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

I left my opponent with some questions, and perhaps more for myself, as I am uncertain whether they were answered. Nevertheless, I proceed with the assumption that my opponent claims that a fetus in the womb is a living human being because it feels pain, eats, and drinks like us. I posit that the crux of the abortion issue is the distinction of a human. Societies differentiate between humans, animals, plants, and other organisms. This differentiation is usually relevant to the acceptability of the being's death. The legal protection of an organism's life rests upon its classification under a certain "category" of existence. The human fetus is one such organism. The capacity of a human fetus to feel pain, eat, and drink greatly depends on its development. A fetus during an earlier stage of the pregnancy does not feel pain, eat, or drink in the same manner and magnitude as a fetus in a later stage. If my opponent wishes to claim that a fetus has a "right to life" based upon its capacities (eating, drinking, etc.), I challenge my opponent to describe when in the timeline of mitosis to adulthood this right is consolidated. On a final note, I apologize for my previous concluding statement. I was in no way referencing my opponent's site-experience. I was simply stating that a definition of ambiguous terms should be agreed upon before headway can be made on this debate topic. -A first and unedited draft by the Agonist
Should abortion be legal

My opponent said that my claim is false because i said it would be appropriate to abort a baby if it affected the mothers health, my argument is that a abortion for the mothers own convenience is wrong and again is like killing a human outside of the womb. My opponent also said some crazy thing at the end of his argument. The fact is that the baby in the womb is a living human being that feels pain, eats, and drinks like us. And does it matter if its my first debate.
Should abortion be legal

Abortion should be legal. Within this four-word phrase, we already stumble upon ambiguity. When we describe abortion as "legal," do we attach any qualification? My opponent concedes we should. For instance, in cases in which the mother's health is affected by the child. I might argue that this concession already cedes the entire debate: if any instance of abortion can be considered appropriate then abortion should be considered legal. However, I will attempt a more thorough address of the Instigator's points. The instigator first claims that abortion should be illegal because abortion is equivalent to killing living humans. A complicated subject is difficult to reduce to such concise terms. Therefore, I ask of the instigator: "What is a human?" "What makes it living?" "Should we avoid ending life in and of itself?" It is my opinion that some address need be made of the the above queries before a proper debate can be entered. -A first and unedited draft by the Agonist
The Bible does not promote the idea of eternal hell of extreme torment.

1) Eternal in durationEveryone will exist eternally either in heaven or hell (Daniel 12:2,3; Matthew 25:46; John 5:28; Revelation 20:14,15) "… thrown into eternal fire." (Mt. 18:8) "… eternal fires prepared for the devil and his angels." (Mt 25:41) 2) Extreme in torment “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 13:50) “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48) “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone” (Revelation 14:10) 3) Exists to be punishment"Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ" (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8)."The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psalm 9:17) Re: 1) The opponent just defines the terms for "Hell" in different cultures. The Hell of the Bible clearly differs, and this is depicted by the context in which it can be found. See excerpts above. For example, I can say, "There is a red cloud in the sky." Although clouds are traditionally white, the context in which I use the word "cloud" and modify it changes it. The opponent tries to examine a culture through the contents of other cultures, and it fails.Re: 2) The Bible clearly depicted destruction of an unceasing nature. See excerpts above.
The Bible does not promote the idea of eternal hell of extreme torment.

My argument is fairly simple. 1) There was no concept in the Greek or Hebrew cultures analogous to the idea of a place of eternal punishment and extreme pain. The words usually translated into "hell" in the Bible are: a. Sheol - Hebrew place of the dead. It was not a place of punishment, in fact, everyone goes there. And many Jews did not even believe in this place. b. Hades - Greek version of Sheol. I'm sure there's more of a difference than that, but for our purposes, this will suffice. c. Gehenna - This referred to a burning garbage pit outside Jerusalem. While this does sound painful and looks like punishment, since Jews didn't exactly know about conservation of mass, there's no reason to suppose it was thought of as eternal. 2) Biblical references more often implied destruction or universal salvation than anything resembling eternal painful punishment. Actually forget the implied bit. The Bible talks about "destruction," plain and simple, all the time. Likewise, the death of the soul in no way implies eternal existence after death. Then you have all those verses about how God desires none to be lost. Anyway, I'm just trying to prove a negative, so I'll wait for my opponent to post a more detailed argument before I go any further. And remember the wording of title, eternal painful punishment hell needs to be not only plausible within the Bible, but actually promoted. And no, I do not consider the Gospel according to Dante a part of the canon of scripture. Good luck! And may the best argument win.
God doesn't exist

Seems like I underestimated you! Let's keep in mind that I'm a 14 year-old muslim so I may of not heard all of what you're saying (just the theories). So far you've been basing your argument on the fact that 'there's no other explanation', just like the Greeks and their mythology (which is just as possible as the existence of god, not that I support that either). If I were to believe that there was a huge, giant, floating pen1s just outside the bounds of human exploration, how should I be wrong? Nobody has ever been there before so I have to be right. Nuh-uh. As for the creation of Earth: there are many different theories on how the earth and universe was created. I personally support the idea of the Big Bang due to it makes SENSE, rather than a guy with a beard just randomly decided to make us. As for your argument about 'why' did the Big Bang happen: Take a look at this http://m.youtube.com... As for why is the Earth so 'unique': If the universe is really inifinite, then what's the possibility that there will never be a planet able to sustain any type of life? Yes, that means aliens might exist somewhere (maybe even a replica of our race). Just because science doesn't explain something YET, doesn't mean there isn't a valid reason for the occurrence. Science have proven, time and time again, to overrule the beliefs people have had over the thousands of years (ie. the world falls off at the ocean or whatever). I will await your response.
you should go to a therapist

I have molested over 9000 disabled children, and none of them have complained a bit, or filed lawsuits, except for one Italian that I ended up killing. Abortion is okay because we are denying women their true glory of going to Bel-Air. Why are you shoopin' da whoop about this anyway? I herd u liek Mudkipz loser, and I bet you can't even Triforce. Debating me is like an hero-ing. TLDR- You suck.
you should go to a therapist

allretardsshoulddie has serious problems. he said that "molestation is okay idf the child is disable". .. he also said that "child abuse should be legal no matter what". and he also said "racisim should be allowed if it is toward italians". WHAT DID THEY EVER DO TO YOU? ?? ?? ?? ?? he needs some serious help. don't belive me look at all of his recent debates the things i quoted are what he wrote.
A Border Fence for the US

The purpose of this debate is to explore the various pros and cons of a border fence along the US/Mexico boundary. Con will argue the position that a border fence in application is not in the best interest of the US. Pro will argue that a border fence in application is in the best interest of the US. Definitions -US- United States of America (included only for clarification) Border Fence- a secured/patrolled construction that prevents immediate egress or ingress from/into the US and Mexico that is built along the boundary between the two countries. Best - providing the most benefit. If the resolution or role of the debaters are unclear or the premise is vague, please do not accept and proceed to troll through rounds. Instead ask questions in the comments section, and I will attempt to address them as best I can.
Should parents choose who you date? should have a say in your love life

I would agree with you if on all those points IF I have not seen what damage this does to people.1. If a parent is choosing your partner then what is the sense of free will?2. A parent has the right to many things, but in the same way should accept their child's decision3.I agree that financial stability is important and vital, but two heads are better than one, we should think of how WE can improve our financial status not how one party can.4. If this child is an adult 18+ they have a right to date whoever they want, regardless of their financial status or marital gain. at the age 0f 19 or even 20 you are not thinking of marriage, anything can happen in between.Most parents look at in their daughter's example: Can he provide for them, what is his social status, financial status and is he of our class. He can have all the above but lack one vital thing Love and respect. If he feels he is the sole bread winner he will look down at his girlfriend/wife and will not value his partner's efforts. Which happens so much in our society today. If most women were be given a second chance to choose they would not choose their current spouse, perhaps he was their parents choice. But if it was their choice then they will not blame anyone but themselves. Parents should allow their children to choose who to date because after all they(parents) also would not have wished to have been told who they should date. we are not living in the 18th century where people weren't allowed to choose who they dated or married, most of these marriages never lasted, and where they did it was not a happy one. If a parent is also making a decision based upon their own fears thinking from the head & not through the heart with love support, empathy & compassion how is it a unbiased decision.Back to pro
Should parents choose who you date? should have a say in your love life

I. Cross-ExaminationMy opponent only asked questions in her opening round, so I'll just go ahead and answer a few."In this day and age should your parents choose who you date? "Yes. The reasoning is pretty simple really. First, let's look at the main goal of a relationship. They have an evolutionary reason to exist. That reason being that they promote the possibility of reproduction. As we know, reproduction is vital to our species. Second, let's look at parents. No only have they successfully had a relationship, but they also have been able to produce offspring. So, they acheived the main goal of a relationship. This means they have knowledge of with who and how a successful relationship can emerge.Finally, with that in mind, we can conclude that parents are more able to judge who would be best to attain the core goal of dating. Not only that, but them doing so is a benefit to the species. So it would make sense that parents choose who their daughter date."Should they refuse you to date a person because of their financial status or status in the society?"Financial status and social status are 2 very important aspects of society. They are what the majority of people strive for. It would only be logical that a parent want his/her child to date a person that excels in these areas. That person will likely end up being better equipped to handle and protect his girlfriend. "Do they have a right to meddle in your love life?" Not an inherent right, but it's not like they need one. Parents are the gaurdians of a child. As such they take responsibility and also have power over the child. Not to mention the whole "You came from them" argument. The love life of the child is no different from any other aspect of it's life and holds no special right from the meddling of parents.II. Closing Remarks That's about it. My construct is held within my answers. Back to Con.
Should parents choose who you date? should have a say in your love life

I. Cross"Haven't you heard that two heads are better than one"Certainly have, however that's irrelevant because regardless of whether the child chooses who she dates or her parents, they will always be a couple. There isn't a sitaution where there is only one person in the relationship."you cannot rely on one parties salary, when both salaries are combined most of the times it is enough. "I never said you needed too. It's completely reasonable to think that a man with a good financial status and the girl both provide for eachother. Just because the parent's chose the partner that doesn't mean the daughter can't put in her own salary. So combining an average salary from the female with a good salary from the male is better than both providing an average salary. "So much could happen in between life one might get elevated, or fired so basing a relationship on financial status's not only wrong but foolish in my view,"You could literally make this argument for basing a relationship on anything. Simply vaguely assuming "life might change for the better" is not enough. One has to consider the current situation and base the decsion on how things will likely play out from there. "dating also doesn't mean you will get married to the man/woman it mostly a trial and error case. It may or may not work out."Did I not provide that exact argument in my last round? Dating is a testing phase. I'm saying that it makes sense for parent's to show different options to their child while allowing her to make the final decision on marriage. It's not like the parent's are the ones deciding who she marries, just giving her well-adjusted options. What's the harm in that? II. ConstructI'll restate my point. Parent's understand what makes a relationship work. They obviously had to. Therefore, them being responsible for showing their child options they think are best is completely reasonable. On the other hand, the child bases her choice on solely limmerence and nothing more objective. Out of the two, parents seem like the better option.
Should parents choose who you date? should have a say in your love life

1st of all children have a right to be with whomever they want and while I agree that parents have a say ultimately its the child's decision after all it is their life. Haven't you heard that two heads are better than one, you cannot rely on one parties salary, when both salaries are combined most of the times it is enough. So much could happen in between life one might get elevated, or fired so basing a relationship on financial status's not only wrong but foolish in my view, dating also doesn't mean you will get married to the man/woman it mostly a trial and error case. It may or may not work out. when it is all said and done the parents should therefore step aside and watch from a distance, if they spot something they should be careful when approaching their child.
Should parents choose who you date? should have a say in your love life

I. Cross-Examination1. Why does there need to be a sense of free will? You wouldn't let you're kid rummage around the medicine cabinet to give her a sense of free will.2. True, but a parent is not required to accept his/her child's decision. A parent makes the decision by being an impartial 3rd party nad therefore more objective. Actually, they aren't even impartial. The parent naturally has your best interest in mind.3. Why is improving a financia status better than having a good one to start with? It's better to start with good financial stability and improve on that than start with bad stability.4. Children above 18 do have the right to date whoever they want. That doesn't mean that his/her parent shouldn't have a say in your love life. They have a natural desire for their kid to be with best person possible. All you're basing your decision off of is mere limmerence, which is not an objective benefit. Next, my opponent goes on with saying that a parent will only base their decision off solely social status and financial stability. This is generally untrue as a a parent would most likely flip out if a man started disrespecting their child. Love on the other hand is ony thing a parent can't objectively look at as a pro or con. Since of coure they aren't the ones experiencing it. However, rational thinking would put stability and success of a mere chemical reaction.Finally, my opponent continues her argument by saying that generally, forced marriage leads to an unhappy one. I completely agree, but nobody is arguing about marriage, were talking about dating. The difference is dating is a method of trial for a relationship. Marriage being the decision that is made if the couple has chemistry. Parents having a say in who you date is simply a means of showing the option, in hope that a good spouse will appear. Marriage is something that should be left up to the child, as confirmation that they want to spend their life with said that person.Back to Con.
The Soviet IS tank family is superior to the US M4 tank family

Before I begin, I apologize for not listing my sources, according to militarfactory.com "her mechanical issues dogged the tank for the rest of its existence" and that "with her mechanical issues, the T-44's potential was never met, leading to an underwhelming existence. This again negates pros point about the tank's maneuverability, the tank is a sitting duck and "target practice" for the chaffee. Which with its smoke mortar, can approach the tank under the smokescreen to be able to score a close range hit on the t-44, which at such range, its armor will be useless. Next I would like to point out that this debate is over which is better, not who would win in a straight up fight (check the comments section, my opponent agreed to this to). And the Chafee is equipped for a very specialized role, reconnaissance. Knowing where the enemy is can win the battle, destroying one, maybe two, other tanks does not. Also, my opponent said that T-44s have more range and still work well as light tanks. First, the T-44 is twice as heavy as the chaffee, if the US wanted it to be armored it would be. But it is not, because it is a LIGHT tank and is not meant for fighting, it is meant for skirmishing and recon. Next, the T-44s range wouldn't matter if it is broken on the side of the road because of said mechanical issues. The t-44 also isn't good at recon if it is broken on the side of the road either. The Chaffee is a very successful tank in its role. I would like to point out again that if the US wanted the Chaffee to be armored it would be, but it is a light tank. The Chaffee doent have mechanical issues, unlike the T-44's that Military factory led to it having an "underwhelming existence". A broken tank is just a heap of metal. So what will you vote for, the heap of metal, or a highly successful tank in its role? Good debate pro, and may the best debater win. Sources http://www.militaryfactory.com... (The M24 one) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.russati.su... http://www.militaryfactory.com... (The t-44 one)
The Soviet IS tank family is superior to the US M4 tank family

"The First thing I have to say is that having a larger crew makes the M24 chaffee tank more tactical because it has more people, runs more efficiently, and 5 heads are better than 4." I would like to argue the exact opposite. Having 5 people instead of 4 means it is more difficult to communicate in battle (because there are more people) and harder for the commander to give out orders, once again, because there are more people to control. "The T-44, was discontinued due to widespread mechanical failures, particularly with its teething." My opponent has provided no sources to support this claim. In fact, the T-44 was discontinued simply because better, more modernized version came out. (T-44A, T-44-100 etc.) "Also, range isn't a huge issue because as long as it is refueled, the range doesn't matter." Well, of course it doesn't matter as long as there is fuel. That's why range is valued, because there are many situations in war when there IS NOT fuel available but the tank must keep functioning. "With the expense of materials needed to build a T-44, two M24s could be built, furnish the M24 with manpower and firepower and I would say two, smoke grenade launching, faster and more maneuverable M24s will beat one T-44." I agree with everything but the last part. Although it is cheaper, it is lower quality. It would be impossible for the M24s to win, simply because their gun (76 mm of penetration) would not be able to punch through the T-44's 120 mm thick armor. The T-44's gun, on the other hand, would tear through the paper armor of the M24s. Because of the fact that the M24 simply cannot penetrate the armor of the T-44, there is nothing that the M24 would be able to realistically do to damage the T-44. The M24 could resort to ramming, but the T-44 is much heavier and it would hurt the M24 much more than the T-44. In direct combat between a T-44 and an M24, the M24 would not stand a chance simply because of the poor penetration of the gun. The M24 could shoot all day long at the T-44 and would only be able to do damage if he got very, very lucky by hitting tiny weak spots, which is un-realistic. In the time that the M24 would be unloading, a single shot from the gun of the T-44 would take out the M24. By class, the T-44 is better as well. Not only can it function as a great medium tank, but it can also perform the function of light tank almost as well as the Chaffee. http://www.militaryfactory.com...... http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org...... http://www.militaryfactory.com...... As a result of the arguments presented above (especially the last point about armor and guns), I believe that the T-44 is superior to the M24 in almost every aspect and is in-comparable with the M24 in direct combat simply because it would not even be a competition. It would be target practice for the T-44 gunner. Thank you for the debate.
The Soviet IS tank family is superior to the US M4 tank family

The First thing I have to say is that having a larger crew makes the M24 chaffee tank more tactical because it has more people, runs more efficiently, and 5 heads are better than 4. Next, though the T-44 has greater armor and main tank gun, the chaffee has a smoke mortar to help prevent it from being hit until it can use its superior mobility (greater than the T-44) to ambush it. This means that the M24 chaffee tank doesn't need I would also like to draw attention to the fact that the Chafee is still used today, 70 years later. The T-44, was discontinued due to widespread mechanical failures, particularly with its teething. This means that the tanks longer range is negated by the fact that it may not work that long. Also, range isn't a huge issue because as long as it is refueled, the range doesn't matter. Finally, the M24 chaffee tank can turn faster, since it is twice as light, making it cheaper and easier to make more. With the expense of materials needed to build a T-44, two M24s could be built, furnish the M24 with manpower and firepower and I would say two, smoke grenade launching, faster and more maneuverable M24s will beat one T-44. Pros points have been successfully ben refuted while I have shown many reasons why the M24 is better.