BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

" 1. On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning." Mosquitos have hearts too. Are you intending to be consistent? " 2. With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected. " Condoms and other birth control methods are imperfect, and the day after pill argument assumes a false premise, because by the time you know an egg has been fertilized, it's already too late. The primary use of such a pill is as a last resort in the event of a bout of unprotected sex resulting from negligience or rape. It is, as a practical matter, useless for dealing with used but failed birth control methods. Further, the existence of alternative solutions is not sufficient to establish that something should be illegal. "3. In America we have always been a people who have decided things by votes and opinions" Votes are among the worst ways of deciding things, the existence of a mob that believes x is correct is not sufficient to establish that it IS correct. I'm sure if you polled Germans about Hitler back when he was in power- oh wait, that's how he got in power. :D Also, polls conflict on the question, especially when you change the wording about. " 4. On top of that disturbing new evidence is surfacing that the fetus can feel pain during abortions after 20 weeks of conception." Fish feel pain too. Yet I still eat them. The sole purpose of the law is the protection of entities which happen to have rights. Rights are the limits of what behavior is proper toward a rational entity, if you violate them toward such an entity without them first violating yours, you increase the chance of them violating yours. This is the sole basis for rights. Fetuses, however, are not such an entity- they have not yet developed rationality. Neither, I should note, have some infants- it is not certain when rationality develops, but, evidence points to it being sometime after birth. Also, even were it true that fetuses were rational, the fact remains that if they are in your womb without permission, they are violating your rights- they are trespassing on your private property. Thus, the other condition on which rights are based (reciprocity) is violated. " I challenge anyone who will take me on in this debate and will also bring up more points if the above points become exhausted, only if granted permission to by my opponent" No holds are barred. You may bring up anything at any time, and so shall I :D.
Abortion

[Definitions] For clarity I pose the following definitions. Trimester: 3 months Conception: meeting of the sperm and egg [Contention] I hereby propose illegalizing abortion after the 21st day of conception except to save a woman's life, or in the case of rape or incest. [Reasons] 1. On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning. The common law definition of death is the stoppage of a heartbeat and most functioning organs. Most of the laws of the United States are based off common law. Since death is considered to be the opposite of life, life should be defined as the start of the human heart. 2. With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected. 3. In America we have always been a people who have decided things by votes and opinions when surveyed in a CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007 registered voters agreed by an overwhelming majority (70%) that greater restictions need to be placed on abortion to (20%) who dont and (5%) who are undecided. Of that 70%, 56% of voters completely agree with my opinion. 4. On top of that disturbing new evidence is surfacing that the fetus can feel pain during abortions after 20 weeks of conception. An act is being passed through congress requiring mothers who abort to know that their infant will go through pain. This is called the Federal Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. (http://www.time.com...) I challenge anyone who will take me on in this debate and will also bring up more points if the above points become exhausted, only if granted permission to by my opponent
Evolution vs Creationism

Indeed, I have provided evidence for creation. For example, I gave my argument from design. To answer your religious questions, no one made God, he is eternal. God tells us there aren"t multiple gods, and he is the only one. We can know he is telling the truth because of His "past record". He has never lied before. All of His prophecies of have come true, and He is the only God we have the least shred of evidence for. Ah, while the experiment may have proved one thing about amino acids, it did not prove macro-evolution. Maybe they made an amino acid. If someday they were to make a Frankenstein-esque creature come alive, even still they would not have proved evolution, because evolution requires the evolving of a creature into another. This has no evidence anywhere. The experiment only managed a small molecule, not the Human race or any race. I gave examples that clearly evidence design in my last post! The link about it gave many examples. Another example is the Fibonacci numbers. Fibonacci numbers are a sequence of numbers "characterized by the fact that every number after the first two is the sum of the two preceding ones" [1]. These numbers are remarkable because the sequences found therein are commonly found in everything in nature [2]. There can be no reason for these to exist without an intelligent designer doing it just because he can. In conclusion, the theory of evolution has not been proven and has no evidence. Also, we have no transitional fossils that we should have. The universe is not nearly as old as would be necessary to allow for enough time for life to evolve. On the other hand, intelligent design is a much better alternative. We can see evidence of a creator everywhere we look. He is the only logical explanation for the origin of matter and the laws of physics in the first place. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://io9.gizmodo.com...
Evolution vs Creationism

"only Creation explains the origin of matter and life, while evolution only explains (or attempts to explain) the origin of life, leaving out the obvious question, 'where did that material come from'. In addition, if it can be proven that the earth is not as old as evolutionists claim, but is nearer the age that young earth creationists estimate"My opponent argues that Creationism is more "logical" because it provides a convenient and simple answer for how the world was created. Certainly, it is much easier to answer life's greatest mysteries by claiming a non-material being such as "God," was somehow involved, but is there any evidence to support this idea? As of now, my opponent has not provided any evidence for Creationism. He fails to even discuss Genesis or God. In fact, his first argument only used the term, "God," once, and only because it was a quote from Peter Kreeft. He has provided no evidence of a God nor anything to prove the events in Genesis. An even greater question than, "where did the world come to be about according to Evolutionism," is, how was God made? How do you know there is one God? What proves that there aren't multiple Gods? What evidence shows that this "God" is the Christian God, and not Allah, or the Egyptian Gods?"An amino acid is 'complex', this characteristic being largely in the eye of the beholder."An inorganic molecule such as prebiotic molecules have the potential to create basic organisms and, through evolution, can grow into more complex organisms. This is strongly supported by scientific research and experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment, which shows that basic molecules and compounds can synthesize more complex and organic compounds in conditions that simulate Earth's early atmosphere.Personally, I find it astonishing how easy it can be accepted that the concept of a God, a supposedly omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being was "always there," as in that he is "eternal." Religious people are perplexed by the idea of inorganic life synthesizing organic life, yet the belief that an all-knowing and all-powerful being created out of nothing can exist should be even more surprising!"I believe that while there are many things of difficulty on the earth, they are outnumbered by the things that clearly evidence design. We can look at these things of design and workmanship and see that someone must have made it. It simply cannot have arisen from nothing, as evolutionists suppose." What are the things that are "clearly evidence design?" My opponent has failed to provide any examples, so as of now, I am not fully able to refute this claim. However, because this claim goes unsupported because of a lack of evidence, this claim can neither be accepted as truth.
Black people are inherently physcally superior to white people.

Thanks to my opponent for being gracious enough to post a formal concession within the debate rather than just letting it expire as a forfeit, which I'm sure some other people might have done in the same position. I'd appreciate if he could post something brief in this round too, just so the debate shows up on the front page. I'd very much like as many people to read this as possible, in the hope that it could help deconstruct some racialist myths for some people. I will just touch very briefly upon the slavery issue. I believe that there were plenty of reasons why black people were used by white people as slaves, and that it had more to do with the theocratic notion that Christians shouldn't be slaves, and the early anthropological view that these "savages" were somehow less than human. I have read plenty of quotes from plantocracy era racist writers who claimed that black people were lazier and even weaker than white people, so I don't think any view that they were physically superior was particularly widespread at the time. Thanks again to Cerebral_Narcissist and anyone reading.
It Is Logically Impossible To Believe In The God Of The Bible

BubbaJoe, I am going to proceed in this debate under the assumption that you are not a troll and that your beliefs legitimately reflect those of some of the less well-reasoned Christians who I hoped to encounter via this topic. I do not believe that this debate will be reduced to a debate of semantics, but at the risk of false assumption I will provide a couple key definitions: 1.Logic- reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. 2.Faith- strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. This being said, I address your first contention- despite the fact that round one was reserved for acceptance only. Although it may be sickeningly obvious to the observers of this debate how irrational your claim is, it is also the belief that true Bible-believing Christians claim. Circular reasoning: God is real because the Bible says He is, the Bible is real because God wrote it, God wrote it because the Bible says He did, the Bible is perfect because the Bible says it is perfect. All of these core Christian beliefs are clearly illogical, because Christianity is ultimately a faith-based system of belief. I will not pursue this topic in depth at the risk of providing a well-reasoned round to be countered again by only unjustified claims of divine knowledge. Additionally, I believe we both know that to deny God"s existence and to deny that of my mother is different on many levels- primarily the difference between physical presence vs. metaphysical prediction. If you wish to continue this debate seriously, please offer an example of how Christian faith can be logical. Thank you.
It Is Logically Impossible To Believe In The God Of The Bible

wyh do you hate my son u liberal brainwashed man u can talk to my son jus ask for bubba joe jr in austin texas he can show u the light and the rason for why god exist it was not hallucinatien he was seeing god for real god came down and said it was nto his time to go to heaven and he was spared by the loging god jaweh u dont understand bcuz ur a liberal atheist socialist who cant comfrehend the existance of the god almighty which is why u dont understand the concept of why god and moms r very similar if u was homeshcooled then u woud understand god and moms are similar they both create new life and god created the universe
It Is Logically Impossible To Believe In The God Of The Bible

Con, your arguments have bigger holes in them then the one in your maternity overalls. The fact that science is complex does not present the need to introduce the concept of an equally complex God. That is as logical as saying "I do not understand a being equal to b, so b must also equal 4- since I can't understand that either". I am sorry about your son, but his hallucination is not proof of a higher being. It too is illogical. I do not understand your logical correlation between god and mothers. Perhaps you can go into more detail in the next round. In short, just because you believe that you believe in the truth does not make it so. Faith =/= logic.
It Is Logically Impossible To Believe In The God Of The Bible

im not a troll why dose everyone think i am a troll just becuz i am a christian typical liberal logic its not circular resoning because god is real if god is not reall why is the earth in the habitable sone of the sun and why dose it have a moon and intelligent life thats not a coincidence and i have seen god i have talked with him he is real i saw him outside 4 years ago also my son almost died from a heart attack but was saved by god he saw a light in the sky which was jesus and god its not different becuz god = creater of human and universe mom = created by desenddants of god almighy christian are logical becuze we belive in the truth that god and jesus are real and the only way to heaven and wer not atheist
Impromptu 7

Fortune cookie? Really? Well, I never did like them... :p CON side of: When people get a parking ticket, they should rejoice that the system is working. C-1) Losing money feels bad. This one should hopefully be fairly self-explanatory. Parking fines result in money being lost to the government/taxman/whomever. That money is money that could have been spent elsewhere - on rent, food, drink, or luxuries. Either way, that money has now been lost to the system. Why should one rejoice when one loses money? C-2) The point of the system is precisely that people SHOULDN'T rejoice when they breach it. The attitude shown in C-1) is precisely the point of the system. The very idea of having parking fines is that one feels downhearted and upset that one is losing money, and it is thus supposed to act both as a deterrent against breaking the rules in the first place, and an incentive against breaking the rules again in the future. So not even the system expects / wants you to rejoice when you get a parking fine. C-3) The system may be excessive. There may well be considerations in certain cases of parking fines that show the system to be excessive and overly-bureaucratic. For example: you're allowed free parking for 2 hours, come back 2 hours and 5 minutes later, only to find a parking ticket from the omnipresent ticket warden. Or maybe you're supposed to put the pay-and-display ticket on your windscreen/windshield, but instead put it inside the car; for not following the rules, you get a parking ticket from the overzealous warden. Are we to rejoice in these cases that the system is working? Surely not - for even though the rules were being correctly applied, justice demands that they be applied sympathetically to the circumstances. In both of the examples given, the person given the ticket had perfectly good intentions regarding the rules, but was only unlucky that they be the victim of the Vogon-esque http://en.wikipedia.org... warden on duty at the time. They should not rejoice; they should rebel. CONCLUSION: it is no-one's best interests to rejoice that the system works, when receiving such a penalty. The person themselves has just lost money, and will justifiably feel upset at this downturn; the system itself wants the person to feel downhearted for the deterrent to have any effect; and we should be ever-vigilant against potential breaches of the spirit of the rules - and instead of simply rejoicing that the rules are working, we should examine the circumstances to see whether the letter of the law should have triumphed in that instance over the spirit of the law. For all of these reasons, the motion should be negated.
Impromptu 7

2) Mixed martial arts style fighting, as seen for example in the UFC, should become an Olympic sport. Concur. I accept the PRO side of this topic. C-1: Mixed martial arts/UFC is indeed becoming increasingly popular. According to an article on CNN.com, MMA is being watched by thousands of fans, and is growing in popularity. Such enthusiasm opens doors to more athletes, and additional entertainment. When questioned whether the economy would hurt NASCAR, President Bruton Smith replied that he didn't think so because Americans love entertainment and will continue to buy tickets. The same can be said for MMA. http://www.cnn.com... C-2: MMA is almost a nostalgic throwback to the gladiator days. According to an article in wikipedia, there was once an Olympic event called pankration, which shared similarities to MMA. Picture this, an arena full of cheering fans. Two gladiators with mad skills ready to answer the other's challenge. The winner gets the spoils while other takes home the loser's purse. The word picture itself brings to mind Olympic-esque competition. http://en.wikipedia.org... C-3: MMA could be a new stand alone event or replace other tired out events. This is an exciting opportunity for both men and women of all weight classes who want to compete. An argument could be made that MMA could be a money saver. If Tae Kwon Do, Wrestling, Boxing, and the like were combined into MMA, money could be saved on awards. Since it indeed so popular now, people would want to watch it, thus television ratings, DVDs, and souvenirs would be in higher demand. Additionally, amateurs could have one more goal to shoot for in the sport that they love. CONCLUSION: Many may argue that MMA is too violent. Every sport has inherent dangers, and athletes train with these in mind. Further, everyone that has a remote control has the ability to change the channel. There are lots of Olympic events that I don't like to watch. My daughter likes equestrian while I like baseball, the point is, we don't have to watch it if we don't choose to, but should that be a reason to deny someone else the opportunity? Sports Illustrated columnist Josh Gross concurs that MMA should be considered: Assuming an amateur system can be implemented, there's no reason MMA shouldn't be a part of the Olympics. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... Thank you and I look forward to reading your case. It should be a fun one! P.S. That actually came in a fortune cookie LOL.
Impromptu 7

I choose the CON side of number 3, and so will argue in the next round that people should not, when they get a parking ticket, rejoice that the system is working. The three choices that I give my opponent in return are: 1) The Pope, and everyone elected to the papacy after him, should be assassinated. 2) Mixed martial arts style fighting, as seen for example in the UFC, should become an Olympic sport. 3) Apart from those mentally incapable of doing so, everyone should try and learn a second (or third) language.
Impromptu 7

Round 1, opponent will choose one of the below to present either side in Round 2. Opponent will leave me 3 choices as well (to be presented in Round 2). Judges will decide who presented the better case. OPPONENT"s CHOICES: 1) Baseball players should be required to sign autographs. 2) John 3:18 is correct. 3) When people get a parking ticket, they should rejoice that the system is working. Good luck and thanks in advance! Thomas
Killing an animal to eat is wrong!

I will start off where I last ended with: 21. Many religions have their God(s) asking for animal sacrifices. 22. The ecosystem needs to be kept in check. Without hunters things like the Deer outbreak in Oshkosh, Wisconsin will start to happen. Where the deer population is growing out of hand and the deers eat all the tree saplings, slowly killing the forest. 23. Except for our canines, a human history of being hunters and gatherers, and an evolutionary history of eating meat. 24. I also believe in nonviolence, with humans. I consider animals to be on a lower level than us because we have rational thinking and the ability to reason. 25. Not highly developed enough. We aren't declaring war at all, anywhere. 26. Same with me having a balanced diet. 27. ? 28. And they all taste disgusting (jk). But more seriously these vegetable substitutes are often artificially made and bad for the body. My problem with your argument is that you base all of your information off of a biased magazine source. You are also very unclear about what your arguments are contrasted with your resolution. You make points as to why you think eating meat is bad and vegetables better but provide no evidence as to why killing animals is wrong. I expected this to be a more LD style debate solely based off of a moral standpoint. I have yet to see this from you and even your ethics area isn't compliable with what you want to prove. You wish to prove that ALL shouldn't eat meat because of ethic problems yet only provide individual opinions to back up this contention.
Killing an animal to eat is wrong!

I affirm that I am CON against the resolution above. As I am CON it is my job to refute my opponent's contentions . Since my opponent has not made any contentions as of yet I can't refute anything and therefore have nothing to debate in this round. I would just like to offer a few definitions: Animal- any such living thing other than a human being. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Vegetarian- a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Wrong- not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Morality- conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) That will be all this round, if you disagree about any of the definitions let me know so in the next round. Good luck.
God is not Dead (Pro=Alive Con=Dead)

Based on what you're saying, everything does that is forgotten. That'd be wrong because I surly do not forget God. Jesus is God as well, Holy Trinity. But it's not Gods fault for evil, but because the fact of that the devil Used deception to tear us from God. But God will one day destroy evil. We can't tell when that will happen because that's the end of the world. He'll make a new Eden, bringing all believers. There is a faulty statement. Those angles, the bible calls them the angles of GOD making them similar to him as he talks to us. God does still talk to us. You just have to listen carefully. That still small voice is God. That dream at night so realistic is God speaking through dreams.