BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Immigrants should choose the United States over Canada to live in.

I'm sorry to hear about Con's accident. I wish for his quick recovery.List of Arguments Con conceded Average SalaryGas PricesBetter UniversitesCost of LivingUnemployment RateFreedom of SpeechI'm guessing Con will refute this in the last round... This is literally 100% of my arguments. My counter rebutallsHealthcareI like something better, does not actually correlate to better. Con drops all my arguments to Canada's long waiting times, which also result in deaths. he also didn't refute how Canada being very liberal in its nature would correlate to Canadians being biased towards its healthcare.CrimeCon says Immigrants do not have a choice to where they can move, I'm having trouble believing this, because you have 50 states to choose from, compared to just 10 provinces and 3 territories. Also, Con's statement that the richer you are, will lead to a safer neighborhood. This is incorrect, because Washington D.C is ranked 4th in median income, but is the far more dangerous compared to other states. Also, Con's statement of the U.S crime rate going high is incorrect. If you actually look at the source Con provided, it literally shows the graph trend going down.Enviornmental Canada ranks 28th in air quality. I took these from an accurate report which is very recent.http://epi.yale.edu...HappinessCon makes an Apple and Oranges comparison. Happiness is an aspect that solely depends on what an individual considers happiness. If an immmigrant is French, it would depend on whether he would actually want to interact with French people. The reason why I avoided making this kind of comparision in the first place is because the argument could go the other way. What if a Spanish guy wanted to immigrate? Obiviously, it would make sense for him to emmigrate to the U.S. These types of arguments can simply go back and forth.
Immigrants should choose the United States over Canada to live in.

My contender has forfeited a round, which is a violation of conduct, especially since he was the instigator. So far, I have established 2 legitimate reasons as to why immigrants should choose Canada over USA:-Life Expectancy (Canada 1, USA 0)-Health Care (Canada 2, USA 0)More Contentions as to Why Immigrants Should Choose Canada over USAC1. Safety and Security (Canada 3, USA 0)The United States has a significantly higher crime rate than Canada. Studies show that overall, USA has 43% more crime than Canada. USA's murder rate is 23 times more than Canada's. USA has 147 times more rape cases than Canada. Furthermore, studies show that in the past 3 years, the crime rate of USA increased 16% more than Canada, meaning it's only going to get worse! [1]An immigrant should choose Canada over the United States because Canada is a much safer country for them and their children to live in. And studies even show that the United States is going to get even more dangerous in the future! Any immigrant who values his or her own safety and security should choose to live in Canada over the United States. C2. Air Quality, Pollution, and Cleanliness (Canada 4, USA 0)Canada has the world's 3rd cleanest air quality. The United States has one of the world's most polluted cities. For example, Los Angeles is a city in the United States with one of the world's worst air pollution. There are studies that suggest that the air pollution in Los Angeles is the main reason why so many children in Los Angeles develop asthma. [2] C3. Overall Happiness (Canada 5, USA 0)The reason behind every decision humans make is to make them happy. Even if their decisions appear selfless, they are still for their own happiness. For example, if I decide to take a bullet for my friend, that may appear to be a selfless decision. However, I only chose to do so because I would be happier taking a bullet for my friend than letting my friend take the bullet. Canada is ranked 6th in global happiness. Its' citizens are very happy, much happier than citizens of the United States, which ranks 17th. [3]Therefore, immigrants should choose Canada over the United States because they would likely be happier there. Sources:[1] http://www.nationmaster.com...[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[3] http://www.cbc.ca...
I am a democratic socialist and want to critique anarcho-capitalism.

d healthcare, worker's rights, children's rights, oppose all torture, I am newly prolife which is kind of a socialist idea, education, the right of humans to choose how and when they die, free speech welfare is not a dirty word, and more. I can't worship Jesus and money, for example.Long time, no see, add me and debate me. This is socialism 101. Communism is when the government controls everything. I don't want this. Too far left. Anarcho capitalism as espoused by Ben Shapiro is no social safety net, and this is too far right. I am a democratic socialist which is somwhere in the middle. I support socializrf
I am a democratic socialist and want to critique anarcho-capitalism.

Pro means I am naturally in favor of my own arguments, and con is not. I want to discuss what democratic socialism is, is not, and see iff we can get somewhere. I don't want all of your money, I just want to provide for the poor and needy. Democratic socialism is not just about money, it is about non-economic human rights, like the right to not be torture for any reason. I only want to debate an anarcho capitilist and learn what you believe, are you ready/
March Beginners Tournament Round 2: Targeted Killing

My opponent misunderstands my framework, my main point is that morality is to be applied consistently. If an action is considered immoral in one instance, then that action should be considered immoral in all instances. This is to avoid double-standards. It does not matter how many people agree or disagree with the use of targeted killing - if it's considered immoral as domestic policy, then it should be considered immoral as foreign policy.My opponent has probably proved that there are a lot of people in support of targeted killing, but that has no bearing on the morality of the action under my framework simply because my framework attempts to apply moral consistency on morally controversial issues. For example, society might be enraged at the fact that someone had their house robbed and property damaged, because this is considered immoral. But what if this dude that got robbed was a CEO lobbyist with a net worth of $10 billion dollars? Suddenly no one cares, in fact, some may even say he/she deserved it. Does this make the action less moral? No, and it wouldn't make sense to think so, because morals should be applied consistently. My opponent can't claim that utilitarianism and moral realism are the same thing, and then contradict this statement 2 paragraphs later. Utilitarianism, or at least the version of it that my opponent is describing, appears more subjective and outcome-based than my moral realism framework. For example, even though targeted killing is viewed as immoral as domestic policy, my opponent is claiming that it is moral as foreign policy, for reasons unknown. In fact, if my opponent is going to accept that moral principles should be consistent, then he has destroyed his own argument by now agreeing that there are cases where something could be viewed as moral, and some cases where the same thing could be considered immoral.In fact, utilitarianism can be vague and un-applicable in many scenarios because the utilitarian position on certain issues can sometimes be unknown. The bombing of Hiroshima is a very controversial issue, even to this day. My opponent has clearly made unwarranted assumptions on this issue, such as there being more deaths if the bomb hadn't been dropped, but I won't elaborate on these because they are not relevant to the resolution. Why? Because the definition of targeted killing includes specific individuals. The bombing of Hiroshima was not an attack on any specific person, but rather on the country of Japan as a whole, to get them to surrender the war. My opponent has also not proved how targeted killing fulfills the utilitarian framework criteria, by showing how it benefits the majority of people.
March Beginners Tournament Round 2: Targeted Killing

Utilitarianism is fine by itself when judging the effectiveness of a policy/action. If a government were to enact a policy which is deemed to be beneficial to the majority of people, then under a utilitarian approach this policy would be considered effective. However, utilitarianism is incompatible with this debate because it does not measure the morality of an action in the way that the resolution demands. This would mean that an action can be effective under a utilitarian framework, and be immoral at the same time. Is it moral to steal from the rich and give to the poor? Under a utilitarian framework, this would appear to be effective, as there are more poor people that would benefit from that money than there are rich people who have that money. However, if stealing itself is considered immoral under a metaethical framework, then it would not matter if it is stealing from the rich or stealing from the poor, as stealing itself would be considered immoral. Utilitarianism could be derived from some metaethical framework, under a set of guidelines which establishes that benefiting the majority is always moral. However, since my opponent has not offered such a framework, the voters should by default judge the arguments presented in this debate through the metaethical framework of moral realism, which I brought up in R1. If my opponent wants to counter with a different metaethical framework in this round, that’s fine, but I will only be able to defend the framework I brought up in my last round of this debate (R3). While my opponent has brought up good examples of why such a policy would be necessary to protect the majority of people, he has not established a sufficient framework apart from utilitarianism which can be used to judge the morality of this policy. Either way, my opponent is violating his own definition of ‘targeted killing’ in his examples, because he has effectively conceded that the US is at war in the middle east. Therefore, it is not a time of peace, invalidating not only his examples but also his entire argument that he forms using those examples.
March Beginners Tournament Round 2: Targeted Killing

Morality has always been a tricky subject to even the brightest of scholars. What one person thinks is moral can be taken as another. But there is one major clue in all of this that can show that Targeted Killing is in fact morally justified and permissible. Utilitarianism. What is utilitarianism? "It is the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people." [1] I can prove that using this theory of morality, that Targeted Killing is moral.Utilitarianism and MoralityWith the definition of utilitarianism know, we must ask, what does it deal with morality. To answer that, it actually deals with a lot more then one would think. Take the targeted killing of Osama Bin Laden. After the terrorist attack on September 11, our country wanted to go after the person who ordered the attack. We were scared by the fact that it could happen again. The United States decided to target kill Osama Bin Laden, to protect the people. The greatest of moral acts is protecting the people and the majority from danger and death, even if one person or a group would die. This works because of utilitarianism, for we must protect the majority, and it would be immoral to not.Targeted Killing and the MajorityWe can never truly know if killing Osama Bin Laden would help the majority survive, for doing so would be a Fallacy. What I can do though, is take a look at the War on Terror. Ever since 9/11, we have been at a whole new type of war in the Middle East. We use drones as well. While we haven"t done anything truly noteworthy in the Middle East, we have killed important leaders in ISIS. Take Abd al-Rahman Mustafa al-Qaduli, a top ISIS leader and a top financer was killed. [2] With the death of one of their top leaders and financiers, the United States made a dent in ISIS"s resources. With less money, we can conclude that ISIS won"t be able to make as much drastic moves. They still can, but we have messed up their plans, and we can assume we saved lives with this move. With utilitarianism, we have saved a major group of people, thus making it moral.Utilitarianism and GovernmentIt would be foolish to say that Utilitarianism doesn"t apply to government. The government can be said to follow a type of Utilitarianism, more specifically rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism refers to us identifying rules that will promote human happiness. [3] The government of the United States, no matter how corrupt you think it is, follows rule-utilitarianism. One rule is to protect the people of the United States, and protect their freedom. To protect them, the US needed to take out the Terrorist groups, even if they had to use Targeted Killing. If they didn"t, the would be immoral for not protecting the people.ConclusionThe US follows utilitarianism, if they didn't Target Kill and protect this country, they would be immoral. They need to protect the majority, be it on the battlefield, or at a terrorist home. I wish con good luck in the rebuttal stage.1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.nytimes.com...3. https://philosophynow.org...
March Beginners Tournament Round 2: Targeted Killing

Hello everyone and welcome to the second and penultimate round, of the March Beginners Tournament hosted by our very own president, Bsh1! I will be going against OreosAreCool. Resolution Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool Terms Targeted Killing - Premeditated acts of lethal force employed by states in times of peace or during armed conflict to eliminate specific individuals outside their custody. Morally Permissible - An action that is not morally unjust. Foreign Policy - A government's strategy in dealing with other nations. Rules 1) No forfeits 2) No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. suffering doesn"t exist, humans deserve death, etc.) 3) My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions 4) For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 5) The BOP will be shared. Meaning that Pro has to convince the judge of his stance despite Con"s reasons, and Con has to convince the judge of his stance despite Pro"s reason. 6) Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss. 7) Words without definitions should use the standard definition. Round Structure Con should present his case in R1 and Pro present his case in R2. No new arguments in the final round (R3 for Con and R4 for Pro). Con must waive his final response. I would like to wish thanks to OreosAreCool for being my opponent. This will hopefully be very fun and also a great learning experience to the both of us. As always, may the best debater win and the loser learn from this debate. Thank you.
March Beginners Tournament Round 2: Targeted Killing

My opponent says that I have violated my own definition of targeted killing because I mentioned it being in war time and not in peace time. My opponent hasn't read the definitions clearly then. This is what I wrote. Targeted Killing - Premeditated acts of lethal force employed by states in times of peaceor during armed conflict to eliminate specific individuals outside their custody. Notice the bold. It says during armed conflict, and when my opponent looks at this article, he will see that the war in the Middle East, is in it. [1] My entire arguments are not invalidated and it is clear he didn't fully read the definitions. Utilitarianism is not only a framework, it is also one that does work with the resolution. He says that if we use moral realism, then it would work with the resolution because it judges the action. That would be the case if they used deontology, not moral realism. Both utilitarianism and moral realism are objective morality issues, thus, they work in the same way. My opponent barely argues against my points, and merely argues against my framework, one that doesn't work out. He is being vague with his reasoning and is using the same example. Even when con does try to refute my points and examples, he ignores the simple basics of what they mean. I have proved that Targeted Killing is in fact a morally permissible foreign policy tool by the fact that to protect this country, the majority of people, and to keep the pleasure of all, we would need to have targeted killing, for protecting those things would be the greatest moral act of all. Thank you for debating with me con, this was a fun debate. Vote Pro! 1. http://www.internationalrelations.com...
Bring it heathen, religous tyrant and fools alike

I think for myself too. I'm a Messianic Gentile, Libertarian, and Old Earth Creationist. My family are all conservative Christians, Republicans, and Young Earth Creationists. Let's just say I don't believe what I grew up being taught at my church and Christian school. The reason I believe in a deity is personal experience. I don't claim to be able to prove my experiences, but I have definitely had experiences with the super natural. Some of these experiences include significant (non-minor) healings and other unexplainable events. After all I've been through, I can't help but believe there is at least some truth in the scriptures I follow. That isn't to say that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but my beliefs are based on very real experiences. But my experiences are also based on science. It was science that convinced me the earth and universe is old. My belief in the divine is further supported by near death experiences, which I'd gladly debate with anyone. My mind is pretty open. I think for myself too. I just have different experiences, axioms, and data from which to draw conclusions from. I swear to drunk I'm not God, but seriously, stay in drugs, eat school, and don't do vegetables.
Bring it heathen, religous tyrant and fools alike

Almost no one truly thinks for themselves, follower or not. If you don't follow a religion, you follow your instincts based on what you read. If you make stuff up, then you're not a follower, but you're also likely wrong. It you are religious, you can still think for yourself. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be diversity among individual religions. The only difference is that religious followers use a different set of axioms than those who don't follow the same sect of religion. For example, I just read that 4,153,237 people got married last year; not to cause any trouble but shouldn't that be an even number?
The story of Jesus is not derived from the pagan myth of Horus

Well your argument falls short on the fact that Jesus of Nazareth lived in the 1st century AD. He was a carpenter and a preacher. He was of jewish descent and a direct descendant of King David the great of Israel. Jesus never spoke english (it never existed at the time).Further he was of Israelite nationality and was born in Bethlehem around 7-3 BC. He died around 32-35 AD. For you to be him you have to prove that we are living in that time period and explain how english is spoken in this particular time period even though language is only supposed to be spoken a number of centuries later. You cannot possibly be Jesus of Nazareth from the bible because you exist approximately 2000 years after his actual existence. Secondly the bible documented his life loooong before you were even born. To be Jesus from the bible you have to fulfill all the above criteria which you clearly don't. Hence since you are not Jesus of Nazareth, your claims become useless. Sorry buddy :) Even if you are Jesus, you still haven't proven how your case could be true. The only argument you have provided is based on the circular reasoning fallacy. I'm really baffled as to what you could possibly get from destroying a potentially titanic debate. References : http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.carm.org...
The story of Jesus is not derived from the pagan myth of Horus

I wish to debate any opponent that is quite keen on discussing this topic. I hope I may find a worthy opponent for this debate. I hold the position that the Biblical story of Jesus of Nazareth is not a fabrication of the pagan myth of Horus , the ancient egyptian sun god. RULES : (1) BOP is shared. (2) All sources should be referenced. (3) Round 1 is for acceptance and amendments to rules only. (4) Rounds 2-4 are opening arguments and rebuttal rounds. (5) No slanderous or derogatory language, or Unacceptable conduct will be allowed. (6) Plagiarism is not permitted and will result in automatic defeat. Good luck to my opponent and can't wait to get this started.
Minimum Wage

Wages are a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee. The government has no business to interfere with the optional consent of individuals. The wage agreement by its nature is mutually beneficiary to both parties. The employer has agreed his money is worth less than the work the employee does. The employee has agreed his work is worth less than the money he is paid by his employer. It makes no economic sense to force an employer to pay employees more than what they're willing to work for. The market consequences of government interference are fewer jobs available because the finances of the employer are constrained due to excess pay. Minimum wage is artificially raising the worth of an employee when the true productive value can only be negotiated by private individuals. Are we to believe that every employee on minimum wage each doing separate jobs are equally productive to one another? When do we reach the stage of a livable wage? Is it when the employee can buy a car? Is it when a house can be purchased? What about a huge television? A livable wage cannot be measured because there are no criteria. What can be said is the employee by agreeing to a wage has determined it is a livable wage.
The United States does not need any more laws. We need to abolish laws that aren't necessary.

Laws that clarify are few and far between. The government often does a really good job of making things confusing and costly and rarely can it ever create comprehensive and simple ideas that work. I would know, I've been working for Uncle Sam for the past five years. We don't need more laws full of legal mumbo-jumbo that most people would need a lawyer to understand. We need fewer,simpler laws that anybody can work for everybody. Bills like SOPA, PIPA, CISPA should never even be given the chance in Washington, but instead if we don't fight them, they most definitely will be signed into effect. Laws are passed without the American public knowing anything about it. The NDAA was signed on new years eve so that there wouldn't be as much uproar from the public mostly because the act allows the government to indefinitely detain anybody it labels as being affiliated with a 'terrorist' group without a trial or jury! Just the other day for example, The Monsanto Protection Act was PASSED while everybody was debating over whether or not the government should let gay people marry each other. If you aren't going to provide an intelligent debate why are you even on here?