BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a creator from which we come

In one sentence you say "things can be created through processes other than creators." THAT STATEMENT is a non-sequitur. In the very next sentence you try to back up your previous fallacy by saying "For instance, snowflakes are created by water droplets and the atmosphere." Uh, thanks for proving my point?? Analogy Time: Ok, so there is a piece of pie. Blueberry, to be exact. Kinesis got the munchies, so instead of feeding on the souls of helpless Shakespearean debaters, he cuts a piece of the pie out of the pan and puts it on a plate. That piece of pie is not cake. That piece of pie is not cheese. That piece of blueberry pie is just a piece of what it came from: a blueberry pie. Everything that exists come from a creator. Water droplets and atmosphere create snowflakes. Pie come from pie, created by all of the ingredients of pie. Unless you want the 'burden' of proving that something comes from nothing...There seems to be something between you and science. Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation a long time ago. MY argument is completely logical. What; other than a creator, would something that is created come from?! We are the created, and must have a creator. I am not calling the creator God, or Allah, or El Shadai, or Paul, but whoever/whatever the being that created us is, is, and has created us.
There is a creator from which we come

Thanks to Shakespeare. This will be short and simple. Pro's argument can be constructed as follows; {1} We exist. {2} If we exist, we must be created. {3} If we are created, a creator must exist who created us. {3} Is a non-sequitur [1], since things can be created through processes other than creators. For instance, snowflakes are created by water droplets and the atmosphere. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Undertale is brilliant.

An object can't be programmed to be brilliant because it lacks the mind, even if the coding is really complex, because a code does not have free decision making, they are programmed to make certain decisions under certain circumstances. For example, undertale starts off the exact same way with the story line. And yes undertale may respond to almost any situation, but that doesn't mean it's brilliant since it depends on the flexibility of the response to every situation, if they respond the same way to every situation, then it's not brilliant, especially since it can't be. My opponent has not refuted my mind argument, and I'm not sure if pro said Toby Fox developed it and since he has a mind the game can be brilliant, but that has nothing to do with the game itself being brilliant.
Legalizing abortion

Thank you for accepting! I will start out in defining abortion. I'm sure you (and anyone reading) knows what abortion is, but I will do it purely as a formality. Abortion-the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. (Merriam-Webster) Now as my first point I will start out in saying that I think the biggest issue that "pro- choice", and "pro-life" believers have is when life begins. Life begins when the sperm and the egg are joined to form a potential child. Some questions I have: 1. When do you believe life begins? 2. If you believe (like most pro-choice people) that life begins at birth then why aren't abortions done later in the term. 3. If it isn't a child dying than what is it? Ok now continuing:) the definition of life is-the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Even at that early stage in the womb the child is growing and developing. It is no longer the choice of the mother because it is not her body anymore, it is also the body of a child. I'm sorry that this isn't traditional debating style my thoughts tend to get scattered, I look forward to your reply and feel free to bring up any points you would like me to comment on.
Abortion

I feel you are being both unjustly harsh and accusatory. It is frustrating you keep trying to point out a mistake where one does not in fact exist. "Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven't formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco." This is a quote from the first link I put up. There is no contradiction. My contention was that the third trimester should be off limits to abortion. I said that pain can be felt at the start of the third trimester. There is an article that substantiates my claims. Here is another that says basically the same thing. The fetus can feel pain in the third trimester. ( http://jama.ama-assn.org...). It is scholarly. We do not wish to cause another human being pain, and it can feel pain. Therefore, abortion should not be legal at that time. 2. Your 'life isn't sacred' argument simply confused me. No need to be upset. The 38 weeks argument is valid. If I can convince voters that aborting a 38 week old fetus should be illegal, I have won. What is the real difference between a 38-week old fetus and a newly born baby? Nothing biologically. They both feel pain. They look remarkably alike. I give a much better point at which to call a fetus a human. The "pain point" in the third trimester is a much more logical place to call a fetus a human than to say babies are not babies until birth. At least there is a scientific and biological distinction instead of an inside/outside argument. My opponent is in favor of legalized abortion for 38-week old fetuses. Many babies are BORN at 38 weeks. His view that abortion should be legal up until birth is extreme, but that is his stated stance. If you are convinced that abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks then by definition of the argument, you should vote CON. Thank you very much.
Abortion

You put a link up that clearly contradicts the very point you are trying to make, then you post a completely different link and say I didn't read it correctly and to check it again. Instead of one fatal error, you have now made two. Instead of admitting your mistake and continuing on, you have now turned a citation error into a conduct abuse by trying to coerce the voters into thinking you had posted a different link. Contention1/3: life is not sacred. You are twisting my words. I clearly made the distinction between "person" and "life" earlier. For you to say that I must think killing people is OK is pure negligence on your point. The relevance of this point is that pro-lifers use the fact that life is sacred to defend making abortion illegal. I am pointing out this fallacy. Contention 2: life does not begin at conception. Con is now relying on the 38 weeks argument completely to win his case, so we will switch gears here. In another twist of words, Con says I am "in favor of" aborting a 38 week old fetus. I never said this; I simply do not believe abortion should be banned at any time. Doctors can choose not to abort later on, but there is no point in making it illegal. Where would we draw the line? At the "pain" point? This is very fuzzy, controversial, and irrelevant. Many animals feel pain and there is no ban on killing them. There is no evidence of pain in abortion. Your NEW citation is a clearly biased, non-peer reviewed, non-primary source. You would get graded down in college for using that in an upper level course. I fail to see the relevance of naming a child before it is born. I know people who name their cell phones. I have answered Con's points thoroughly and systematically, and have refuted them successfully each time. On the other hand, Con has ignored my points completely in rounds, twisted my words at times, posted links that contradict himself, used clear coercion, and constantly misunderstood my very clear arguments. My contentions stand
Abortion

On your contention that life is not sacred: What exactly does this have to do with abortion? I use life being valuable in terms of not killing a human being, I guess. Would you be in favor of killing innocent people because life is not sacred? On your contention that human life does not begin at conception: It is not that hard to make an argument for having abortion illegal in at least ONE case without this point. Abortion should be illegal at 38 weeks. Anyone who is convinced by this statement should vote CON. That has nothing to do with life beginning at conception, but of life being existent/valued at 38 weeks. On your contention that a fetus is not a person: A fatal mistake, this is not. In fact, the mistake is on your part. I would ask people to read the article for themselves. The article states that the fetus can feel pain in the 28th week - two weeks into the third trimester. Even pro-abortion groups have said 26 weeks is the time when a fetus can feel pain. Look at this article: Control F "26" and it is near the bottom: (http://www.theinterim.com...) "However, others in the pro-abortion camp continue to argue that, for example, pain cannot be felt before 26 weeks' gestation." Therefore, no mistake was made on my part; you simply did not properly read the article and only looked at the first paragraph. Please, no more false accusations of faulty reading and "fatal mistakes." " When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body)." - This makes it a human, you say. If the personal relationship is only formed after birth, why do parents name their children in the womb? Care about said child in the womb? Just because it cannot physically be touched, it is not human? Just to make this clear: You are in favor of aborting a 38 week old baby/fetus? You think that should be legal?
Abortion

Contention 1: life is not sacred. Con really didn't say too much about this, other than saying that I must think killing newborn babys is OK. Even though I don't believe my point was adequately contested, I will continue defending it in hopes it is addressed better next round. Life is not sacred. We kill germs constantly, we kill animals for fun, we even kill people if they don't follow the laws. This is all life. Contention 2: Human life does not begin at conception. Con did not address this point at all. I will assume con concedes this point. If human life does not begin at conception then a pro-life argument is hard to make, of course... Contention 3: A fetus is not a person. Con spent the vast majority of the round addressing this point, and introduces a new contention "Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester" which I will lump together here. He quotes Discover Magazine, and claims that "after six months, the baby can feel pain" but apparently does not bother to read the article quoted. Only two paragraphs in, it states "...physicians... tell women that 20-week-old fetuses can feel pain during the procedure unless they are anesthetized. A newly released review of the scientific evidence, however, suggests the premise of those laws is wrong." The article continues on to further defend this premise. This is a fatal mistake, Con. What makes you a person? Reaction to stimuli? Brain activity? A beating Heart? None of these. These traits make you ALIVE which is dealt with in contention 1. Personhood includes your personality, experiences, relationships with other people, your abilities, and your sins. Every person has made faults. A fetus has not. When a baby is born, and the mother accepts responsibility for raising it, it's very first personal relationship is formed (beforehand it is part of the mother's body). It sins (cries, disobeys), gains experience, forms a personality, and becomes a person. This is the difference you asked me for.
Abortion

Hello, and thank you for posting this debate. Should be good I hope. My opponent has set up the parameters of this debate, and he is trying to prove to you that abortion should never be illegal. If I can convince you that abortion should be illegal in ANY case ever, I win. These are the parameters that my opponent has set up. As abortion is illegal in some cases currently, my opponent does have the burden of proof. My arguments for why abortion should be illegal in some cases are as follows: 1. Abortion should be illegal after the second trimester. If you have no idea that you're pregnant after six months? I mean, honestly, you should know by then. If in the first six months you want to have an abortion, fine. You may be surprised by the fact that you're pregnant. But after six months, the baby can feel pain and is much more human in a biological sense. To abort at that point (26 weeks) is to cause pain to a human child, and you should have made the realization and decision far before 6 months into the pregnancy. (http://discovermagazine.com...) 2. I would be interested to hear your contention that life is not sacred. Does that mean it would be okay to kill a newborn baby as well? Just curious. As to your third contention, why is a fetus not a person at say, 35 weeks? Is it okay to abort at 35 weeks? The medical definition of a fetus is the unborn offspring from the 8th week after conception to birth (http://www.medterms.com...). Therefore, you must believe it is okay to abort up until birth? I believe you must explain the difference between a 38 week-old fetus and a just-born infant. What you are proposing sounds much like infanticide. There are few differences between a fetus that is that old and a newborn. You must justify your opinion here. (http://www.leaderu.com...) These are just my opening arguments and I await your retort. Thank you.
People must be taught how to speak their native language first before foreign languages.

People must first learn (in school) to speak one of their country's languages before foreign languages. I speak about people who live in their own country. I speak about how advantageous or right it is to learn a native language first before a foreign language, not how advantageous it is to learn a native language than a foreign language. Native language-the primary language of a community(dictionary.reference.com) Foreign language-any languages from another country
Going to college is worth

Consider a smart person who is determined to be a lawyer. This person has a full ride scholarship, so education is free, and it is necessary for this person's life dreams and happiness to be a lawyer. A degree is required to practice law [1]. You cannot become a lawyer without being able to practice law, and so, since classes cost no money, it is totally worth it for this person to go to college. 1. http://study.com...
Abortion

I understand that you didn't use 'person', But I find that 'person' is the better word to use. It's no "think of all those human beings" or "you lovely human beings". I'm aware that a foetus is a human, And alive. It's just not a person. Again, Foetus =/= person. Yes, A foetus hasn't experienced these things. No, It doesn't make abortion 'okay'. It's just evidence to the contrary for abortion being murder, And therefore illegal. Yes, It's why they never get them. But hypothetical futures don't matter in the real world. I'm not treated as an 80 year old, And a foetus isn't treated as a person. You can't say 'deserve'. That's subjective i. E. Your opinion. Opinions don't matter. Murdering someone because they've murdered someone is revenge, Not justice, And this is another debate entirely. I'm fine with you believing abortion is murder. It's just objectively not. Given that Meriam-Webster doesn't have a separate definition for human being, The other will serve; "a man, Woman, Or child of the species Homo sapiens, Distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance. " It'd be safe to assume that 'man' and 'woman' refer to sex, But for the distinction 'child'. This suggests that a human being is an adult or child member of the human race. Given that a child is "a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority", And age cannot be negative, A foetus is not a human being. You aren't pro-choice. Remember, This is the English language. Not everything is literal. Unless you believe that a women should be allowed abortions, You are not pro-choice. Some false equivalencies right there. A slave is a human being. A murder victim is a human being (or was). A foetus is not a human being. And banning the latter makes all three a violation of the right to bodily autonomy, Which is a good segue to my argument. Under the laws of the U. S. A, And most western countries, Citizens have the civil (legal) right to bodily autonomy. This means that they have the final say in what happens to their body. This is why you have to consent to giving blood, And to being an organ. You can't just have them taken from you willy nilly. Banning abortion violates this right, Because women can no longer choose not to be pregnant. But hold your horses, Because I'd imagine you have a couple of rebuttals. Firstly, It doesn't violate the foetus's civil rights. A foetus has no civil rights. It's not a citizen of any country. Secondly, 'the woman should've just chosen not to have sex' is stupid. Don't punish women for having sex.
Abortion

First off, I never used the word "person. " I said "I believe it is wrong to take away another"s life. " Although maybe I should have used a little different wording and said "human life. " (yes, A fetus is human life. ) Secondly, Every fetus does have individuality. Otherwise, Every person would look and act just like everybody else which is obviously not the case. I see your point that a fetus does not have likes, Dislikes, Relationships, Etc. Why does it not have these? Because it has not yet been born and able to experience these things in life beyond the womb. I don"t agree that the lack of characteristics such as likes and dislikes makes abortion ok, Because killing them before they are able to develop these characteristics is why they never get them. I don"t find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. Why? Because I believe humans that murder people, Commit treason, Take part in human trafficking, Etc. Deserve to be killed. I also believe that humans that have not murdered people, Not committed treason, Not trafficked humans, And not done any wrong (such as a fetus) don"t deserve to be killed. I"m glad that you don"t like abortion (there is something we have in common haha). However, I do believe abortion is murder. Oxford Dictionary defines murder as "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. " Of course you could argue that abortion is legal and therefore it is not "unlawful" as the definition says, But that is the entire point of my debate is to argue against abortion and I think it should be illegal so I am overlooking the use of that word. Abortion still is a "premeditated killing of one human being by another. " Lastly, I am also pro-choice. I believe people can make any choice they want, That is until they make a choice that inhibits the freedoms and choice-making abilities of another human being. For example, I can choose whether to read a book or watch a movie. That choice doesn"t affect the agency of any other human being. However, I cannot choose to own a slave (I would never want to, This is just an example). Why? Because by choosing to own a slave, I would be taking away the choice-making ability of my slave. Another example: I could make the choice to murder someone (Again, I wouldn"t, Just another example). But this takes away the freedom of that person to live. Abortion, Taking away the life of the human being, Takes away their freedom to live. Slavery and murder are illegal, Why isn"t abortion?
Abortion

I agree that it is wrong to take another person's life. That is murder, And absolutely reprehensible. Where you and I evidently differ is whether or not a foetus is a person. Both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries define person as an individual human being, Or a human with reference to individuality. On the definition of individual, They differ slightly, But the consensus is that individual means a distinctly separate entity, With defining characteristics. It is my belief that, Beyond genes (which it shares partly with either parent anyway), A foetus has no defining characteristics. No individuality. For example, I have friends. Likes. Dislikes. Relationships. Aspirations. Worries. Things that make me me. A foetus has none of these things. P. S. I find it hypocritical to be pro-life and pro death penalty, Because of these definitions. P. P. S. I don't like abortion. I just don't think it's murder or that it should be illegal. You'll find the vast majority of pro-choice people share these views. We aren't pro-abortion.
Unborn human beings should have a legal right to live.

This is open to anyone who can intellectually argue the con to this statement. Definitions"unborn human beings"-The human being from conception to birth."legal right to live"- This is a prohibition against the initiation of homicide against another human being, except in the case of immediate self defense (which would include life of the mother.)The first round will be for acceptance purposes.The second round will be for stating our case.The third round will be for rebuttals.The fourth round will be for second rebuttals as well as closing statements.One last rule, I know this can be a touchy subject but both sides should be mature enough to argue his or her case without resorting to any name calling.For whoever wishes to argue con, good luck.
Fast food is killing the nation

The nutritional content that is listed in foods is list for consumer to know and learn. It is not the fast foods chain's responsibility to educate their consumers. It is the consumers responsibility to learn what their eating. Therefore, Fast food Chains are providing information that is necessary, hence is it is the consumers choice of fast food that is killing the nation. . http://nerdfitness.com... It is the consumer's lack of care in choice of fast food that is killing the nation. Ban on fast food is needed.