BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is wrong [morally] in most cases except rape.

NP1 R1 is acceptance terms onlyBut you may still post your first shots , but still must accept my terms. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuousconduct. 2. moral quality or character. 3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity. 4. a doctrine or system of morals. 5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, orutterance. http://dictionary.reference.com... Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo orfetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. 2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy,especially during the first six months. 3. Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage ( def. 1 ) . 4. an immature and nonviable fetus. http://dictionary.reference.com...we will be using def. 1 and 2. Questions go in the comments
Abortion In General Should Be Illegal

Con has forfeited a second time. He has also given no opening argument, no logical reason why his definition of "child" is superior to mine, no clear logical reason why an unborn human being is not a person, and no other reason for why abortion should remain legal. My argument in a nutshell:A. The Unborn Are Human Beings. B. There Is No Logical Distinction Between Human Beings And Persons. C. All Persons Should Be Protected. D. Abortion and Maternal Mortality Rates Decrease In Countries Were Abortion Is Illegal. E. Children Of Rape Should Still Be Protected. F. Abortion In (Legitimate) Self-Defense Is Permissable. I rest my case. If Con wishes to have a rematch, I'm all for it.
Abortion In General Should Be Illegal

Human Being:"A member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child. "-Collins English DictionaryMember:"An individual belonging to a group such as a society or team"-GoogleChild:"A young human being below the age of full physical development or below the legal age of majority. "-GoogleBeing:"Living, being alive"-GoogleAbortion:"The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy. "-GoogleDoes my opponet accept these definitions? (This is my first debate. After reading various debates on here, this format looks acceptable)
Birth control given out in schools

Fundamentally this argument comes down to a simple question, does teaching abstinence work? I would strongly argue the fact that abstinence has for too long been the accepted method of teaching about sex and wrongly. I firstly want to compare two methods of teaching about sex, the first being the US where abstinence is the generally preferred route and the second being Europe where the sex-positive approach is taken. By sex positive I mean that as the society understands that teenagers are going to have sex, that they will have sex. My case in point being the USA in which the Teenage pregnancy rate was 7% in 2006, now you may think that this number is "low" but when compared to the figure for example of the Netherlands you can clearly see the difference. In Holland only 0.7% of teenagers become pregnant. This equates to only 7 in every 1000 and is 10 times less than in the USA. Now if we look at how sex is taught in each country I think it becomes obvious why. In the USA as mentioned abstinence is the preferred method with 34% of schools teaching abstinence only with _no_ teaching at all of birth control methods. This method is irresponsible as teenagers are going to have sex, however much you teacher them or whatever laws are in place humans are sexual creatures and natural urges are going to prevail. Teaching students about sex and how sex can be positive rather than portrayed as negative will help them to makes better informed choices about what they want to do. Creating a false dichotomy between having children equals having sex and no sex equals no children is a vast simplification which scares people and hides the facts. In your post you make the point that schools should not teach students about sex and it should be the parents' responsibility and to counter this I would like to present an analogy. If you were a farmer and wanted to find out whether to farm sheep or pigs would you either ask your uninformed parents to make the decision for you or an informed expert to present the facts about which is best? I would argue that it is better that someone who was informed taught. In order to make informed choices it is important that contraceptives are readily available and if needs be free. Removing the barriers to create a simple choice in which everyone can make.
Birth control given out in schools

According to Plu,Edu.org giving out birth control in schools would increase the teen sex rate by 46% because they feel we are giving them the ok to have sex . . It is not the responsibility of the school to act as our parent. Plus there are side effects to birth control for example birth control pills prevent pregnancy 99.9% but they do not prevent sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. According to Dr. Hutchinson from planned parent hood other side effects of taking birth control pills are depression, naseu, headaches and break through bleeding. Why are we teaching absitence in schools if there is another room in that school giving out birth control? We teach students to say to say no to drugs, we don't turn around and give the kids clean needles so they don't get diseases or infections. Let this be a family decision.
The War on Terror will not be won

In response to my opponent. No The War on Terror cannot be won. There is not a solution to every problem for example death, us as humans cannot avoid death. This goes the same for The War on Terror because it cannot be won. There is no way to end terrorism because there will always be someone to pick up the arms and fight government across the world. There are just too many people to control and if we focus on one area of the world then terrorism will just increase in other parts of the world.
The Christian God exists (5)

"My first round was based on reasoning, and looking at the comments, I can see that you and others are looking for 'evidence' of the existence of God"Well, logical proofs are good, too, so the watchmaker argument, however easily it may be refuted, is still valid. You can go about this any way you'd like." Did you not hear of the vast amounts miracles and prophecies that have happened over milleniums. They are not only said in the Bible, but happen in everyday life, with enough faith."I've heard of these. I've refuted many of them. The miracles in the Bible did not neccessarily happen; there's no proof that they did. You say you must have enough faith, but I was a Christian for about 10 years, and I truly believed in god, but I've experienced no miracles."To believe something so unnatural and bizarre is hard, but how different is it from atheists' belief that our Earth was made from a little ball of gas, which for no reason suddenly expanded and somehow formed the basic elements and atoms, which then formed the universe consisting of galaxies and solar systems, of which one is ours, and then these atoms and elements randomly formed cells, which for some reason combined to make living creatures, who evolved and became smarter, and then they made up a being called God which hundreds of millions of people believe in."Well, there's this thing called evidence which our worldview has, while your worldview has no evidence. Also, not all atheists believe this."Now how unlikely does that seem, compared to a miracle? Do you not see?"It seems pretty likely if you actually look in to evolution, the big bang, cosmic evolution, natural selection, etc. I see evidence for my beliefs."The proof is right in front of you, yet you fear believing something so out of this world, because us humans don's understand it. You turn to something what you think is more comforting that God and religion, that makes sure everything that you see and feel is real."Actually, we don't reject the god hypothesis because we're afraid (well at least nobody I know does), we don't see any evidence for your hypothesis and thus fail to see why we should believe in it. I find this somewhat ironic, as Christians are the ones who turn to the comfort of "knowing".
The Christian God exists (5)

My first round was based on reasoning, and looking at the comments, I can see that you and others are looking for 'evidence' of the existence of God. Did you not hear of the vast amounts miracles and prophecies that have happened over milleniums. They are not only said in the Bible, but happen in everyday life, with enough faith. To believe something so unnatural and bizarre is hard, but how different is it from atheists' belief that our Earth was made from a little ball of gas, which for no reason suddenly expanded and somehow formed the basic elements and atoms, which then formed the universe consisting of galaxies and solar systems, of which one is ours, and then these atoms and elements randomly formed cells, which for some reason combined to make living creatures, who evolved and became smarter, and then they made up a being called God which hundreds of millions of people believe in. Now how unlikely does that seem, compared to a miracle? Do you not see? ( Mark 4:12: so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding). The proof is right in front of you, yet you fear believing something so out of this world, because us humans don's understand it. You turn to something what you think is more comforting that God and religion, that makes sure everything that you see and feel is real. And look at us humans. The gap between people and the next smartest species and ginormous. Why have humans suddenly evolved to being so advanced, whereas other species are at pretty much at the same level (of IQ). Look at our psychology. We go against nature. We help one another, love, forgive. Where have these alien feelings suddenly come from in nature? If you were to punch me in the cheek, my instinct would be to punch you back, but instead on this occasion I would turn the other cheek. But why? Because we are humans, we are capable of doing things so strange and different to what we see in nature, that we are indeed special and significant. A chosen species made by God, many would say. Why would the people of the old testament, surrounded by sin and immorality, write about goodness and words of God, such as the ten Commandments. Moses new that if he killed his neighbor he could possess all of the dead man's property (survival of the fittest much?) . What caused Moses to not do this, and go against the mainstream? And to this day we follow the ten commandments, or at least some, of which have been applied to our laws.
The Christian God exists (5)

Thanks to Pro for accepting. No, you can't make those assumptions, because not every atheist has to believe those things. That's like saying, "You're a black person, so I can assume you steal". I believe in evolution, and I believe that the Big Bang is the best model for the early stages of the universe we currently have, but I don't believe humans are not significant. Yes, I have in fact come across the watchmaker analogy. You'd be surprised how much, actually. There is a large flaw in this analogy: we see watches designed all the time, know exactly how they can be designed, and, if we are skilled enough, even create our own watch. However, we've never seen a universe be designed; we don't know how to design one, and we certainly couldn't make one ourselves. The big bang does not describe how the universe was created; that's a common misconception. It describes the early stages of the universe, inflation, and expansion. You make one more argument in your last paragraph; that the universe is too complex to form through chance. You use the analogy of watch pieces being thrown in the air and landing to form a watch, which I only find to be half accurate. To refute this example, I'm going to propose my own hypothetical. If you were to randomly rewrite the laws of physics (change the speed of light, remove nuclear forces, even add in new laws, etc.), what would result would be a completely different universe. Nothing would be the same, and it would be impossible for life as we know it to live in that universe. However, I believe that life that is not how we know it could and most likely would eventually form in that universe, just not life as we know it today. For example, people might have jell-o bodies in that universe because that somehow fits in with the altered not fine-tuned and could be random. If we go back to your "throwing up a watch" analogy, this means that the pieces do not laws of physics. However, this shows that the constants and laws which seem fine-tuned and make this world possible were have to all fall into the precise way they are in this universe (let's say the precise form of a watch), as we don't know whether all the constants in this universe are necessary for life to exist. This raises the chances of the watch falling into an "acceptable" arrangement from almost 0 to something much higher. It also removes the need for a designer.
The Christian God exists (5)

You are arguing against God's existence, so I can assume that you believe in the Big Bang, evolution and humans to be of no significance, or in other words; science. (Don't worry, I won't make round four claims, just maybe make a basic refute) Let's start at the begging. Christians still believe and value the old testament, so my first source will be form Genesis 1:1, in which God created our Earth and universe. This is reasonably true. Have you ever come across the Watchmaker theory? Here is a scenario: You walk across a barren dessert for many miles, until you stumble upon a watch. A watch in the middle of nowhere. Using your experience and reason, you think to yourself "If there is a watch, there must be a watchmaker". You also admire the mechanics of the watch; The way there is a pattern, organisation and skill required to make this. This theory resembles the universe and the fact the God created it. The universe must have creator, just like a watch has a watchmaker. The big bang is justified enough to make the claim that it is how the universe became. How can there be order with a big bang chaos? If I was to throw all the parts of a watch in the air, the chances of it falling down and becoming a fully working watch are nil. It takes skill and dedication to make a watch, just what God needed to make the universe. And look at how our world works. The planets spin around the sun in a ordered and predictable way, much like the watch's wheels and springs move in a pattern. And don't forget, this watch has a watchmaker.
The Christian God exists (5)

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real. The Christian god is the god as described by Jesus and the Bible. Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate. You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments. I await my opponent's arguments.
meat

I proved that the population is mostly young with my source.Fat people don't care what they're eating, they just eat because they're hungry all the time and they're way too lazy to do any exercise.Cow sounds like "ow", "kapow", and "How?". "How?" is bad because it's one of the questions that little children ask all the time and they're really annoying.Beef sounds like "Great Barrier reef" and could even be a shortened version of barrier reef. The great barrier reef is a good thing because it's all full of sea creatures and it's pretty.Ooh.Ah.Thank you.
meat

Old people are nutters! They've aged and as a result their brains have gone to mush. Never trust a geezer!Beef should not be called cow because it makes people think of cows and cows are a real annoyance!"Moo" says the cow.Is it going to say anything intelligent? I don't think so!"Moo mooo moo" says the cow, as if anyone's really interested in what it has to say. "Moo moo moo" groans the moody old cow again. Shut up! If you want something, go and get it yourself! The population is mostly young: [http://www.nya.org.uk...]Thank you.
meat

Beef should not be called cow, and here is why.Cow sounds a bit like 'ow', so if they start calling beef burgers cow burgers and people are asked whether they want a cow burger, they would probably say 'that sounds painful! I'll pass'. Plus, people like a mystery. Telling them what animal beef is would ruin their entire lives. They thought that the meaning of their life was to discover for themselves what animal beef is, and now you just want to tell them? Cuh. It looks like you want to make people really very sad.Thank you.
Tennis is the best sport in the world

As someone who spent two hours playing tennis today, and a soon-to-be member of my school's tennis squad, I will concede that tennis is a fun sport. But is tennis the best sport in the world? I strongly disagree. Jziggy claims that tennis is better than swimming because it is more social. However, the only time you will be playing with another member of your "team" is if you are playing doubles and even then that's just one other person. More often than not, you will be playing singles and will obviously be alone. Additionally, Jziggy claims that tennis is "more accessible and less of a bother" than swimming. If you plan to swim, you can go hop in the city pool or any body of water. Grab a pair of goggles and you're good to go. To play tennis, you have to locate a properly sized court equipped with a net and back fence, find a racket, tennis balls, tennis shoes, and a person to play with. More accessible and less of a bother? I think not. Jziggy classifies tennis as one of the few sports that strengthen your arms and legs. However, many sports fit this qualification such as baseball(our nation's pastime), hockey, American football, basketball, softball, track and field events, rugby, volleyball, and numerous other athletic pursuits. What evidence is there that proves tennis is better than all of these sports? In conclusion, I've rebutted all of Jziggy's limited arguments that allegedly crown tennis as the king of sports, over our nation's pastime and some of the most popular sports in the world, over age old traditions and sports than incite "March Madness" throughout America. Clearly, tennis is NOT the best sport in the world and does not deserve this generous title.
Medea is responsible for her actions

1. I agree with the definition of responsibility. 2. In order for a person to be responsible that person must be able to think clearly. 3. Emotions can cloud a person"s judgment and prevent them from thinking clearly. 4. Pressure from outside sources can also cause a person to make decisions that they would not have made otherwise. 5. Medea"s heart is getting in the way of her ending her children"s lives, clearly showing that her emotions are affecting her judgement. 6. Also Medea states, "-anger is master of my plans". Anger is an emotion that clouds judgment, and makes people think and act irrationally. 7. Medea is going to be sacrificed by her enemies; her enemies are clearly an outside source getting in the way of her decisions. 8. On top of that Medea says that she does not want to let her enemies go unpunished, indicating hat she is thinking about them, while making this decision. 9. Medea keeps flipping back and fourth on whether she is going through with her plan or not, showing that she does not have clarity over her decisions. 10. Therefore, Because of Medea"s emotions, and the pressure from outside sources getting in the way of her decisions; she is not responsible for her actions. Non-Controversial premises Premises 1,2,3,4,6, and 8 Premise 1 is just an agreement with the definition of responsibility. Premise 2 is just a follow up about one of the necessary conditions for responsibility. Premise 3 is a statement on how emotions can cloud one"s decision making. Premise 4 is a statement on peer pressure, and how it can make people do things they would not normally do. Premise 6 is a statement on what anger is and how it can make a person think irrationally. Premise 8 states that Medea is thinking of her enemies while making this decision. Controversial premises Premises 5, 7, and 9 Premise 5 states that Medea"s emotion are definitely getting in the way of her decisions, if you believe they are not as big of a factor in the situation, this can be argued. Premise 7 states that her enemies are getting in the way of her thinking rationally; while peer pressure can be a factor in irrational decision making; if her enemies are definitely getting in the way of her decision, is not said for certain. Premise 9 states that Medea cannot make up her mind, but this could be seen as her trying to think about both sides of her decision thoroughly before acting.
Medea is responsible for her actions

1. Both parties define responsible as answerable for something within one"s own power or control. 2. For a person to be responsible for an action, there must be a clear indication that they had control over the situation that occurred. 3. Within the play, Medea contemplates killing her children and thoroughly thinks of reasons why they should no longer live. 4. Given that Medea is capable of thinking in this moment, she shows that she has control over her own thoughts and emotions. 5. In the play, Medea also recognizes that her misery stems from her own "hard-heartedness". This statement would indicate that Medea knows she is miserable, not from external forces, but from her own emotions inside of her. 6. In regards to this premise, if a person"s emotions are inside of them, then he or she is the only person who has control or power over them. 7. Furthermore, Medea claims that she must kill her children to protect them and also to get revenge on Jason. 8. Her revenge on Jason was not a necessity and, by trying to get revenge, she is taking control of the situation rather than accepting her misfortune. 9. Also, the play makes it clear that Medea is the only person that killed her children and no one else gave her the idea to do so. 10. Therefore, due to the fact that killing her children was within Medea"s power and control, she must be considered responsible for their deaths. Non-Controversial Premises: Premises 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are not controversial. Premises 1 and 2 define how a person becomes responsible for their actions. Premise 3 is shown within Medea"s monologue because there it is clear that Medea is thinking about her decision before acting. Premise 5 is based on a quote from within the play. Premise 7 and 9 are also shown directly within the monologue. Controversial Premises: 4: Attempting to think rationally before acting is an indication that Medea did have control over her emotions and her actions in that moment. 6: Emotions are internal reactions to certain situations. Being that they are internal, only the person that is experiencing these emotions has power over how they affect their actions. 8: In general, revenge is not something that needs to be done and, by trying to get revenge, a person is trying to take back control in a situation that they previously felt they had no power in. When Medea killed her children, she took control of the situation and therefore is responsible.