BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cain was justified in his murder of Abel

Ok so I"m assuming that rebuttal will come later and for now, we are just giving our case. Note: The evidence has some parts cut out for the sake of length, however the message has not altered from the author's intent. My case: Cain was angry. He saw that God preferred his brother"s offering over his and was furious. This led him to feel jealous and he wanted to act violently. So, after taking his brother, Abel, out onto the field, he killed him. God questioned him and then punished Cain for what he did. This is a classical story of envious killing. Cain could not restrain himself. We see a case of murder, and we know murder is bad. My sole contention is, murder is never justified because of deontological principles. Moral acts that we desire always resort to deontological calculations Citation: Gaus 1 What is deontology? Part one: Orthodox views. Gerald F. Gaus Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (1):27-42 (2001) This evidence encompasses what it means to live under a deontological framework, instead of a, "means justifies the ends" consequentialist one. "what is right is that which we ought to aim at, or ought to desire.32 Although moral duty cannot be grounded on what we actually desire, it can be exemplified in terms of what we ought to desire. He replies: But by 'aiming at something X,' or 'having something X as our aim,' we mean having X as our purpose, and by 'having X as our purpose' we mean having the desire of X as our motive. A moral obligation is by its very nature a moral obligation to perform some activity." Citation: Gaus 1 What is deontology? Part one: Orthodox views. Gerald F. Gaus Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (1):27-42 (2001) "The sense that we ought to do a certain thing arises in our unreflective consciousness, being an activity of moral thinking occasioned by the various situations in which we find ourselves. That an act is prima facie right, is self-evident; in the sense that when we have reached sufficient maturity and have given sufficient attention to the proposition it is evident without proof, or of evidence beyond itself. It is self-evident just as a mathematical axiom" Having established which moral framework we"re using, murder would clearly fall into one of the moral wrongs. We shouldn't use the results of an action to justify the means.
Recreational xanax

Xanax's health impacts include: Drowsiness. Headaches. Fatigue. Dizziness. Difficulty concentrating. Dry mouth. Changes in sex drive. Inability to perform sexually. Increased salivation. Weight changes. Difficulty urinating. Constipation. Skin rashes. Seizures. Depression. Shortness of breath. Memory problems. Unusual changes in your mood. If abused, can lead to depression and cognitive failure. Xanax is used for anxiety. For a better treatment, use medical marijuana. This study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) shows it helps. Health effects of marijuana: altered senses (for example, seeing brighter colors) altered sense of time changes in mood impaired body movement difficulty with thinking and problem-solving impaired memory As well as breathing difficulty due to smoke. I recommend marijuana brownies. Note: None of this is really confirmable by doctors. Marijuana's effect on anxiety is controversial. However, I believe Xanax is more dangerous than marijuana. Sources ------------- https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://drugabuse.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Dance is a sport.

Again, I thank the Instigator for this challenge. Due to limitation of space, I'll get right to it. "...but never does he say why dance isn't a sport." That's not my job here. You have burden of proof, my job is simply to cast doubt on your proof. Since, this is the last round, it's not really the time to define what a sport is. You compared dancing to football and basketball in the opening round. Those sports are clearly games. There is a ball that you pass around a field/court, you score points and then a winner is determined based on who scored the most points. This is not how dance recitals are done. Construction workers need to work at their craft, too, and they need to practice with dangerous equipment before going full-time with it so they don't receive serious injuries on the job. They go through training just like dancers and musicians. I believe I have adequately shown why dancing is not a sport by casting doubt on her assertions. Thank you for your time.
Dance is a sport.

My opponents argument is that there are other things that people do that take practice and/or physical labor, but never does he say why dance isn't a sport. Sport - an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature; does this not apply to dance? The Contender points out that construction workers require what I said is needed to be an athlete. Usually, if you think about a sport, you think about practicing that sport until perfection. You do not need to practice being a construction worker. I agree that musicians must practice a lot, but the type of practice is different, but I am assuming some would say that the marching band is a sport.
Dance is a sport.

Thank you to the Instigator, Dancer, for issuing this challenge. As I only have 1,000 characters to work with, that severely limits my eloquence in this subject. The burden of proof rests on Dancer to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that dancing is a sport, in the same way that football, baseball, tennis, and even bowling are all sports. As the Contender, it will be my burden to cast doubt on the Instigator's arguments. "Dancers work just as hard, if not harder, than other athletes." Many people work just as hard, if not harder, than athletes. Musicians must practice at least an hour to five or six hours a day at their craft. If they're marching musicians, then they're also engaged in a very physical activity. "All things that athletes need, agility, balance, endurance, stength, and flexibilty, dancers have." Construction workers also require these things. Should construction work also be considered a sport? I look forward to the Instigator's response.
Dance is a sport.

In this debate, I will be defending dance as a sport. Dance is 100% a sport. Although dance is also an art, that does that eliminate the fact that it is a sport. Dancers work just as hard, if not harder, than other athletes. All things that athletes need, agility, balance, endurance, stength, and flexibilty, dancers have. Professional dancers work everyday for hours, like a basketball or football player. Dancing is a beautiful art and sport.
America a nation doers not spectators.

My opponent's argument: "I propose that the majority of america is a nation of doers, not spectators. Many people have had global warming movements, and Obama has tried telling North Korea and Iram to stop threatening people with nuclear weapons." False. Even doers are also spectators. To take my opponent's examples, people in global warming movements still watch television, and Barack Obama spectated at a baseball game. Most people in America have spectated, and are therefore spectators. Additionally, even if I were to grant my opponent's contentions to be true, it would not affirm the resolution. The statement that America is a nation of doers and not spectators assumes that there are no spectators in America, which I have already shown to be false. In conclusion, America is a nation of both doers and spectators, with most people being both doers AND spectators. With that, I leave the floor to my opponent.
America a nation doers not spectators.

As my opponent's first statement is "America is a nation of doers," I am assuming that she intended to be PRO. My position is that America is a nation of both doers and spectators. The doers: http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu... http://lesterslegends.com... http://www.depauw.edu... http://www.egtrashrecycleservices.org... http://www.baseops.net... The spectators: http://www.career.vt.edu... http://www1.visitvictoria.com... http://www.tcfivestar.com... As there are both spectators and doers, the resolution is negated, as I am apparently supposed to be CON. Good luck disproving the existence of spectators in America. ;)
Socialism is not Compatible with American Values

In this debate, the compatibility of socialism with American values will be explored. Structure: R1 Acceptance Only R2 Opening Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Rebuttals and Finalization Terms Socialism: noun a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). American Values is a tricky one, but here is so far the best link I have found relating to the core fundamentals to our country (https://www.andrews.edu...). Rules 1 No forfeits 2 Citations should be included 3 No new arguments in the final speeches 4 No trolling 5 Proper conduct 6 Follow debate structure properly 7 Violation of rules merits a loss Time Time is set for replies in 72 hours. If there are special circumstances put it in the comments.
Reaganist/Thatcherist/neoliberalist policies are bad for countries

My opponent has forfeited 2 rounds consecutively, and has not addressed any points I have made; I think that is grounds enough to win. In conclusion, Neoliberalism in both the forms of Reaganism and Thatcherism is bad because ultimately it does not complete the main aim of government (to provide and develop a high standard of living and quality of life to all citizens) as we saw through evidence of the Gini Index both these countries have; 42 for the USA and 32.2 for the UK; the 2 highest levels of inequality out of the 22 developed nations in the world. Amongst other things there are holes in the arguments laid out by Neoliberal economists, such as, "individual firms know what is best for them so they should be left alone without restrictions", which is not actually true if one looks at the effects of share-value maximisation, something most Ltd. companies engage in nowadays. Share-value maximisation ultimately is detrimental to businesses in the long run. Thank you for your time Robocrat, and thank you to everyone who took the time to read the debate, I hope the topic was amusing, interesting and informative.
Liberalism and Communism Go Hand-in-Hand

So here's the deal. All these liberals that want to piss and moan about the way the Bush administration is handling the war and the economy are out for one reason. To convince people that Bush is wrong and liberals are right. Once that is accomplished and they get their Jihadi president in office they will be out for one thing...communism. All along democrats have argued for a bigger role played by the government especially in the role of health care. Democrats think that a government controlled health care system is going to fix things for the "less fortunate" people, or as I call them, "lazy bums who want to live at the expense of us good taxpayers" There is no logical reason why these people can't afford healthcare and its not because they didnt have money to go to college or grew up in a poor neighborhood, it's because they have no desire to work for a good living. My father grew up extremely poor and never saw a day of college in his life, but he did get one thing from being poor, a work ethic. He turned that work ethic into a career in sales and now makes over 170K. Now democrats want to say that welfare and healthcare needs reformed and rich people should pay more taxes on their money. Tell my why someone who worked hard their whole life should have to pay for a good for nothing bum who wants to sit around his crappy house in the ghetto and not work? It doesn't make sense. They want what they call a "level playing field" with a redistribution of wealth attitude. Redistribution of wealth only says one thing...COMMUNISM!
Yeah right. god really exists? NOT if he's kind caring and loving. Please guess and try again. Thanx

This debate shouldn't be too difficult for me to win, and here's why. I can tell immediately tell by the way you have presented your argument that you have a rather limited understanding of what God is or could be. The concept has been used since before the beginning of recorded history for early human beings to explain the phenomena of life before more logical and scientific models were developed. There were gods of nature to personify the forces of our world. Then there were personal gods for more human concerns like love and war. Finally there were monotheistic cultures that gave rise to the idea of a single all-powerful God, starting with Judaism which progressed into Christianity and Islam. I could get into eastern religions and describe their concept of God too, but for the purposes of this debate let's stick with the interpretation as it is presented in the Bible. For your argument, you have claimed that God cannot exist as described in the Bible as all powerful, all knowing, and most importantly, all good. You have based this claim on the fact that bad things happen in this world and that if God is all powerful and all knowing then God should not let anything bad happen unless God is not good, but evil. I could tell you many different reasons why this argument is invalid, though I will use one that should be sufficient in proving my point. If your source for your understanding of God is the Bible, then you have to acknowledge all of the different aspects of God that is used therein. You have stated that it claims God to be Omnipotent and Omniscient, though have forgotten to acknowledge one of the most important parts about God's relationship to creation. It is the simple concept of Free Will. In Christianity, Free Will is held up as a pillar of vast importance because it explains that God has given God's creation complete autonomy in action. Meaning though God has created the world and mankind, God has also given us the power to do whatever we want. Why? Christians believe that God did this so that we have the freedom to choose God and all that is good, rather than being forced to be good, since that would make creation pointless. The evil that you see would be a result of Free Will in this framework. That drunk man used his free will to drive when he shouldn't have and caused that unfortunate accident. I wouldn't be so quick to call this evil since I doubt that he intended to go out and hurt people. This man would be more guilty of foolish carelessness than he would be of pure hateful evil. But why didn't God intervene to stop this from happening? Again, its a matter of Free Will. So do bad things happen and is there evil in the world? Yes bad things happen and it can be said that there is very much evil in the world. But then does mean that God is evil then for letting it happen? Quite the contrary. An evil God would be one who did not let its own creations choose the way that they wanted to be. An evil God would not allow for Free Will.
Yeah right. god really exists? NOT if he's kind caring and loving. Please guess and try again. Thanx

There is no fricken possible way that this fricken god according to the bible can possibly exist UNLESS you believe in pure evil and utter hate. This is proven time and time again..."'Drunk' driver kills mother-of-six who was on way home from hospital" - https://www.yahoo.com...;If god is a god/ supreme deity he knowingly creates this drunk driver to plow into this mother of six with after visiting her premature newborn twins killing her on her way home from the hospital. That is ultra pure hate and evil. And even worse is this god/ supreme deity knowingly creates, knowing EXACTLY what will happen sextillion years in advance,that this mother of six will suffer horribly and be taken away from six children and leaving a family, friends and loved ones to grieve for as long as they live which is also pure hate and evil. Simple. And if not to all of it, then god is not a god (obviously) does not know everything, is not all knowing and is not all powerful, is not in charge of everything, most certainly is not omnipotent, and most certainly is not perfect. Simple.And hey there are tragic events like this that happen millions of times per year. If god is god/ supreme deity, in which there's no proof he even exists, he grandly and lovingly with good cheer creates them all. Duh. RULES:So your job is to prove that god is kind, caring and loving and acres about us and is not a hateful, evil, malicious, venomous dirtbag that loves to cause suffering and pain among the human race.
Yeah right. god really exists? NOT if he's kind caring and loving. Please guess and try again. Thanx

Wow. Um no. You have no credibility nor integrity whatsoever and no outs also. Because if you did then you would have presented those outs to prove me wrong and you correct at all costs. Oh and btw, your christian brethren at that moment in time when they were wiping out the native American Indians were indeed greasy sweaty and amazingly racist. That’s what your god’s chosen people most certainly were and still unto this day are. If you don’t like it that’s not my problem, that’s entirely yours. Too bad. Oh and btw, That’s something that you will learn in college my dear nobody. Since you know nothing and you have to thus invent excuses and pretend that you profess to have knowledge about in which case you really don’t as proved here, especially in RD1, in which case, quite obviously you didn’t respond to, So you forfeited the debate by your own margin of error, rules and regulations. Oh darn. Your kind just cannot stand to lose. Well you just lost. Bye.
Yeah right. god really exists? NOT if he's kind caring and loving. Please guess and try again. Thanx

You have lost all credibility as an unbiased, objective debater with this line: " until your white man greasy sweaty racist pig christian wiped them out". Clearly your interest in this argument is a far more personal and/or emotional one. You just forfeited. I love the way that pseudo-intellectuals like you form arguments upon baseless assumptions.
Atheism and Theism

I object to Pro's definition of Atheism. Atheism according to Wikipedia is defined as "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." Whether or not you want to use reason and logic to understand truth is entirely up to the individual. I will clarify what it means to "believe" in a deity. To "Believe" in God not only means to acknowledge his existence, but more importantly, to trust in him just as another human being confides in another. You cannot "prove" the existence of an object or person. They must act and gain your awareness. Finally with that in mind, you must assume they exist by default. I will now argue for my position that God and the Devil exists from the assumption that i stand neutral, believing in no deity. First i will define the following terms: God: Which God are we speaking of? Because i do not know of the one true God, i will leave this as a mystery Experience: observation, feeling, thoughts, etc. caused by outside factors Reality: The sum of which exists Exist: to be living Mind: the part of human consciousness that thinks and processes of info. We will make the following assumptions: 1. There can only be specifically 1 God (monotheistic concept) or gods (polytheistic concept) there cannot be both as it would violate the reality of that particular God or gods 2. We assume that our experiences interpreted by our minds lead us to find reality To answer the question: "Is there a God and Devil?" you simply need to receive an experience caused by God and once you recognize that deity, an evil-doer thus becomes plausible through deductive reasoning of an established religion.
The USFG should lead a bilateral effort with Russia to support Asaad in Syria to defeat ISIS.

Hello once again, this is Forever 23 and I am here to bring forth the premise which is that USA and Russia must collaborate in order to defeat ISIS. My roadmap will include first doing the final refutation, then restating my own points and finally weighing this debate for you judges. Their first argument was that ISIS isn't a threat. He stated that they are just making plans that aren't going to come true. However, that is an absurd notion because ISIS has currently done many cruel, terrible things. According to CNN, just a few days ago, there were many bombings in Paris. There were 122 death, 392 injuries 98 of which were very serious. Recently, ISIS also bombed a Russian plane. In that accident, 224 passengers died. Are you saying that that's all just planning? Their second point was very obfuscating too. In that point, my opponent seemed to say that what ISIS does is ok and that the organization is very smart.. (If I didn't understand that point correctly please tell me). However, it is quite cler to anyone that what ISIS does is simply said unforgivable. Their third assertion was that defeating ISIS wont solve the problem. Yes, its true that there are many other terrorist organizations. However, getting rid of ISIS gets us at least on step closer. There will be many other things troubling the world, but defeating ISIS will help us. Their fourth point was that Russia and USA have very different solutions to the Syria conflict. However, they are both going toward the same goal- protect their own nations and help Syria. As a mentioned before, in order for this goal to be met, the two nations must ALLY. Now to restate my own points 1. The USA and Russia share important interests in defeating the ISIS organization, protecting civilians from violence and hunger inside Syria and preventing Chaos from spreading to other countries. 2. Without this alliance, stopping ISIS is an unachievable goal 3. The countries are ready to fight From the multiple evidences I gave, Im sure you can understand how the only way to stop ISIS is the collaboration between USA and Russia. I also want to point out the fact that the opp has dropped and did not refute 3 of my assertions. Judges, if you want the countries to ally in order to stop these deaths please vote prop, and thank you.