BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A virgin should not be allowed to have an opinion on abortion.

This debate idea is based off another argument I was involved in on facebook where my opponents stated that because a virgin is not directly involved, abortion is an issue that doesn't concern them. I thank people there for inspiration. :) I'll be arguing that a virgin can indeed have an opinion on abortion as abortion is not a matter of sex, but a matter of life. Now a few definitions: Virgin- a person who has never had sexual intercourse. http://dictionary.reference.com... Abortion- Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy, any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months. http://dictionary.reference.com... I'll begin my argument by stating that although a virgin may not direct experience an abortion she may be emotionally affected by somebody else's abortion. For example, somebody's close friend or relative could be pregnant and decide to have an abortion. This is a difficult experience for the mother as evidence shows that she can begin developing maternal bonds to the child pre-birth. http://jama.ama-assn.org... It's quite possible that anybody else in close contact with the pregnant woman could develop similar bonds regardless of whether they're a virgin or not. Wouldn't somebody be upset if their potential sibling, cousin, niece, or nephew was aborted? Also, as stated in my opening statement, abortion is a matter of life. This debate will not be about whether a fetus is a human being or not(so please try to stay away from that), but about whether all humans should have a say on sparing a life. Another point I'll like to address is whether you should be able to have an opinion on something if you have never experienced it yourself. Should heterosexuals be able to have an opinion on gay rights? Should the common working person be able to have an opinion on Capitalism when they don't own a business? Lastly, should a virgin be able to have an opinion on abortion? As these things all effect society as a whole I think they should be able to. I'll now hand this over to my opponent to make their opening statements. Good luck to both of us! :)
Nihilism

As the conditions for this debate have already been established and accepted, I will head directly into arguments. For all parameters and definitions, click on the link below. http://www.debate.org...; To that1User: same general format minus the acceptance round. :) How I reached my Nihilistic ideological conclusion: Let us consider religion, for example. Religion(s) generally decree a higher order to which lesser beings (i.e. humans), in order to achieve the more desirable religious end-goal (i.e. going toHeaven), must follow a certain set of behavior(s) and values. My first thought is: why? Why must we follow religion’s decrees? Why should we follow religion’s decrees? Is it because not doing so is ‘bad’? What is bad? How does a religion objectively justify defining good and bad? Allow me to use Christianity, one of the most widespread religion in the world, as an example. Why is Heaven good and Hell bad? I am told that Heaven is bliss or good. I am also told that Heaven’s counterpart, Hell, is torture or bad. Here is where I begin to see religion depart from objectivity. The less desirable Christian result, Hell, is only less desirable to people in general because it appeals to the human subjective aversion to pain, death and suffering: it is less desirable because the religion says so. Heaven is only more desirable because it appeals to happiness, which is simply the feeling of contentedness or euphoria produced by chemicals which our body and brain favor. This general set of appeals holds true for most, if not all, religions. Nothing seems to objectively matter. Everything appears ultimately subjective, arbitrary and thus objectively insignificant. :(( It appears that everything is, in some way or another, subjective. Religion appeals to subjective inclinations toward (eternal) life and happiness and subjective aversions toward pain and death. Moral values appeal to our species’ inclination for survival. Even universal laws are arbitrarily constructed on empiricism. Metaphysical laws (i.e. math) are similarly constructed. My conclusion: everything we understand as human beings are subjective and therefore objectively insignificant. I reached these conclusions years before I ever discovered the word Nihilism (which is quite recent). I've thus allowed my conclusion to be titled under Nihilism. Prove me wrong.
The bible is false because jesus is false thus jesus was not the messiah

pro said I never mentioned one thing about what I could or could not use. I only mentioned what you could or could not use. Granted, I was a piece of s--t in doing as such, But when you cannot pay any attention to your bible because my pay grade is so far above yours in this candy land, And you only pay attention to you and only you, Then your blunt instrument noodle needs some sort of stimulus. alright so you created rules for the debate i follow them you criticize me for following then you create your own rules then you say i am the only one suppose to follow them that the rules that you made that i did not agree to only apply to me. You know that bull. When you want to debate me for real come talk to me. But this time the rules will apply to both of use. And just for a rule of thumb lets not limit what can be said you can use any argument or source you want to defend your points. And spamming me with 10 video is really childish especially since it goes against your bible only rule. con said "they are his disciples here the entire scene and they are talking about Jesus resurrections" Oh really? That"s a good one considering the absolute fact that the NT was not even put together until at least 100 years after the death of your so-called messiah all the translation say the same thing just with different wording "the quote"" What quote? Memory especially is never reliable especially after 50 some odd years after the death of your messiah that it wasn"t even jotted down onto paper. I"m sorry, That"s strike 3. Luke wrote the book of Luke etc luke new Jesus so he is an eyewitness. The bible is a bunch of books put together some were written after his death so 50 to 100 years is not that bad. You do not think someone today could right a book about ww1 and it being accurate look i really want to debate you properly let me pls take me up on my offer look i do not have the time to watch 11 videos plus why can you do that and i can not i could easily spam you with 11 video to if i was not bound by these rules that you created but do not follow. pls debate me properly without rules you do not follow and that i did not agree to
The bible is false because jesus is false thus jesus was not the messiah

Wow. Only you know what you meant in you jabberings and yammerings. I posted in the comments section because DDO would not allow me to post in the arguments section. Its a simple 2 + 2 = 4 equation. That's only if you understand simpleton math? Do you? And I figured out the why to this equation and that is that DDO would not let me post one stinking verse from YOUR bible. In other words, I 100% stuck to the rules I set up with. I expect you to do the same. . . That is if you are willing to continue with this debate.
Islam provides a framework for world peace.

My argument is a simple one, but I hope that it is not judged by its breivity but by the truism that it holds. I hold no ill will towards devoted Muslims, or people of any faith. I do not believe that terrorists represent the true Muslim culture and I will not use them in my argumentation. My argument is this: Islam (nor any religion at all) cannot provide a workable framework for world peace. The reaons are these 1. Any religion perports that there book is the word of God This leads a problem. People hold their God in the highest esteem and believe that whatever their God says is absolute truth. People, by human nature, will defend the wod of their God to non-believers and believers alike. This can, and has, led to wars, genocide and violence. 2. Religious books are read by human beings. We are not God, we cannot know what God is thinking. We can only read God's words (if you believe any book contains God's words) and try to decipher the meaning. As human beings we will, and do, make mistakes. These mistakes of interpertation lead to terrorism, the crusades, the inquestition, the violation of human rights and wars. 3. You spend a great deal of time talking about Islam's respect of those with religious convictions other than Islams, but what about people of no faith? Atheists were the only demographic to increase last year. People of no faith exist in the world and if Islam (or any religion) does not respect them then it cannot provide a framework for world peace. My last point is not limited to Islam but rather a statement of the human condition. There will never be world peace. No book, religion or idea can provide a workable framework for it because it is a pipedream, like the perpetual motion machine. Human beings are violent and terrorial by nature, this cannot be changed. There are always reasons to fight and so the fighting continues. It doesn't matter if it's for land, resources or religious reasons. We have volent natures, thus we will be violent.
Islam provides a framework for world peace.

This debate is a challenge to bluefreedom23 based on his earlier debate http://www.debate.org.... I will throw it open, if he declines or suggests unacceptable alterations. There are few special rules for this debate, listed at the end. Accepting this debate implies that the Con agrees with them. Voters are requested to judge accordingly. The first round is not meant for actual arguments. We will just use this round to list what are our main points. 1. I will argue that Islam provides a framework for ensuring a peaceful and just society. I am not talking about a society where everyone is free to blaspheme. I am talking about a society which ensures that everyone is free to practice their religion and lead their life without any discrimination or fear. 2. I will also show that Muslims have historically been true to these ideal and established relatively peaceful and equitable societies, wherever they have been in power. 3. I will point out that the main cause of current conflict between the western world and Muslims is irreligious Islamophobia and irresponsible fear mongering. Notes: 1. When I say Islam provides a framework for peace, it does not mean that other religions do not provide it. In fact, I am sure that most religions have equivalent concepts and Muslims would love to use them wherever needed. However I cannot defend other religions, primarily because I am not competent to do that. 2. I do not associate Islamophobia with any religion. Instead, it is based on deception which is despised by all faiths. Rules: 1. Normally the burden of proof lies with instigator. In this case, it lies with both. Other way of saying it is that my opponent must believe in opposite of at least one of my statements and argue accordingly. For example, he might argue that Islam promotes terror rather than peace. Yet another way of saying it is that, Con cannot be neutral towards Islam. He cannot take a stand that it is neither good nor bad. 2. If voters think, that neither side has been able to prove its case, both sides appeal to them to vote for a tie. 3. All words have usual meanings. No syntax based arguments will be permitted.
Islam provides a framework for world peace.

My opponent has accused me or not refuting his points. On the countrary I have refuted the very heart of his point, that Islam (or any religion) could provide a framework for world peace. My opponent also has said that my statement about the nature of humanity (a statement his has not and cannot refute) means that I think that humanity is doomed. This is not true, humanity has existed and will exist with this part of them inside of them. However, it does mean that such a thing as world peace can never be achieved. This doesn't mean that we will end up destroying our world, only that we will continue to fight against each other. It is impossible for me to refute any of the points that you mentioned from the Quran as those statements are neither provable or disprovable. They are matters of opinion and faith. If someone were to say to a Muslim, well I don't believe that and I don't believe in your view of God, you might say that you respect their opinion but disagree, other Muslims might not take that so well. It is this difference in humanity that makes a world based on religion so dangereous. Remember when Denmark published those pictures of Mohammad and the Muslim world protested. Some of the protests even turned violent. These were not terrorists, but devot Muslims protesting. This is what happens when people take something so unprovable, something that has such a difference of opinion, as religion so seriously. Throughout the history of humanity people have used religion for purposes of violence rather than purposes of good works. As I mentioned before: Terroism, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquesition, the hatred of Jews, the like goes on and on. You claim that a society that wasn't based on religion would crumble, I think just the opposite. For the most part, the United States is a country whose laws are not based on religious morality. Laws such as murder, rape, robbery and the like don't come from any bible, but from the common sense morality and civility that I talked about earlier. Things worked pretty well that way. What happened when we got a devoted religious person in office as President? We got embroiled in a costly (both in lives and money) war in Iraq for no reason, we decided to wage war against Muslim terrorist, using the broadest possible language, which in turn angered all Muslims. It, in fact, lead to the Islamaphobia that you were discussing earlier. In essence, we were plunged into a holy war, the first in the history of the United States. Why did this happen? Because of religious thinking by a devoted religious person. As you can see, religious devotion can (and often does) lead to war, not peace. Peace between religions (let alone world peace) will never be achieved until people start treating their religious beliefs as ideas rather than absolute truths that can't be disputed. Because when you believe something is an absolute truth and you can't be proven either right or wrong it leads to bad things. As we've seen throughout history.
Islam provides a framework for world peace.

Earlier you said: "My last point is not limited to Islam but rather a statement of the human condition. There will never be world peace. No book, religion or idea can provide a workable framework for it because it is a pipedream, like the perpetual motion machine. Human beings are violent and terrorial by nature, this cannot be changed. There are always reasons to fight and so the fighting continues. It doesn't matter if it's for land, resources or religious reasons. We have volent natures, thus we will be violent. " And now you say: "I did not mean my last statement (in the previous argument) to be taken as if are existence is doomed. " I think anyone reading it, would conclude that you consider humanity as doomed. You also said: "Well I disagree with this statement. I believe that common sense morality would still exist without religious influence. " Why do you disagree with my statements? You have not explained any reason! I agree with you that 'common sense morality' or 'conscience' exists. It is important in religions also. It is the first line of defense against evil. However, it can be breached easily. I am sure you can think of countless examples yourself. You have not explained how a society is going to work on basis of common sense morality. You have repeated your statements, ignoring my rebuttals completely. Let me repeat my answers: 1. If people take religion seriously, that is a good thing. Most religions (I have proved it in case of Islam) recommend establishment of peace and justice. A person who is ready to 'die for' his religion (a good thing) is unlikely to kill others, because killing innocent people (bad thing) is prohibited in most religions. 2. Sure, people are flawed. But this problem is much bigger in an irreligious society, since there is no well defined moral system as a guidance. Religions like Islam provide the only hope for countering the flawed side of human nature. --- Conclusion Let us recap the sequence of debate till now. Round 1: Introduction Round 2: I presented the framework that is used by Islam to established peace and justice. The Con made general assertions that no religion can establish peace. He did not argue against the framework I presented. Round 3: I countered his pessimistic outlook. He repeated his assertions without providing any answers to my rebuttals. I think the result should be clear.
Islam provides a framework for world peace.

"And that provides us a great insight. Human beings would indeed descend into great disharmony and oppression on its own. Only the presence of religion can prevent that." Well I disagree with this statement. I believe that common sense morality would still exist without religious influence. I did not mean my last statement (in the previous argument) to be taken as if are existence is doomed. My meaning is that despite the civilization that we have built up over the years we are still war-like creatures and always will be. Our great intellegence and our possession of a conscience, which helps us tell right from wrong, has led to great improvements both in mankind and our treatment of others. So we possess a capacity for love and peace, however, I think that it should also be pointed out that humanity also possesses a war-like and destructive mentality. In most modern societies the good will wins out most of the time, but that destructive nature is always lurking under the surface and it comes out throughout history. My basic statement remains the same. 1. People take religion very seriously 2. people are flawed and have a war-like mentality inside them. If people didn't take religion so seriously (seriously enough to kill and die for) or if people had no war-like natures then I would agree with your statement. Since people do take religion so seriously and since people do have war-like natures there is no way that religion can be used to create a peaceful society. This in no way means that everyone who is religious uses it to do horrible things. What I'm saying is that group of people from all religions will use their faith to create wars and spread terror. Thus, no religion can provide a framework for world peace.
Disney should bring back Anakin Skywalker from the Force Spirit Realm

This is how liberty dies. . . . . With thunderous applause While you make a convincing argument, Solo was a great movie. They're all great movies. Granted every kid who played Star Wars called their little Star Wars gameplay Episode 7 and their reasoning was "because we know they'll never make another Star Wars movie, The story is complete. " Disney upped the standards when bringing in the new 6 movies they plan to add to the saga and bringing back original characters to continue the story. Disney has done a great job expanding the Star Wars universe, And the edition of the live action tv show coming out will solidify this statement. There is a fine line in Star Wars and it's really easy to screw it up, But Disney has done a fabulous job so far of surpassing everyone's standards and creating some great films. This is what George Lucas would have wanted. Think of this young padawan, If Lucas created these films, There would be no argument. It's just the fact Disney is in control that people don't like. Back to the objective of this debate, Anakin should make a return to the films to help guide Rey in her journey with the force. And while you say my idea would make a great fan film, I believe it would make a great cannon film. 3 movies very easy off that idea. To see the return of Anakin Skywalker, As well as many of the other Jedi and many new, More powerful, Awesome 'Old Republic' style Sith would bring out more and more people to see the films. To sum up, You say the Star Wars films are 'lifeless' now and really have no meaning, The return of Anakin Skywalker would bring life back into the films and give the films a who new meaning. We have seen the return of Yoda already, Disney should simply bring back Anakin. I know filming is already completed for Episode 9, But for argument sake, Let's say it's still in the process of being written. After the events of the Last Jedi and Anakin's lightsaber being broken in half, Disney could easily bring back Anakin Skywalker to help guide Rey in the reconstruction of his personal weapon. He would make a great teacher as we saw from the Clone Wars (once he accepted Ashoka as his padawan learner). Anakin's return would bring peace, Freedom justice, And security the this new empire.
Disney should bring back Anakin Skywalker from the Force Spirit Realm

Be it resolved that bringing anakin back from the spirit realm is not a good idea. The attempt on my life has left me scarred and deformed. 1. "Let us look at all the movies Disney has made. All of them are home runs. " No. No they are not. I can't even think of a prequel line right now. I love the third act of rogue one. That's because its all that was left after disney basically reshot the whole film. Force Awakens was good, But I chalk that up to harrison ford. Then we have the Last jedi, Which almost completely ignores the entire film it had before it. Kylo Ren, Force Awakens after hearing about rey "WHAT. GIRL, " Kylo Ren the last jedi "They were filthy drug dealers who sold you for drinking money, Nothing more, " The whole film was generally unsatisfying, With the heroes making stupid deceisons (ex. Parking in a no parking zone, Getting distracted by horses on a mission to save the galaxy, Not telling Poe they have a plan) Then there is solo. You say, Bringing back Anakin would be hard to screw up. They screwed up Han freaking Solo. That movie was so bland and unmemerable I honestly only remember what got put in the Honest Trailer. That's all I have for now
Disney should bring back Anakin Skywalker from the Force Spirit Realm

Join me an together we will rule the galaxy, While you bring up excellent points concerning the risk of Disney making movies, Let us look at all the movies Disney has made. All of them are home runs. While I know Star Wars is pretty easy to ruin if you don't do it right, I doubt Disney could screw up bringing Skywalker back. Let me look at it from your point of view. . . . . . Bringing Anakin back is evil. One solution to make not only myself, But people who might agree with you would be to bring him back in spirit form. While my argument is to bring him back as a leading character in the films once again, Bringing him back in spirit form would also be acceptable. I have faith Disney could be successful in bringing Skywalker back in more than just a spirit form. They in fact proved it to be semi-possible with Luke in The Last Jedi on Crait and that was a home run. So far, Disney has created two great cannon movies and 2 great sub movies with a third cannon movie well on the way. I truly believe if they set their hearts and minds to it, And maybe with a little input from George Lucas, Bringing Anakin back is a strong possibility. If you can not see my point of view, It's Treason Then
Disney should bring back Anakin Skywalker from the Force Spirit Realm

Be it resolved that Disney should not bring back Anakin skywalker. I have two points. Always two there are, No more, No less. 1. While your preposition would make an interesting fan fiction, You failed to counter any of my points in your previous argument. 2. You say bringing skywalker back would bring back joy to thousands of fans, But if they do it terribly, Then no one would be happy. Not just the men, But the women, And the children too If you still don't agree with me. . . WELL THEN YOU ARE LOST!