BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ODBT: Suicide Is Objectively Wrong

Idealism Even though it is true that depressed or anxiety-ridden people can be of less than a sound mind, the soundness of their doesn't mean that they don't have will, even though they are unable to make relatively rational desicions they are still able to make decision that constitutes their will, through choices and agents. Now to address your analogy, I have already addressed this, their is such thing as an objectively meaningless life, meaning if someone feels no use for this, they can discard all the pieces, socialibilty is no excuse to take away someone's free will. To address your social contracts argument, again the objective moral system does not entail that we ought to follow it, we all have our own subjectives, I have already addressed this, social contracts do not entail we live by them, you can break a contract. Liberalism My opponent never elaborates on how suicide can harm others, so I can not address it. My opponent prescribes that tolerance is objective, this is a strawman, my opponent proposes that said statements are presupposed to be objective, when I do not where he gets this notion, shall I represent my opponent's logic in some syllogism; Axiom 1; Subjective entailments are presupposed to be objective. Premise; Tolerance is a subjective entailment. Conclusion; Tolerance is objective. Optional Subjective Morality and Conditions Although I do agree that oughtness derives from isness, that doesn't make everything an isness, we can all concede that every moral standard derives from a universal is, but that doesn't make it a universal ought. And my opponent rests his subjections that how the world actually is dictates that this should be how moral standards are, I have already addressed this, how the world actually is cannot and does not mean all subjectives rest upon it. For example, evolution; All life may evolve from a cell, per se, but that doesn't mean that humans of today, have the same characteristics as the cell. Ergo, moral subjectives do not become moral objectives just because they derive from them. Deconstructing Pro's Case- Pro's axiom that kicking a pregnant woman equates to suicide is laughably absurd, as I expressed in my Liberalism argument, people shouldn't force their ideals on anyone else or prevent someone else from expressing theirs, and any sound person would know that kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is apprehending someone elses will, which suicide does not, as I have already addressed. .. .. .. your will, not theirs. Pro then makes another axiom that torture equates to suicide, this again has been expressed. .. .. . your will, not theirs. Pro them goes on to make more assertions that suicide breaks social contracts, minimises health and well being of a community, and harms other around you, without providing proof of this. I will let this pass and allow Pro to make a case for this next round.
ODBT: Suicide Is Objectively Wrong

This will probably be the first debate instated that is part of the ODBT (Official DDO Beginner's Tournament). It will be between me and jedipengiun. My resolution: Suicide is not objectively wrong. Rules-Please no trolling or semantics.Definitions-suicide- the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind. is- present 3d singular of be.objectively- dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. wrong- something wrong, immoral, or unethical; especially: principles, practices, or conduct contrary to justice, goodness, equity, or law. Round Structure-1. Acceptance2. Neg. Will present case. Aff. will attempt to negate Neg.'s arguments. Aff. will present his/her case.3. Neg. will defend R2 arguments. Neg. will attempt to negate Aff.'s arguments. Aff. will deconstruct Neg.'s defenses. Aff. will defend his/her arguments.4. Neg. will deconstruct Aff.'s deconstructions. Neg. will deconstruct Aff.'s defenses. Neg. will come to supposed conclusion. Aff. will attempt to negate Neg.'s counter-deconstructions. Aff. will defend his original arguments once more. Conclusion will be stated by Aff. The BOP will be shared.
overall, more capitalism, more focus on free market, will make things worse for economy

con argues we are not truly a capitalistic country. we are a lot more than by far most other developed countries, are we not? and con doesn't explain how it would be *better* if we were more capitalistic. ive established that our country's inequality is one of the worst in the world. increasing capitalism would only cause that to become worse, would it not? con seems to act as if it's not a bad thing that the rich would just get richer? maybe he's just asking rhetorically so i define my argument better? but i did in the opening statement state that inequality is a bad thing and that more capitalism would make it worse. and woujldnt it be better if there was more money in the hands of people lower on the economic scale? that would cause stimulus to the economy. if the rich get richer, it will detract money from those who would be most useful with it. we are driven by a demand economy, not supply. the rich have plenty of money, if there's need for an innovation or somehow to make a buck, there's plenty of people and money to do it. it's not like they need a hand. remember, im not arguing that we shouldnt have any capitalism, just that we shouldnt focus too much more on it than we already are. it's a good system at keeping prices attainable for people. and, we probably have some of the best innovations and productivity in the country.
overall, more capitalism, more focus on free market, will make things worse for economy

I think your argument begins with:if we let things go as they will, the rich will only get richer. instead of the 1% owning say 30% of everything, it will become more and more of everything,. that will stifle economic stimulus, cause wealth will be immobilized in the hands of fewer than would be ideal. Firstly, you say: if we let things go as they will...This is a meaningless statement. Who is we? Where does "go as they will mean?"Next, you say: instead of the 1% owning say 30% of everything, it will become more and more of everything,...what is everything, who is the 1%, what is your proof that this group will "become more and more of everything?" Where are you getting your 30% from? Why not say 100000%? You are not being precise enough for me to be able to counter your argument. that will stifle economic stimulus, cause wealth will be immobilized in the hands of fewer than would be ideal. ...OMG. Let me help you with that. Stifle economic stimulus? that's quit a mouthful. I think what you're saying is that the wealthy attract higher rates of returns on their investments and risk increasing the income gap and taking more of the wealth. This I assume you mean to say is a bad thing. Ok, to begin, you are assuming the US is a capitalistic society. While it may once have been, it most defog is not day. The US government manages the economy with various tools in tandem with the federal reserve. A managed economy by definition cannot be capitalist. Next, you're assuming that more capitalism will make things worse, but you have not clearly stated for whom? If the rich keep getting richer under the current system, then "capitalism" works great for them. While I'm not saying you're wrong, I am saying your haven't clearly defined your position and have presented a remarkably poor argument. Give it another try why don't ya?
overall, more capitalism, more focus on free market, will make things worse for economy

my opening argument will be mostly borrowed from a recent article: US Set to Become the Newest Third World Country http://iacknowledge.net... "The United States, the home of Capitalism, is about to demonstrate its ultimate failure, as the cannibalistic economic system consumes the nation"s economy from within. The US economy is rigged toward the 1% of wealthiest citizens and corporations, this radically skews outcomes to the detriment of the economy as a whole. As CJ Werlhman writes over at Alternet: "America has the most billionaires in the world, but not a single U.S. city ranks among the world"s most livable cities. Not a single U.S. airport is among the top 100 airports in the world. Our bridges, roads and rails are falling apart, and our middle class is being gutted out thanks to three decades of stagnant wages, while the top 1 percent enjoys 95 percent of all economic gains." US income inequality is at its greatest for nearly a century and is rising, as the income gap between the bottom 90% and top 1% of Americans reaches its largest since 1928. When compared globally, the US is the second most economically unequal society (behind Chile). But what does economic inequality mean for average Americans?" if we let things go as they will, the rich will only get richer. instead of the 1% owning say 30% of everything, it will become more and more of everything,. that will stifle economic stimulus, cause wealth will be immobilized in the hands of fewer than would be ideal.
confederate flags should be taken down

Many people in the Confederate states were not racist. Some people just wanted to keep slavery because they had grown so accustomed to it, and they thought they wouldn't be able to manage under another method. Pro says that the only reason the Confederate flag was created was because the north was going after the south because of slavery. This is false. The flag was created because the Southern states seceded from the Union in order to form their own country and to elect their first and only president, Jefferson Davis. https://en.wikipedia.org... Pro repeatedly argued that the flag represented a racist nation. Unknown to many, the Confederates would likely have abolished slavery after the war if they had won, as they were becoming increasingly uninterested in it. The South wanted independence much more than they wanted to hold onto slavery. http://listverse.com...
confederate flags should be taken down

it could be a racist flag if it is intended to symbolize a racist nation, especially when the reason was racism for the nation to even exist at all. the designer of the flag thought it was an emblem of a superior race. and the only reason the flag was created, was because the north was going after the south because of slavery. there might be a states' rights issue as a bigger principle to some, but it still remains that the flag was only there because of slavery, it represents a racist nation, and the designer saidit was an emblem for the superior race.
confederate flags should be taken down

here is what Thompson, the designer of the confederate flag thought: "As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of thee white man over the inferior or colored race... As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race... Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals" here we have the designer of the flag saying it was an emblem for the cause of the superior race. sounds pretty racist to me.
confederate flags should be taken down

when talking about the civil war people often go back and forth between whether it was about slavery, or about states' rights. the reality, is that it was about about both, and some choose to emphasize one or the other aspect of it. but the war was only there, cause the north drew a line in the sand about what was acceptable despite states' rights, and they said slavery wasn't, and the south drew a line in the sand and said it was per states' rights. slavery was an impetus. that means the whole flag is tainted. there might be a good way to symbolize states' rights and freedom, but hte confederate flag isn't it.
Individual rights should be compromised for the benefit of the group

By the rights of the individual being compromised by group rights, I mean "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule". It disregards reasoned arguments and possible weighed benefits and damages and considers nothing but the number of people supporting. As an example, we may consider the censorship of minority opinions. The majority, prejudiced towards other opinions, denies the right to proclaim any other thing than what they think, with no debates or consideration of the very plausible fact that their opinion may not be infallibly true, and other opinions may be truthful as well. This claims that the majority can claim infallibility just by being the majority. The addition of only 1 or 2 members can change a very large minority group from being fallible to being infallible; likewise, the removal of a member or two reverts the majority into a fallible minority, regardless of the members added or removed. This implies that the added or removed members are themselves infallible. Since the statement is supposed to hold regardless of the members chosen, all members must be infallible, which clearly contradicts the obvious fact that all humans are fallible, and also the assumption of this premise that the minority is fallible.
Individual rights should be compromised for the benefit of the group

Here are my arguments: (P.S. my keyboard is not really working well, so there might be words missing letters in my arguents.) 1. When someone does something that benefits the group, it may not benefit him or herself at first, though as he or she is also a part of the group, he or she will have a part of the benefit too. 2. I need a clarification: do you mean by the group banning a person doing something in person or as a part of the group?
Individual rights should be compromised for the benefit of the group

Groups are nothing more than categories of individuals. It is the epitome of absurdity for a category to have the right to rule over a free individual. When one speaks of group rights, he means a right granted to certain people fitting a certain criterion. Notwithstanding the fact that this is nothing more than a clear-cut violation of equal rights, it should also be stressed that the premise, that individual rights should be compromised for the benefit of the group, takes this even further, asserting that the rights of certain individuals should be compromised for the benefit of certain others. A vital question to be answered for the proponent of this premise is what the benefiting individuals have that gives them the edge. Are the compromised individuals not as human as the benefiting? What have they done that they should lack the benefit others have? Do not all humans deserve rights? Is it not independent consciousness and self that sets apart an individual? Rights, in essence, all derive from this evident independence of people. Each individual has his own sense of self. It is going against human nature to claim that the rights of the group are superior to the rights of the individual.
Individual rights should be compromised for the benefit of the group

This is what you said: "Straw man. The mere fact that I don't support majority rule does not imply that I support minority rule. They are both collectivist ideas. Utilitarianism can hardly be counted as a moral worldview. Happiness is not a moral authority, as it depends on the current feelings of humans and humans are fallible. If all but one people wanted the death of one person, they would be no more justified than if he wanted their death, even though the former would make more people happy. The government, in nature, is collectivist. It, due to convenience, concerns the rule of a nation, not of individuals. As such, these collectivist problems will appear ubiquitously in any kind of government. The only true option for the benefit of all individuals without any compromised individuality lies in freedom. As for crimes, individuality provides the best solution. As Joseph Brodsky said: "The surest defense against Evil is extreme individualism, originality of thinking, whimsicality, even"if you will"eccentricity. That is, something that can't be feigned, faked, imitated; something even a seasoned impostor couldn't be happy with." Crime not being counted as crime is a complete straw man. The individual has no rights to violate those of others, which is equivalent to equal rights, hence there will be laws against violating the rights of others (crime), but there should not be laws that disobey these laws. Such laws are nothing but crime. It is not individualism, but collectivism that does not count crime as crime." Now that I know what your opinion is, I'll say mine. You said that humans are fallible. That means that they are fallible whether they are in a group or as an individual. By the word "happy", I meant "agrees to". So, you are supporting people being only individuals and not in a group. Not even groups that fight for individual rights. You think that, the government is not supposed to be there as it is collectivist. Without the government, people have to decide on their own what should be done to prevent people from violating the rights of others. The hard thing is, one person might be supporting a rule, but another might not. As in this scenario there is no government, people have to decide as a whole or as individuals. When they decide as individuals, people have different opinions, and voting is not fair according to you. But if they decide as a whole, they still have different opinions, and it wont work either. As you say all humans are fallible, then they are fallable as a whole and as a group, so it is very hard to decide. We are talking about whether groups should exist, not if "Individual rights should be compromised for the benefit of the group". I think we are off topic.
Individual rights should be compromised for the benefit of the group

Straw man. The mere fact that I don't support majority rule does not imply that I support minority rule. They are both collectivist ideas. Utilitarianism can hardly be counted as a moral worldview. Happiness is not a moral authority, as it depends on the current feelings of humans and humans are fallible. If all but one people wanted the death of one person, they would be no more justified than if he wanted their death, even though the former would make more people happy. The government, in nature, is collectivist. It, due to convenience, concerns the rule of a nation, not of individuals. As such, these collectivist problems will appear ubiquitously in any kind of government. The only true option for the benefit of all individuals without any compromised individuality lies in freedom. As for crimes, individuality provides the best solution. As Joseph Brodsky said: "The surest defense against Evil is extreme individualism, originality of thinking, whimsicality, even"if you will"eccentricity. That is, something that can't be feigned, faked, imitated; something even a seasoned impostor couldn't be happy with." Crime not being counted as crime is a complete straw man. The individual has no rights to violate those of others, which is equivalent to equal rights, hence there will be laws against violating the rights of others (crime), but there should not be laws that disobey these laws. Such laws are nothing but crime. It is not individualism, but collectivism that does not count crime as crime.
Individual rights should be compromised for the benefit of the group

Here are your claims and my responses: "By the rights of the individual being compromised by group rights, I mean "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule". It disregards reasoned arguments and possible weighed benefits and damages and considers nothing but the number of people supporting. As an example, we may consider the censorship of minority opinions. The majority, prejudiced towards other opinions, denies the right to proclaim any other thing than what they think, with no debates or consideration of the very plausible fact that their opinion may not be infallibly true, and other opinions may be truthful as well. This claims that the majority can claim infallibility just by being the majority." Mine:This sounds like voting, where the majority wins and the minority does not. So, if a majority of the people voted for you, then they are "censoring the minority" according to you. "The addition of only 1 or 2 members can change a very large minority group from being fallible to being infallible; likewise, the removal of a member or two reverts the majority into a fallible minority, regardless of the members added or removed. This implies that the added or removed members are themselves infallible. Since the statement is supposed to hold regardless of the members chosen, all members must be infallible, which clearly contradicts the obvious fact that all humans are fallible, and also the assumption of this premise that the minority is fallible." So, in summary, you are saying that if there are two almost equal sized groups that hold different opinions are voting, one person can make the majority the minority. This means that voting isn't very reliable, but is not related to this topic too much. Now, let's say that all citizens in a country are a group, and the group bans people from doing certain things by writing a law. A majority supports the law, while a minority opposes it. But because the government cannot do two opposite things at once, to make more people happy, they pass the law. Here is what you think: The law violates individual rights The government should go with the minority. Which results in: less happy people Crime is not counted as crime.
The U.N should create a global SWAT-styled team

It looks that I won this debate. First, my opponent has supported my case and gave us a back ground about the UN and not the UN Security Council. He told us that the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) is in their mission to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. If that is so, it only means that the army or the forces of the UN Security Council is effective enough and maybe hiring more forces would be better. Well, the deadlock of this debate is which side best upheld peace and the fight on terror. This only standing issue was won by the Opposition because we told you that it's already effective enough for the UNSC forces to fight terrorist however they only lack more soldiers and arms. Secondly, I gave you a concrete incentive and proposal about the fight on terror. Well, I plead that the voters would vote within the issue of peace.....