BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not break a rule.

0. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses. 4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null, unless a future rule requires otherwise. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. 9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions and rules. 10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for PRO and 26-40 for CON. -------------------------- 11. CON must use an exclamation point instead of a period at the end of every sentence. 12. CON must include one palindrome, one simile and one pun in each round. 13. Both debaters must not use any words not in the dictionary, according to this website: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Against Abortion

The majority of my opponents argument is irrelevant, her arguments on the way abortions are done and things such as that are irrelevant. Her relevant argument goes like this:P1: A fetus is a humanP2: Abortion is removal of the fetusC: Abortion is murder The only thing that needs debunking is P1, as P2 is correct, and C could use some semantics. =refuting her argument=P1: A fetus is a human This argument is essentially false as a fetus is totally reliant on its host, and therefore is not reliant on itself. [1] "Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 1869" [1]"Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive." [1]As P1 is dead, the whole argument is debunked. P2: Abortion removes the fetus I agree, but this does not matter as a fetus is not a human being. C: Abortion is murderFirst how can it be murder if a fetus is not a human being? Second, murder is not the correct word. Murder is defined as killing a person ILLEGALLY. [2] As abortion is legal it is not murder. =My argument=C1: Rights Abortion has been fundamental right since the ruling of Roe v. Wade. [3] The 9th amendment protects the right to privacy, and abortion is considered a private issue. The 9th amendment grants people the right to legal abortions. [4]C2: a fetus is not a human I have already covered this. C3: Allowing abortion reduces crime ""The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" is a controversial paper by John J. Donohue III of Yale University and Steven Levitt of University of Chicago that argues that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s contributed significantly to reductions in crime rates experienced in the 1990s." [5]"The effect of legalized abortion on crime (sometimes referred to as the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis) is the theory that legal abortion reduces crime. Proponents of the theory generally argue that since unwanted children are more likely to become criminals and that an inverse correlation is observed between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime." [6] Conclusion: I have proven the benefits of abortion through reduced crime rates, and also proven a fetus is not a human being, debunking her whole argument. Her arguments about god and types of abortion are irrelevant, we are not a theocratic goverment, and no matter the type of abortion the same things are accomplished. And abortion is a fundamental right according to the constitution and the courts. For these reasons I urge a PRO vote. [1] http://www.abortionaccess.info... [2] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...[3] http://abortion.procon.org...[4] http://law2.umkc.edu... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Against Abortion

extend arguments. My opponents arguments are the same how an abortion is done. My opponent claims 4 weeks. May I ask, why this number? As she has not justified this argument I urge a pro vote.The only argument she has brought forth that is relevant this round (new arguments last round, I ask for conduct) is the partial abortion and the flesh and blood statement.---> Partial abortion One must first note the decreases in abortion rates. This shows the practice of abortion, legal or not, may become rare anyway. [1] http://www.guttmacher.org...This means if we keep the trend abortion will me like it was ilelgal (rare) anyway.Furthermore for this argument to work she has to prove a fetus is a human, she hasn't, therefore it should be discarded.The final refutation will be pain. a late term abortion is at 16 weeks some say. [2] As my opponent provides no defenitons we will use this number. Well a fetus is not a human (in this debate, not in my real opinion) and a fetus cannot feel pain until after 24 weeks. [3] As this is true there is no reason to think late term abortion is bad.---> Flesh and bloodA fetus is not a human, so it does not count. "A big part of what makes us human beings is our ability to participate in society, or at least be recognized as a member of society. Fetuses are excluded both by necessity and custom. There can be no meaningful social participation for someone cocooned inside another's body. Fetuses do not even have a social identity, since names are not officially bestowed until after birth. In fact, a birth certificate marks the first legal recognition of a person's existence. And fetuses are generally not given ritualized burials when miscarried or aborted. It is quite telling that the death of a newborn infant is much more of a crushing blow to parents than an early miscarriage. People simply place a higher social value on infants than fetuses, and this convention is ingrained in our culture and history. " [4]Vote CON[1] http://www.abort73.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.foxnews.com... [4] http://www.abortionaccess.info...
Against Abortion

To have an abortion at any time over the four month period should be illegal. The process of aborting a baby at this time would be harmful not only to the baby but as well as the mother. This alone has two parts that are very dangerous, and the sad part is that some of these are legal. The first one is called dilation and evacuation which can only happen after eighteen weeks of pregnancy. In this time a pair of forceps is inserted into the womb of a women and the unborn child is clamped on to as the abortionist twist and pulls until each limb of baby is torn off and removed. The spline and the skull have to be crushed to be removed properly. The second type of abortion that is able to happen at this time is called salt poisoning. This is when a long needle full of salt solution is injected into the baby's sac. After this the baby is poisoned the salt becomes corrosive and begins to burn off the layer of skin. And within 24 hours she should give birth to a dead baby or a dying baby. If the baby is born alive it is left in the corner to die and then is thrown away. Another abortion method is Prostaglandin chemical it was developed by Upjohn Pharmaceutical Co. This chemical drug causes the uterus to contract pushing out the growing baby which frequently killed by it. Some babies have even been decapitated while others have been left alive, and just as before they are left to the side to die. Another abortion that would be given is called hysterotomy or caesarean section these are used in the last three months and are done by surgery through the abdomen wall kind of like the way you would deliver a baby with a caesarean. The difference is that the baby is cut from the umbilical cord causing the baby to suffocate and if the baby is still alive it is set aside to die of neglect. The last abortion that is explained by lifesite it is a partial-birth abortion. This is a five step process. The first step that the abortionist takes is to grab the baby's legs with forceps. Second, the baby's legs are pulled into the birth canal. Next the abortionist delivers the entire body except for the head. At that point he proceeds to jam scissors into the baby's skull to enlarge it. The scissors are then removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The brain is sucked out causing the skull to collapse causing the abortionist to be removed the baby dead. (Labeled) African American women account for thirty percent (30%) of abortions in this country compare to Caucasian women who carry a high number of thirty-six percent (36%). Hispanic women account for twenty-five percent (25%) and the other nine percent (9%) are unknown ethnicities according to Guttmacher. Even with all the different ethnic backgrounds we would still be seen as family oriented people but that might just be because of the way I was raised. So I cannot understand how you can get rid of your own family, flesh and blood. No matter how bad the timing may be. (6)
The Moral Argument is a sound and valid proof for god

What this debate is about This debate is about whether or not the Moral Argument is sound and valid proof for God.Sound: In mathematical logic, a logical system has the soundness property if and only if its inference rules prove only formulas that are valid with respect to its semantics. In most cases, this comes down to its rules having the property of preserving truth, but this is not the case in general. The word derives from the Germanic 'Sund' as in Gesundheit, meaning health. Thus to say that an argument is sound means, following the etymology, to say that the argument is healthy. [1] Valid: The conclusion is entailed by its premises; it is true under every circumstance, and interpretation; and that if every argument of that logical form is valid. [2] What is God? Remember I defined God simply as a transcendant being. I never once said who that G-d was. (Indeed, this argument, like all philisophical arguments show only the probability of a transcendant being and takes a deistic view on that being). Thus, his argumentum ad ridicul is uncalled for. Summary I have argued that the moral argument is proof for a transcendant being as it is impossible for a non-transcendant being to have given us objective morality, because human minds disagree. Moreover, I have also shown that it is not merely evolution. Izbo10 has been abusive this entire debate and has not attacked ANYTHING. Please show how those "fairies" do not exist. Voting Guide (not that this is needed).Conduct: Izbo10 has been abusive this entire debate and has no real desire for a rational discuission.Spelling: Numerous spelling errors from izbo10.Arguments: izbo10 dropped all my arguments.Sources: Only I used sources.vote pro!Reference [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The Moral Argument is a sound and valid proof for god

My opponent is clearly showing a bias towards god, that he will not grant to objective moral fairies. You can't start a discussion with someone who doesn't believe in what you are arguing for, and assume your position carries anymore weight then another alternative position. When my opponent opens the door to supernatural reasoning, he swings that door completely open. He can't just pick and choose which supernatural beings he wants to work. That is what he is doing. I think it is obvious at this point that my opponent has picked god and not objective moral fairies as the cause of objective morality. He is unable to answer why he has made this choice. It leaves him in such a disgraceful position as to try and claim that I am ridiculing him when I ask for his justification for picking his supernatural being over other supernatural beings. So, far we have no reason to believe premise 1 is true, since there are alternative options to his god as reasons for objective morality. What my opponent wants to do is open the door for his god to sneak in the supernatural route, what he doesn't want to do is admit that once he does so, the argument is based on a false dichotomy. Either god or no objective morals. I have pointed out that if objective moral fairies do exist then objective morality would be here without god. He has no response to this, but to whine and complain. I am sorry I find god no more believable then objective moral fairies. There is no reason that my opponent has given to show that this is not the case, other then to whine about it. Therefore, we must concede the premise 1, is simply not true as,my opponent has left open the posssible existence of objective moral fairies. Since premise 1 is not true, the argument falls as unsound and he has not met his burden of proof.
The Moral Argument is a sound and valid proof for god

Extend my arguments. It is clear that izbo10 does not want to have a rational argument. G-d is defined as a transient being; nothing more. We are agnostic as to who that transcendent being is. All what the moral argument does is justify the belief in a transcendent being. If we want to get into a discussion as to why that transcedant being is Hashem, then please watch the video and we can discuss. Ps. Please prove the fairy's do not exist.
The Moral Argument is a sound and valid proof for god

Point 1 he agreed to the original syllogism in the resolution. Point 2 here is where the original syllogism comes from: http://imageshack.us... http://www.debate.org... After viewing this, I hope it is shown that it was he not I who made the argument this way. His ridiculous claim that I am straw manning the argument comes from none other then himself. He is apparently aware that you can link on here, so why he was stupid enough to not think I could show that he used this argument for god, not just some arbitrary transcendent being is beyond me. Since you are a chess player I call checkmate on your intellectual dishonesty. So the idiot doesn't like it now that I have turned the tables on him and shown he is clearly and utterly falling for nonsense for his god, when he wouldn't fall for it elsewhere. He claims I am using argumentum ad ridicul, for his information it is actually argumentum ad ridculum. Figure I will attempt to educate the uneducatable while making this debate. But, alas I am not doing this. He has opened the door to supernatural causes, so I am merely asking him why he rules out this other supernatural cause. If supernatural causes are part of our dichotomy of choices for the causes of objective morality, why transcendent objective moral fairies. I would actually suggest that I am not the one using this fallacy, but instead my opponent is, he finds Objective moral fairies ridiculous so he doesn't feel the need to justify god over them. He needs to demonstrate this otherwise he is the one using the very fallacy he is calling me on. I am only giving equal footing to god and objective moral fairies until one is demonstrated to be more likely true then the other. The irony is I have given an inductive reason for believing the OMF's over god. Thanks for playing, but I do apologize you aren't very good at this game mr. infidel.
The Moral Argument is a sound and valid proof for god

Thank you izbo10 for your arguments. If objective moral facts exist, G-d exists. Objective moral facts exist. [not in dispute] Therefore, G-d exists. It is clear to anyone who has read izbo10's arguments that he is using the argumentum ad ridicul. I am arguing that a transcedent being (God) must have given us moral facts. I am not arguing for the truth of any religion or belief, but I am arguing for the fact that a transcedent being exists. Izbo10 substitutes G-d for "objective magic faries" without realizing that I am arguing for the existence of a TRANSCEDENT being. For now, I am taking an AGNOSTIC stance on who, or what, that transcedent being is.Please extend my arguments as my opponent has not disproved premise 1. In fact, all what he has done is confirm premise 1 by a ridiculous argumentum ad ridicul and strawman. If you would like a rational approach to the divine origin of the Torah, then please watch the video. http://www.youtube.com...To conclude: my opponent has not attacked the syllogism. The syllogism is better defined as the following: If objective moral facts exist, then a transcedent being exist. Objective moral facts exist. Therefore, a transcedent being exists. Thank you for your strawman!
The Moral Argument is a sound and valid proof for god

I do not contest premise 2, so I leave that stand I contest premise 1. "Lets rock"- source Al Bundy Married with children. Anyone who doesn't give sources to me after that is an idiot. I will now defend the existence of objective moral fairies. IF objective morals exist, objective moral faries exist. (p1) If Objective Moral Facts Exists, Objective moral Fairies Exist Part 1: Degree of Incumbency According to this premise, if there are objective moral facts, then these have their foundation in the nature of Objective Moral Fairies. This is because morality is prespective and it is expressed to us in the form of statements such as: "Thou shalt not lie," and "Thou shalt not torture babies for fun," etc. When you say do not do X because it is morally wrong, it carry's a degree of incumbency--that is, they communicate commands to us. Both commands and communications, however, can only originate from an intellegent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its commands to be binding on us. Hence, it is a fact that moral facts require the existence of a supreme legislator who issues these commands to us. [1] Part 2: Human Minds Disagree It is a fact of life that human minds disagree. Because of that undeniable fact, it is forced that humans could not have originated from human conception. Indeed, the Universal Moral Laws must have originated from transcendent good beings. If two people disagreed, then who should we trust for our moral values? If two cultures disagree, then which culture should we trust? If there was an economic meltdown and social robbery, cannibalism, and murder became norm; would it become morally acceptable? By no mean See how much fun it is too throw in your favorite nonsensical supernatural being into this syllogism and claim it proves something, Now does my opponent believe objective moral fairies exist, probably not. You know why,because the arguement fails. Premise 1 is not proven to be true, anymore then I have demonstrated that my premise 1 is true. Now it is up to my opponent to demonstrate that god is an answer to objective morality and objective moral fairies are not. After all, morality is a complex thing and through inductive reasoning we know that complex things come about from multiple causes more often then his fallacy of a appeal to a singular cause. With that said if you understand logic and you see why it fails for objective moral fairies you will see why it fails for god. My opponent has been previously indoctrinated to think it is more rational to believe in god then objective moral fairies, but in this argument you cannot bring in this preexisting indoctrination, it must prove it from scratch, yes it must MIG.
The Moral Argument is a sound and valid proof for god

My opponent will be taking the pro on this: Here is the argument: 1. If objective moral facts exists, God exists. 2. Objective moral facts exists. 3. Therefore, God exists. My opponent must argue that this argument proves god. In order for the argument to be sound or valid the argument must have all premises true and the conclusion must necessarily follow. My job will be to show that the argument is not sound or valid. He can start in the first round and will close out the last round with the word finished and nothing more. Good luck to my opponent, he needs it with this ridiculous argument.
Christianity is a greater threat to American freedom than Islam

The way I see it is that these are the threats to freedom offered us by Christianity: 1. A thread of sexism in Christian values: defining a woman's childbearing role and a husband's authority over their wife. 2. A thread of homophobia in Christian values: opposition to gay marriage from Christian lobby groups and a general belief that homosexuality is sinful. 3. A Christian-backed neo-con military imperative to impose itself abroad. 4. A highly organised creationist lobby waging a shameless war on science in an effort to undermine the scientific facts that contradict the Bible's claims. Now, let's look at Islam: 1. A thread of sexism in Muslim values: a woman is worth half that of a man; hijabs and burkhas; arranged marriage; forced arranged marriage; the legal subordination of women to men. 2. Virulent homophobia arguing that homosexuality is a social disease. 3. A militant wing of Islam looking to intimidate non-Muslims into respect for the religion. 4. Creationism seeing a hitherto unknown rise in Europe, primarily as a result of the rise of Islam. It seems to me that Islam shares Christianity's sexism, only it is slightly worse. That is shares Christianity's homophobia, only is slightly worse. That it shares Christianity's militant desire to spread globally, only is slightly worse. And that it shares Christianity's desire to undermine science in an effort to validate its beliefs, only is about as bad. Furthermore, freedom of speech is a clear prerequisite for 'freedom'. While Jesus is happily satirised by South Park and Family Guy, etc etc, Muhammed has become a subject which fear of terrorism has turned into a no-go area. While many Christians object to blasphemy but have to deal with it, the level of immunity from critique that the prophet Muhammed now enjoys is absolute in the mainstream media. It is all a matter of spectrum. I would argue that if you plotted a Christian spectrum and a Muslim spectrum of most liberal to most extreme, the average Muslim will be more extreme than the average Christian. Since Muslims have a higher birth rate than that of Christians, their numbers are going to grow at a faster rate. As a democracy, America will inevitably have to factor these numbers into its public policy. Islam is a problem for the of all secular democracies with a fast-growing Muslim population.
Christianity is a greater threat to American freedom than Islam

I propose that Christianity poses a greater threat to American freedom than Islam. Rules: 1.) Semantics are not welcome. 2.) Civility please. 3.) The burden of proof is on myself. 4.) Agree to the rules in round one, present our arguments in round two. 5.) American freedom is a vague concept. If my opponent agrees, we can focus on "American freedom" as being "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as well as the Constitution and its general values being upheld. If my opponent disagrees we can save space by finding a better definition in comments.
Riddle Debate

I guess your answers right. It's a bit more complex than that. But I'll give you that one. I don't really know the answer to yours, a dream room? Broom? Whatever. Here's my third riddle. A man comes to work every day and works on the 22nd floor of his office building. There is an elevator and a set of stairs to get to floor 22. The man can only take the elevator on a rainy day, and on a sunny day he must take the stairs. It isn't the boss's orders, it's just impossible on a sunny day for the man. Why is this?