BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

As I mentioned earlier, that was merely an analogy to say that one cannot just kill a reminder of bad things. This philosophy of, "in order to rid my burdens, I must eliminate any symbols of pain entirely," is morally wrong and, casually speaking, quite selfish. I contend that abortion is not a viable option to avoid parenthood. While there are many scenarios in which keeping the child may not be ideal, alternatives such as adoption are present. Is a little paperwork not worth a child's life?
Abortion

That, exactly, is the point. The child does not get a future. There is no future nor a chance at one for an aborted baby. As a completely parallel (in no way equal to) example to the baby being a reminder of rape, I present a theoretical yet plausible scenario. Take the horrific events that happened at the Boston Marathon attack a while ago. People who lost limbs suffered a great loss at the hands of the terrorist simply do not have the right to murder him because he is a reminder of their pain.
Abortion

Rape can still end in pregnancy no matter what the circumstance and the biggest reminder of it would be the child. With the question of "Would you rather live or die?" is a false analogy. Comparing having an abortion to asking someone if they want to die have two different characteristics. An abortion is something in the moment, not a future event. When you ask a person who has lived many years of their life to either live or die, it is for future event that the person can think about.
Abortion

Is it not the right of every human being to be, at the very least, given a chance to live? Suppose you were asked simply, "Would you rather live or die?" The answer should be quite clear. As the only person who the life of the child directly depends on, it is the mother's responsibility to grant her offspring that chance rather than certain death. On the point of rape, which rarely results in pregnancy, there are many factors which could act as reminders. I question how ending life would fix it.
Evolution in proven fact. god of the bible is not (thankfully)

1. Life is not a bacteria. 2. All sentient Life of which any animal, human, be it carnivore, or herbivore, be it walking, crawling, flying or slithering is produced SOLELY by egg. Never in the History of Science, has a bacteria, Microbe ever produced a sentient creature, which grows to maturity, produces and cares for its offspring, protects its offspring, builds nests, burrows, homes, hatcheries or the like. Here we have the epitome of self delusion. This person claims that because a bacteria, does a thing No Living Real Animal CAN DO in the entire world. Create a Microbe! Just as surely as a Microbe cannot create a baby animal. How desperate must one be to allow themselves to fall to the depths of human depravity. How can a soul, foresake even the most rudimentary intelligence, and worse how can a society, follow along in such absurdity, and then even dare to hope to survive in a world gone to such depths. The question no longer is one of whether God exists or not, but whether man can possibly survive in such a delusional state with which he has allowed himself to Fall. Indeed how can a being plunge to such decadence, such sheer stupidity ... and ever be seen as a creature of higher evolution ... indeed this person by all accounts is no more than a Microbe, despite the formation of bone and sinews from the egg of a human being, its brain that of less than a Microbe , forever doomed to the Hell of which he hoped to escape, yet has laid a trap for others to commit the same, act which is sending this one to the abode of eternal punishment. Let the those voters with such decadence join Him. This however will not make a Lie truth. Merely a travesty of human intellect.
Evolution in proven fact. god of the bible is not (thankfully)

Evolution is proven factAntibiotic resistant microbes is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics.god of the bible (thankfully) is not proven factNo matter which language you speak god is not proven fact. 1. My opponent cannot win the evolution side that was just listed. I will list another point to evolution that is also irrifutable in round 2 with videos. So only religion will be left to argue. 2. Why should this god be believed in when he is knowingly evil and thus creates evil, hates children, creates genocides, creates wars, bloodshed, has anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy, in other words is completely immoral? 3. Prove god according to the bible exists
Homeschooling

Thank you, Kawaii for your argument. I will now refute my opponent's arguments. " Not only children are bullied. Adults can talk behind each other's backs, tease one another about their clothes, accents, etc. , and insult other people, even unintentionally. A person who has been homeschooled all her or his life may not be accustomed to be around other people, causing them to be bullied in college, work, and/or life. " Not true, as there are other ways for homeschooled kids to be social, such as joining a club, or volunteering at a church. Going to a public may mean there is a bit more socialality, but a majority of it is negative. "If I were homeschooled, I would probably be a wiz at math, but not so good at language arts or at spelling because my parents are not from this country. In other cases, a child whom has parents who are, for example, experts at history and literature may be able to teach their child a lot about world war I and Shakespeare but not so much about algebra. " Another thing, there are ways for children who do not have parents who are not good at a subject to learn the subject. Take Khan Academy . http://www.khanacademy.org... for example. This is a great way for homeschooled kids to learn about math, history, and language arts. "I also have homeschooled friends who are allowed to take a week off of school any time during the year as long as they write an essay about a certain topic they were to learn during that time period. An essay certainly does not replace 5 days of learning in school. " That is a bare assumption. Using your homeschooled friends to represent thousands of homeschool kids is a generalization. "If I were older and decided to homeschool my kids, I would need the support of my husband. I wouldn't be able to buy textbooks, school supplies, and teach my kids all by myself. But sometimes he may not agree with what I say or about some matters. We may disagree on which textbook to buy, what school supplies are the most important and some facts about life/education. I may say Shakespeare was a horrible playwright, my husband might disagree. We would fight in front of the kids, and get nowhere. " The same thing goes for public school, as students disagree, and a lot of times, assignments are left finished. Also, a lot of disagreements in public schools lead to fights. Thank you.
Homeschooling

Thank you Birdie for not forfeiting.This is a debate from both sides of the situations: the parent's and the kid's, now and in the future1) Not only children are bullied. Adults can talk behind each other's backs, tease one another about their clothes, accents, etc., and inslt other people, even unintentionally. A person who has been homeschooled all her or his life may not be accustomed to be around other people, causing them to be bullied in college, work, and/or life.2) If I were homeschooled, I would probably be a wiz at math, but not so good at language arts or at spelling because my parents are not from this country. In other cases, a child whom has parents who are, for example, experts at history and literature may be able to teach their child a lot about world war i and shakespeare but not so much about algebra.I also have homeschooled friends who are allowed to take a week off of school any time during the year as long as they write an essay about a certain topic they were to learn during that time period. An essay certainly does not replace 5 days of learning in school.3) I can't think of any reason you would want to drive kids to school really early in the morning, so I'll come up with another reason I'm against homeschooling. Everyone's different and has their own opinion about things. IfI were older and decided to homeschool my kids, I would need the support of my husband. I wouldn't be able to buy textbooks, school supplies, and teach my kids all by myself. But sometimes he may not agree with what I say or about some matters. We may disagree on which textbook to buy, what school supplies are the most important and some facts about life/education. I may say Shakespeare was a horrible pkaywright, my husband might disagree. We would fight in front of the kids, and get nowhere. That is why kids should not be homeschooled and why parents should not homeschool their kids.
Homeschooling

Contention 1: BullyingBullying is one of the major problems with public schooling. Students get teased and sometimes get in fights some days while in a public school. Students who are homeschooled do not have to deal with the troubles of bullying. Contention 2: EducationStudents who are homeschooled get a better education, than those who go to a public school. Students get to learn at their own pace, and do not have to feel rushed, or have to fall behind in class. Students also have more encouragment when homeschooled, and get the motivation needed to finish assignments. Contention 3: LocationThe location is better for homeschooled students. They do not have to travel miles to their school, because their school is at home. Students who go to a public school sometimes have to travel to a different city, just to go to a public school. Thank you. I await my opponent's opening arguments.
possibilities are impossibly true for them to be possible

Here's your next argument, 1=something=transformation=absolute. This would make 1 all possibilities. The final rebuttal, 0=nothing=creation+destruction=possible+impossible, could be solved with basic algebra. Possible and impossible are opposites, therefore, they cancel each other out. This equates to 0. Earlier, 0 = impossible, therefore it is impossible for possible and impossible to add up. This simple equation has already undervalued the response. It states, impossible + possible = 0. It has no solution, therefore, it is very probable that impossibility doesn't exist. Everything is possible if it is worked by a certain standard. The equation part of my argument was just one statement, no where do you retort my other arguments made. I'll outline my previous points made that were not confronted: - The concept of impossible is false, because everything can be solved with a certain, perfect tactic. "The only impossibilities of modern times are due to our lack of understanding of the universe. It's currently improbable to time travel, but it will become a viable option one day. It's currently difficult to travel to the fourth dimension, but the possibility of being able to lingers." - There is always an alternative possibility to triumph over impossibilities. "If someone says they have an object in Box A, the possibility is there. Now, this is not impossible. There could very well be an object in Box A. It's not impossible. Now if you open Box A and there is no object, that doesn't mean it's impossible for an object to be in the box. You could possibly put an object into Box A." - The reason for modern 'impossibilities' is because humans have yet to develop coherent solutions for complications. "In conclusion, the statement 'impossible' only exists because of humanity's lack of understanding and advancement in the scientific and philosophical field. Every obstacle can be overcome using the perfect tactic, it's just, currently, the perfect tactics are strenuous to discover." Thank you for taking the time for an entertaining debate!
possibilities are impossibly true for them to be possible

Your equation makes no sense. Impossible = 0 because it is currently impractical to garner anything out of the universe. Possible = 1 because it is feasible to garner something out of reality. If someone says they have an object in Box A, the possibility is there. Now, this is not impossible. There could very well be an object in Box A. It's not impossible. Now if you open Box A and there is no object, that doesn't mean it's impossible for an object to be in the box. You could possibly put an object into Box A. Another example, let's say Larry King wanted to conquer the world in a week. This wouldn't be impossible for him to do, there are a variety of ways he could do this. The possibility of him being able to accomplish world domination is very, very, slim. It's not impossible though, he has the potential to do it. The only impossibilities of modern times are due to our lack of understanding of the universe. It's currently improbable to time travel, but it will become a viable option one day. It's currently difficult to travel to the fourth dimension, but the possibility of being able to lingers. In conclusion, the statement 'impossible' only exists because of humanity's lack of understanding and advancement in the scientific and philosophical field. Every obstacle can be overcome using the perfect tactic, it's just, currently, the perfect tactics are strenuous to discover.
possibilities are impossibly true for them to be possible

Happy to be debating you! First, let's define possible and impossible: - Possible - that can be done or achieved, or that can exist - Impossible - unable to exist, happen, or be achieved; not possible: Therefore, blankly, they are double negatives. They cancel each other out. Henceforth, possibilities can't equal impossibilities. To conclude, I'll dissect your phrase. "Possibilities are impossibly..." but this is impossible. If we represent possible using the number 1 and impossible using the number 0: in no way in our known universe can 1 = 0. "...impossibly true for them to be possible", this is a continuation of the previous argument, 1 is unequal to 0. Sources: http://dictionary.cambridge.org... http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
Resolved: quote debate

Totalitarianism no longer comes in the form of communism or fascism. It comes now from corporations. And these corporations fear those who think and write, those who speak out and form relationships freely. Individual freedom impedes their power and their profits. Our democracy, as Snowden I think has revealed, has become a fiction. The state, through elaborate forms of political theater, seeks to maintain this fiction to keep us passive. And if we wake up, the state will not shy away from draconian measures. The goal is complete subjugation, the iron rule of our corporations and our power elite. - Chris Hedges
Resolved: quote debate

NOTE: I PUT THIS DEBATE UP DUE TO A COMPLICATION IN THE LAST ONE. THIS BEING THE CASE, I WILL USE THE SAME QUOTE THAT I USED IN THE LAST DEBATE FOR THE FIRST ROUND, BECAUSE I WANT MY POSITION REFUTED. PLEASE READ THE DIRECTIONS CAREFULLY. The premise of this debate is simple. The objective is to use one quote to justify your position. The rebuttal must refute the argument made in that quote. Two topics will be chosen by me, and the other topic will be chosen by my opponent. PM me the topics you wish to accept the debate, along with the topics you would like to choose. I will forfeit round four so my opponent can go first for the last topic. My opponent will forfeit his/her turn in round 5. First round is acceptance. These are the topics I will be using: Gun Control (I will be Con) Regulation of Corporations (I will be Pro)
You do not know Football

1972. NOT BECAUSE I'M A BANDWAGON. But because I like the Miami Dolphins and I like when they win. I wasn't even born then and so it's not like i changed my mind just because they won. A bandwagon is someone who changes their favorite team by whoever is winning or who is the best. I have liked miami dolphins for 13 years (my whole life). So im not a bandwagon. Maybe you are. But not I.
The authors of the four gospels sourced from myths, not directly from eyewitnesses

GOSPEL- 1. The teaching or revelation of Christ. 2. A thing that is absolutely true. A think that is absolutely true According to Matthew Tradition of the old/Old testament is revealed in what is new according to Matthew. Man generations have passed long from the old Testament to the birth of Christ. While Pro states that much have been lost in translation, he is wrong. Gods word is every ones word. It is told at many years ago during the time of Babel all Men spoke the same and the word was with all. Then something happened," Let us Go and Confuse and divide man". While this is not the word per word translation of what is written the General meaning is the same. A thing that is gospel is true regardless of what language it is spoken or written in. The Identity of God never changes. The same yesterday as today. Sources When Matthew decided to write down what he had learn during his walk with Jesus we know this much. (a) He must had bee part of the Learned or educated crowd. This is important because many during that part of history was neither learned and like wise would have only spoken about what they had observed. Also as far as pro suggesting that every thing was simply made up this is a fallacy. Matthew had several sources from Mark. Like wise perhaps Mark had his sources also. It seems plausible that if a man was healing and performing miracles several people would speak about it. And equally plausible it wold have been a crowd writing to disprove as well as disprove what had been said. The Truth is hidden In conclusion I have used Matthew and in the other arguments I shall expound farther upon the point of view of Matthew. His structure seems to be the most accurate and organized. Often what we seek is hidden before us. In art, nature, and word either spoken or written. In the end it is up to the person to find their way and also the path to the truth. I believe that the truth is one made up of infinitely many paths. What the Gospel tells is just how some found the truth while many others failed to find it.
The authors of the four gospels sourced from myths, not directly from eyewitnesses

The gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are their accounts of Historic events during and after their walk with Christ. If any-one should know about what they are speaking it should be these men as well as the other Disciples. Perhaps we,(modern), man may question the truth but not the disciples. some things are true regardless if we wish to believe it or not. The Synoptic Gospel: The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes exactly the same wording. This degree of parallelism in content, narrative arrangement, language, and sentence structures can only be accounted for by literary interdependence. Most scholars believe that these gospels share the same point of view and are clearly linked.[1] The term synoptic comes from the Greek syn, meaning "together", and optic, meaning "seen".[2] According to the majority viewpoint, Mark was the first gospel written. Matthew and Luke then used Mark as a source, as well as a hypothetical sayings gospel known as Q. Matthew and Luke also included unique material, and the sources for this material are designated M and L, respectively. The synoptic gospels are the primary source for historical information about Jesus. From several points of view the same story comes to light. Can we simply believe that 3 different disciples fabricated three identical stories? I think not. We are left to debate if the Bible is TRUE. If I am to put GOD on trail I choose not to and instead to have blind faith, that what is written is factual as well as important. The point that is critical though is not, if the bible is based upon myths, but quite frankly is GOD a MYTH? Circular Logic will never come close to any answer. As far as the Synoptic Gospel it is as it is. We can speculate upon its validity but until we are able to prove that it, the GOSPEL/BIBLE, was a myth to start with then and only then will we be able to say that mythology was the basis of the Gospel. For if any part of it is not true then he entire thing is invalid.
The authors of the four gospels sourced from myths, not directly from eyewitnesses

Resolution: The authors of the four gospels sourced from myths, not directly from eyewitnesses. To clarify, the authors of the gospels titled, "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke" and "John" were neither eyewitnesses nor had direct access to the testimony to eyewitnesses with respect to the events of the life of Jesus Christ, and the claims contained within their writings were sourced primariy from myths among Christians.Definitions:An "eyewitness" is someone who has directly observed the events pertaining to a claim in question.A "myth" is a system of linguistic information (i.e. story) that is contained at one end of a long successively-branching and evolving chain of communication, either written, spoken or both.For other definitions, I defer to http://oxforddictionaries.com...Rules:1. Round 1 is for acceptance.2. The burden of proof is shared equally between the two of us. The most probable case (not the certain case) is the winning case.3. Biblical texts qualify as legitimate sources, but the claims of the canon should not be assumed to be historically reliable. They will be treated roughly the same as other written sources from ancient history (either trustworthy or untrustworthy, as the evidences and sound arguments suggest).
Abortion

Sorry, have been preoccupied. What I was trying to communicate is that from a scientific perspective the brain is not functioning in a fetus until late second early third trimester Therefore the fetus is not a person and has no rights before that point. If a person was brain dead and the only way to keep them alive was for them to be hooked up to you 24/7 would that be allowable? The only difference here is that someone who is brain dead will not recover and a fetus has the potential to become a living breathing organism. But potential is not a reason to deny abortion Now while we have seen that allowing abortion has shown a correlation with reduced crime 20 years later, Roe V Wade was 1973 and crime started showing reductions in 1994 about the time when people who would have been born in 1974 would be in their crime making years this is not a reason to allow abortion but a general benefit due to unwanted kids born most often in poverty not being born If abortion is murder then so is capital punishment, if you outlaw abortion then you must outlaw capital punishment. The whole argument rests on what defines a person, when does a fetus become a person scientifically and therefore then acquires the right to life? Most religious people believe that moment is at conception and talk about potential, if potential is such a big issue then we have more issues. Male masturbation is wrong as well as using a condom due to losing the potential of those sperm. Also this would mean that every time a woman has her period is a waste of potential and she should be pregnant non-stop from the first time she is able to conceive until she runs out of eggs otherwise she is murdering potential humans. Again if you apply something in one situation what makes it different in another situation. Without bringing God into the equation the logical arguments along this line do not stand up.