BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortion

"She may even be spiteful that she is being forced into carrying an unwanted child for 9 months. It would cause the mother and child undue stress." Anyone who has sex knows the consequences of it and if its not with the person that they love and they do it anyway that's their fault. She knew that there was a possibility of getting pregnant, but she obviously didn't care. If someone does something that can result in a consequence, and they are not willing to face the consequence then that person is a coward. with a rape victim it is not her fault, but if a girl is sleeping with every guy in school and she knows the consequences, but doesn't care and gets pregnant she should have to deal with the consequence. For example, if a person goes and kills a man he has to face a consequence. He will either be executed, or put in jail he is being held responsible for his actions. "Now, what about that innocent child? The child is going to be born into the world with a mother that never wanted them -- a mother that may even despise them." She can just give it up for adoption, at least the child lives . "You may argue that aborting a life is equally as cruel as birthing them in an unsavoury environment, but I strongly believe that an early abortion is not morally wrong in any sense because the embryo has not developed a brain or nervous system to think about or even feel what is happening. In fact, many pregnancies are naturally miscarried within the first few months." Even if the embryo hasn't formed and it cant think so what you are still preventing it from having a life.
abortion

I'm not even going to mention the sexism surrounding this argument as I find there are more important aspects to discuss. The gist of your argument is that promiscuous women should be left to deal with the consequences of having sex. You claim that rape victims can have abortions because the pregnancy is not their fault, whereas consensual sex resulting in an accidental pregnancy is not a viable reason for an abortion. In essence, you want promiscuous women to be 'punished' with a child if they happen to become pregnant. Correct? Now, what about that innocent child? The child is going to be born into the world with a mother that never wanted them -- a mother that may even despise them. If the woman is as promiscuous as your initial argument makes out, she may end up giving birth to many kids that she never wanted; many kids that are neglected and raised in an environment of regret -- a home completely void of love. Personally, I think abortions of unwanted pregnancies are beneficial to both the woman and child. There is no guarantee that the woman will stop sleeping around and become a wonderful mother after giving birth. You may argue that aborting a life is equally as cruel as birthing them in an unsavoury environment, but I strongly believe that an early abortion is not morally wrong in any sense because the embryo has not developed a brain or nervous system to think about or even feel what is happening. In fact, many pregnancies are naturally miscarried within the first few months. The only other argument I can foresee you mentioning is that the child could be given up for adoption directly after being born to a mother that doesn't care. Although this would be great news to thousands of adoptive parents, I can't see it being a straight forward procedure. For instance, the mother is likely to continue drinking, smoking and engaging in other harmful activities while the child develops because she will not care for the health of a child that she will never raise. She may even be spiteful that she is being forced into carrying an unwanted child for 9 months. It would cause the mother and child undue stress. Forget about the woman's right to abortion -- think about the child's right to be born into a loving family. If the child isn't going to be loved, and the mother is trying to stop the pregnancy, why would any compassionate person want to force the child into life? This may sound harsh to you, but you must remember that an embryo has no cognitive ability, awareness or feelings. An embryo is not a human life, it is a potential for human life, and if that potential is a saddening one, we should not force them to experience it. Birth would be cruel in this scenario.
The internet is better than the telescope.

The invention of telescope impacted society as a whole.Back a long time ago religion had a significant power.But thanks to the discovery of the telescoped that helped scientist see that Earth rotates around the sun.This has made people question religion and changed peoples belief.Telescopes too helped great scientist and great minds like Newton,Kepler,and Einstein provided inspiration for there formulas and laws that helped Society.By the way the telescoped initially was used for navigation and warfare.This helped navigators and captains sail there ship to new land like America,and Mexico.The Hubble telescope helped Scientist and finding the pieces of the puzzle.The Hubble telescope was use to help shed light on some of the great mysteries of the universe.Like how the universe is 13 to 14 billion years old.Another thing the Hubble telescope did was helping finding out dark energy.The Hubble Telescope also helped in show evolution of galaxies.These are just a handful of things the Hubble Telescope Sources: http://www.geocities.ws... http://hubblesite.org... http://blog.handcraftednauticaldecor.com...
Black Lives Matter Movement

Black Lives Matter!!! Really? That's your movement's name? I would rename your slogan to Black Lives ALSO Matter. Did you see that word, ALSO? Yes, I know, you might laugh at my argument that ALL LIVES MATTER . Don't get me wrong, you're movement as a whole is perfectly fine and respectable, but the people who protest it are a WHOLE OTHER STORY. Yes, of course, racism totally exists, but it doesn't only effect the lives of black people, it effect's ALL of us. One of you're biggest argument's is that police brutality kills more black people than white people. Well, what can I say, YOUR WRONG. I'm not going to chary pick specific graphs to show that more white people get killed than black people by police brutality, because that's just childish. I'm here to tell you that police brutality effect's all of us, not only black people. SO STOP PROTESTING IT!! One small question, why aren't you protesting the black people that kill black people? Why are you only protesting the white people that are killing black people? Do you just hate your own race?IF YOU WANT RACISM TO END THAN STOP TRYING TO PULL DOWN SOMEBODY ELSE'S RACE. Let me break down some fact's to you. Fact- The majority of protesters for this movement are violent. Fact- Black people are less likely to have lethal force get put against them. Fact- More white people were killed by police in 2014- white people dead- 414, Black people- 233, Fact- Also in 2015 493 white people were killed by police brutality and 258 black people were killed. BUT THAT DOESNT MATTER, WHAT MATTERS IS THAT PEOPLE ARE DYING, STOP LOOKING AT ONE ANOTHER'S SKIN IF YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. This movement is violent and racist, it does not care about other black people, and takes things that effect everyone into a black people only problem. THATS MY ARGUEMENT.
Muslim women should be able to wear hijabs/headscarves wherever and whenever they want

1. I agree, a business has the right to refuse service. But that doesn't mean I think banning the hijab is just. A business can ban the hijab, but they will face social consequences later on (moral outcry, loss in customers, etc.) 2. And yet, Saudi Arabia is one of our strongest allies. Ahh...but that's another can of worms. Anyways, you spoke about the penalties for not covering up in Saudi Arabia. I agree, the situation over there is dire. But I don't understand how that is relevant in the context of this debate. A Saudi or Sudanese woman being punished for resisting Islamic code, though tragic, has very little to do with an American woman expressing her right to wear a hijab. I see you attempted to draw the connection, but your point was lost. "Reverse harshness" does not make sense to me. 3. Oh, trust me. There are plenty of other places to hide a bomb. Clothing in general gives us this opportunity. You don't propose a ban on clothing, do you? http://gizmodo.com... (Click on the link, those are Ll cases of bombs being hidden in places that are NOT hijabs. Eliminating the hijab would not stop terrorists from hiding bombs, period). And oh my, I just realized you didn't even mention the hijab! You're speaking of niqabs and burqas, neither of which are relevant here. This debate is focused on the hijab, and the hijab only. 4. Muslims in America should not be penalized for the regressive policies of Muslim governments overseas, governments they, being US citizens, no longer have any connection with. And in several cases, Muslim women have come here to escape persecution. Why would subjecting them to additional persecution and restriction be just? I await your response
Communism v. Capitalism

Thanks to Pro, a good debate. One overriding counterpoint introduced against capitalism as an economic system and philosophy is the potential to defect into fascism. Sheldon Wolin, a professor at Princeton, wrote an excellent book several years back on capitalism and fascism worth reading. However, even if such potential exist, historically capitalism changing into fascism is a rare event. With communism, history provides several test-case examples, all failures, and totalitarian in form and function. These cases (Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Fidel’s Cuba, Kim Jung-Un’s in North Korea, et cetera) provide clear examples of how no self-declared communist regime has proven compatible with democracy or sustained prosperity. In fact, every one relied on form of totalitarianism, control of populations, and repression beyond comparable examples under democratic government’s practices capitalism. Communism as described in the writings of Karl Marx and in real-world application have always relied on the violent overthrow of governments. In fact, this was believed to be inevitable—violence that is. My opponent did not really address this issue, specifically the philosophical notion of violence embedded in communist texts. Whatever problems capitalism has it does not rely on violence as a prerequisite. Capitalism admittedly has problems. Although adaptable, capable of accommodating a variety of mixed forms, so the US-version is less regulated than its European counterpart is. The European version has been molded to their political system, specifically their social welfare programs. Capitalism therefore has historically proven more beneficial and capable of adjusting as an economic philosophy. Final Argument: Capitalism as Churchill said of Democracy: Capitalism is the worse form of economic organization, except for all the others that have been tried. So even with a history of exploitation capitalism continues to produce products and innovations which have significantly changed the world for the better. Innovation and the ability to develop ideas in the economic marketplace is while difficult in general, it is nothing compared to individuals trying to create inventions, start business in say the Soviet Union under Stalin and in China under Mao.
Communism v. Capitalism

Well that was unexpected XD. Im not really sure how to start round 3 so I'll just jump into it. When I was talking about the big business moving in on the construction industry I was talking about the general concept on all industries not your literal case. What I'm trying to understand from your rebuttal is that these problems have nothing to do with ideology but just general problems in society. To an extent you may be right. But not always. I know examples I gave were a little out there but they make a fair amount of sense. My first example was Apples chargers. Now obviously my examples are just generalizations of the concept of big corporations in each industry. So what happens when Apple makes an "agreement" with other technology leaders (Google, Sony, Etc. ) were they keep prices for products at the same high price and split the profits. A wise man once said " A union of the rich destroys the poor". Now bad products can happen anywhere but in a Capitalist society its some what incentivized for the rich. With my other example of cancer I'm sorry I was unaware of the technical terms between doctors and pharmaceutical companies, but the same concept applies. Think about it how many fundraisers have you seen raising money for cancer research. When you donate to these funds your money it not going to CURING cancer it's to treating the symptoms of cancer (Even though most charities are scams). Like I said before why cure a man in a day when you can charge him every step of the way. I know a business's first duty is to make money but when do you draw the line between the well being of people and profit. As for what you said at the end, yes it's true that no country has been truly Marxist (Besides the Paris Commune). Even in theory from a Centrist point of view Capitalism can lead to Fascism in the long run. But in the Marxist Theory from a Centrist point of view works out if done right. I'm not sure how else I can go off of what my opponent said but by going deeper into Marxism but sadly the time restraint can not allow me to do that. This link should help . http://en.wikipedia.org... .
Communism v. Capitalism

First I want to say thank you for your service. As for the format this is my first time using this site so Im not sure how to change it. What I am trying to say is that capitalism is good in the short to mid run. After that it can easily turn into Fascism. One of the problems with capitalism is that it relies on imperfect products for example Apple, there chargers break right around the time the warranty runs out. Now you have to run back to the store and pay $80 for a new one. A more drastic example is cancer. Why haven't we found a cure yet? It is because no doctor in there right mind wants to it is a HUGE money maker. Why cure a man in a day when you can stretch it out over a life time and charge him every step of the way. I mean no disrespect when I say this but another problem with Capitalism is the Military-Industrial Complex. The rich start a war then arm the army with what ever they need right after they start a company for that purpose ( Im not really sure now to explain this better but George Orwell did in his book 1984 ). If I am not mistaken you are the owner of a small construction company. What happens when big business comes to town and offers service in half the time with half the cost? People like you and me go out of business. Communism has never been tried in its right form. What Marx wanted was Capitalism-----> Socialism------> Communism what has been done in the past was Capitalism--->Revolution---> Communism. The only countries that have been close were The Paris Commune ( which only failed because it had no time to raise an army big enough to fight the French) Poland (which is doing okay last time i checked) and Sweden (which has the highest standard of living/ happiness). Think of how many brilliant peoples works are undiscovered from lack of funding. Tesla is a perfect example he was one of the smartest people on the planet and died in debt. Then you have celebrities like Brittany Spears or the Kardashians who provide little to nothing for society. P.S. sorry for the late response I was very busy yesterday.
Communism v. Capitalism

First I would like to point out the flaws in capitalism. Capitalism is great in the short to mid term. Sadly in the long run it will lead to what Karl Marx called "The Dictatorship Of The Bourgeois" a society where the rich control everything and the working class has nothing. In the communist society that Marx envisioned was a egalitarian utopia where all men/woman/other are equal. You worked for society and society worked for you.
God is Dead (Redux)

I will now ask you some of my own: It seems to me that almost everyone in the world has beliefs that are not entirely created by themselves. Given a certain time and culture, it is easy to predict the beliefs of an individual. Because of the fact that there are so many constructed paradigms throughout all of the various epochs and societies, how is it that you feel justified in having accepted the arbitrary beliefs you've happened to stumble on? Have you cross-examined your beliefs to as many others as possible? Are you open-minded enough to consider the possibility that you could be wrong, and have striven to create objective criteria for determining truth in the world? If so, how is that possible on an atheistic mindset, where truth is subjective and cultural relativity reigns supreme? You mentioned that the Bible is a book of mythologies, that it is self contradicting, and that it contradicts other historical records. Do you truly feel justified in making this claim? Have you studied multiple historical documents and compared them to the testimony of the bible? Which historical documents have you read that prove this? Also, if you claim the bible is self contradictory, where so is that the case? And before you reached that conclusion, did you study the bible using the historical-grammatical method, making sure that you're accurately understanding an ancient text before you make wild and unfounded conclusions? You claimed that a righteous God is at odds with the God depicted in the Bible. How are you justified in making that claim? How much time have you spent studying moral theory? Did you provide an emotionally charged conclusion, merely because your cultural values are at odds with the moral actions of another culture, or do you have a justifiable moral theory that proves the actions in the Old Testament are indeed immoral? If you can't provide a justifiable moral theory, how then can you make such a certain statement? You claimed that science offers evidence based accounts of origins, while Christianity offers only mythology. Why do you set up Christianity as a straw man? Do you deny that there are intelligent creation scientists who have devoted their lives to explaining the origins of the universe in scientific methods? How many of the creation scientists have you read? Even if you disagree with them, and believe evolution to be a better explanation, why must you still belittle the Christian explanation? Again, it seems this conclusion is emotionally charged and without merit. Basically, you are making a lot of claims, claims which would have required hundreds of hours of research in each topic alone to justify your conclusions.
God is Dead (Redux)

1)Why do you take philosophical arguments to be more powerful than science and historic records? I guess I can understand a belief in God (though I think that conclusion is needless) but why Creationism? Why should an immaterial subject like philosophy refute biology, cosmology, and geology? 2) What parts of the Bible do you think are myths? Did two of every animal fit on a boat that was 250 ft long? Was the earth (presumably including plants) underwater for a full year? Did God really rain fire on Sodom? Are you a biblical literalist? 3) How do you reconcile your belief with the moral atrocities committed by God? He's supposed to be righteous and loving, and yet the Bible shows him to be cruel and hateful. Even if he were real, would you really want to worship an invisible, narcissistic war criminal? Why would you want the Universe to be set up like a cosmic North Korea, with one dear leader that we all have to worship for eternity? 4)Doesn't Christianity sound a little bit absurd? The creator of the Universe, a mathematical genius who is supposed to be the source of all goodness, cares whether or not a tribe of desert shepherds eat pork? Couldn't God have just forgiven our sins? He is all-powerful after all. Why'd he have to send his son to be tortured to death? 5) How do you reconcile your belief with the historical inaccuracies and the pagan influences on the Bible? None of the Gospels were first person accounts - doesn't that worry you? 6) You mentioned cell entropy. Is there any more evidence you can provide for Creationism? (That refutes evolution I mean)
God is Dead (Redux)

Part two of my attempt to disprove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Theists are welcome to have a civil, evidence-based debate on the existence of an all powerful, all good creator of heaven and earth. Rules and format are as follows: R1- Acceptance R2- Main Arguments R3- Question Round, Where We Ask As Many Questions as Space Will Allow R4- Answer Round, Where We Answer Each Other's Questions R5- Rebuttals Sources are to be posted in the comments after the final round. Voters be on the lookout for logical fallacies from either side (use comments). If the contender is a Creationist, the burden of proof for their claims will fall to them. Please clarify your religious persuasion in the Acceptance round for clarity (including Creationism). I look forward to an engaging debate!
God is Dead (Redux)

Contention 1: The historicity of the Bible. I disagree with my opponent that the Bible is historically inaccurate. In all of my studies, historical documents and archaeology tend to confirm the biblical account. My opponent gave a list of “inconsistencies” in his final round, but these are all fallacious and can be easily disproven. Given that he gave a shotgun approach and listed too many of them to explain in the character limit that I have, I would encourage that my opponent actually investigates each of those claims to see if they even hold up to scrutiny. For example, his first “inconsistency”, A: River Gihon could not possibly flow from Mesopotamia. This is inaccurate, because according to Genesis, the entire world was destroyed by a flood. This would have changed the entire environment of the earth. After Noah left the ark, he and his ancestors would have renamed the new rivers and lands. All of this rest of his claims can be also quickly disproven if given the time to examine them. There are also lots of cultures around the world that share very similar origin stories with the Christian account. My opponent somehow thinks that disproves the bible. Rather, if multiple cultures around the world each of similar accounts far enough back in history, its more likely that something historical happened to cause all of these cultures to have these beliefs. The alternative is that all cultures just happened to come about the same myths, something so radically improbable it's not worth serious academic inquiry. My opponent also claimed that Jesus was a knock-off from other religions, but these claims have already been disproven. Researching the issue shows that, either the myths that are similar to Jesus are historically later than Jesus, or they aren't similar enough to make a reasonable comparison. My opponent also argued that Jesus' tomb was not empty and that Jesus wasn't buried. Now, as I showed in my opening argument, this position is in direct opposition to all teaching scholars on this subject. Now, it may be the case that all of the scholars are wrong, but there is too much historical evidence to indicate that these propositions are true. Contention 2: Science is fact, Religion is Myth This argument, as I already explained, is a straw man. My opponent seems to prop up “science” as some kind of existing thing. Science is merely using an empirical approach to discovering claims about reality. “Science” doesn't make any claims about the past or future, rather, humans study the natural world to make conclusions about it. If someone wants to make a claim that all life evolved through mutations from a swamp to mankind, I would determine that as blatant mythology. Religion offers an historical account or origins, while science can be used to determine how the world came to be. If empirical studies show that evolution is impossible, and that the earth isn't billions of years old, then the scientific method validates the historical claims made by religious texts.