BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Con When a women has an abortion, she is removing only a clump of cells from her body ( I am opposed abortion after 6 months ). Should the government force her to birth what is technically a parasite in her body? Arguing that a fetus is a human and should receive basic human rights is a viable reason for not aborting, yet if you do believe that a fetus is a human, and thus with human rights, a fetus does not have the right to live inside another organism (just as any other human), nor does the fetus have the right to use another human's organs without his/her permission, just as someone can refuse to donate their organs, even if it puts another's life at stake. Taking away a woman's control to her body is taking away her rights, her life, so I am pro-life, pro the life of the pregnant individual. Abortion is the 6th leading cause, causing over 200,000 deaths in 2013 and around 10 million become injured, infected or sick (http://www.who.int......). If you are truly pro-life, then you would agree that it is more important to save a woman who has lived and can think for herself, than a potentially harmful parasite residing inside of her. A woman should be able to eliminate her risk of death as she needs. Some say that abortion has too many dangerous side effects, though you can see in my previous paragraph that pregnancy also does, a woman dying from pregnancy is 14 times more likely than dying from an abortion (http://abortion.procon.org......). Making abortions illegal won't necessarily cause them to stop, only make them more dangerous, as those who do not want children will engage in unprofessional means of aborting their fetus. Any religious reasoning for being anti-abortions should not be forced upon our government, much less other's lives. For people who are only okay with abortions when a woman is raped, I ask you to question your logic, for if you believe that abortion is murder, then why is a baby conceived from rape any less than one who is the product of a stable marriage? A common solution that is proposed for minors and others not (financially or maturely) ready for a baby is adoption, yet putting a baby up for adoption costs a lot more money than an abortion, usually around 3,500$-7,000$. Forcing a minor through pregnancy not only hurts the child (their likeliness of teen pregnancy rises) but also hurts the mother, as only 1/3 of teen mothers graduate high school, and 80% of them end up on welfare (http://www.teenhelp.com......).
world peace is a myth

American5 has made not further arguments, so I will us this last round for conclusion World peace was the "default", and we destroyed its existence. World Peace can be restored if certain course of action is taken, as described in previous rounds. I have made my argument, and I have come to the conclusion that; world peace is not a "myth", and is possible and achievable, through man's own actions, and without the help of an outside force. I would like to thank American5 for opening this topic to debate and giving good arguments, and for allowing me to take part in it. This has been a learning experience for me and I am now aware of opinions opposite of my own which I have taken into consideration.
world peace is a myth

Rebuttal: "…we actually gave them more rights… slaves that fought were freed…complete freedom can't exist in a civilized society but we do have many freedoms…" This point has become slightly irrelevant to proving/disproving world peace is possible, but I will say this: Separate but equal is not equal and restriction of freedom will always end violently unless something is changed. "The bow and arrow; please I beg you, explain to me how the bow and arrow was not an original tool for killing…" The original purpose of the bow and arrow was not to kill man, but to make hunting easier. Technology can be used for both good and bad, some people used to kill man, but they killed man out of self-defense, not a random act of violence. "…not only is there never enough to go around, but there will always be greedy people…" One cannot be greedy if one never had any. Do you ever see poorer people being greedy, or is it always the ones who have the power to enable greed to control them? If everyone where equal, there would be neither greed nor jealousy, inequality is a major cause of greed. How to Achieve World Peace: By Force: World peace can be created by a state of absolutism and forcefully maintained (synthetic world peace). If the world were to come under a single state everyone would have the same rights. By making man uniform, everyone would be the same and have no sense of greed, given they all had the same. The only problem with this is the enforcer would always be above the enforced, therefore making it unequal, unless the enforcer were able to give up power, and become uniform with the rest, thus making man equal. Natural World Peace: Residence from the material world will bring upon world peace. As seen in the time of early man, the lack of possessions enable would peace to be possible, peace naturally, everyone was equal, and no one had more than the other. By breaking up all existing powers, man would be on his own and would have no outside influence. Technically: World peace would happen (technically) if there were no humans or only one human, because it would be impossible to have conflict between one or more if there is one or less (just put this in for sake of semantics, I don't truly believe in it).
world peace is a myth

Women and African American rights were already restricted we actually gave them more rights by allowing them to fight in the war and the slaves that fought were freed plus complete freedom can't exist in a civilized society but we do have many freedoms. The bow and arrow please I beg you explain to me how the bow and arrow was not a original tool for killing maybe not man but it quickly became popular for that job and with fire later civilizations would lite the arrows ablaze before firing thousands of them killing people As for your next point you helped prove mine not only is their never enough to go around but their will always be greedy people trying to get all of it as always. http://www.continentalline.org... http://www.americanrevolution.org...
world peace is a myth

From what american5 has posted so far, I will draw conclusions on what exactly the resolution should be. Terms: Peace – absents of war War – Organized (more or less) military doings Impossible – undoable, not possible People/Man – humans, the sub-species of Homo sapiens, collective people of the Earth World Peace – Peace throughout the world, everyone in a state of peace Overview/Opening: What is World Peace and Why is it Not? From my point of view, world peace is very plausible. If world peace where limited to defined as; "globally without war", then that has happened many a times throughout the history of the world and humanity. Some may believe that the very human nature that allowed us to be dominate, will be are ultimate downfall, because the human nature is innately competitive, and logical conclusion will inevitably lead to violence [1]. Because we, as human, chose to continue to have the role of superiority and dominance over the Earth, we have divided ourselves onto sides of rational thought. Why We Have Not Achieved World Peace: Why has government been so popularly instituted? The fundamental propose of government is to provide peace and prosperity the people it serves, contrary to what most believe; this very mind set a danger to our existence. Ideas such as a capitalist approach to world peace [2] are what will continue to prevent it. After the end of WII, a war of ideology often referred to as the Cold War, almost lead to the destruction of counties who opposed each other's attempt to maintain and create peace; their government philosophies [3]. Fault of Government: Government has provided no good since the begging; world leaders claim to guarantee rights and return freedoms, but, as evident throughout history, government has only taken rights. In prehistoric China, man was free from oppression and taxation. When the people of China united to control the dangerous floods of the Yellow River, without much realization, an empire began to form [4]. Within less than five generations, new social structure was part of everyday life. In Rome, as well as other empires throughout the world, once a peaceful agricultural state, now persecuted those who opposed and did not conform because of religious beliefs, where persecuted, on both small and large scale [5]. Possible Solution: Words such as global and entirety are absolutes, thus it implied in the vary meaning of world peace, that it is all, or none, there is no middle ground. Peace through the acceptance of one ideology would mean the world must conform to; for example, either complete communism, or complete socialism, there is no in between. This will never work because for the beginning the system was broken. In conclusion, I purpose the only way to achieve world peace would be through absolutism, which would not be true peace or freedom, or default law of ungoverned man. Sources: [1] World Peace (wiki): http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Capitalist World Peace: http://www.lewrockwell.com... [3] Cold War: http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] China Unification: http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] Persecution: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Halo is better than Call of Duty

Ok ok so you said your comparing one halo game to all call of duty games. And that halo game franchise is not better than all of the call of duty game "Sales of the Call of Duty franchise have not done as well since Black Ops in 2010. This has led some to believe that gamer fatigue with the annual series has steadily set in. A new survey of gamers released Thursday by analyst firm Piper Jaffray disputes the fatigue argument, though, as a survey pegged Black Ops III as the title gamers are most excited for this year." http://www.inquisitr.com...
Halo is better than Call of Duty

Not specific?? There is no need to be specific as it goes without saying that I an indeed talking about the Halo video game franchise and the Call of Duty video game franchise. Especially since it's in the category Entertainment or Games. If it was about A form of a disk, circle and sacred personage.. it probably would have picked the category 'religion'. If you really want to go into it.. fine. Definitionally speaking: The Covenant are a religious faction of alien races following every word of their prophets and they believe that their sacred passage is to use these "ancient" structures to wipe out all sentient life. These "ancient" structures are the Halo rings who are according to your definition "in the form of a disk, circle, ring" and a hologram of a "radiant light around or above the head" of these religious Prophets to signify a "sacred personage" So in essence I am talking about a "disk, circle, ring", "rayed structure", " radiant light around or above the head", "sacred personage" and "ancient". Evidence: https://www.google.ie... and https://www.google.ie... and a video: Once again it goes without saying. Saying HALO and NOT Halo:CE, Halo 2, Halo 3.. means I am of course talking about all of the games. It's common sense. Saying Call of Duty and NOT Call of Duty 1, Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty Black Ops etc.. means I am of course talking about all of the games. It's common sense. Troll much?? Rhetorical question there... So are you going to debate me or troll me.. Up to you, I will destroy you either way, sonny boy.
Halo is better than Call of Duty

Yes but you said halo is better than call of duty. And you were not specific about halo lets look up the definition. "Also called nimbus. a geometric shape, usually in the form of a disk, circle, ring, or rayed structure, traditionally representing a radiant light around or above the head of a divine or sacred personage, an ancient or medieval monarch, etc." http://dictionary.reference.com... You were also not specific about which call of duty game you were talking about
Halo is better than Call of Duty

Why Halo is good? Simple really... The story. very deep, engaging and emotional that spawned many novels to make a truly unique and engaging universe. Everything connects. Plus the multiplayer which is more skilled based and balanced that MLG played the most. Plus the nostalgic award winning soundtrack. Audio is everything. And extra content (Forge, Custom Games, Theatre, Firefight, Spartan Ops, Red Vs Blue, Forward Unto Dawn, Halo Legends, Arby 'n' the Chief, Best Vehicular Controls in any FPS etc,). Balanced and skill based multiplayer witch caters for the hardcore MLG players (Team S.W.A.T, MLG, Team Doubles etc. playlists) and casual gamers (Social Big Team, Griffball, Forge and custom games etc.) Great and solid gameplay - sandbox battles (not just a corridor shooter), vehicles, amazing unpredictable A.I. etc. In conclusion: Halo has much more to offer and appeals to a wide variety of gamers from people -who love to get engaged with an expansive well written universe and varied sandbox plus corridor arena's co-operatively or alone (Campaign) - to hardcore MLG players (MLG, Team Doubles, Team S.W.A.T playlists) - to casual gamers (social big team, action sack playlists) - to creative gamers who like to mess around and create literally anything in FORGE to people who love making montages, machinima's (Theatre mode).
Hedonism is Prevelent in the Nature of Humans

Interesting round.... " I would like to ask for more than just a defensive argument next time." Why? You only gave me one argument to rebut. That being the dad or mom rescuing the children. I also believe I provided substantial evidence against you. "I understand that you can show evidence that proves that people are happier when adrenaline is coursing through their veins - however dismissing the why - does not dismiss its validity, nor prove yours to be a foolproof case." Why not? I rebutted your arguments now is the time to supply some more. I proved that adrenaline rushes induce pleasure and I can say that with research to back it up. You cannot prove that the parents didn't act out of comfort while I can prove that they did. It's as simple as that. "Note: Pro, these are not merely "Heroic Tales" as you put them, People actually died, their children have had to live without them, and the suggestion that they would remove themselves from their children's lives because they get a temporary reward..... surprises me to say the least.)" Why did they want to save their children? Wouldn't it make them sad or mad if their children died? Hedonism makes the claim that people act for the most net pleasure. Obviously these parents loved their children, so they acted for the most pleasure. Saving their children's lives were more pleasurable then living without them. Therefore unless you can prove I am wrong my theory stands. "(Note I say happiness, in terms to the opiates reference - I have first hand been under the effects of Morphine, and my memories are full of happiness, not pleasure)." Pleasure: a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment. https://www.google.ca... Pleasure: a cause or source of enjoyment or delight http://dictionary.reference.com... Enjoy: to experience with joy; take pleasure in http://dictionary.reference.com... Joy: a state of happiness or felicity http://www.merriam-webster.com... I rest my case. Pleasure is a synonym to joy and therefore is a feeling of happiness. In Conclusion... Well a great debate. Since my last round went unrebutted my points still stand. Con could not find a specific instance where people don't act for the most pleasure. As for me my name is Brian N. Johnson and thank you for reading.
Hedonism is Prevelent in the Nature of Humans

I will reference my first two round points : "I will refer back to my previous round as to my understanding of the debate - I asked my opponent if I was correct in my assumption as to the reason, and it has not been clarified, I will assume my opponent has conceded that my understanding is correct. The reason why I firstly did this, and then refreshed in this round, it to show you that traits and actions have multiple effects to the human psyche. Actions that may be started to appease one aspect of our nature, our 'drive' - will affect and have reactions that sustain other aspects of our nature. This debate, however, is THE prevalent trait in human nature. "My opponent has attempted to dismiss the validity of my claim, simply because his pattern can be made to fit the mold. Before he even raised his points, I had already raised that while doing one action or drive, this may be in tandem with another (We do have the capacity to multi-task). By your logic I could say that there a millions of polls out there in the web that show that having and raising ones children is the most rewarding and pleasurable thing ever, and we would be done with this debate. It doesn't work that way, I would like to ask for more than just a defensive argument next time. (source for example : . http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au... )I understand that you can show evidence that proves that people are happier when adrenaline is coursing through their veins - however dismissing the why - does not dismiss its validity, nor prove yours to be a foolproof case. You may respond saying, "Why would it be Happiness? Couldn't the response be something else? " - But using the definitions of emotions in Descartes' Error (. http://www.protevi.com...) - You can see emotionally, the body does not have many choices to really choose from. (would fear help in a life or death situation, or a laugh at pain foolishness towards the demise one strives for to protect their children? Note: Pro, these are not merely "Heroic Tales" as you put them, People actually died, their children have had to live without them, and the suggestion that they would remove themselves from their children's lives because they get a temporary reward. .. .. surprises me to say the least. )I also see you seem to be mixing pleasure with happiness, and grouping them together as 'rewards' now - I would like to ask that we remain to one set of definitions for Hedonism please, Pleasure is difficult enough to evaluate objectively. (Note I say happiness, in terms to the opiates reference - I have first hand been under the effects of Morphine, and my memories are full of happiness, not pleasure). Now with the rebuttal's rebutted - My original point still stands : In the case of a life or death situation, People/Parents are not just enjoying the buzz while they risk their lives to save anothers; This equates to procreation being prevalent as a trait, which is what we are discussing here (not if we can show that one fits into another) - but what is THE prevalent trait in human nature. I still stand with Procreation.
Hedonism is Prevelent in the Nature of Humans

Well howdy! Now is the time. Let us negate. After you posted those heroic tales of how parents sacrificed themselves for their children you posted something I would like to discuss in depth.... "As you can see in the articles above, parents have sacrificed their lives to sustain the life of their children. People do not get rewarded from this, except the 'winnings' they claw from the surrounding world themselves." On the contrary people do get rewarded from the physical processes I discussed last round. In this round I would like to discuss to you the processes involved in acts of heroism such as the ones you posted. Adrenaline: a hormone secreted by the adrenal glands, especially in conditions of stress, increasing rates of blood circulation, breathing, and carbohydrate metabolism and preparing muscles for exertion. https://www.google.ca... "The stressor -- for example, the sight of your son pinned beneath a car -- stimulates the hypothalamus. This region of the brain is responsible for maintaining the balance between stress and relaxation in your body. When it's alerted to danger, it sends out a chemical signal to your adrenal glands, activating the sympathetic system, which sends the body into an excited state. These glands release adrenaline (epinephrine) and noradrenaline (norepinephrine), hormones that create the state of readiness that helps a human confront danger. Together, these hormones raise heart rate, increase respiration, dilate the pupils, slow down digestion and -- perhaps most importantly -- allow muscles to contract." http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com... Now I remembered something I posted last round about adrenaline and the hypothalamus. So i did some research and found out that adrenaline is directly involved with pleasure. " In the presence of perceived danger to life and limb, our adrenal glands pump out large amounts of adrenaline (also called norepinephrine), which is closely related to dopamine " the chemical messenger in the brain that plays a major role in pleasure and addiction. Danger also triggers the pituitary gland and hypothalamus to secrete endorphins, the pain-suppressing and pleasure-inducing compounds that are mimicked by opiates, including heroin." http://www.drweil.com... So there is a reward system going on in the body when people act as heroes. So I can make an argument that the man or woman saved the child because they wanted to maintain that pleasure and I'd have facts to back it up. Therefore your argument fails. In conclusion... With all arguments rebutted....Tha-tha-tha-thats all folks! For now anyways. I look forward to your response.