BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Racism is a mental disorder.

The basis for my statistic is an analysis of Ancient and current global events. Recorded events since ancient times provide a premise to the fact of these conflicts being rooted in tribalism. Tribalism is the predecessor to Racialism. The first use of the word dates back to the late 1880's and it's use was in reference to political system advocating superiority and exclusive rights based on race. It is since that time that the concept of racism has morphed into societies subconscious. The statement you've just made " I think racism is a very taught thing, " is proof to the aforementioned. A mental disorder, Also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, Is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning. . . . Mental disorders are usually defined by a combination of how a person behaves, Feels, Perceives, Or thinks. Racism being a mental disorder based on the behavioral premise that subjects manifest such as Low Self-esteem and Egocentrism.
Abortion is morally wrong.

Let's suppose that you can time travel into the future (don't ask me how), and you can figure out that a fetus is going to be a terrible dictator and kill many people. In this case, an abortion would be useful to save more lives. Also, let's suppose that a fetus is inevitably going to die in the womb for some reason or another, and keeping the baby alive will result in severe pain to the mother. You might not call causing the death of the fetus before its inevitable death in the womb an abortion, but it is.
Abortion is morally wrong.

I disagree that a procedure designed to save the mother's life constitutes an abortion. An abortion is the intentional taking of an unborn child's life. This would be a lifesaving medical procedure that, regrettably, results in one life ending. The goal of an abortion is to kill the baby, but the goal of this procedure is to save the mother's life. If there were a way to save the mother without killing the child, the concept and goal of that procedure would remain the same. If someone undergoes a risky surgery and dies, that would not be considered euthanasia because the goal was not to kill the patient. Similarly, a medical procedure designed to save the mother that results in the death of her child should not be considered abortion, as the goal was to save the mother as opposed to killing the child.
Abortion is morally wrong.

Pro will argue that abortion is morally wrong in every circumstance. Con can either argue that abortion is never morally wrong, or that there are circumstances where abortion is not immoral. This debate is not about the legality or constitutionality of abortion, only its morality. All human life is valuable and no one is inherently superior to anyone else. Given that human life has value, killing a human is immoral. Logically, an abortion would be immoral if the fetus is a human life. I argue that life begins at conception as that is the only consistent starting point, meaning that abortion is immoral in every circumstance.
Abortion is morally wrong.

What you're talking about is conspiracy. This isn't the case here because the baby isn't conspiring to become a dictator and kill people, it's a baby. Unless you're saying that anyone who has the intent to murder should be executed, I don't see how this argument stands. In this scenario where you plan to abort a child because of something they do in the future, why not kill them once they actually begin to conspire to commit a crime? I'm familiar with the trolley dilemma, but these scenarios are completely different. One is a scenario in which it is certain that x amount of people are going to die and we have to choose how large x is. In the other, you have an unborn child that is going to kill people when it gets older. In a situation where someone is about to kill five other people, killing them would be acceptable because they are actively trying to end the lives of others. I don't see how this pertains to the situation because there are no babies in utero actively trying to kill someone. If your argument is that it is just to abort potential murderers, I would like to point out that everyone is a potential killer. Again, I ask that you explain how a procedure that is designed to save the mother's life but ends her child's life as a result is the same as an abortion that's purpose is only to kill the child.
Abortion is morally wrong.

https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com... I am not sure, but it may be possible to punish somebody if they have strong reason that they are planning on committing a crime. Also, suppose there are five workers tied to one track and one worker tied to the other. The train is heading on the track with the five workers, but you can switch the track quickly, but not untie any worker. Most people say that it is okay to switch the track. Now, what if the single worker, instead of being tied to the track, is off the track and is going to pull the lever to intentionally kill the other five workers tied down. Would it be acceptable to kill the single worker now? These are logically equivalent, killing one person to save five, except one time, the person is planning on killing people, whereas the other time, the person is innocent. It seems that it is more justified to kill the potential murderer than the innocent person.
Abortion is morally wrong.

An abortion may save lives in that case, but it would still be morally wrong as the child has not yet killed anyone. If we were somehow able to determine that you would commit a crime in the future, would it be just to punish you now? Of course not, you shouldn't be punished for something you haven't done. Although it may save lives, that child is innocent and has not killed anyone. Let's suppose the child will die of natural causes in utero. Why does that make killing the child acceptable? Because of the mother's pain? Normal birth causes pain, but we both agree that is an unacceptable reason for an abortion. I trust you're pro-life because you believe the child is alive, so why is it acceptable to kill a child simply because we know it is going to die? What about someone who has already been born? Is it moral to kill them if we know they are going to die? If your answer is no, please explain the difference between how valuable lives are based on where they are relative to the uterus. I'd like you to explain how a procedure that saves the mother's life but kills her child is the same as abortion.
The United States should cease all communications with North Korea and give full support to S. Korea

North Korea has always been a country the United States has been willing to work with. With recent developments in the country it is evident that they will not be changing their ways anytime soon. The United States must show how serious we are and end all communication with the country. The biggest reason we must cease communication is because of the human rights abuses that take place in the country. The hard-line regime in North Korea continue to stifle nearly all political dissent, principally through control of the news media. Every single day that Kim Jong Il's regime rules is yet another day of tragedy for the people of the country. With ceasing all support, hopefully it will flush out all "corrupt" leaders. It's not just the United States who has given up hope, it is even organizations like Amnesty International who has given up hope with North Korea and urging them to end their human rights violations. Secondly the U.S. must pursue this policy because of the nuclear proliferation. North Korea's nuclear program constitutes a threat to "peace and security." The issues within North Korea are only becoming worse. They literally a ticking time bomb. Because they won't make a shift on their nuclear policies they are becoming a threat to all other Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties. It's obvious that traditional methods fail. If the U.S. was to empower their biggest enemy it would prove to them that this is a big issue. Peace talks clearly haven't worked and won't work. Even the wondrous President of the United States has said that "Soft Power" is not the route for America to go. North Korea is a country that could potentially become a threat, but current deterrent methods aren't working. It is time for the U.S. to cease all communication.
New Spiderman movies better than old Spiderman movies.

Pro says “We could not make movies without technology, so it absolutely makes a good movie.” Movies are made with technology… that is true about all movies. Great movies and bad movies are made with technology. If technology is present in both, it is reasonable to say that technology is inherent in movies, but not a defining feature of a good movie. I conclude with the same points I did last round. None of which have been refuted. Pro’s source endorses “Spiderman” over “The Amazing Spiderman.” “Spiderman had much more financial success. Critics like it more, and it won more awards. Tobey Maguire’s Spiderman is much better than Andy Garfield’s.
New Spiderman movies better than old Spiderman movies.

We could not make movies without technology, so it absolutely makes a good movie. Every movie ever made was made using technology, so even though the movies that have one awards in the past were still made using technology. Yes movies are great because of the plot, and I would argue that the plot of the Amazing Spider man is still a great one. Of course Stan Lee would endorse the movie that just had come out, but that does not prove con's point. He still could not provide a quote that Stan Lee does this sort of thing all the time, therefore my point still stands.
New Spiderman movies better than old Spiderman movies.

Pro says “Technology is absolutely what makes a great movie. Movies are getting better and better as the technology advances. They are able to do bigger and better things which is what makes a movie more interesting to watch.” Technology can be a benefit to movies. Technology by itself does not make a great movie. In fact the American Film institute put out a list of the 100 greatest movies. This list was released in 1998. Of the top 5 the newest was the Godfather. This movie came out in 1972. This suggests that despite 25 years of new technology has not helped any newer movie crack the top 5. I say again. Technology, does not a good movie make. Pro comments on my statement that "Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 were both nominated for an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects." She concludes “So he is admitting that technology helped these movies get nominated for those awards, which further illustrates my point.” Yes, I am. These movies won awards that the new Spiderman movies did not. Despite pro’s view that “A decade has passed and our technology has enabled movie-makers to achieve even greater heights…” Apparently not enough to win an award. If the main attraction of a movie is the technology and not the plot, there is a problem. As Pro stated about the new spiderman movies “watching Spidey do his thing, gliding over the streets and from building to building, is one of the film’s most visceral thrills.” Technology is an appendage to great movies, not the main attraction. Much like popcorn at the movie theater. You go for the movie, not the popcorn. Movies are great because of Plot, character development, humor, emotion, etc. Not technology. Pro asks for links as proof that Stan lee does not criticize comic adapted movies. I can no more prove this than proving that there is not a tea cup orbiting Pluto. I will say that after 20 mins of trying to find Stan Lee with a negative thing to say about any of his videos, I could not find any. It only makes sense for Stan Lee to endorse new movies as they come out…even if he did not like them. Why wouldn’t he? I conclude with the same points I did last round. None of which have been refuted. Pro’s source endorses “Spiderman” over “The Amazing Spiderman.” “Spiderman had much more financial success. Critics like it more, and it won more awards. Tobey Maguire’s Spiderman is much better than Andy Garfield’s. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
New Spiderman movies better than old Spiderman movies.

Con does say that personal preference is not enough to win a debate, yet he prefers Cliff Robertson over Martin Sheen and that makes a point in his argument to say that as well. Technology is absolutely what makes a great movie. Movies are getting better and better as the technology advances. They are able to do bigger and better things which is what makes a movie more interesting to watch. Con states that "Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 were both nominated for an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects". So he is admitting that technology helped these movies get nominated for those awards, which further illustrates my point. Con says that " Stan Lee has a history of praising his most recent of his comics made movies" but he does not provide a source to back that claim, so therefore my argument still stands. Andrew Garfield and The Amazing Spiderman are better than Tobey Maguire and the orininal Spiderman.
New Spiderman movies better than old Spiderman movies.

Uncle Ben moment "Spider-Man" (2002): At the risk of not spoiling anything too much, let"s just say that something sad happens to Parker"s Uncle Ben. "The Amazing Spider-Man" (2012): At the risk of spoiling the new movie a tad, let"s just say that more or less the same sad thing happens to Parker"s Uncle Ben. Advantage: "The Amazing Spider-Man." Cliff Robertson was great in the first one, but Martin Sheen is simply magic. So when the, uh, something sad happens, it really hurts. (1) I do have to admit that Martin Sheen was absolutely brilliant as Uncle Ben. Could not have picked a better person for that part, it was so believable and he made the scene where he died one that you wanted to cry. In the original Spiderman there was no moment there. It was just he died and that was it. The swooping factor "Spider-Man" (2002): At the time, Spidey"s ability to swing between the skyscrapers of Manhattan was pretty exciting. "The Amazing Spider-Man" (2012): A decade has passed and our technology has enabled movie-makers to achieve even greater heights in the important field of superhero swooping. Especially in IMAX 3D, watching Spidey do his thing, gliding over the streets and from building to building, is one of the film"s most visceral thrills. Advantage: "The Amazing Spider-Man" (1) Spider-Man co-creator Stan Lee reckons Andrew Garfield - who played Peter Parker in 'The Amazing Spider-Man' - is an upgrade on previous incarnation Tobey Maguire. Speaking to Fandomfest in Louisville, Kentucky, he said: "I think Andy Garfield is great as Spider-Man, absolutely great," he said. "In fact, I would have picked him for the first Spider-Man movie if he had volunteered." Take that Tobey! (2) It"s pretty cool when the creator of Spiderman would have chosen Andrew Garfield for the first one if he has volunteered. That just proves that he was the better choice and that the new movies are better because of him. He brought the character of Spiderman to life. Wisecracking Spider-Man is obnoxious in battle. He distracts and frustrates his enemies with bad puns, incessant questioning, and whatever else it takes to gain the upper hand. Having re-watched all of the Spider-Man movies (except for Spider-Man 3, because I don"t hate myself), I can remember exactly one instance of Tobey Maguire cracking a joke while fighting: he says "here"s your change" as he throws a bag of coins at Doc Ock. That"s about it. Andrew Garfield"s Spider-Man is an irritating joke machine. Even audiences start thinking "enough already" because he rarely stops the wisecracking, and that"s just the way it should be. Cracking jokes while you are taking down a robber or another bad person is just plain hilarious. They know they have been caught and it really funny how in the Amazing Spiderman he makes it known that they are in big trouble. Winner: Andrew Garfield (3) (1)http://www.washingtonpost.com... (2)https://uk.movies.yahoo.com... (3)http://www.audienceseverywhere.net...
Microsoft Zune Is better than Apple Ipod

iPod is far superior to Zune… Here is why: A. iPod is more compatible. -If you look to what works with what, you will see that you can only download music with the zune on a Microsoft computer (unless you go way out of your way). However, with the iPod, you can download music on Macintosh AND Microsoft. Therefore, iPod is more compatible. B. iTunes is more customer friendly. -If you use iTunes, you will see that it is easy to download music, transfer music from a CD, and ultimately put your music on your iPod. However, on Zune, other customers are not so keen to brag about its simplicity. Such as this customer: "New zune software sucks! They should not have changed it. It is the most confusing piece of crap yet. As Coco Chanel said "It can't be elegant unless it's simple". Go figure. " C. Zune software takes up WAY too much memory. -Take note of a Zune customer and his complaints: - "By the third song, my mouse got all jumpy, frequent vista circle, etc. I pulled up the task manager and zune. exe was hogging about 1.4gig of memory. I had to count the zero's to make sure since I have never seen that many numbers on task manager before. " Use this and compare it to another customer: -"Itunes takes up 256 mb. Windows xp takes up 128-256 mbs. And all the other little apps take up around 256 MB. That leaves you with NO memory to utilize when playing games. " -From this, you will see that iTunes takes up WAY less memory. In fact, I tried to invest in Zune, but I couldn't get my computer to download the software because it was too much. Even though my internet was below average, it still does not make me happy. Especially when I traded in for an iPod the next day and had NO problem getting music on my iPod. D. The device itself is confusing. -Finally you will see that the iPod is conveniently divided into great organization. Pick Music, Pictures, Movies, or Games. Then, if you're in music (for example), you can pick from Album, Artist, Alphabetically, or Playlist. GREAT organization. However, I have used my friends Zune and have noticed that it is labeled by artist (automatically) and then their albums. This is extremely confusing, especially when you don't know what album it is or even which artist it is. Therefore, iPod is better than Zune.
Wars contribute to progress.

Wars do not contribute to progress and I am going to prove it. At first, wars destroy buildings, statues and libraries. For example, the great Gothic cathedrals and buildings were destroyed in the 2nd World War. (1) The government buildings in York (now Toronto), the then capital of Upper Canada were also burned down by the Americans in April, 1813. The Burning of Washington in 1814 was an incident during the War of 1812. During World War II, Japanese military forces destroyed or partly destroyed numerous Chinese libraries, including libraries at the National University of Tsing Hua, Peking (lost 200,000 of 350,000 books), the University Nan-k'ai, T'ien-chin (totally destroyed, 224,000 books lost), Institute of Technology of He-pei, T'ien-chin (completely destroyed), Medical College of He-pei, Pao-ting (completely destroyed), Agricultural College of He-pei, Pao-ting (completely destroyed), University Ta Hsia, Shanghai (completely destroyed), University Kuang Hua, Shanghai (completely destroyed), National University of Hunan (completely destroyed)(2). All these arguments shows that a lot of buildings, statues and libraries were destroyed because of wars. As a result, books were burned, cultures were damaged. So, how wars can contribute progress, if all achievements and knowledge, that were reached during many years, are destroyed in one day. Secondly, wars do not contribute progress, because it carry death of thousand people. Statistics (3) shows that, during the World War II, over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population. Many people died because of diseases, poverty and starvation. That means there could not be any progress in such situations. Wars carry only destroying and death. (1) http://heresyandbeauty.wordpress.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
1st world (thrid wave) Feminism has not merit in the 21st century

If Pro does not concur, I hope to see alternate definitions in the 2nd round. "First World" seems like an anachronism of Cold War rhetoric, roughly corresponding to well-developed NATO allies. Wikipedia suggests that since 1991, "the definition has instead largely shifted to any country with little political risk and a well functioning democracy, rule of law, capitalist economy, economic stability and high standard of living. " [1] I suspect that definitions of "Third Wave" Feminism vary according to perspective but are best understood as a continuation of and simultaneous reaction to Second Feminism. If First Wave Feminism is understood as Suffragism and the struggle to overcome the legal barriers preventing enfranchisement and Second Wave as the social struggle to achieve cultural parity, then Third Wave Feminism might be seen as the struggle to reject the paradigms of patriarchy and define a more inclusive set of social identities in reaction to a transformed social order. Susan B. Anthony is a generally accepted icon of the First Wave. Mary Tyler Moore might be seen as an icon of the Second Wave, asserting her value in the workplace, rejecting the necessity of marriage or motherhood as part of her contribution to society. A Third Wave feminist icon might be Buffy the Vampire Slayer- achieving a heroic value unattainable by men while assembling a network of family, friends, & lovers to satisfy the needs of her calling, her identity in defiance of the patriarchal Watchers. In response to Pro's argument, I intend to argue that Third Wave Feminism has at least some merit for women in the 21st Century. Hope the definitions help. I look forward to Pro's argument in the second round. [1] . https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
The Bible contains conclusive examples of modern scientific knowledge

This debate is not about arguing for a biblical version of events. My opponent can argue that Noah's flood happened as much as he likes, but without scientific consensus to back him up he cannot claim that the flood is an example of modern scientific knowledge. Neither was this debate about taking issue with established science like radiometric dating. The idea was to find passages in the Bible that agree with science. I don't have to refute my opponent's every contention about things that are not accepted science. If they were science, my opponent should have been able to provide scientific papers showing that. The rules were clear: "The burden of proof to establish that any theory or fact is accepted by consensus will be on PRO"I am confident I have demonstrated that none of the examples my opponent provided were conclusive examples of the Bible containing modern scientific knowledge.
The Bible contains conclusive examples of modern scientific knowledge

My opponent doubts radiometric dating yet fails to provide an alternate scientific source. Does there have to be an alternative? Maybe science just doesn't know yet, isn't that how science works. I would point out to the voters that throughout this debate my opponent has ignored more of my points than what I have his. I’m not referring to the ones he has dismissed as biased but ignored altogether. In fact last round he barely even touched on any of my arguments. I am genuinely curious to know how science explains the discrepancies in the Grand canyon, he avoided that altogether.Also, it should be noted that the Bible is not meant to be a science book and so not explain in intricate details but have shown how it does represent what we now know of science. I will ask my opponent how he can explain polystrata fossils the Great flood offers a solution to this issue. [1]As I have agreed, this will be my last round of debates so that my opponent and I have equal rounds. I thank my opponent and pass it back to him.1 http://www.earthage.org...