BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is wrong

First, I would like to point out that I am the pro, not the con. Address me a such. Now to refute my opponent's first bulky paragraph. This debate is not about the law. I am not trying to prove that the law should be changed, although I wish it was. I am trying to convince all the viewers and my opponent that abortion is morally wrong. So that paragraph is really irrelevant to this debate, however I would be willing to debate you that it should be illegal. Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong. So my argument is that an abortion is killing a human. Now onto the difference between a fetus and a "human." My opponents says: "What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person." Rob1billion, let me ask you something. Do you think that newborns are human. Because if you do, I would like to point out that fact that newborns do not really have characteristics, just like a fetus. And if you don't think that newborns are humans, I would like to bring that more into the argument. Now for your last paragraph. The unfortunate fact the women or blacks had really no rights was very sad. But this was a misconception. The reason why I said that was to point out that humans have certain rights, and as you know, my argument is a fetus is a human. And for a closer, Rob1billion, why would you not have an abortion yourself?
Abortion is wrong

.. Thank you. I will argue the "weakest possible stance" because I believe that life is started right at the moment of conception. therefore, in my arguments, i will try to prove that an abortion in, any situation, is immoral and wrong. So this includes the "incontinence" of human life, all the rape cases, and the case in which it would result in a death due to medical complications. Before I begin, I will list some of the common methods for an abortion: 1) Dilation and Curettage (D&C)- the cervix is dilated with a series of instruments to allow the insertion of a curette (a looped shaped steel knife). The unborn fetus is then cut into pieces and scraped from the uterine wall. 2) Suction Curettage, or Vacuum Aspiration- the cervix is dilated as in D&C, then a tube with a very sharp edge on the tip is inserted into the uterus and connected to a strong suction apparatus, which tears the unborn fetus apart. 3) Menstrual Extraction- a very early suction abortion, often done before the pregnancy test is positive. 4) Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)- by week 12, the baby's bones are hardening and can no longer be pulled apart with suction. Abortion is now achieved by dismemberment. 5) Salt poisoning, or Saline Injection- used after 16 weeks, a long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the fetus' sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. O. K. now onto my case. What makes a fetus turn into a human being? Is it really when it sees light for the first time, or when we can see it? Is it when it can feel, or when its heart starts beating? If you can logically prove to me that human life is not started at conception, you win. At the moment of conception, the fetus has all of it's DNA laid out. It already has an eye color and a unique fingernail print. Now assuming that the fetus is human, the Deceleration of Independence would apply to it. Deceleration of Independence states this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. " So me and you are given these rights that cannot be taken away. And it the fetus is human it should be protected by these rights. An because these rights are given to us by our Creator, who ever that may be, it would by immoral to take them away. To close up my part of the round, I would encourage my opponent to take the advantange and retreat behind a "time-limit. "
Abortion is wrong

I am not currently accepting debates because of my recent forfeits due to time constraints, but this one isn't something that should take much researching or thought as I have done it before. "This is a real debate, unlike stevos." Very well... "I will argue that abortion is wrong in all cases." If you insist on taking the weakest possible stance, that is your choice. I would have suggested you take a position worth defending, for instance "Abortion is wrong after 3 months", or "Abortion is wrong when it is not used to save the life of the mother". You must feel very confident in your debating skill indeed, or else you think you have an ace in the hole with me. Otherwise, you are simply careless and this is going to be over before it starts. We shall see. "You will argue that it is ok, but not ok after a certain point (late-term abortions)." I'll negate the thesis "Abortion is wrong". I'm not going to bother retreating behind a time-limit. If I did, it would only be in my favor anyway, as it is usually much more difficult to justify abortion as the fetus develops more and more. Again, Pro has insisted on taking the weakest possible stance on the issue. Unless he is going to try and appeal to religion to win his argument, it's hard to believe that he can show without a doubt that abortion is wrong in every single possible case without exception.
Men are superior to women in terms of physical and intellectual capability

First off, just because something takes longer to mature doesn't make it better than something else. Secondly, what does Buddhism and Christianity have anything to do with whether or not women are intellectually and physically superior than men? Nothing. Your definition of "stronger" includes strength(what type?), speed, durability(in what way?), and agility. That's a lot of definitions for "stronger". Your two sources prove nothing, in fact one of the titles was: "Men are stronger than women. But that doesn't make them better athletes". To conclude, I would like to point out that NihilistRafiqueGenius has failed to provide a logical case as pro, and therefore he should not be the victor in this debate.
Men are superior to women in terms of physical and intellectual capability

Of course not, there are some reasoning to back it up.Arthur Schopenhauer in his book argued that women have not a great work of art to show, he also argued that the more something is close to perfection, the longer it is to mature and since men mature longer, we can automatically assume that men are better, or closer to perfection.Buddhism in some of its texts talked about women going to hell simply for their biological state.Christianity in a way also imply for women inferiority in 1 corinthian 14 34 35 in the bible where it states Women[a] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.[b] Alright, I will cite the arguments Men have more neurones-http://www.estime-neurobiomarketing.com... Men are stronger-https://www.theguardian.com... By stronger, I mean better in strength, speed, durability and agility.Compare males and females in sports like football and wrestling and you'll get what I mean.
Men are superior to women in terms of physical and intellectual capability

Beginning my part of the second round, I'd like to start out by saying that NihilistRafiqueGenius has still committed the appeal to authority fallacy. Just because Nietzsche and Arthur are both respected and viewed as intelligent individuals does not automatically make their view on the matter at hand true. Arguments are not true because they come from someone smart, they are true if they form a logical conclusion that comes from the premises. Now, on to the arguments themselves. You said that it is evidently clear that men are better than women intellectually and physically, yet you have cited no sources. You are the affirmative, you must prove your propositions, you have not proven anything. Instead, you have just stated things as supposed facts. Give me a reliable, unbiased, scientific source that can make the argument that men are better than women intellectually and physically. Also, you have not defined being "stronger" means. There are different types of physical strength, which one(s) are you referring to? I await to hear your response, NihilistRafiqueGenius
Men are superior to women in terms of physical and intellectual capability

Surely.But men are by default, stronger.If a normal man undergoes the training of a woman in the military, he would much tougher. The fact that a woman is dumb enough to put herself in such situations is already enough to show that she's short sighted.Well, I gotta say, maybe the argument about rape is kinda faulty.But the rest is fine. Appeal to authority, I am not merely appealing to authority, I am also appealing to smart individuals.Nietzche and Arthur are both well respected individuals for their intelligence, with that, we can also assume that their stance on women is intelligent as well. Men are better than women.They're smarter, stronger, you can't argue with that.The science shows that.Higher neural densities and more testosterone in the mens' part makes men more physically and intellectually superior.You said that you agree that men are better than women in "certain" aspects.With that, I assume that you included intellectual and physical aspects, with that, I think you lost the argument, I was expecting better to be honest.
Men are superior to women in terms of physical and intellectual capability

Before we begin, we must define our terms. Better - Of a more excellent or effective type or quality I'm assuming we all know what a man and woman is so I won't define those. Your first proposition that "It's evidently clear that men are better than women" poses a few problems. I understand that you believe men are superior to women in terms of physical and intellectual capability but you do not specify whether this is in general or not. Because you have not defined this clearly I now have the ability to define it for you. While it is true that testosterone makes men faster, stronger, and bigger, in most circumstances, many women have rivaled and even surpassed men in many regards. Take for example all of the women in militaries around the world. If they can meet the standards, they make it in. One of your biggest errors is your idea of rape. Women don't get raped because they're stupid, they get raped because someone rapes them. While it is true that some women put themselves in a bad situation (ie. drunk and in a bad place), that doesn't mean it's their fault that they got raped. It's not the victim's fault, it's the perpetrator's fault. To believe that it's the woman's fault that she was raped is a fallacy. As regards to the philosophies of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Buddhism, that is an appeal to authority, another logical fallacy. So while I agree that in general men are "better" than women in certain aspects, because you did not specifically define that, I am allowed to define as in every circumstance.
Men are superior to women in terms of physical and intellectual capability

Its evidently clear that men are better than women. Testosterone in men makes men stronger, faster and bigger. Men have higher neural densities that allow them to store more information and have a higher reasoning Historically, men have always been the gender that contributes to society greatly, outnumbering women. Men dominate society.Its clear, the superior group of people dominate the other group of people Men are also straight forward.Although men are more likely to commit suicide, women are more likely to pick a suicide method that is 3x more likely to fail. Look at all the succesful, intelligent and strong people, many of them are males. We live in a society where rape is condemned, yet women make up the majority of rape victims, how come?If she was intelligent and long sigthed enough to be cautious, she wouldn't have been raped. This idea is backed by profound philosophers and well regarded ideologies like Arthur Schopenhauer, Nietzche and Buddhism
Environmental Protection

Thank you for submitting your argument previously. I will be responding to it. I did forget to put in sources, yes. I will address what happened at the end. But anyway. Again with overpopulation. As I've already said, humans have caused alot of damage to the Earth. The concern with overpopulation has nothing to do with the amount of land. It has to do with what humans have done to the Earth. Humans have exploited Earth's resources, destroyed natural areas, caused the extinction of half of wildlife, have polluted water, the air, caused extreme climate change, and there are many more things. Evidence for resource exploitation: Fracking. Simple. Natural Area Destruction (For example, rainforests): http://rainforests.mongabay.com... Wildlife Extinction: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Pollution (Water): http://news.nationalgeographic.com... An example of air pollution: http://www.thelocal.fr... Temperature Increases: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... Now for temperature increases, my opponent has tried to debunk it by saying "it's a fraction of a degree". But the graph uses Celsius. As for your glacier argument goes, what I should say is that yes, I cannot deny they expand and retreat naturally. Well they used to. Human activity is starting to melt them, which is threatening wildlife, and will likely threaten us in the future. They could in the near future stop forming. Some graphs predict in 20-40 years, but not all of them. One graph that predicts they'll stop forming is http://csas.ei.columbia.edu... Now to debunk your 2 other arguments. "Weather patterns". Climate change has also changed weather patterns. Temperature increases have also been prevalent across the world, at rates naturally impossible. As I've already said, Earth formed from molten asteroids and there was a jungle in Antarctica millions of years ago, which should be enough to debunk the "natural global warming" idea. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... http://www.space.com... http://www.seeker.com... Keep in mind, Creationism doesn't mean that the jungle wasn't found or that there isn't evidence for the Earth's formation in that way. "CO2 is beneficial." Right but it isn't the only gas we're pumping into the atmosphere. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... https://en.wikipedia.org... Methane actually is bad for the environment, unlike CO2. Also we are loosing oxygen to deforestation. Also, you addressed me saying "But that's just my opinion. 97% of scientists...". I accidentally copied and pasted the "But that's just my opinion" part because I was at the same time talking to my friend on another website about a sports game when I was trying to show evidence for our debate. And I personally trust scientists, so yeah.
Environmental Protection

Thank you for your argument. As you said, water is being polluted. Yes. We also have animal and plant life at an extreme risk. The concern with overpopulation has nothing to do with the amount of land. It has to do with what humans have done to the Earth. Humans have exploited Earth's resources, destroyed natural areas, caused the extinction of half of wildlife, have polluted water, the air, caused extreme climate change, and there are many more. There is hope to turn this around, and that is environmental protection laws. Now for climate change, as you did: Global temperatures have rised at a rate naturally impossible. Normally, global temperatures cool. The Earth formed from molten asteroids. Millions of years ago, there were humid jungles at the poles, which are usually the coldest regions of the planet. Sea levels were also higher millions of years ago. Temperatures have rised globally in all areas, cold or already hot. Their is scientific evidence showing we're responsible. As for weather, Scientific studies indicate that extreme weather events such as heat waves and large storms are likely to become more frequent or more intense with human-induced climate change. Nevertheless, weather does not mean "climate change is not harmful". When it comes to glaciers, they naturally do expand. However, man made climate change is melting them. Several scientific studies show that in 20-40 years, all Ice in Antarctica will likely melt. I do not disagree with you on the CO2 point and I know it is beneficial. However, it is not the only gas being emitted. Methane is an extremely effective greenhouse gas and large amounts of it are being emitted. Scientists have also discovered several toxic gases like Phosgene in the atmosphere of Earth. So far we have cut down half of forests on Earth. Keep in mind trees produce vital oxygen that we need to breath. If you want me to be honest, the modern environmental movement is stupid, yes, specifically when it comes to CO2. But these are just my opinion. 97% of climatologists believe in climate change and not just because of CO2 emissions. I tried to keep my argument as short as possible.
Environmental Protection

In this debate, I will be challenging the much esteemed Cat47 to a rigorous debate on the subject of Environmental Protection. Here are a few ground rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance only. Arguments must be made in Round 2 alone. 2. Round 2 is for arguments. Arguments will be made on the intent of selling a prospective audience on your position. 3. Round 3 is for rebuttals to the opponent's argument. No new arguments may be posted in this round. Instead, each opposing debater must attempt to show how his opponent's argument is outdated, in error, full of false information, etc., whatever is most appropriate. I will thank my opponent in advance for acceptance. I look forward to a thought provoking and intellectual debate!
A monotheistic God doesn't exist

Time & Definition Argument I and 2) So you have agreed that God exists outside of time and that God didn't have time to create the universe. Therefore, you have agreed that God didn't create the Universe. Therefore, by definition, God doesn't exist. Time doesn't exist. Time is a phrase created by man. The sun and moon orbiting Earth isn't time. It is nothing but its nature. We define a god as a powerful ruler of something, whom is worshipped by people. We define ruler as one who rules something or someone. We define rule as to have control over something or someone. He HAS NO "TIME" TO DO SO. Therefore, by definition, he doesn't exist. Definitely. He could be eternal. He exists outside of time, thus making that possible. He just doesn't know much as we do. Plus, under a different definition. 3) You agree that time doesn't exist outside of space. So, saying that the time God took was fundamentally different from the time of this dimension is. .. odd. Do you believe in something else now? Definition argument 1) You agree again. I don't understand the up-coming sentence. What are the following arguments? True? Or False? 2) Nobody. You agreed that he had no "time". He doesn't have "time" to do so. 3) So, are you saying that the monotheistic God didn't create the universe? Yes, because you have agreed with that. I eagerly await Con's arguments.
A monotheistic God doesn't exist

I graciously accept my opponent's challenge. I could not have asked for a better and "hotter" topic for my debut. I hope to have a great debate. My esteemed opponent, the Pro, seems to be quite well-adhering to definitions. Well, I would like to define my ground rules for this particular debate, which I will adhere to throughout the course of the forthcoming five rounds: 1. I am supporting the idea of "God" as the one, monotheistic God, as specified clearly in the debate topic. Polytheism is off-limits. 2. I am viewing God as the "creator" and "preserver" of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org... As per the above link, I am very well conforming to the monotheistic definition of God. 3. I shall NOT mention any fanatical or religious beings with names, such as Jehovah, Yahweh or Allah. I am not even saying God has a gender or form, but out of convention, I shall use the male pronoun to refer to God. Now, to refute my opponent's arguments, each rebuttal concurring with his original statement: Time & Definition argument I) True enough. If God created the universe, he is obviously unaffected by time and its passage. II) Indeed he didn't have time to create the universe. But Pro seems to forget to postulating that God exists outside of time, which he however thinks isn't possible. IT IS POSSIBLE. In Einstein's theory of general relativity and the concept of space-time, time is affected by space and gravitational fields. http://en.wikipedia.org... Which means that at a certain limit of a gravitational field, one can manage to "transcend" time. This indeed occurs at the event horizon of a blackhole. http://en.wikipedia.org... Whatever happens across an event horizon cannot be affected by the confines of space-time. This means that Pro's argument is fallacious - its not that God "did not have time". Its that whatever time God took was FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE TIME OF THIS DIMENSION. III) So, God must exist if it is possible to go beyond time, and i just proved that it is. Ergo, I just corrected your definition, and by this one, God does exist. The edge of the planet does exist, Mr. BrainofanIndividual. It is the peak of Mt. Everest :-) The earth isn't a perfect sphere, and hence an edge is always there. Definition Argument I) Once again, the first statement is true enough. But the succeeding ones aren't. II) Who told you he doesn't have control of the earth? If he is a being capable of observing and creating a universe from beyond time, then he sure has enough energy to control the single planet called earth. III) This time, you have a correct definition, but no real application. Your argument has been rendered moot. I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
A monotheistic God doesn't exist

(Subsequent)Presentation(s):Time & Definition ArgumentI) God exists outside of timeII) He had no "time" to create the universeIII) By definition, he doesn't existIt's like asking for directions to the edge of our planet - - There is no edge; It's a sphere. Trying to do so would be a futile exercise.Definition ArgumentI) We define rule as having control over someone or somethingII) God does not have control over Earth.III) By definition, God doesn't exist.
A monotheistic God doesn't exist

Well, that is it. Conclusion: 1. Pro's "definitions" were flawed to begin with, and yet he continued to fixate on them for additional rounds. 2. Pro has shown repeated ignorance of the principles of gravitation and relativity, as well as my arguments regarding the same. Hence, Pro should lose arguments. 3. Pro should lose conduct for obvious reasons. I may also like to point out that Pro forfeited an entire round. 4. Pro should lose spelling and grammar for usage of invalid words such as "HORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIESHORSIES" and "NIMANIMANIMANIMANIMANIMA", as well as for usage of vulgar street slang. 5. Pro should lose sources for failing to provide a single external source. I have provided 12 different links from 8 different sources. You did not win, Mr. Pro. That is yet to be decided by the voters. As much as I can start thanking Pro for instigating this debate, I cannot quite finish it, considering his recent behaviour. The rest is up to the voters now. May the better debater win.