BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The argument for the family (and small community) is that it is not peaceful and not pleasant.

"The argument for the family (and small community) is that it is not peaceful and not pleasant." That's false. Families and small communities are peaceful and pleasant. We interact more with them but on average we have few disagreements with them. And as far as altruism goes it's hard to do better than family, they are the refuge in the storm. Modern societies are hard pressed to have much in the way of conflict. --- The G.K. Chesterton argument is interesting. However, you should have chosen a better resolve if you were going to argue for some point there within. Chesterton argues that people defend the family on the ground that it is peaceful and tranquil compared to the unknown of the world. Chesterton argues that the family should be defended on the grounds that it isn't peaceful and at the very least causes some conflict. Conflict should be maximized for the sake of adventure and you'd be better off jumping fences and talking to random strangers just to be a part of the world. At the very least family causes some waves and thus should be protected. You need to interact with your family. *shrug* None of this speaks to the issue of the family being not peaceful or pleasant. Chesterton argues that regardless of the tranquility which is there, at least there is something beyond the typical ignoring everybody else participation is society we typically muster. The family and society at large are still peaceful and still pleasant. No part of establishing a live and let live concept with the rest of society causes any issue to the topic statement. Perhaps if you wanted to argue that the family or community causes more conflict to individual people within it than with society as large you might have an argument. -- However that isn't the topic sentence and you don't have an argument. I did enjoy reading the chapter though, makes me almost want to jump a neighbor's fence. Even if they shoot at me, I'll still have the peace and comfort of home to return to.
Hitler was a Great Leader

For one, Hitler was a very compassionate person. To my collections, he had no intention of killing the Jews, if he had he would have covered it in Mein Kampf. He put the Jews in containment camps to allow the German economic market to breathe. At a feast with Mao and other world leaders, Hitler had ordered "peasant's food" and when asked why he did this, he responded somewhere along the lines of 'If my people cannot be wealthy, nor can I.' He cared deeply of his people. Hitler was a humble man, compared to many politicians nowadays and other countries who do not rise to power, but have it given to them on a silver platter. Hitler EARNED his leadership status. Did you know that Hitler and Gandhi often corresponded? Why would such a peaceful man correspond with a so-called evil man, if he was not doing what was right? Secondly, Hitler saved the German economy (which is much more than most leaders can say). One US dollar was 4.2 million Deustch Marks before Hitler. Under Hitler's power, the Germans went back to work and created a plethora of economically stabilizing ideas. The VW Beetle is based off of Hitler's ideas, welfare programs are based off Hitler's ideas, Hitler was an avid supporter of the Autoban. Without Hitler as a leader, man would never have landed on the moon in 1969. Rockets evolved out of Nazi Germany. Hitler was not a bad leader, and does not deserve the "evil" title. Especially in comparison to leaders today. It baffles me that people today can shove the atrocities of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and other leaders under the rug, but when it comes to saving an entire country, one man is stripped of his brilliance and compassion, for one miscalculation.
Resolved: The Dark side of the Force are the actual "good guys" in Star Wars.

This debate will be about the Star Wars Saga and who is the real "Good" guys in the story. This debate will not be about the definition of good, but about the Dark and Light side of the force. My opponent will not run a counterplan arguing for the Grey Jedi, nor is anything outside of the Movies 1-6 be counted as valid evidence in this debate. If anything from Episode 7 is revealed them my opponent will forfeit the entire debate. RulesFirst Round is terms and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con. Second Round is for Opening arguments, NO rebuttals. Third Round is for Rebuttals. Forth Round is for Rebuttals and conclusion. No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used. No trolling. BOP is shared. Sources may be placed in the comments section if needed. Minimum ELO is 2000. No Profanity. No Counter-PlansDefinitions good guy - any person who is on your side (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Dark Side- dark side of the Force was an aspect of the Force. [1] Individuals who used the dark side drew their power from darker emotions such as fear, anger, hatred,[2] and aggression. [3] The Sith were a major practitioner of the dark side, and were the mortal enemies of the Jedi Order, which followed the light side of the Force. [2] There were others such as the Inquisitorius, who, though not Sith, could draw upon the power of the dark side (. http://starwars.wikia.com...)
Atheism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!

My opponent talks about common sense and tells us that he will define our madness but look who's talking. Christians believe that there is an all-powerful being that lives in the sky and if we're good, we'll go to were he lives. This is based on no scientific fact whatsoever. None at all. In fact, there are some people, creationists, who believe that the world was created by "God" 5-6000 years ago but there is scientific fact that shows that Earth has been around for a much longer time. And they actually believe that someone could create a planet. But even if we're not talking about creationism, there's still the people who think that a supreme being exists. A supreme being with a son who can walk on water. Unless this God or his son comes down and proves to us that he can do what he is fabled to do, I will not believe in something that we got from a book of myths. And that's another thing, You have these people that take the bible literally but nobody's actually considered that it might be just another storybook. And as for being lonely, it is what it is. We can choose to accept we are going to die or we can live a sad and miserable life or we can live a life worshipping false gods. Atheists choose to take the hard truth and that's what they "believe". They have no need to come up with stories of an omnipotent God to explain things because that's where religion comes from. It started when our ancestors saw natural phenomena and had to explain it with something so they made stories to explain these things. Now, we have hard scientific fact that tells us what's actually going on. I will respect your religious beliefs but do not expect me to place my "faith" in something that we can't even prove exists.
Atheism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!

What a lonely state to find oneself! Attend me brothers and sisters, hear the plight of those to whom all pity is to be given. This is a people, without hope? Without Faith, Without Forgiveness? Without common sense? With no visible nor foreseeable lifeline whatsoever! More is the pity, let our hearts be humbled for so too were we all, once upon a time. Let us turn our eyes to Heaven in utter thanks to Him who saves. Let us stand encircled around the damned and cast our lines into the tank of hopelessness which is the Life of atheism, and God willing let us snatch up and set the hook of reason, in a final attempt to shake them loose from their long slumber.To you who accept this debate, you shall defend that which cannot "be" defended, the lunacy which is atheism. I of course shall demonstrate and define your madness.If all goes as usual I shall lose this debate because the doomed will as history has shown, fail again to ascend to the elusive state of reason, choosing instead to "remain in their comatose state" still, if I can awaken even 1, the loss is well worth it.
If someone were drownig we would have a moral obligation to save them.

Morality is a stigma. When a crowd of people refuse to safe someone, it's clear there is no "moral obligation" to do anything. An obligation is something you have to do even if you don't like it. That would mean even if you don't like water, fear swimming or don't even like the person drowning you are obligated to save them. That just isn't so. But now you are saying your argument is that it would be morally right to do something and not a moral obligation? This argument is not about saving a drowning person--it can't be. Swimming is an individual skill not possessed by everyone. Now money, most all of us have some money. Are you morally obligated to send money to poor counties for starving children?
If someone were drownig we would have a moral obligation to save them.

Im not exactly sure im understanding your argument. I agree that some people may feel more obligated than others to help, but all i am saying is that if someone were dying and we were aware and able it would be morally right to save them. Let me ask you this, When do you think a moral obligation comes into place? P.s. Im so sorry that I misspelled "Drowning" in the resolution, please forgive me.
If someone were drownig we would have a moral obligation to save them.

Right and Wrong are taught. One or the other becomes culturally acceptable or tolerable depending on your upbringing. A drowning baby in a pool has only as much moral significance as has been ingrained in the observer. I stand by my assertion that NO we are not morally obligated to do anything for anyone, be it save them from drowning or being beat up or any violation of a human life. Choosing to act is an internal and private obligation you have with yourself. What if that someone drowing had just tried to do you bodily harm? Where does your MO rest with that?
If someone were drownig we would have a moral obligation to save them.

If someone wasn't taught about moral obligation in their upbringing does it cancel out, per-say, that obligation? I set a standard in the first round for when as moral obligation comes in to place, when life is being violated. So are you telling me that if there was a baby drowning in a pool, and you (Assuming you can swim, and are aware that this child is drowning) walked by looked down into the pool, saw the drowning child and walked off....letting the child die, that would be okay because it wasn't taught in your cultural upbringing? Im not sure you understand what MO means- "Black's Law Dictionary sates: A duty that is based only on one's conscience and that is not legally enforceable." Its based on consideration of right and wrong.
If someone were drownig we would have a moral obligation to save them.

Morality is a human philosophy based on cultural upbringing. Morality is also a personal choice--there is no "law" that (barring duty to act statutes) mandates we do anything to give aid to our fellow man. Sociopathics and those with social disorder lack morality and believe you have NO moral obligation to do anything. Morality is relative to the observer. Just because the perception of morality exists in your upbringing does not make it so for all. It obligates the question: "why do we have a moral obligation...?"
If someone were drownig we would have a moral obligation to save them.

I agree with you that yes there are many factors that could play in to a situation where a possible MO is in place. But the Resolution was stating IF someone were drowning we would have a MO to save them. This is a value debate, we don't have to figure out who, what, where, when, etc. I just have to prove there is a moral obligation. And something i would like to state as well, you brought a parent/child scenario into the picture, which is un-resolutionary. If the resolution stated "all parents have a moral obligation to save drowning people regardless of whether or not they are watching kids" You would have a valid point. The person only has a MO if they are able and aware. The parent would have to be able to jump in the pool to have a MO
If someone were drownig we would have a moral obligation to save them.

I am not against helping your fellow man/woman, but I do believe there is a logical disorganization to your philosophy: if you are a parent and would have to abandon your children to save someone at possibly your own peril, you are rejecting your responsibility to those children or any family member who may depend on you. There are things to be weighed before placing your life in peril for another person or anything for that matter. Hence, the moral obligation is to the greater good and not the perception of urgency.
If someone were drownig we would have a moral obligation to save them.

I will be standing for this Resolution. If someone were drowning we would have a moral obligation to save them. In today's round I will be setting the standard for when a moral obligation comes into place. When LIFE is being violated, we have a moral obligation. If someone were drowning in a pool, obviously, life is being violated and since life is my standard for when a moral obligation comes into place, they would have a MO to save the person drowning. You may ask, Well what if the person that is watching the person drown doesn't know how to swim? Well if you are 1. aware of the problem (person drowning). 2. able to help (swim, etc.). You have a MO to save that person. Thank you and I look forward to your response! :)
abortion should be banned

Alright, final round! Pro was basically responsive to only one of my points in this round - namely, whether a fetus is a person. He added another argument (that a fetus is separate from the mother), which I'll address, but otherwise, he's left all of my arguments standing. Even if you buy both of these arguments, Pro has not proven that it is murder, as he has failed to show that abortion is either unlawful, or that it's always premeditated. Remember, Pro's argument is that all abortions should be banned. If you think that even one type of abortion should still exist because it doesn't meet the definition of "murder" (recall that this is Pro's whole case), then you're voting Con. Not that any of this is necessary in order to get to that point. Pro drops my arguments regarding autonomy, medical intervention, and neglect and abuse. These are the sole certainties in this debate, so they're sufficient reason to vote Con as well. But onto the arguments given. Pro makes a lot of assertions in this round without warrant, claiming that a fertilized egg is human without contesting the fact that it's only human on the basis of its DNA. He never argues why DNA is a sufficient standard for personhood, nor does he argue why a heartbeat is a sufficient standard. I would argue that neither is. Every cell on our bodies has human DNA, that doesn't make every cell a person. Nor does the presence of a beating heart make a person - might as well just point to any essential organ and proclaim it the essence of personhood. I don't disagree that a heartbeat showcases life (at a certain stage), but life =/= personhood. Pro still fails to provide any reasoning for why a fetus, which has yet to achieve personhood, should be considered a person. Lastly, the new argument. While I'm not upset that someone posted a suggested argument in the comments, it is kind of stepping on some toes here, so SebUK, try not to do that. The substance of that argument, however, never makes it into the debate. I don't see why the fetus being a separate entity has anything to do with this - the fetus has no way to make its wishes known, is entirely dependent on the mother for its survival, and resides within the mother's body. Pro has given no analysis as to why this change in perception should also alter the calculation here. I suppose this is meant to be responsive to my autonomy point, but since the mother's body and her control over it is still very much involved, it still stands firm.
abortion should be banned

The coment i just read did give me some insight and they are right the fetus is not the mothers body but an organisim inside it. Also it is a human being The moment when the fertilized egg is implanted in the womb. This happens about a week after conception. And all abortions are done after they are able to tell they are pregnet and if they are able to tell they are pregnet that means there is a heartbeat. a heartbeat means there is life. Abortion is killing a life that has not yet had the chance to live.
abortion should be banned

Well yes a women's body is hers and she should have the right to decide yes? well in that case is it also so she should be able to inject into her body drugs or sale her body for any reason she may choose?? because it is her body so she has the right to decide right? and the child would not be neglected there is nothing saying you just keep the child that is why there is Adoption that child has a perfectly good chance at a happy full life if its not stolen from them.
there is a dragon in my basement

Defence: 1. Religion is belief, yes, but there is a dragon in your basement is not beleif. . It's fact. 2. The dragon is not a statement, 'There is a deagon in my basement' IS a statement. 3. No, I can't believe that there is a dragon based on lack of evidence as I don't beleive anything with less evidence, all the less NO evidence. 4. You have no proof that I'm bad at debating, all the less horrible at debating.
there is a dragon in my basement

I'm going to rebut some things: 1. My opponent has started this debate and put it in category 'Religion' even though it has nothing to do with religion. 2. Never is a statement proof for itself. 3. I don't have to beleive anything as I'm not a slave to nobody , all the less beleive YOU. 4. Your last sentence wasn't understood by me, nor would be understood by any of the voters. VOTE CON. Adil Muhammad, Qatar
there is a dragon in my basement

Hi, Im Adil Muhammad from Qatar. No, there aren't any dragins in your basement as yuo bave no evidence. Also, the burden of proof is on you, but you haven't proven that there is actually a dragon. You love dragons, But that doesn't mean that there should be a dragon in your basement. I too love dragon but have none in my house. I have no doubts.. Im sure of whatever Im saying
No country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons

1. a) Pro argues that Con's main point here is simply not true, because Cold War threats of mutual annihilation may have prevented full-scale war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. at the time, but the Cold War itself was the cause of various smaller-scale proxy wars. Out of which are at least three--Korea, Afghanistan, and Vietnam--that are rightly considered full-scale wars in themselves. Thus, Con's assertion that during the Cold War, "no violence was seen" is factually inaccurate. Since the Cold War was essentially a socioeconomic competition turned nuclear arms race, the invention and use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. actually caused there to be many wars, over many years, instead of a) extending WWII against Japan through conventional warfare, and b) engaging in conventional warfare with, OR coming to a mutual agreement of peace with, the Soviet Union. Pro is aware that the results of following through with a and/or b would have been unpredictable and possibly undesirable, but argues that on balance the risks would have been more acceptable than those of engaging in a decades-long nuclear standoff, tempered as it was by nothing but overwhelming fear and outlet wars. Especially since that particular standoff did, in fact, come unimaginably and inexcusably close to mutual destruction of the main aggressors (at least) at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. b) Con specifically States that "when a nation is trying to achieve a goal that is unacceptable, or participating in an event (e.g. a mass genocide)," then a nuclear weapon is effective in deterring that nation from achieving that goal or participating in that event. Pro argues that this has never actually been the case (except for in the anecdote Con describes but does not provide a source for), as there have been numerous genocides since nations began stockpiling nuclear weapons. Pro further argues that nuclear weapons would be ineffective in preventing or intervening in genocide, due to the inherent destructive reach of such weapons, and the intimate nature of most genocides where the aggressors are proximate to, and usually outnumbered by, their captives. Pro argues that nuclear weapons can only be effective in executing a genocide, not preventing one. 2. The fact that only some nations have nuclear weapons is part of my argument against nuclear weapons. Those nations, based on economic superiority or political alignment, have nuclear weapons already and thus determine which nations may or may not have them as well. Pro argues that no country, or even set of countries, has the right to command any other countries as to what type of weapons they may or not produce when the demanding country already possesses those weapons. Pro says this not just because doing so os hypocritical, but because that when a few nations have nuclear weapons and don't want anybody else to have them, they become hyper-aggressive and paranoid in dealing with other nations, leading to more distrust and conflict.
No country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons

Disregard my comment, I figured it out for myself, and accept the challenge. I also accept the definition of "country" as any political state or nation. I would like to clarify the right to possess slightly further as the right to "acquire, produce, store, keep, or use" any nuclear weapons. I also accept the definition of nuclear weapon as any and all nuclear weapons, including, but not limited to atom, hydrogen, salt, dirty, and any fissionable, or fusion-able, material-fueled weapon of any kind. I propose that, for the context of this argument, we ignore other types of "W.M.D.s" than nuclear, such as biological weapons. I accept the proposition dealing with an implementation plan, but would like to stipulate that it is unlikely that such a proposal can be laid out in much detail without advanced knowledge of which countries would be willing to do what to achieve such a goal as nuclear disarmament, and so propose that the plan must be of a fairly general nature. So, I will be arguing that "no country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons" and proposing a general plan to remove such existing weapons from countries currently possessing them, and finally what to do with such weapons once they are removed. Thank you, thought-provoking indeed. I look forward to you first arguments, and wish you good luck as well.
No country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons

Hi, this should be an interesting topic that I don't think has been debated on this website very often. The definitions for the debate are: Country - a state or nation Should have the right to possess - the ability to acquire, produce, or store Nuclear Weapons - WMD's, or Weapons of Mass Destruction including but not limited to atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, salt bombs etc. Proposition must come forth with a plan on how to achieve the topic e. g. how to make sure no country has nuclear weapons and what to do with pre existing ones.