BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Rights

My thing is the more gun rights we allow others to have the more crimes there will be and the murders as well. I beleieve that just because the 2nd amendment say: you have the right to bear arms does not mean that when you turn the age you can go out and purchase guns. I can see if this country was invaded and others country's troops were in this country. But we are at. We should not allow Americans to have the right to purchse Military weapons. A small hand gun is fine. The problem I have is many americans have Military size weapons and they are not or have never served their country at war.
Palestinian sesame street

Thanks for proposing such an interesting topic. I accept and offer the following resolution:Resolved: The Palestinian Sesame Street show should not be cancelled. BoP is on both sides to prove why it should or should not be cancelled.Definitions:Palestinian Sesame Street (PSS)- also known as Shara'a Simsim in Arabic, the PSS is a show on Palestinian television produced by Sesame Workshop that is similar to the American Sesame Street [1]cancelled- abolish or make void [2]I now open the floor for my opponent to post his case. Sources:1. http://www.independent.co.uk...;2. http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
Palestinian sesame street

Unfortunately this debate has ended without the affirmative giving a single argument as to why the PSS should be cancelled. He obviously ignores all the arguments I have presented hence this debate is somewhat like a forfeit. The last few rounds have all been about how Palestinians are Muslims-great! Even if there were two shows called Sesame Street we have to look to the ACTUAL show, not whatever similar trait they share in common (religion). The fact of the matter is Pro never explains why the ACTUAL PSS should be cancelled, but rather other Middle-Eastern shows. Thus it is quite obvious that the helpful and cheerful Palestinian Sesame Street should not be cancelled.
Palestinian sesame street

I will finish the debate off. Con again doesn't even respond to a vast majority of my arguments/rebuttals so they can all be extended across the flow. He then states that Palestinian people are people of Islam, hence that is the same as Muslim Sesame Street. This is completely absurd. They are DIFFERENT shows. Even if they were both called the same thing, they are not the same show and this is not pertinent by any means. Hence my opponent still provides almost no arguments so there isn't much of point in discussing this anymore.
Palestinian sesame street

Due to studying I can only post a few sentences:Alright so Pro yet again posts irrelevant videos. None of those are from the PSS. "Muslim" Sesame Street is not the same as PSS. He also brings up a new argument (conduct) that Congress had the right to axe it. However this does not justify on whether or not that was the correct action. Just because I have the "right" to kill someone doesn't mean that was correct. I shall elaborate in the further rounds and I open the floor for my opponent.
Palestinian sesame street

1. my friends, if it is aired then people will see it, no mater if it was intentional or not. 2. how about this people telling children to kill america http://www.youtube.com... and nice try that picture is just the logo not the cariters C1. Congress has the right to axe it. With Palestinian states now energing, they can fund it them selves. Put yourself in your parents shoes would you want your children watching a rascist violent Tv show. More errotic stuff 1. The birds the bees and suiside http://www.youtube.com... 2. more suiside http://www.youtube.com... 3. Muslum Mickey Mouse, Blame the Jews http://www.youtube.com... 4. Mickey teaches kids to comit terrorism, http://www.youtube.com...
Palestinian sesame street

1.they teach children to be racists http://www.youtube.com... 2. teach children to kill people http://www.youtube.com... 3. reach children genocide is okay http://www.youtube.com... 4. muslum mickey mouse tells kids to kill Jews http://www.youtube.com... 5. they've got a Jew eating rabit http://www.youtube.com... 6. They make more trubble showing Jew killing Mickey http://www.youtube.com... We wounder why the terrorists are in the middle east. nead I go on
Abortion

[Definitions] For clarity I pose the following definitions. Trimester: 3 months Conception: meeting of the sperm and egg [Contention] I hereby propose illegalizing abortion after the 21st day of conception except to save a woman's life, or in the case of rape or incest. [Reasoning] On the 21st day after conception the fetal heart starts to beat and most major organs are functioning. The common law definition of death is the stoppage of a heartbeat and most functioning organs. Most of the laws of the United States are based off common law. Since death is considered to be the opposite of life, life should be defined as the start of the human heart. My opponent will probably point out that brain activity is not present until much later, and humans as a race are defined by the brain. I completely agree, and propose the fetus is life with certain human potential. Clearly we already grant life with certain human potential the right to life. Examples being severe mental retardation, coma victims, etc. Unless they otherwise stated in a concious state, they are kept alive if they have the potential to have a reasonable quality of life. Clearly fetuses have that potential with a much higher chance of realizing that than a coma victim or severly mentally retarded person. Additionally United States Law by established legal precedent as well as by written statutes have established that fetuses indeed are human even though I have conceeded that they are not. Murder by US law is the intentional killing of another human. 35 states classify the killing of a fetus as murder (http://www.lifenews.com...) Therefore 35 States recognize fetuses as human. With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected. I believe that the fetus's right to life supersedes a mother's right to convienence. I do not believe that the government should continue to allow mothers to trespass on the rights of the fetus.
Abortion

_____________________________________________________________________ Pro will argue that abortion should be legal, Con will argue that abortion should be illegal. _____________________________________________________________________ Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus http://www.merriam-webster.com... _____________________________________________________________________ One may not win by default. Both sides must defend their position in order to win and cannot simply refute their opponent's position. I will allow my opponent to begin as I'm a lazy douche. Good luck!
Abortion

"You must show why abortions should be legal, showing that some states consider a fetus to be alive does not show that A)It is alive and B)Abortions should be illegal." My opponent is clearly either delusional or purposely misrepresenting the debate. 1. I have shown that states consider a fetus to be human, not just alive 2. I have given reasoning and clear statements for why a fetus should be considered human 3. I have also given reasoning and shown why abortions should be illegal. My opponent has not even addressed my points, let alone refute them. He has made no points of his own except to incorrectly denote my claim as fallacious and purposefully or delusionally misrepresent my criterion for the right to life. "If the law cannot be relied upon to suport my resolution than why do you rely on the law to support yours?" I don't use the law to support my argument? "You said yourself that a fetus is not alive but only has the potential to be alive. It is not considered a person until after it is born." Nowhere did I say or even allude to this. I said as is clearly evident from rereading what I said that a fetus is alive with the potential to be human. Also I never said it is not considered a person until after it is born, I said that it should be considered a human when it has sufficient cognitive development, which is evident after the 12th week with alterations with the fetuses heartbeat in response to the mothers voice(http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com...) and detectable brain waves(http://webspace.ship.edu...) "This has nothing to do with the actual debate so there is no reason to respond." Logical analogies that prove your logic to be inconsistent have a place in this debate. I have given complete reasoning for why abortion should be illegal after the 21st day and provided clear logical reasoning. My opponent has not only failed to attack any of my points but has failed to make any points of his own.
Abortion

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. My opponent points out no fallacy while calling my claim fallacious. This is an ubstantiated claim and should be viewed as such until my opponent proves my logic to be fallacious. 2. My opponent clearly ignores what I wrote and attempts to misconstrue it for his own gain. I awarded the right to life to life with certain human potential. Unless my opponent discovers not only a heartbeat in a sperm but also the certain potential to spontaneously become human, this point stands. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "1. My opponent makes his entire resolution based off of authority. It is an appeal to authority but is not fallicious and supports the resolution. If the resolution wasn't about being illegal, then I would agree that the claim was fallicious. However, this resolution requires to me to show why abortion should be illegal." You must show why abortions should be legal, showing that some states consider a fetus to be alive does not show that A)It is alive and B)Abortions should be illegal. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "A fetus is not human as I clearly stated above which you even quoted in the second sentence of your R2. I'm simply showing that the law perceives (incorrectly) fetuses to be human in 35 states as supporting evidence for why abortions should be illegal due to established statutes. In other words, there is a contradiction between the law counting fetuses as humans in murder cases while not counting them as humans in abortion cases. If anything my statement shows that the law is imperfect and thus cannot be relied upon to support your resolution." If the law cannot be relied upon to suport my resolution than why do you rely on the law to support yours? And you pointed that the law was incorrect so there is no reason to even mention it. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "It is more unfair to take away the life of another due to the inconvience of one person. " You said yourself that a fetus is not alive but only has the potential to be alive. It is not considered a person until after it is born. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "It's unfair that spedometers can break while someone is on the road and they can unintentionally speed and possibly get caught by a policeman and still have to pay a fine. Thus speeding should be legalized." This has nothing to do with the actual debate so there is no reason to respond. _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Abortion

"To say that a fetus should not be aborted because it has the potential for life is utterly fallacious. By your logic we should outlaw masturbation as every time a guy finishes he is ending millions of potential lives." 1. My opponent points out no fallacy while calling my claim fallacious. This is an ubstantiated claim and should be viewed as such until my opponent proves my logic to be fallacious. 2. My opponent clearly ignores what I wrote and attempts to misconstrue it for his own gain. I awarded the right to life to life with certain human potential. Unless my opponent discovers not only a heartbeat in a sperm but also the certain potential to spontaneously become human, this point stands. "This is more like an appeal to authority. " 1. My opponent makes his entire resolution based off of authority. It is an appeal to authority but is not fallicious and supports the resolution. If the resolution wasn't about being illegal, then I would agree that the claim was fallicious. However, this resolution requires to me to show why abortion should be illegal. "You did not show why a fetus is a human." A fetus is not human as I clearly stated above which you even quoted in the second sentence of your R2. I'm simply showing that the law perceives (incorrectly) fetuses to be human in 35 states as supporting evidence for why abortions should be illegal due to established statutes. In other words, there is a contradiction between the law counting fetuses as humans in murder cases while not counting them as humans in abortion cases. If anything my statement shows that the law is imperfect and thus cannot be relied upon to support your resolution. "What I am saying is that there will always be exceptions and it is unfair to force someone to have a child when they have taken all of the necessary precautions." It is more unfair to take away the life of another due to the inconvience of one person. It's unfair that spedometers can break while someone is on the road and they can unintentionally speed and possibly get caught by a policeman and still have to pay a fine. Thus speeding should be legalized. My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments nor presented any of his own, therefore I have nothing to refute. Extend all arguments.
Abortion

I accept my opponent's definitions. _____________________________ "My opponent will probably point out that brain activity is not present until much later, and humans as a race are defined by the brain. I completely agree, and propose the fetus is life with certain human potential. " To say that a fetus should not be aborted because it has the potential for life is utterly fallacious. By your logic we should outlaw masturbation as every time a guy finishes he is ending millions of potential lives. "Additionally United States Law by established legal precedent as well as by written statutes have established that fetuses indeed are human even though I have conceeded that they are not." If you have conceded that they are not alive then posting legal precedent that they are does not further your own argument and is unnecessary. "35 states classify the killing of a fetus as murder (http://www.lifenews.com......) Therefore 35 States recognize fetuses as human." This is more like an appeal to authority. You did not show why a fetus is a human. You only showed that certain states say it is. "With the advanced medical contraceptives of today such as Condoms, Birth Control, and the Day after pill, Women have a choice whether to have a child or not. And that choice has to be made 3 days within sexual activity. With the day after pill available at local walmarts for considerably less than an abortion would cost, there is little to no reason as to not be protected." Condoms can snap and contraceptives can fail and the morning after pill is not 100% effective and can cause side effects which may discourage a woman from using it. One could theoretically use all three of these measures and still end up pregnant. Although a longshot, this person has done everything in order to be protected and yet still became pregnant. What I am saying is that there will always be exceptions and it is unfair to force someone to have a child when they have taken all of the necessary precautions.
The Hulk would beat Superman in a fight

My opponent claims that intellect is not enough of an advantage for Superman to beat Hulk. However brawns equal very little without brains to decide what to do. Superman has comparable strength to that of Hulk and combined with his far superior intellect, Superman would win in the event of a fight with Hulk. My opponent would have you believe that strength equals everything however this is simply not true as it takes brains to decide on one's actions. Allowing the intellect to decide what he does rather than succumb to blind rage puts Superman at a sizeable advantage.
The Hulk would beat Superman in a fight

Sorry for the delay, my internet has been acting up. Anyways, my opponents main argument is that Superman would defeat the Hulk because he has more intellect. I do not take this as a valid argument. Just because he is smarter means he would win? How would he win? What would he do? Brains aren't always stronger than brawn Just because the may not be as smart as Superman doesn't mean he would not win. And, as I have said before, the Hulk is physically stronger than Superman.
The Hulk would beat Superman in a fight

//"My opponent does have a point on the fact that if Superman could calm the Hulk down he could overpower him and dispose of him. But that would require both that the Hulk could be tricked into doing this, and that Superman wold have the morals to do so. Superman, being the stereotypical good guy, would not resort to trickery."// Hulk could be tricked into doing this in that he as you pointed out let's his rage control himself. Also, Superman could make himself do it if innocent lives were in danger. If it's a choice between tricking The Hulk and allowing innocent people to die, the moral thing to do is choose the lesser of two evils. //"Also, Superman does have superior intellect, the Hulk is not stupid. You may disagree to this, but, over the years, the Hulk has developed a stronger mind. So, although he does let his rage control him, he ,most likely cannot be outwitted by trickery."// The Hulk is at an intellectual disadvantage though in that he allows his rage to control his mind. So Hulk can be outwitted since his mind is weaker than Superman's in that Superman has a sober mind while Hulk lets his rage get the best of him. My point that Hulk and Superman have strength comparable to one another is that in strength neither of them necessarily have the advantage, however with Superman's supereior intellect he could outsmart the Hulk and win.
The Hulk would beat Superman in a fight

My opponent does have a point on the fact that if Superman could calm the Hulk down he could overpower him and dispose of him. But that would require both that the Hulk could be tricked into doing this, and that Superman wold have the morals to do so. Superman, being the stereotypical good guy, would not resort to trickery. Also, Superman does have superior intellect, the Hulk is not stupid. You may disagree to this, but, over the years, the Hulk has developed a stronger mind. So, although he does let his rage control him, he ,most likely cannot be outwitted by trickery. You yourself said that Superman has strength COMPARABLE to he Hulks. Not greater. Superman would not be able to just pick up the Hulk and throw him into space unless he struck the Hulk a mighty enough blow to render him unconscious, or unable to defend himself some other way, in which case the battle would already be won. It would be a mighty battle indeed, but over time, the Hulk would eventually overpower and defeat Superman. As the battle go on, the Hulk would get stronger as Superman would get weaker. Also, the strength of the Hulk is unknown. He once destroyed a meteor the size of the earth in a single punch. So, theoretically he has the strength to life over a billion tons at once. I think that this is more than enough to defeat superman.
The Hulk would beat Superman in a fight

Personally I do not know much about comic books and the like so please excuse me if I look like a complete idiot. A)The Hulk gets angrier as he fights. I am afraid this puts the Hulk at a disadvantage as this means that it is possible for him to lose all of his powers in the event that he cools off. Superman could simply calm Hulk down and when he is calm enough to turn back into Bruce Banner, Superman can simply throw him into the sun. B)with skin tough enough to withstand lava Although Hulk may have skin tough enough to withstand lava, body attacks are not the only thing in Superman's arsenal. Superman could simply throw Hulk into space where he couldn't breathe or drop him into a deep pit. C)never mind Superman's laser vision Lazer vision is not the only power that Superman possesses. Superman aslo has strength comparable to that of Hulk's and this combined with his superior intellect would allow Superman to beat Hulk in a fight. Resolution negated.
UK Speed Limit

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2012 Annual Report states In 2012, there were a total of 195,723 casualties of all seventies in road accidents reported to the police, 4 per cent lower than in 2011. There were 1,754 people killed, an 8 per cent decrease from 2011 and 23,039 were seriously injured, down 0.4 per cent. Vehicle traffic levels remained broadly stable for the second year running, though there was a small fall of 0.4 per cent between 2011 and 2012. Our best current estimate derived from NTS data is that the total of number of road casualties in Great Britain annually, including those not reported to the police, is within the range 630 thousand to 790 thousand with a central estimate of 710 thousand. This is based on data for the five year period from 2008 to 2012
There is an afterlife

I thank you for your courtesy Norden, and I will attempt to keep on time with my responses from now on. It seems that neither of us were on topic in the previous round. But here we go; Once again the topic has brought us back to the god debate. You argue that the big bang had to be cause by something, which is true, but if you claim that God made it, then who made God? This is a problem neither side can deal with yet, because if you say God made himself, then big bang believers can say that the vacuum was always there. But I digress, this is an unrelated and inconclusive discussion. My first point, regarding the biological impossibility of an afterlife due to the end of the brain and therefore, conscience, disproves the idea of an afterlife. Awaiting your response, Duncan