BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The christian god exists

there is a difference between the apostles who were martyred and the modern day muslim martry. the apostles claimed to have seen Jesus. as to miracles, i've cited some in the debate on this subject i'm having. http://www.debate.org...you seem perhaps receptive to at least things that seem to be miracles to some people. so where is your examples happening to atheists? that is a standing debate ive had for a long time at this website, and i have never gotten even one example. all i've gotten are rationalizations for twhy they happen to believers and not atheists. angels of death are not just a jewish concept. first, angels are part of christian religion too. second, judiasm is a precurser religion to christinaity so their concepts have some basis in christianity as well. while some NDEs are made up, there is plenty of testimony to know most are not made up.
Ohio state deserved the playoffs more than Clemson

I believe that Ohio State did not deserve the playoffs more than Clemson. Ohio State lost to Penn State and, Beat Northwestern University by 4, which may I add is not that impressive for a school who was beaten by twice as much to Maryland University. Michigan State has been having a very bad season, and Ohio State only beat them by one. Michigan was believed to be a powerhouse this year but almost lost to Michigan State. Ohio State beat U of M by a field goal in the fourth quarter. Clearly Clemson proved their worth when they blew out Ohio State, and won the NCAA Championship.
Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarian cause animal cruelty thus are animal abusers.

Resolution: Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarian cause animal cruelty thus are animal abusers. Con is arguing that Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarians are not animal abusers based on two main points. Ignorance and survival. First Con argues that people think they are buying eggs for survival and that counts as enough. Regardless of whether eggs are needed for survival. Which poses a question? If there is an animal that you perceive as a threat, yet is no threat at all and you attack it out of a sense of survival, does this count as animal cruelty or not? As for B12 "Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives" [1] "Vitamin B12 deficiency is estimated to affect 10%-15% of people over the age of 60"[2] As you can see B12 is gained from microorganisms not animal products. Also, plenty of elderly people who eat animal products have B12 deficiency. " Again, I don't see how a supposedly unhealthy diet can make you guilty of animal cruelty." Con Because if the diet is healthy, then an argument could be made for survival. Hypothetically speaking if eggs were the healthiest food on the planet, it would not be animal cruelty because of the survival exception. Overall there is some wisdom in Con's argument. That people are brainwashed into thinking eggs are healthy. So, therefore they are acting out of a sense of perceived survival by listening to the media. There has to be some limit to the ignorance defense. Let's take a human on human violent interaction. Let's say person A gets scared by person B. Person A then shoots and kills person B and claims self-defense. Yet, not every killer gets off on the self-defense clause. If person B was unarmed, asleep, and 2,000 feet away this would make a very poor defense. The same goes with animals. If a bunch of pigeons were in the middle of a city eating bread crumbs and somebody started firing at them. It would be hard to use a self-defense or survival excuse. At what point do we stop making excuses about ignorance and mass media telling us what to do and own up to our actions? Pretty much everyone has heard of the word vegan and healthy vegans in magazines. "If people who eat eggs are animal abusers than your are too simply because you are using your computer. Computer's are used at slaughterhouses so you must be cruel to animals." Con I see no relation between using a computer and being an animal abuser. "Ignorance does not make someone guilty. Culture is learned. They don't know any different. Ignorance does make someone innocent." Con For how long can one remain ignorant? At what point does personal responsibility take precedence? Remember ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law. Yes, you could make a valid argument that a one year old fed an egg would be innocent. Eating out of a sense of survival. Yet, there isn't that many Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarians. Many of them at least twenty years old. The majority of them are old enough to know better. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarian cause animal cruelty thus are animal abusers.

My opponent makes four counter-arguments. 0. My sources are bias Pro's response: Bias or otherwise, doesn't effect the validity of the information. 1. "I argue that since the dairy and meat industry is a large part of our food procurement system as a society, its purpose is for survival. Maybe not for the individual, but is for our culture as a whole." Con Pro's response: I don't see upholding the culture as a valid reason for continuing to perform an unhealthy and cruel act. 2. "they cannot afford the "farm raised" eggs that make you a good person all of a sudden." Con Pro response: I'm not sure what you mean by farm raised, if you mean cage-free or free range from the supermarket those eggs are more or less factory farmed. If you are suggesting eggs from the local farm, there is still cruelty in even small local farms. Eggs from small local farms are still unhealthy. "The bad: This food is high in Saturated Fat, and very high in Cholesterol." [1] According to the data at nutrition facts, 4.86 large eggs have 343% cholesterol, 37% fat, and 38% saturated fat. Yet, only 347 calories. 3. "Someone who buys eggs at the grocery store who is looking for the best deal is not doing so because they have a choice. That is what is available and they must feed their family. Most Americans have grown up and are acculturated to see eggs as a needed food source. Because of this they cannot see how other foods will provide the same nourishment." Con Pro's response: The culture needs to change. You make an excellent argument for banning eggs. Since individuals do not need eggs nor are eggs the healthiest nor the cheapest option. Eggs aren't the healthiest because of their high cholesterol, fat, and saturated fat content. Grains are much cheaper per calorie than eggs. If you look at this table you will see eggs are not the most economic choice. [2] Links: 1. http://nutritiondata.self.com... 2. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...
Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarian cause animal cruelty thus are animal abusers.

First off, all of your sources are from bias websites that support your opinion. Either way I still feel you are wrong. I would even argue that people who straight up eat meat are not causing animal cruelty and are not animal abusers. You reference "forcefully impregnating cows"( which I am assuming you are dropping into the "rape" category of your animal cruelty definition) is a weak argument. It is well known that cows do not have sex for pleasure. This method of impregnating them is for their own benefit. Cows are a domesticated animal, meaning they are bred to have the characteristics that we desire. This domestication has caused some complications. One of them being that they hurt themselves during sex. This artificial impregnation method is done to not hurt the cow and actually protect them from themselves. Your definition of cruelty to animals... "is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival". I argue that since the dairy and meat industry is a large part of our food procurement system as a society, its purpose is for survival. Maybe not for the individual, but is for our culture as a whole. That being said, your definition disproves your point. Someone who buys eggs at the grocery store who is looking for the best deal is not doing so because they have a choice. That is what is available and they must feed their family. Most Americans have grown up and are acculturated to see eggs as a needed food source. Because of this they cannot see how other foods will provide the same nourishment. On top of that, because of their low paying jobs, they cannot afford the "farm raised" eggs that make you a good person all of a sudden. Your whole argument is based on ignorance and the choice to view bias media sources that are trying to get your views for advertising money.
Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarian cause animal cruelty thus are animal abusers.

I Pro will argue for the subject.Con will argue against the subject." Lacto-vegetarian is sometimes used to describe a vegetarian who does not eat eggs, but does eat dairy products. Many Hindu vegetarians are lacto-vegetarians who avoid eggs for religious reasons while continuing to eat dairy. Ovo-vegetarian refers to people who do not eat meat or dairy products but do eat eggs. Some people are ovo-vegetarians because they are lactose-intolerant."Jolinda Hackett about.com Cause "1. a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect:" reference.com "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." wikipedia. Abuse " to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority. 2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way:" " 4. to commit sexual assault upon." When somebody buys eggs at the grocery store greater demand is created. Causing creater supply. Greater supply causes more animals being bred into existance. More animals being bred into existence causes more animal cruelty. The same can be said for milk and cheese. ""Cage-Free"/"Free-Range" hens come from the same hatcheries that battery hens come from, all of their brothers are killed by suffocation or being ground up alive, the girls themselves endure the same bodily manipulations and mutilations, and they ALL ultimately end up at the same slaughterhouses when their "production" declines." http://peacefulprairie.org... "All forms of dairy farming involve forcibly impregnating cows. This involves a person inserting his arm far into the cow’s rectum in order to position the uterus, and then forcing an instrument into her vagina. The restraining apparatus used is commonly called a “rape rack.”" humanemyth.org/happycows.htm I conclude that the evidence is undeniable. By purchasing milk, eggs, or cheese you are inevitablity encouraging and causing animal abuse. The purchaser is just as guilty as the retailers and supplier. Willful gnorance is no exuse. http://vegetarian.about.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://peacefulprairie.org... http://www.humanemyth.org...
Abortion is Murder.

Con has conceded that there is a loophole to where we are both right. Abortion is not murder, yet it is. His resolution gives no room for such loophole, and said loophole is what I have been trying to show the crowd/voters. In an absolute statement, you have no room for exceptions. For that reason, among the many others present in the debate, I urge a pro ballot in today's debate. It's been good hunting. Unfortunately, the season is now over.
Abortion is Murder.

My opponent's plan to railroad me into an impossible debate, BACKFIRED. When I stated the other countries that allow abortion, he states that I am attempting to hold US responsible to foreign law. This is wrong. I will accept partial responsibility for my opponent's misunderstanding and make an attempt to clarify. "Abortion is murder," was the title of the debate. The first round was my opponent's rules and layout of how this debate is suppose to go. My opponent did not specify that this was to be a debate based on United States law. Being that this is an international debate website, he cannot infer that it was to be automatically implied, because he couldn't guarantee that his opponent would be from the United States. This being said, he cannot (now) attempt to lock the debate down to a specific country because we never agreed on one.My opponent isn't really refuting anything.The only thing my opponent is really refuting anything I say. He's either ignoring it or agreeing. For example:1) I laid down my definitions and what they mean in regards to my argument. He ignored. 2) I lay out information, cite doctors and make a conclusion that states if I can prove abortion to be outrageous I can liken it to getting away with murder. He accepts all terms and then states,"Given that 10 states allow third trimester abortions, it is safe to say that abortion is outrageous in 20% of America."To conclude this round:I'd like to point out that my opponent has failed on 2 levels very essential to his cause, levels that are the building blocks for his case. Thus, he fails to uphold the resolution. 1) He failed in an attempt to railroad me into an easy win for him, because he forgot to specify which country he was talking about in the beginning of the debate, leaving me to choose from any country that has a law on the issue of abortion. 2) He failed to negate my initial argument against his, and ended up agreeing with me stating that nearly a quarter of abortions meet the standard for murder on some level or another.Abortion IS murder in: Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela, Angola, Benin, Central African Rep. Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sari Lanka, Ireland, Malta, or Vatican City. (IN LEGAL TERMS)And Abortion IS legal in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Hampshire New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, & West Virginia in the other 2 definitions of the word. I respectfully urge my judges to vote PRO (& Obama/Biden :-P), based on those principles. Thank you.
Abortion is Murder.

"Roe V Wade has established that there are to be no restrictions on abortion in the first 2 trimesters of pregnancy [1]. The last week of the second trimester is the 27th week [2]. At this point, a fetus has developed enough to where it can function outside of the mother. By can, I mean it has a 90%, or better, chance at survival [3]. To put this into perspective, you are 3 times more likely to be in a serious car crash than you are to hear about a 27 week old premature infant dying [4]. Terminating this fetus is both dangerous for the mother at this point and perfectly acceptable, according to Roe v Wade, but is almost no different than killing a child seconds before it is born full term. This can be found to meet the definition of outrageous by most accounts, certainly mine. Thus, meeting the requirement for the definition of murder 2a&b. As all definitions I've given can be checked to be valid, and I am making no more of a leap than my opponent by staging this debate, I assert that this is not an argument of semantics because it is equally valid." Rebuttals: Abortions are rare in the second trimester. Many doctors who perform first-trimester abortions do not perform second-trimester abortions. Second-trimester abortions are usually done for pregnancies with medical complications. There are usually only a few centers in an area that do them. "Elective" abortions are not done after 23 weeks. Third-trimester abortions (after 27 weeks) are only performed in cases of severely deformed fetuses or when the mother's life is in danger. My opponent states that abortions done after the 27th week are outrageous because the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb after that period. What he overlooks is, Roe v Wade contends second trimester+ abortions are only done in cases of severely deformed fetuses or when the mother's life is in danger, he states that these abortions are outrageous. When in fact elective abortions aren't allowed in the cases my opponent speaks of. These "outrageous" abortions are necessary and are usually only used in cases of ectopic pregnancy. In an ectopic pregnancy, the newly conceived human being implants on the wall of the fallopian tube (or some other tissue) instead of on the wall of the uterus. As the embryonic human being grows, the fallopian tube will rupture causing severe blood loss and probably death. In these cases, there is no way to save the child"s life. If we do nothing, both human beings will die. In conclusion, 27+ week abortions are not outrageous, but are in fact productive. I would say that not performing 27+ week abortions would be outrageous. They are not elective, but mandatory to save the mother's life, and yes this justifies abortion.
Abortion is Murder.

I'd like to start this debate by saying that I am very disappointed, as I was looking for a debate on the actual issue of morality. My opponent has decided against that in favor of word play, & I'd like to argue that it is in direct violation of his semantics rule. If it weren't, it would be set up to be highly abusive against pro. If this motion is not granted, however, I have the following arguments...___________________________________________________________Abortion: The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.Murder: 1. The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.- Found guilty of murder. 2 a : Something very difficult or dangerous- The traffic was murder. b : Something outrageous or blameworthy- Getting away with murder.Outrageous: Grossly offensive to decency or morality.Main Argument: Roe V Wade has established that there are to be no restrictions on abortion in the first 2 trimesters of pregnancy [1]. The last week of the second trimester is the 27th week [2]. At this point, a fetus has developed enough to where it can function outside of the mother. By can, I mean it has a 90%, or better, chance at survival [3]. To put this into perspective, you are 3 times more likely to be in a serious car crash than you are to hear about a 27 week old premature infant dying [4]. Terminating this fetus is both dangerous for the mother at this point and perfectly acceptable, according to Roe v Wade, but is almost no different than killing a child seconds before it is born full term. This can be found to meet the definition of outrageous by most accounts, certainly mine. Thus, meeting the requirement for the definition of murder 2a&b. As all definitions I've given can be checked to be valid, and I am making no more of a leap than my opponent by staging this debate, I assert that this is not an argument of semantics because it is equally valid. I anxiously await my opponents response. [1]http://realchoice.blogspot.com...[2]http://www.parenting.com...[3]http://www.spensershope.org... [4]http://www.goinsurancerates.com...
Abortion is Murder.

Definitions- Murder- the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Abortion- the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. Main Argument- Contention 1- Roe v. Wade- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the trimester of pregnancy. Abortion in the United States has been legal in every state since the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Prior to the ruling, the legality of abortion was decided by each state; it was illegal in 30 states and legal under certain cases in 20 states. Roe established that "the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. Contention 2- Lawful =/= Unlawful Lawful- constituted by the law. Unlawful- not lawful As expressed above the two definitions are antonyms....... Contention 3- Murder =/= Abortion As expressed in the definitions murder is unlawful. As expressed in C1 abortion is lawful As expressed in C2 lawful and unlawful are not the same thing. Therefore, abortion =/= murder Because lawful =/= unlawful Good Luck my well-equipped adversary! :)
Abortion is Murder.

Today's debate is whether or not abortion is murder. 1. Acceptance 2. Main Definitions/Presentation of Main Argument 3 & 4. Rebuttals 5. Resolution/Closing Argument Hint: Definitions can be used in other rounds besides R1 Rules- No semantics No trolling No profanity No vulgarity Violating any of the rules results in immediate termination of the debate.
Messi is better in terms of attacking, than C.Ronaldo

I placed my argument in the comments earlier but I thought that I would debate it as well. I wish you good luck on defending your precious Messi. And I hope that we can keep good conduct as well.Attacking pertains to scoring goals and since Ronaldo is younger then he has not played as many games. The best way to determines ones attacking potential is from the (goals scored:games played) ration. Ronaldo's is higher so he is the better attacker. Plus, Messi plays striker and the striker is supposed to score the most goals. Hypothetically Messi and Ronaldo were of equal skill level then Messi should have a higher (goals scored:games played). But he doesn't leaving Ronaldo as the better player.I understand I did not rebuttal your points but Round 1 is just the opening arguement just to allow fairness of both players having equal opportunity to rebuttal instead of me jumping the gun by one round. Good luck.
Messi is better in terms of attacking, than C.Ronaldo

Hello Everyone, Something about myself, I supported Manchester United (Rooney, Tevez, CR7, Vidic, Van Der Sar period) then I was new to football matches. Then I change to supporting Barcelona(Current), reason being it more 'my kind of style'. Note: I support both these two marvelous players, so don't call me bias whatsoever. Why I think Messi is better; Passing) Football is a team game, not a 1-v-1 tennis match, Messi is patient and makes use of the entire team to break the defense. Vision) Messi's vision to execute a defense breaking pass is superb, whether long or short passes Positioning) When he is off the ball, most of the time he is strolling in the park,but he is always there when needed, signs of an intelligent player Skills) He's trademark feints.. make it looks so easy, and doesn't do too much Mental) He's not a whiner, that's why he's so respected. Don't 'dive' with the slightest of tap unlike most modern players. Character) Humble, doesn't flaw his success as most successful professionals do, just like how people see floyd and manny. Mind you, I think that Ronaldo has better heading/jump, stamina, shooting, and maybe speed.