BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is Murder

In case Pro continues the debate I'll quickly make my main points again. Killing with intent is not necessarily murder Pro-I never said that. Or at least i dont remeber. It should be added that it would be unlawful. Seeing killing with intent is not necessarily murder...... Pro- let me fix this logic. 1) Fetus is alive human being 2) Killing with intent is immoral murder is such. C) Therefore killing a fetus with intent is murder The point being that killing with intent is insufficent grounds to establish murder. But isnt that murder? Pro-We have alreadly said that a fetus is a human. Because its unlawful just to kill a human, this logic can be followed. A fetus is a human To kill a human with intention and it being unlawful Unlawful is Adjective: Not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules. Synonyms: illegal - illicit - illegitimate - lawless - wrongful Moral reason is not to kill Abortion is murder. Possibility does not equal actuality & Intrinsic moral value A possible human is not an actual human. A possible person is not an actual person. Even if actual persons and/or humans have intrinsic moral value or rights it doesn't follow that possible humans or possible humans have the same value or rights. 'Possible' humans are still humans. You have not proven that fetus' are not humans.
Abortion is Murder

In case Pro continues the debate I'll quickly make my main points again.Killing with intent is not necessarily murderSeeing killing with intent is not necessarily murder......1) Fetus is alive human being2) Killing with intent is not necessarily murderC) Therefore killing a fetus with intent is not necessarily murderThe point being that killing with intent is insufficent grounds to establish murder.Possibility does not equal actuality & Intrinsic moral valueA possible human is not an actual human. A possible person is not an actual person. Even if actual persons and/or humans have intrinsic moral value or rights it doesn't follow that possible humans or possible humans have the same value or rights.
Abortion is Murder

After reading Pros response, I asked myself, as should the reader, what exactly is Pros argument to justify the claim that "abortion is murder". Killing with intent is not necessarily murderPro says. .. "Fetuses are human. They are alive. Murder is a human killing another human full aware of what he did. "Lets put this in logical form. .. .. .. .. .. ..1) Fetuses are alive humans2) Murder is knowingly killing another humanC) Therefore killing a fetus (abortion) is murderI would argue that premise 2 is false. For example most acknowledge that killing in self defense is not murder. How about the recent activity of seals where they busted into a compound and shot Osama Bin Laden dead. If killing with intent was always murder then the seals should be doing hard time. The point here is to show how its untenable to claim that killing with intent always means a murder has being committed. If this is accepted what this means is that the argument for killing a fetus is as such. .. .. .. ..1) Fetus is alive human being2) Killing with intent is not necessarily murderC) Therefore killing a fetus with intent is not necessarily murderPossibility does not equal actuality & Intrinsic moral valuePro says. . "It would be absurd to kill a human just because the human being is not at a later stage of life, or calling it not human"Its only absurd if you equate each stage of human development as equal, but they are not. For example its possible that Pro could join a terrorist group and participate in a terrorist attack on America and/or its allies. Now just because pro is a "possible" terrorist does that mean we should treat Pro as an "actual" terrorist and ship him of to a non disclosed location to be water boarded ? I think not. Like wise even if a fully developed human being has certain intrinsic moral rights, it does not necessarily mean that a non fully developed human being has the same intrinsic moral rights. If we are going to regard a fetus as having an intrinsic moral right to life because of having human dna and/or is in a process that may or may not result in a fully developed human being does that mean my sperm have an intrinsic right to life too ? Maybe I could invoke Pros argument here and say its absurd to kill a sperm just because the sperm is not at a later stage of life, or calling it not human". I look forward to Pros reply.
Abortion is Murder

Lawful can have moral reasoning also. Lawful in not stuck in Rulership. Fetuses are human. They are alive. Murder is a human killing another human full aware of what he did. 1. Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value? (Something with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or end-in-itself.) Or use. Is humans useful? 2. Is the developing fetus a human being? And an additional question that should come up is: 3. Are humans intrinsically valuable? Internationally the declaration of human rights recognizes the intrinsic moral value of human beings. This would imply that IF a developing fetus is a human being, then the fetus has intrinsic moral value, including the right to life. Remember! Back to question #2 above, Is the developing fetus a human being? Scientifically and medically the fetus at every stage of development is a human being. DNA, you need to understand that is human DNA and once combined (egg and sperm), at conception, all the traits of a human being are determined(Now this shows this is human life.). I do want to clarify, an embryo is not a baby, but it is a human being at a different stage. It would be absurd to kill a human just because the human being is not at a later stage of life, or calling it not human
Abortion is Murder

Pro has defined murder as "Murder is. .. - noun 1. unlawful intentional killing - verb (used with object) 2. to kill unlawfully and deliberately" Now here is the problem, this definition of murder is a legal definition not a moral definition. Pro can merely point out a law some where in the world where abortion is illegal, and thus say abortion is murder. But I can also point out area's in the world where abortion is not unlawful, thus not murder. As such I suspect what Pro really has in mind is that they will be making an argument that abortion is murder in the moral sense and since the law should reflect morality that the abortion should be unlawful. What this means is that this debate is not what the law is or isn't, but what the law SHOULD be. I would also like to point out that the resolution and interpretation of the resolution is as such that no exceptions have been made or allowed and as such abortion as murder is framed as an absolute. I look forward to Pros opening argument.
Abortion is Murder

On Mobile Im Con-Abortion. I'll be facing someone who disagrees with the title. Everyone got that? Traits of life are... http://library.thinkquest.org... Murder is... - noun 1.ï¿½unlawful intentional killing - verb (used with object) 2.ï¿½to kill unlawfully and deliberately - Related Forms ï¿½ï¿½ self-murï¿½dered- adjective ï¿½ï¿½ self-murï¿½der- noun http://m.dictionary.com...
Abortion is Murder

I won't be adding anything new, just quickly summarizing my main points. Killing with intent is not necessarily murderI think I have shown sufficiently that this is the case, as such it can't be justified that killing a fetus or anything means it MUST be murder. Killing with intent in of its self does not establish murder. Possibility does not equal actuality & Intrinsic moral valueA possible human (such as a fetus or sperm) is not the same as a fully developed human, as such it doesn't follow that any right to life of a developed human would then be extended to possible humans. PersonhoodHuman Dna is not sufficient to establish personhood, as such any rights of personhood do not necessarily extend to something that has human dna such as a zygote,embryo or fetus. Murder in the legal and moral senseAt the start of this debate I made the point that what we were arguing was what the law SHOULD be. I submit that Pro has not been able to make a good argument that abortion is immoral yet alone should be made unlawful.
Abortion is Murder

Want to start a another debate?I don't think Pro has been able to refute this premise of mine. I used the example of killing in self defense and the recent activity of seals breaking into a compound and killing osma bin laden. Both these examples are clearly killing with intent but are not regarded as murder. So unless Pro adheres to some form of no killing under any circumstances pacifism then even Pro adheres to this whether they realize it or not, that killing with intent is not necessarily murder.Pro rewrites premise 2 to say..."2) Killing with intent is immoral, murder is such."No killing with intent is not necessarily immoral and/or murder. Once again unless Pro adheres to a form of non killing pacifism even they acknowledge this.Seeing that Pros premise is said without exception, and we do have grounds for believing in various exceptions, premise 2 is false thus the argument is unsound.Pro asks..."The point being that killing with intent is insufficient grounds to establish murder.But isn't that murder?"No, legally speaking, murder is defined as UNLAWFUL killing. This means there is such a thing as killing with intent that is LAWFUL (e.g the killing of osma bin laden) As Wikipedia says..."Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being," [1]I only say this for Pros consideration as I said at the start, this debate is what the law SHOULD be in relation to abortion not what the law is or isn't concerning abortion.As I said before killing with intent is insufficient in of its self to establish "murder".
0.999..(repeating) is equal to 1

Well, since my opponent didn't refute me, I will refute myself. Dear the_tom, in the previous round you had stated that 4/2 is another way of writing 1. Well let me just say sir, this is blatantly incorrect! Not only this, but the number one looks bigger than 0.999.. therefore your proof is null! Seriously though, arguing with yourself is not fun, so I leave the floor to my opponent.
0.999..(repeating) is equal to 1

0.9999... = 1 (Note ... means repeating) This is a mathematically proven fact which most people find hard to believe. I will try an convince the readers that this is indeed a fact. My opponent claims "two values, structures, objects, concepts, or any measurably comparable entity, however similar in structure they may be, must retain ALL characteristics of one another to be 2 of the same entity." There are many ways to write the number 1: (4/2), (5 - 4), (0.25 x 4), these don't have all the same characteristics as each other, but they are all ways of writing the number 1 Here I will attempt to prove that 0.9... is another way of writing 1 Logical Proof: If there is no difference between two numbers then they are logically the same number So, 1 - 0.999999.... = 0.000000... Hence, they are the same number. Please note that because there are an infinite number of 9's, that there will be an infinite number of 0's Another way of saying this is that if you cannot fit a number between two other numbers, there is no difference between them. Proof using arithmetic: 1/3 = 0.333333... 0.333333... x 3 = 0.99999... And (1/3) x 3 = 1 Therefore 0.99999... = 1 Algebraic proof: Z = 0.999999... (multiply by 10) 10Z = 9.99999... (subtract Z from both sides) 10Z - 1Z = 9.99999... - 0.99999.. (reduce) 9Z = 9 (divide by 9) Z = 1 Here Z has started as 0.999 repeating, and has ended up as 1 Therefore 0.99999... = 1 I am sure that my opponent will argue that there will always be an infinitely small difference between .999.. and 1. I will refute that argument here: The rules of infinity: It is an accepted mathematical fact that an infinitely small number is equal to zero (1). Another way of writing this is (1/infinity = 0) Therefore, THERE IS NO GAP BETWEEN 0.999... AND 1 This seems counter-intuitive, but it has been proven true (2)(3). For other mathematical proofs and in depth explanations why, follow my references, or do a quick google search for "0.9 repeating = 1". References: 1. http://www.wolframalpha.com...(x)%3D+1/x+as+x+approaches+positive+infinity 2. https://www.khanacademy.org... 3. http://polymathematics.typepad.com...
0.999..(repeating) is equal to 1

.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is not equal to .9999999999999999999999999999999999999998, by reason that two values, structures, objects, concepts, or any measurably comparable entity, however similar in structure they may be, must retain ALL characteristics of one another to be 2 of the same entity. Therefore, 0.9999(repeating) is NOT EQUAL to 1.
Gay marriage should be legalized

I accept the challenge..but then, I beg to disagree that there are no argument against it..gay adds nothing to the nation building and it should not be legalized because like pole repels while unlike pole attracts so how can a man marry his fellow man? Or woman marry his fellow woman? Who will marry who? Who will be the father? Or rather the mother? Gay marriage denies one of parents because one in his right sense will not call a man his mother
Mental health and crime are linked

Crime and mental health are two things that are not linked and don't go together. Crime is done out of despite and stupidity whereas mental health is not brought upon someone on purpose rather it is because of their low self esteem and mindset that their mental health is ruined as a consequence. 450 million around the world are currently suffering from a mental health issue, just because they have a mental health does not mean they have committed a crime and are being placed in the same category
Mental health and crime are linked

Mental health and the criminal justice system have long been intertwined. Mental disorders in prison populations are up to four times higher than those in the general population. The media has, often represented this link in a negative way, leading to the perception that people committing certain types of offences are all mentally ill. Mental health and crime link as, people can not control themselves if they are mentally ill during the moment in time or the temptations. This is just unbearable
god is either a "Brain Salad Surgery" or he does not exist

First off, I see that you're not a respectable opponent because of your crass language and lack of intelligence. Of course, the Old Testament contains many things which may be seen as unbelievable today, but there is much to understand about them. "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21). God gave life and He may take it as He pleases. What is a greater punishment than to lose your own children? If God takes an evil person's children form them, then it is simply because of the person's great sin. They do not deserve the gift of procreation if they are such wicked people, especially not the ability to raise a child in the same evil way they are. If anything, God is being just to these children. Children cannot go to hell, so he is keeping them form leading evil lives like their parents. In terms of the death penalty for sin, sin is death of the soul. If the soul dies, then the body, which caused the souls death, shall perish as well. The death penalty is not only in the bible, but all throughout history it has been done as well. It's better to die than to continue sinning. If you do not understand the gravity of sin, then you must shift your perspective. Someone outside of the faith does not even recognize their sins, and is truly on a path to hell because of this.
Transgenderism is a mental illness.

I suggest that voters take this into consideration when deciding on conduct points. ---Transexualism is grounded in delusion and dysfunction, and it leads to social maladjustment. Therefore, by any reasonable standard, it is a mental illness (as defined in the first round. )Delusion Transexualism is grounded in delusion, because there is no reason to believe that their "transgender" identity is based on empirical reality. Let me make two central statements on this issue: 1. I may believe that I am a duck, but that does not, in itself, make me a duck. There are certain things that make a duck a duck, and if I lack the key characteristics that distinguish a duck from other species, then I am not a duck, regardless of what Ibelieve. Likewise, a woman is a woman, and a man is a man. Surely, the distinction between a man and a woman is partly driven by social conventions, but much of the distinction is built into basic biological features (chromosomes, natural hormones, reproductive organs, brain structure, etc. ) And many of the "gendered" social conventions are grounded in the nature of this biological separation; we can see this through cross-cultural analysis. 2. A schizophrenic may consider himself to be Jesus Christ. We do not respond by saying, "Well, maybe he is Jesus Christ! " or "We can't enter his head. We don't know whether or not he's Jesus Christ! " We do assume that he is divine or that he is likely to be divine. We label him mentally ill and attempt to treat him. DysfunctionIf you are unable to function as you are structured, then you are dysfunctional. If you are man and can't function as a man (or you are a woman and can't function as a woman), then you are dysfunctional. Indeed, a hand is dysfunctional if it cannot function as a hand. And when a hand cannot function as a hand, we attempt to treat it and make it function again; we do not opt to embrace it as dysfunctional, though we sometimes have to out of a lack of treatment options. Through genital mutilation and hormone treatments, many transgender people cause irreparable damage to their bodies. The desire to self-harm to become something that one can never become is surely pathological, if you use the standard that we set for, say, schizophrenics and those stricken with bipolar disorder. Yet we pretend that it is moral and right to embrace it. Social MaladjustmentTransgender people are viewed by a majority of the public as freaks. They do not function as the correct sex due to delusional thinking. They do not fit into the norm. No society has ever embraced cross-dressers and "gender-benders" as entirely normal. Transgender people will never be considered normal and will always suffer due to their delusional outlook and the dysfunction that is caused by such an outlook. ---Because transexualism is delusional, leads to dysfunction, and ultimately causes extreme social maladjustment, a reasonable conclusion to make is that transexualism is a pathology of the mind; it is a mental illness. Thank you.
Transgenderism is a mental illness.

Let me start off by thanking InVinoVeritas for this debate and for accepting me on the con side. I will be arguing two separate but plausible ideas: 1. That gender conformity is an illusion or is fictitious and therefore no one can conform to it. This would then make everyone a non-conformist and negate pro's assertion that transgenderism is a mental illness. 2. It may possibly be a broad enough term as to be effectively all inclusive. i.e. everyone who claims a gender is in compliance with gender conformity. This would then, by default, negate the assertion by pro that transgenderism is a mental illness. Thank you, and I look forward to the next round.
Transgenderism is a mental illness.

Resolution: Transgenderism is a mental illness. Definitions: "Transgenderism": The condition of being transgender (i.e., being one "whose self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender." [1]) "Mental illness": A mental disorder, also called a mental illness, psychological disorder or psychiatric disorder, is mental or behavioral pattern that causes either suffering or a poor ability to function in ordinary life [2]. Rules: The first round is for acceptance only. This debate is impossible to accept right now; post a comment if you are interested. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Something can't come from nothing

The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause to the universe. It has nothing to do with cause and effect, except for perhaps the fact that it has the word cause in it. It deals with the argument that “nothing can’t create something, therefore SOMETHING had to CAUSE everything. This was correctly portrayed in the resolution when I said that pro would be arguing “the idea that “something can't come from nothing, therefore something had to create everything”” It’s very straightforward, really. I’ve never seen an argument deviate so far from its resolution. As consequence of this, I have been denied the opportunity to have my actual argument questioned because you were unable to address a single topic actually relevant to the discussion. Let me lay this out simply: You were to argue something HAD to cause everything that exists, which was demonstrated before you accepted the debate in the following sentence: “something can’t come from nothing, therefore something HAD to CAUSE everything.” –resolution You instead argued for a theory that most scientists think probably explains how the universe began. Not how it was CAUSED. HOW IT BEGAN. There is a difference. You said it in your own argument; our universe has never in its history been “nothing”; the universe has always contained matter and space, right down to when it was a singularity… What does that mean? It means when the universe was a singularity, SOMETHING existed. Your argument, as defined in the resolution, is “to support the idea that SOMETHING can’t come from NOTHING, therefore SOMETHING HAD TO CREAT EVERYTHING.” If the singularity was something, as you say it was, then you’d still have to argue that SOMETHING CAUSED that singularity to exist at all. You have failed to comprehend your own argument to such an astounding degree that we were unable to broach at any point what was actually supposed to be on debate. You accepted the argument that something CREATED everything, CAUSING EVERYTHING to exist. Perhaps you didn’t realize that matter qualified as something. Honestly, I’m so confused by your complete lack of adherence to the debates resolution that I just can’t be sure.. I ask that voters to into consideration the fact that GenesisProject failed to adhere to the debate resolution for any of the rounds. I only say this because he has now wasted all of my turns in the debate forcing me to address his complete lack of understanding, and this leaves him with one last round that I will be unable to respond to. This means if he manages to finally make an argument relevant to the debate, I’ll be unable to respond as should have been my right. Even if his fourth round argument seems to debase my arguments, I won’t be given the chance to defend them, and that is a chance that, in accordance with the structure of this debate, I should have had. Thank you.
Something can't come from nothing

The Cosmological argument is about cause and effect...as in what caused the Big Bang to happen. The debate is about "Something can't come from nothing" which is a different topic. I took on the burden of proof to show it's impossible for something to come from nothing. For example, a seed comes from a tree, not from thin air. You should have named the debate "You can't have a result without a cause". Like a marble won't roll unless something pushes it. Cause and effect is not the same as getting something from nothing. Cause and effect requires something to act upon something else. There is no "nothing" involved. If this debate was about the Cosmological Argument, you had no business using the word "nothing" to describe it in the headline. You used "Something can't come from nothing" (marbles don't appear from thin air) as the headline description and then used "cause and effect" (marbles don't move unless something causes them to move) Cosmological Argument in the body description. Bait and switch. So, either you go by the original headline "Something can't come from nothing" (which I proved) or you forfeit. Bait and switch is just not fair.