BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be legal in all instances

1. Just because it is the status quo doesn't make it right. But you squash insects when it inconveiniences you, so why can't a pregnant women "squash" a fetus when it inconnviences her? 2. So can the vast majority of insects. That doesn't make it human. 3. Okay, agreed. 4. That in an intangible benefit, and the women may not want it at the moment. 5. No, the majority of aborted babies would be born out of wedlock. And most fathers in this instance do little to care for the baby. Yes, and if he wasn't willing, why does she have to bear the full brunt? 6. But the fetus cannot BEGIN to feel pain until 24 weeks. The pain argument is ridioculous, because eating animals for meat lowers utility more than killing a fetus. 7. If you were tortured all your life, you would want to die. So life isn't neccasarly better than the alternative. What does "viable" mean? If the baby has down syndrome, is it fair to force a poor women to take care of it alone? Who would want it? There is an overflowing amount of children up for adoption. Adding yet another because abortion was illegal is obscene. And finally, if abortion is illegal in the third trimester, some women will go "underground" and seek it anyway. Nothing is going to stop them, including the law. So shouldn't abortions be legal and covered by health insurance to prevent a women from getting a dangerous abortion and dying with her baby? And finally, I assume you are male, so what do you know of any of this? You have never been pregannt, never had to deliver a baby, etc. Why do you think you can tell people what to do based on your ethical idea that a 3rd trimester baby is more important than the mother?
Abortion should be legal in all instances

I'm going to refute your points, then create a counter-case of my own. 1. That is indeed a double-standard if we define "right to life" by sentience. However, this fails on two accounts. First, it assumes that our motivation is to treat all animals fairly instead of just protecting our young while slaughtering pigs for food (which has been the status quo since time immemorial). And second, it doesn't give us the right to kill fetuses. It could just as easily be a case against killing pigs. 2. An early-stage fetus may not have the same mental capacity as a born human, but it still has a brain and can respond to its environment. It is more than just a fertilized egg at this stage, so aborting it is not the same as preventing it. 3. God wants to cut open pregnant women in the Book of Hosea. I think we're in agreement that the Bible is not a valid source for anything. 4. A parasite exploits another organism to further its own needs, without providing benefit. In this case the fetus does provide the mother a benefit - it passes on her genes. 5. He is forced to bear the financial brunt though. Regardless, many girls get abortions because their boyfriend isn't willing to support the child, or they assumed that. If the dad was consulted, the mother may change her mind. 6. Memory and pain are different. Also, your logic implies that I could brutally torture you for three days as long as I wiped your memory afterwards. 7. Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative. Now for my counter-case. Remember, I have to show that abortion should be illegal in at least one circumstance. 3rd trimester abortions. Assuming the baby is viable, there is no reason to perform an abortion. We can simply remove it from the uterus and give it to somebody else to look after. Sure, the baby may have a sh!tty life, but it's still better than the alternative.
Abortion should be legal in all instances

Abortion should be legal in all instances because the human right to your own body covers abortions. 1.A fetus is less conscious then an adult pig or even a cow or chicken, yet we say it is okay to kill them. 2. Abortion is no different than birth control, because the fetus is not conscious, so removing it is the same as preventing it from being created. 3. If you claim the bible condemns it under "thou shall not kill" remember god flooded the world, killing countless pregnant women and fetuses, and has specifically ordered his followers to kill pregnant women, so obviously he does not consider an unborn child sacred. 4. Fetuses are parasites, living inside a women, at her expense. 5. Men should not have a say in abortion unless the women asks for his opinion because he is not forced to bear the brunt of pregnancy and childbirth. 6. Do you remember being in the womb? Do you think you would have felt pain were you aborted? 7. Is it really more ethical to force a women to have a baby and possibly drop out of school or lose her job,, and have a horrible life for her and her baby?
God is an alien

Yet, your definitions are still not acceptable to assimilate God and "alien". Here is the analysis of the definitions: *"a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization." We talk about a RESIDENT, here, which represents a person. Also, it implies ANOTHER country, which leads us to think there is A country at first, not present here. *"a foreigner." According to Dictionary.com, it also implies "a person" or a "thing" and again, God is neither one of them as He is not material in the human sense. *"a person who has been estranged or excluded." God is not excluded. Instead, He is included, He is present into us, our souls. *"a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial." God is neither from outer space nor extraterrestrial : He is present everywhere into us. I said we couldn't see Him because only our souls can. This does not mean he is from outer space. It's basically like saying He is from everywhere and nowhere at the same time
God is an alien

Hi, thanks for accepting ;) I can see that you do not understand my definitions and how they fit into god being an alien, but the ones you provided still apply. "a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen)." God is not belonging to any country on earth and has not acquired any form of citizenship "a foreigner" He is not human nor is he from earth, how can you come to being from a place you created? "a person who has been estranged or excluded." God is Excluded from our society by his own choice. "a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial." Once again, he created earth therefore it is impossible for him to have come from here. The only place other than earth is outer space In your last statement you say "He is said to live in a world our undeveloped mind cannot see...He thus doesn't fit in your def. of "alien"." You are implying that he lives in a world that is not earth, which does fit :)
God is an alien

Hello. I must not agree with you. I don't know where you received your information from, but according to Dictionary.com, the def. of "alien" can be either: 1. a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen). 2. a foreigner 3. a person who has been estranged or excluded. 4. a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial. Now, I cannot find any of those defin. being anyhow related to the meaning of God in the Christian faith. Indeed, most of Christians believe in a Holy Trinity, made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Soul, but none of them are believed to be "material" in the human perspective. God is immaterial and can only be seen, according to the Christian faith, by the soul of an earthly material human. Christians do not believe God lives somewhere in the space or the clouds. No. He is said to live in a world our undeveloped mind cannot see... He thus doesn't fit in your def. of "alien".
God is an alien

God is an alien. We're talking about the Christian god here. I am proposing that god is an alien because god is not a permanent resident of earth and exists outside of earth. These three definitions below help support what i'm talking about. Definition of alien: 1. extraterrestrial being: a form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its atmosphere 2. stranger: anyone who does not belong in the environment in which they are found 3. being or from or characteristic of another place or part of the world; "alien customs"; "exotic plants in a greenhouse"; "exotic cuisine"
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

Montana helped his team to 31 fourth quarter come-from-behind wins. That is something that Steve Young could not hope to accomplish. Montana threw many game winning touchdown passes. He is a member of the NFL 1980s All-Decade Team. Sports Illustrated named him the number one clutch quarterback of all time. He has gotten his teams to many super bowls Joe Montana might not be the greatest of all time but he most certainly a better quarterback than Steve Young. Yes i think Steve Young is good but not as good as Joe Montana.
The hardest thing to do in sports is to hit a baseball

Hardest thing to do in sports is NOT to hit a baseball. Just some facts: Fastest: fastball - 101/103 mph Jai-alai ball - 188 mph slapshot - 105.4 open-wheel racecar - 256.948 mph speed-skier - 160 mph Supposing the reaction time of an individual in baseball to be based on a 103 mpg fastball (instead of the more normal 90...) - here are the distances at which one has the same time to react: Jai-Alai: 109.5 feet Hockey: 61.4 feet Racing: 149.7 feet Skiing: 93.2 feet Any event happening closer than those thresholds gives an actor LESS time to react than a batter in baseball. Oh, and the batter knows the ball is coming. If any of these events are SURPRISES... Here are a list of many things in sports that are much harder to do: - pitch a perfect game - pitch a perfect season - pitch a perfect career - sink a hole-in-one in golf - sink a hole-in-one in disc golf - catch a jai alai ball from under 100 feet away - avoid a sudden collision at 225 mph - recover from a mistake in speed-skiing - in an ancient Mayan sport, the losing captain was killed - remaining alive was VERY hard Furthermore, several sports beside baseball require the athlete to perform some feat or risk death. The combination of these feats and the penalty involved renders them far more difficult to properly perform than to hit a fastball. These sports include: Jai Alai Speed Skiing BASE Jumping Free Diving Rock Fishing Bull Riding Supercross Solo Yacht Racing Street Luging ************************** I have shown a list of not only more difficult sports than baseball (wherein the acts must be harder than the acts in baseball if the sport is harder), and a list of many specific activities in sports that are all harder than hitting a baseball. NEGATED.
1.999 repeating = 2

Well there is tension in a lot of debates. The ones about religion can get really bad... That is actually the reason I took this debate, because since I am not a mathematician I could do this without caring TOO much about it, and joke around a little in the process. As far as your argument goes, I would say that I have run out of good arguments about 4 rounds ago and I am just holding on for the sake of it! I would really like to ask an older, more educated math professor about this, but that is the thing: the most respected math teacher I know at my university did Tarzan's exact proof on the board for us in class! I ended up failing out of calc 2 and ditching math afterwards... Honestly, my opinion is of no consequence and I only argued this case for the sake of arguing, and because people in the comments section seemed to be egging it on some. Otherwise, good debate, you DID make some good points...
1.999 repeating = 2

I think the following example is good evidence that addition, substraction, multiplication, and divison break down when used on the repeating form of a number. For example, people who claim that you can add repeating numbers do the following: 000.333 repeating + 0.666 repeating ----------------------- 000.999 repeating (Sorry for writing the three extra zeros in front of the decimal point, but I wanted to align the three repeating numbers) So as you can see, they add the numbers as if they were finite numbers, and then write repeating at the end. But let's see what happens when we add the following two repeating forms of the following numbers: 000.999 repeating + 0.999 repeating ------------------------- 001.998 repeating (Again, sorry for writing the extra zeros in front of the decimal point, but I wanted to align the three repeating numbers) As we can clearly see, addition breaks down in this case (unless now you want to debate that 1.998 repeating equals 2). This is because, as I stated earlier, this forms of writing a number go on infinitely, and we can never finish completing the full addition of all the terms. Similar logic can prove that substraction, multiplication, and division cannot be performed on repeating forms of a number. By the way, if you click on the second wiki reference that I gave, the very first line says: "In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number". You say that you are a non-mathematician, and that is fine, but it clearly says that "an irrational number is any real number that is not a rational number", therefore an irrational number can never equal a rational number. If you read the definition of the two numbers, it indicates that rational numbers can be written as the ratio of two integers, but irrational numbers cannot. In other words, rational numbers can be obtained by dividing two integers, but irrational numbers cannot. By the way, I don't want to make this personal, so I apologize if there has been some tension between our comments. Actually I am glad we are having this debate because it has made me think a lot, haha.
1.999 repeating = 2

Your arguments do make some sense to me, as a non-mathematician, but when I look back at the proof I am still not convinced that you can't subtract 1.999 rep. from 19.999 rep. to make 18. Your wiki references did not say "a rational number can never equal an irrational number", unless you can direct me to the spot they do. Also, please give me some evidence that specifically says that you absolutely cannot subtract a rep. decimal, especially when it is simply to cancel out a similar rep. decimal. With all the tricks mathematicians use to find answers, I have a hard time believeing that this one is not in their arsenal.
1.999 repeating = 2

Your best argument is an inability to do the addition/subtraction to get the result in the proof. But this makes no sense. Addition cannot be undefined in this way, because we work with these numbers all the time. A third plus a third is two thirds. The fact that a third equals a repeating number does not automatically mean that a third is undefined and you can't add it. You try and make a distinction BETWEEN a third and 1.999 rep., because you can't divide two numbers to get it, but that leads us back to the same old argument: why can't a rational number not be equal to an irrational number? I still believe that your arguments are just not as convincing as Tarzan's proof is. You say that 19.999 repeating minus 1.999 repeating is equal to 18.000 repeating plus one. Maybe I should instruct you on what infinity is, so that you don't botch it in our debate. Infinity goes on forever, so you would never have the chance to put that one in there, and besides, I don't see any reason AT ALL to even think that there MIGHT be a one at the end anyway. your definition did not include that a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. You say that it can't but us debaters on here are probably not just going to take your word for it. Saying that I could check it in a math book is not enough to show your case. Give us some exact wording that can be cross checked so that we can indeed see that a rational number can never be equal to an irrational number. your definitions are simply not as convincing as actually doing the math, kennard. The math works, and your definitions seem somewhat indirect and possibly misinterpreted. If my opinion of tarzan's proof is subjective, then so is your interpretation and application of your definitions. I fail to see why your position is one of objectivity and mine is one of subjectivity. "I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to identify the difference between a board that is 1.88 feet long and a board that is 2 feet long." Why did you write this? The difference is .12 feet. If you meant to say 1.888 repeating, then the difference is .111 repeating feet. This is such a bad argument that I am hoping you just mistyped something in there, otherwise the fact that you can't see something that is over an inch long is your error, not tarzan's. 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 =1, just like 0.333 rep. + 0.333 rep. + 0.333 rep. =1 . This leads to the conclusion that 0.333 rep. must be equal to that number that is *just* a little higher (~0.3334) that would more satisfyingly represent a full third, in the same way that 1.999 rep. represents that number that is *just* a little higher that is 2.
1.999 repeating = 2

All rhetoric (j/k everything on here is all rhetoric). There is no reason why a rational number cannot be equal to an irrational number. Your definitions are great, but they don't necessarily preclude any possibility that the two could be equal to each other, only that the two cannot be IDENTICAL to each other. Tarzan's proof is rock solid and your semantical arguments are attempts at struggling to find any way you can not to believe something that is hard to accept. A board that is 1.999 repeating feet long is just as long as a board that is 2 feet long, because you can never identify the difference in length. How much less than 2 is 1.999 repeating? If they are in fact different values, than you should be able to extrapolate the difference between them. Also, a full third is 0.333 repeating. But if you simply look at the number, 0.333 repeating SEEMS like it is *just* a little less than a third, because the numbers don't do it justice, in the same way that 1.999 repeating doesn't quite do justice to represent 2. If you multiply .333 repeating by 3 you get .999 repeating, which is equal to 1 because three thirds are a whole. A=1.999 repeating multiply by 10 10A=19.999... subtract A from both sides 9A=18 <----- this is the part most people are uneasy about. but 19.999... minus 1.999... is equal to 18. How can you refute this? divide by 9 A=2 elementary, my dear watson How can you not add a repeating decimal??? Does this mean I can't add three thirds to get a whole? Aren't all numbers repeating decimals, with zeros on each end?
1.999 repeating = 2

My main point in this argument is that 1.9999 repeating CANNOT equal 2 because 1.999 repeating is an irrational number, while the number 2 is a rational number. Since a number cannot be rational and irrational at the same time, then 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal 2. The definition of a rational number is a number that can be expressed as a fraction (or ratio) p/q where p and q are integers and q is not equal to zero. The definition of an irrational number is a number that cannot be expressed as a fraction p/q for any integers p and q. The number 2 is obviously a rational number, since, it can be written as 8/4 (since 8 divided by 4 equals 2). However, there are no two integers p and q, that divided (or which ratio) give 1.999 repeating. We should realize that there are other repeating decimals such as 0.333 repeating, 0.666 repeating, or 1.333 repeating that CAN be written as ratios of two integers, and therefore are rational numbers. For the numbers given above this would be: 0.333 repeating = 1/3 0.666 repeating = 2/3 1.333 repeating = 4/3 As we can easily see, by dividing 1 by 3, we get 0.333 repeating. I want to point out that the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 1 for this case) is zero. Therefore, the first number in performing the division is 0. and then as we keep performing the division we get 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, etc. This shows that 1/3 equals 0.333 repeating. Similar reason can be used with 0.666 repeating and 1.333 repeating. However, if we divide 6 by 3 (for example) we can only obtain 2. It is impossible to obtain 1.999 repeating by dividing 6 by 3 since the number of times that the divisor (the number 3 for this case) is contained in the dividend (the number 6 for this case) is 2. This shows that it is impossible to obtain the number 1 as the first term in the number 1.999 repeating. Since there are no two integer numbers whose ratio gives 1.999 repating then we must conclude this is an irrational number, and as stated above, that 1.999 repeating CANNOT equal the number 2. As a final note, I will like to indicate that operations such as addition, multiplication, substraction, and division are undefined for repeating decimals such as 0.333 repeating or 0.999 repeating. This operations are defined for fractions, but not for repeating decimals. Hence this operations cannot be used to prove that 0.999 repeating equals 2. Thanks.
Rap Battle

This guy has faulty neurophysiology if he thinks he's gonna body meif he don't stop, I'll slit his thoat like I'm giving him a tracheotomyI'm gunnin, i'll grip the nine, snap his spine and make his body rewindhave his body in a bag, like it's the new fashion-- calvin kleinI'm in my prime, I always give an optimal performanceinfnite stamina, and my dick is ginormous You gotta bring better bars to get the victoryI'm vicious like a cannibal, with better strats than hannibalyour life is historysplash~
Rap Battle Tournament - Round 2

I'm trying not to laugh, but I felt impressed first. Since you posted a blank page, I'd say that's your best verse! Nice way to confirm that its over. your battle closer was bitching to the voters. I've spent every night of my life stressed wide awake, and you're sitting here telling me you need a break!? you fell short to my lyrical complexity, let's be honest kid, it's a miracle you're next to me. once the fuse is lit, I can't diffuse this sh*t. I'd lose my shi if I ever choose to quit. spent time as a child abused and hit I still used to spit with my lips bruised and split. I've had enough of you TWG, after I spit this, I'll grab my pen and cross you off my hit list. you think I panic why you spit? try damn it. you'll see how I plan it, as you sink like the titanic. Even your "master pieces", I'd smash to pieces. Your last " releases" were in fact diseases. I'll crack your thesis and attack the pieces. Flashback. look at you try to rap like your half black. bring your mic and your "skill" and get laughed at. won't waste good lines, I'll stash that. you'll never make a cash stack, sittin' on your asscrack! You ever host a show, I'll come to diss ya' set. you look like you work out but missed the reps. [1] you b*tch like you can't play so you get pissed at refs [2] you try to disrespect and I'll twist ya neck til it disconnects. I bet that hurts rapping like Lil Wayne, in fact worse. I'll finish you off with my favorite line from your last verse: "............................................................ " [1] just finding a different way to say he clearly doesn't work out [2] referring to terrible sports players who blame their bad plays on shitty referees. -RayPtheRapp