BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Discrimination is unjust

"This is my last chance to speak, so a million kisses to my opponent. " Okay. .. "However, since discriminatory dispositions can either be based in ignorance (as opposed to malice prejudice) there is no reason, based on what my opponent has said, to conclude that jury discrimination does deprive the accused of a free trial. " If ignorance leads to prejudice (preconceived judgment or opinion, . http://www.merriam-webster.com...), then ignorance leads to discrimination. Therefore, the jury ignorance is the cause of the jury discrimination. "If discrimination makes a free trial impossible, the government might as well promise its citizens streets paved with gold tomorrow. " However, it is possible to eliminate discrimination, while the government cannot pave the roads gold in one night. "While having an impartial jury (as guaranteed by the justice system) is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition for what the government would recognize as a fair trial proper. " All of the other three are easily obtained. (A) is the most difficult, and can only be obtained with the elimination of discrimination. "If a government is unable to secure a free trial, the accused is not entitled to one. " However, discrimination is the only thing in the way. If discrimination could be eliminated, then the government would be able to secure a free trial. However, discrimination exists, thus preventing the right to a free trial from taking effect, or "depriving" said right. So, in conclusion, discrimination is the only major barrier in the way of the right to a free trial. "The crystallization point for the discussion as a whole revolves around the question of whether the practice of discrimination really deprives a person of the rights he or she would have if the discrimination did not take place. " If discrimination did not take place, we would have the right to a free trial. By my opponent's quote, if the existence of discrimination is what deprives the right, then the resolution is affirmed. Because discrimination is the only thing stopping government from giving us all a right to a free trial, the resolution is affirmed. Let's go back to my opponent's example of streets paved with gold. If the resolution were "Limitation is unjust," then the limitation of the amount of gold in America would be the only thing preventing the government from paving the streets with gold, and the resolution would be affirmed.
the human fetus is a parasite according to science

Thank you for a timely response and I'm sorry for taking so long to respond, but I was very busy. Also I would just like to say that I was disappointed about my opponents attitude towards this debate. My opponent insults me and makes it obvious that he is not even trying to be friendly at all. Most other people on this site are kind. I am debating this to have fun, and to learn from people more experienced than me, but obviously my opponent is just in it to win. Also, I would just like to state that this was never a real debate to begin with. This has nothing to do with science, it's all semantics. Anyways, lets begin. =====Argument===== There really is not much to say here because my opponent spend about 3/4 of this debate insulting me, but I will try my best to argue this successfully. My opponents main attack was that my definition was wrong. http://www.google.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now these are just a few websites that agree with my definition. Now knowing my opponent, he will say, "it says does nothing useful for the host," but if we think about it, a fetus does do many useful things to it's host. It provides joy. Having a baby gives you the feeling of accomplishment, and all of these things help the host mentally therefore they do indeed do something useful for the host. http://www.parents.com... http://www.thedailybeast.com... Also my opponents definition says that "is often harmed," but this is not true, the vast majority of births are successful. About "46 of 100,000" parents die from birth. http://motherjones.com... I believe I have covered all of my opponents valid points, so I shall now move on to my conclusion. =====Conclusion===== I believe this was a good debate although I would have had more fun with it if my opponent had a better attitude towards me. My opponent did not capitalize his first letter and he made grammatical errors believe I have done a good job with grammar and spelling and my opponent has not so I expect to get that point. I believe I had better conduct since my opponent insulted me throughout the whole debate. We both provided good sources so that point is up to the viewers and voters. I believe that we both had great arguments so that is up to the voters as well. For all the reasons I have stated, I strongly urge a Con vote. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate with you galerouth. Thank you for taking the time you have taken to read, comment and vote on this debate to all of the viewers. Thank you for everything, S98Samman
the human fetus is a parasite according to science

to quote my opponent: 'My opponent made very few attacks to my case and backed his case up very little with only opinion. Nevertheless I shall refute everything he has said." well, if my opponent wanted to be intellectually honest, my opponent would say: " My opponent made very few attacks to my case BECAUSE i had no logical case to begin with, and wanted to be intellectually dishonest through this entire debate." to quote my opponent: "but he never gave an example of what he is referring to." logically, i didn't HAVE to, just said with a SCIENTIFIC definition of a parasite: " an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it." from http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., to prove that the human fetus fits this definition of a parasite. if you really wanted to know what type, even though you proved that you have a history on ignoring science, i say it's both a "periodic parasite: one that parasitizes a host for short periods," and "temporary parasite: one that lives free of its host during part of its life cycle." http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... BUT this is my opponent's unscientific-red herring definition of a parasite: "A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return," so you failed round one. why? my opponent still refuses to accept that his/hers definition is NOT a scientific one, but an vernacular one and IS based on an opinion, which doesn't prove the fetus is not a parasite through SCIENCE. first, the word "person" is a philosophical concept not scientific one; second, he/she used a definition with the words "gives nothing in return," as implying, absolutely nothing.... when his/hers own definition meant not giving something positive in return! to me, your unscientific definition would scientifically fit more to "commensalism: A symbiotic relationship in which one organism derives benefit while causing little or no harm to the other." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ---SINCE IT LACKS THE WORD: HARM, AND THE HOST DOESN'T RECEIVES A BENEFIT; third, there's a big difference between the words "gives" and "causes," because cause implies action and an opposite reaction, or CAUSE AND EFFECT, and "gives" in most cases does not. while my opponent was being intellectually dishonest with his/hers unscientific-red herring definition of a parasite: "A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return," he/she ignored all the scientific evidence proving the human fetus is a parasite that i posted in round one and two, when the title of this debate is called: the human fetus is a parasite according to SCIENCE.
the human fetus is a parasite according to science

Thank you for a timely response. =====REFUTATIONS===== My opponent made very few attacks to my case and backed his case up very little with only opinion. Nevertheless I shall refute everything he has said. My opponent said that I changed the topic from factual point of view to "...one that's just a mere opinion," but he never gave an example of what he is referring to. I, personally have reviewed my case and I have found nothing of the sort, but if you have found otherwise, please post it in the next round. Also, I did not ignore my opponents definition, rather I provided my own, just like my opponent did to mine. Just because my opponent had the opening argument, doesn't mean he is allowed to lay down ground definitions that he expects me not to change. Definitions are a major decider in this debate and I refuse to obey my opponents definitions without providing my own. Once again my opponent insults me at the end of his case proving he does not wish this to be a friendly debate. =====ARGUMENT===== Now my opponent has obviously over looked the obvious. My opponent stated, "...may not understand is, a could-be very painful condition called, pregnancy osteoporosis." Notice he said, a could-be very painful condition. There are two major flaws I have noticed in this statement. Firstly since my opponent and I are both examining the this debate with definitions, a potential problem should not be counted against me. Also he admitted himself that a human fetus can cause pain therefore giving the pregnant women something. That means that the human fetus is not, by definition, a parasite. Also notice that my opponent continues to offer more definitions for parasite and he completely ignores mine. =====OVERVIEW===== I have, once again refuted all of my opponents attacks, provided my own attacks, and I have defended my case. I strongly urge a CON vote as I have obviously done a better job in this debate. Thank you -S98samman!!!
the human fetus is a parasite according to science

S98-SAMMAN, like wise. a quote from my opponent: "I will be focusing mainly on the second definition for my argument." it's clear that my opponent used an red herring fallacy from changing the focus of a fetus being a parasite through a scientific point-of view as suggested by the proposition, "THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE," to one that's just a mere opinion: "A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return." my opponent also ignored the definition of a parasite that i posted in round one, as well, as the scientific evidence to backing up my claim and whole the reason why this debate exist. what my opponent may not understand is, a could-be very painful condition called, pregnancy osteoporosis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.medterms.com... http://www.ehow.com... as we all know the fetus is needs calcium and other minerals to survive and development, but where does these minerals come from? the woman's diet, but since many women around the world are malnourished and the fetus needs these minerals, these women's bodies will breakdown their own bones and bleach the minerals from them as a survival mechanism...but i'm pretty sure the fetus being a parasite will take a good chunk of those minerals too; thus proving my definition accurate and the human fetus is a parasite. "an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... to quote my opponent: " I have refuted my opponents attacks and made attacks of my own successfully, For all of the reasons I have stated," as we all can see this is far from the truth as it can possibly get.
the human fetus is a parasite according to science

I look forward to this debate. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate with you. =====Definitions===== parï¿½ï¿½aï¿½ï¿½site Noun/ï¿½ˆparï¿½™ï¿½Œsï¿½ï¿½t/ 1. An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense. 2. A person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return. give/giv/ Verb: Freely transfer the possession of (something) to (someone); hand over to: "they gave her water". someï¿½ï¿½thing/ï¿½ˆsï¿½™mï¿½ŒTHiNG/ Pronoun: A thing that is unspecified or unknown: "we stopped for something to eat". =====Argument===== Now we must give both of these definitions our full attention. I will be focusing mainly on the second definition for my argument. Now my opponent states that the human fetus is a parasite but I do not believe it to be so. Notice that the definition 2 states, "gives nothing in return. " but is this statement true? We must delve into the semantics of this statement. I have defined "give" above. The fetus actually does give "something," defined above. It gives pain, weight, feelings, emotions and more. I will not be using any sources as I do not feel this to be necessary because this is common sense. Also I must state that Wikipedia is not a valid source, sorry. =====Overall===== I have refuted my opponents attacks and made attacks of my own successfully.
the human fetus is a parasite according to science

the human fetus is a parasite according to SYMBIOSIS: "it is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species." http://www.answers.com... –Gale's Science of Everyday Things: Symbiosis like an parasitic twin, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin pregnancy harms women, http://www.thelizlibrary.org... "an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... "The placenta functions as an immunological barrier between the mother and the fetus, creating an immunologically privileged site. For this purpose, it uses several mechanisms: -It secretes Neurokinin B containing phosphocholine molecules. This is the same mechanism used by parasitic nematodes to avoid detection by the immune system of their host.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org... "The invasion of a specific type of trophoblast (extravillous trophoblast) into the maternal uterus is a vital stage in the establishment of pregnancy: * Failure of the trophoblast to invade sufficiently is important in the development of some cases of pre-eclampsia." http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved - Abortion Should Be Legal

"However, just because something has the potential to become a person doesn't automatically give it the same rights as a person. If this were the case, every time a woman had her period, we would have to arrest her for murder because her egg didn't develop into a zygote." An egg by itself has no potential to be a person. For that to happen, a sperm has to meet with it. Haven't you even taken biology or even a health class? "Being a human simply requires the joining of a sperm and egg cell. However, being a person requires certain mental capabilities (please don't make the argument about disabled people - I've already explained the differences)." I would like to add a great Ronald Reagan quote that perfectly refutes your argument about a fetus not being a person; "The real question today is not when life begins, but what is the value of human life?" It doesn't matter if you believe life begins at conception or not, what does matter is if we value human life or not? "Scientists are working to PREDICT miscarriages, not PREVENT them." In my sources, I will leave a link to one of my research centers working to both predict and prevent miscarriages. And yes, this actually is a red herring; whether or not miscarriages occur is irrelevant to a debate about abortion, it's meant only as a distraction. "Once again, I will say this: it isn't the people, but the institution I don't trust." An institution is inanimate. You cannot mistrust an institution, that's impossible. You can only mistrust the people in said institution. I would also like to ask that anyone voting on this debate ignore personal bias and try to make an impartial decision. By the way, I accept your apology for not responding to the last round of our gun control debate. Sources http://www.tommys.org...
Resolved - Abortion Should Be Legal

"My argument was more about the subconscious - such as self-awareness." But it's only a couple months away from developing all of those things. You act as if it were an inanimate object, not a developing human. "That is not at all what I was saying; I had already explained my belief that a fetus is not necessarily a person." Merely claiming another human is not human does not make killing it okay. And don't say "But the law considers it okay" because human history has taught us over and over again that just because something is legal is it not inherently right. "For one thing, there ARE people working to cure cancer. Although there is some scientific work done to try to predict miscarriages..." You refuted your own point in the same line. In the same way there are people trying to cure both cancer and AIDS, there are also people fighting against abortion and miscarriages. Once again, your logic proves faulty. As I stated in the last round, merely pointing out that Cause B exists does not take any relevance away from Cause A, whether Cause A is abortion or cancer. Your point about miscarriages is clearly a logical fallacy called a red herring. A red herring is defined as "a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic." Whether you've realized it or not, you are trying to distract from my points by bringing up an irrelevant topic, but it's not working. "Although this (pro-choice double standards) is not really what this debate should be about..." Our debate is not about miscarriages or about your theory that the pro-life have a secret sexist agenda, you brought up both of those points. If you want to keep this debate exclusively about abortion, you should only bring up abortion. "What's the point of making sure a child is born if you're going to take away its chance at a better life? If the institution isn't really concerned with the conservation of a life - not just survival, but a life - then it must have an ulterior motive - it may be subconscious, hidden even from the person it lives in, but it must be there." We don't want to take away it's chance at a better life. That's not only a baseless myth. And no, we don't have a hidden agenda either. Those who are out to protect life are merely out there to protect life, not all this "slow the progress of women" stuff you talked about earlier. Do you believe Mohandas Gandhi has a secret agenda? What about Mother Teresa? Pope Francis? Because all three of them are pro-life. By the way, this is another example of a red herring. You're merely accusing me and my cause wildly and expecting a distraction from the debate at hand and be treated as a valid argument. It's not. Thank you for your time.
Use of biological weapons

The one thing I want to know is what you are arguing. This is a debate so, instead of blabbing on about what I didn't include maybe you should include an argument yourself. And about the one actual point that you did have, the economical damage could kill more people than the disease itself. 7 million people died of starvation during the great depression and only 15,000 died in the Ebola outbreak. I also want to point out that I never said screw everything else. I said that these were only some of the effects. Instead of blabbing on about what I didn't include maybe you should actually argue yourself
Use of biological weapons

Let me get this straight on what you're arguing. You're against biological weapons because of the negative economic impact on the country they hit. Forget all of the people suffering with horribly painful reactions to biological agents. Forget the mass exodous of refugees from infected areas for the people that survive. Forget the retaliation from United Nations or NATO countries. Forget the long-term economic and military sanctions that would be placed upon the launching country. Forget that the launching Government that would be completely replaced. Forget that, you know, WWIII might happen.Con is arguing that biological weapons are bad for the economy because sick people cannot go shopping and conduct transactions.Con is arguing that some other country in the world is capable of attacking the US and infecting every single person in the population at the same time.You know what the boomerang effect would be to a country that attacked the USA with mass biological weapons? I'm pretty sure that country would cease to exist. Which, in a way, may be bad for their local economy.So, I'm arguing that a biological attack on the USA would be good for the economy. Granted, it would be really terrible from a humanity perspective with all that suffering and sickness and stuff. But where there is great adversity, 'Murica (*** YEA!), always comes out on top.
Use of biological weapons

The use of biological weapons is destructive and effects the economy hugely. They prevent normal transaction from occurring and with that happening we would have no meetings or large face to face transaction. It would cost over 5 trillion dollars to create enough medicine to vaccinate america if it were the cheapest vaccine available for a level three pathogen (influenza). The use of a weapon like this can also have a boomerang effect and spread back to the attacking nations territory.
Schools should stop their strongly-enforced policy of filtering anything fun on the school computers

Don't ask for other details of the scenario, but when I typed into Google images on a school computer "Water slide shirt fail", I was just looking for some innocent pictures of people's shirts getting caught on part of the water slide, or perhaps even people at an inside swimming pool getting told off for trying to go down a slide with a shirt on, but no, because of the stupid school, that is filtered, and here are some other things I typed in that were also filtered:"Rude, Nude and a lot of dudes! Volume 3"I was just expecting an innocent picture of Winnie the Pooh pulling a face at Christopher whilst all his male woodland friends looked on in astonishment."Unproductive games that will distract me from my schoolwork"Here, I was clearly looking for an example of what not to do so I could teach others not to do that too."Nuts!"This was obviously for my Food technology homework "Child that spontaneously combusted"I'm not even going to explain this one because that's just how innocent it is."Why Smoking is really cool"Ditto to the last explanation."Animal abuse funny youtube"This was for some homework I think."How to unfilter things"I just needed some extra knowledge, you know?So you see, Schools' worldwide unfairly strongly-enforced policy of filtering all fun websites on the internet. This is an important issue that's close to my heart as a 39 Year-old rubbish tip owner's assistant who reguarly uses the local school computers.Thank you. ( http://www.smoothwall.com...) <- One of the evil sites that allow schools to easily filter any fun pages on the internet.