BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenario's.

My opponent's first "prong" in his last round was that I have not shown that one of these scenarios WILL happen, I've just shown possibility. Let us examine two of the scenarios presented previously. C. Logical-Master wakes up at least once in the next 2 days (starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm). E. Logical-Master does not wake up at least once in 2-day span starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm. As you see, one of these WILL happen. The first prong is therefore lacking. But it seems I must now confront the second prong. The second prong, essentially, is that "Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenarios" means he will do ONLY one of them. I will prove otherwise now. Let us consider something: none of the scenarios listed, A-E, could possibly happen at the same time as another scenario. Combined with the fact that at least one of these scenarios definitely was fulfilled, there was definitely a time period during which ONLY ONE of the scenarios was fulfilled. This is not the case of a student taking two pieces of candy, it's a case of a student taking one piece of candy two completely separate times. Therefore, the student would be quite justified in saying "I took one. And then later, I took another one." Overall, he took two. But he had also taken one. My opponent's logic would have you believe that if I told you "I only ate one piece of popcorn," I meant that I had only EVER eaten one piece of popcorn, when it can in fact be a true statement if used in the correct context. Let us examine the examples my opponent gave to see this effect at work. "Please shoot one man" - this does not mean for the rest of your life you'd better not shoot anyone else. "Jack asked for one pail" - Jack is still allowed to ask for other pails in the future. He will have asked for more than one pail overall, but it will still be true that he asked for one pail (assuming that he did at one time ask for one pail). "Someone stole one dollar" - Whoever this someone is could very well steal thousands more later, and this statement would still have been true. "She fed one pigeon" - She is still able to feed more. "Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenarios" - As soon as he does one, this has been proven true. He is still able to do more later. Since the resolution was made before any scenarios were correct, and there was some time X when only one scenario was true, the resolution is true. What if I tell my waiter "I'll have one bacon cheeseburger" one day, but then I come back and get the same thing the next day? I would not have lied the first time, since there was a time after I said it where I had only gotten one burger, and that's the time I was referring to in my statement. It would only be a lie if I changed my mind and decided to _simultaneously_ get 2 burgers. Has been a pleasure.
Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenario's.

In response to the whole bit before scenario D, here: It is not the duty of Pro to show that the resolution is absolutely, undeniably, 100% rock solid true. The Pro only has to show that the resolution is more likely than the negative thereof. If not, it seems that the majority of the debates on here go to Con, since pro very rarely proves his case beyond the notion of possible error. Therefore, showing that something is probably true fulfills my duty as Pro. Regardless, here: E. Logical-Master does not wake up at least once in 2-day span starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm. So now, it's undeniable that Logical-Master WILL do at least one of these. Now we just have semantics to discuss about whether the resolution excludes multiple scenarios being correct. The resolution was "Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenarios." I hold that this does not exclude the possibility of him doing more than one. The resolution would have to state "Logical-Master will do ONLY one of the below listed scenarios." I will attempt to explain the thinking behind this assertion. Let's say L-M does what is stated in 2 of these scenarios (for simplicity's sake). He has fulfilled one of these. He has also fulfilled the other one. To fulfill one does not mean you cannot fulfill more than one. Only if the one is stressed would anyone think this meant that he could do ONLY one. Obviously, you cannot stress something typing, but this would have gotten that across: "Logical-Master will do ONE of..." or "Logical-Master will do _one_ of..." Those would have adequately gotten the point "one and only one" across. Why would the word only ever be used with a number if I'm wrong? "I want only two cups," "only one man showed up in tokyo," "there's only one woman for me," etc. Are these all redundant? Does "one" used in these cases already mean "only one?" If so, I'd like an explanation for this from my opponent. Conserving the rest of my ammo for the final round. Gwaha.
Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenario's.

D. Logical-Master stays alive up until the time he falls asleep within the next two days (starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm). I would like to point out that the resolution very specifically states "Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenario's" It says one, not two or three or four or multiple. The word one is put in there to signify just how many he will do, no more, no less. Thus I will negate my opponents resolution in two ways. First let me point you as the voters to the fact that my opponent states, "My bet is that C is probably going to be the one. Since insomnia of this magnitude is rare, I would ask my opponent to show some kind of evidence that L-M will not be waking up at least once in said two day period." Notice the word probably that exists in there. The resolution however offers us an imperative, with the word, "will". While it is true that I cannot disprove part C of the scenario, without further knowledge of logical, I can look to my opponents statement that says it is "probably true". Thus I can only find myself whole heartedly agreeing with my opponent, when he says this will probably happen. I stand by the statement I made in my first round, being that Logical will not fulfill the first two scenarios. I also feel that Logical will probably fulfill the third one. My opponent on the other hand needs to advocate, as mandated by the resolution, that Logical "will" fulfill the third scenario. My advocacy that he "probably" will do so lies outside of such a resolution and thereby negates it. Secondly, should my opponent come up here with undebatable evidence that logical-master will indeed sleep sometime in the next two days (starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm) then my opponent must also concede scenario D. Scenario D quite clearly states, "Logical-Master stays alive up until the time he falls asleep within the next two days (starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm)." If scenario C is true then scenario D must be true. Logical cannot fall asleep in the next two days if he is dead. Thereby my opponent will be affirming two of the currently four scenarios where as the resolution calls for one. Thus should this be seen to be true my opponent will not have upheld the resolution and thereby will lose this round. Your turn. =)
Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenario's.

C. Logical-Master wakes up at least once in the next 2 days (starting 2/19/08 at 12:19pm). There's no doubting that L-M will do one of the scenarios listed below the topic resolution, unless he has unnaturally bad insomnia in the next two days. My bet is that C is probably going to be the one. Since insomnia of this magnitude is rare, I would ask my opponent to show some kind of evidence that L-M will not be waking up at least once in said two day period. It is only natural and logical for us to assume that he will in fact be waking up at least once in this time, unless we have been given a legitimate reason to think otherwise. I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Logical-Master will do one of the below listed scenario's.

Scenarios: A. Logical-Master concedes the debate titled, "Voters should be required to post their reasoning behind each vote they make." to Yraelz. B. Logical-Master concedes the debate titled, "My opponent is a better or at the very least equal debater with all factors combined." to Yraelz. I of course am Con. I feel Logical-Master will do no such thing.
Abortion should be illegal

Yes, i understand your picture looks somewhat like a child. Note that children aren't physically connected to their mother and dont depend on them for nutrients and vitals. So because of that you cant call it a child. To add, since the fetus is just part of the mother, abortion could be classified and removing tissue. After getting an abortion, many women donate the fetus to medical research, especially stem cell research. This can also be compared to organ donating, since its going to a good cause, increasing research, and saving future lives. Stem cells are vital to humans so getting research done is crucial to the medical field. (http://www.stemcellresearch.umich.edu... ) (this is where i got my stem cell information for last argument too) To be more clear, according to guttermacher institute (http://www.guttmacher.org...) 47,000 women die per year because they are forced to get unsafe abortions because of restrictions. Millions are also injured, mostly seriously and permanently. Making abortion illegal isn't going to stop it, its going to force women to extreme mesures and unsafe procedures. Thats just going to take away more lives. Having less children will reduce poverty. Its simple. Say you have two kids and 20 dollars between them. Each will get 10. Say you have five kids, three you didn't even plan to have. Between all of them each will only get 4. If they all needed 10 per day then the parents will need extra money which means spending less on other needs. Just do the math. Also, some women have to work to provide income. If they cant do it because of they are pregnant then they'll have a good chance of being in poverty. Also, as stated earlier, abortion isn't killing. Toddlers are already alive. You'd easily be able to give them up for adoption. A mother is going to know before giving birth if she is financially ready for a child. I understand you think she should give it up for adoption. Younger women and especially teens are more likely to suffer from injuries and death giving birth. Some women have medical conditions that will kill them if they have to give birth. Its unfair for them to have to die when there is one simple procedure out there to save them. Also being pregnant is going to change the woman's body forever. Its not right to make her go through that if she isn't ready. I said earlier the tissue is part of her body. Its growing inside her and feeding off nutrients. Its like having the government tell people they cant donate kidneys, or other organs. Both are part of the body and if she wishes to have it removed why should you tell her? If she gets an abortion it isn't going to effect your life. I have a few questions I'd like you to answer First, if abortion is murder does that make a miscarriage involuntary man slaughter? Second, Does your religion effect your views on abortion?
Abortion should be illegal

Let me start with some complaints about my opponent's sources. My opponent broke her agreement to the rules in this debate specifically pertaining to the way sources are to be listed. Appropriate way: (Abortion Is Fine, 1998, Smith & Jones) My opponent's way: "My info all from guttmacher institute and the stem cell stuff from a doctor at the U of M" I ask my opponent to correct her behavior.Now for the rebuttals:"Children are living. A fetus isnt. A fetus is a group of cells and tissue inside of the mother. It doesn't have any human like qualities."None? At all? Just a group of cells and tissue? How about some pictures? (1)This is what a baby looks like at just eight weeks. I'm seeing a lot of human qualities. Most abortions happen at, or just around this period. (1) I see several human qualities? Don't you?" 47 million women died from abortions because of restrictions."This is incredibly vague. During what period? Abortion hasn't been legal for very long, are you referring to the thousands of years before abortion was oft legal around the world? The idea that 47 million women have died from abortion restrictions is near preposterous, unless you count the millions of murdered children."imagine how many women would get unsafe abortions if it was illegal"Oh my word! Think about how dangerous killing Jews would be if it were illegal!" It will reduce poverty, especially for women and children."Says... who? Killing kids will reduce poverty... ever seen "The Purge." Basic idea. yes, killing people can reduce poverty."Because women cant get abortions they have to take care of a child they dont want."So what's the difference between killing toddlers they can't take care of and killing an unborn baby they might not be able to take care of? "We shouldn't have to tell a women what and what not to do with HER body."Right... I don't have the right to tell a woman not to kill children... that TOTALLY makes sense. Yes, it is her body. For the most part. Except for: Thank you and good night.Sources:http://www.prochoice.org...Logic
Abortion should be illegal

To start off, it shouldn't be considered a child. Children are living. A fetus isnt. A fetus is a group of cells and tissue inside of the mother. It doesn't have any human like qualities. For example, it depends on the mother for nutrients and other vitals. Humans dont, they eat, breath, and dont depend on their "host" for thoes. So technically the fetus can also be considered a parasite for that reason. Also, if abortion is illegal people are still gonna do it. Take drugs for example, like heroin and cocaine. Thoese are illegal but people still use them. If anortions are going to be illegal women they will just be on the black market like drugs and other stuff. According to the guttmacher institute, 47 million women died from abortions because of restrictions. Millions more got injured, many pernamently. Guttmacher institute also stated 1.21 millions of abortions where performed in 2008. Imagine how many women would get unsafe abortions if it was illegal. Then we would just be killing women and removing fetuses. To add, abortion also has many pros to it. It will reduce poverty, especially for women and children. Because women cant get abortions they have to take care of a child they dont want. They will have to live in poverty, and so will the children. The child might also be abused since its not wanted. I understand you may be thinking women should have the child up for adoption if they dont want it. Some women dont have the time to be pregnant. They have to work and provide. If they can't they will also be trapped in poverty. This would be unfair to the women. Pregnancy also takes its toll on the body. A womens body will never be the same after childbirth. And what about younger women, teens even? Theyre body's arent ready for that so why make them? We shouldn't have to tell a women what and what not to do with HER body. I still want to adress one more point. A lot of abortions go to help stem cell research. ( i got this from a friend whos parent works at the U of M) . Since fetal cells do better in labs and for research they allow the research to progress more and more. Stem cells are vital to living humans and if we find a way to transplant them effectively we would save more lives than lives taken. My info all from guttmacher institute and the stem cell stuff from a doctor at the U of M
Abortion should be illegal

Abortion is the killing of an unborn child while it is still developing in the womb. This is done through a number of means. Before the eighth week, these abortions are usually done using drugs (Abortion: Questions and Answers, Dr. J.C. Wilke, 1985). From the eighth week to the twelfth week, suction aspiration is the primary means of abortion. It is done by the insertion of a tube into the womb and sucking the child out through it. (Wilke, 1985) At that point, the child can has almost complete use of its limbs, can somersault, swallow, and has started growing hair.By the twelfth week, the baby has a fully functioning brain, although it is not completely developed. From then until the eighteenth week, the baby is killed using "dilation and evacuation." This is done by inserting forceps into the womb, grabbing the child, and twisting it around over and over until it is completely dismembered and sucked out through a tube (Wilke, 1985).At week twenty, a baby in the womb can feel pain.* By that time, a new form of torturous abortion has begun: "saline injection."(Wilke, 1985) This involves injected a saline solution into the womb. The baby ingests this solution and is poisoned. It is also a corrosive liquid that burns the skin. It usually takes a baby between 1 and 24 hours to die from this, all the while in terrible agony, but sometimes a baby is born after labor is induced still alive! A few have even been saved and put up for adoption afterwards. This form of abortions continues until six months. At six months, a baby sucks on its thumb and can listen to conversations. At that point, a new, horrific abortion type begins:"prostaglandin chemical abortion." (Wilke, 1985) The chemical causes contractions to occur that are much more violent then usual. It crushes the baby, sometimes decapitating it. C-sections are also a popular way to remove the baby. The umbilical cord is cut and the baby is taken out alive to suffocate on a table.By the 32nd week, there is evidence that a baby can dream (Wilke, 1985). After that time, partial birth abortions occur. It is simply the killing of the baby as it is being born, usually by the insertion of scissors into the baby's skull, which is the only thing not born. The scissors open the skull, a tube is inserted, and the baby's brain is sucked out through the tube.These are the horrors of abortion. Pain, suffering, and death. The death of a human child. We are still not sure when exactly a baby can feel pain. It may be as early as before twelve weeks. Even before that, the baby is obviously a child, with human form and a developing nervous system. Those pictures say it all. Who can deny the photos of dead children? It is like a present day Holocaust, nay, it is one! This is not a fight over religious ideas, but the fight for millions of children! More than 50 million children have been murdered in this fashion, their bodies dumped in the trash or researched upon! The majority of Nazi's believed the Holocaust was right, the majority of Americans think abortion is right. I see no difference.Abortion Photos:
Abortion should be illegal

Good day to you, Bruinshockeyfan. I'd like to challenge you to a debate pertaining to abortion. I have a few rules and clarifications of rules.Rules:I. Use reliable sourcesA. Definition of "reliable source" in this debate1. A valid source. (i.e. Not the National Enquirer)2. Source cannot be denounced as invalid just because it is from a site or piece of literature that disagrees with your opinion.B. Types of sources1. Book - Give title, chapter, and page, and author2. Website - give specific http to specific page3. Magazine - Give title, article, page4. Study - Give title, date, and researchersII. Good conductA. Crass and/or inappropriate language1. No cursing (F-bomb, S-word, D-word, etc.) I do give leniency to "heck" and "darn."2. No insults. This includes calling researchers or speakers names.III. FormatA. Round One is acceptanceB. Round Two is just for contentionsC. Round Three is for contentions and rebuttalsD. Round Four is closing arguments. No rebuttals or new arguments.Accept is you agree to these rules and wish to debate this topic. Oh, and please use spell check.
Convince me a God has the right to punish and hurt people for their wrongs.

Morality: The issue in Africa is cultural. As a matter of fact, the religion associated with female circumcision *IN AFRICA* is unfortunately Islam, although this practice is not an Islamic principle in any way. This applies to the issue in India as well; it was established as a socio-economic hierarchy that depends on your job/income . http://en.wikipedia.org... 1+2) If there was no God, there would be no purpose to life, in my opinion. When we die, what happens? We definitely don't last forever on earth. Everything we do is a thing of our own obsoleteness. Hell is not needed for a purpose; God is. To me, at the very least. Thanks again to everybody.
Convince me a God has the right to punish and hurt people for their wrongs.

Pro made a good point. This debate is not about refuting, it is more about questioning. 2.Morality: In religions in Africa it is proper to circumcise women. It is also referred to as female genital mutilation. It is n awful, gruesome thing I do not wish to go into in this debate but it is most definitely considered immoral in other religions. It prevents the female from enjoying sex at all. Also, in Hinduism there is that caste system. This lets people abuse people physically and mentally who are considered "untouchable" because they were born into this caste. This lets beatings, lynchings, rape, and other awful things be considered moral as long as they are only done to the "untouchables". This would certainly not pass as moral in other religions. 1+2) Well I think people have to find their own purpose for living. My purpose for living is to enjoy it the most I can without hurting others. You really need the threat of going to hell to be a good person?
Convince me a God has the right to punish and hurt people for their wrongs.

Thanks again for your response. 2. Morality I see where my opponent is coming from. To respond, I'll pose a simple question. What action is there that is moral in one religion and immoral in another? 1+2) I pose one more question. Had we all been created morally perfect, why would we be here anyways? Our purpose would amount to zilch, in which case I would personally revert to nihilism because I know that I'd be going to heaven anyways. R3) It seems as though an agreement on this point depends upon the conclusion of this debate. I'll drop it. With that, I really haven't much to say. My arguments haven't been refuted; only questioned. It seems as though what I have provided is adequate, but that remains up to the readers and my opponent. Back to Con.