BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Resolution: If the mother wants it, abortion should be allowed. Pro C1: No legal/medical reason. Legal =/= moral, which is what's important in answering "should". Abortion causes severe harm to the growing human inside it's mother's womb. This is a medical reason. Pro C2: Not all women are religious. Strawman; I'm not using religion to argue this. Pro C3: One should have the right to control one's own body. The fetus has unique DNA and is its own growing entity. When "controlling" one's own body destroys an innocent life, something terrible has happened. Con Argument: Any competent biologist will tell you that fetuses are human. We shouldn't devalue human life by allowing its destruction to be carried out on the whim of one i
Abortion

Abortion is something that should be kept open as in option to the cases in which it is the best option in the opinion of the mother. The abortion of a fetus is the best choice for some mothers who have been the victim of rape, have no resources to care for a child or for births that were unintended. These three reasons are all enough for a mother to decide what to do with her own body. There is no legal or medical reason not to allow a mother to abort. Nor is there a religious one that could govern all women such as those those who have no religious preference. The control over what happens to ones body is something that one but that person has the right to call the shots. To make a law over this would be a law is no constitutional.
Abortion

Throughout this short debate, my opponent has made the error of thinking that because something is legal it is morally correct. The resolution isn't about whether abortion is legal - it's about whether it /should/ be "left open as an option." For this reason no arguments about current laws apply. Pro has not responded to my value of human life. I have indicated that human life should be protected and all he has done is state that fetuses aren't human beings. He has given no criteria for what constitutes a human being (I argue that all humans are human beings). Finally, pro's argument about the baby's inability to "act on its rights" makes no sense. How does anyone act on a right to live? By living? Fetuses are alive and actively growing
Abortion

C3: The fact is that there is no laws in existence that state the unborn fetus has any rights at all obviously because it has no ability to act upon any rights if it had any. Hence if the fetus has no ability to act then the mother would be the only one to do so. After the child is brought into the world it is protected by law, because after the child is born then it against the law to destroy its life. Birth is the fine line because it changes things a baby outside the mother alive on its own accord versus the unborn growing child inside the mother are not the same. Murder is as the unlawful killing of a human being by the act of another. Before the fetus is born it can not be murdered because its not a human being and not protected.
I challenge thee

You are allowed to pick any of these topics to debate on: -We are zombies -We are robots -Counter-attack with weapons -Continue this sentence -Song debate You may pick either Con or Pro for the topic that you have selected. The rounds are as follows: R1: you accept this debate and choose your stance on a topic that you picked R2-5: post random stuff here to support whatever it is you are trying to do with rebuttals and stuff Comments: during the duration of this debate, Pro and Con must say "fart" in the comment section at least once. Failure to do so results in an automatic win for the other side. Also, if LuckyStars is confused about the topics, he may say so in the comments about questions or concerns, and I will answer them.
The Death Star Explosion was an Inside Job

Advice? Don't tell me what to do. Sarte died to give us radical freedom i intened to use it! http://www.sartre.com...; />God bless Sarte, smoke it up in heaven.On Order 66The argument is about as relavent as a naked women riding a motorcycle (tho thats always relevent to me). The said clones are not jedis and therefore cannot be currpoted by the force. The curropotion can only happen to jedis.On the ousideness of the death explosionInserting definitions this late in the debate is inexcusable br0.Obi Juan on vadarFirst, it is Obi Juan. If you truely followed jedism you would understand Obi Juan was truely mexican. Glucus couldn't include this in the films because of the racism at the time. Obi Juan's body died but not his soul. Look in the footage you can see Obi Juan contacting Luke from beyond the grave to encourge him.Code of the SithThe code of the sith has everyting to do with the debate you suggesting i am interjecting it to type more is confidence breed(or perhaps inbreed) in ignorance. The sith code shows love is not accepted only power. Vadar would have accepted this sh1t religiously.Grand MoffBr0 I told you what sex had to do with this. Youi cannot come earily you have to wait for the right time. Grand moff understood this brah. He was good in bed and therefore good in the battle field. He would not have relased his fighters.It is an axiom that Grand Moff is good at two things. F*cking and fighting.Vader is the b0ss.I quoute my oppopoo" Darth Sideous has complete control over him."You have refuted your own arguments. Ifff Darth Sideous has complete control then it logically follows (from logic) that the death star explosion was not an inside yob.The FACTSVadar or any dark lord would detect any sign of the light side. No good could ever infiltrate the death star.QED b1tches.
The Death Star Explosion was an Inside Job

My opppoo is biased. This is know because he calls the great prophet Lskywalker a "terrorist" and say the statement that " innocent government employees." lost their lives. Dude thats a like saying WWII resuting in the loss of innocent German government employees. Get ur facts str8 m8 4 i fuk u up. Soooo whats up with ur supposed questions huh? They any good? NO. Let us seeWas the Death Star Attack an inside job? Answer: NO. Exibit A: The prophecy clearly shows the death star blew up outside. http://www.youtube.com...Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to fire the Station's large fleet of Tie-fighters until it was too late? It wasnt tactically (or sexually) a sound move. Setting out the tie fighters too early they would be seen coming witch is also why it isnt a good sexual stategy. They was no good move Grand Moff could take.Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader is in fact the father of the pilot destroyed the Death Star?Do u know anything about the dark side? They dont give a sh1t about family or anything. Let me quote cite the code of the sith Nwûl tash. Dzwol shâsotkun. Shâsotjontû châtsatul nu tyûk. Tyûkjontû châtsatul nu midwan. Midwanjontû châtsatul nu asha. Ashajontû kotswinot itsu nuyak. Wonoksh Qyâsik nun. in english Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me. -Sorzus Syn 6900 BBy Love gives you peace love rejects power accordin to the sith. No one cares to inversitgate the relation Why did Darth Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored Tie-fighter? Vader is the b0ss. He can do whatever the f*ck he wants. F*ck protocol he saw everyone was screwing everything up so he rolled up his sleves and did it himself. Orrr it could be that Obi Juan was using the force on vader to f*ck with his head that placed him outside the death star. Analysis of the security footage of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface (the white sparks in the bottom left corner) prior to exploding completely. Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star? Proton torpedos work that way! they work on the chain reaction that f*ck up protons gradually. There is no good argue for thos conspiracy bs. My argues Any one inside the death star must be curropted by the dark side. even if dey get a freedom fighter in he will be currpoted as any jedi can be curropted. Darth Vadar would sense the light side and seek to destroy it. This prevents any inside job Like i a said the death star explosion happened outside too. You a fail bro.
The Death Star Explosion was an Inside Job

The factsIt is clear that the death star bombings were aninside job, because of the following: In a galaxy far, far away, members of the violent extremist group, The Rebel Alliance, plotted a series of coordinated attacks on the Galactic Empire Space Station. Following the preliminary attacks, Terrorists from the Jedi militant group, in a fleet of X-wing starfighters, were scrambled to assault the space station. The Death Star attempted to use it's turbolaser blasters to defend itself, but the defenses were not designed to fight off the small and agile starfighters. Leading this suicide bombing mission was terrorist leader Luke Skywalker. Two proton torpedoes were fired into the hyper matter reactor core through a small thermal exhaust port, no bigger than the size of a womp rat. This triggered a catastrophic chain reaction that destroyed the space station, killing thousands of innocent government employees. Skywalker then hid out in the Dagobah system while the empire hunted for him. Millions of officers, pilots, crewers and Stormtroopers lost their lives in the massacre. End of story right? Not yet. You have to ask yourself: Was the Death Star Attack an inside job? Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to fire the Station's large fleet of Tie-fighters until it was too late? Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader is in fact the father of the pilot destroyed the Death Star? Why did Darth Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored Tie-fighter? This conveniently placed him outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed. Analysis of the security footage of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface (the white sparks in the bottom left corner) prior to exploding completely. Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star? All of this can't just be a result of incompetence and coincidence. It is an excuse to invade Hoth resources; a planet that didn't have anything to do with the attack? Or is it to take away your religious freedoms to practice the force?
Saying that's the way it is without giving a reason is the circular reasoning fallacy.

That's the way it is as a statement is used in reference to a past event or when someone with a greater authority than you does not feel a reason is necessary. When in reference to a past event that can't be changed the statement is quite self explanatory and doesn't require a reason. When used by someone in authority it doesn't matter what their reason is because whatever they choose overrules you.
I am very humble

"There will never be anyone as humble as I am"OBJECTION!You say that no one will ever be as humble as you EVEN THOUGH "My humbleness knows no bounds" YOU CANNOT SEE YOUR FULL PROTENTIAL. ONE CANNOT SIMPLY SAY THAT NO ONE WILL EVER BE BE AS GOOD AS THEM SELF IF THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THEIR LIMITS THEREFORE I NULIFY YOUR STATEMENT.You maybe the most humble thing now but you are not a time traveler, just because you are the most humble person doesn't mean no one will ever be like you.Like father like son if you ever.And the next most humble being shall say "None more thereafter" lol
I am very humble

HOLD IT! (Play the video http://www.youtube.com...)The pro on this page said on round 1, 2nd last paragrapgh and second sentence said THAT "There is no one more humble than I am" BUT THE TOPIC SAYS THAT HE IS "VERY HUMBLE" SHATTERING YOUR ENTIRE CASE! YOU ARE NOT "VERY HUMBLE" BUT BEING THE MOST HUMBLE! YOU ARE WRONG THEREFORE I, THE HAPPY MAN DESTROY YOUR STATEMENT! YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE JUST " VERY HUMBLE" ON THIS TOPICYOU ARE THE NOT "VERY HUMBLE"! YOU ARE THE MOST HUMBLE! THE POWER GOOOORRRRRRD!!!!!!
I am very humble

I am very humble. I am so humble that if I save the lives of ten people, I won't even say anything about it. I pick up garbage, re-shelf grocery store items that fall on the floor, put back grocery carts that are carelessly left in the parking lot, plant trees, volunteer at the homeless shelters, reduce my carbon foot-print, deliver babies, graduate with 7 postgraduate degrees from the World's top university, beat Usain Bolt at the 100 metre sprint race, win American Idol, save the planet, save the dolphins, eradicate terrorism, bring about world peace, and do many other great things. But I never say a word about it. That's just how humble I am. I am so humble and modest. Anyone else would constantly talk about how great they were, if they were able to do what I have done. My eight pack abs are rock-solid and nature has blessed me with a variety of beautiful, virile, healthy and boisterous bodily organs, some of which are essential for reproduction. I am the most attractive and sexy man to have ever walked on the surface this planet. But I never talk to anyone about these things. Because I am just that humble. My humbleness knows no bounds. There is no one more humble than I am. There will never be anyone as humble as I am. To Con: Please, try to prove that I am not a humble person.
The word "Atheist" should not exist.

There is no word for 'non-believers' of Unicorns or Tooth Fairies. I am not aware of words for non-believers of anything else that does not exist. Every time I get coined an Atheist it frustrates me. I do not like the label because of what the 'faithful' has deemed it mean. (The negative stigma of it) It simply should not exist. Quote- "We shouldn't even need the word 'Atheism'. If people didn't invent ridiculous imaginary Gods, rational people wouldn't have to deny them." Ricky Gervais
The word "Atheist" should not exist.

Your answer was fair. Made me pause. But there are terms for other topics in which people 'believe' and no specific words to describe those who do not. Flat-Earthers... Conspiracy Theorists... People who believe in ghosts are called "superstitious". which is where I would place any deity) What are people called that do not believe in ghosts? Normal ? Alchemy, Alchemist.... what is opposite of that? What is the term used for people that do not buy into that? or other magic. Again..... Normal?
Rent control is the epitome of urban decay

Rent controls are applied in big cities such as New York where apartment rents are regulated by the government where it cannot rise above a certain level. This is a terrible economic policy because it goes against demand and supply, and since landlords receive MUCH less rent income than they could receive without the rent control, they have no incentive to regularly maintain the apartment (interior and exterior) because the costs of doing so greatly outweigh the benefits. If there is no government subsidy or assistance, this can lead to ugly, mismanaged and crumbling buildings which would completely demise the urban landscape of any major city.
PC is superior to Mac

"OS ... that's where the only real differences between a Mac and PC can be found." "Hardware is generally the same between a Mac and PC ...""Both companies ... roughly charge the same for equivalent parts."These three statements are the foundation of your argument for Mac's superiority over PC concerning hardware performance; all are blatantly unjustified and essentially false. The PC and the Mac are both two completely different systems, both with unique physical qualities and features. However, to solidify the PC's component dominance over the Mac Laptop, a comparison can be made between two featured Laptops classified as Mac and PC: HP dv6t-7300 Quad Edition [$1,294.99]1. Windows 8 - 64 Bit2. 3rd Generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3740QM Processor Clocked @ 2.6 GHz 3. NVIDIA(R) GeForce(R) GT 650M Graphics with 2048MB of Dedicated Video RAM4. 15.6-Inch Diagonal Full High Definition Anti-Glare LED-Backlit Display (1920 x 1080)5. 8GB DDR3 System RAM (2 Dimm) Clocked @ 1600 MHz6. 750GB 7200 RPM Hard Drive7. Backlit "Chiclet" Keyboard15-Inch (Non-Retina) Macbook Pro [$2,349.00]1. Mac OS X Mavericks2. 3rd Generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3740QM Processor Clocked @ 2.6 GHz3. NVIDIA(R) GeForce(R) GT 650M Graphics with 1048MB of Dedicated Video RAM4. 15-Inch Anti-Glare LED-Backlit Display (1680 x 1050)5. 8GB DDR3 System RAM (2 Dimm) Clocked @ 1600 MHz6. 750GB 7200 RPM Hard Drive7. Backlit "Chiclet" Keyboard As you can see, the cheaper PC has equivalent and even superior specifications than the Macbook Pro, with a $1,054.01 price difference. Although the PC is predominately performance-oriented and superior in hardware components, the Macbook Pro does have a very distinguishing external design. Except, this design is worth nowhere near $1,000, and even restricts the users ability to customize and upgrade the Laptop. In response to your question, I am a programmer with knowledge in C++, PHP, MySQL, Perl, Python, Ruby, RubyonRails, LISP, and Linux Shell Scripting. I have built a desktop PC and I have constructed my own computer from scratch for my own personal use. I have been familiarized with both Windows and Mac OS, and I personally prefer PC over Mac. Sources: http://store.apple.com...http://www.shopping.hp.com...
PC is superior to Mac

I noticed that you mentioned you didn't want to talk about OS but I thought it should probably be pointed out to you that that's where the only real differences between a Mac and PC can be found. Hardware is generally the same between a Mac and PC, in fact to the extent that most is interchangeable between the two types of machines these days. Both companies make higher and lower end products and roughly charge the same for equivalent parts. I will also mention that during my five year stay in I. T. it was a pretty standard practice replacing PC hardware (as it crapped-out so often) whereas it was a pretty big deal if a Mac came to us with hardware problems.
PC is superior to Mac

This debate seeks to educate the average consumer as to which laptop brand is of superior quality, without regard to the stock Operating System. I SUPPORT the topic. .. As a courtesy, I am allowing my opponent to administer the first argument. Prerequisite Standards:1. The stock Operating System of both PC's and Mac are irrelevant to hardware superiority, and are not to be included or utilized in any argument. 2. Only Mac laptops, distributed from Apple, and PC laptops are to be included in the discussion. 3. Polite conduct and etiquette is appropriate at all times.4. Please reduce as many spelling and grammatical errors as possible.
Jonah was devoured, digested, and died in the belly of a great fish.

Figures you would think Jesus Christ existed, not only as a historical figure, but as the son of God. This was about 2,000 years ago. They didn't' have printing presses, digital cameras, the internet, and so forth. The Bible has been translated a bunch of times. In the early days the Bible was just pieces of parchment. None of this fancy printing press created book we are used to. I've been conned so many times, I don't even believe the roman empire existed. Why? Lack of evidence. Just shows we are diametrically opposed in what we believe and don't believe. I can only guess people who believed Jesus existed had a fairly sheltered life. As for me, I've gotten beaten around and betrayed enough I've gone somewhat feral and trust nobody, not even myself. I'll tell you what I think happened with Jonah. I think Jonah had an identical twin brother. Jonah, fell of a ship and got eaten by a great white shark. Then, his twin brother replaced him. End of story. Simple, logical, and believable. Same with Jesus, if Jesus existed he has a twin brother named Judas. Judas was crucified on the cross, and then Jesus went on to preach. Watch the movie the Prestige (2006). This is the story of Jonah and Jesus Christ. [10]. 10. http://www.imdb.com...
Jonah was devoured, digested, and died in the belly of a great fish.

Pro: "assuming Jesus Christ existed." He existed. I've already done this debate. It's an easy refute. To simplify, there is more evidence for Jesus than most historical figures, and that is if you exclude Biblical references all together. Pro can argue with history and historians if he feels so inclined. Or he can start another seperate debate about the "historcal truth of Christ", and I will gladly defeat him. * ("Was Jesus Christ a Historical Person" Debate) http://www.debate.org... * Pro: "Finally, Jews and many other religions don't believe in Jesus as the son of God." Except for the the Jews who started Christianity, Jews for Jesus", etc... Buhhdism is a nontheistic religion that claims no creator. If Pro wants to try to give Hinduism some logical validity despite its rapid displacement by Islam, he is welcome to challenge me in another debate. If Pro wants to take Pro on why we should bow logically before any other religion, I'll gladly dismantle that argument in a seperate debate. * Here is Islam's correlation to the Bible- http://www.debate.org... * Seeing Pro rejects Christ, saying this argument is based off of the OT alone, then all I have to do is prove Jonah was alive after exiting the fish. Pro has made my argument easier for me. As for Jonah, here is what we know according to the story: 1)Jonah was engulfed by a large fish. And...it never mentions him "dying" specifically in the story. Pro has assumed attributes to the story. Specualtion is proof of nothing. I can say, "I think Michelle Obama is a man because Barack has referred to her/him as "Michael" on multiple accounts", but it is not proof of anything. Thus, Pro is wrong and cannot prove his assertion using only the OT. 2)Jonah was vomited out by the fish alive. (Jonah 2:10 and Jonah 3:1) So...unless Pro believes in ressurection, Jonah could not have ever died, seeing he was alive and preaching in Ninevah after the big fish swallowing. Thus, Pro is on thin ice in this debate and it is cracking quickly.
Jonah was devoured, digested, and died in the belly of a great fish.

Round 2 rebuttals"The story is used as an allegory. It was used by Christ in reference to himself, his death and ressurection."BrontoraptorWhoa, Brontoraptor slow down. You mention Jesus Christ then make all these references assuming Jesus Christ existed. This is the old testament we are talking about here. To jump from old testament to new you have to provide proof Jesus existed. You have not given any proof other than the new testament."Where Do I Find It?Jonah is the fifth of the so-called "minor prophets," the twelve shorter prophetic books that make up the final portion of the Old Testament. " [6]I will attack my opponent's rebuttal by claiming that Jesus Christ never existed. First and foremost there is a lack of historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. [7] [8] Impact, the lack of evidence that Jesus Christ existed indicates that Jesus never existed. Thus, Brontoraptor's entire argument is destroyed. Finally, Jews and many other religions don't believe in Jesus as the son of God. "Stated simply, the Jewish view of Jesus of Nazareth is that he was an ordinary Jewish man and, most likely, a preacher living during the Roman occupation of Israel in the 1st century C.E. The Romans executed him — and many other nationalistic and religious Jews — for speaking out against the Roman authorities and their abuses." [9]This provides further evidence that even if Jesus existed, he was not the son of God. Impact, since Jesus either didn't exist or even if he did, he wasn't the son of God, Jesus' interpetation of Jonah and the great fish should have no impact, thus destroying Brontoratpor's argument. Thanks for debating. Sources6. http://www.enterthebible.org...7. http://www.truthbeknown.com...8. http://www.deism.com...9. http://judaism.about.com...