BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is murder

I kind of wish you didn't agree with me :). And my response is that forcing a woman to carry a baby that eventually kills her during pregnancy is also murder. Death is a byproduct of abortion, one only tries to remove the baby from her system, if the baby can't survive on it's own, well that's kind of a shame. All abortion does is give the woman the ability to do what she wants with HER organs, HER body, if it causes a death, well that is truly unfortunate, but it is also a death when someone dies of kidney failure and nobody donates that person a kidney, it isn't murder, everybody who denied him/her a kidney aren't murderers, they just denied him/her use of THIER body.
Abortion is murder

A banana has about 1/3 of our same DNA, yet that doesn't stop us from eating them, and we don't consider bananas to be 1/3 human. DNA is irrelevant, monkeys have an uncanny amount of common DNA with us, yet in parts of the world it is completely legal to kill them. You say that killing a fully grown human is the same as abortion, and my reply is that you have no sources to back you up, so a statement that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without any as well.
Abortion is murder

I am really playing Devil's advocate here because I beleive in abortion until 20 weeks, when external reproductive organs are seveloped. The reason being that I see humans as vessels through which genes travel, our entire function is reproduction. As soon as reproductive prgans develop, well, in my opionion, you have a human. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that I am against abortion no matter what. The reason for this is that a zygote has 50% DNA of its mother, and 50% DNA of its father. That means it has 100% human DNA, and abortion is the aame as killing a fully grown human or a little baby.
Abortion is murder

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...).
Vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet.

My position, obviously, is no. First, i shall define what an omnivore, or someone with an omnivorous diet, is. For the sake of Simplicity, I shall define an omnivore, as someone who eats plants and animals, indiscriminately. Secondly, I shall address my opponents arguments. I have a problem with the con burden. The Burden for the Con side should consist of proving that an omnivorous diet is just as healthy, if not healthier than a vegetarian diet. Nowhere in the topic does it consist of having to prove that an omnivorous diet is necessarily MORE healthier than a vegetarian diet. Regarding the rate of cancer between Vegetarians and Omnivores: Let me first state the obvious. You've traded a knife for a hatchet. In other words, youve decreased one type of cancer, but increased the chance of another. Both Colorectal and ovarian cancer is higher in people who have vegetarian diets. Furthermore, the existance of Carcinogens are only prevalant on meats that have been cooked; that is, raw meat or otherwise rarely done meat, will have little to no chance of producing cancer. Now, onto the health benefits of a omnivorous diet compared to a vegetarian diet. A properly managed Omnivorous diet can be just as healthy as a vegetarian diet. My opponent mentioned saturated fats and how these will clog your arteries. Not only are Dairy products an abundant source of saturated fats, but you can receive the same amount of fat by eating a well trimmed lean peice of meat.(1) We mustnt forget that certain people are unable to eat wheat or dairy products. For people such as these, Calcium and proteins must be obtained from outside sources, such as meat, and bones of fish. Clearly people like these cannot be vegetarians at all. It is also interesting to note that Fish eaters have a longer survival rate than Lacto-vegetarians.(2) I shall post my sources later as i do not have time to do it now, and the deadline is closing in.
Vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet.

I have a feeling I'm going to lose this debate simply because of many of the voters' lifestyle choices, but let's go anyway. I'd like to ask the voters to consider keeping an open mind about vegetarianism and to judge the round on who is a better debater, not on who supports your opinions. Know that I'm not here to condemn you unless you condemn me first. :) For the purposes of this debate, "vegetarianism" will be defined as a person whose diet completely excludes meat (including fish), gelatin, and eggs. Otherwise known as a lacto-vegetarian. Pro burden: Prove that vegetarianism is, on balance, healthier than an omnivorous diet. Con burden: Prove that an omnivorous diet is healthier than a vegetarian diet. Now that those very-obvious burdens are out of the way... We're not looking towards the health of the environment or towards the health of animals, but only to the health of human beings. I myself firmly believe that a vegetarian diet, while it may have its drawbacks, ultimately has more advantages than an omnivorous diet. However, many people have voice the complete opposite, and so we find ourselves debating today. According to the BBC, "Vegetarians 'avoid more cancers.'" Vegetarians got significantly fewer cases of stomach, bladder, and other common cancers. For example, vegetarians are only a third as likely to contract stomach cancer than a meat-eater is. N-Nitroso compounds in meat can damage cells' DNA and cooked meat often contains carcinogens, so obviously eating meat puts you at a higher risk of cancer (not to mention the saturated fats and hardly digestible proteins found in meat, asking to clog your arteries). Granted, vegetarian females are more likely to get cancer of the ovaries, but this is the *only* cancer that has a high occurrence in vegetarians. Thus, overall, vegetarianism guards against all cancers (except ovary and colon cancer. There was no noticeable difference in the amount of colon cancer cases.) (((Source 1))) A common belief about vegetarianism is that it lacks important nutrients like protein and calcium. However, this is simply not true. The amount of protein that a person needs can easily be obtained from bread, cereal, rice, pasta, tofu, beans, nuts, or any other grain or soy based food. As for calcium, vegetarians (unlike vegans) have the opportunity to drink milk, a major source of the stuff. Leafy greens also provide calcium for the body. So, not only does a vegetarian diet provide the nutrients needed, but it encourages the individual to use healthier sources (instead of that unhealthy meat discussed earlier). (((Source 2))) I have more arguments, but I'd rather not make my first speech too long-winded. I'll leave it up to my opponent to refute my points and post their own -- may the best debater win. :) 1) http://news.bbc.co.uk... 2) http://www.eatright.org...
Vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet.

Since my opponent forfieted the round for some unknown reason, i shall state something else. The question of Whether vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet, can only be made from an extremely spoiled point of view. We, as citizens of a first world country, have access to a variety of foods. Yet, people in third world countries, or even second world countries, dont have access. Therefore, having a vegetarian diet is not only fatal to their health, they would even go to the point of starvation without meat. And yet these people who eat meat, such as those living in china, live to be well over 90 years old.
A number not always represent the same thing, therefore 1 not always equal 1.

As requested by my opponent, I should give this another try. "Rules: First round: is acceptance Second round: I will present my argument, and CON will present his, which should contradict my, meaning he should demonstrate that 1 always hold the same value, and will always equal 1. 1 should always represent 1. Third round: Both, CON and I, will exam each others presentation and point any flaws in reason, and reason only, if there is any. Fourth round: Both can attempt to negate the flaws suggested in the previous round. To make it simple, you may only use numbers and only use the four basic operators (plus, minus, divide, multiply). There should be no sources but your mind. Nothing in this initial statement should need to be defined."
The Idea that Small changes in Species leads to Large Radical Changes is NOT proved

"He tries to wriggle out of his burden of proof by saying that "Evolution is not a change of species (Dog to cat)." Species was the wrong word to describe this, apologies. A better word would be genus. ""the evolutionary process is when the population is distinct and cannot interbreed with "parent" population." " Again, this was a misunderstanding, perhaps on my part. When I said "parent population", it meant the previous generation of a different . Such as Homo Habilis, cannot interbreed with homo Erectus. They are part of the same genus, but since they are so different, they are a different species. "Con said that 'If a human evolves, it will stay a human," I was referring to the modern human evolution, under the genus Homo. I would like to carry out my argument again, and move on from rebuttals. Carbon dating is not the only method use, as it is only accurate for around 30,000 years. Uranium lead dating is accurate to 4.5 billion years. I see my opponent believes evolution is entirely assumption, even based on different evidences for short changes. For the fish to man argument: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many apologies, due to a busy schedule I was not able to carry out my argument. I will do so in my next point, and have no objection if I am marked off for conduct. I leave Pro to do rebuttals for my current argument.
The Idea that Small changes in Species leads to Large Radical Changes is NOT proved

Evolutionists teach that reptiles evolved into birds, even those the two are radically different in anatomy. They claim that fish went through a long process of evolution towards an apelike creature, and finally to modern humans. This claim that the small level of variation we see among species, would eventually lead to large, massive changes, so that a fish could eventually become a man, or a reptile become a bird, is an unproved assumption, for the following reasons: 1) No one has ever observed any living thing gradually change through the generations to become a radically different kind of creature. Its only an assumption that the variation has no limits, but what HAS BEEN OBSERVED is that after many years of breeding bacteria, fruit flies, etc, the changes have never amounted to any radical enough difference to make the organism a different type of creature from the original ancestors in the experiments. 2) It is claimed that evolution happens so slowly that we can't observe successive generations long enough to see the radical changes happen. They claim that it takes millions of years to get from an ape-like creature to modern man, and thus we must look for it in the fossil record. The problem with this assumption is that they CANNOT prove the age of the fossils. The millions of years they claim for these fossils is NOT a scientific fact, and no one has been able to demonstrate in any rational way how they know the rates of decay used in radiometric dating in order to get the dates in the first place. Without these dates, they don't have enough time for evolution. For example, its claimed that the half-life (the time it takes for half to decay) of carbon-14 is 2,570 years. They even have a mathematical formula to calculate it. But no one has been around long enough to observe a sample of carbon-14 that long to test the equation and see if its true, so how do they know? Now I could say that 4-6 = -2, and I'd be correct mathematically on paper. But in reality, I can't take 6 apples away from 4 apples. There is no such thing in real life as -2 apples. And it may very well be the same with carbon dating. The equation doesn't represent reality. It works in the books, but not in the real world. We haven't and cannot observe it to be so. Now my challenge to my opponent is to explain to us how they can know for sure the dates are correct to get the millions of years necessary for evolution in the first place. Once we have enough time for evolution, then we can deal with what the evidence is that evolution even happened to begin with. I contend there is no evidence for evolution, period. I look forward to Con's arguments. He can choose to begin with his own defense of evolution, or a rebuttal of my arguments, or both, its up to Con.
NEWBIE TOURNEY: Executing Criminals is Justified. (Death Penalty Debate)

Burden of Proof"My opponent tries to argue whether or not the death penalty is justified throughout this debate. Please note that he never provides us with a framework for how to evaluate justice. What is justice? We have the definition of justified stating that the action must be just or right, but he does not make claim to what is just, what is right. Because he has not done this, he has failed to meet his burden of proof. This is true because if we do not know what justice is, we cannot know whether or not an action is justified. The closest link we have is when he states that "It is moral in a way." However, there is no bridge constructed between justice and morality, nor is there a conception of morality presented."If we are unable to determine if actions are justified then it logically follows that it is impossible for any of my opponents contentions to justify the death penalty. Thus, they are rendered irrelevant."My opponent's only response to this argument is a restatement of his definition of morality. This is insufficient to uphold his burden of proof. As stated earlier, there is no conception of morality presented. My opponent effectively claims that he affirms through morality. However, without explaining what morality is, he has failed to explain how he affirms. My burden of proof argument thus still stands and you must negate.Epistemic SkepticismMy opponent never mentions my epistemic skepticism argument. I stated clearly in the contention that: "[W]e cannot accept that we know anything until it is proven true, and all other alternatives are proven false. My opponent has to prove that not only are we real in a world which allows for justice to exist, but that we can know that to be true. If he fails to do that, then even if all of his arguments stand, we cannot truly know if they are right or if they even apply, thus you must negate." He never refutes this claim, nor does he prove that we are real and in a world where justice actually exists, o even that we have the ability to know this to be true. A very explicit part of my argument was that if it stands, you negate immediately. As he has not refuted the argument, it must be conceded as true, and thus you vote Con.ConclusionThe resolution asks if the death penalty is justified. I have established in this debate that the burden of proof is on the Pro. Because he has failed to explain what the concepts of 'justice' or 'morality' actually are, and opts to assume that we accept a universally identical image of each, he has failed to uphold his burden and thus has lost the debate. Even so, I have also proven that we cannot know anything to be real, and thus cannot hold justice to be real. If justice is not real, actions cannot be justified and you must negate.
NEWBIE TOURNEY: Executing Criminals is Justified. (Death Penalty Debate)

I thank CON for his response. REBUTTALI have adressed the conclusion that we do not know everything when we execute people. ". .. like all other systems, are not perfect and we do not know anything, we make mistakes and therefore we learn from those mistakes and fix them. "Yes, we are in the real world, we believe that justice exist in the real world. But how can we bring justice? We are human, our knowledge and power is limited, it's not infinite. That's why we have a system of laws that may bring justice by means of retribution, compensation and prevention when talking about the death penalty. The sytem is not perfect, but I mentioned that before we put criminals on death row, we put them on trial to know how it happened. We do not need to provide clear and 100% full-proof evidence to convict or aquit, we just need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty or not. Because it is impossible to know what happened since are human, and our knowledge is limited, we cannot change back time. Mistakes happen, as I said, and if they do happen, we fix it. We cannot avoid the upcoming mistakes. I've proven that the DP is a justified punishment, it is justified in a way since it is in accordance to morality, and I said that morality is the conformity to the rules of right conduct, I've proven that the DP is moral, meaning it is right, making it justifiable. In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, my arguements are considered relevant in this debate and my opponent has not refuted them, I have proven that capital punishment is justified in the previous round, it is deterrent, we all know what is just or right because the DP is just and right. We don't need to know for a 100% certainty to execute and make it justifiable, we just need to know beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, vote PRO. Thanks.
NEWBIE TOURNEY: Executing Criminals is Justified. (Death Penalty Debate)

Greetings to my opponent. I wish him luck as we participate in this DDO Tourney. Debating Standards:Standard debating rules/ethics will apply. 72 hours of argumentation in this 3 round debate. 8K character limit, RFD voting style lasting 2 weeks.R1- Opening Statements (No evidence should be presented yet).R2- Arguments/RebuttalsR3- Final Rebuttals/Summary/ClosingsDefinitions:Death Penalty/Capital Punishment- is the sentence of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence. [1]To execute- to inflict capital punishment on; put to death according to law. [2]Criminals- a person guilty or convicted of a crime.[3]Justified- to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right. [4]Opening:I will argue that the death penalty gives justice to the ones who were victimized in the past, it's justified to a victim's point of view. It's better than life without parole, and LWOP doesn't exactly mean 'life sentence'. Because anything can happen; what are the chances of the serial rapist breaking out of prison and never coming back, or laws being changed, it can affect the sentencing laws which affects prison. Saying that, killers may be out in no time because of the change. More people will be victomized, innocent lives will be affected. Murder/rape can occur. What about the chances of a lunatic maniac going on a killing spree? Criminals are likely to commit more crimes when out, that's why DP is better, it can save potential lives, outside/inside prison, it prevents the criminal to commit more crimes, it prevents murder and death.I might be presenting more arguments not mentioned here later on, and I will provide evidence to support my claims in the next round. Good luck to my opponent. Sources Used:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...Nothing further for now.