BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable

Although depending on where you live, killing the bunny can be animal abuse, which is injustice, or it can be considered hunting, in which it is not. For the sake of the debate let's say it is injustice It depends solely on the situation, and what the injustice is. Just because at that exact moment you cannot do something, doesn't mean that you can't report this injustice to the authorities, later. Inaction is defined as the lack or absence of action. Reporting this incident at a later time when your familie's live aren't at stake, is not inaction.
inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable

Disagree. It depends solely on the situation, and what the injustice is. Example: You look across the street and see some guy beating a bunny. You realize that this is a grave injustice to the bunny. Unfortunately the mans friend is holding an AK-47 to your entire family. He states, "IF YOU TRY TO HELP THAT BUNNY I WILL SHOOT YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY." Thus at this point you should not act in the face of injustice, and inaction does not make you morally culpable.
inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable

I'd first like to start out by defining inaction as the lack or absence of action; injustice as Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice, and culpable as Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious. Inaction in the face of injustice makes an indivudal morally culpable. An example I would like to use to illustrate this is: you come out of your house and you see a couple that lives across the street from you - a man and a woman - fighting, the man then strikes the woman andshe falls. He then proceeds to get on top of her and keeps punching her in the face. You have both a moral and a legal obligation to do something.
Arm wrestling can be dangerous

Rules 1. I will argue in favor of the resolution that arm wrestling can indeed, be dangerous. 2. No trolling. 3. No plagiarism. 4. First round for acceptance. Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture. Definitions Dangerous - likely to cause harm Arm wrestling - "A form of wrestling in which two opponents sit facing each other with usually right hands interlocked and elbows firmly planted, as on a table surface, and attempt to force each other's arm down. Also called Indian wrestling."[1] Source http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Jesus Christ Was Justifiably Unclear That He Would Die

Jesus was in no way unclear about the fact that he would die. The Gospels tell of at least three instances in which he said that he would die. First Instance: The plainest and most clear statement can be found in Mark 8:31-32. It says, "He [Jesus] then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him." Notice that not only do we have a record of Jesus saying that he would die, but we are explicitly told that he "spoke plainly about this." There was no lack of clarity in what Jesus said. Jesus called himself "the Son of man" which was the most common title he gave himself throughout the Gospels. Context consistently shows that Jesus is talking about himself when he uses the phrase "the Son of Man," but to remove any doubt Jesus expressly says that he is the Son of Man in John 9:35b-37. That says: "He [Jesus] said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" "Who is he, sir?" the man asked. "Tell me so that I may believe in him." "Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you."" This leaves no doubt that Jesus referred to himself when he said "the Son of Man" and that he said clearly that he would die. Second Instance: In the next chapter Jesus again says that he will die. Mark 9:31b-32 says, "He [Jesus] said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of me. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise." But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it." Here we have a second example of Jesus saying that he will die. I grant that this is probably less clear because, unlike the first example, the disciples did not understand his meaning. None the less, it is a second statement from Jesus that he would die. Third Instance: Finally, Mark 10:33-34 says, ""We are going up to Jerusalem," he [Jesus] said, "And the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. The will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise." So now we have a third clear statement from Jesus that he will die. Also, each of these statement are found separately in the Gospel of Mark, so it is clear that they are not different points of view of the same event. Instead, we have three separate instances in which Jesus clearly states that he will die. In the first instance we are even told that he was not unclear but instead that he spoke plainly. Jesus was in no way unclear about the fact that he would die. All quotations come from the New International Version of the Holy Bible.
Australia should stop exporting from China

How many times have you picked up something and it says the phrase - "Made in China"? Have you noticed that nearly everything seems to be made in China? Companies from all over the world like Australia, America, and England " all make their things in China. This is because things from China are very cheap. This might seem great because we can buy cheap toys, clothes, DS and other electronic things. And these things would cost a lot more if they were made in Australia. It might also seem great for the owners of the factories and companies... because it is easier for them to make lots of money when their products are made in China. It might even seem good for China... because so many people are working and have a job. But actually " it is not at all good for the factory workers. They get paid hardly anything. I read they get about $2 a day working in a factory. Whereas in Australia, you aren"t allowed to pay a worker any less than $15 an hour! No wonder it is cheap to have things made in China But the problem is not just the low money that workers in China get paid - the conditions they work in can be really bad. There is a factory I read about where the people were treated like slaves and not given a wage at all. They just got some bread and water to eat. The factory was making bricks, and they had to carry them while they were still hot and would badly burn their hands. In China, if a boss wants workers to work long hours - they have to. If a boss wants workers to do something even though it is bad for their health " they still have to. Even children are used in the factories - when it is actually against the Chinese law. The government does not seem to worry about it. You would have heard of NIKE " (the company that makes sports shoes, soccer balls and other things).... Even they have factories in China that use young children as workers and very bad conditions. Another factory in China called KYE " makes electronic things for companies like Samsung, logitech and even microsoft. Conditions at this factory was also bad. They worked long days and were not given breaks " even to go to the toilet. Talking was banned. In China, unlike Australia, there are not unions and rules to make sure that people are kept safe and have fair work conditions. .It does not seem right that people have to live like this, just so that we can buy cheap things! So when you next pick up something, and notice that it says Made in China " don"t think about the price that you have paid " but the price a Chinese factory worker has paid. Thankyou for debating. Please notice I wrote this speech in year 3 and that I am an 12 year old!!!!!!!
[Short Debate/Convo] Justify having an affair

Rules: We are going to focus on love marriages not for pied/arranged marriages. Since its a short debate, here's the layout: R2:Three main points R3: Discuss and share our own personal views on marriage n affairs R4:Rebuttals to r2-3. shout me in the comments if you have any other suggestions for round 4. 1-Okay, so in various belief systems, such as Sikhism and Hinduism, marriage means the spiritual souls of two people intertwine. Therefore breaking it will bring unhealthy consequences, such as depression and other various mental health issues. 2-Having affairs increase the chances of STIs and unplanned pregnancies. Even with safe sex, there's still a 3% chance of insemination. 3-A committed couple provides stability for the nuclear family in terms of child development, social status/reputation, and so on.
North Korea couldn't win a war against the US

Sorry for forfeiting but we don't win a debate by forfeiture but by the votes. But it's true there was no many things to answer to your round 2 ... Geopolitic is not like school. Before making any action or supporting anyone, countries analyze the economic and financial interests they can have in a such action, and nothing else. If other countries support NK they risk to face economical sanctions by the US and the UN (that's why China voted sanctions against NK). Which interests can have someone to support a closed-economy with no market interests against the G8 countries and the biggest economies in the world
North Korea couldn't win a war against the US

We cannot precisly determine the winner of a war but it is still possible to make simulations(military generals do it a lot before making actions). For the Middle East Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Koweit, Lebanon have mostly a pro-US government, Syria's pro Iran government is collapsing, and anyway I don't see why they would have an opinion about an US-NK conflict, furthermore if North Korea started it with hostile actions. Even if the hate of the US is a common point between the spread of islamic terror in the middle east and the rogue state of North Korea, their ideology if far from another (Radical Islam and Stalin-styled communism) so they wouldn't support each other. The only nation in Asia that could have standed of NK would be China, but they wouldn't lose their biggest market(the US) for a closed restricted regime like North Korea. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam(which've been begging the US to settle troops in their territory for a few time) would immediatly join their support for the US. Other NATO countries(Europe, Turkey ..) will also support military actions. So the US would have a global support America invest a lot of money in military research, whereas NK has old soviet-styled armement of the 70's.
An atheist is unethical for the mere fact that he is atheist.

Now whom ever takes up this debate should (1. ) be religious (2. ) be for (pro) on the topic/resolution (3. ) Agree with the definitions below. Definitions: ethics (eth'iks): 1. a system or set of moral principles. 2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or governing a particular group, culture, etc: medical ethics. 3. the branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of actions and the goodness and badness of motives and ends. 4. moral principles, as of an individual. atheism (a⋅the⋅ism) - 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Contentions: 1. I simply believe this to be untrue. An atheist can be ethical. An ethical atheist is not an oxymoron. denying proposed religious beliefs does not make you unethical. All an atheist is, is a person of disbelief in a supreme being/God. How in the world does that make you bad(unethical). I don't believe in unicorns, am I now unethical for a mere disbelief . 2. religion has tried to hijack the word morality by stating that there is no good in the world without religion or God, ergo if you don't believe in god you are unethical. This is WRONG. Ethics is not confined to, or from, religion. I believe ethics to be solely the product of education(it doesn't need to be religious education for that matter). people learn from a wide variety of resources. If anything a modern day religious person is unethical I feel this is adequate for a first round of debate. I now await my opponent along with their rebuttal. ~ Mastajake
Debating online is the best way to debate. There are no restrictions or barriers to opinion forming.

Oh. Well, the point of any debate, obviously, is to come to an end/conclusion. And no matter what the way it is reached, what does it matter as long as the final conclusion is reached? Why not choose the more fun way to reach that end? Even my opponent agrees that "live debates" are more fun, and since all debates must end with a final solution, no matter live or online, it would be more fun to reach that end with a more fun way. Also, if online debates were thought out more carefully and precisely then live debates, you can see there is still the same margin for error, the example being the mistake my opponent made in his statements. And in reference to online debates removing the "emotion", if a debate resolution angers you or you are offended by it, those emotions aren't going to change just because you are not debating face to face. You can't get rid of the emotion, and the emotion will evidently be clear even in your online debate rounds.
Debating online is the best way to debate. There are no restrictions or barriers to opinion forming.

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for joining this debate and for her contributions so far. I would also like to define what I mean by online debate & discussion in this case: I mean to argue that online debate is a more powerful platform for those debating with the intent on better understanding a topic, discovering and understanding the different points of view and coming to some conclusion which can be used for future action rather than debating as a sport. Whilst debating as a sport is very useful and indeed fun as my opponent points out, debating with the intent of coming to a conclusion for future action is what I should have said in round one. In this case, it is important that people do not think on their feet but rather fully consider their arguments because in this context the aim of the debate is to decide on a suitable outcome or fully understand an issue rather than win or lose. The time-delay of the Internet makes this easier as it removes the feeling of having to reply quickly. The Internet also makes it easier to remove the emotion from debate which is important if you are debating a sensitive issue. It may be more thrilling in person but this is not the objective I had in mind. So my main point of contention is that you don't want the 'fun factor' - and as you stated, online debates can remove this. I apologise for not having made myself clearer in the first round. I recognise that my opponent's points in round 1 are and excellent and valid but in the wrong context due to my error.
Debating online is the best way to debate. There are no restrictions or barriers to opinion forming.

Debate was created so that people could argue over their points verbally. If you debate online, the "thinking on your feet" factor is eliminated. For most debaters, this is the best part of debating; having to think quick on your feet and respond quickly to your opponent's attacks. Debating online makes no need to do this, and therefore most of the fun of an actual "live" debate is taken away. 1)Taking time to think your arguments and examples through; find evidence. While it is true that you have a lot of extra time to think through your cases before submitting them, in an actual debate, you should already know every single aspect of your debate. Therefore, in most debates, all this extra evidence is unneeded. 2)Keep track of what has been said and by whom. This is what note-taking/flowing is for in a debate. 3)Not lose focus over things like tone of voice, facial expression, etc. In my personal opinion, this is the best part of most debates. Looking your opponent in the eye and making your point clear. Seeing their facial expression when they are wrong. A face-to-face debate, filled with all this emotion, is what makes live debates WAY more interesting and meaningful to do. 4)People cannot interrupt you whilst you are making your points. I don't know if this applies to audience or opponent, but in any debate, it is proper etiquette and politeness to not interrupt whilst people are in the middle of a debate. If you are regarding the opponent, if it is during a time such as your cross-examination, then you have the right to tell your opponent to stop interrupting. Additionally, if your opponent interrupts, they get points deducted for etiquette. (or so I think) My main point of contention is that in online debates, you lose the "fun factor. " So, for all the reasons above, live debates are more interesting and fun, and those factors that my opponent has made are not valid and do not apply to live debates.
Debating online is the best way to debate. There are no restrictions or barriers to opinion forming.

Debating online offers many advantages over debating offline (be it in a group or one-to-one). To keep this concise I will bullet point my arguments: Online debate allows you to: * Take time to think about your arguments and examples before you contribute them * Take time to find evidence to back your arguments up. * Keep track of what has been said and by whom. (So that contradictions can more easily be spotted in the future) * Get away from stereotyping which is never useful in a debate * Make your points of view anonymously if you wish therefore really argue your points of view, rather than those that you deem socially acceptable. Anonymity is always useful for debating. * Not lose focus over things like tone of voice, facial expression, etc. * People can not interrupt you whilst you are making your points. Online group discussion/debate/forum sites (unlike debate.com) also offer the following advantage: * Anyone can contribute their opinion at any time in the future and therefore improve the balance of the debate/discussion whereas in person you're limited to the views of the people in the room at the time I look forward to discussing these points with you and wish you the best of luck. Thanks!
Are Videogames Art

thankyou tsm, that was an intriguing response. now to begin : MY OPPONENT:"Per say, I was a tourist in an art museum and "Cash Crop" was on display I wouldn't really know a lot about it unless I had researched it or there was a brief history next to the display." this painting, like others, is one that takes times and creative thinking to understand the point. most all of the famous paintings made have secret meanings behind them in which the viewer must analyze and and survey until they have found this. for example, the mona lisa's meaning was not found until someone gave great thought and consideration into the true meaning of the painting, so finding out which both sides of the background signified. death, life, evil, good. etc. next i am going to combine these two quotes from my opponent because they go along with each other and it will save time rebutting. MY OPPONENT:"all the species on the station ban together in one final stand. (Link at bottom of debate) If that's not even the slightest bit inspirational I don't know what is." "the gamer learns of leadership, choices, and team work." do the gamers really learn inspiration, choices leadership, and teamwork? for when someone goes out and buys this game i guarantee you this is not what they are interested in when buying the game. you wouldnt hear some one talking to his friend and saying "lets go buy mass effect because i want to be inspired!" it would probably be more along the lines of "did you hear about the game mass effect? yeah it has tons of cool weapons and bad guys to kill!" the purpose of these games is for the gamer to kill, and if there was no action whatsoever in the game, i can almost guarantee you know one would buy it. this is why a game can't be considered art. because when some one goes out to buy a video game, they have no desire to learn teamwork. their main goal is to watch cool new graphics, and kill enemies. most the time people skip the cut scenes (if the game lets them) so they can proceed to get on with the violence. because that is truly all video games inspire. if "the legend of zelda, had no action and adventure in it, it would not be as popular as a game it is. however when going to buy a piece of artwork, an individual is looking for learning and inspiration. when buying an "enya" cd some one is looking forward to be enlightened by the sweet voices, and positive lyrics. Thankyou TSM this has been one of few debates where i actually enjoyed myself debating. I would like to thankyou for 1. being a good opponent and staying on topic 2. being curteous to your opponent 3. not making pre-judgement as to the rounds winner like alot of my opponents tend to do 4. not pressuring voters to make a decision against their own will i would very much enjoy debating with you again. -philosophical