BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hitler IS not a criminal

I accept. Rule 8 contradicts the resolution, thus I will argue why progressive consumption taxes should not be implemented. The resolution "Hitler is not a criminal" is irrelevant to the true resolution. Since it seems to be about progressive consumption taxation, let the resolution be: "The United States Should Implement a Progressive Consumption Tax." === Definitions === United States - The United States of America, 3rd largest sovereign state and largest economy Should - Ought to; must Progressive Consumption Tax - a tax that modifies the VAT, so that it no longer imposes a flat-rate tax on all consumption. It splits the value-added tax base, which equals aggregate consumption, into two components, wages and business cash flow. The X tax achieves progressivity by applying graduated tax rates to wages and a high flat tax rate to business cash flow, which reflects consumption financed from wealth accumulated prior to the reform and from above-normal business investment returns, which largely accrue to well-off households.
Hitler IS not a criminal

== Rules == 1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round; R1 is just for acceptance4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions8. The BOP is Shared; Con must argue that Progressive Consumption taxes should not be implemented, I must argue that it should be9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss
Should Illegal Drugs Be Legalized

Negation CaseP1: Ricin is an illegal drugThe drug I will showcase here is Ricin. Ricin is illegal, as indicated by this article where a student was arrested for making the substance [2] Officially, Ricin is: "...considered both a chemical and biological weapon and is explicitly prohibited by the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and Schedule 1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention" [5]. According to dictionary.com:Drug: any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or anyfunction of the body of humans or other animals [1].So, Ricin is an illegal drug because you are not allowed to make it in a part of the world, plus it is intended to affect structure or any function of the body of humans.A1: Some drugs, for example Ricin, are too brutal to be legalWhy is Ricin too brutal? According to Anthony Sabella, "a dose of purified ricin powder the size of a few grains of table salt can kill an adult human" [3]. Now, this in itself might not seem too brutal yet pretty dangerous, because a lot of drugs in small doses can kill like this. However, please also consider that Ricin in mist or food cannot be seen or smelled [4]. As mentioned before, this drug is considered a biological weapon. You could sprinkle this diificult to detect (in a forensice lad, mind you) [6] substance in some of this in someone's water whilst they're not looking and the person could be dead within 3 days. The combination of the factors above leave this substance with a kind of potency that is absolutely brutal, and in all honesty, should not be made legal.This is one of the many drugs that are too brutal for the public. I could understand a debate about the legalisation of marijuna, but Ricin is far too brutal to be legalised.References[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.independent.co.uk...[3] "What Makes Ricin So Deadly - What Makes Ricin So Deadly". Anthony Sabella[4] http://www.cdph.ca.gov...[5] http://chemistry.about.com...[6] http://cir.ca...
Should Illegal Drugs Be Legalized

Thank you, cathrynvclark, for instigating this debate. The resolution pertains to the legalising of all illegal drugs, hence “Should illegal drugs be legalised”. With this in mind, my job as negation is to provide an example of an illegal drug and argue that it should not be legalised. Again, conversely, my opponent’s burden of proof to show that all illegal drugs should be legalised.I await my opponent's opening round of arguments.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse (where common sense is not concerned)

= 1) The United States was founded on the principle of white, property owning males. Anyone else is not a functioning member of society, because their existence in the group violates the principles of which the society is founded. Common sense is considered a basic standard of ethics for any functioning society. Laws outside of this standard are not "common sense." 2) Common sense exists as ethics, at least in terms of law. Ethics are the standard of living and society which everything in a society should be based on. Common sense is no alternative to a written code of law, as laws can pass through the sphere. However, this makes the law common sense simply because members of society share this law. 3) Thanks. 4) If a serial killer sees no evil in his act, he does not understand common sense, and thus does not understand the law. If this is the case, the killer is not a member of society because he does not understand the law. If not, then the killer does not know common sense and is not a member of society. FN) Offer an alternative to asking them. This would make the point valid.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse (where common sense is not concerned)

As per regulations, I will now begin with my rebuttals. 1) First of all, PRO makes a legitimate argument for this position. However, we are assuming a "normal" person- a white middle-class Christian living in the United States. To this person, this is "common sense. " We live in a society with our own definition of common sense, however, my opponent fails to clarify this fact. These are the people that form the cornerstone of modern society (at least at the time of this writing. ) Thus, it is a legitimate point of debate to focus on the societal norms of this culture of humans. Even though it is true that at one point, things socially unacceptable today, like intermarriage rape, wife beating and slavery, were considered socially unacceptable once (and those far in the future might say the same about us), we cannot live forever in the past. We are debating the conditions of the present day, as this is the temporal frame in which we live. 2) Common sense is not "something that exists in the mind of an individual. " This point is a contradiction between my opponent's point 1. Common sense is defined one way to each "society. " A society is a group of humans-or anything else- that shares the same laws, setup, and most importantly, behaviors (and thus, values. ) One who did not understand these basic values would not be a member of "society," because he would not share the same mindset as other members of the group, thus leading to him being an outcast. If an individual was truly a member of society, then this individual would understand the laws that put him into this position. If not, he is in no way a member of this society, even if he has a form of official connection to it. 3) Technically, the point my opponent is making is invalid. If the con artist in question was a member of society, then all would know him, and thus know his past offences against society. Not to mention that if he was truly ignorant of the law so far, he would be mentally challenged, thus making him a non-member of society, except for perhaps the SOPSTSMD (Society of People Sharing the Same Mental Disorder. ) 4) If an individual was actually a member of society, this individual would know the laws of this group. The individual's thought process would include basic traits shared within his society. If this individual was in fact a member, he would not be ignorant of the law. Finally, knowledge of wrong creates wrong, because without knowing wrong, there cannot be wrong, because there would be no right or wrong to weigh it up against.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse (where common sense is not concerned)

Hello DDO, and thank in advance to any debater to come along. Today, I feel like debating the age-old adage: Is ignorance of the law an excuse? Argument ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would like to explicitly state that anyone who does not know the law should not be accused of breaking the law. If you do not know the law, how are you supposed to keep within its boundaries? Example: If you were a third-grader, and I asked you the 47th cube root of 6.29291, then that would be overstating the boundaries, as common sense does not include advanced multiplication, division and algebraic formulas, at least where primary school is concerned. This also applies to the law- while basic ethics reject that severe crimes like murder should slip through because of ignorance of the law, lesser crimes like speeding should not, as these are not in the field of "common sense." As it is difficult to write any sort of essay without a basis to work off of, I will stop there. I think I can hold my own in this philosophical debate. If you disagree, you are welcome to try. -The God Hand
Abortion

Contention1: Abortion is terribleMy opponent clearly makes the assertion that "abortion is terrible" without specifying what kind of abortion or the circumstances around it. Therefore, I'm going to assume she means that -all- abortions are terrible, regardless of what kind of abortion it is or the circumstances which may surround it. So all I would have to do is find a single instance of an abortion not being terrible to disprove my opponent's assertion that they all are. Instead, I'll provide four instances where abortion might actually be good or even beneficial for the mother, and therefore not "terrible":1. Pregnancies resulting from rape.2. Pregnancies resulting from incest. 3. Pregnancies which threaten the life of the mother. 4. Teenage pregnancies.5. Cases where the mother is a young child. (note: the youngest recorded human mother was a five-year-old.)Contention2: Person hoodWhile I agree with my opponent that a fetus is human biologically speaking, that hardly makes it a person. The physical changes which occur during the fetus' development do not a person make, and any brain activity the fetus does have lacks the intricate sophistication of that of a person. Fetuses are not self-aware, do not recognize emotion and therefore do not cognitively interpret pain in the traditional sense. The fetus is little more than a tumor. Contention3: Rights of the motherMy opponent states that adoption is an option while ignoring the emotional and physical strains that come with pregnancy and childbirth itself. In fact, she seems to completely blatantly ignore the plight of the mother at all. Everyone has a right to their own body, and to force a woman, a person, to give birth takes away those rights.
Abortion

Abortion is terrible. You are killing someone who hasn't even had the chance to take their first breath. During abortion, typically the baby's heart starts to beat and brain activity is found. They are alive and people who engage in abortion are committing murder. Taking the choice away from a child and hurting something that doesn't have the ability to defend itself. Even if you can not support this child, adoption is always and option. It may not be a fun place for them to live but atleast they are alive.
It's time to bring back the cat o' nine tails

Flogging offenders with a cat o' nine tails [1] is the fairest, most egalitarian way to punish petty crimes. Let's say, for example, that someone parks their car illegally and gets a ticket. It may be a low-paid single father who illegally parked his beaten-up old Vauxhall Cavalier outside the corner shop for a few minutes while he nipped in to get some nappies and baby food - or it could be a parasitic aristocrat who illegally parked his brand new Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe outside Le Restaurant de la Posh for two hours while he gorged himself on oysters, fois gras, white truffles and caviar – but no matter, they would still have to pay exactly the same ï¿½120 fine regardless of how much or little the penalty would effect their personal finances. That's not fair is it? The over-privileged aristocrat may have paid more than the cost of the fine for his first course, whereas ï¿½120 might represent a week's wages for a single father who only has menial part-time work because of childcare issues. However, a couple of lashes of the cat o' nine tails [1] would hurt both offenders equally and would also mean that the single father's baby wouldn't be deprived of food and nappies because his dad had to pay a parking fine instead. Of course, as the nature of the crime becomes more serious so should the number of lashes of the cat o' nine tails and, obviously, it would be inappropriate to whip women so female offenders should be paraded around the streets wearing a scolds bridle [2] instead – the more serious her crime the longer she would spend wearing iron contraption. In conclusion, by bringing back the cat o' nine tails (and the scolds bridle), the wealthy would be punished to the same extent as the poor and thus the rich would no longer commit petty crimes in the knowledge that the fines imposed would have little or no impact on their finances. Thank you. [1] http://www.diggerhistory.info... [2] http://www.worthpoint.com...
the glass is always full

Well, thank you for that very interesting and enlightening tale. Definitely a worthy read, certainly unexpected. I had originally prepared to argue from what is essentially a highly scientific point of view involving sub-atomic space, but now it seems unnecessary. In fact you resolved the statement in favour for me. While Pro's story is entertaining, a little mind boggling and a touch confusing (for me at least), it's ending shows the glass is not always full. The ending of the story states "the opportunist took the glass, DRANK ALL IT'S CONTENTS and SMASHED it in a mead hall. " By incorporating these aspects of the story, it shows 2 things. 1 - the glass is emptied by the opportunist, since all its contents were consumed, and by definition "always full" as used in the resolution means at no point can it be emptied, since the requirement for Pro is that the glass is ALWAYS full. At this point Pro states it was emptied. 2 - the glass is smashed. Now that the glass has been smashed it can no longer be full, since it's no longer capable of its ability to contain anything at all, hence it can't ALWAYS be full, since it's no longer capable of holding anything.
the glass is always full

Allow me to begin with a mind-boggling tale of indescrible-ness.Long ago, near the earth's beginnings, when man was small and insignificant, a wise wanderer brought upon the Oods the gift of toast. They were so in awe by the mans wiseness that they gave him the glass . He thought it to be just an empty cup, but it was truly a chalice of wonder. He drank from it frequently, and it caused his urine to become streams of philosophy! Of course, the urine was not corporeal, and unable to be seen. But when the man died, the glass fell into the hands of the world's philosophers, and they filled it with their pessimism and optimism, their hopes and their lies, but only half of what went in was noticed. So future philosophers were unable to see it's true fullness. "it's half full!" one would say "it's half empty!" another would shout. Their ignorance blinded them, and they could not see that it had been filled with everything: the seen and the unseen. But while they were arguing, the opportunist took the glass, drank all it's contents, and smashed it in a mead hall.And that is why footballs don't have feathers.The End
Drinking age should be lowered.

I know there will always be irresponsible people, but lowering the age will increase the irresponsibility. underage drinking has bad effects on your brain that can alter how u think through things before you do it. You think that if your mom was almost killed by a drunk driver who was over 21 that you wouldn't want it to be lowered. It would increase the risk of someone getting hit because it alters how you think and react to situations and a person whose brain hasn't fully developed is more likely to make that stupid decision. if you were drunk, you more than likely do get in the car with someone else who is drunk and to do other things with them. Alcohol has been reported to be involved in 36 percent of homicides, 12 percent of male suicides, and 8 percent of female suicides involving people under 21—a total of about 1,500 homicides and 300 suicides in 2000. Homicide is the second leading cause of death for 15- to 24-year-olds6 (Reducing Underage Drinking, 61). [I]ndividuals under the age of 21 commit 45 percent of rapes, 44 percent of robberies, and 37 percent of other assaults,7 and it is estimated that 50 percent of violent crime is alcohol-related8 (Reducing Underage Drinking, 61). [O]n college campuses 95 percent of all violent crime and 90 percent of college rapes involve the use of alcohol by the assailant, victim, or both9 (Reducing Underage Drinking, 61). http://camy.org... lowering the drinking age would only increase every single rate there is cause bye abuse of alcohol. and lowering the age will make it a lot easier for people to become addicted and become alcoholics.
Drinking age should be lowered.

First, responsibility takes experiences and time to overcome. Lowering the drinking age would give that time needed to learn to be responsible with alcohol. It may require that the driving age goes up, or you have a permit longer with supervised driving. There are always going to be irresponsible people who abuse alcohol, same as everything else in life. People who choose to abuse alcohol and other privileges or substances after understanding the consequences, will continue to do it no matter what. If i get drunk, get into a car, drive and hit someone and don't die, some people in my situation would continue to drink and others would stop. Everybody is different in how they react to situations. Having the drinking age at 21 as i said before does nothing, it doesn't stop anybody i know from drinking who wants to. My parents, have always taught me to be responsible, if i have more than i know i can handle or most of the time any at all i know not to drive. When i see someone who has to much alcohol in there system, i don't ride with them and i tell them not to drive to come to my house, call someone or stay wherever we are. My mom almost died in a car accident getting hit by a drunk driver who was over 21, is he any different than someone who is 16 and hits someone? Because it is legal to drink at 21 doesn't mean they are responsible. They have either just started drinking, or have been hiding it and most likely drinking and driving since they were younger. Proving my point that the drinking age doesn't do anything. Irresponsible people will be irresponsible and responsible people will learn to drink moderately or have a way to be safe with it.
Drinking age should be lowered.

Going to war and fighting for your country is completely different. If you die for your country you die in vain and for a cause, if you die from drinking or drunk driving it is way worse because you have thrown your life away because of a stupid mistake. Most weddings aren't even big when you are married at that age and just because you are getting legally able to get married doesn't mean you are responsible enough and has the sensibility to make right judgement when they are drunk. Even if they didn't have to hide it from the law or their parents doesn't mean they wont be irresponsible. It makes it even easier for them to get drunk get in a car and drive. they wont even have to hide it because they will just do it which makes the risk even greater. Any responsible adult would probably agree with me that this would make everything worse if the drinking age lowered that teen deaths would drastically change.
Drinking age should be lowered.

No matter what there is always going to be people drinking underage, whether they are in college, high school, or even grade school. Most people around the age of 14-18 don't care much about laws. Now you are telling me that someone who is 18 and can go to war for his country, lay his life down, can't drink? Someone who in the eyes of the government is responsible enough and can be legally married, cannot drink at their own wedding? Teen car accidents caused by influence of alcohol, are more likely to happen because they are irresponsible with alcohol because they are just beginning to experiment and they have to hide it from most parents, and the law.
Part 2 - The Bible Does NOT say that Jesus is Almighty God in the flesh

This is a continuation of the debate Gordontrek and I had some months ago. Therefore, the winner of this debate must be judged with our previous debate taken into account. That debate can be found here:http://www.debate.org...The second part will consist of three rounds under the same guidelines. Because Gordontrek had to leave and was unable to finish out the first part, and because I finished out that last round, I gladly allow him to continue his argument in this first round as a reaction to my previous posts, with me responding to him in the second round.To clarify our stances, I believe that the Bible does not make the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is Almighty God in the flesh (although it does say that he is a god); Gordontrek, on the other hand, believes that the Bible does say that Jesus is Almighty God, and further, that he is part of a holy trinity.Debates are fun and can sometimes get a little heated, but they are excellent tools that allow us to consider two sides of an equation. I hope that our efforts here help along anyone interested in this particular topic.
Gender Identity (More than 2-3)

My sources tell me that 'gender' is typically used in reference to social and cultural differences ***rather*** than biological. Those sources being Google and Merriam Webster. If you'd like to open up another debate over the definition of 'gender' relative to 'sex' then go right ahead. Just make sure to provide their definitions so $hit a$$es like yourself don't continue the mindless bumbling into another vague and thought provoking thread raising the eternal questions of our existence. I am extremely triggered. Suck it normies. RRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
should the Nhs treat self inflicted illnesses

I have many more arguments (physical harm caused by mental illness, drugs, depression, etc.), but for some reason this debate has a 750 character limit. My opponent's only point is that "people should know better" and I believe that I have successfully countered it in my previous argument. I am a firm believer that healthcare should be provided to anyone who needs it, regardless if it was ostensibly self-inflicted or not. Such care should be a fundamental right for all humans, and not just a privilege for those who others deem to deserve it. Thank you, and please vote fairly. Have a nice day!
should the Nhs treat self inflicted illnesses

It is important to consider that the world is not perfect, and that even though there are many cases of health problems one may consider "self-inflicted", the people in question may not have had a real choice in the matter. Allow me to digress momentarily. I went to a supermarket based on healthy foods this morning; the bill for a few groceries game to CDN$121 (give or take GBP 67). I also went to McDonalds this afternoon; the bill came to $8 (GBP 4.50). My point here is that the healthy option tends to be exorbitantly priced, and therefore unavailable to most of the population (at least on a regular basis). Should we deny healthcare to the thousands of people who are forced to eat convenient, affordable filth for monetary reasons?