BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

The reader of this round has a moral responsibility to vote against the resolution. Accepting death in our society as necessary has the potential to lead to massacres of humans that will be unstoppable because it has become "morally permissible". Any attempt to assume this killing is justified only reinstates in society the idea that killing is ok. No matter what Pro says, they are only justifying their actions in an attempt to save themselves – not better society as a whole. When the agent of action is a higher power (observation 2) then we can assume someone is allowing this killing to take place by justifying their actions. His contention one does this – by saying "it's ok if they give their permission". (look at my previous posts for complete attacks on his contention) His contention 2 – defensive at best – only justifies any exceptions to the first contention. And his final contention – besides being a completely flawed example – is not impacted at all within the round. Thus, we must look at my contention, which he has basically conceded, that explains how justification leads to more deaths because the action can be repeated as many times as necessary to save the SAME people over and over again. We must be able to keep the power over our own lives so we are not all killed – or give away our ability to protect our friends and neighbors. Value: Morality. Criterion: Keeping power over our own lives so that we do not have to be at the will of a higher institution. Observation 1: Extended the agent of action in the resolution ends the life of an individual because they believe it is necessary for the protection of others. Observation 2: Extend the word permissible implies a higher power deeming the action is allowed. Note all of my arguments as to why you should prefer a single morality vs. individual morality which he does not support with any evidence or reasoning Observation 3: Extend the resolution does not specify what the individual's lives are being saved from – my opponent only implies death. Even if you don't agree, my point is that higher powers CAN interpret the resolution this way – he has not and cannot prove that it this is impossible Contention 1: Mass Death Extend the agent of action (even if it is not a "higher power" but the person in position to make this decision) targets a person that has to die based on some qualifications. Extend this creates a mindset within our society that death is ok as long as we can justify it Extend the majority does not have to win – more people can die then are saved because of Pro's rationalization on each individual stance. The word permissible means the resolution can be repeated as many times as "necessary".
Electives should be part of a college curriculum.

I assert that high school education is not adequate for all individuals. For those who have retained knowledge in high school, there are simple tools to avoid taking the same basic coursework again that even satisfy credit requirements (an example of this would be CLEP testing). However, the fact that this resource is not more utilized and that many students still struggle in these basic courses indicate that their is a deficit of retained knowledge from high school. I disagree with my opponent's assertion that students would benefit from a degree earned from courses only immediately relevant to their chosen major. Whatever degree the student chooses to obtain should adequately prepare them for real-world application of that degree- but only that. From the basic knowledge required, it is the individual's task to apply their knowledge of the necessary concepts and principles to their careers and to innovate. However, having a diverse education is by no means a handicap in the academic world and my opponent has not shown it to be. Ultimately, being literate in diverse fields with a specialty in one concentration is more beneficial than to know only one field slightly better. Thanks for the debate, Con.
Electives should be part of a college curriculum.

Well said Pro! I have thought very hard about this one! I would like to begin by stating that the heavy burden of proof goes both ways. I would also argue students that go to college have already had four years of a "well-rounded" education in high school. They have already been taught history, literature, mathematics, vocabulary, grammar, and basic science. Students go to college to study a specific field, and all unnecessary information should be omitted from that curriculum. I accept your rebuttal of my proposition. It was hasty and illogical to claim such a resolution with such contradicting arguments; however, while my proposition on what the ideal situation may be is void, my point is still valid. Electives still cost money. Students still pay for them. Assuming a four year degree is kept; electives can still be replaced with an entire semester of courses relevant to the field. Information outside of a field of study should be left up to individuals to pursue. If one has a passion for history, let him study it on his own time. College is the final pillar, in the education system, for the pursuit of a career. College should be intended to prepare individuals for their career. Thus, it follows that the education should be centered on the field the student has chosen to study for his future career. I would also claim that colleges place a low priority on electives. Advanced Placement classes allow students to earn college credits. The AP classes available are almost exclusively general electives! (http://en.wikipedia.org...) One must question the place of electives in college if high school students are able to take them. Pro, I would like to thank you for this opportunity. I have had the chance to think about my own views on the topic. I look forward to your rebuttal! Finish strong Pro!
Electives should be part of a college curriculum.

I’d like to begin by eliminating one of my opponent’s propositions, which necessarily follows from his logic. He states that it would be more practical and ideal to eliminate electives but maintain the standard amount of credits required for a degree. This being proposed as the ideal, we can dismiss his contentions about the high cost of education. Eliminating electives but keeping the same credit requirements does not change tuition fees for college students in any way. Therefore, the only contention I have left to address is my opponent’s belief that the average college student would gain more from taking courses only directly related to his/her major. By advocating this belief, my opponent has taken a heavy burden of proof: to show that a well-rounded education is less ideal and beneficial then one solely dedicated to one’s originally desired occupational choice. Were humans machines and society absolutely efficient, this would (perhaps) be a functional way of approaching education. However, it is rarely the case that studying only one specific topic is more beneficial than studying a variety of things. As students progress to the post graduate level (and even their latter two years of college), elective requirements become fewer. However, it is commonly viewed as most ideal to allow new students the opportunity to study a broad spectrum of courses. This allows students to not only become better educated and more functional members of society, but to have an ease of transference should they find a career path more ideal than their first choice. Eliminating electives is simply impractical.
Electives should be part of a college curriculum.

To be clear, yes, optional courses of study which remain the choice of the student is a good definition. I will expand on the definition and add that Senior electives, electives applicable to one's field, don't count. College is expensive. The average cost for tuition alone averages about $23,000 (. http://nces.ed.gov...). Unfortunately, I can only go off of personal experience here, but when I was in college, I had to take 12 credits just in electives (. http://www.csmd.edu...). That's an entire semester. Not only is it a waste of money, but it is a waste of time. Most engineers do not use music in their discipline. Most theoretical physicists don't use philosophy in their discipline. I think it would be more worth a student's time to take courses he will use than courses he will not. Interestingly enough, a large number of college graduates (as much as 40% in some studies) don't even use their degree! However, that's outside the scope of this debate. The time spent on electives could be put towards one of two things. 1) Graduating early 2) Taking more credits related to one's field The latter would be more realistic, as colleges have established, in general, that a standard undergraduate degree takes 4 years to achieve. I think it would be more time efficient if students would take more classes pertaining to their degree. An scientists could take classes pertaining to modern discoveries, artists could study more art styles, students could enter graduate school earlier. I think taking electives out of college curricula would improve the efficiency of our education system. Thank your for your acceptance again. I look forward to your rebuttal Pro.
Vaccination is a fraud (part 3)

1. In regards to the reference - Science - Based Medicine. My opponent asks the question - "Why were death rates declining before vaccination?" His reasons - (a) Medicine was improving - iron lung etc (b) Improved nutrition - ( good answer, this agrees with my argument) (c) Graphs. Now, lets have a look at these graphs and yes,. again, he has used the short 50 year graph to demonstrate that I am wrong. Still missing is 150 years of scientific information and statistical data? Why? Reason - My opponent wants to deceive us with bogus information by the use of omission and deception. Note - It is claimed by medical historians that the vaccination process wiped out smallpox throughout the world. However, the truth is that compulsory vaccination was abandoned because more deaths were caused by the vaccinations than there were cases of smallpox. A slight of the hand trick was used to foster the claim that smallpox was eradicated by the vaccination practice. Everyone who had been vaccinated and who developed smallpox was diagnosed as having chicken pox! http://vactruth.com... Measles Graph Figure 8 - https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org... Notice how this graph has a 15 year gap from 1955 to 1970. During this period, the medical authorities had placed a ban of the recording of any information about the incidence of measles. This period was when live measles vaccine was being trialled, so the authorities wanted to hide the data in case a huge epidemic of measles occurred when the live vaccine was administered. ( More deception.) Why would they do that? Answer - To cover-up the ineffectiveness of vaccination and disguise any spikes that might occur during the live vaccine administration. Measles reoccurred in the UK article - Note - These people who had measles in 2007 were from Pakistan which is a third world country. Obviously, this information is irrelevant because Pakistan has very poor health standards and can't be used as evidence of measles re-occurrence.
Vaccination is a fraud (part 3)

http://www.whale.to... http://www.blatner.com... http://drrimatruthreports.com... We can see from the above graphs that vaccination doesn't work. It is sanitation, electricity, refrigeration, clean water supply and good diet which prevents disease. Disease only declines when all these issues are addressed. The American Indians only became diseased when they were forced off their reservations and put into desert regions which had little natural resources. Thus, the Indians were forced to eat western food such as sugar and grain which is unsuitable for proper nutrition. The concept of disease being spread via fleas is ridiculous. Note - Lius Pastuer was a con artist who married the rectors daughter so he could become a leading university administrator and steal other peoples ideas and call them his own.
John Elway is NOT one of the Greatest Quarterbacks Ever

To begin his rebuttals, my opponent has made some confusing statements: he rejects the idea that career stats are relevant, but is using season stats to advance his arguments. This makes no sense - how is one season more representative of Elway's body of work than his entire career? He also rejects the idea that team record is important, which is bizarre because stats do not a quarterback make. We need to judge all of Elway's career - including his record and success as a starter. The fact of the matter is, what placed Elway above and beyond the quarterbacks of his age was the fact that he was a consistent winner and was clutch when he needed, as evidenced by his 35 fourth-quarter comebacks, 47 game-winning drives, and over .600 winning percentage (even in the playoffs). My opponent also argues Elway's pass attempts are not important - I disagree. They demonstrate his team trusted him with the ball, and his career stats indicate this trust was warranted because he won so many games and had so many comebacks.More confusingly, my opponent argues John Elway was never 'elite'. Why does he argue this? Because his stats "aren't as good as" Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees. This argument makes no sense whatsoever - the definition of 'elite' today is not even close to the one 20 or 30 years ago. Quarterbacks weren't routinely throwing for 3,000 yards and 30 touchdowns in the 80s and 90s, because the game was different. He also confusingly argues Elway shouldn't have gone to the Pro Bowl in years where his 'passer rating' is 'low', but I've already established passer rating isn't important: apparently the players, coaches, and fans agree, because they voted Elway to the Pro Bowl nine times. My opponent continually uses his 'Rate+' stat shows Elway wasn't that good, I've already established that the same source ranks Elway as the fourth-best quarterback of all time.[1] Remember, this debate is on whether Elway is one the ten best quarterbacks ever - that my opponent's only source ranks Elway in the top-five all-time demonstrates my arguments are factual and that my opponent's debate resolution has been debunked.References:1. http://www.pro-football-reference.com...
John Elway is NOT one of the Greatest Quarterbacks Ever

John Elway is not one of the best quarterbacks ever. I will argue PRO of this statement. My opponent will argue CON and defend Elway. Some ground rules: 1) Round 1 is introduction only. No arguments. 2) Other than round 1, there is no specific structure. You can put rebuttals in 2nd round, 3rd round, I don't care. 3) When I mean " NOT one of the greatest", I mean he isn't in top TEN best quarterbacks ever. Not 5, not 15, not 25, but top 10. Since the Broncos are good now, there should be some fans out there to defend Elway.
God Must Exist

It is hard to believe that something as intricate as our universe could spring into existence spontaneously; without premeditation or external stimulus. However, it is equally hard to believe that a being with the power to create something as intricate as our universe could exist spontaneously. If the existence of the universe demands an explanation, then surely God's existence demands an explanation. If you're going to say that "a being with the power to create our universe ex nihilo simply exists" and leave it at that, you might just as well say, "the universe simply exists."
God Must Exist

Everything in the universe must have a cause, or else it would not be. We can trace back all these causes to the very beginning of the universe. The Cause that began with it all must be in some way different to all other causes: it must be itself uncaused. We cannot imagine how something could be not be caused except in one case. If the First Cause existed outside of time, then it would be silly to speak of it being caused, since Cause and effect require time to be in operation for them to make sense: there is a time when the effect has not happened yet, then there is a time when the effect is happening, and finally comes a time when the effect has happened. If there is no time, then the concepts of Cause and effect lose their meaning. We can thus deduce that the first Cause had to exist outside of time. This form of existence turns out, in fact, to be one of the very descriptions of God. Thus, if the First Cause is necessary to explain every other cause and effect that followed it; and if the characteristics of the First Cause match up exactly with the characteristics of God... It is logical to assume that God is the First Cause, and that it is necessary to believe that God exists.
Women have less rights than men in the US.

Thanks, Con side, equalityiskey, for opening up this thread as a debate topic. I will certainly accept this challenge. It seems like a "no-brainer" to me that women do not have the same level of rights as men. This obvious fact is indicated by many historical realities including how hard the struggle was for women to obtain the right to vote in this country (the United States). Beyond that, there most definitely is a wage gap between men and women. When they do the same sort of work, men just get paid more. It is unjust and unfair and there are many fights for equality still going on in this day and age. I would also argue that women are more subject to being non-consensually violated (sexually) than men are and another point would be that they have a right to share their moral perspective but they are not heard in society. We can develop these ideas and evidence for them in the next round. I'm really curious to see what sources you would cite for there being no wage gap since that would differ greatly from what I have seen statistically. Thanks again and I look forward to a fun and exciting exchange.
Women have less rights than men in the US.

First of all I just joined this site, so don't expect too much from me in terms of knowing how to navigate around the site and do everything, but on to the debate! I believe strongly in the fact that men and women have equal rights (In the United States, don't bring other countries' rights and laws into this). I will name some points and facts that I AGREE WITH and have researched below. Agree or disagree with each point and state why you do, and if you think of more points then go ahead and bring them up. Please keep it about the topics and don't get offended and get personal, it's just a friendly debate! 1. There is no wage gap. 2. Women have all the same rights as men, if not even more. 3. Women cause just as much violence and aggression as men.
A fetus IS living based on the definition of the word 'living' and the words within

Thankyou Torvald for simplifying the definition, it will be of much help to not only us but to the readers as well.Growth Through MetabolismThis resolution isn't "A fetus is Possibly living based on the definition of the world 'living' and the words within" rather "A fetus IS living based on the definition of the word 'living' and the words within" this resolution is definite meaning that we are arguing if a fetus is living or not living. Even though the fetus is dependant on the mother for these resources, it must still metabolize this nutrients in order to continue to develop normally as it should. The definition doesn't say that the organism must be dependent for its own nutrients in order to be considered living, only that it must grow through metabolism. The fetus thus metabolises through the nutrients received from its mother and growth occurs over a nine month period. Thus it is living. Even outside of the womb when it has been born, and even as adults we must keep a constant supply of nutrients or we will die. Deprived of the supply of nutrients outside or inside of the womb and we will still die either way.Reproduction Obviously as we have each made clear in this debate, a fetus can not sexually reproduce. The fetus is not yet sexually mature enough to reproduce. It must grow and develop in order to do so. This means that in order to develop sexually, the fetus MUST metabolize from its mother or on its own. Growth and coming of sexual maturity shows adeptness as well. It shows that the fetus is living, because as it grows in its mothers womb it develops the systems needed in order to one day reproduce. Thus sexual development to one day potential reproduce shows that it is living. Every mammal has the potential to reproduce even when it is sexually mature. My opponent is saying that if something doesn't reproduce, then it is not living. EVERY living mammal has the possibility of reproduction even when sexually mature enough to do so. Endogenous (self-generated) Adaptation The definition of living given for the debate is not specific on the grounds of how it is to adapt. It isn't clear as to weather something that is living must adapt on its own. The definition simply says that the organism must adapt, not how it must adapt. Thus, the fetus is living because through its mother it is able to adapt in some way. The definition given doesn't give a specific way for the fetus to adapt to be considered living.The baby is also able to live outside of the mothers womb, and I just thought that this article and video to be very cool: http://www.today.com...I will leave it up to the voters to decide on their own the outcome of this debate upon their own hearts and minds and what they read. It was a pleasure debating you Torvald, than you for your time in debating this debate with me. Thankyou to the readers and voters for their time as well, it is much appreciated.
A fetus IS living based on the definition of the word 'living' and the words within

Hello ladies and gentleman of DDO, I hope you all are having a swell day and thank you in advance for reading and voting for this debate. I wish my future opponent the best of luck in this debate and I hope you will enjoy it regardless of the outcome. Living- the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. This is not a moral debate, this debate will be argued based on the above definition of the word living, and the words within this definition (ie metabolism, reproduction, adaptation). 1. Acceptance and clarification 2. Argument 3. Rebuttals and conclusion Again this is not a moral debate, if my opponent poses a moral debate I will simply continue to debate on the grounds that have been set.