BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion before the third trimester

Point A: We are in agreement Point B: Just because we disagree on the matter doesn't refute my position that the basis for laws lie in societal morality. As for your statistics citing the beliefs of many to believe abortion is immoral, I first say that those statistics are actually those who believe in God, and you assume that they are against abortion. That means by no means that they are against abortion, and even those who are probably aren't against abortions as we are defining them in this context as before the third trimester. If THAT isn't enough, people's ideals fluctuate all the time, so until you prove that the general populace was always against abortion, then your argument doesn't refute my own. My position is that the basis of laws lies in societal morality because the people who made our countries put what they believed to be right in our Constitution so that those values would be protected. Just because your views or my views, or even the majority of society's views that abortions are immoral in the context of religion or personal belief doesn't mean that, when put in the context of society, should be illegalized because the fact of the matter is that it IS protected by the Constitution that was made for the greater good of our society, and so to violate that protection by illegalizing abortion before the third trimester would be like spitting on our forefathers. Point C: Once again, the Supreme Court doesn't just randomly suggest some definition from nowhere; it is determined by political realities as well as how they believe the founding fathers would have thought. Who are you to say that they just randomly pick a definition, especially when you don't provide a better one? As I do recall, you cited Websters, and also didn't disagree with me on my point that the highest authority on constitutional matters, the Supreme Court, has probably the most viable definition seeing as it is their job to decide such matters.
Abortion before the third trimester

First, a summation of what you are saying: A: Neither side can win this debate, so you concede it to me B: Laws have no say in morality because morality is based upon societal concensus ex. is cannabalism C: The Supreme Court arbitrarily defines "viable" Point A: Yes, we can. Though morality is subjective to each and every person, people share their beliefs and try to convince the other of the superiority of their own beliefs, as we are doing now during this debate. It is up to those who will vote to decide who has the superior position, so yes, one side can and WILL win this debate, so I would very much not like you to concede, though you really aren't because you did present arguments. It is important that we do participate, so please don't just give up. Point B: Our laws DO define morality, but just in a generic sense so that we can have somewhat of a base morality so people can't just go around killing people because to them they are morally justified. You see, whenever our society originally drafted the Constitution, they obviously had morality in mind, for there is really nothing else. Since laws regulate what we can and cannot do (ideally), they are the ultimate moral justifiers because everything we do is justified morally to us, and we would be obliged to follow the societal paradigm else we would be rejected from the group. Take your example of cannibalism. In OUR society, cannabalism is not accepted because we find it morally wrong, for example, because of the killing, just like they would have when the Constitution was drafted. So then, our founding fathers made it a point to make laws against killing others, but of course not just for cannabalism. My point is that a society's values are the reason for laws; they are not disconnected. Point C: First, I will say that it is the Supreme Court's function to interpret the Constitution for specific instances such as abortion, and they do it according to not only what they believe would have been the founding father's ruling, but also according to political realities. You see, they define "viablility" as not only being alive, but (specific to the context of conception) being able to survive outside the mother's womb, albeit with some support. The main idea, though, is that it is fully functioning as far as all the organs work, or at least with reasonable artificial support. My point here is that the Supreme Court's "arbitrary" definition is one specific to a scenario involving abortion, and it is certainly more appropriate than Webster's.
Abortion before the third trimester

Abortions before the third trimester should be considered legal and under the protection of the 14th Ammendment and Due Process clauses stating that a womam has the right to due process when she has in interest in life, liberty, or in this case property. Since the fetus is not considered to be "viable" outside the womb until after the second trimester or somewhere around there, then it is not a person, and therefore denied the rights listed in the constitution.
The KCA is Sound

Apeiron has brought dishonor upon his family's name with his last round. Note, ladies and gentlemen of the audience, that he has despicably exploited a loophole to bypass the very generous 8,000 character limit this debate has.He's posted quite a few "pictures" that are nothing but paragraphs of text. I copied/pasted his actual text into a Word document and then typed out everything that was said in the "pictures" and, altogether, the character count came out to be 17,903 (with spaces; because DDO counts spaces toward the character limit). That's over two full rounds of content!Unfortunately, Apeiron likes rambling more than I like listening to his rambling. I signed up for this debate under the condition that each round would be limited to 8,000 characters. I don't have the time or the verve to thoroughly read and respond to that ridiculously long monologue. (If 8,000 characters is not enough to say everything you want, Apeiron, perhaps you should take a breath sometime between sentences and cut some of the fat off, like, you know, every member of DDO is expected to do. A tactic such as this shows nothing but weakness.)This is a real disappointment because I was looking forward to this debate (just look at how I excited I was in the opening round) and I was looking forward to doing it well with Apeiron; but now my interest in it has plummeted.Apeiron has revealed himself to be someone who is less worried about engaging in a fair debate and more worried about drowning us all with his unending babbling. Prime example, and this is verbatim taken from his last round:"For wholly contingent facts with causes obtain in worlds lacking indiscernibles. But if wholly contingent facts with causes obtain in worlds lacking indiscernibles, then wholly contingent facts with causes obtain in wordlds not lacking indiscernibles also because indiscernible things are maximally specific."What the heck does this even mean? Does Apeiron even know? Because he’s given no indication that he does by doing something like, I don’t know, explaining it…An act as disgraceful and unfair as this Is, in my opinion, as worthy of forfeiture as plagiarism. Again, I don’t have the time or the verve to read and respond to over twice as much text as what I originally agreed was the maximum! Nor should I be expected to.
The KCA is Sound

I. AcceptanceI accept.II. AcknowledgementsFirst and foremost, I thank Pennington for hosting the tournament without which this debate might have never happened. As Apeiron mentioned, its purpose is to answer the question "who is the best debater on DDO"; though that need be amended to "who is the best debater on DDO who also signed up for this tournament" as we are noticeably missing some of our finest. Despite that though, Pennington has worked hard to assemble these brackets with very notable contestants (including YYW, larztheloser, ConservativePolitico, phantom, imabench, Contra, and many more). It pleases me to be part of such an impressive roster and I have no doubt this tournament will be a fun and engaging one.I also thank my opponent, Apeiron, for whatever insight he brings to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, perhaps the most famous (and infamous) argument for God there is. I'm sure we've all seen it argued time and time again, so hopefully Apeiron and I can hold your attention with arguments that are more interesting and exciting than they are banal.Lastly, I thank any audience members and jury members who will be committing themselves to thoroughly reading my inane ramblings over the course of the debate and for voting as fairly as possible.III. Burdens of ProofApeiron has stated his central claim to be: "Plausibly, a First Cause exists as a supernatural personhood". This is the claim he will be trying to establish and defend during the upcoming rounds of banter and he will be doing this in large part by proving the KCA is sound.So what exactly is my onus in this debate? Take note, it's not to prove Apeiron's central claim is false, nor is it even to prove the conclusion of the basic KCA false (that the universe therefore had some cause to its existence). Attempting to do so would no doubt prove impossible (as impossible, I think, as proving the central claim true), not to mention it would be out of line with my own beliefs.Instead, it is my onus in this debate to simply explain how Apeiron's argument fails, to show that whatever reasons he gives to support his central claim are, themselves, flawed in some way. If there truly is a flaw in his argument, and I find and exploit that flaw (which I wholly intend to do), then based on this debate alone, there would be no reason for us to believe Apeiron's central claim; and if there is no reason for us to convert to theism based on this debate, then who can say the theist here has won?IV. Four is my favorite Roman numeralWith nothing else relevant left to say, Apeiron, I give you the floor. Wipe it with me 'till the audience can see their beautiful faces in it.
Kim Kardashian is a Hobbit.

Let's play ball!1. Kim Kardashian's a$$ is the size of JUPITER. What do you think I spent my first time being up all night doing... fappin' to hobbits or Kim Kardashian? Kim Kardashian's sheer butt size is enough to have its own gravitational pull. A hobbit doesn't have it. P.S: Ever seen an apple floating around her butt? That's her gravitational pull.2. She's married to Kanye. No hobbit could ever be that gross. 3. Dude, she has more hairs than a hobbit. You just don't know where.4. I'm fairly sure hobbits don't get periods.5. I'm also sure that a hobbit can't produce a baby with a crappier name than Northwest.6. She has a disease called "Kardashianitosis." It's where you get so conceded in smug you forget to wear a top and/or a bottom. It may also get you married to a douche. Like Kanye. It's rare and has never appeared in hobbits. Here are some people suffering from the disease:Miley Cyrus (Also suffers from pancake a$$ syndrome)Amanda Bynes (Also suffers from being a crackhead)Lindsay Lohan (Also suffers from being INSANE)Lady Gaga (Also suffers from Madonna syndrome A.K.A attention whoreTaylor Swift (Also suffers from blaming everybody when it's really your freaking fault! Syndrome) Rebuttals (from bottom-up):1. Kim Kardashian isn't fat. She's well, WELL past that stage. Hobbits aren't.2. She has to razor off her body... she suffers from Wolf syndrome (look it up) but not Hobbit syndrome.3. She doesn't use photoshop more than the average celebrity.4. What celebrity past insanity stage doesn't have the body of a hobbit?5. Kim Kardashian doesn't smoke pipe... Only crack, marijuana, and any other smokable drug you can think of.6. Of course they need to be slightly below ground.Above ground: Paparazzi.Below ground: Coyotes, snakes, wolves, mice, rats, etc. all smelling all of that f&#*&$^ makeup she put on that morning.7. You call that a show? Please, the only show worse than that is Keeping up with the Kardashians. I bled from my eyeballs when I watched that sh!t.So as you can see, Kim Kardashian is not a hobbit, but a rather very mutated celebrity with a fat, plump butt.
Kim Kardashian is a Hobbit.

1. Kim Kardashian stared in a show called: "Courtney and Kim take New York," a show with short fat people living in a fantasy world.In lord of the Rings, Frodo, the main charecter, lives in a Fantasy world with his freind Sam. Both of which are short and fast, because they are hobbits...2. Kim lives in a mansion with Kanye with a room slightly bellow ground...Hobbit's supposedly live in houses slightly bellow ground. 3.Kim smokes a pipe Hobbits smoke pipes 4. Kim has the body of a hobbit, as pointed out by South Park. 5. Kim uses magic photoshop tools to make her look different, just like Bilbo puts on the ring to make his imperfections go away... 6. She razors hair off her Body, meaning she would be hairy, but she is in the "Hobbit denial stage. 7. She's fat because hobbits eat multiple breakfasts... I will make newarguments next round,
earth was created by god

//athiesm was created by a man called darwen// False. Atheism was not "created", it is merely a lack of belief and considering the fact that atheists have been around since before the Greeks we can see that this claim is false. Also, Darwin was first brought up Christian. //this man said that earth was not created// False again. He merely proposed a method by which organisms change. He made no mention of the earths creation. Also, nobody, atheist or theist, denies that the earth was created. They just disagree on how. //why do you believe in such a staement when the man himself created the religion, creating the idea of earth has no creator?// What? I don't believe that the earth was never created and Darwin didn't create atheism. Everything you have said thus far is incorrect. //how does earth not have a creator but a house has?// Because there is a natural explanation for how the earth was formed.
The fact that the word "Islam" means Peace should not be used in defense of Islam.

My opponent has offered us a very naï¿½ve view of the world. Once a word or phrase is defined to include an individual or group of individuals the initial meaning of the word/phrase is no longer pervasive of the entire definition. That is to say that the definition of a word/phrase changes once it is used to define one person or a group of people. There are many examples to choose from but lets take the case of "The Giggling Granny." In and of itself what does the phrase "the giggling granny" mean? It means a particular woman who has had grandchildren and is either laughing now or tends to laugh a lot. Let's suppose a friend and I were to walk by two people. One person was a grandmother who is laughing and the other is a little girl. If my friend were to say to me, "Did you see that woman, the giggling granny?" that would be a perfectly acceptable use of the phrase. However the phrase "the giggling granny" was redefined in the early part of the 20th century to describe a particular individual. That individual is Nannie Doss, a serial killer. Now we can see that this phrase has two meanings: 1 - Good humoured grandmother 2 - Nannie Doss. In no way should the first meaning of the word/phrase trump the second or be used to defend the actions of the second. What do I mean that it shouldn't trump the second? That means it would be incorrect to say that Nannie Doss was not "the giggling granny" b/c she did not adhere to the first meaning of the word/phrase. She is the giggling granny b/c the word/phrase is defined to include her. My opponent has attempted to use this tactic with the word "Islam." Suggesting that terrorists who follow Mohammad are not followers of Islam. This resolution cannot hold. This is simply a lack of understanding as to what the definition of Islam is. Islam http://dictionary.reference.com... 1.the religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah. 2.the whole body of Muslim believers, their civilization, and the countries in which theirs is the dominant religion. Whether my opponent likes it or not terrorists, such as Osama bin laden, DO belong to Islam. In fact they fall into both definitions of the word. They follow the words, and religious system founded by Muhammad and the Koran. AND they are part of the civilization. "Resign oneself to God", as a MEANING (not a definition) of the word "islam" is only one part of the definition of the word and cannot be used in defense of the actions done by individual's who are also considered a part of that definition. I hope you don't actually believe you had any sort of argument.
The fact that the word "Islam" means Peace should not be used in defense of Islam.

My opponent brings up very good points however neglects to recognize that the context of utilizing the definition of the world Islam is very important. Words mean things, the fact that people misinterpret them and misuse them doesn't detract from the fact that they actually mean specific things. My opponent stated that the definition of the word Islam shouldn't be used in defense of it. I disagree as the definition of Islam as peaceful submission to God, helps define non peaceful people as non Islamic people. A terrorist cannot be a follower of Islam, according to the definition of the word. Just as someone who is angry at God cannot be an Atheist, or someone who follows Zeus cannot be a Christian. The fact that words are utilized to define things requires that they should be used in the defense of things and actions attributed to those words. It is reasonable for Muslims to utilize the definition of the word Islam to refute claims that it is morally reprehensible or a violent religion, simply because those who behave in a reprehensible or a violent way CANNOT represent Islam by definition. The fact that violent people take on the mantle of the word, does not detract from the fact that they are NOT Muslims by definition. Just as followers of Quetzalcoatl claiming to be Atheists cannot exist by definition and Christians claiming to be former Atheists, when in fact they were 'rebelling against God' did not exist as Atheists by definition. If this argument stated: Violent People utilizing the world Islam to describe themselves are mistaken - I would agree. Or The definition of the word Islam should be changed to include violent Muslims -I might consider it. However the claim was: The fact that the word "Islam" means Peace should not be used in defense of Islam. Which is illogical. The definition of any word can and should ALWAYS be used to defend the true meaning of that word. -- Also, I understand that my opponent is not trying to make an ethical statement about Islam as a religion, and urge the reader to also understand this important point.
The fact that the word "Islam" means Peace should not be used in defense of Islam.

First of all, this is a debate about the validity of a tactic used by islamic apologists to defend islam. It isn't a debate about Islam itself. My claim is that just b/c the name of an organization means something does not necessarily mean that the organization adheres to whatever its name means. because of this the meaning of the word "islam" has no discernible relation to the ethical merits of the religion. It is essentially irrelevant to even state the meaning of this word when discussing the ethical merits of islam. I have not, nor do i intend to make any claims about the ethical merit of this religion in this debate. My opponent hasn't actually posed any argument about the validity of this tactic. At least not a sound one. "The nature of Islamic people and their religion is continually under attack from the west as being violent, war mongering and backwards. " If this is a reason why this tactic should be used we only need to look at the neo-nazi's to see the absurdity of such a claim. Neo nazism is continually under attack from the majority of americans as being violent, war mongering and backwards. Therefore in their defense it is valid to point out that the word "nazism" refers to The National Socialist German Workers' Party. It doesn't matter what nazism means it doesn't excuse their actions in anyway. I want to make it clear that I am not saying that islam is necessarily a violent religion or anything to that accord. As that would be a topic for another debate. I am simply pointing out that Islam the word does not necessarily have anything do with the ethical merits of the religion. Therefore it shouldn't be used in defense of islam.
The fact that the word "Islam" means Peace should not be used in defense of Islam.

The nature of Islamic people and their religion is continually under attack from the west as being violent, war mongering and backwards. It is important for the western world to take a step back and take a look at Muslims as a whole, instead of focusing on the very tiny minority that behave badly towards other humans. The true definition of Islam ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ) is not strictly peace as the proponent suggests, it actually means to surrender or resign oneself to God or to make peace with God. The point that Islam by definition means making peace is an important tool that should be used by Muslims in defense of their religion. The claims that Islam is not a religion of peace are refuted by the vast majority of muslims who live peaceful lives. As an example, lets take a look at the word Christian. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Utilizing my opponents logic, Christians should not use the definition of Christianity, Christ like, when defending it to Atheists who claim it is anything but. It is similar to an Atheist using the Westboro Baptist Church to prove that Christians are not Christlike, then claiming that Christians shouldn't point to the fact that Christianity means Christlike, while defending themselves. The fact that a very small minority of Muslims don't live in peaceful submission to Allah, doesn't negate the definition and true intent of the religion.
The fact that the word "Islam" means Peace should not be used in defense of Islam.

My point is very simple and i want to keep this short. The word Islam means peace but this fact is unimportant when debating the moral standards of Islam. Just because the name of an organization/religion/movement is something does not mean that the organization/religion/movement abides by that thing. For example lets suppose that a band of murders called themselves "Los Amantes de la Gente" Suppose this band has killed more than 500 people and are now at court on trail. Are we to believe that they shouldn't be convicted simply because their name means the lovers of the people? You may think their names sounds far fetched but consider the fact that The Nazi Party actually stood for The National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was supposedly a party for the people. Just to hammer the nail in the whole. Imagine someone with the name Dietfried. (yes its a real name, http://www.behindthename.com...) murders hundreds of people. Would any lawyer even think to try and make the defense that his name means "peace of the people." I'm afraid not.
Schools shouldn't be able to ban books from their librarys

When hateful content, Homophobia, Violence and a bunch of other things are involved that just ain't your line of work unless you're going to repeal a law that defends gays etc. Seniors may not take action to correct their juniors or may not see a problem where there is one. And there comes the problem: senior students may not take corrective or preventive action. So we should ban some books as we deem fit. We have every right to ensure that our children remain children till such time as they must learn about these things. It's been a great debate.