BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legality of Abortion.

Your first defense assumes that abortion is murder. Definition of murder "Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse"[1] Definition of person "A person is a being, such as a human, that has certain capacities or attributes constituting personhood, which in turn is defined differently by different authors in different disciplines, and by different cultures in different times and places."[2] The term "person" is difficult to define, therefore "murder" is difficult to define. For this reason, the morality of abortion becomes an open ended debate, therefore an opinion. Definition of opinion "Opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts."[3] In your second defense you stated "The organism is a member of the homo-sapiens species because it carries the human DNA". How so? You offered no credible reference to support this statement so I can't comprehend this as anything but your own personal opinion. But if this is fact, wouldn't that mean unfertilized eggs and sperm cells have human DNA? Would this, in turn, mean every drop of semen not put to use and every ovulation period not taken advantage of is murder? These questions show that what defines a human is still an open ended debate, therefore an opinion. "If we accept 1 and 2 then 3 is correct." This statement is very true, however as I've proven that 1 and 2 are matters of opinion, nobody has to accept 3 if they don't want to. Pro-choice people legitimately believe fertilized eggs are not examples of life and this opinion gives them the moral right to abort embryos. I realize, as everyone should, that every person is entitled to their own opinion, therefore I reluctantly and unenthusiastically support said opinion. I believe everyone, even those who are pro-life, should accept that the opinion of abortion being immoral is just that: an opinion. And I believe no one should force their own opinions into any sort of rule or law. That is why I can be against abortion morally, but support it politically. "It should be criminalized to lower the number of abortions happening...There would be less incentive for women to commit abortion if it was more dangerous and harder." It would seem that it would be that simple, but illegalized abortion has no effect on the rate of abortions.[4] Laws do not stop crime otherwise there would be no crime. Often times making something illegal doesn't produce the result you would expect. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...
The United States should develop missile defense systems.

Hmm... a forfeit. I didn't see that one coming. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Well, as we all know, Con cannot introduce any new arguments in R3 (since I will not be able to respond). Therefore, all she can do is attempt to refute the points that have already been discussed. As it stands, I am confident that Con will be unable to disprove any of my valid arguments in support of missile defense systems. Here's why: * I have established our (the U.S.) society's insurmountable value of life. For that reason alone, in order to win, Con would have had to prove that NOT establishing a missile defense system would actually save more lives than a defense system would save, should an attack ever be launched. The only possible way to argue this point would have been to prove that other countries would be more likely to attack America IF the missile defense system was in place. Now because Con has not done so, this very important point of saving lives must go to Pro. Thus far, I have pointed out why a defense system in place would make other countries LESS likely of attacking the U.S. (it would be pointless, as we could easily intercept the missiles; and it would only increase tensions and likely begin a nuclear war which a country like Iran would most likely lose). * The U.S. has reason to believe that a country would in fact exercise its military prowess on us. In addition to oweing various countries trillions of dollars, we are also an unpopular face in the world of global politics, and have alienated our allies on numerous occasions. Many nations see us as a threat, and we're in the process of pissing off Russia -- a country which has just recently taken military action against another territory. Nobody can say for sure that we're not next... especially since we keep violating or brushing off non-proliferation treaties. * Con has not argued the government's right and responsibility to protect its citizens. She spoke against brainwashing and fear-mongering -- a practice I also vehemently oppose. Instead, I am for creating a pro-active system of defense instead of relying on other nations to keep the United States' best interest at heart. While I acknowledge there are some economic hinderances to this, I also recognize the far-superior benefits, including nation-wide protection; a chance for innovation to flourish in regard to technology; a political symbol of U.S. prestige (i.e. We're not gonna take your sh1t); an opportunity to create new jobs; and the encouragement of cooperation with other nations (i.e. our military alliance with Poland). Because Con has not yet sufficiently argued any of these points, it is fair to assume that by not introducing any new arguments in R3, that I will have won this debate based on the facts that I have presented thus far. Thank you.
IQ Tests Cannot Assess a Person's Intelligence

ben-gurion has argued successfully this: "I am not arguing about what the IQ tests claim that they can measure, but rather about their credibility regarding those measurements. To this I will bring my contentions. " But that is not the resolution/what we are debating about. This is: "I will argue that IQ tests cannot assess a person's intelligence, in high/low measurements. Having taken one myself, I can attest to my statement. "
IQ Tests Cannot Assess a Person's Intelligence

"When you debate online, you have to mention specifically what you are debating. You did so, but then changed what you wanted to debate in the middle. " When I brought my claim/credibility comment, I was not changing my resolution- I was explaining my resolution. The entirety of my argument is based on my original resolution- I have proved that IQ tests cannot measure intelligence, which for the last time does not talk about their claims but about their measurements themselves-if their measurements are proved to not be correct, they cannot measure intelligence. If someone claims to be able to do X, and yet what he did is not X, then he cannot do X. If the IQ tests claim to be able to determine intelligence, and yet what they do does not determine intelligence, then they cannot determine intelligence, and as I have proved that what they do does not determine intelligence, then they cannot determine intelligence. None of this comes from my credibility comment, which was for clarification only. "You simply don't understand. "- Trust me I understand. This may be my first debate on debate. org, but it is in no way my first debate. "I have proved what you said originally as false, therefore the resolution is negated. " All that my opponent has proved is what the IQ tests are supposed to do, which is not the same as if they can or cannot do it, as I have proved in round three. Seeing as my opponent has not rebutted my contentions, and seeing as I have rebutted his claim that I have changed my resolution and that my resolution is false, the resolution stands.
IQ Tests Cannot Assess a Person's Intelligence

I am not arguing about what the IQ tests claim that they can measure, but rather about their credibility regarding those measurements. To this I will bring my contentions.' -That is not what you said. -You said: 'I will argue that IQ tests cannot assess a person's intelligence, in high/low measurements. Having taken one myself, I can attest to my statement.' in the very first round." Once again: Assess-"to determine the importance, size, or value of:" My argument is that the IQ tests cannot determine the importance, size, or value of a person's intelligence, as I have stated. So it goes without saying that whatever they glean from the IQ test is not credible as said determination. If the IQ tests claim that they can assess a person's intelligence, that says nothing about whether they can or cannot, which is the source of this debate. "You can not change the resolution/debate half-way through." I have just proved that both forms of my argument, while worded differently, come to stress the same point-the measurements are not credible as measurements of intelligence/ the measurements are not an assessment of a person's intelligence, whether they claim to be or not. Thus I have not changed my resolution. "Since my opponent can not counter my point: 'By the basic definition of IQ tests, they do in fact assess a person's intelligence, because IQ = intelligence quotient.' " If, say, I am teaching a history class, and at the end of the semester when I test them on the learned material I decide to call the test "An Evaluation of Your Memory Skills". By the basic definition of my test, my test is supposed to assess memory skills, and yet who's to say that it does in fact assess memory skills and not "paying attention in class" skills or whatnot. So too, IQ tests are supposed to assess a person's intelligence, which I have never argued against, but they cannot. "And they do so in high/low measurements because tests measure knowledge on a scale, and scales are high and low." My very argument disproves the whole high/low measurements argument. A scale is comparison, with an average center. The scale's entire existence is based on relativity, and since I have proved that an accurate evaluation of relative intelligence cannot be determined, the "knowledge" measured on the scale is not credible. " The Resolution is negated." Seeing as my opponent has not yet rebutted any of my contentions, my resolution stands.
IQ Tests Cannot Assess a Person's Intelligence

"I am not arguing about what the IQ tests claim that they can measure, but rather about their credibility regarding those measurements. To this I will bring my contentions." -That is not what you said. -You said: "I will argue that IQ tests cannot assess a person's intelligence, in high/low measurements. Having taken one myself, I can attest to my statement." in the very first round. -You can not change the resolution/debate half-way through. Since my opponent can not counter my point: "By the basic definition of IQ tests, they do in fact assess a person's intelligence, because IQ = intelligence quotient. And they do so in high/low measurements because tests measure knowledge on a scale, and scales are high and low." The Resolution is negated.
IQ Tests Cannot Assess a Person's Intelligence

"By the basic definition of IQ tests, they do in fact assess a person's intelligence, because IQ = intelligence quotient. And they do so in high/low measurements because tests measure knowledge on a scale, and scales are high and low. " I am not arguing about what the IQ tests claim that they can measure, but rather about their credibility regarding those measurements. To this I will bring my contentions. Contention 1: Someone who is credited as a genius can be a genius in a certain aspect, and yet be quite mediocre in other areas. . http://en.wikipedia.org... If that said genius were to take a typical IQ test, he would score highly in his strong area, yet fail in his weak area, thus bringing his score down and making him look average. Possible Situation: A prestigious engineering university who will look for logical students, will reject the 115 IQ student who is in fact a logical genius and yet has a very poor memory. Contention 2: The IQ test is, after all, a test that one has to sit down and do, and as I'm sure we all know, the performance during a test can be highly swayed by emotional and physical aspects. Examples: If a person's leg is giving him shooting pains, or that person has not slept well for a week or so, or if there is tremendous pressure on that person to do well on the test, he will be less likely to do as well as he would normally do. Human nature dictates that there is usually something bothering us. Contention 3: Much of the IQ test's testing tools, such as memory games, solving mathematical problems, etc. are areas that with practice one can improve. Thus I cannot see how performance in these areas can possibly prove anything other than how good that person is at that specific game, type of problem, etc. Someone can take an IQ test, score X, practice, go back and score higher than X. To conclude, little value can be attributed to the IQ test. While I concede that a hopelessly simple-minded person will score low, and an all-around genius will score high, an accurate evaluation of relative intelligence cannot possibly be determined. Resolution affirmed.
IQ Tests Cannot Assess a Person's Intelligence

"I will argue that IQ tests cannot assess a person's intelligence, in high/low measurements. Having taken one myself, I can attest to my statement." IQ = intelligence quotient tests = evaluate knowledge By the basic definition of IQ tests, they do in fact assess a person's intelligence, because IQ = intelligence quotient. And they do so in high/low measurements because tests measure knowledge on a scale, and scales are high and low. Resolution negated.
IQ Tests Cannot Assess a Person's Intelligence

I will argue that IQ tests cannot assess a person's intelligence, in high/low measurements. Having taken one myself, I can attest to my statement. Assess-"to determine the importance, size, or value of:" Webster's Ninth New Dictionary pg. 109. Intelligence-"the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations:","the skilled use of reason:","mental acuteness:" Webster's Ninth New Dictionary pg. 629. Seeing as I have not presented any arguments to rebut, the first argument should be more of an opening statement. Good luck to whoever accepts!
North America Should Ban Assault Rifles

Good afternoon! Technically you already won this argument. Assault rifles, or fully automatic rifles, have been banned since the 1930s. What I believe you meant is banning dangerous looking weapons, and semi-automatic weapons, like the commonly shown AR-15. "AR" stands for "ArmaLite Rifle." I understand the fear regarding scary looking weapons. News coverage of school shootings have dominated for years now, with the focus on "gun control" and the famed "assault weapons ban," enacted in 1994. It sunset September, 2004. However, rifles have only been used in 35 mass shootings between 1982 and 2017. There have been 775 fatalities from mass shooting incidents between 1982 and 2017. Rifles were used in 25% of mass shooting incidents between 1982 and 2017. Handguns, semi-automatic handguns in particular, are the weapon of choice by a long shot. Study after study also found the original "Assault Weapon Ban" to have minimal impact overall. Thanks, Tony
Debate #1 - The supposition"God exists" is a valid proposition for consideration in logical analysis

Logical analysis is done to reach a conclusion on something. The uncertain belief that god exists cannot be a valid assertion to consider in a logical analysis mainly because it's pointless to consider it. Penguins might as well wonder about nuclear physics. Its pointless to wonder whether a being thats all powerful exists since it will never be proven or disproven first humans should figure out how our world works and how the universe works many advancements have been made mainly the theory of relativity by Einstein and quantum mechanics by several Dutch scientists. My opponent must prove that this consideration is relevant. If one believes in god then theirs no reason to consider anything. Those that don't believe but question gods existence either want to be proven wrong and want to believe or want to be proven right of course neither will happen. So what are the facts? Since we don't have many (none) we have to make assumptions there are only two possible assumptions 1 god exists 2 god doesn't exist. We are left to choose quite interestingly though there are many religions with that worship a god and have different rules and live by them one of my personal favorites is Hasidism Hasidic Jews live by gods 613 rules it takes a life time to learn them all. Many of them don't make sense but they follow them anyway because the ones that do make sense are reasonable. When following this code hasdic Jews don't question in a logical analysis the existence of god they might question why god made them or how they came to be but never if god exists they believe and trust god implicitly. My position is it's pointless to wonder about god therefore it's an invalid consideration since we know nothing about what constitutes god only that he exists or doesn't we can make assumptions about his character but that might constitute a false premise, therefore their shouldn't be any logical analysis on "god exists"
Debate #1 - The supposition"God exists" is a valid proposition for consideration in logical analysis

[D1] Reason, verb: to think, understand, to form judgement by a process of logic. [D2] Logic, noun: Logic is the study of the nature of the valid argument, a reasoning tool with which we can make valid inferences from a given set of facts or premises. Logic is a tool that allows us to analyze the validity of an argument without regard for the truth value of the proposition or conclusion of that argument. [D3] Proposition, noun: A proposition is a declarative statement to which we can assign a value of true or false, but never both. It's heads, it's tails, it's spinning(heads OR tails), but NEVER both heads AND tails. [D4] A logical connective joins propositions together to form complex statements. Logical connectives are the words AND,OR, and NOT. [D5] A logical variable is a symbol used to represent a proposition. We use the capitol letters A,B,P,Q,and R to represent propositions. [Logical Analysis] [P]The statement "God Exists" can be assigned a truth value of either true or false. [Q] According to [D3] we have the proposition P is a valid proposition. [R] The supposition "God Exists" is therefore a valid proposition. My opponent should argue that the statement "God Exists" is not a valid proposition and therefore not reasonable to consider in logical analysis. My apologies, the original debate I planned was too complex and will be divided into multiple debates with each successive argument dependent upon the previous. I doubt anyone will debate this argument, but you never know. Better to get it out of the way so we can ensure valid reasoning through to the real debate. Sooo, any takers on Debate #1? Remember, if you chose to argue in a successive debate, you will be asked to suppose previous arguments conclusions as true when they are used as propositions or premises in successive arguments.
resolved: A tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, it does not make a sound.

You based your "facts" on a show with "magic" in the title. Sorry, but I don't see how "magical" and "proves" can go together scientifically. However, you yourself said that this hypothetical "sound" exsists when "the vibrations in the air vibrate the ear drum", which means that "sound" is actually the reaction of a vibrating eardrum, not vibrations themselves. Therefore, according to your own definition, if no one is around to hear a tree falling in the forest, it DOES NOT make a sound.
resolved: A tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, it does not make a sound.

The mind does control many things. However, the fact that sound is that of vibrations is a proven fact. Take for instance the "Magic School Bus", a show based on FACTS to help younder kids understand science. In the episode the teacher takes the student on a magical trip to learn about sounds, and in this episode it proves that vibrations cause sound. The vibrations in the air vibrate the ear drum and enable us to hear sound. A tree falling in the forest would cause vibrations and if there were someone near, the vibrations would vibrate the ear drum and enable the person in the forest to hear the tree fall. Whether there is someone in the forest or not, the tree causes vibrations when falling, there for it does make sound.
resolved: A tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, it does not make a sound.

Its not theory actually... It is fact. Look at it this way- its like history. Sure, history is written down in books, but in actuality exists in the mind of people, for, if it was solely in books, it could be altered to say whatever a government wanted it to say, such as in the novel, 1984. By living in the minds of people, it is made "real". That said, the mind can be controlled and changed to believe what it needs, meaning everything "real" can be controlled. The whole concept of sound itself could be an illusion presented through warped minds. Since there is no one in this forest to hear this so called "real sound", no mind to capture it in its pure state, it does not exist.
Gerrymandering should remain legal in the United States

In the case for the 2010 republican blow out, this was a reactionary measurement republicans took as a result of Obama"s victory and his terrible health care agenda. The republicans planned these state representative victories and redistricting for years unlike the democrats who were focused on the presidency. The democrats could have had the same effect, but they were focused on the wrong thing. We aren"t a democracy, but rather a democratic republic, ergo much more of the power is put on the elected government officials who can use that power to realign districts. The politician would use a strategy called hijacking where the districts are redrawn so as to make officials from the same political party run against each other, which would result in one of them being eliminated. 1. Partisan gerrymandering was found constitutional under the basis that minorities were aloud to vote for who they wanted to despite the redrawing of the political borders; they don"t have less of an opportunity. 2. The disproportionality of the borders is not a built-in-bias that particularly gives minorities less of a chance, instead, it is a result of a particular political party not winning the elections thus not giving them a good enough chance at winning. -The part of the constitution that is in question is the equal protection clause. 3. The redistricting is a strategy to give power to a certain political party, which is constitutionally permissible and here"s why. The polls don"t display the effects of the supposed discrimination claimed to be brought on by political gerrymandering. In the case that democrats have an unfair advantage in republican states as a result of gerrymandering and vise versa, it is clear that neither democrats nor republicans have a disadvantage because their votes do in fact count and it shows in the polls. The seeming favor of one side could just be a result of an official attracting voters from both sides. I do agree that the dilution of the votes is unconstitutional, but the equal protection clause is still upheld because there is no unfair representation and nobody has been shut out of the political process. In the case for Wisconsin, gerrymandering was undoubtedly evident, but they realized that it was the one corrupt incumbent so they replaced him/her with a group of elected officials. This is true for other states, but the fact of the matter is that political gerrymandering is not unconstitutional. Be this as it may, states such as Wisconsin have found ways to circumvent such a controversial tactic. In the case for the 2010 republican blow out, this was a reactionary measurement republicans took as a result of Obama"s victory and his terrible health care agenda. The republicans planned these state representative victories and redistricting for years unlike the democrats who were focused on the presidency.