BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Using your "logic" you could argue that any baby or young child even after birth, should be punished for doing bad things even when they don't know better. Using your "logic" you could argue that a teething baby should be punished for biting someone because he/she has sore gums. Where did you get the definitions? That first definition is not accurate. Someone cannot be guilty if they did not have knowledge that what they are doing is wrong. And please don't use wikipedia. It is not reliable. Now when a women agrees to have sex, she is inviting a baby in. The baby is not assaulting the mother. What the baby is doing is NOT wrong. The baby has a RIGHT to be in the mother and grow and develop in the mother and access her nutrients. Imagine what would happen if every women who became pregnant thought that her baby was assaulting her and had an abortion. The human race would die out! And one big problem with your vampire analogy: vampires aren't real! as for the mosquito analogy, mosquitos aren't people, they have very little value, and no right to life. Therefore there is nothing wrong with killing mosquitos. But there is something wrong with killing unborn babies, because they are human beings with value and a right to life. There is nothing horrific about an unborn child implanting and developing in his/her mother's womb, and there is nothing horrific about an unborn baby accessing his/her mother's nutrients. As for what you said there about there being evidence for evolution but not evidence for God, there is evidence for microevolution but not macroevolution. Show me evidence for macroevolution if you are so sure that is some. And there is evidence for the existence of God. The orderliness and design of the universe demands a Designer. "Design doesn't happen without a designer. It just doesn't happen." (Prove it! God) I just wanted to respond to that one comment you made about God, but let's keep this debate mainly about abortion, and we can have a different debate about the existence of God.
Abortion

When a women says "I'm going to have a baby", that is a figure a speech and is not meant to say that her unborn baby is not really a baby. Abortion is on it's own an emotional subject, so I am not going to stop calling the unborn babies, because that is what they are. The boat analogy is a bad one. A boat is an object meant to be used for our pleasure and convenience. A baby born or unborn, is a human being (i am using the word being to mean person, not to mean existence), to be loved and cared for, not used like a boat. Yes many pregnancies end in miscarriage, but miscarriage is the death of the child. Whether or not the suffering a mother suffers when her unborn child dies naturally can be avoided, is irrelevant to this debate (at least at this point). Yes, the DEVELOPMENT of an unborn child is very complex, but again (at least at this point) that is irrelevant. It is not logical to think that the unborn baby becomes a human being at birth. The ONLY difference is location. By the time the baby is ready to be born, he/she has already finished developing for a while, and has simply been growing. How does the baby simply moving from one location to another, make him/her suddenly become a human being? I did not misuse the word "being". I am aware that it means "person". Are you aware that "fetus" is Latin word which means "little CHILD" or "little PERSON"? You said yourself that the unborn are fetuses for most of the pregnancy, and the definition of "fetus" tells us that they are persons.
Capitalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive.

I wish CON luck in this short debate!My argument will elaborate upon three simple points.Pure capitalism is impossibleThe anarcho-capitalist model is a pipe dream - the key issue lies in the phrase "free market", i.e. a market with no government intervention of any sort.Government regulation is pervasive in any society - in America the dollar itself is government regulation, therefore, in a "free market", there would be no agreed-upon currency that would facilitate trade. This relegates "free market" activity to an exceptionally inefficient barter society.Furthermore, any and all contracts are useless without enforcement when contracts are broken. Currently the government fulfills this role of enforcement as a third-party arbiter. Without government, any "private" actor could interpret any contract as they see fit and enforce it at will - this is anarchy, and it would be exceedingly violent and chaotic.Therefore, there must always be some minimal government regulation on any market for the sake of contract integrity and efficiency, without which a market would cease to provide any benefits to its participants. Any government presence would make a market not a "free market", and so rendering pure capitalism to be impossible.Pure socialism is impossiblePure socialism involves a 100% tax on any and all means of production, i.e. land, labor, and capital. In practice, this entails the abolition of private property...or does it? After all, the government would become the sole holder of all property, and by virtue of the 100% tax, the government would never share any of this property with anyone. What would occur is that all citizens of such a government would also become the property of the government.This sounds plausible in theory, but in practice, there's every reason to think that any government officials who are charged with administering this awesome power and responsibility will become corrupted by the absolute power inherent in their position. Government officials would become the "haves" and everyone else the "have-nots". Government officials would cease to work for the public good in favor of bettering their own lives. What would occur is that government officials ostensibly charged with administering public property will privatize this property in their own names for their own benefit. This is the common perception of what has occurred in most socialist experiments around the world.Therefore, any instance of corruption would destroy the socialist experiment. If there is any corruption, then pure socialism is impossible.Any society will have capitalistic and socialistic componentsPure capitalism involves a 0% tax (i.e. no government), and pure socialism a 100% tax (i.e. no private property). Both are extreme impossibilities. Realistically, we are taxed to some degree, meaning that we have some private property, and some notion of public good. Therefore, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive - they are symbiotic.
Capitalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive.

Welcome to this debate. CON requested this debate is so that he can get more debates under his belt. ResolutionCapitalism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive. Definitions(from Merriam Webster)By accepting this debate, you agree to the following definitions:Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in afree marketSocialism -any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goodsMutually Exclusive -being related such that each excludes or precludes the otherI will simply note here that according to these definitions, any tax would be considered socialistic policy, and that capitalism simply requires that such taxes simply be a minority of total production, so that production is "mainly determined by free market". RulesMy standard boiler-plate:This will be a NO SCORING debate. I am far less concerned with the scoring mechanism of this website, and much more interested in furthering constructive dialogue on this matter. I see the scoring mechanism as being extremely politicized and subject to all manners of corruption, and also see it as an inhibitor to constructive dialogue as many people who vote simply do not want their vote challenged or discussed. Anyone and everyone is more than welcome to make a decision on this debate, declare a victor, and leave (hopefully) an insightful RFD, I merely ask that no one score this debate. I will make exception to the scoring of conduct. Any forfeited rounds, ad hominem attacks, or breaching of the rules of this debate will merit a conduct point against the offender. Otherwise, no scoring, thank you.
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use

I would have to disagree with you when you say that it would not cause much of a difference to our society. Yes, we have a lot of tobacco users, but I don't see tobacco causing people to drive under the influence. When marijuana was legalized in Colorado, traffic deaths due to its use increased dramatically. Teens also had an increase in the use of it. Even if society would not be affected much by it, it certainly would not better it in any way. I look forward to hearing your responses. Thank you for being mature and respectful to me even though we have disagreements.
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use

First of all, let me ask you this. Is smoking good for the body? Is smoking good for society? As far as can tell you, the answer to both of these questions is no. Now, before you say that Marijuana has more damaging effects on the human body, let me tell you this. Did you know, that smoking is the number one leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and many other countries? And although this doesn't make recreational Marijuana use any better for your body or society, it certainly wouldn't cause that much of a difference to our society, as we already have tobacco smokers.
Kids cinema in Bahrain

Kids Cinema It may appear a wonderfull Idea.But is not it? I do not think so. A lot of thing in my mind can not accept this idea in all positions from various corners. First, children are not independent at all that create others difficulties including trying to persuade parents to go to cinema. In addition, the nature of kids allows them to accept almost any thing for pleasure.they have different games compared to youth.Children find their happiness more in playing than watching film. Parents also push their child to study and increase their skills in scientific subjects .The expect visite of cinema will be around once in month.Add to that,children need some one to sit with them in Cinema, and because the youths have entirely different desires in what film they love, the chance of visiting cinema will absolutely decrease.Thus the founder of cinema will lose money.Not to mention the number of children in the kids cinema.For instance , if Cinema in a country that has less number of kids compared to youth .Then why I need to bother my self and lose money.in any business the object is very important. Ok What about family finance .This can be a problem too. It is very hard in some cases to convince a child to a particular thing.What if a child insists to go.what can happen? Do you think only a Child may no longer do what his parents orders. This experiment will not sueccss at all
Tom Seaver(Pro) Vs. Nolan Ryan(Con)

Ryan's era in regard of longevity and the complete games. My opponent has a couple of questions about my arguments from the previous round. I will answer them. Here is my take on Nolan Ryan's longevity. You have mentioned about Ryan pitching longer in the league than Seaver. It is good in a way because it shows how elite a pitcher like Ryan was for so many years in the league. However, there is a bad side to it. Because Ryan lasted longer in the league, this effected his era. It is true Ryan had a better era than Seaver at the same time in the league, but his longevity effected this. People look at their careers overall, no matter how short or long, not at a certain time, as my opponent showed earlier. But really, experts compare their careers from their debut to their last game. My opponent compared mainly when they were around at the same time. However, analysts and myself compare at their careers from beginning to end. Seaver won with his era by the end of his career. And this counts. Also, when discussing Seaver having more complete games, let's not forget that Seaver walked less people. Nolan Ryan holds the record for walking the most batters. That is horrible. Had Ryan walked less people, there would have been a great chance of Ryan having more complete games than Seaver. Cy Young Award Competition I had mentioned earlier that Tom Seaver had less competition compared to Ryan's competition for the Cy Young. For Seaver, the only threats to him were Bob Gibson and Steve Carlton. Carlton battled Ryan for the strikeout record for years. Carlton was better than Ryan in my opinion personally. Personally, he was better than Ryan, Perry, Palmer and Lyle. There was no weak division which was my opponents question. Seaver was also recognized for greatness and dominance. Conclusion Tom Seaver was the better pitcher than Nolan Ryan. He had better stats overall, had three Cy Youngs and threw the ball extremely hard from the mound, making him one of the most dominant pitchers of the 1960s and 1970s. Nolan Ryan was great, however with the strikeout record and the no-hitter record with seven, he also walked the most people and had worse stats than Seaver, with no Cy Young. But great pitcher.
Tom Seaver(Pro) Vs. Nolan Ryan(Con)

Before I conclude I would like to address some of the points that my opponent made in the 3rd round. This is a major flaw in your argument with Ryan's longevity. -I would like my opponent to better explain what he means by this. You would think someone that played longer would gain more complete games, but no. the pitcher that started less games did. -If you look at the times they played in this fact makes sense Tom Seaver however, won the award three times for a few reasons. He had no serious competition compared to Ryan, he was recognized for his greatness, and simply was a great pitcher. -As you state he had little to no competition in the race. Was this due to a weak division? For my actual conclusion I will restate the fact that Nolan Ryan was a more dominant pitcher than Tom Seaver. This is due to his ERA during the time they both played, The amount of strikeouts and no hitters, and various other miscellaneous stats provided in he arguments above.
Tom Seaver(Pro) Vs. Nolan Ryan(Con)

As you said Seaver's record is nothing to ignore However does it really stack up to that of Nolan Ryan. Lets look at your points and see shall we. 1.ERA Seaver had a better ERA over his entire career however the extra 7 years of Ryan's career has to be taken into account when calculating these numbers for comparison. During the first 20 years of Ryan's time playing professional baseball he had a 2.82 ERA .04 better than Seaver during his career. [1] 2. Cy Young While you are correct that Seaver's 3 Cy Young's to Ryan's 0 is a thing to take into account you also have to look at how many times Ryan was in the top 5 multiple times and the reasons behind him never getting one. In 1972, 73, 74, and 77 there was a large cry for him to win the Cy Young however his win loss record was never quite there due to the angles inability to score runs. Though Cy Young voters failed to recognize Ryan"s greatness, the true greatness of a pitcher is not decided by the amount of awards he holds but by what type of emotions they put into batters. Ryan was notorious for causing "Ryanits" which would cause batters on the opposing team to be "ill" for one day causing them to sit out against Nolan Ryan. Some players even went on to say that against Ryan you hoped for a "good night" which was 0-4 and not dying.[2] 3. Other While Seaver had 9 more complete games than Ryan did Ryan also had the most games pitched proving his longevity. The Career record can be partially put onto the teams they both played for during their careers Seaver having much better luck in that regard. Just to add a fun fact Nolan Ryan's career spanned 4 decades and he is the only MLB pitcher to strikeout 7 pairs of father and son. Conclusion: Nolan Ryan is seen by batters as one of the most dominant forces to ever step on a pitchers mound and even though he has not won a Cy Young he was and still is considered one of the Greatest the game has ever seen. Sources: [1]http://www.baseball-almanac.com... [2]http://sabr.org...
Tom Seaver(Pro) Vs. Nolan Ryan(Con)

Nolan Ryan's Career is a storied one most people can agree on but what makes him a better pitcher that Tom Seaver You may ask well I am going to go piece by piece to prove that Nolan Ryan is the better man. 1.Career length Tom Seaver had a 20 year long career lasting from 1967-1986 while Nolan Ryan's career lasted 27 years from 1966-1993. [1] 2.Strikeouts Nolan Ryan had 5,714 Strikeouts during his career which is about 211 a year. Tom Seaver however only had 3,640 averaging about 164 a year. If you think that the difference is only due to the difference in career length then let me say that if Tom Seaver would have had to average 296 strikeouts a year over the seven years separating them to hit the same number as Ryan. [1][2] 3.Era My opponent stated above that Mr. Seaver had a higher Era then Nolan Ryan. The higher your Era the worse it is. 4.Misc. Stats Nolan Ryan and Tom Seaver both had 61 Shutouts. [1][2] Tom Seaver had 1 save Nolan Ryan had 3. [1][2] Tom Seaver gave up 380 home runs in 20 years While Nolan Ryan only gave up 321 is 27. [1][2] Conclusion: Nolan Ryan overall is a better pitcher than Tom Seaver due to their Strikeouts over their careers and amount it would take to make up the difference over the time, Era and various other stats that show that Ryan is the better player. Sources: [1]http://www.baseball-almanac.com... [2]http://www.baseball-almanac.com...
Tom Seaver(Pro) Vs. Nolan Ryan(Con)

I accept this challenge. Considering both pitchers were on my favorite team, the New York Mets, this debate is going to be fun. I like both pitchers. Both are extemely talented. However, due to this debate, one has to be better than the other. I choose Tom Seaver over Nolan Ryan. Four main reasons include: three Cy Young Awards, winning twenty games five times, and a higher ERA, plus a higher winning percentage. I look forward to your argument. Good luck.
The chicken came first on the earth, not the egg

Plagiarism detected! Pro stole his argument from an online newspaper [1], disqualifying it from consideration. Were someone to consider it, they would have to take pro at his claim of having written it and done the research, which as he's 15 now, and it was published in 2010, indicates it was all carried out by a 9-year-old who is openly opposed to the scientific method. He also made some assertions about his personal beliefs, without rhyme nor reason in the way of evidence or why his opinion has any value. He has no case, and the duty full duty of BoP to make one. You can simply vote con at this point on either of the two reasons above... In case that is not enough, I shall counter both the disqualified evidence, and the baseless assertions. Argument Premise: Evolution lead to a different species laying a chicken egg. Contention 1: As discussed by Scientific America, evolution is proven by fossil records, our shared bones with every other mammal, etc. [2]. Contention 2: Various ancestor species to chickens laid eggs. Contention 3: Chickens currently exist Conclusion: It was some non-chicken ancestor to the chicken that laid the first hard shelled egg from which a chicken like bird came from, and that (many repetitions down the line) the first chicken egg was laid baring a chicken [3, YouTube video]. Ergo the egg came first. Rebuttals (from plagiarized content) "British researchers say the chicken must have come first as the formation of eggs is only possible thanks to a protein found in the chicken's ovaries." Simple insanity. In addition to every other species of bird; Lizards are born from eggs, and well known to not require contact with chickens (or at least special deliveries of their kidneys every mating season); as do fish; as do humans in our early development. Other research may make a similar claim and word it to not be inclusive to all eggs, but such was not presented. "Now my very respected opponent can say that how can the chicken come first without hatching from the egg?" Not my duty to prove your case for you when you are utterly unable. "It would make no sense for an egg to be created and then left to incubate itself, without the mother to warm it, protect it, etc." Easy, a different species laid the first chicken egg, warmed and protected it. Even the most devote creationist should agree, as chicken's do not exist in the bible, and must therefore have been a later introduction to the world. Sources [1] http://metro.co.uk... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com... [3] YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com...
The chicken came first on the earth, not the egg

British researchers say the chicken must have come first as the formation of eggs is only possible thanks to a protein found in the chicken"s ovaries. "It had long been suspected that the egg came first but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first," said Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who worked with counterparts at Warwick University. "The protein had been identified before and it was linked to egg formation but by examining it closely we have been able to see how it controls the process," he added. The protein " called ovocledidin-17 (OC-17) " acts as a catalyst to speed up the development of the shell. Scientists used a super computer called HECToR, based in Edinburgh, to "zoom in" on the formation of an egg. It showed OC-17 was crucial in kick-starting crystallisation " the early stages of forming a shell. The protein coverts calcium carbonate into calcite crystals which makes up the egg shell, creating six grammes of shell every 24 hours. Prof John Harding, also of Sheffield University, said the discovery could have other uses. "Understanding how chickens make shells is fascinating in itself but can also give clues towards designing new materials," he said. Now my very respected opponent can say that how can the chicken come first without hatching from the egg? I believe in Creationism, I believe that God first created live chickens, just as He first created fully-grown humans. The reproduction of species is a part of intelligent design, so it followed after the initial creation of the being. It would make no sense for an egg to be created and then left to incubate itself, without the mother to warm it, protect it, etc. And with that, i rest my debate.