BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions should be banned in the US.

Resolved: Resolved: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions should be banned in the US. Definitions: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions: abortions because of an unwanted pregnancy, not because of the endangered life of a mother. Banned: made illegal Value: The right to life must be held first and foremost. Throughout history a country is usually deemed as "evil" or "unjust" by the deaths of which they cause. E.g. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. The right to life is the basic fundamental inherent right of each individual. When the right to life is not seen as foremost, then the action can be claimed unjust and therefore be made illegal. Contentions: I. Abortion violates the right to life. Abortion is the willing termination of an unborn child. This violates the right to life on both sides of the idea of life. First, according to the majority of the scientific community, life begins at implantation. Implantation is the attachment of the egg to the uterine lining. I.e. 10-12 days after conception. So, the only way that abortion would be permissible is if its in those 10-12 days. However, that is impossible. A pregnancy test only works after implantation. Therefore, once its implanted, abortion is murder, i.e. the premeditated killing of an innocent. Murder is illegal, therefore abortion should be illegal. Second idea: the judges don't concede the idea of implantation birth, then I would argue that it still violates the right to life because the 3rd section of the right to life, is the right to be born. Abortion takes this right away, therefore violating the right to life. II. Abortion is genocide. Genocide is defined as the intentional and systematic extermination of a specific group. The unborn is the group, the extermination is the genocide. Genocide is against international law, meaning it should be banned in all countries. Should we be like Hitler? He wanted all Jews exterminated because they were considered "unwanted". Let's not become that of which we wanted stopped. Abortion is genocide, it must be banned.
Resolved: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions should be banned in the US.

Ok, so moondragon and I both agree that it comes down to this: is the fetus evil? He says it is and I say it isn't. Responses/Rebuttal: He first brings up that the baby isn't baptized so he/she has original sin. I have 2 responses to that. 1) My opponent is using religion in this round, and this isn't strictly a Catholic/Christian site. However more importantly 2) Even if the baby isn't cured of original sin then you can extend his logic to include all non-baptized people. Then essentially it could be justified to kill any non-baptized person on the street. Say I hate my next door neighbor, and he is idk.....Buddhist.According to moon I have the right to kill him because he is not baptized, and he is guilty of original sin. According to his logic, this is both justified and morally permissible. He then brings up the slave analogy. I.e. the baby is the slave master while the mother is the salve. Ok, I have 2 responses to that. 1)The slave analogy only works in the case of rape. If the mother wasn't raped, then she has openly put herself into a "slave" situation. And when that happens, the right to life must supersede that of w/e right the mother wishes to defend, e.g. right to privacy. 2)Moondragon is missing one important key issue...Love. A mother loves her child and wants him/her to survive. This can been seen in the animal kingdoms and human behavior. The Slave analogy can only work if there is an absence of love. A slave probably doesn't love the one who whips him. But a baby is a creation of the mother and the mother's love. There is a big difference. And I'm sure the debate community sees this. Crystallizations of my points: First extend my 2 points, since he failed to attack them. Also, he concedes the idea of abortion is murder. Essentially the debate community can affirm right there. He also didn't attack my genocide point. Everyone knows genocide is wrong, so you can also affirm right there. Voting Issues: 1)I have fulfilled moondragon's burden. I.e. I proved the fetus is not inherently evil. 2)My 2 primary contentions stand. A) Abortion is murder --> Murder is illegal --> Abortion should be illegal. B) Abortion violates international law --> Therefore should be illegal. 3)I have successfully refuted his above point's and attacks. 4) His overall logic is messed up, and would lead to a slippery slope of bad consequences. 5) I have won both the deontological and consequentialist sides of this debate. -"I believe this is a clear affirmative/pro ballet." *I ask the debate community that voting for this round be based off of the actual debate rather then personal issue preference.* Thank You. -Kcirrone Moon, it says on your profile that your anti-abortion...is that true and your just playing devil's advocate?
Resolved: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions should be banned in the US.

"An unborn child is innocent, and therefore doesn't deserve death." Before my formal arguments I want to first deliver a strenuous objection to this supposed innocence of an unborn child. An unborn child is unbaptized, and therefore guilty of original sin and therefore NOT INNOCENT. Now you (the reader), I, and kcirrone all agree that there are instances where the administering of death is legitimate. "Osama has committed evils himself and therefore deserves the death penalty." So all that matters now is whether or not an unborn fetus commits evil itself. Because according to my opponent, if an unborn fetus commits evil, then it ALSO deserves the death penalty. ------------------------------------------------------------------- "He whupped a nigger gal 'bout thirteen years old so hard she nearly die, an' allus atterwa'ds she hab spells of fits or somp'n. Dat make Marse John pow'ful mad, so he run dat oberseer off de place an' Mose didn' do no mo' whuppin'." - Walter Calloway, a Slave Narrative Is the white slave master who whupped the nigger gal evil? I think so. In fact, I think in the history of America, the institution of forced labor has been a heinous blot on our reputation as a humane and open minded civilization. And kcirrone wants to now re-establish this institution we fought a war to extinguish. (please overlook the historical inaccuracy of previous statement) On the one hand, we have a race of women who just want to get on with their lives. On the other hand we have a race of unborn fetuses who want to enslave these women, subjugating them to 42 weeks of slave labor, working for and feeding their small overseers. And then as a reward, these overseers demand that these women undergo excruciating agony in the form of a giant life threatening rip to make way for their oversized heads. Why do i consider the unborn fetus to be evil? Because IF YOU BAN ABORTIONS then the race of unborn fetuses will become quintessentially slave masters and the race of pregnant women their slaves. ------------------------------------------------------ I know it's a little difficult to accept that a fetus is evil. After all it's cute, it makes funny sounds .... but so what? Just evil should be judged not by appearance but by character and actions. "He/She is self interested in the extreme and will pursue their self interest even at the extreme pain and suffering of others." -- First Argument To me, this is evil. To me, slavery is evil. And to me, an overseer who sucks the life out of his/her slave is evil. The sucking of life, the enslavement of the female is an EVIL action. And that's why a fetus is evil. ------------------------------------------------------------- P.S. My argument was created to apply to all fetuses and all mothers .... but it's ESPECIALLY strong when it comes to a woman who became pregnant from rape. Does the right of the evil slave master supersede the right of the mother to live?
Resolved: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions should be banned in the US.

Thx for debating moon. Overview Extension: My opponent has agreed that the baby is indeed a living being, so whoever is judging can extend that through the whole round. Extension: (My)Contention 1 Extension: (My) Contention 2 Burden: The way in which we can see who wins this round will come down to this; is the fetus an evil, and does the mother have a right to suppress evil? My Responses Mu opponent believes that abortion will rid the world of evil. I have 3 responses: 1) The fetus inherently is not an evil being when its in the womb, society makes a person the way they are. 2) My response to his Bin Laden analogy is that Osama has committed evils himself and therefore deserves the death penalty. An unborn child is innocent, and therefore doesn't deserve death. 3) Your logic is inherently "evil" in the fact its only looking at the consequential, and if we go by that logic, according to you, we should have the right to shoot anyone on the street that we may feel is evil. My opponent then says that the baby is an evil organism, like a parasite, feeding off the mother. I have 2 responses to that. 1) There is a special bond between a mother and child, equating an unborn child to a parasite dehumanizes it, and my opponent has already agreed its a living being. (Contradiction). 2)The mother knows very well that engaging in sex could result in a child. The mother must accept the fact that all pleasure would lead to some pain. And in this case, a baby's life is at stake. In the case of rape, I would argue that the right to life supersedes that of the mother's right to killing a child. Voting Issues: 1) My two points are extended. 2) My opponent has failed to adequately link his argument to the value I set for the round. 3) Overall, if you look at my opponents given burden, I better defend the notion that aborting is more of an evil then a "parasite" baby. 4) Since he failed to attack my 2 contention, I should win this round because: a) murder is illegal, and he concedes its murder. b)Genocide violates international law, and he concedes this as well. PS: LoL, you were once that "parasite" =) Keep that in mind. Thanks for debatin.
Black people are cool.

My opponent has forfeited his last chance to win this debate. His entire argument is based on listing all of these characteristics as to why "black people" are cool. I am absolutely positive that this claim has no foundation because human biology and standard homestatic temperature does not fluctuate massively based simply on race. My opponent has provided no evidence and the only argument he has about his thesis is this: "Black people are COOL, ergo they are hip, culturally relevent, socially attractive, magnetic to other people."" This statement, joined with an "ergo" means [Black people are COOL, THEREFORE They are hip, culturally "relevent", socially attractive, magnetic to other people.] Ergo means THEREFORE. This means that my opponent is begging the question. The issue being debated is whether or not "black" people are cool. He cannot use this to prove other points. In essence, my opponent has absolutely no argument and has not responded to my point about scientific consensus that body temperature would not generally be much lower in "black" people than in any other race. In that case, this debate has been objectively decided in my favor.
Black people are cool.

ROFLMAO I must say I found the reply amusing. Well done sir. But for the sake of the debate, I will clarify what you already actually knew: Black people are COOL, ergo they are hip, culturally relevent, socially attractive, magnetic to other people. Some black people may not be good at baskeyball, but most ARE indeed. I defy you, sir, to prove that more than half of black people are NOT superb at athletic ability. I ask you sir! "Chill" of course means relaxed, down to earth, grounded, anti-hyper and neurotic. Again I would challenge you to prove that more than half f black people are nOT chill, via the definitio nI so brilliantly spelled out for you. Prideful of their heritage. I would argue that your example of the homeless african american man who thinks he is an alien actually IS prideful of his heritage. He believes he comes from outer space, and who is to say definitively that he hasn't? Who is to tell him that he cannot cherish his own heritage, as his reasoned intellect defines it? Aspirational: aspirational does not mean sweating, webster. Look it up and get back to me once you've reframed your response. Da schizz is somethin cracka azzes wouldn't know the meaning of. Again, look it up. Must I do everything to forward your intellectualism? Lawd. And they do indeed beat down crackas, and not the saltined kind. More like the salty, farm dwelling, lynch happy human hillbilly kind. As you know. I am also glad this isn't whitey bulger I am speaking to, but I assume that your skin color is indeed pale and pasty. In conclusing, I once again state, proudly and with clarion call, that black people are everything above. So sayeth the majority. Harumph! Harumph!
Black people are cool.

"Black people are cool yo." Scientific evidence shows that regardless of race, humans tend to have a body temperature that wavers around 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit or 37 degrees Celsius. Hence, black people are not much more cool than any other people, unless they happen to be dead, at which point their body temperature becomes room temperature. This argument also applies towards your assertion that they are "chill". "They are funny" Some are, and some aren't. I belie Colin Powell is African American and he does not appear to be a man of good humor. "intelligent" Some are, some aren't. Many people in this country are categorized as below average intelligence. This subset of people of course includes members of all races. "good at sports" Some are, some aren't. There are quite a few African American people who are very poor at sports. I understand that there is a wheel-chair bound African American man who owns a fruit stand by my subway station who is not very apt at running. "prideful of their heritage" Some are, some aren't. There are those who have little to no cultural identity. Another African American man near my subway station who dressed quite messily insists that he was descended from an alien species. I find this an indicator that he is not in tune with his cultural heritage and chooses instead to embrace anoter culture. "aspirational" I cannot quite argue with you on this point, but I do not believe African Americans to be more aspirational than other human beings. I aspirate at a rate of once per three seconds on average, but more so if I am exercising. "da schizz." I have trouble understanding this, so I will await your clarification. "I LOVE black people." Your personal sentiments have little to nothing to do with whether black people have a normal homeostatic temperature below normal. "And I love it when they beat down crackas. They deserve it." I have not witnessed a black person beating down crackers, but I do believe they do it in order to prepare some sort of flour or batter for cooking, as crushed crackers are not particularly good unless used in soup or as part of another dish. Whether or not they deserve it is another story. "Who dares to disagree? What say you, whitey?" I believe I am the one to disagree, and if you are issuing this challenge to "whitey", you have done so incorrectly. This debate was issued to "first come" and if you want to issue a personal challenge to "whitey", you could have selected that option on starting the debate. That being said, I will not emphasize that the points you have given in this debate do not satisfy your assertion that the normal body temperatures of African American people are lower than normal. Since my opponent is the one making the claim, the burden of proof falls on him. However, I have offered by evidence that scientifically, the body temperatures of all human beings, regardless of race, hover around the aforementioned numbers. I await my opponent's response.
The United States should adopt a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Rather than going line by line, my opponent and I have agreed that the last round should be a summary and voting issues. Thus, I will summarize why I believe that PRO wins this round... 1. A timetable would help progression. -My most important argument in this round continues to be that if a timetable was set, then progression in Iraq would be increased. If we were to tell Iraqi leaders that we were going to leave them in "X" time, then they would realize that they need to be ready by then. This is why we SHOULD adopt a timetable. We're going to have to get out of Iraq sometime (I don't think my opponent can deny that), so adopting a timetable is the best way to do it. 2. The timetable would be appropriate. As I've previously stated, I do not have to show what the timetable is. But we must assume that our government would be appropriate with it. Thus, the following would PROBABLY be included. 1) An appropriate time. I really don't think that the timetable would be a week or two... Rather, I would guess that it would be maybe a year or two (just a guess). The government would weigh all concerns and would then set an appropriate timetable. It's much better than not adopting a timetable and just immediately pulling out. 2) An appropriate amount. If the government was smart, the timetable could include HOW MANY people pull out. Thus the timetable could support the idea of a gradual withdrawal... which, once again, is better than any other way of pulling out of Iraq. 3) Appropriate Emergencies. If there was an emergency and the safety of the U.S. was at risk, I'm sure that the government would allow a emergency extension could be included within the timetable. --->Because of all of these, the timetable has few (if any) costs of pulling out of Iraq. My opponent and I both agree that we have to get out of Iraq and this is the best way to do it. Thus we SHOULD do it. To conclude, I disagree with President Bush, setting a date for withdrawal is not setting a date for failure, but rather a goal. And with a goal, progression can be made which sounds to me that we are trying to succeed rather than fail. Thus, I urge you to see that the best way to pull out of Iraq is to adopt a timetable, therefore it SHOULD happen. Please vote PRO. Thank You for this great debate Megan... Again, I could use all 8,000 characters but this is what the round truly comes down to. Good luck in your final round and in the voting period!
Women shouldn't be allowed children until their 25

You have backed up my point at least by accepting the fact that these children can still suffer mental issues. These young women may also not of brought this amongst themselves, e.g. they may of took the precautions, but unfortunately these people may of failed in these. This then brings us onto whether these children suffer abortion, again causing us more ethical issues. Are you suggesting they should get abortions purely to prevent mental issues? You have also chosen very few of my point (selectivity) on my last point by only arguing the biological effects, ignoring other points I have made which I assume you agree with.
Women shouldn't be allowed children until their 25

Unfortunately one of your points has actually supported me. The final point about women getting an education and creating a family unit is the same as my point. Aswell, shows such as Jeremy Kyle are very biased in their approach in a way to suggest that women shouldn't. Shows such as this do show this idea, however they are low in their ability to percieve and their neutrality of the sitation. They are more likely to show women under the age of 25 in a negative spotlight, causing these views to become much more steretyped amongst ALL young girls, when some young girls with children are in fact able to provide, and in some cases become successful. This evidence therefore has low vailidity due to the biasness. Equally, these shows are once again causing young girls into biological disorders, as these shows people with emotional issues, causing once again young girls to be much more fearful of their appearance and biological cycle. These perceptions once again cause young girls to become ill in a very much malnourished state.
Women shouldn't be allowed children until their 25

Erm, well I do actually agree with some of the points that you have previously stated but if you have ever watched The Jeremy Kyle show, you would understand where such negative stereotypes come from. Stereotypically, the show is full of young females not knowing the father of their baby and using their baby as a weapon against the fathers. Therefore, you can clearly see where these negative connotations are coming from. However, for example, if a 15 year old girl falls pregnant with 'the one', within three months they split up and when the baby is born, both parents are with different partners and cause tensions both in public situations and on social networking sites. She then receives no money from the ex and is therefore put onto state benefits and saps money from the hardworking members of society who work to support their families but instead have to support her. Therefore, people are supporting her whilst she has to balance her education and being a mother to her young child. I'm not saying that women can't climb the ladder of success at various companies but I think it would make society better if women got top grades in education and were successful top-end businesswomen and being self-sufficient before creating a family unit.
Women shouldn't be allowed children until their 25

Some women under the age of 25 are happy and stable in their lives enough to care for their children. Sue Sharpe's idea of changeing priorities of women does not mean that women must be housewives, and single mums are no longer forced to depend on a man, but can in fact be professional business women. Women also in modern society at ANY age can escape this glass ceiling theodicy, the idea that women are restricted from top jobs. Women under 25 can have stable jobs and look after children. Women under 18 for example are to young, and in fact many young children develop anorexia nervosa to cause amonhroea, the prevention of menstraution. Therefore people suggesting that they should not have children is causing more pressure on these young girls, causing more children once again to suffer anorexia, purposefully to fit in with these bigoted ideas suggested. These women should be allowed as in Modern Britain women under 25 can be financially stable, and also these ideas are causing a lot of biological issues amongst the youth.
Is it reasonable to believe that aliens do not exist

If you think about all the planets that are in the "Goldilocks zone" ( the zone around a star that makes it possible to hold liquid water, there are probably millions of them) around some of the stars in some galaxies, there is a possibility that there are other intelligent life forms somewhere in the cosmos. Who's to say they're dumber than us: have you eard of all the UFO sightings around the world? This man in this website, claims there are over 80 different species of aliens he has seen. He gives a interesting statement about it.http://www.ibtimes.com.... With all of these sightings, and of the possibility of so many plants lying in the Goldilocks zone, there's really no telling how many are out there, or if they even exist. Like I said before, they are a reasonable judgement. Besides, if they did exist, why would they want ti make themselves known to other life forms that they believe are "less intelligent" If were an alien, and people were looking for me, i wouldn't pull an ET and walk in the open stating "Phone Home!". I await my opponents response and rebuttals.