BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexual behavior is more harmful than heterosexual behavior

"Pregnancy may be a "harmful" thing to some thing to some, but it can also be a joyful thing to many."So can anal tears; makes the sadomasochists go ooh la la and the scat fans go nomnomnom.Throughout all of this debate, Pro has stated that this is about how risky that sex is on top of how harmful it is. If only heterosexual behavior can lead to pregnancy then homosexual behavior is less risky since it has 0% risk of unintended pregnancy. Abortion is the only way out of this and that is harming a fetus and thus is definitively harmful. Pregnancy itself, if unintended, can harm a woman's career and many other things due to the strain it has on her.http://www.nap.edu...http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...You say that taking care of a baby beats having a disease; let's ignore the fact that every single harmful homosexual act mentioned can be done in heterosexual sex and look at raising a child versus having a disease. The drain on your income and energy of raising a kid to not just 18 because not all are financially stable to move out then but well and beyond that is no easy ride. If you're in a tough spot and give up the child it will forever haunt you and psychological torment is far worse than physical in the long run.Anyway, let's get to the punchline of this whole debate... Apparently anal is a homosexual-exclusive act... Yeah, I can really see Ellen Degeneres ramming her 2-inch clit... Nevermind, let me just stop before I make people laugh too hard. Basically, anal is not a homosexual-only act and the best part of it is that since gay males do it frequently, many share good advice about it as it's nto nearly as taboo or 'disgusting' to talk about as it is amongst straight couples. As for lesbians, they also are probably more informed about how to use strapons and look very much into lubrication to make everything run smoothly, if they use a jumbo strapon, they will make sure to make it fun. If it turns out Mr. Jumbo is too big, they can opt for a thinner, smaller alternative which simply isn't possible with penis size versus a woman's anus. Also, is this including the pegging of men? So you think pegging doesn't rip apart anuses? Overall the only people who are scared to talk about and research anal sex are the straight lovers.Pegging harms: Inconstinence Anal tears Anal leakage Anal cancer Any STD anal-related Straight anal, typical harms: Literally all the harms Pro mentioned. Sometimes there are gender-specific STD's that one carries but doesn't know they have that affect the other gender differently and somtimes worse like chlamydia (http://youngmenshealthsite.org...), gonorrhea (https://www.dred.com...) and herpes (http://www.webmd.com...) all of which affect female sufferers worse. Anal-specific sources (mentions stats that prove straight people do it too):http://www.webmd.com...http://www.nhs.uk...https://www.medinstitute.org...Pegging-specific sources (proves both that it is done and the many harms):http://pegging101.com...http://goodvibesblog.com...https://www.reddit.com...http://www.rolereboot.org... http://www.youtube.com...
Homosexual behavior is more harmful than heterosexual behavior

"Homosexual behavior (defined as homosexual sex) so far has been claimed to have zero risks or harms by both Pro and Con." Con obviously did not read round one. I said that I would let con go first, then I would start my argument. Anyways I'll start. "Heterosexual behavior (define as heterosexual sex) so far has been claimed by me to lead to hold the risk of unintended pregnancy leading to shows like 16 and Pregnant. Sure, abortion is an option for some countries but even abortion is itself 'harmful' to the human fetus." " Pregnancy may be a "harmful" thing to some thing to some, but it can also be a joyful thing to many. Homosexual behavior/sex may lead to anal tears, anal leakage, anal cancer, and also a much higher risk of developing stds. http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.homosexinfo.org... http://www.cancer-network.org... It is MUCH MORE likely to catch these type of diseases from homosexual sex than it is for heterosexual sex. And in my opinion having to take care of a baby DEFINITELY beats catching a disease. Con mentions that heterosexual behavior is dagerous/harmful because of babies being aborted. Heterosexual sex/ behavior isn't the cause of abortion. Doctors and selfish people are the cause of it. Heterosexual sex was only responsible for getting a woman pregnant. Thats it. Abortion is beyond heterosexual sex/behavior. So aborting a baby is heterosexual behavior. Well. This debate didn't go as well as I planned it. Anyways thanks for the debate. Vote.
Homosexual behavior is more harmful than heterosexual behavior

Homosexual behavior (defined as homosexual sex) so far has been claimed to have zero risks or harms by both Pro and Con.Heterosexual behavior (define as heterosexual sex) so far has been claimed by me to lead to hold the risk of unintended pregnancy leading to shows like 16 and Pregnant. Sure, abortion is an option for some countries but even abortion is itself 'harmful' to the human fetus.Am I a troll? If I am I guess you're easy bait then...http://www.youtube.com...Best troll in the game in some ways.
Homosexual behavior is more harmful than heterosexual behavior

Two females having homosexual sex is homosexual behavior and 2 males having homosexual sex is also homosexual behavior, so when I said homosexual behavior I obviously meant 2 men and 2 women. Um. What does having babies have to do with anything? This is about how homosexual sex is more dangerous/harmful/riskier than heterosexual sex. Unless you're trying to argue that having babies is somehow harmful and dangerous. Anyways. If you have no real argument whyd you accept this debate? You some type of troll?
Homosexual behavior is more harmful than heterosexual behavior

So are we talking between two females or two males?I'm really confused as to a single thing that could prove this resolution true.I do take note that you mentioned 'riskier' not just harmful in your round one and I hate to break it to you but out of the two sex methods only one can end you up with a baby.http://www.babycenter.com...So... Still waiting for an argument of any kind.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...;
Resolved: The Christian God Most Likely Doesn't Exist

I hope it will be very productive . So on that note, lets begin. I will be starting out with three contentions and might add more if the moment calls for I just ask that my opponent refrain from posting new arguments in the final round because that would be just plain unfair. Contention 1: Lack of Extraordinary EvidenceI will begin with a fairly well-known quote by Carl Sagan:"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" [1]. With that said, I will now get to the point. There is no real nor extraordinary evidence for the existence of God. If there be any that I am not aware of then my opponent has the burden to present it. My opponent has the Burden of proof because it is always left to those claiming something exists to prove that the thing to which they referring to (in this case God) exists. For example: If I were to come up to my opponent and say to him that had seen a Unicorn and that they do exist, my opponent would have no reason to believe me unless I either show the Unicorn or the evidence that says the Unicorn exists. It would not be my opponent who had to prove that the unicorn didn't exist, it would be all up to me to prove that it does exist. The same that would apply to there, also applies to here. Contention 2: The Impossibility of an AfterlifeMy next contention really just speaks for itself. I will prove the impossibly of an afterlife. For this I will do a syllogism:P1: Studies have shown that there exists a strong connection between mental events and brain events that neither can exist without the other. P2: In a afterlife, there would occur mental events without brain events. C: Therefore, An afterlife is impossible. Now, I know what your thinking, if there is a soul then it doesn't require a brain to function. However, this is proven false by my first premise. There are certain injuries to the brain that if happened a person would have no mental state (they would be brain dead). While others destroy various mental capabilities. Which capability is destroyed is determined by which part of the brain was effected. So it is clear that we do not have a soul to carry out mental capabilities further then the brain we have now [2]. Contention 3: Omnipotence is ImpossibleFor my third contention I contend that omnipotence (or the state of being all-powerful) is in fact logically impossible. I will prove this by using a very old and well known method for do this. It is known as the Paradox of the Stone , and it goes like this:If God is all-powerful, then he could create a stone that is so heavy that he could not lift it. However, if he does then he proves that he is not all-powerful. Since omnipotence is a key aspect of God, and since omnipotence is a logical impossibly. Then God is impossible. I will now await my opponent's response. Thank You. Sources[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.infidels.org...
Resolved: The Christian God Most Likely Doesn't Exist

My opponent, while I respect him as a person and his beliefs, has lost his mind. He avoided answering my questions which for all intents and purposes is a concession. Then he went on to claim he never conceded anything. He would not refute any personal experiences I or anyone i talked about had without resorting to insults and in his closing argument round, he got waaaay to defensive for anyone's tastes. That in and of itsself is a clear showing of insecurity in his beliefs. When you have insecurities in your beliefs, no matter how much infallable proof you provide, makes you seem like you just do not know what you are defending. Ladies and gentleman, that, is why you must vote for me to win this debate, regardless of your personal beliefs. If you are having someone who gets angry at refutation defending YOUR personal beliefs you must, I repeat, MUST start to question the socalled logic behid his defenses AS WELL AS your own beliefs. I presented inarguable facts which were failed to be refuted. My name is kingcripple, and I approved this message
What game is more fun? Magic vs Yugioh? I say Magic.

Eh...my opponent went missing. So yeah, restating my argument: MTG is quite complicated to pick up and the concepts of the game are hard to get used to if you come from playing other games (tapping mana, the different phases). It's not very beginner friendly at all. Yugioh is quite easy to pick up and is still a young game, the rules are not quite as complicated.
What game is more fun? Magic vs Yugioh? I say Magic.

They say ignorance is bliss, and I believe this to be the case between these two card games. I've played both and thoroughly enjoyed my time absorbed in them. However, I quit Yugioh because I didn't have enough time whereas I quit Magic because I could no longer keep up with the game. For many players, MTG's charm is within its complexity. However, I know that many other people will be turned away from the game due to it. Back when the most complicated ability was "flying", Magic might have been easy to teach. But today, it seems as if though the amount you need to absorb in order to be considered a good player is more than can be taught in a week-long seminar. Yugioh, I would argue, would be viewed as more fun because it appeals to a younger and wider audience. It's also much more basic and easier to handle.
Emotion is a weakness in decision making.

He fails to meet his burden of proofa. Both his arguments are non-starters to the resolutionb: His arguments don't meet the burden of proof in that they can't make the generalization needed for him to win the round. c: There's no reason to believe rationality is somehow "good" in that it leads to good pay offs. My opponent needed to show this, but did not.2. My argument on game theory clearly demonstrates how emotion is just a factor of decision making. This went conceded through all rounds. If emotion is a necessary factor of decision making, than it isn't a weakness in that process.3.
Emotion is a weakness in decision making.

Definitions Emotion – a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body. [1] Weakness – fault, defect. [2] Feeling – an emotional state or reaction. [3] An emotional response to a majority of situations is irrational. Emotion uses the sense of "feeling" that the stance being taken is correct and undeniable. Furthermore it gives a sense of conviction on a position. A conviction within a persons mind has the ability to override rational thought and dismiss facts. Example: Female A and Female B get into a scuffle over the same Male. The Male has played both girls into liking/loving him. Female A states she has been in a relationship with the Male for years so Female B needs to get lost. Female B claims that the Male said he loves her thus trumping any claim she has. Female A and Female B are both using an emotional response in order to justify their claim. Those who are not invested in this argument are able to see the real problem, the Male. Due to the heated emotional investment into the argument both Females have failed to look at the whole matter at hand. The reason the Male is at fault is due to social norms he should not have been with another women. Granted the example above is based upon a person on person disagreement. My point still stands but I will take my point further now such as; Sen. Jon Kyl claimed the Planned Parenthood activity is "well over ninety percent." [4] In reality it is actually three percent. [5] In order for an agenda to be pushed through the House of Congress – which dictate the laws we are meant to follow – Sen. Jon Kyl used a childish and emotional tactic in order to prove his point. Such people in a position that are able to effect a country should not ever use an emotional base to push their point. Such thought leads to terrible outcomes in the end. The topic alone of this debate may likely illicit an emotional reasoning by saying emotion is what make us human or ever we would be no where without emotional. Those topics I will cover should they arise later in the debate. I have opened this debate up well. I expect a major challenge. I pass it on to the Con. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4]http://freeourpress.info... [5]http://www.factcheck.org...
Abortion (Is it OK) Part II

In an effort to maintain fairness I will only rebut half of my opponents previous round. This way no one will get the last word on the entire debate. Specifically I will attack the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs. 1. You are still not getting my argument. Fetuses don't have conscious thoughts (a) or pain. (already sourced) It is at this point similar to a plant. Some people are vegans or vegetarians, but I doubt that anyone would find eating a plant abhorrent. I do not feel that plants are entitled to the same rights as animals for this reason. They simply do not value their own life. The argument then is that at some point they will value their own life at some point, but at THAT point in time the mother values the freedom that an abortion can provide, and the fetus has no opinion on the matter. Using utilitarianism we can therefore justify abortion. The fetus does not suffer, and the mother is able to live her life how she wants to. Society gets the benefit of the mothers freedom to innovate, and while it may be argued that that fetus could innovate I have shown this to not necessarily be true, and my opponent has never countered this. They state that we should give everyone a chance, but is forcing someone to live down a life they don't want so that someone else can get a chance fair? I don't think so. 3. I just showed you a site with statistics to back up my claim. Are statistics not studies? This was never my argument for abortion being justified it is rather a rebuttal against your idea of giving "everyone" a chance. 4. By the way you spelled species wrong. The word has s in it twice. I don't think that you understand ecology at all. The reason you don't want species to go extinct is it reduces biodiversity. The less biodiversity you have the less stable an ecosystem becomes, until it all comes collapsing down in a chain reaction of co-dependent species. (b) The same does not happen if a person dies. In fact it could be argued that more abortions/use of condoms and the like would be beneficial. Overpopulation is a huge problem going forward. It reduces quality of life, and causes the destruction of more habitat, and thus more species. (c) 5. Sorry, I misquoted you. Your actual, very similar, statement was "We should not be taking away anybody's life, no matter the circumstance of the mother." This justifies my argument because no matter how small the amount of abortions where this is the case (certain death for mother if child is not aborted) are compared to the entirety of abortions. You made a blanket statement so I merely have to provide one contradictory example to defeat it. Here is doctor testimony that abortion may be needed to save lives. (d) I have used unbiased sources whereas my opponent has not. Provided many undeniably winning arguments. (pain, special person etc.) And continued to develop my arguments, rather than repeating the same things over and over. For these reasons I can see no other than a Pro vote. a. http://www.scientificamerican.com... b. http://www.nwf.org... c. http://www.marketwatch.com... d. http://www.usatoday.com...
Abortion (Is it OK) Part II

I never said that children aren't special or smart, but fetuses aren't. I feel like you and I have definitions of smart and special anyways. A fetus does not have ideas or a personality. At some point it will have fingerprints, but that is pretty superficial and would fall under the category of unique. You still have failed to s how that a fetus is special or smart. (A) A fetus has no say because it is not capable of thought. It doesn't care either way so It is naturally the mother's decision. (B) I did not use this as THE reason abortion is OK, but rather as a rebuttal to the argument that it will someday be a great human being. In fact many studies show that abortion lowers crime rates. This is because less people are born into low income families or families with parents who don't love the child. Statistical evidence backs this up. (1) (2) It doesn't matter how rare these occasions are as you stated "no matter the mother's condition" so this argument is justified. It's pretty silly to argue that each human is its own species, and you haven't really backed up this claim. I never stated that I value animals more than humans. If an animal wanted an abortion or would die without one I would find it moral to give it an abortion. I am confused about this argument. How do some bloody pictures show that a lot of pain occurred. A woman recently filmed her abortion. It didn't look like she was in very much pain to me. (3) A couple testimonials do not compare to over 1000 people surveyed. How can you call my source biased when all of yours openly are. The study was conducted outside of the website I presented. It merely reported the findings. You still haven't actually shown that abortion devalues life. If it did there would be some effect. 1. http://www.google.com... 2. http://freakonomics.com... 3. http://m.nydailynews.com...
Abortion (Is it OK) Part II

While a fetus may be to some degree unique they are by no means smart or special. I've already explained that the argument that they could become something special is flawed. Your rebuttal dances around this by saying we need these kids to continue the human species, but we have no chance of going extinct due to them. (1) You then go on to say that abortion is not justified under any circumstances, but what if it would mean the woman would die? This is a blatant contradiction of morals, and in this case the woman could be someone valuable to society. My opponent then makes a point about us allowing abortion and protecting endangered animals being hypocritical, but humans are not an endangered species as I have stated. Now I will rebuild my case. My opponents first rebuttal is that fetuses may feel pain. These claims aren't currently substantiated, and as my opponent has BoP (Abortion is already legal therefore he had is going against the norm. ) he must find valid evidence for this. No "possible" arguments. Even if this were true the development of these feelings come after the overwhelming majority of abortions occur. (2) The next argument presented revolves around guilt of people who get abortions, but it is their decision to get that abortion people feel regret for all kinds of things that does not mean they should be banned. In fact most women don' regret their decision. (3) By the way you spelled genius wrong when pointing out I spelled genius wrong. I've already covered this argument. Quotes about how abortion devalues life are then presented. How? If this has happened why have we not seen a moral collapse of society? Why haven't murder rates soared since the legalization of abortion? (4) There is also something about it devaluing women, but again how? It's solely the woman's choice. My opponents site about rape victims only aborting 1/4 of the time. If this is true then how does it make the times when people do get abortions morally invalid? 1. . http://www.cdc.gov... (Much bigger worldwide. Duh. ) 2. . http://mobile.nytimes.com... 3. . http://www.m.webmd.com... 4. . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Abortion (Is it OK) Part II

Abortion is morally permissible as a fetus does not have consciousness thus making the act not cruel in the sense that a fetus does not yet value its life, and taking away this potential human is not necessarily detrimental to society as a whole. It may be argued they could be a great person, but they could also be a bad one, and using this logic it would be immoral not to have as many children as possible because one of them could be a great genious.
Abortion (Is it OK) Part II

Abortion kills life and I think we should cherish life, as each person is unique and smart and special. We should not be taking away anybody's life, no matter the circumstance of the mother. What's wrong with this picture: society kills human beings yet goes to a lot of stress to save endangered species! But the focus is on 'why abortion is wrong/right.' Pro must argue that it is OK and I (con) will argue that it is not. First round, please give your reasons of why it is OK. I have already stated the obvious and if pro can rebut that, go ahead. Let the debating begin!
An alternative for animal testing should be found.

Clearly there must be some confusion. I do state that an alternative for animal testing SHOULD be found. You state that I need to prove "that an alternative for animal testing should NOT be found," when my original argument is AGAINST animal testing and the fact that we should find an alternative for animal testing. Your conclusion states that it "is definite that we ought to find an alternative for animal testing." Hence, you were only endorsing my statements and argument. I"m not sure that you understood YOU had to prove why we should NOT find an alternative for animal testing. Unless I"m completely wrong here?
An alternative for animal testing should be found.

I apologize for making it look like I did not read your reply. This is not the case at all. I read through your last reply and I realized that this is a misunderstanding from my side. I do understand your last reply and in this case my argument should have been Pro instead of Con and therefor, you are right. I've actually helped you with your argument. (This was not intentionally, as I said we both actually agree on this subject.) Thanks for correcting me and I guess this one goes to you then ;)