BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Should Outlaw Abortions (exculding rape and the mother dying when the baby is born)

My super simple understandable rebuttals. 1. Don't understand the sentence at all (messed-up grammar). 2. Sure you can argue it's cruel, But I would rather be cruel than a murderer. 3. Again this doesn't matter, If you don't want to have a baby for ecnonomic reasons, Then don't have one, Don't be a slut. Regarding rape, Yeah, Life happens, Deal with it. Many horrible things happen to innocent people, But it doesn't justify murder. And maybe they should get a gun (maybe a glock 19) to protect themselves from rapists. 4. I don't understand, When a mother dies of due to childbirth, It's usually due to severe bleeding. If the mother dies before the baby is born (extremely rare), Then the fetus dies of natural cause, Not murder. 5. I am aware why people might want to have abortions. I am in fact a male so. . . What gives me the right? What gives a male the right to say women (and men) can't murder? I have asked a women, My wife is pro-life. 6. What do you mean most? Fetus' are living though. They are living things, They have life. They aren't inatimate objects, Therefore their life. Also, Even the government agrees fetus' are seperate from the mother and are living human being. If someone shot a pregnant women, Their sentence would be more severe as it literally states they killed a women AND A FETUS. If a fetus isn't living/is a part of the women's body, Why would these laws/rules exist?
We Should Outlaw Abortions (exculding rape and the mother dying when the baby is born)

If the baby needs to die, It is for the mother to decide. I am pro-Choice, But for many reasons. 1: What if there needs to be scientific research on Fetuses? A mother can donate the child, Even if it is barely months old, It can be aborted according to trimester. 2: What if the child has a serious disease before it is born? A doctor can tell you that before 3rd trimester, And many don't want to see their child suffer the economic and suffering their child will endure. Watching suffering happen and not taking the choice to stop it before they suffer is just cruel to the child. 3: More on economy. What if the mother doesn't have the money to continue taking care of a child? What will happen is again, The child will suffer and most good parents don't want to see what happened to them happen to their child. 4: Excluding when the baby is born. This means if the mother is dying before they are born can't have abortions. What happens to the fetus then? It dies before it is born! What would be the point of it then, Huh? 5: Ask women why they would have abortions, Neither of us are men, What gives you the right to say that women shouldn't have abortions? Besides, Ask a woman yourself. 6: Most fetuses aren't alive, Actually. According to the 5 laws of biology, A child must reproduce, Respond to stimuli, Have regulation, Maintain homeostasis, And process energy. This means that in order for it to be alive, It must follow these laws independently. A fetus requires its mother to live, Or it would die. This means it doesn't have the ability to do this independently, And is not considered alive. For these reasons, I believe we shouldn't outlaw Abortions.
We Should Outlaw Abortions (exculding rape and the mother dying when the baby is born)

I'm pro-life because abortion is murder! It is the immoral killing of a human life. BTW a fetus is not part of the mothers body. This is why people ask a pregnant women how the baby is doing, Not how their body is doing. And are you telling me that for 9 months temporarily, A mother has 4 hands/feet and in 50% of cases a pneis? You should watch Dennis Prager's fireside chat on abortion called "Tell The Truth About Abortion" on Youtube. P. S. I would suggest watching this video before you rebuttal as it is pretty much all the reasons I believe abortion is wrong in one video.
We Should Outlaw Abortions (exculding rape and the mother dying when the baby is born)

To ask a few questions for clarification: Why do you believe we shouldn't? Is it morally unjust or is there another reason? What is the motive behind outlawing abortion? How does this affect those represented (constituents) I basically want to hear your side before I begin A woman has the right to believe that they should have control over their body (my thesis/Value) I would like to know why my opponent does not want Abortion before I begin my constructive. My entire speech is in opposition to my opponent. Without a motive to debate, There is no debate to begin with, And no controversy to talk about.
Who are the real Gods? (Pro: Jesus and Buddha), (Con: Muhammad and Krishna)

I will argue that Jesus and Buddha are the real Gods. The con will argue that Muhammad and Krishna are the real Gods. Structure R1: Acceptance. R2: Arguments. R3: Attack Opponent's Arguments. R4: Defend R2 Arguments, New Argument. R5: Defend previous arguments, Conclusion. Sources are preferred for consolidating your arguments. I look forward to this debate.
Stannis Baratheon would make a better ruler of Westeros than Daenerys Targaryen

Round 2 will be opening remarks. Rounds 3 and 4 will each be rebuttals with new arguments, and the final round will be final rebuttals with no new arguments. Through the course of this debate you are only allowed to refer to the show version of Game of Thrones. Any reference to book events or alternative versions of the characters than the ones seen in the show can not be part of a valid argument. The participants are to assume the present state of affairs in the kingdom is similar to the end of season 4 - threats from the north, relative political strife, rivaling parties still at odds with each other, etc. Given this state, they are to assume that by the hand of god either Stannis or Dany (as she may henceforth be referenced) gain the throne the following morning by destroying the house of Lannister and its supporters (not in the form of any great houses! ) in an arbitrary military victory, leaving the rest of the houses and their dynamics intact. For example, in this reality house Greyjoy is still rebelling against the Iron Throne and the Boltons are still considered to be wardens of the north. All major houses who followed the Lannister's rule (including the boltons! ) are assumed to accept the new ruler's rule. How good a ruler of Westeros is deemed to be should be established based on a few parameters: His or her capabilities to secure financial prosperity to both the kingdom and its general population, enforce the law (as well as dictate it), promote political stability and supply the kingdom with internal as well as external security. Arguments are expected to be heavily relying on the character's history, past behaviour, current advisers, personality traits, leadership capabilities and anything else that may reinforce the belief that one's general rule would be better than that of the other. Pro - You are for Stannis and against Dany Con - You are against Stannis and for Dany I will be Pro in this debate, also it is my first debate in this site so feel free to correct my mannerism etc!
The Law of Parsimony Favors Intelligent Design - B

Resolved: The Law of Parsimony Favors Intelligent Design Over Alternative Theories. Please abstain from the use of semantics. I would like to thank my future opponent for his/her willingness to debate this topic. For the sake of clarity I will briefly summarize the rule of parsimony and Intelligent Design, and then follow with my numerically listed points. The Rule of Parsimony: Essentially, the simplest theory wins. That is to say, the theory with the same explanatory power and least amount of assumptions is to be preferred. Intelligent Design: Observed complexity is best explained by positing intelligence. 1. Certain users on this site – against the notion of intelligent design – are fond of oversimplifying Intelligent Design by simply saying, "God created." If one wishes to take this oversimplified version of ID, then one must admit it to be the most parsimonious explanation – with a whopping one assumption this simple theory garners the same explanatory power as alternative naturalistic theories. 2. The most common alternative theory cited to explain observed complexity is the Multiverse theory. This theory postulates that there are an infinite number of unobserved universes that exist. This would adequately explain the less than 1 in 10 raised to the negative 1,018 probability of life emerging by chance. The problem is they are postulating an infinite number of unobserved (and forever unobservable) entities, while intelligent design posits one unobserved (but potentially observable) entity. The rule of parsimony favors Intelligent Design in this regard. 3. It is has been said that the probability of life arising by chance is "billions of times more remote than the probability of a copy of Oxford Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop (1)." Alternative theories have to explain observed complexity using innumerous assumptions to explain unobserved processes. In Intelligent design we take what we know about how intelligent agents act when designing and are able detect design in our universe. Where the probability of naturalistic processes is so slim as to be impossible, intelligent design takes the trophy. Conclusion: My opponent must show an alternative theory to be more parsimonious than the one aforesaid. The alternative theory must have equal explanatory power and fewer assumptions. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: (1) http://home.iitk.ac.in...
Water pollution is inevitable and we should not waste money trying to prevent it.

WARNING: The video I included has some adult language and has a lot to do with religon. The god parts aren't the point, though. Feel free to ignore them. . http://www.youtube.com... You said: "Have you ever seen a comercial were they show an aquatical animal trapped in garbage? Have you ever read a story that sounds like: "Nineteen billion pounds of blah blah was found on the shore of wherever today. It all came in from the ocean. " or "Today, some scientist on a boat found two tons of garbage and plasice just floating there. " Yes I have and if we stop combating water pollution It would read like "Seventy-thousand billion pounds of blah blah was found on the shore of wherever today. It all came in from the ocean. " and "Today, some scientist on a boat found sixty tons of garbage and plastic just floating there. " You said: "Also, there are about 3,500 oil rigs out there in the ocean. (Source: cbsnews. com) That means that there are at least 3,500 opertunities for an oil spill. Most people remember the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a couple years ago. It took around a year for things to get well enough that the news leave it alone, and there are still places seriously in need off help. " Correct. There are a large number of oil rigs and there are hundreds of ways thing can go wrong. But we do have a minimum of oil rigs thanks to opposition to water pollution. If we just stop all conservation efforts that number would more than triple. You said: "It is obvious that there is always going to be water polution, so why no just stop trying to fight it now," We should keep fighting because there are many regions that rely on the sea for their food source.
Water pollution is inevitable and we should not waste money trying to prevent it.

Water polution is inevitable. No matter how much we try to help, there are always going to be the people who litter and ruin the water. Have you ever seen a comercial were they show an aquatical animal trapped in garbage? Have you ever read a story that sounds like: "Nineteen billion pounds of blah blah was found on the shore of wherever today. It all came in from the ocean." or "Today, some scientist on a boat found two tons of garbage and plasice just floating there." Also, there are about 3,500 oil rigs out there in the ocean. (Source: cbsnews.com) That means that there are at least 3,500 opertunities for an oil spill. Most people remember the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a couple years ago. It took around a year for things to get well enough that the news leave it alone, and there are still places seriously in need off help. It is obvious that there is always going to be water polution, so why no just stop trying to fight it now, and spend the money somewhere else? We could help education, science, etc.
Evolution is more credible than Creationism revisited after 2 yrs

Your argument shows a deep lack of understanding about the theory of Evolution. The Primordial Soup Theory (I will assume thats what you are referring to when you say "primordial ooze," is completely separate from evolution, but you are incorrect that scientists have never been able to recreate the condition of early earth to experiment whether any amino acids (the building blocks of life, if you like) could have been formed. The famous Miller"Urey experiment showed that in the conditions suggested by the Primordial Soup Theory, 20 amino acids were produced in an experiment, proving that under early-earth conditions, life could have begun to have formed. "Unfortunately you simply cannot CLAIM evolving when you cannot SHOW the beginning of ANIMAL LIFE at all!" This statement is simply untrue. As I previously stated, evolution has little to do with the "origin of life," just how life today came to be. "because no experiment replicated a created creature observable OUTSIDE a microscope." I am not quite sure what experiments you are referring to here, but If a microscopic creature is experimented on, it is logical that it will stay microscopic throughout the experiment, and not grow in size to become visible. I'm not entirely sure of the point you are trying to make here. "No method done by any known Scientist HAS created a living creature from nothing to Life, that breaths air, and reproduces as all Living creatures reproduce ... by egg!" This is because we simply don't have the technology to create living matter that functions exactly like a living creature today. The process itself took millions of years for single celled organisms to become multicellular, and we obviously don't have millions of years to experiment on organisms. You seem to be claiming that evolution is false because we cannot turn dead matter into an animal in an experiment, but this would not even be evolution if we were to do that experiment. "Thus CREATIONISM IS More CREDIBLE ... in Fact The TRUE beginning of Life!" You fail to fulfil your burden of proof in this statement. What makes creationism more credible? All of what we know about earth contradicts creationism. Evolution is widely accepted as fact by most people due to the insurmountable amount of evidence for it, hence the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic at best and we know that the earth is for sure older that 10,000 years old. Which part of creation makes it more credible than scientific theories that each have a huge amount of factual evidence backing them?
Evolution is more credible than Creationism revisited after 2 yrs

Initiated by Matt8800 -Premise is that the evidence for Evolution is strong while the evidence for Creationism is insufficient.It was proven that nothing could have been further from Reality!The inability for Matt8800, or anyone else to answer the question of - Actually PRODUCING the living, breathing animal created by evolutionists during experimentation: That proved the primordial ooze theory as TRUE, never surfaced!That this answer REMAINS unanswered to this day, proves that Science was never able to replicate a creature crawling out of the primordial ooze. Thus it did not actually occur!This is evidence that LIFE did not FORM as believed by all evolutionary Scienists, from Darwin to the Scientists of the PRESENT day!Unfortunately you simply cannot CLAIM evolving when you cannot SHOW the beginning of ANIMAL LIFE at all!You cannot profess evolution from creatures you cannot prove formed from each other at all, because no experiment replicated a created creature observable OUTSIDE a microscope. What was viewed through the microscope REMAINS microscopic today, never having formed into a living creature at all.So the belief that Life started when a creature crawled out of the primordial ooze billions of years ago ... is a proven LIE! By SCIENTIFIC experimentation. Everything from genetics, to every known evolutionary thought was predicated on the Origin of Life Theory which has now been proven FALSE by science itself. No method done by any known Scientist HAS created a living creature from nothing to Life, that breaths air, and reproduces as all Living creatures reproduce ... by egg!ev"o"lu"tion1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.synonyms:Darwinism, natural selection2. The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.None of the experiments of Science gradually developed into a living Creature! merely multicellular, unicellular, bacterial forms. genetics are genes, not animal Life so their not evidence of Origin of Life either.Science has literally nothing that doesn't demonstrate by experimentation that Darwins belief of The Origins of Life as being started by a creature crawling out of the primordial ooze ... was FALSE! Then or even TODAY!Definition of true1: truthful2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs true description (2) : conformable to an essential reality (3) : fully realized c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed the true dimension ofd : consistent true to character4: legitimate, rightful b : conformable to a standard or pattern : accurate: narrow, strict in the truest senseThus CREATIONISM IS More CREDIBLE ... in Fact The TRUE beginning of Life!
The "change my mind" mentality can hinder healthy discussion of important topics.

The Change My Mind meme is a funny meme, not to be taken seriously. It is used to be funny and jokingly fun. I know some memes can impace lives, but the Change My Mind meme is actually a meme that say, Donald Trump is bad, CHANGE MY MIND is like a Gay or Liberal saying Trump is bad, NVM Voting for Trump. Other than that, thank you for your time.
The "change my mind" mentality can hinder healthy discussion of important topics.

Rules: - Be civil. - Stay on topic. - "Look it up for yourself" or similar directives do not count as citations. - Use the first round for acceptance and a brief overview of your argument; elaboration will begin in the next round. I believe that the "change my mind" mentality originating from Steven Crowder's viral February 2018 tweet and the resulting memes [1] - that is, the attitude of challenging those who hold differing views to convince the challenger to shift their opinion of a given topic, knowing full well that they will not be swayed - is potentially damaging to healthy discussions of important matters. This is because it can encourage the development of echo chambers and can escalate into quarrels consisting largely of ad hominem attacks and bickering. I look forward to debating whoever accepts my challenge. Sources: [1] http://knowyourmeme.com...
Reiligious People Can Cause More Harm To Society Than An Atheist

"Religion causes war. 9/11 was taken place because of religion, because Islamic/Muslim terrorists committed these horrible acts because it was supposedly the "Word of God". Religion s centered around one god but humans are stubborn and they will claim that their religion is the right one. The argument will go on and on, and this will cause wars. And with the type of warfare today, atrocities will be upon us. Thousands, if not millions, will die, including innocents." Well, if you're going to say religion in itself is responsible for that I can go ahead and say Josef Stalin murdered because he was an atheist. I believe that the Islam religious followers are the problem, not the religion itself. Let's say you had a school that upheld great standards, and there was a group of bad students in it. If they did something wrong, would the school be seen as the sole cause of the problem? Of course not. The students are the problem, and the same logic applies to religion. And even if religion was the cause, Stalin and other people like him would still have a much higher murder count than the Muslim terrorists and the Taliban. "I will now use evidence from a website I came across that explain why religion cause brain damage. I advise the user scan the whole website: http://truelogic.wordpress.com...; Actually, despite its name, the website's nothing more than an unintelligible rant against religion. It's a biased source, and therefore it's probably not going to be credible in the eyes of the voters. You need to get your information from an unbiased source. I've never heard of such a study outside of websites like these, so that could say something about its credibility.
Reiligious People Can Cause More Harm To Society Than An Atheist

I apologize. I was trying to simply state what you said in your argument. I will provide better evidence to support my claim and use pure logic. Religion causes war. 9/11 was taken place because of religion, because Islamic/Muslim terrorists committed these horrible acts because it was supposedly the "Word of God". Religion s centered around one god but humans are stubborn and they will claim that their religion is the right one. The argument will go on and on, and this will cause wars. And with the type of warfare today, atrocities will be upon us. Thousands, if not millions, will die, including innocents. I will now use evidence from a website I came across that explain why religion cause brain damage. I advise the user scan the whole website: http://truelogic.wordpress.com...
Reiligious People Can Cause More Harm To Society Than An Atheist

Well, I don't think this counts as evidence as you're making the claim that theists commit more crimes just because they're theists. I was under the impression you would provide an argument as to why theism would cause people to commit crimes. Simply asserting theists cause more harm to society just because more of them are locked up isn't really proving anything; You also have to give evidence that theism would cause them to commit the crimes in the first place, and something tells me that's not why they did. It doesn't take a theist to know that something is a crime. Burden of proof is yours to show me why.
Reiligious People Can Cause More Harm To Society Than An Atheist

A internet website decided they wanted to figure out how many religious people were in prison compared to atheist. Here's a link:http://www.patheos.com... They found out that only 0.2% were atheist, while the rest were involved in a religion. But that percentage was invalid so they wanted to know an updated percentage. In this update, only 0.02% of prisoners were atheists, and the rest were religious. That's even smaller than the first percentage! I have provided evidence for my claim and I give my opponent time to respond to this.