BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is nothing wrong with abortion

1. My opponent completely disregards my attack on their case, and yet never gives a warrant why the person be born before being considered a person. Also my opponent claims that babies are parasites(Which isn't true, it's a commensual symbiotic relationship) , and that if more women had abortions, we wouldn't have to worry about many of the problems we have. I instead contend we would have to worry about extinction, which is bad by the way 2. My opponent offers no refutation here, and in fact that way they've responded shows that my argument is true. 3. it is indeed a semantic argument because you arguing this point so rigidly; while of course we have to take into play the basic definition provided, there is no reason why an argument should be based solely on a definition. The point of defining terms and such in the first place, is for clarity and understanding; not to make arguments based on technicalities. 4. I have shown how it is not moot, please vote base on the debate. 5. The point is in magnitude; when having a child only 10-15% of women suffer post-pardum depression[1] and these symptoms are temporary and caused by hormonal imbalances. whereas after having an abortion, a good majority of women suffer long-term effects of guilt, depression, and anxiety. [2] 6. My opponent is not attacking my argument, but what they want my argument to be; my point still stands that because the declaration of independence states it is immoral, it makes it unjust. This is not a debate about , however if my opponent wishes we can have a debate such as that later; however at this point in time I ask for a Con Vote, I have shown that there are things wrong with abortion! Vote Con Please! =sources= [1] http://www.postpartumprogress.com... [2] http://www.cirtl.org...
There is nothing wrong with abortion

thank you for your timely response. R1 - My opponent does not address my argument but sidesteps it by saying what warrant do I have for saying that to be considered human there is more than one criteria to be filled besides having DNA. Note my opponent does not make an argument for being human based solely on having DNA. To be considered human you have to have DNA and be born because if you are not born you are not able to think or be sentient or feel, a fetus can not do any of those things; Furthermore, a baby is much like a parasite you use the word 'unnatural' but a parasite takes nutrients by it's natural means. The baby is much like a parasite even if it is born there are many complications in the postpartum of the pregnancy like "cadriomyopathy" many women die during childbirth more so than if they abort making many of your arguments moot. If the argument is that an abortion might harm the women childbirth might harm the women more. Also women get majorly depressed after having a child so should women stop giving birth because of some complications? R2 - Technically you didn't make an argument it is not proof that abortion is wrong it's a theory ( if it can so be called that). Their is no warrant for why this is relevant to the debate. R3 - I have already addressed this argument you do realize that childbirth is technically a "medical procedure." And I pull attention to your definition because it's the parameters we agreed on it isn't a semantical argument it's a practical one I didn't offer a different definition nor did I try to change the meaning of the definition I simply pointed out that you were deviating from your parameters. And you could rob a bank if you think you're justified in robbing a bank if you think it is just that's what we're dealing with individuals not the collective good. Furthermore it's not okay t kill children, mentally handicapped, elderly, or sick because they are sentient they were born and they can think and feel. R4 - already pointed out how this point is moot. R5 - Many women suffer mental distress after they have a child is does that make having a child wrong? R6 - This argument has an implication that children are created by a "Creator" capital C meaning a being/entity meaning my opponent is asserting the existence of a higher order which cannot be proven. My opponents real argument seems to be that we all have unalienable rights (life,liberty, and property), but we are not operating solely in America many children are aborted elsewhere do only fetus's that are aborted in America have this right? Your arguments is a geographical one not a moral one or logical one so it should be dismissed.
There is nothing wrong with abortion

I'm just going to go right down the arguments 1. My opponent claims that there is one more requirement for some-one to be a human; they have to have been born. However they never warrant why this is necessary. They claim that they are closer to a tumor than a human being, however this is not true; where a person to get a tumor, that tumor would have the same DNA code as them - whereas a fetus has a completely unique DNA code to either the mother or the father. And a fetus is not a parasite, a parasite in an organism that drains the life out of it's host via unnatural means. Pregnancy is not unnatural, in fact once a women becomes pregnant her body takes that into account and she is not lacking in any of her own necessities. 2. My opponent doesn't refute this argument; thus it is a drop. I have won this debate as of this point. 3. First, My opponent is completely disregarding my argument; the purpose of a legitimate government is to protect it's people; if a woman is injured or could possibly die because of a "medical procedure" that is malpractice, thus unjust. Secondly, my opponent's defense here is completely and utterly semantic; the fact that he pulls attention to my definition and indicates that where it a wider range definition, it would be wrong. Third, my opponent claims that since the woman is capable of terminating the pregnancy, it is just to do so; that is the same thing as saying that because I could rob a bank, or kill a kindergarten class it is justified to for me to do so. Fourth, my opponent claims that since the fetus isn't sentient there's nothing wrong with killing it; this is a multiple causation fallacy. One because we cannot know that the fetus isn't sentient, two because saying it's alright to kill those who aren't capable of making decisions is the same thing as saying it's okay to kill Children, the mentally handicapped, elderly, and sick because they aren't capable of making decisions. 4. Again, allowing such dangerous "medical Practices" is malpractice. 5. There is no warrant here, the woman suffers mental distress; thus it is wrong. 6. I have made plenty of argument about how the unborn child is alive; especially since I have a direct quote from the constitution that states all "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life. .. " At the moment of conception (i. e. creation) the Child has a right to life, abortion violates this right thus it is wrong.
There is nothing wrong with abortion

First and for most I accept the burden my opponent has placed on me.R1 - comparing the fetus to a teenager or a child is impossible mainly because that's what this debate is about a fetus in not viable or developed as a human being. Having DNA does technically make you human however there is more than one criteria you need to fill to be called human like one of them is being born. A fetus has more in common with a tumor the first few weeks after a while it becomes more a parasite than anything else stealing nurtrients from it's host. R2 - I am not fazed by the potentiality argument it is not proof that abortion is wrong nor has it any weight for it is only theory and does not make abortion wrong. R3 - This is an appeal to consequence, furthermore it does not make abortion wrong. You have made a poor decision in defining wrong as contrary to justice or law. A women who has a fetus is justified in taking the fetus out of her body since she is capable and knows what the meaning of risk is. Also since the fetus is not capable of making decisions and is not sentient it is not wrong to terminate it. R4 - This seems like an extenionsn of the third point if the women getting an abortion does die which is exteremly rare but the women decided to end her pregnancy an accepted any risk in doing it does not make abortion wrong claiming that a women might die. R5 - The effects after an abortion or what might happen after an abortion are not relevant whether an abortion is wrong. You have not related the effects of what a pregnant women experiences to how abortion is wrong. R6 - you have not made an argument as to how an unborn child is alive; Furthermore, Their is specific criteria that one must meet to be considered alive 1 you must be born 2 you must be able to make think. 3 you must be able 4 you must be able to feel For the record you only presented 6 arguments and they have all been refuted
There is nothing wrong with abortion

=Observations= Obs1: The resolution says "There is nothing wrong with abortion" meaning that if I am able to show even one thing to be "wrong" with abortion, I will win this debate. Obs2: BOP is on I, the Con. However the moment I make an argument, my opponent has the BOP of refutation, if my arguments are not refuted, then I win them, =Arguments= 1. termination of a human fetus is murder Many pro-choice advocates claim that since the fetus has not yet been born, it is not a human; this is however incredibly untrue. Even at the earliest stage of development, the fetus has it's own unique string of DNA, not it's Mother's; but even more so than that it is human DNA. Even more so, to say that it is alright to kill the unborn fetus because it is not full developed, is the same as saying it is okay to kill a child or a teenager because they are not fully developed. 2. by aborting a fetus, we destroy limitless potential 3. Many women experience severe health problems after having abortions. [1][2] Including; 30% Increased risk of breast cancer, Sterility, bladder injury, ectopic pregnancy, hemorrhaging, hepatitis, and many many more. 4. Many women die due to botched abortions, or due to complications with the procedure [1] 5. Many women suffer psychological distress after having an abortion [1] 6. Abortion violates the unborn Child's right to life [3] From the declaration of independence; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " Also interesting to note, that In this clause the wording, "All me are created equal" means that even if the prior logic that murder is being committed isn't accepted, then it is still wrong (unjust) because the unborn child's rights are still being violated as the declaration claims that they are created equal, not born equal =Conclusion= I have presented 7 very basic arguments, and as needed will further explain and expand them. but at this point in the debate, I am winning 7 times over. =Sources= [1] . http://bit.ly... [2] . http://bit.ly... [3] . http://bit.ly...
There is nothing wrong with abortion

=Rules= 1. No semantics; use your own common sense to know that this means. 2. No vulgarity; keep it clean =Definitions= These definitions are simply for structure, and understanding of what this debate is about as a whole. If my opponent feels any of these definitions are abusive, they may offer an alternative definition so long as it fits in the same train of linear thought. Also, they may offer more definitions as they see necessary. 1. [1] Abortion: "termination of pregnancy" 2. [2] Wrong: "that which is contrary to the principles of justice or law" 3. [3] Nothing: "in no respect; to no degree" All definitions from http://wordnet.princeton.edu... =Round Structure= Round 1: Acceptance/ Definitions Round 2: Constructive ideas; After this round, no new arguments may be brought into the debate. Also note that this round is not meant for clash of arguments, but for presentation of each sides' stance. Round 3-4: Debate and clash; Use you own common sense for this. =Sources= [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly...
Anthropogenic climate change and increased CO2 levels are beneficial to humans and plant life

I will be arguing for the above. My opponent will argue that climate change is not beneficial to humans and plant life. This is not a debate on whether anthropogenic climate change occurs. We will assume it does in this debate. If you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, you're still welcome to do this debate with me, if you just assume it does exist. You would be arguing that if anthropogenic climate change exists, it is not beneficial to humans and plant life.Common definitions for terms will be used.Rules:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults2) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for argument. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for argument even between us, since I am not using round 1 for argument3) The last round used for argument should just be rebuttal/defense. No new arguments in this round, You can use new information or facts, but it has to be in rebuttal to your opponent's claims.
Deadpool is a better superhero that Hawkeye

Deadpool is a much better superhero than Hawkeye. Deadpool has the superior healing power which allows him to heal any damage that he takes. He also possesses the power of teleportation. Which he can use to access places that Hawkeye is not able to and get to somewhere faster and deal with the problem. Deadpool is a master martial artist which shows in his use of his swords and fighting ability. He not only has his superhuman agility and flexes to use in fight but SWORDS MAN! Swords are so cool. Deadpool is not only skilled in the art of close hand combat but also in the long range with his ability of master marksmanship with his pistols. Deadpool's accuracy with pistols is utterly amazing and can be compared to Hawkeye's (admittadly) amazing bow skills. Deadpool is fricken hilarious! Deadpool is one of the funniest superheros to ever be concieved. His childish sense of humor can be seen with these, http://www.blogcdn.com... http://1.bp.blogspot.com... http://static.comicvine.com... But Deadpool's accuracy with his guns are indeed comparable to Hawkeye's ONLY abillity with the bow, where as Deadpool has his teleportation, swords, healing powers, and martial arts.
Deadpool is a better superhero that Hawkeye

My opponent is a moronic idiot who does not agree with anything that any of you potential voters agree with. i have witnessed him laugh at a 'dead baby' joke which is immortal. Now i think my arguments have proved that Hawkeye is a better superhero. Deadpool may be funny and kewl but he is a terrible superhero that only cares about self image. The fourth wall is not meant to be broken and that means he is not focused and an idiot. Below is a rant on why Hawkeye is better. I have not read it so if it doesn't make sense sorry but if it does then haha i was right. http://www.wattpad.com... Please watch this before voting: http://www.youtube.com...
Deadpool is a better superhero that Hawkeye

Closing Statement: Deadpool is an amazing comic book character and is a far better superhero than Hawkeye. As much as I would like to say that Hawkeye is not a superhero because he has not legitimate powers, I know the concept of Batman will be brought up. And I do believe that Batman is a superhero. Every superhero is at top physical condition, so really the fact that he can shoot a bow is not that impressive. Deadpool on the other hand, cannot die, can teleport, and has his accelerated healing factor, AND he is able to break the fourth wall. Which is very exceptional considering there are only a hand full of comic book characters who are able to do this. And this also allows for him to be funnier, and puts him in considerably 'cooler situations'. I believe that Deadpool is a better superhero than Hawkeye, that is personal opinion that many people share with me, and I hope that I have convinced voters that he is. If I have failed to do so in my debate, I would like to refer you to this article: . http://interracialscentral.wordpress.com... which shows that Deadpool is infact awesome and amazing, much better than Hawkeye can ever even hope to be.
Deadpool is a better superhero that Hawkeye

So, yes Deadpool would never loose because he will live for ever but he would still lose a fight to Hawkeye because he would be defeated. Eventually he would win because Hawkeye will eventually die. I feel we should get back to the topic of who the better superhero is not who would win a fight because two superheros should have no reason to fight. Hawkeye has a better track record of doing superhero task than Deadpool and Hawkeye turned down being a villian so he could help save people.Deadpool can never die because he had a 'relationship' with death which doesn't seem hero like and that act forced him to be cursed so if anything he was forced to do what he does.
Deadpool is a better superhero that Hawkeye

Thank you for voicing your part on Deadpool's healing abilities, but I assure you, Hawkeye can never win if him and Deadpool ever got into a serious fued. Even if Hawkeye 'killed' Deadpool because of a LUCKY shot, Deadpool would just come back and kill him. Because, Deadpool and Death had a 'relationship' that Thanos was jealous of and Thanos cursed Deadpool with 'life'. So Deadpool is LITERALLY immortal. So if his body is killed, his soul can wonder and find a new host body that take the body of Deadpool and just becomes Deadpool straight out. So considering our arguments are very similar in their skills (even though Deadpool's are better) the fact that Deadpool can never die and he can just keep coming at Hawkeye means that technically, Hawkeye can never win. And also, trick arrows don't work to great on Deadpool considering he has used his healing factor to survive incineration. So if you want to say his healing is 'Emotional' and would be slower if he was sad/depressed, I can assure you he would not be either or those things. In fact his 'Emotional Healing' would be 'faster' because he would be "happy-go-lucky" when originally fighting Hawkeye, making him able to survive much damage, and if Hawkeye managed to somehow kill Deadpool, well that would make him angry. So when he came back, his healing would be much much better and Hawkeye would be a dead man. Hawkeye cannot sustain himself from a barrage of Deadpool after Deadpool. Of course he would only have to come back if Hawkeye managed to kill him, which I still stand by the fact that he cannot because Deadpool is far superior to Hawkeye.
Deadpool is a better superhero that Hawkeye

Deadpool is not a reliable fighter his ability to win varies from fight to fight.Here are two examples: Emotional Healing - His healing is affected by his emotions, making him heal slower if sad/depressed or faster when happy/angry. Mental Instability - Deadpool's psychosis makes him unpredictable, but can also hinder his own abilities."Hawkeye is a great martial artist and probably could master many people in close combat, just not Deadpool.Hawkeye may not have a huge advantage over Deadpool but he would still be able to defeat him in close combat. "he is at the very peak of human conditioning; he is an exceptional fencer, acrobat and a grandmaster marksman, having been trained from childhood in the circus and by the criminals Trick Shot and Swordsman. This includes considerable strength, as a super villain found out when he tried to use the superhero's 250 pounds- force draw weight bow and found that he could not draw back the string to launch an arrow."( Gruenwald, Mark; Layton, Bob (1983). Till Death Do Us Part. Hawkeye) This shows that Hawkeye has a superior strength and acrobatic advantage showing that he can fight almost anywhere, also Hawkeyes ability to use almost any thing as a weapon means that he could use almost any object in his vicinity to gain an advantage over Deadpool and even use swords and knives to slow Deadpools counter attacks.
Deadpool is a better superhero that Hawkeye

I would just like to say that, atleast for me, that link does not work.1. "Hawkeye is in far more long range situations" I do not argue this, Hawkeye is infact better than Deadpool in LONGRANGE situations. But how often would Hawkeye be able to be in longrange situations if Deadpool used his teleportation to get near to Hawkeye? 2. "Deadpool may have decent close combat fighting abilities but Hawkeye was trained by one of the best martial artists ever....CAPTAIN AMERICA." I really don't think 'decent' is the right word. Deadpool is one of the most skilled hand to hand combatants in the Marvel Universe. He has fought against some of the best hand to hand combatants AND WON. He fought The Taskmaster, a villain known to almost never lose because he mimics the fighting style of whomever he fights. This was because of Deadpool's utter unpredictability and the fact that The Taskmaster had no way of knowing what he would do next EVEN THOUGH he was copying his fighting style. This means that Hawkeye would not be able to know where Deadpool was going to go next or what he was going to do. If you say that Hawkeye still could because of his senses, just remember that The Taskmaster literally COPIED this style and still could not defeat him.3. Yes Hawkeye does have an array of arrows that could be used, but if at longrange, could it not be possible that Deadpool could easily shoot these arrows out of the air as they came at him?4. Okay, come on, Deadpool is funny and does provide comedic relief, but EVERYONE knows that in superhero fights when someone makes a snarky remark its when a big clash just happened and both parties flew back from each other and are staring at each other deeply until someone makes a move then the fight resumes. So Deadpool would have more than enough time to make his remarks and NOT get blown to bit by trick arrows.5. One time example.6. Deadpool's ability of teleportation does not need to be used to take Hawkeye by surprise, it can be used to get rid of Hawkeye's number one advantage, and that is range. If Deadpool used his teleportation to get close to Hawkeye so that he would have a hard time using a bow effectively and had to resort to martial arts, Deadpool would win. I will say yes, Hawkeye was indeed trained by a great martial artist, Captain America, but that does not mean that he can defeat Deadpool. But it does mean that Hawkeye is a great martial artist and probably could master many people in close combat, just not Deadpool.That healing factor makes way for some great comedic relief. http://static.comicvine.com...
Deadpool is a better superhero that Hawkeye

Hawkeye is a far more superior superhero than Deadpool. Hawkeye is in far more longrange situations than Deadpool which means his accurancy is much better and that Deadpool will have a hard time fleeing. Deadpool may have decent close combat fighting abilities but Hawkeye was trained by one of the best martial artisits ever....CAPTAIN AMERICA. It may be said that Deadpool has a vast array of weapons and Hawkeye doesn't,but that is not necessarily true. hawkeye has a multitude of arrows that have different characteristics. Deadpools may provide comedic relief but while he is telling jokes and talking to himself hawkeye will have had more than enough time to have taken his head off or blown him to pieces with a trick arrow. Deadpool gets caught in the momentum to often, for example Deadpool missed Silver Sable with automatics at POINT BLANK range! Deadpools ability to teleport won't be to affective because Hawkeyes heightened senses will be able to find him before he has a chance at making a surprise attack. I believe this will be how Deadpool will end up after this loss