BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is not justified and should be illegal. (except to save the life of the mother)

Simple refutation will be in order here. First, on BOP: I do not have a BOP like you claim. The status quo is the side I am defending. You are making a positive claim which differs from the status quo and, therefore, you have the SOLE BOP. I. Fetuses are not human beings. Pro's entire refutation is, effectively, that cognitive abilities change throughout life. This is irrelevant. The standard I have presented, and which explains rights and legal personhood, is that cognitive ability in kind, not degree, defines personhood. So while someone with a disability, a baby, and an adult may have different cognitive capacities, they still have cognitive ability of some type, which is the hallmark of personhood. They still have a prefrontal cortex, a cerebral cortex, and other brain structures necessary for any cognition to occur. A fetus, before around 22 weeks [see earlier sources] has none of this. Note, also, that my opponent fundamentally misunderstands a right to life. A right to life, by definition, is absolute. It means that you have an absolute right to your life, and that nobody can kill you (with the exception of self-defense) [1]. There cannot be any qualifiably different rights to life. You either have it, or you do not, just as you either have the right to vote or you do not. Con's only other argument is that some people who have been declared brain dead have become alive again. This has been the case with cardiac death as well [2]. This is not an argument for changing the standard, unless Pro wishes for nobody ever to be declared dead. Note here that Pro has not really responded to the nuance of my argument, that people only have rights because they have something to protect. A bacteria does not have rights, and the reason is because there is no cognition to protect. We protect life because we have deemed cognition (in kind, not degree) as meriting protection, and, indeed, human beings are defined by it. Pro must do better to refute this. II. RapeI do not need to refute de facto guardianship, because de facto guardianship does not come into play when rights are being abrogated. Also, I would like to push back on the idea that the woman would HAVE to stay if she had the ability to escape. This would mean that parents would never be allowed to escape a fire if their children were at risk. With regards to my analogy, rights are abrogated either way. Somebody could accidentally wander onto your property, and you could still remove them. Ending the life of the fetus is only a side-effect, just as removing the burglar could, plausibly, end his life. Pro is confounding purposes and side effects here. I find it difficult to submit that one would have a legal duty to feed a burglar if they would starve otherwise.Either way, this whole argument is only secondary. Source:1. http://www.equalityhumanrights.com...2. http://www.cnn.com...
Abortion is not justified and should be illegal. (except to save the life of the mother)

While I have the BOP to show abortion is not justified, Con has the BOP to demonstrate that the unborn aren’t human until 22 weeks. If Con is unable to provide adequate evidence, then one should error on the side of caution and stand against abortion. After all, it would be disastrous to be unsure about the humanity of the unborn, but still legalize abortion. I. The Unborn are Human. My opponent’s assertion that cognitive ability determines life is fallacious Cognition is defined as “Conscious mental activities; the activities of thinking, understanding, learning, and remembering [1].” With that in mind, consider the following. 1.Cognitive Abilities develop through adulthood Cognitive abilities are increasing throughout your entire life. At four days old, a baby can recognize the mothers face. At one to two years, the baby can remember some facts and words [2]. It is a continual process. My third source shows the development of the cognitive abilities of a newborn[3]. With Con’s logic, a 5 year-old has a greater right to life then a newborn, because the 5 year-old has greater cognitive ability. 2.Cognitive Dysfunction Some people are born with cognitive dysfunction, a condition that results in a “loss of intellectual functions such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning of sufficient severity to interfere with daily functioning [4].” Is Con really saying that people with an impaired ability to think give up their right to life? 3.Brain Activity Doesn't determine life It is well documented that patients have resumed consciousness after being declared brain dead. Examples are in sources [5]. ii. Rape First of all, note that my opponent didn’t specifically refute the principle of de facto guardianship, just the analogy. Furthermore, my analogy still stands. If the women were able to escape the cabin, she would still be obligated to stay and protect the baby. Clearly, this violates her right to liberty, but she still has a responsibility to protect the child. Also, my opponents analogy has several flaws. First, a burglar comes into your house for the express purpose of harming your rights, unlike a child, who is innocent Second, abortion refers to the killing of a baby, therefore con's analogy needs to make a statement about the right to kill the burglar, not remove him safely. If a burglar is not threatening you, then it isn’t permissible to end his life [6]. Similarily, if the unborn child is not threatening the mother’s life, then there is no justification for aborting the child. Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.babycentre.co.uk... 3. http://www.babycentre.co.uk... 4. http://mpkb.org... 5. http://chinadailymail.com... 6. http://criminal.findlaw.com...
Abortion is not justified and should be illegal. (except to save the life of the mother)

Since the character limit on this debate is somewhat short, and since my opponent has the sole BOP in the round, I am going to get straight into rebuttals. I. "The unborn are human."I would like to note, right off the top, that what my opponent claims about embryology does not, actually, say what he thinks it does. All Pro's passage says is that fertilization is the beginning of human development. This is obviously true. However, this does not mean, in any sense, that zygotes, embryos, or fetuses are full human beings subject to legal protection. Let's note some definitions: A human being is "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." [1.]A person is, "one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties" [2]. What we can note about both of these definition is that they hinge on cognitive ability. A human being can only have superior mental development and articulate speech through cognitive ability, and rights come from cognitive ability, as, without brain activity, there is nothing to protect. Let's compare the example of a braindead patient. A braindead patient has living tissue, but lacks brain development. We allow this person to be unplugged, because they are no longer human beings, and there is nothing left to protect. A fetus is similar to a braindead person in these two regards. A fetus does not gain viability or cognitive ability until around the 22nd week [3], which is, more or less, the same standard employed by Roe v. Wade. Also interesting, with my opponent's criteria for personhood, over 50% of people are never born, because most fertilized eggs fail to implant [4]. I feel that this speaks to the absurdity of his claim. II. RapeAnalogies are bad. Here's one of mine:A burglar comes into your house. You are completely justified to remove him from the premises, by yourself of with the assistance of law enforcement. You are not responsible for the burglar's well-being because you did not consent for him to come into your property in the first place. Thus, a woman who is raped is justified in aborting, because she did not consent to the fetus. Note that my opponent's analogy is faulty. The child in the cabin is not abrogating the woman's rights in any sense, and, therefore, the woman has an obligation to ensure its survival, whereas a fetus is, in fact, violating a woman's autonomy, in the case of rape. Also note that Pro's analogy rests upon the assumption that fetuses are human beings, which has not been substantiated. Pro relies solely on emotional appeal.Sources: 1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au...4. http://www.ucsfhealth.org...
Abortion is not justified and should be illegal. (except to save the life of the mother)

First I would like to clarify the debate. The question of abortion rests on one specific issue. Are the unborn human? If the unborn are members of the human family, just like you and me, then killing him or her for the benefit of others is a serious moral wrong, and should be illegal in any society that claims to uphold human rights. Argument 1 The Science of Embryology reveals that the unborn are human The science of embryology determines that from the earliest states of development, the unborn are distinctive, living, and whole human beings. For example, Keith L. Moore and T. V. N. Persaud write, “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 call a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. “ A change of location from inside the womb to the outside does not make someone human. Ultimately, There is no essential difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you are today that justifies killing you when you were in the womb. Argument 2 The Issue of Rape As operation rescue reports, less then 1% of all abortions take place because of rape or incest. While rape is an issue that needs to be addressed, this statistic demonstrates that rape is not the core of the abortion debate. The issue of rape goes back to the original question. Are the unborn human? If they are, it would still be immoral for a women to take the life of an innocent because of the crime of the father. Obviously, the women did not consent to the child in the womb, but this doesn’t mean she bares no responsibility for the baby’s protection. The woman becomes the de facto guardian because she is the only one in power to ensure the baby’s safety. To illustrate this principle, imagine a woman is locked in a cabin with a baby during a snowstorm. Inside there is enough formula to feed the baby for weeks. However, the woman refuses to feed the baby, because it isn’t hers. America’s court system would determine that the women was responsible to feed the baby, not because she consented to the baby’s presence in the cabin, but because the women is the only protector of the baby’s life. It is the same for issues of rape. The women is the only one who can ensure the baby’s safety, so she has the responsibility to protect the life. Ultimately, it comes down to one question. What is worse, the suffering of 9 months of pregnancy? Or the suffering of a murdered child? Conclusion I am vigorously “pro choice” when it comes to many women’s issues. I support the right for a woman to choose her own doctor, to choose her own husband, and to choose her own job. But some choices are wrong, such as killing an innocent human being because they are a burden. We should not be allowed to choose that. Therefore abortion is unjustified. I look forward to my opponent’s arguments.
Abortion is not justified and should be illegal. (except to save the life of the mother)

Resolved: Abortion is not justified and should be illegal. (except to save the life of the mother). I will argue for the resolution Information About The Topic The landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case legalized abortion in America. Since that case in 1973, it is estimated that over 54 million abortions have taken place. Rules of Civility Attacks against the character of the other debater will not be accepted. This debate is meant to be a friendly competition that allows both debaters to expand their knowledge. Acceptance First Leave arguments for Round 2
Abortion is not justified and should be illegal. (except to save the life of the mother)

However, this is an easy Con ballot. I would first, however, like to note that Pro has literally never presented an argument as to why personhood should begin at conception. Pro has only presented mitigatory arguments against my case, and, as such, could not have possibly met the BOP of this round. Again, Pro DOES have the sole BOP, since Pro's case is one against the status quo in a very significant way. Rebuttals:"A patient in a severe coma has zero cognitive ability. "This is literally the only argument Pro has against my standard, and it is a terrible one on two fronts. Firstly, a patient in a coma DOES have cognitive ability. Patients in comas, unlike the braindead, DO have some residual cognitive ability [1], meaning that my standard holds. . Their brains are still functioning at a high level, they are just temporarily unable to achieve consciousness, similar to sleep. Pro's standard fails here. Secondly, even if we, somehow, accept that the comatose do not have cognitive ability, Pro's standard of cognitive potential fails. A fetus does not have a prefrontal cortex that could be healed to regain cognitive ability. They only have potential if they change in a very significant way, rather than healing or reverting. This potential is, then, different in kind. This means that, while they have cognitive potential, it is categorically different than those who are already persons. This standard, even though Pro has not shown a reason to believe it, fails. "Doctors don't use cognitive ability to determine death. They use brain activity. However, brain activity develops in a fetus at 43 days. "Firstly, Pro's claim that doctors use brain activity (IN THE PREFRONTAL CORTEX) actually reflects my standard, because braindead people, unlike the comatose, have no activity in these regions. Secondly, Pro cites a source called ChristianAnswers. net to attempt to give scientific proof that fetuses have brain activity. This is heavily biased. This is the case especially considered the only evidence the site gives for its claim is from a paper entitled "Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life. " Moreover, if we actually read the paper cited, we see that what is actually being observed is cellular division in the brain, rather than neural functioning. These are categorically different. If we, instead, refer to an unbiased . edu source, we see this is not the case [2]. Brains begin actively functioning at 22 weeks. "If the women can escape. .. she is still obligated to. .. protect the baby. "This is assertion. "The intention is to kill the baby. "No, the intention is to remove the fetus from the body, restoring autonomy. It just happens to kill the fetus. Pro's only other arguments are emotional strawmen, which cannot stand. I have clearly won. Thank you. Sources:1. . http://www.coma.ulg.ac.be...2. . http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au...
Personal Computer Gaming is better than Console Gaming

Structure: (Round 1: Points. Round 2: Rebuttals. Round 3: Conclusion) I am an advocate that PC gaming is superior to console gaming. We can look at PC gamings many positive attributes, for example these are, Computers are a much cheaper alternative than console gaming. Some may try to use initial base cost of a high an gaming PC vs an older console but I must point out the flaws with this argument. To begin, you are paying for much more than just a gaming machine. This is a product where you can do homework, download applications, use the internet, store music etc. It's become a necessity to own and a key part of our life. Secondly, there is not that much of a price difference. For example, YouTuber Austin Evans creates videos ranging from 300 - 2000 dollar PC builds, while some consoles range from 400-600 ( depending on the package you purchase.) Not only can PC's and Consoles be equal in base cost, we must look at games. For consoles, you only have big name game creators, selling their games at 60 dollars a piece. On a PC , you can buy these games and many many more. You get indie games, alpha games, beta games, all types of games. Prices are way cheaper, and even more so with steam sales. If you compare a steam gamers library to a console gamers game library you will certainly see a total price difference. Not only are the games cheaper, but the computers do not become outdated. In just a couple of years consoles get replaced and quickly become irrelevant. With a PC, all you have to do is buy new parts for very low comparable value and install them into your computer to keep it modern. With this in mind, you can also keep your computer running if it breaks, replacing the parts. With a console, fixes if DIY are extremely difficult and usually not possible. This would result in going to the manufacturer which is expensive and not timely. PC's give a better experience the consoles. Comparing price / power, a PC gives much higher quality graphics, running more detailed environments and textures at higher resolutions and higher PC's. Most computer monitors if boughten wisely provide higher quality than your average TV. The smoothness and quality of a PC game is unbeatable when it comes to PC's vs. Consoles. There is also a wonderful community on the internet. It is literally, the internet. Some console gamers fear PC gaming because the difficulty to get in a match, with a console, they give you an oversimplified interface where you can "always get your game." With a PC , it is just the same, simply a new front to learn. Consoles are locked up OS's with limited features which you much pay for. PC's are a place of freedom where you can do what you wish. Hopefully some will be willing to debate this subject, I look forward to seeing your points.
Personal Computer Gaming is better than Console Gaming

I would like to point that a gaming pc can be very expensive. I recently bought a Ps4 and a laptop for a similar price, one can run Battlefield 4 while the other can't. Also a normal $700 pc may stay current for 3-4 year while a console can last 7-8 years and when I have a separate computer for work and games. Also the starting cost of a gaming pc and a console are huge, and the true the parts aren't super expensive, but they do accumulate in cost over the years, also add in the gas you use to get to the store. If I want to play games at maximum graphics, I have to constantly update my pc. Also consoles have great games such as Halo, Infamous, Uncharted, Forza, and Gear of War, and are expanding to include Indie games, and where did you get the information that you can't play betas on consoles. I clearly remember playing the World of Tanks beta on my Xbox 360 and the Titan Fall beta on my Xbox One. Also consoles can be used as multimedia systems. The Xbox One lets you play games, watch T.V and Movies and access movies. When I want to play video games with my friends, I use consoles. I find it easier to connect with friends and get into the same game. Also can you have 4 player split screen on a pc, I don't think so. Only consoles allow you to do this. I also find consoles interfaces much easier to use, when I start my console up, all I have to do is click a button to play. I personally consoles offer the better gaming experiance.
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

You asked to accept this.Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause.BoP is shared.DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind."[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "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."[3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation."[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics or trolling.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]:http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]:http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]:http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

To be honest, I thought it would be a fun thing to debate someone on something controversial and funny. but I just can't bring my self to debate something that is intellectually dishonest and simply false. I withdraw my argument and forfeit. Thanks for the debate so far, I would of totally kept the debate going if it was something I could persist with and have a drive of showing that I was in fact correct. but there is simply no evidence suggesting anything other than man has caused an over abundance of natural gases that has resulted in a process we call climate change. if I continued this debate and got people on my side, I could not forgive my self for 'uneducating' people :P. it would be a disgrace to my growth in science and what I stand for. I will happily continue on another topic on a different debate though. it was good debating you, also, even if I was to make another come back, you have covered everything. the only thing to possibly do is suggest it does not exist. have a good day.
B-Rabbit vs. Lotto

Since Pro forfeited the last round, I don't know what I am supposed to do here. Lotto should have won the rap battle because his insults were personal to what B-Rabbit was actually going through in his life. B-Rabbit made humorous comments but none of them were actually insulting. B-Rabbit came up with a template to rap against each one of his opponents. In the rap against Lotto, B-Rabbit spent more spouting gibberish, and attacking Lotto's crew instead of Lotto himself. B-Rabbit was already trying to get to Papa Doc and did not bother to really address Lotto. Lotto had better insults, better flow, and each verse was solid and were real sentences. B-Rabbit only insulted Lotto's shirt which is really sad considering he went 2nd and had that entire time to think of a rap. The entire battle was curved in Eminem's favor. He got to go 2nd giving him more time to think, His best friend was the judge and allowed him to go over the allowed time limit. Will all these advantages all B-Rabbit could come up with was "hoo bla and your shirt dont fit you"??? Truly disappointing on B-Rabbits half.