BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should abortion be legal

Now to proceed with the rebuttal of your points, as you put the burden of proof on yourself that abortion should NOT be legal, and I have to prove you wrong and put up my own points. First of all, when Con says "People are people no matter what the age or if they are born or unborm" but provides no source defining how he was led to this conclusion nor does he back up this statement therefore it is a baseless opinion statement-irrelevant as no evidence has been presented by my opposition that I can really accept as valid as there is not much I can rebutt from that statement, which proves that its not really a valid argument. Con also states another one of his beliefs "no matter what the age of if they are born or unborn" but doesn't provide any reasoning as to how this statement has anything to do with this argument, over whether abortion should be legal or not. Now your trying to prove that all unborn and born people no matter what age, are people. .. which of course is true as you limit your statement to 'people are people' which any ordinary joe can say. No dur. Lastly, (my opposition only provided 2 real points,) con goes on to finish his argument with, "As son as a child is concieved, it is a child not nothing. " First of all, define child, or if your smart like most people you'll know that abortion is the destruction of the fetus life inside the womb. Not once are we told that a fetus, which is used to define the baby in the state where they have the abortion, is defined as a child, and of course we can't kill children. It's against the law-but a fetus is not a child. .. a child is a young person. .. so therefore this makes no sense and has no relevance to the at-hand topic that we are arguing. In conclusion, I have disproved and pointed out the flaws in my opposition's arguments, and have provided rebuttals for all of his 'points' therefore still, this debate has not started as you have not provided a valid argument, so technically if this keeps up till the end, I win by default :/
should abortion be legal

To start, I would like to rebutt the points in the article. In the 'argument' that my opponent posted, it lists a number of huge sums about how many people die each year from abortion, and continues to provide a false, baseless sum that says that every second, more people die from abortion then from all the people who died in 9/11, but the fact is that this is a planet of around six billion people, and that's a very small amount; and plus the 'argument' provides no sources, or evidence so it is clearly invalid. Another point I would like to make: every second 16 poor African children die of hunger. Multiply 16 by 60, and every minute 960 poor African children die. Multiply 960 by 60, every hour 57,600 poor African children die from hunger. Multiply 57,600 by 24, every day 1,382,400 poor African children die from hunger. Need I go any further? Hunger is a slow, incredibly painful way to go, and these children and babies die slowly and painfully-because they were born into a family that couldn't keep them alive. The same thing goes for putting down your pets as it does abortion. "Hmm..should I give birth and let my child die painfully or live a horrible life, or should I prevent all of these bad things from harming my baby? Nah, I'll let my baby die a horrible death." Would you let someone else bleed to death, or would you, (in the case of zero possibility of that person surviving,) instead put them out of their misery?
God is not evil

My opponent has failed to adequately respond to my arguments. First, my opponent responds to my point about God killing all of the Egyptian first borns in Exodus by saying that God did not kill all of the Egyptian first borns. In response to this, I quote Exodus 12:29: “And it came to pass, that at midnight, the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn cattle.” Exodus is pretty clear: God smote all of the firstborn children. He even smote the cattle. Next, he says “the ones that were killed had a choice.” I’m sorry, but how much of a choice can you expect a baby or any child for that matter to have? In fact, these children weren’t even being punished for actions or choices that they themselves had made, but the actions of the Egyptians, and more specifically the Pharaoh. Pro writes: “There is a whole story behind it con did not explain.” Pro’s comments have demonstrated that he himself does not understand the story very well. Nevertheless, the actions of God are immoral whether in or out of context. A simple summary of the story of Exodus can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org.... My opponent almost completely fails to respond to my comments on the Amalekite genocide. Because the preceding argument continues to stand so strong, I feel to need to expand on my comments on hell. My opponent continues by saying that since God created everything, he chooses what is evil and what is not. He also argues that what we see as evil may not necessarily be evil. To this I ask: Are some things good because God says they are good or does God say some things are good because they are good? Additionally, if God is omnipotent and omniscient and he chooses a course of action that would cause more suffering or less and he chose the route that caused more, then God must be evil. For surely he could have chosen a better course of action given his vast power and knowledge.
God is not evil

"In exodus, God kills all of the Egyptian first born, because they are Egyptian." - this is not true. He did not kill all of them. In fact, the ones that were killed had a choice. There is a whole story behind it con did not explain. Same goes with his second explanation. It is not God who chooses for you to go to hell, but yourself. He has given you a choice. He gave you free will. He does not force you to go. All he said was to believe in Him, (Jesus) and you will go to heaven. God does make you go to hell, you choose to go there by not believing in Him. God is the creator, meaning he created everything. Therefore he chooses what is evil and what is not. Therefore, what is evil in our eyes, isn't necessarily evil. Also, the existence of evil does not prove god is evil, even though he created everything. If you will like to argue this, please do in the next round.
God is not evil

First, some basic rules to which I think my opponent will agree: No abusive and/or semantically abusive arguments. Drops shall count as concessions. No new arguments in the final round. Definitions: God- the supernatural creator of the Universe whose actions are described in the Old and New Testements. Evil- Significantly morally reprehensible. Preliminary Observations Because I have the BoP in this debate, it makes sense that I should begin my arguments in this round. Additionally, as my opponent has pointed out in the comments, we will not be debating the “God is” part of the resolution. The assumption that God indeed is will be made. What will be debated is if God exists, is God evil. I will be arguing that this notion of God is an evil one. The Argument The basis for my argument is as follows: P1. A being that would do X is evil.P2. God did X.C. Therefore, God is evil. The argument is logically valid. So, if I can provide an X that is evil and can show that God did X, then I have fulfilled my BoP. A possible objection that may arise regarding P1 is that just because a being does something that is evil, this does not make that being evil, however when one takes into consideration that fact that we determine whether a being is evil based on their actions, we can see that that counter soon dissipates. Another possible objection that may arise along those same lines is that the good actions of God outweigh the bad actions, however I would argue that God’s evil actions throughout the Bible outweigh the good ones. Let X represent mass murder and genocide Mass murder and genocide are events that are certainly morally reprehensible events by basically any reasonable moral standard one chooses to use. It is also clear that the God of the Bible performed these actions on multiple occasions: In Exodus, God kills all of the Egyptian first born children because they are Egyptians. [1] In 1 Samuel God orders the Israelites to do as follows: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and as*.” [2] (For some I wasn't able to post my argument if I used the whole A- word, even though it was not in a profane manner. Oh well.) Let X represent causing people to eternally suffer. Given that a basis of morality is limiting the amount of suffering people must endure, this is another example of something that is definitely immoral. In the Bible, we find that God participates in this X as well. As the Christian website Beliefnet.com argues, the parable of Jesus concerning the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19:31”makes evident that this life is the place of decision. How we believe and behave here will determine our eternal destiny. The parable suggests that once you go to hell, you cannot come back.” [3]. Conclusion I have clearly demonstrated that God is evil. Sources: [1]- http://www.biblegateway.com...[2]- http://www.biblegateway.com...[3]- http://www.beliefnet.com...
God is not evil

Welp, folks. I don't have much to say at this point in the debate. I proposed a reasonable standard for determining whether or not a being is evil and then showed how this standard applies to God. Pro has failed to demonstrate that being the creator of everything gives God the right to determine what is good and what is evil. That's like me starting a country and then saying that because I started it, I get to decide what is right and wrong within that country. My opponent in this debate has failed to give any substantive refutations of my arguments, so I strongly encourage you to.
God is not evil

God decides what is evil because he created everything. If God was evil, why is there other things that are not evil in this world? Why isn't everything evil if both God and the devil are evil. Sounds like the world would be a lot worse if he was evil. For example, Obama. Of course some people think he is evil, but that's not my point. He uses drones to kill terrorist when also he kills innocent children. Why is he not considered evil? I assume it is be because it is a sacrifice we are willing to make. (I disagree with drone killing). God randomly killing people of course would be wrong. But he didn't do it just to do it. It was a punishment. Punishment was different back then what it was now. Just because we consider it evil now, doesn't mean it was back then. God created everything, and since we are talking about if he is evil or not, I don't have to "prove" he exist. He created matter, life, humans, etc. He chooses what he wants to with them and what he says goes. Yes there is free will, but that doesn't mean there is no law to follow. God sent down Jesus Christ to save us, and if you don't understand what that is, Google it. I don't really think an evil God would do something like that. Also all you got to prove he is evil is a few situations in history. I think you would need more then that to determine if a God is evil. Also remember, we brought this on ourselves.
God is not evil

I must apologize, but I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding what my opponent is trying to say. First, he continues to misunderstand Exodus. He fails to recognize the importance of the story as an example and the fact that only the Israelites were made aware of the option to put blood on their doors. Additionally, he continues to postulate the notion that God is good because God is good. He has not provided any reason for us to accept that God is, in fact, good. He then goes on a tangent about punishment about which I am completely baffled. He then tries to argue that God shouldn't be accused of murder because God is not a person and murder requires a person killing another person. This is merely semantics. When describe God's actions as murder, I am referring to a sentient being intentionally and consciously killing another person. My points remain standing. Pro argues that God gets to decide what is good and what is evil. I previously asked my opponent whether things are good because God says they are or whether God says things are good because they are good. This question remains unanswered. On top of that, I continue by asking: What authority does God have to decide what is good and what is evil? Finally, Pro argues that a dictionary doesn't get to determine what is good and what is evil. Dictionaries, however, tell us what is meant by certain words. So, dictionaries can, in fact, tell us what is generally meant by people when we use words like good and evil. While those dictionaries aren't making the decisions about what qualifies as what, they are records of what we as the people of a certain language have decided to mean by these words.
God is not evil

The blood was to show they feared God. It"s not that the angel needed the clue, it was to see who was willing to make a sacrifice. You can"t say "the angels should know I would have made the sacrifice". This they may know, but they still didn"t do it. Now think about it this way. What is evil is described in the Ten Commandments. God made those for us to follow, not him. That means he can do no evil because he is the opposite. God does not have to follow his own law. He"s God. He created it. No one is greater than him. Punishment back then is not what it is like today. Now think of it like this, if God never made punishments like that, would as many people obey him? He had to make severe punishments back then so that people after that could learn. Now what is murder? Killing someone? What about another animal killing another animal? Is that murder? No its life. Murder is when one person kills another person. God is not a person. He is I guess you can say a spirit. If god is evil, then we would not know what good is. If god is what causes evil, then what causes everything that is good in life? Overall, in your man-made idea of what evil is, and the fact you try to include God into the human law, as if he really had to obey by it, proves absolutely nothing. So yes, maybe in your view he is evil, but in reality he isn"t. He determines what is evil and what is not. Not the author of the dictionary. If he is evil, you would have no clue how much worst this planet would be"
God is not evil

My opponent’s lack of Biblical knowledge is severely lacking. In Exodus, God tells the Israelites to put lamb’s blood on their doors so that the Angel of Death will know to pass over their houses.(As a side note, it is interesting that the Angel would even need this clue.) The Egyptians were not given a choice to put lamb’s blood on their doors or not. And more importantly: The children were being punished for their family’s actions, not their own. Pro continues in almost incomprehensible manner, but I think he is basically saying that because God is not evil, God is not evil. Finally, Pro challenges the definition I provided of evil, though he did not bother to bring it up until now. I also see he has not provided an alternative definition of his own. The definition I use was adapted from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com... If Pro wishes to argue that evil should be defined as not murder (does that even make sense?), then he must present some reasoning that it should be defined that way. Dictionaries are valid references to use when trying to determine how a word should be used, so my appeal to authority is justified.
God is not evil

The owner of the house had the choice to put the blood of a goat or something similar to that meaning that their child would not be killed. Again God is the opposite of evil. First you have to admit that evil exist. Are you admitting evil exist? God is the creator of everything. How he chooses his punishment for some people isn't because he is evil. In your opinion it might be, but in the one that matters, his, is not. Also in your definition, he is evil, but who created your definition? It was man. Therefore you are admitting man decides what is evil. If that is the case, I could say murder is not evil, therefore it is not evil.
Universal Health Care System

A Universal Health Care system, such as one present in Canada, is the superior way to provide health services to citizens of a country. First, people from various socioeconomic classes present in society are all guaranteed access to the same levels of health care. All individuals are able to access health care providers regardless of their income or ability to afford care. All citizens have the right to access to specialists. Second, there is less of a divide/discrimination between classes. Every person, no matter how rich or poor, are subject to the same wait times and have access to the same health care providers. A person with money does not have any sort of special privileges in accessing health services. the rich are not able to access quicker care simply because they can afford to do so. A person cannot jump the queue simply because they can afford to do so. This increases the fairness of how care is distributed amongst the members of a society. Third, the health of a population is overall better with universal health care. People that previously may not have accessed care simply because they cannot afford to so are, are able to express their health concerns and receive treatment without the worry of finances. Overall, Universal Health Care is a superior way in providing health services to a population.
abortion

Actually, this argument took very little time.Hey, you specifically challenged me to a debate. Instead of a real debate on a truly important topic, you posted drivel.As a result I took 15 minutes to repost stats from a single site. Had you been serious I would've given you a serious debate. You are the one who is wasting other people's time here, not me. Thus by definition you appear to be the one with no life as you are wasting yours and other people's time with stuff that you have no intention of fulfilling.
Having Kids Should Be Illegal

Look here, frankfurter50. Having sex is a sin because it makes you lose your virginity. Having sex also leads to pregnancy more than 90% of the time, which makes you gain stretch marks and belly fat. In the Bible, obesity is considered a sin. Therefore, having sex is a sin, and so it is true that having kids is a very sinful and immoral action. Also, having kids will only worsen the problem of overpopulation and global warming, so let us just make sex illegal. I don't care how we accomplish it; cull the human population, give everybody a chastity belt, spay/neuter everyone, or remove wombs from women. The world is overpopulated, and it is everyone's duty to combat it. I am very concerned and worried about the future of polar bears. If too many people are on Earth, we will die out. They fart too much and emit too much CO2, which melts all the ice/snow in the Arctic, and we will have nowhere to live, and we will all die out. And no, I am not a product of sex or whatever you guys like to call it. I was here since the beginning o time. Yes, my birthday is February 24, 1995, but that is my age in human years. Polar bears are immortal creatures. Here is a picture of you. Frankfurtedly speaking, it is a good resemblance of you. https://cdnph.upi.com...
Having Kids Should Be Illegal

Having sex is not considered a sin by any major world religions. Even the most strict religions do not prohibit sex, because sex is essential to the reproduction of human life, and if we ceased reproducing, we would cease to exist, and we want to keep existing, so we have kids. This is kindergarten level education, sir. Religions do have strict rules set up around mating, but they do not prohibit it. Even Amish people reproduce. Having an affair is a sin in most religions, as is having orgies and so on. But no religion prohibits the consentual bonding of two people. This is the nuttiest debate you've served up yet, sir. Please, give me one valid piece of holy scripture which prohibits the practice of sex. You will not be able to, because there is no such document. According to current, REAL statistics, the human population will peak around roughly 2100 at about 12 billion, then, due to lack of resources, and food, we will begin to reduce naturally. No mass genocide required. If we are prepared for a population that size, we should be alright. We are not going to kill 98% of all the people on the planet as you propose. That would be atrocious and it would scar the human race for centuries to come. We could get rid of all the KKK members, though. That would be nice. They deserve to die. Are you a member of the KKK? In world history, Russian ice bears were never claimed to be a superior race, much less Russian. And guess what? Polar bears have sex too. Everything has sex. Here's another picture of you. http://i.ebayimg.com...
Having Kids Should Be Illegal

Having sex is a huge sin in the Bible, as well as Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Buddhism. Please, humans, do not have sex, as you are automatically giving yourself a ticket that sends you directly to hell once you die. You see, the world is overpopulated at 7 billion plus. By 2050, I am confident we will approach at least 15 billion. Thus, the best solution is to kill off anyone who is "inferior" by my standards, including East Indians, homosexuals, the physically handicapped, the ugly, the poor, the excessively rich, babies, bullies, people with eating disorders, Muslims, depressed people, Gypsies, prostitutes, drug addicts, single parents, orphans, the mentally ill people, couples that have more than one kid, and people over the age of 75 years. There, the world now belongs to superior Russian Ice Bears again. Having kids is a sin, and will only worsen the problem of global warming and overpopulation.