a shower?""Because they are dirty... Duh...""So is your mustache...""Touché.""So are you going to wash that off?""Why should I?""Because it is dirty. That was why you wanted to give the Jews showers.""So?""So, if you don't you are being logically inconsistent.""So?""So, we aren't in America, your citizens want their leader to be logical. If you were clean then they might listen to you and kill more dirty people.""My gosh Mr. Jones, you are brilliant. I shall go take a shower right now."Hitler was never heard from again. Mr. Jones single handedly stopped the holocaust. This outweighs all of my opponent's impacts.Next, Mr. Jones is helping us all prevent global warming. He discusses the topic with Al Gore:"Hello Mr. Gore. I must say I was intrigued by your fascinating video, The Inconvienent Truth.""Really now Mr. Jones? That is a first.""It is quite true. It has inspired me to save the penguins.""And how do you suppose you will do that?""I will invest in a giant refridgerator and leave it open all of the time so that it cools down the air.""Why sir, that's brilliant! According to my calculations if everyone helped out, we could stop global warning in 27 and a half days!""Thank you for the kind words. I do it for the penguins."Saving penguins outweighs everything, even extinction. My opponent doesn't save penguins. Thus, I win. However, if you are a racist savage who hates penguins, I also prevent extincion by preventing global warming and thus preventing us all from frying.Pro CaseI would argue that keeping up indicates that you are being outperformed by them. Performance is measured by the perception of outsiders, and outsiders obviously think that murder is bad. Same for all of the other impacts coming off ofthe pro case. Thus, none of them link in. Keeping up only applies to good actions.Also, I'm going to turn the case. He talks about keeping up by buying Ferraris. I would say that ferarris are badass. Buying ferraris = more awesome points for people. People are part of society, so as their awesome points rise, so does that of society. We only want to live in an awesome society. So if society is not awesome, we'll all kill ourselves. Ferraris prevent extinction. True story bro.
Abortion Is Wrong

Just like someone else said: Some lady just had a baby and is now pregnant again. She goes to an Abortion clinic and explains her situation to the surgeon. He says why don't they just kill the one already born because its 100% effective and a lot cheaper. She responds saying that it is illegal to kill a child. The surgeon smiles and walks away.I don't see how this "story" is relevant to your case. Another example: If a murderer killed a woman and her unborn child at any stage, it would be judged a double homicide. Now ask any doctor and they will say a child is not fully alive until how ever many weeks. So explain to me why if a murder kills a unborn child at any age it is illegal, but at an abortion clinic its different, until certain amount of weeks the baby is not a baby. Because the government permits abortion done by clinics, not citizens. My point is: killing a child born, unborn, alive, or just a fetus, it should be illegal. This is drawn from the assumption that murder is wrong, please elaborate on this.Even people who are for abortion will say a person who kills a pregnant woman with a child at any stage, deserves a double homicide.Please provide examples. I think a more practical solution would be adoption.Belief =/= truth Some people argue adoption is more expensive, but its not. If we shut down all the abortion clinics and sold every tool they had, we would have enough money for those unborn kids and the ones already in foster care. Any evidence of this supposed scenario. Even if it is a baby of rape, what did that child to to deserve to die. It's not that the child deserves death, it's about the will of the mother. The rapist is the one that deserves to die. That isn't very well established in morality.If it is a subject of insect. First, its disgusting. Second, it is their sick fault their pregnant. Incest is needed for reproduction, everyone descends from a group of people that were all related once.If the baby has birth defects, still we should try and save him or her. That child did nothing to deserve to die. Another reason is it is telling people sex is no big deal.Some birth defects inflict severe suffering onto children, painless death is less of a burden than painful, prolonged suffering.Sex was gods creation to reproduce on his planet and for humans to have a better life, as well as to create us. It is telling people to get pregnant and take the easy way out.This is unrelated to your already weak case. It is telling them it is O.K. to have no responsibility. If they are going to have no sense they are going to suck it up, give birth, and put their poor child into adoption. Thank you if you read this whole thing. I would like to hear from someone who is for abortion and their view on the topic.Rational humans don't abort children to take away the burden of responsibility off of them, that is groundless.A woman has the right to abort her baby.
Abortion Is Wrong

Just like someone else said: Some lady just had a baby and is now pregnant again. She goes to an Abortion clinic and explains her situation to the surgeon. He says why don't they just kill the one already born because its 100% effective and a lot cheaper. She responds saying that it is illegal to kill a child. The surgeon smiles and walks away. Another example: If a murderer killed a woman and her unborn child at any stage, it would be judged a double homicide. Now ask any doctor and they will say a child is not fully alive until how ever many weeks. So explain to me why if a murder kills a unborn child at any age it is illegal, but at an abortion clinic its different, until certain amount of weeks the baby is not a baby. My point is: killing a child born, unborn, alive, or just a fetus, it should be illegal. Even people who are for abortion will say a person who kills a pregnant woman with a child at any stage, deserves a double homicide. I think a more practical solution would be adoption. Some people argue adoption is more expensive, but its not. If we shut down all the abortion clinics and sold every tool they had, we would have enough money for those unborn kids and the ones already in foster care. Even if it is a baby of rape, what did that child to to deserve to die. The rapist is the one that deserves to die. If it is a subject of insect. First, its disgusting. Second, it is their sick fault their pregnant. If the baby has birth defects, still we should try and save him or her. That child did nothing to deserve to die. Another reason is it is telling people sex is no big deal. Sex was gods creation to reproduce on his planet and for humans to have a better life, as well as to create us. It is telling people to get pregnant and take the easy way out. It is telling them it is O.K. to have no responsibility. If they are going to have no sense they are going to suck it up, give birth, and put their poor child into adoption. Thank you if you read this whole thing. I would like to hear from someone who is for abortion and their view on the topic.
God

"All scientific laws say that everything goes from a state of harmony to a state of choas." No, that's just the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Entropy. You use this to say that the Earth couldn't have gone from "chaos" to "harmony", but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system because we have energy flowing in from the Sun. The universe is, as far as we a know, a closed system though and it is experiencing a gradual increase in disorder (entropy) yes. https://en.wikipedia.org... "Bad things happen to us for a reason we have to grow and learn and understand we have to show God that we are able to choose between good and evil when we need too." I agree that some bad things cause us to learn and grow as people. But there is too much unnecessary suffering. What does a child learn when his village is ravaged by a civil war, parents killed and house destroyed? What does a man learn when he is tortured by other people because of what he believes? " I think that you don't think god exists but that maybe you might hate him instead for not "hearing you" when you try to talk to him." If he exists, I have every reason to hate him. But I simply don't think he does, and I can't hate something that I don't think exists. I don't try to talk to him anymore, why? Because I simply don't need him. You pray and you get things you want, I don't pray and I still get things I want. The opposite happens too. I simply don't need him, I can achieve what I want by my own means. "Have you ever been to Antarctica? I doubt it, yet you still believe it's there, you still know that it exists. So then why not God?" But there are other people that have been to, touched and seen Antarctica. We can see Antarctica from satellites and you bring pieces of it. None of those have been or can be done to God. You ignored my questions in regards to comparing God and the Big Bang, you essentially ignored my argument in regards to evil and put forth a very weak response to the Omnipotence paradox. I understand that believing is comforting, helpful sometimes. However so far, I don't see a rational reason to believe he exists. Thank you for your time in this debate.