BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is Wrong

Yep, those definitions work for me! I'd like to begin the debate by saying that my opponent has already won. Abortions should be allowed in all 50 states, at whatever trimester the mother decides, and that the mother has every right to do what she wants with the fetus. I have no solid argument, and I will be the first to crossover from being "pro-life" to "pro-choice". That is, if the unborn isn't human. If the unborn isn't human, we have no right to tell the mother what she can and can't do with it. I believe that the unborn is human- there are mounds of evidence from embryology, and I quote Keith Moore from a textbook: "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." From the moment of conception, we are all distinct, living, and whole human beings. I'll clarify. Distinct: We are different in kind from our parents. Living: Well... simply put, dead things don't grow. The fetus is building new systems, breaking old ones down, it's forming neurological pathways, creating new cells, and is in control of its own internal development. Whole: a sperm and an egg (or oocyte) are not whole human beings, they are merely part of a human entity, like a skin cell on the back of your hand. When they come together however, they become a human and each of the cells are working together to promote the the welfare of the entity as a whole. Now I am taking a very radical position, but I believe it to be the right one. I believe that 1) Life begins at conception 2) There is no good reason to end that life at anytime, except when the mother's life is in danger. And obviously, there is disagreement here. What I'm about to propose are some of the most common arguments. 1. The mother has a right what to do with her own body. 2. The fetus does not have cognitive brain function until 20 weeks (or whatever week it is) 3. The fetus is not yet completely developed 4. The mother was raped and doesn't want the child 5. The fetus is still in the womb I don't want to take the time to rebut all of these arguments though I am well equipped to do so. I'd like con to present his arguments, whether the ones stated above, or another different one. He then can bolster his argument and give his support for it, and I'll refute it in the last round.
Euthansia should be legal

You mentioned that people from the medical field are to help guide us and that it would be unethical for them to execute something that has been against the believe of helping , well isn't helping end someone's pain the best choice. Doctors know what is best for the patient and it can be guaranteed that if a terminally ill person is in intolerable pain the doctor would not want to have to see a patient go through it. The patient is the one who ultimately has the choice of what is ethical or not. People have different beliefs and and could choose what to do with their own life. They have the choice not the doctor or the family members that can't feel what the patient is dealing with. You had also mentioned that the loved ones regardless of the situation will care for the person due to their love for them. It would be selfish for a loved one to see the situation the person is in knowing that person would prefer to be free of pain. According to the article Top Ten Reasons Euthansia Should be Legal Everywhere written three years ago by Dave Anderson states, " For a physician to deny the person his right to die when under intense pain and suffering is effectively forcing them to live a without what they believe is their dignity, and life of suffering and eventually death (in the case of terminally ill patients). While the intentions may be good, no person has the right to demand of another person to live a life of suffering, in fact, that is immoral as it removes their right to choose". Like stated before euthanasia should be legal because everyone has the right to live therefore they should also have the right to choose when to die.
Euthansia should be legal

You stated that people should have the right to choose whether they should live or die, yet these people who are ill and feel as if they do not have the strength lack judgment to make a ethical decision. As stated by Dave Anderson on Top 10 reasons Euthanasia should be illegal stated "In a survey conducted in Oregon, USA, 66 percent of people who requested euthanasia did so because they didn"t want to be a burden." For these people are not thinking about whether they want to live or die but being a burden to their loved ones whom regardless of the situation will care for the person due to their love for them. Such as a mother to a son she would not care if he would be a burden for she would do her best to take care of her child to the best of her ability as long as they are alive.
Euthansia should be legal

It is inhuman to let a terminally ill person suffer and not let them choose to end there pain. Not only does the person suffer the family also suffers having to see a loved one endure pain everyday and not being able to do anything about it. Seven years ago Kailash Chand posted on article to theguardian that states To allow a terminally ill individual to end their life is the only humane, rational and compassionate choice.
Euthansia should be legal

Euthanasia should be illegal due to it being unethical, for it changes how the health system is brought. According to David E. Richmond a professor stated on Ten Reasons Why Voluntary Euthanasia Should Not Be Legalized "It introduces a conflict of interest for medical practitioners who will be expected to execute it, and will change the ethos of the health system from preserving life to providing death." For all our life we have been taught that people of the medical field are to help guide us and know whats best for one another. Yet instead of helping someone regain their health back to what it once was, they are told to execute something that has been against the belief of helping.
Euthansia should be legal

You stated it is inhumane to let a terminally I'll patient sufffer but how about a person who is going through a deep depression in there life whom they are compelety neglected or abused. Also another person is feels hopeless and wants to commit suicide for they are homeless and jobless and both are hooked on drugs and can not do anything about it for it is illegal to kill themseleves yet it is legal to do so when you are "terminally ill" . In all euthanasia should be illegal.
9/11 consequently gave benefits on the Bush administration

"made me think that the decisive evidence of 9/11 was plotted by the U.S is Bush administration's succession of dominion." If you are trying to debate that 9/11 was an inside job, then you already lost because it is a fact that Al-Quieda was responsible. Osama admitted it himself. http://www.pbs.org... 1. Unestablished point. you have not proved that 9/11 allowed George bush to attack Sadam. And despite everything you said, he still received tons of criticism. Just ask any democrat you know. "As the situation deteriorated, Bush's May 1, 2003 "Mission Accomplished" speech would be criticized as premature The Bush Administration was also criticized in subsequent months." http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. What does this have to do with 9/11? 3. So what? There were people like you who said that Bush was responsible for 9/11 or that he could have prevented it. 4. Not sure how to respond to this.
9/11 consequently gave benefits on the Bush administration

My claim points with all the rumors and evidences very plausible clues that Bush made this crisis for his personal benefits, made me think that the decisive evidence of 9/11 was plotted by the U.S is Bush administration's succession of dominion. Also, the U.S got the opportunity to have warfare with oil countries. This economically gave tons times more beneficial to the U.S because they got indirect rules on the oil and showed power on the middle-eastern area. 1. First, he could get the reason to attack Sadam Housaine the one and country which never has any advocating relation with one. It's like inquiries said they got married. and they attacked iraq and killed many pristine people and they reported that the critical chemical weapon's not existing. This is like I thought you have gun to kill me and I try to kill you before you try to harm me. It's possible I have the utmost power in this world so just decided to kill him before he shoots me. And I searched the gun but I couldn't have any evidence of gun's exist and police proclaimed that there was no any evidence he had gun. However nobody cannot say anything about it. 2. Using armies and army materials give chances to military industries get more sales and growth which is one of top developed industry and also this is the U.S keeps its power on the world. 3. 9/11 period is very essential right before the presidential election. Let's see some examples of s.Korea. I came from s.Korea and there was very famous accident of airplane was bombed by n.Korean spy and she became the famous one. Of course, kind of conservative party candidate easily became the president. We Koreans call it wind of N.Korea because it's very effective threat on the public using the very opponent country's threat. And once Korean conservative party tried to pay money for making trouble by N.Korea army and paid to N. Korea's high government officer and this was reported by Korean newspaper. 4. Yes I'm pretty doubt how could the top armed country's ridiculous airplane attack happen in the heart of the U.S Very symbolic and not effective to economy but very threatening to the U.S citizens. Actual economic loss is very shallow but psychological defects elicited harms on heart of people.
9/11 consequently gave benefits on the Bush administration

By present, the result of 9/11 was beneficial to Bush administration. It's my claim and I'm definitely sure. First round is for acceptance "The result" means Bush"s administration got rapid increase of advocacy rate. Also, the U.S could show off their power and used lots of arms which was supposed to be rotten and buried. Bush administration got overwhelming backing by us citizens and his secondary dominion commenced. Both of sides have one"s burden of proof. Also, it"s possible to use rumors about 9/11 and some points and you can rebuff it scientifically, logically. Before starting the debate, I apologize first that my English is not perfect and please let me know if there is any point opponent can"t get it. Don"t expect and blame it to me. It"s been just 2 years in U.S.
Gimili vs. Legolas (DDO Olympics - Nerd & Fandom)

Just so we have it directly stated we are debating (lemme know if I got something wrong): Drawing from Tolkein's works, it is clear that the character Gimili is superior to that of Legolas. Superiority will be something we each define based on what aspects of our characters we find crucial. Let's go (which kinda looks like Legolas... kinda.......)
Gimili vs. Legolas (DDO Olympics - Nerd & Fandom)

Hello all and welcome to the second round of the DDO Olympics Nerd and Fandom event.As with all DDO Olympics events, this one is going to be judged by a panel of voters, however, if you have feedback to give, I'm sure both my opponent and I would welcome it!This debate is about the characters of Gimli and Legolas, who appear in the works of Tolkien, particularly "The Lord of the Rings". Voters should vote for who ultimately made the stronger case that their character was superior to the other, with me taking Gimli and jopo taking Legolas. Adaptations of the characters, including filmic and interactive, are certainly within the boundaries of the debate, but ultimately the original written trilogy of "The Lord of the Rings" takes precedence over other evidence.What makes a character superior is itself a point of contention, not something we can define.The first round is for last-minute clarifying of rules. Actual debate rounds start in round two.Good luck!
Absolute truth exist

I have 2 Apple's. It is absolutely true I have 2 Apple's. You may not believe it is true, you may think I have 3, yet I have 2. It is absolutely true that I have 2 Apple's. I drop the 2 Apple's. It was absolutely true that I had 2 Apple's and will never change. Just because someone believes something else, doesn't mean that, that truth isn't absolute. Also in round 3 "to me it is", you never explained it. You said to you it was absolutely true that it doesn't exist. My car can not be fully in the road and fully in the driveway at that same time (considering they are not the same thing) It is absolutely true that matter exist. We are using matter right now. You can come up with ideas that may contradict matter, but that doesn't it mean it's not absolute.
Absolute truth exist

As the instigator, I feel like what you are doing is trying to prove your point - you're just trying to psych me out with rhetorical (and personal) questions to attempt to confuse me into a conceding a point. As the BoP is on you, I would appreciate legitimate proofs (or thinking). I'm saying I BELIEVE absolute truth doesn't exist. Don't paraphrase what I say. "Are you absolutely sure?" This isn't the definition of absolute truth. Please refer to the definition I've provided, as you neglected to give one. Absolute truth: Whatever is true at one time and at one place is true at all time's and at all places and for all people. "Absolutely sure" is not interchangeable for absolute truth. "Absolutely sure" is hardly a phrase at any rate.
Absolute truth exist

Absolute truth: Whatever is true at one time and at one place is true at all time's and at all places. Specifically, it means morals, philosophies, or ideas that remain true, not necessarily facts. Facts, are of course facts, but you can always dispute the validity of the facts. At any rate, it was not true you had the apples before you had the apples (at ALL times). Nor did you have the apples at a different place. Absolute truths are about omnipresent concepts, not facts about fruits. At any rate, the main subject, the controversial subject of morality and E.T.C. was not touched upon. You merely give realistic situations that have no bearing on a debatable part of the subject (about concepts and ideas/morals).
finish my sentence story

*were* ...over 20 people gathering around withbats and crowbars while watching John so his cheeks got rose red and he began to shake. "You're all crazy. You just murdered a man in cold blood with a gun! What were you th-" "Did you not see he was about to kill one of us?" said a boy in the back. "You're crazy," John repeated. "Can you tell me your name?" "John?" a pretty girl in ragged clothes stared at him in awe after turning around a corner. "Where have you been? How did you get back! I missed you!" She ran up to hug him. "Klaire," said Michael. "You know this kid? He certainly doesn't seem to know anything about us... or really anything." "No. A long time ago it was me, John, Samuel, and DaVonne. We were the founders of this whole system. 2 and a half years ago John was here with us. But you may have already heard, but T.C.S has invented a new item and it clears chosen memories. They must have been extremely mad for something he had done because that costs a lot of money. But there could be another thing that happened; this John may not even be John. Hold on a minute... Klaire looked deeply into John's eyes but saw weird symbols and numbers. She pulled out a knife and stabbed "John" in the thigh and said "F*ck you T.C.S! Trying to make a fake clone John. "Klaire!" John gasped. "You did it. You stabbed me in the right spot. I- I'm free! You stabbed the RC virus they put in me. I was like a zombie for them. Bu- but if you had gone an inch over you would have missed. I know everything, Klaire I remember when Sam died and DaVonne had attempted to kill you. I remember when I wrote the song for you when you were going through depression. I- I remember the day before Technological Controlling Station had attacked when we sat on the balcony together and you talked about your family. You see.. it's me! You got so lucky to hit it in the exact right place you know. But.. I'm going to need some medical attention though. I can't believe I'm talking to you... you're here with me! It feels amazing to be me again!" Klaire began to get teary and fell down to the ground. "John... I missed you! It's been half a year without you. I know many people have gone longer without someone they love... but I just couldn't handle being without you. I only knew who I had once you had gone missing." Michael didn't believe it. "Klaire... it's lying. You shouldn't be convinced by this. They had John spit out personal connections to you to get back. What were the chances of stabbing his radio controlled thing in his leg?" The crowd of 20 murmured behind them but not one of the three in the spotlight knew what they were saying. "I'm sorry Klaire but you know what must be done." Michael continued. He pointed his gun at John but Klaire....
finish my sentence story

and fired once, twice, three times. John almost screamed. "WHERE ARE WE!?" michael turned around. "you don't know? oh..." "OH WHAT?" john was screaming with a mix of both anger and fear. "SHHHH!" Michael tried to whisper, but the sound echo of the dirt wall. "your a newbie, huh. welcome to the tunnels. for years, we've been digging our way out of this underground area with our bare hands." john looked around, and stayed silent. nobody else was here. Michael took john around the second corner. The lights flicked on, and john looked around. There was...
finish my sentence story

"... Michael. Now hurry up, we have to go right now!" At first, John hesitated but slowly followed nervously. "I think they're right there, but I'm not sure! Take a peek, tell me if you see anyone." John rubbed his eyes and asked "See who?" Michael squinted. What do you mean? Stop playing silly with me, now take a look around the corner!" John obeyed and slowly peeked his head around the corner biting his lips until it hurt so much that he let go. Around the corner was one man on his knees begging a person of something around the other corner. Michael pulled out a gun...
finish my sentence story

we will do a finish my sentence STORY! use as many characters as you can. please don't end sentence at end of turn. I will start "He got up and walked around, quite dizzy. Unsure what happened, John stood up and looked around. He found a kid, who slowly walked out of the corner. Everything else was dark. "hey" John spoke up for the kid to hear him "HEY! WHERE AM I!?" There was a click, and the lights turned on. The Kid was scruffy looking, with dirty blue jeans. He wore a red shirt, and had some dirty brown hair. "welcome to the tunnels..." said the new guy. "my name's... your turn
Seatbelt Laws

In this debate I will defend laws that require drivers and their passengers to wear seatbelts. I accept the burden of proof since I am making the claim that it is preferable to have those laws than not to have them. However, I hope that my opponent will provide evidence for any claims he or she makes in opposition. Round 1 is not substantive, just for stating rules and definitions and that sort of thing. My opponent may post a brief introduction to her/his position if she/he wishes, but otherwise wait until round 2 to begin arguing. Please do not get stuck in semantics or unreasonable standards of proof. I consider this a casual but evidence-based debate. Thank you to whomever accepts :)
The Pokémon Diamond and Pearl/Battle Dimension anime series is less entertaining than the video game

Gwahahah. It seems my opponent thinks he's unleashed a formidable weapon upon me. However, ladies and gentlemen, you'll find that he's quite mistaken. Take a leisurely gander at the resolution: "The Pokï¿½mon Diamond and Pearl/Battle Dimension anime series is less entertaining than the video game" It's obvious, by the wording of the resolution, that "the video game" refers to Pokï¿½mon Diamond/Pearl for NDS. However, my opponent has gone on to make arguments based solely on a completely different game: Pokï¿½mon Mystery Dungeon 2. Since my opponent has been unable to show that the Pokï¿½mon Diamond/Pearl video game is more entertaining than the Pokï¿½mon Diamond and Pearl anime series, he has failed to meet his burden of proof. I have consistently argued why the Pokï¿½mon shows [all of them, including D/P] are superior in entertainment value to the traditional Pokï¿½mon games [which includes D/P]. Thus, I have argued that the D/P anime [and D/P: Battle Dimension] is superior to the D/P game, which is what the resolution calls for. I do not have to show that the D/P anime is superior to the Mystery Dungeon 2 game, since that is not my position based on the resolution. Thus, since my opponent did not rebut my R2 arguments [and instead made new, nonresolutional arguments in R3], he conceded those points. And by those points, I have negated the resolution.
The Pokémon Diamond and Pearl/Battle Dimension anime series is less entertaining than the video game

The topic pretty much states my position in this debate. I will begin by stating multiple points in favor of my opinion and challenge my opponent (whoever that is =ï¿½) to render my points obsolete. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1. There is a (bad) pun in almost all of the episode titles for the anime series. For example, would you consider "Once in a Mawile" and "Luxray Vision" to be entertaining? I personally do not think bad puns are entertaining. 2. The main character(s), Dawn/Ash, started their journey at age 10. Children, even fictional, should not be allowed to leave on a year long (or more, in pokemon's case) trip. I think of this idea as a bad one, and bad ideas are generally not entertaining. Proof that Ash is 10: . http://www.pokezam.com... 3. The team's cook, Brock, seems to get food out of nowhere. That, to me, is stupid. Stupid is definently not entertaining.
Genetic enhancement that enriches emotional well-being is ethical

This is my first debate, I accept the challenge by claiming that it is ethically wrong to produce genetic enhancements to enrich the emotional well being. Since this is an ethical debate, pertaining to science and medicine, I believe we should adhere to the ruling ethical principle of physicians, the Oath of Hippocrates, "never do harm". Before we proceed, I have one question: Will the genetic enhancements produce an individual devoid of negative emotions, or will the enhancements give the individual the capacity to control the chemicals that affect emotions?