BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

Since my opponent forfeited, and I did not refute my opponent's case in my last round, I shall do so here, although I have the feeling the next round shall go forfeited as well.Treat others the way you want to be treated.This is basically just saying "Do unto others as you would will be done unto you," correct? If so, then:1) There's no warrant as for why this provides an obligation to assist. It's showing a benefit to assisting, but this doesn't mean we're obligated to do so.2) This commits the fallacy of the slippery slope because if someone were to steal from me, I would be justified in stealing from them, which would justify someone else to stealing from me, which would justify someone else stealing from them, which would just keep spreading and spreading and enveloping our world in massive chaos and anarchy.3) This principle is unreciprocal in some situations. For example, if someone were to shoot me in the head and kill me, I would then not be able to treat him as he treated me, since I would be dead. So there should be an obligation to do so.1) This very statement presupposes that an obligation to assist doesn't exist. Since the resolution basically is "Does an obligation to assist exist" and not "Should people act on an obligation to assist", this statement negates the resolution.2) Just because something SHOULD be obligatory, doesn't mean that it IS obligatory. For example, the barrista at my local Starbucks is not obligated to provide my change for coffee in bills and as few coins as possible. He could, if he felt like it, provide my change in all coins. Just because he SHOULD be obligated to provide my change in bills and as few coins as possible doesn't make it an actual obligation.Millions of people doing small things to help people out in need, can turn a simple action, into a major impact.1) There's no reason why this provides an obligation to assist. I could do a small thing just because I felt like it, not because I was actually obligated to.Again, since my opponent forfeited the last round, you can clearly extend out all of my arguments as to why we do not have a moral obligation to assist because assisting people and getting them out of suffering ruins the ontological value of life.Thus, I urge a con vote.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world." It is because I'm in agreement with historian Howard Zinn, that I must stand affirmative. Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. Individuals: 1a: a particular being or thing as distinguished from a class, species, or collection: as (1) : a single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution (2) : a single organism as distinguished from a group Moral: 1a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical Obligation: the action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow) Assist: : to give support or aid -Merriam Webster Contention 1: Treat others the way you want to be treated. Would you like to be on the street wondering where your next meal will come from, being starved from water and shelter. If you saw a small boy/girl drowning in a near by pond, would you not help them? Sure, you might get your clothes wet, but that is insignificant to the fact that you assisted the child in need. It's estimated that 750,000 people in the United states are homeless. Not all of them are addicted to drugs and deserve to be there. Many have had a hard life. So there should be an obligation to do so. Contention 2:Millions of people doing small things to help people out in need, can turn a simple action, into a major impact. Giving that man on the street a dollar to survive yet another day might not seem like much, but imagine everyone who is having a comfortable helps them out. In conclusion, there is no other vote but negative today.
It's Better to have Feet for Hands than have Hands for Feet

Conclusion If you have feet for hands you will be more approachable than if you have hands for feet, possibly more attractive. People will treat you like a person, praise you, support and love you. There is no task you can't do and technology can remove any difficulties. Also, provided you wash your feet-hands they will be just as clean as washed hands. I suspect my opponent will break one of the rules again, so I will make this conclusion on his behalf which he can choose to accept or accept via forfeiting: If you have hands for feet you can wear tiny shoes, although people will still laugh at you, make jokes and avoid you, you can play with monkeys, climb trees, and brag about being able to grab four things at once. People won't want to feel envious of you, and so may ask you to do things for them or disrespect you, however you can have lots of fun on your own doing things like handstands and telling people who don't have hands "let's see you do that? " Hope you have enjoyed the debate.
It's Better to have Feet for Hands than have Hands for Feet

I understand that your own opinion of yourself is more important than what other people think however the two are linked. It is very hard to feel good about yourself when you look creepy due to having hands for feet. People will call you names, laugh at you a lot, avoid you etc. Even if you enjoy having extra hands, and love to climb trees, people who do envy you will call you nasty names. This would make everything less enjoyable. You seem to think life will be harder if you have feet for hands, but there is nothing that someone with just feet can do especially when technology is available. The video below shows how easy it is to open a door using a foot Here's a video showing how to climb without hands (climbing ladders is much simpler) Obviously you can't do a handstand if you haven't got hands. A footstand would be easier though, and you can do it for longer since pressure won't be exerted on a small area. Licking my own feet will not cause me to giggle, I can't laugh even when I try to tickle my feet. The problem with putting shoes on is, they will look tiny! People will say you have little girl feet. The people who call you a monkey will also call you a freak, a lower animal etc, so you'll know they are not giving you a compliment. And if you saw a ball coming towards you why would you use one of your hand-feet when you can you use two hands? People will think you're a show off, and not want to praise you. Feet are only statistically more unsanitary because people use hands to eat, and do just about everything, so of course people wash them more often. You say you can do four things at once because you have four hands but can your brain? Multitasking doesn't really exist"it's a pernicious illusion. You'll want to do more things but feel disappointed that you can't, perhaps the only good thing you'd be able do is juggle. 'We think that we're doing all these things at once but the brain doesn't work that way. Every three or four seconds we switch to another thing, we are paying attention to one thing and then the next and then the next and then we come back around again to the first. All of that switching comes at a neurobiological cost. It depletes essential neuro-resources that you need for actually doing things and thinking things.' [1] You can't make yourself taller and more attractive either; try doing a handstand with your fingers, fingers can't take your whole body weight without breaking. I challenge my opponent to find something that someone can't do with their feet but which they can with their hands. So far nothing is impossible, and the only difference is; having hands for feet makes your life a living hell. sources: [1] http://www.abc.net.au...
It's Better to have Feet for Hands than have Hands for Feet

Well, my opponent believes attractiveness is everything. Apparently, because hands for feet isn't pretty then it isn't good. It's all about what you want to use your hands for. Even though hybrids are ugly they are good and efficient, aren't they(Well, the cars are. The drivers...well). It is more difficult to grip things with the feet. How would you: Open or lock a door? Climb a ladder? Do a handstand? Grab popcorn with movie girlfriend without licking in between your feet, causing you to giggle, in the middle of a sad scene of a drama flick? At least hands for feet get covered up 24-7 with shoes. Socks on your feet-hands? No way, hose! Also, being called a monkey is a compliment. I would now be able catch a baseball with my feet? Climb trees? Do a handstand right side up :D! Also, since feet are statistically more unsanitary then hands, I can grab four things at once, making the statement "I only have two hands" no longer an excuse. It may not be pretty, but it least it's a covered up, multi-tooled, cleaner, less hairy and sweaty(Unless you are doing the naughty). You could technically be taller with hands for feet because the bending of the hands would allow you to push up your body weight while standing. So really, even if hands arent't as cool, there's so much more you can do with hands, and so much less you can do with feet. Over to pro.
It's Better to have Feet for Hands than have Hands for Feet

It is way better to have feet where your hands are rather than hands where your feet are. Just take a look at the picture below and ask yourself which is creepier, her arms or her legs? https://pbs.twimg.com... Does this man look approachable? (see link below) http://farm5.static.flickr.com... Now look at these pictures below and tell me honestly what you think? http://img07.deviantart.net... http://orig12.deviantart.net... http://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com... Let's be realistic, if you have hands for feet, your feet will look tiny. People will definitely laugh at you, especially women as they'd think you have a tiny penis, you know what they think of men with tiny feet don't you? Revealing your hand feet would only make the situation worse e.g. you may become known as the Monkey Man. Meanwhile not many people would laugh at someone with feet for hands, they'd simply think it is a disability even though it isn't and actually be kinder towards me. I might even get disability allowance. - you can still drive - still play the guitar - still eat food I admit people might not want to shake my foot, however that is not important and unhygienic anyway. Sticking a foot hand out for a handshake and watching people's reaction when they grip a foot instead makes up for that and I'd get millions of youtube hits if that was filmed. Women would definitely remember me, and might see if my hand feet are ticklish too, whereas they wouldn't go anywhere near a man with four hands. There's no real disadvantages of having feet for hands, if it's cold I'll put an extra pair of socks on, if someone picks on me I could quite easily kick them in the face or say 'hey this bloke over here is making fun of my disability'. Over to Con
It's Better to have Feet for Hands than have Hands for Feet

This debate forms round 3 of the outlaw tournament created by Wylted. I Pro will argue that is better to replace your hands with feet than replace your feet with hands. My opponent (Con) will argue that it is better to replace your feet with hands than replace your hands with feet Round structure: R1: Acceptance R2 - R4: Arguments with or without rebuttals R5: Conclusion - no new sources Rules: 18+, min of 3 completed debates, ranked higher than me, no forfeits allowed. Please only accept if you think you have good arguments to make Good luck Con!
World Peace

It was a great discussion, and I look forward to more in the future. I'm just going to go over some issues that may be problematic for the debate. Thank you *applauds opponent for a well fought battle* < made an error, i meant the 2 countries made war within themselves to make peace. > Ok, so it was a misinterpretation on my part. Separation of church and state is pretty much a belief held by the US only, I believe. In any case, separation of church and state does not apply to India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan have a fundamental conflict between them. Just like the Shiites and the Sunnis, except in this case there are two countries armed with nukes. Yet it is the entire country that hates the other country. The government of India would love to nuke Pakistan, and vice versa. But this opinion is not one that the citizens are against. If you read carefully, you'll notice that I said for you to win, you had to answer with a solution for all of them. The facts were against you. WWI and WWII did not bring world peace. You offer no reasoning as to how a WWIII would bring world peace, when WWI and WWII did not. Ok, glad you knew what a fiat is, because I think I butchered the explanation. You could have presented world peace with a unique solution as to how to attain it, and defend it. Just make sure it is plausible, and make it plausible by backing it up with either cards or with very well thought out reasoning. It doesn't matter. Who would go to war to try to attain something that is very unlikely, and even if we were unified under one government, do you think it would last? Also, you didn't warrant how a war to attain peace (which by itself is more or less not going to happen) would actually attain peace. Who would be that one country? Do we need to go back to the Cold War? Two huge factions who were this close *puts fingers very close together* to shooting nukes at each other? How do you appease the masses when you had to conquer 95% of it, and 50% of what you conquered does not like you? No, thank you. You're new, and you still have a bunch to learn. When I started on the site, my first debate was even worse than this one. .. I wrote horrible speeches with a horrible resolution that I wrote, and I essentially had to concede by the second round. .. *shudders at the memory* But anyways, just be ready for anything next time (which is like saying to an army recruit, be ready for anything, since anything can happen. No help :D) I sincerely hope that we may meet again. Thank you *applauds opponent*
World Peace

Whom have not thought of a world, united under one Banner, where people seek only the future and technology, no need for violence, no need for any arms. But what is the cost of peace, War. How can we Achieve peace? Some will go against such peace and try to destroy it, should we annihialate all those whom stand against peace?, Should we just Smash through every single nation that doesnt wish to be united and to be in a Union? I believe that in this world, in these momments right now we need peace more than anything, we need unity to be able to survive, we have: A worlwide Economic crisis, more than 32 wars going on in the world, A war every single decade making millions suffer, Wars for religious causes or for economic gain, Hunger, Disease, and inhuman genocide in some nations. Now some say there shouldnt be unity, i say that a person who have not seen the horror of war, the horrors of this world, does not wish for unity, for they are selfish. Call me whatever you wish, which will likely be "Scoialist" or maybe "communist", but cant we just all be in peace in a world as chaotic as this?
The legal drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18

. http://www2.potsdam.edu... . http://www.underagedrinking.org... These are some of the websites I used. This is a quote from: . http://www.associatedcontent.com... "American adults age 18, 19 and 20 can do a number of things legally. For instance they can marry, adopt children, serve on juries, operate businesses, go to prison, be executed, obtain abortions, and engage in legal games of chance (gamble), hunt with deadly weapons, fly airplanes, drive automobiles and other vehicles, purchase or act in pornography, vote, and risk their lives by serving in the United States military. However, they can't legally enjoy a drink! The overview of Prohibition loomed when Americans decided that alcohol consumption was so sacred and powerful that citizens can vote before they can consume alcohol legally. The paradox is astounding but fails to impress American standards. " This sums up my argument perfectly. 18 year olds are treated as adults in all ways except in the field of alcohol consumption. Why is it that you can smoke a cigarette but not drink alcohol, which is not nearly as addictive and is much more socially acceptable? I would also like to know how stating that men and women in the military should be entitled to drink is agreeing with my opponent. When my opponent states that if we lower the drinking age to 18 then the 18 year olds will think they deserve additional rights I would not agree. Europe shows a smaller percent of drug addicts and gamblers than here in the United States. And I would also like to point out that 18 year olds can gamble and this law has nothing to do with that. My reference to European standards on alcohol consumptions is relevant because I'm pointing to a system we could model ours after. I would like to know how my opponent could possibly think looking up to a role model isn't relevant. Lastly I would like to know what my opponent meant when he said "Excuse me, but the topic of whether or not underage people are drinking is still relevant, because of the fact that you want to have the law, having 21 the legal age, transformed to the age of 18. And, in fact, people who are around 18 are officially underage. " I cannot understand this sentence because of all the grammatical errors.
The legal drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18

Excuse me, but the topic of whether or not underage people are drinking is still relevant, because of the fact that you want to have the law, having 21 the legal age, transformed to the age of 18. And, in fact, people who are around 18 are officially underage. And again, colleges are failing to enforce drinking regulations. Who is spending money on this law? My opponent has shown no citation/evidence for this, so it should be scratched off this argument. And my opponent shows weakness because he is agreeing with me. Why should the people in the military be entitled to drink when they are already doing it? There seems no point to lower the age limit to 18. There are many other issues out there such as our economy, so why should we go and make this new law if it is not going to affect much. Basically, this is a waste of time. I was afraid that you would say that "if the drinking age was lowered nothing would change", but I did not say that. I said ALMOST, not that there would be no change. Of course there is going to be some change, that is a given. Now my opponent says "If the drinking age was lowered to 18, young adults could drink with supervision without fear of discovery and punishment." Alright, then they would not have fear of drinking. But that will lead to them thinking that "Well, since I can drink because I am 18, that must also mean I can gamble, do drugs etc." Thus there will be more drinking and driving. And then, people who are under 18 will think the same thing, that well why cant we have the same rights, but does that mean we have to lower the age limit again because of that? Parental supervision does not have enough effect on almost everyone. In America, alcohol is addicting. But why is Europe involved? We are talking about laws in the US, so my opponent is trying to seem to have a lot to say, but it is really not relevant, in fact, no relevance at all. Thanks again voters. I count on you! And again, Thank you Zach12, for a great argument.
The legal drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18

I would like to start by pointing out to my opponent that this debate is not over the topic of whether or not underage people are drinking, which everyone knows they are. Instead this debate is over whether or not the United States should change the drinking age. As my opponent so tastefully points out, colleges are failing to enforce drinking regulations. I totally agree. But why should they have to spend money on a law that doesn't need to exist in the first place? My opponent also attempts to rebuff my contention about drinking in the military. I said they should be entitled to drink. I never said they didn't drink. My opponent then goes on to say that if the drinking age was lowered nothing would change. I completely disagree. If the drinking age was lowered to 18, young adults could drink with supervision without fear of discovery and punishment. For example, if an 18 year old is drinking in a restaurant with his parents or even just with friends or alone, there's social moderation. They can't get extremely drunk in front of a whole restaurant. It would be a lot better to learn from parental example than in a frat house. However if they're drinking in their dorm room, there's no moderating social factor. They can drink however much they want and they often do. In America, alcohol is an alluring vice, a way to rebel in your own small way. It's a sign of defiance. In Europe it's like drinking a soda, you have one every once in a while and its good, but your not going to binge drink because you know you can have more any time you like. You're allowed to drink earlier in Europe so you get used to experiences with alcohol earlier, so when you're 18, you're more responsible about it and can take care of yourself and your friends. Thanks for reading.
The legal drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18

I shall be taking the con side of this debate. You should realize that the younger the person is, the more immature. My opponent states that kids at a community college will drink regardless of regulation and the college can't do anything about it. Well my friend, they can but they don't try hard enough to enforce anything. And if you were to say that they are trying, well, obviously they are FAILING! If a government work was going to "inspect" the college, then you would think that better laws would be made and/or enforced, so that they would not receive any penalties. For my second contention, I would like to point out that the military can drink. My opponent states "If an eighteen year old can go off to risk his life protecting his/her country, why aren't they entitled to have a drink every once in a while?" Now here is the thing, they could drink. It is not like someone is going to shoot them if they have a drink underage. And, in fact, they are probably drinking right now. Just because there is that law, doesn't mean that they are going to follow it. So the law will not change. And finally, my opponent states that the increase to 21 as the drinking age forces underage drinkers to drink in secret. I can GAURENTEE you that they are drinking in secret right now! This law should stay at 21, because almost nothing will change. There will always be underage drinkers and lowering the age will not have as much effect as my opponent thinks it will. Thank you very much voters. I count on you to make me win! And Thank you Zach12, for a great arguement!