BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Helping others will be the doom of our civilization

Are you asking me to prove my point? I think you should be able to appreciate that our civilization has been lucky so far. I am furthermore arguing that our civilization need to let go of our emotions, although I am sure some will find it difficult to let Africa starve, it is for the greater good and our race is in a life or death struggle. The people responsible for this initiative will no doubt prohibit any news reports from Africa, although they would never admit that publicly. On the flip side, I am seeing feel good stories two or three years in, a la: "rhinos are thriving now that nobody is killing them for increased potency", "racial outbreaks, a thing of the past, says representative for the Boer community". The core of my argument is that in this struggle for survival, we need to focus our resources on reaching the one and only goal we should be concerned with. That means: 1. Stop wasting resources on dead-end projects (Africa, Eskimos, several Pacific islands etc.). The struggle (humanity's next step) will probably be decided within say the next one or two hundred years. There is no time to try and lift Africa up to a European or American level. They are simply to far behind and doing so would require more time than is available, if possible at all. We are already overpopulated and we are actually alleviating this issue at the same time as we are saving resources. 2. Use the resources saved under item one to advance towards humanity's next goal, basically safeguarding against doomsday scenarios and finding and reaching a habitable planet, alternatively creating one in our own solar system. There are many positive side effects of the two items above: emissions will decrease, new resources will become available into our new project, we are able to build vacation homes (some rest will be required even in this struggle), all immigration problems will seize, no new diseases etc. etc. The sum of this is that valuable resources are no longer sunk in Africa and can instead be allocated on the project that will decide our faith. It is impossible to estimate exactly how big the effect will be (huge though), but an estimate is not necessary. Even a single hour or dollar is enough to justify the initiative. We are, of course, locked in a life and death struggle and every little bit helps. This is my first debate, so let me know if anything is unclear
Helping others will be the doom of our civilization

Thanks for beginning this debate!I accept my position against the statement that helping others will be the doom of our civilization.Although I appreciate your request for the Con argument to elaborate on how our civilization survival chances are affected I've decided that we should cross that bridge when we come to it (namely when and if it becomes necessary for me to disprove your evidence).Since you have a significantly elaborate argument - or put simply, the case for why helping others will be the doom of our civilization - I look forward to you sharing your evidence in order to fufill your BoP.
Helping others will be the doom of our civilization

Resignation? http://www.sadtrombone.com...You have not fulfilled your BoP. Since you haven't produced a single shred of evidence for any of your claims (not even a link from a questionable or comedic information source, there is not much I can say. I mean, this could have been a really entertaining and funny debate, but it was rather tedious.CONCLUSION:I'm not saying it was aliens... but it's aliens.
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

when one is talking about fundametnal values, one must examine one's emotion, or gut. there is no way around it. everyone has lots of opinions on lots of things that vary from each other... this doesn't mean that only one person is right because they used reason and everyone else didn't... it means different people used reason, then referred to their emotion, their fundametnal values, in deciding which posiotion to espouse. it may have faults in determining whether one improves or not. by you have not reasoned why the government should be the arbiter, when this is a difficult issue, and it affeccts the person tortured most directly. also i think you are mixing up the topics of improvement with coercion as you jumped from the one topic to the other as if they were together. so if one person dies becdause of coercion, we should allow a thousand others to live tortured lives? public policy is always about balancing intersts, weighing the good and the bad. it just does not seem like itd be all that common to have people coerced into taking their own life. the benefit of relieving torture and liberty etc then outweighs it. this is almost like saying people shouldn't drive because soemone might strike them on the road.... or someone shouldn't write a will cause sometimes people coerce them, or enter into a contract cause people coerce them sometimes, etc. i agree the loss of a life is more serious than these things... but the point is that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water and weight all intersts for how they come out on balance. obviously we could have safeguards such as living wills do... they desribe what you want should you be in a life ending sitaution. this way we can make it formal, have peple like attorneys present to probe for cooercion, make sure it's thought out, make sure it's in writing... etc.
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

If one is using one's "gut" in a reasoned argument, there's a sullen lack of reason. Emotions are variable, easy to manipulate, and often set on false assumptions. With logic, properly utilized, you can strip all of that away. It absolutely is difficult to discern whether or not one will improve, but leaving it to the individual still leaves faults. As I stated before, coercion is still a distinct possibility even with an individual. Say I were one's doctor, and I wanted one dead. Now, if I were to do anything obvious - withhold treatment, or deliberately harm one - I would get sued and arrested. But if I were to, say, accidentally forget to prescribe enough painkillers, causing one to feel more pain than one should, or prescribe ones that are not as effective as could be safely taken, I would be contributing to one's desire for euthanasia. It would, however, still be murder. Very difficult to prove, if not impossible, and easily dismissed with "I was wrong." I would argue that it would be immoral to run a trial to see if coercive euthanasia is a severe problem in the first place, as it would, by nature, involve coercive euthanasia - murder - even assuming we can determine whether it was coercive or not.
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

sure, we can't just trust our own emotion. reason must be involved. however, one's gut is what is used after considering all reasoned arguments.... and my gut, and i'd image more people's guts, tell them that tortured living with no room for improvement is now worth living. if it is difficult to discern when one will not improve, why not leave the matter to the individual? why invovle the government? what fundamentally gives them the right ot decide the issue? we could at least makes laws that allow the discretion to be left to the individual unless "it is clear that improvement will occur to a reasonable extent at a reasonable rate"... or something like that. surely, though, it would probably be better to leave it to the individual to decide, leave the government out of it, as a matter of an inherent liberty interest. if you want to outlaw arbitrarily taking one's life, fine, sure. but that doesn't mean we should out law everything. or force people to live tortured lives, or prosecute those who simply want to help them end their life in a dignified and responsible and apprpriate way. we can make laws that criminalize cooercive euthanasia. as long as empirical data shows that at least by far most euthanasia is consentual by the person dying, then we will just have to take the good with the bad. we cant throw the baby out with the bath water just because of a few bad cases.
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

In the past, I've always taken a stance of pro-euthanasia, but I've recently done thinking on this. I'll do my best to address each of your points with my new (con) standpoint, and will add a point of my own afterwards. Regarding the average person's greatest fear, I can understand that, personally. I do not know if it truly is, but I can concede that point easily. I would, however, contest that we "intuitively" know to put a dog out of it's misery, and I would submit that in many (though not all) cases is is morally reprehensible to do so, just as it is, in my opinion, with humans. One does not "intuitively know" very much. Indeed, intuition is almost always related to vague feelings and sense like one's kinesthetic sense, or rough calculations or vectors done by the subconscious brain, such as while driving. I will detail my stance on the morals of putting an animal, or a human, out of it's misery in the next paragraph. Regarding one's liberty, I fully agree that one should be able to do anything they desire that does not harm another. However, taking one's life has many thorny moral issues. Euthanasia is something that should only be considered when one has no chance of their life improving. In certain situations, you can, as stated before, put an animal out of it's misery with a reasonable assumption that it's life will not improve even with the fullest efforts on the part of all parties. However, it is difficult to discern where that line is. Additionally, and particularly with humans, it is impossible to determine with complete certainty whether or not coercion was involved. If one is coerced to euthanasia, than it is not euthanasia - it is not a killing of mercy - it is a killing of murder, which we can reasonably assume is morally defunct.
we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives

we should allow euthanasia of those living tortured lives. why euthanasia is the moral solution in this situation: -most people's biggest fear isn't death... it's pained living. that's why the "torture" debate is so gut wrenching and passion filled. -we understand intuitiely that we should put dog's "out of their misery", as the humane thing to do. why with people is it suddenly inhumane? there is some merit to claiming people aren't dogs and have a higher dignity... but this argument about dignity could even more easily be used the other way, it's all the more reason to be humane and "put them out of their misery", espeically when we are thinking it's about humane activity etc to begin with in the one situation. -liberty. at best this is a tough issue. why do we let the government decide who's right in a tough issue, when the person this is affecting most could be the decider? plus if you were real about it... probably a high percentage of those who might be against euthanasia would suddenly be for it if they found themself (or possibly a loved one) in a terrible situation.
ban texting while driving in all 50 states

I will be short in my arguments since Pro's will be self-explanatory in my regards (con) based on how i will lay this 3 sentences :) "ban texting while driving in all 50 states" An individual/organization will be required to ban texting while driving in all 50 states of the USA. If the individual does not "ban texting while driving in all 50 states" then the result is concise: The texting ban did not take place unless he/she/it drove in those 50 states while banning. The pro will have to argue now why an individual/organization won't have to ban texting while driving in all 50 states (because if he does this then he is text banning while driving) otherwise this debate will be short and mostly composed of forfeits. Thank you
ban texting while driving in all 50 states

Do you think that you should be focusing on anything other than the road while driving? I believe texting while driving should be illegal. According to U.S government website for distracted driving, the year 2010 registered a total of 3,000 deaths as a result of crashes due to distracted driving. Texting/cell phone use has emerged to be the greatest cause of road accidents. Texting while driving should be illegal because not only does it take your eyes and hands away from what you should be doing, it also mentally distracts you from paying attention to the road. You are not only putting yourself at risk, you're putting other innocent people at risk. The incidents of accidents resulting from texting and driving are increasing daily, and need to be stopped. Text messaging has grown to become very popular to many teens and even adults, in the past few years. It can be very useful, but it can also be very distracting when driving. If you text while driving, you lose your concentration and increase the risk of injury to yourself and to others.Text messaging requires visual, manual, and cognitive distractions from the driver, it is by far the most alarming distraction. Text messaging while driving should be illegal, because it increases the risk for accidents and it isn't even needed. If you must contact someone while driving, at least call the person on speakerphone. Sending texts while driving is very dangerous. Why would you want to risk your life just to send a text? Texting while driving should be illegal. Not only does it put yourself in danger it puts other people around you in danger. Texting while driving a car makes you 23X more likely to crash. That is why texting while driving needs to be stopped.
Resolved: The USFG should withdraw the United States Forces of Korea

Kick T Cp- On the perm, Perm severance- You can't do both the cp and the plan. To do the cp makes the Aff extra-topical, extra topicality destroys neg ground and not only is against the rues, but makes the aff a moving target. This destroys clash and makes debate unfair. Skfta- Their no link card is a lie, recently he Parliament of Britain passed their own form of SKFTA two days after your evidence, obviously they are not accredited http://www.europarl.europa.eu... On to oncase >>>On their deterance argument, the North literally attacked in November, no impact. -aff basically concdedes that there is no impact from an nk attack. He destroys his own case. >>>could be argued that Kim Jong-il might launch an invasion of the South i -Kim jong il is out an his son Kim Jong-Un is now in power this argument is non-unique And his entire paragraph basically concedes that there are no problems between north and south, so he has to either concede that the south and north will attack, this takes out his economic co-operation argument or he states that they have co-operation and therefore deterence is working. neg can run multiple worlds, aff cannot without concededing that their case does not wok >Nuclear umbrella deters North Korea – not troops Obviously not if they attacked us >Nye 91 Super powers have confronted before in korea and vietnam. this argument has no uniqueness No internal link, he never states how superpowers will fight if we stay in Nk Also all his advantages are historically disproven, we've been there for over 50 years don't you think something would have happened On the cp Never answers advantages. Our impacts are the most real world. Poverty, drug tafficking, HiV AiDs crime are happening now, prefer the cp and I urge you to vote neg
Resolved: The USFG should withdraw the United States Forces of Korea

3 off, 1on t-prescence A. Interpretation - Presence is limited to troops. The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military, 2001, Oxford Reference Online presence n.a group of people, especially soldiers or police, stationed in a particular place: maintain a presence in the region. B. Violation – the aff changes military doctrine or weapons policy – it does not remove troops from _Turkey_ C. Vote neg – our interpretation is key to preserve fairness and educational clash - Key to limits – Expanding the topic to include both troops, missions, and weapons leads to infinite small affs – this destroys negative generic and specific ground, which is key to fairness - Key to predictability – Limiting the topic to troops allows viable affs within each topic country but still guarantees negative ability to predict affirmatives – this is key to research and clash – which are key to education   Onto latin drug cp Observation 1- Inherency The drug problem is getting worse. The current interference is getting worse. We desperately need a new policy- National Coalition for Effective Drug Policies - 07 Observation 2- Drugs Latin America is currently shipping billions of dollars of drugs to the U.S. We need to stop the flow.- drug policy.org 10 Observation 3-Crime Many of the crime in the U.s. Revolves around drugs. Office of National drug Policies- 08 Observation 4- Prisons Drugs contribute to prison overcrowding and the increase in the number of prisons nation-wide. Alliance of anti-drug policies-10 Observation 5- HIV/AIDS HIV is directly spread through the use of drugs. We can significantly reduce it- National Institute on drug abuse-10 Observation 6- poverty Drugs uniquely impact persons in poverty-Gtz 02 Thus the counterplan- the United States Federal Government (should initiate a phased withdrawal of the United States Forces of Korea) and relocate all resources to Latin America. Onto SKFTA 1) SKFTA Passing- Obama is pushing for it The Chosun Ilbo, 7/01/10 2) Obama's pol cap is key Teresa Galli, 7/21/10 5) Ratification of the South Korea FTA is key to check North Korean proliferation. Cooper and Manyin '07 Link – South Korea Obama recently committed to South Korea – regardless of outcome, the plan is perceived as weakness Gene Healy 10 Onto oncase Apparently the Aff is unaware that when the U.S. tried to pull out a few weeks ago they failed 1. Military presence provides the deterrence which prevents a North Korean invasion Kang 03 2. There's no impact – the likelihood of nuclear war extremely low Korea Times 09 3. Reduction of troops will lead to an invasion, empirically proven Nam, 2006 US troops vital to deterring a North Korean invasion-Turns the Aff Kim, 2004
Resolved: The USFG should withdraw the United States Forces of Korea

Cp- is a plan inclusive counterplan, Extend perm attack from 2nc. He never gives a warrant for how his perm is not extra-topical. Therefore, all advantages are benefits of the cp. All his impacts become mine, extend all cp advantages. I answered plan plus good with plan inclusive counterplans are good. He cannot perm without violating the rules of debate, kills education and destroys entirety of neg ground. He should have attacked any advantages or anything reallly on the cp. All he said was perm which prove doesn't solve. extend all case attacks. The clash makes it null. Th vote comes down to the cp. it gives all solvency to me, Never answered arguments, impacts are most real world. If we stop the flow of latin american drugs, then we solve for HIV, alot of Poverty, Crime, and prison overopulation. This solves much more than their case would, because our impacts are real world and are proving to be happening. Their impacts are hazy, with no timefame or probability argument. prefer neg arguments Kick DA Vote Neg for the Cp. We win because we destroyed their perm and solve for the entirety of the case
Resolved: The USFG should withdraw the United States Forces of Korea

Cx:When was the last time a regime collapsed and your impacts happened? The answer will be in my next speech Cp- Their theory is flawed, Like I said it's against the rules to be extra-topical 1.PICs Good First- offense: 1.Makes the aff defend the entire plan- causes better plan righting and in depth debate 2.Key to neg ground and flex- important on aff leaning topics- affs can be bidirectional and list topics make neg ground stale- also, aff gets first and last speech 3.PICs check extra-topical plan planks 4.Education- itï¿½€™s the most real world and germane to the topic 5.Vital to search for best policy option Second- Defense 1.Reject the arg not the team- thatï¿½€™s our world view on all theory questions 2.Nearly inevitable- almost all CPs are PICs 3.Net benefits check abuse 4.Aff chooses the plan- proves not infinitely regressive Birtain prooves that sk is willing to have a free trade agreement Onto Oncase A. Hisrtorically disproven, no superpowers have attacked upon collapse. too involved in their own issues B. we answered that nk will go to war On bandow 03, extend no invasion arguments >Cronin 12-21 - Like I said there is no proof that superpowers will directly confront now, because they have not in the past Extend all attack on oncase from the 1NC. I severed the perm, so there is no advantage answers
Margaret Thatcher was a Benefit to the U.K.

Margaret Thatcher was perhaps the worst PM of the UK in recent history and did not make the UK a better place to live. This is because a) Margret Thatcher's Economic policies detrimental to the British Economy, and harmed workers rights, and increased poverty levels b) Thatcher's policies lead the UK into an unnecessary war in South America c) Thatcher made the Northern Ireland Troubles worse d) Thatcher repealed much of the Progress that had been made by previous PMs in regards to government reform, decolonization and the economy Throughout this debate I shall prove all these points and show how Margret Thatcher did not make the UK a better place.
Margaret Thatcher was a Benefit to the U.K.

My stance is that Margaret Thatcher during her time as the Prime Minister of the U.K from 1979 - 1990 was beneficial to the U.K, and Con's stance is that she was not. I define benefit as, "an advantage or profit gained from something". So in this case, I mean that Margaret Thatcher's time as Prime Minister was an advantage to and improved the U.K, making it a better place. Retaining the theme, this debate will follow the British Parliamentary style of debating. First rounds is for acceptance, and rounds are as follows:Round One: Opening argumentsRound Two: Further arguments + rebuttalRound Three: Rebuttal + extension speakingRound Four: Summary + ConclusionRules are simple, no insults, no ad hominem, follow the round structure, argue the correct motion and DDO rules apply. Any breach is up for the voters to decide on any retribution. I hope for an intriguing and interesting debate. Any questions, please ask in the comments. Thank you.
Death Note who is right Kira or L

My name is Athias; it's nice to make your acquaintance. If I remember correctly, Light Yagamai a. K. A. Kira ("Killer") acquired the Death Note while he was still in high school--given that he became aware of "Ryuzaki" (a. K. A. "L") during his college entrance exams. By then, He had already murdered hundreds, Including FBI investigator Ray Penber and his fiance, Former FBI Investigator, Naomi, Who as far as my knowledge goes didn't commit any crimes. L also pointed out in one the earlier episodes of the series that Kira didn't kill just convicted criminals, But alleged criminals, Ex-convicts, And suspects in ongoing investigations. Furthermore, Kira (Light Yagami) kills NPA Director, Takimura, Manipulates Rem into saving Misa by killing L, And seriously considered killing his own sister, Sayu, In his trade with Melo in order to throw off the investigation of the SPK. Kira's actions demonstrated not "justice" but a God complex and self-preservation. Kira was nothing more than a remorseless murderer, Willing to kill anyone--even those who were close to him--who got in his way.