BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Series 1 Episode 1: Another Abortion debate

I'm sick of repeating myself, Con. ONCE AGAIN. It is not murder, the fertilized egg doesn't even know it exists and it does not have a fully grown brain or a beating heart. If my heart were to stop right now and my brain were to stop functioning then what would happen? Oh yeah thats right, I wouldn't be alive. And perhaps someone started to stab my corpse? Would it be murder? No because I was also dead before. If someone were to stab and shoot or even set my dead corpse on fire, that person would not me a murderer and therefore I was not murdered.
Series 1 Episode 1: Another Abortion debate

just how in your other debate about abortion your opponent said 'a zygote is alive because it has all the basic requirements for life--growth, metabolism, reproduction, and reaction to stimuli. ' , to a similar argument . It does not matter if it is aware of its own existance , it is still murder of an innocane therefore immoral . If someone suddenly lost consciencious and you decided to kill him because of that is that moral? should it be legal? . 'But let's not forget that over 300,000 children are in foster homes' . Living in a foster home is better than being killed I mean I would prefer living in a foster home than being killed . You are still taking away someones life even though you don't know if he will enjoy it or not . 'Not mentioning the abuse that goes on in those foster homes. So yes, sometimes adoption could be a good options, and sometimes it can be a bad one, and unfortunately I'm going to look at the negatives of this.' how many kids would rather die in the name of not being in a foster home? what is more immoral giving a baby away or killing another human (the fetus through abotion) which is highly immoral .
Series 1 Episode 1: Another Abortion debate

Con states that abortion is murder, well It starts with an unfertilized egg, then a fertilized egg. The fertilized egg isn't even aware of it's own existence and does not have a brain. Aborting a fertilized egg is definitely not murder. It had no brain and never knew it existed. Even at the end of the second trimester, the fertilized egg still has a nervous system no more conscious than that of an animal fetus.It is still not self aware. If it is aborted it doesn't even matter because it never even knew it existed in the first place. Con claims that adopting could resolve the issue of a woman not wanting a child. And you're right! But let's not forget that over 300,000 children are in foster homes, waiting, waiting and waiting for someone to adopt them. Some kids get adopted as soon as they come out of the womb, and some don't get adopted until about the age of 5. Not mentioning the abuse that goes on in those foster homes. So yes, sometimes adoption could be a good options, and sometimes it can be a bad one, and unfortunately I'm going to look at the negatives of this. http://www.childrensrights.org...
Series 1 Episode 1: Another Abortion debate

As much as feminists would want it to be the issue of abortion is not about choice you made the choice to have sex with your partner now pregnancy is a consequence , In fact women after giving birth can obviously give it to adoption which is a great alternative to abortion , If you dont want to raise the baby dont kill it , give it in adoption . I am against abortion because i see it as no different than murder it doesnt matter if it is early abortion the outcome is the same a baby isnt going to be born , it will die . It does not matter if it is unconcious a 3 month old baby is also unconcious this doesnt justify murder . I didn't write too much because I would repeat myself . So that's just my little introduction to how I feel about it . 'it is a woman's body and that she has a choice on what she wants to do with it ' I feel like this argument has flaws with the major one being the fact that this is not just what the women does to her own body rather it is what she does to what is growing inside of her (fetus or baby) . 'and as soon as you give birth to this child, that child has to live the life of poverty and you as the mother as well. ' Taking away a life because it will cost you money is highly immoral and doesn't change the fact that it's murder , if you don't feel like you have enough money to support the child you can put it up for adoption , which i'm sure the child would prefer rather than dieing . Is it moral to kill a 1 month old baby because you don't have the money to support it ? I don't think so . 'Let's not forget to mention that abortion does reduce crime. ' any source to prove your claim? 'A mother who is denied an abortion has a child, the mother is poor, the child is poor, child grows up in a poor and un-stable environment, child commits crimes such as robbery, murder, and possibly rape. Now I'm not saying all children will commit crimes, but it is more likely so just keep that in mind. ' when you are a fetus you are innocent therefore it is wrong to murder it since he has done nothing wrong yet , what you are supporting is death penalty for something that hasn't even happened , I could use the same argument to kill babies in poor families . 'And lets also keep in mind that this will keep out population down. Let's not forget that currently there are about 7 billion people on this planet, and studies show by 2050 our worlds popular can sky-rocket up to about 9 million. That's basically like adding another china to the world. ' Over Population is only a problem in the third world , In the West people are having less and less children which is my bigger worry - population is a myth . 'At the end of the day, a woman has the right to do what she wants,' Can a women drive drunk? can a women murder someone ? can a women brake any type of law? I don't think so . I await my opponents response .
Sex Change is OK

=Rebuttal=C1. Dropped, extend.C2.Only attack was that it is "not immoral in any standpoint!", no justification for stating this and did not attack ym arguments.C3. My Opponent states: "If someone gets a sex change operation, than he/she IS apart of the opposite sex, if they feel that they truly are. It is NOT a lie, sir!!"Lie- An intentionally false statement[1].While a person who has a "gender change" operation claims to be a member of their changed sex, biologically they are still a member of their original sex. If I was to take their DNA and clone them, they are still a member of their original sex regardless of surgery or outward appearences. A male is defined as having a Y chromosome, so anyone with this chromosome is a male, despite surgery. So pretending to be a member of the Opposite sex when you are not, IS a lie.=Conclusion=Vote Con, my Opponent never gave a single decent justification for a sex change operation and essentially dropped all my arguments. Source:1. http://www.google.com...
Sex Change is OK

What you are suggesting is essentially running from your problems. Furthermore, your argument speaks of the legality of it, not the moral aspect.=Case=C1. From a religious standpoint, gender change is immoral. This is quite obvious, from a religious view, we were put on Earth the way we are and to change that goes against God. However many people are not religious, so now I will show how it is immoral from a secular stand-point. C2. From a secular standpoint, sex change is immoral. If we are unhappy with our lives, this must be changed by changing our lives, not ourselves. If we use trying to escape from "unhappiness" as a justification for a drastic decision such as a gender change, what other decisions could be justified? Suicide for one, which 80% of Americans believe is immoral[1]. C3. Gender change is not true gender change and is a lie.An individual who undergoes a sex change operation is not truly a member of the Opposite sex. Despite the outward appearence, the individual is still a member of their original sex. To pretend otherwise is false, and a lie which we can all agree is immoral. =Conclusion=My Opponent has not shown one compelling reason to justify a gender change operation. I have shown how it is immoral, and since we are discussing whether or not it is "ok" morality is highly relevant. I urge a con vote.Source:http://www.gallup.com...
Rethinking Education

Although literacy and maths aren't the most fashionable or exciting subjects as far as pedagogy goes, the truth is either maths, English, science, or a combination will form the basis and underlying knowledge in almost any skilled profession. You mentioned three types of problems we have today: health, social and economic. The first two are ultimately up to the parent. Parents come from a position of trust and are much better equipped to talk about highly personal issues such as diet and behaviour than a teacher that has no personal connection with the student and may know nothing about parenting. Teachers bring knowledge in academic topics, parents offer wisdom in everything else. As for economic problems, it's not as simple as shoving finance in students' faces. Most professions that dapple in commerce, economics or finance are of pretty much useless in solving the worlds financial problems. A stockbroker works to make money, not to solve the Greek financial crisis. People that do are academics that train for years and years to get to positions of government advocacy and teaching simple economics at school doesn't prepare for this. As for people that don't have anything to do with finance apart from paying their electric bills, dedicating resources to educate them in economics is useless. I'm not sure about the US, but in Australia studying economics is optional in Senior School and it should stay that way. School is for preparing people for university (or for those who don't chose to go, other professions). University is for preparing people to work. In most cases, working requires knowledge of English, maths and science, and as such it is important those are prioritised.
Rethinking Education

Both numeracy and literacy are vital life skills, however they are not the only and arguably not even the most important. Nutrition and health, basic finance (not the same as numeracy), social welfare and critical thinking are also huge factors in the success and happiness of both the individual and society as a whole. My argument is that the school curriculum needs to factor these as core subjects of equal standing to numeracy and literacy. Think about how many times a day your success relies on maths and then think how many times a day you have to eat. This shift in focus I believe will be a step in the right direction to solving the huge number of social, health and economic issues that face our society today.
Santa is real and he is no myth evidence is found

In this argument, my opponent gave no evidence for the following:Santa claus can be defined as someone who delivers presents to good kidsI will refute this in one link. http://en.wikipedia.org...There has been also pictures of santa clause being sitedI wish for my opponent to provide proof of this and I will refute it next roundAnother reason he is real because he use to be a greek myth which greek myths are told from real experiences so he is realHere my opponent again neglects to provide a source or evidence and instead uses glittering generalities. I also wish my opponent to provide evidence of a greek myth with Saint Nicholas and proof all Greek Myths are true. I will refute those next round too.And finally, my opponent provides a bogus link that leads to nowhere and as a result that link may be thrown out. My opponent also provides no evidence as to a man being able to fly to every single home in one night and manage to deliver presents.
Santa is real and he is no myth evidence is found

Sorry to ruin you from your parade but there is evidence of Santa clause and how he is real let us get started The person you are talking about which is Saint Nicholas has lots of evidence of Santa clauses existence. http://www.irishcentral.com... santa clause can defined as someone who delivers presents to good kids There has been also pictures of santa clause being sited. Another reason he is real because he use to be a greek myth which greek myths are told from real experiences so he is real
belief is theism, so science is a religion

I don't have beleifs, I know my experience of now kNow=now belief=be lie, as i don't know is true belief is nothing, and know is something. I cant believe in reality, and I cant know imagination, as know is true and imagination is false belief=acceptance that information is true know=physical experience of now, matter information is the opposite of matter, not real, like the universe is an imaginary concept understand=stand under information and be a slave to it now=reality loop 1 second or less to rely on, is information, as matter is necessary. without your senses you are dead god is information, a world creator if believed, like the belief in a round earth spinning in space, where as the earth I know beneath me has no necessary shape belief is doubt, as I don't know is true, and imgaianton is false, what is your neighbor doing right now? you accept reality by accepting you don't know unless you know, or you may eve heis sleeping or whatever I can at best believe in science, therefore it is a religion.. as I have to rely on it religion=to rely on, while self is one I can at best believe what others tell me, and belief is false, as I don't know is true.... fact=knowledge=personal physical experience
belief is theism, so science is a religion

I have no beliefs belief=be lie kNow=now if I don't have to imagine it, I know it what are you most certain off, what you neighbor is doing, or that you are reading these words? am I holding a rock in my hand? you have to imagine it I don't know is a position of know, and know is true, so its true I have to imagine it unless I don't, which is to say its true I know there is a separator thou, I can know infinity has no end, so it can never be destruction, and I can only imagine this, but it is absolute so its true, so I know it, as know is true. imagination is false, is true, even thou I can never physically experience my imagination belief=acceptance that information is true know=matter now, like my eyes perceiving physical light belief is doubt, and know is certain. the basis for any religion is doubt, and doubt is fear any belief is theism, therefore believing in science is false, is a religion religion=to rely on, while self is one
belief is theism, so science is a religion

Unfortunately, almost everything that follows is practically incomprehensible and appears to be a series of non-sequiturs rather than an argument or a rebuttal of my argument. With some effort, I think I can get to something along the lines of an argument but it doesn’t seem to be an argument related to the subject of the debate. He stated “i don't know=i have to imagine it” and so I will use my imagination to relate his response to the subject of the debate and attempt a rebuttal to what I can imagine he is getting at as it relates to the subject of the debate. He starts by equating belief with imagination, he asserts that immediate experience is true and beliefs are not true because they are imagined. This seems to lead to his own belief that science is not true and religion is not true, and therefore he is equating science and religion on that basis, which I presume he associates with the debate premise that equates belief with theism, and science with religion. And now my rebuttal of what I think my opponent is trying to say. His so called “argument” is self-refuting and therefore invalid, he states that “belief=be lie, as i don't know is true”, and everything he stated is a unsubstantiated belief, so by his own admission, his argument is untrue. His idea that “belief is theism” was not addressed at all, and calling belief a lie and also calling science a lie does nothing to support his contention that “science is a religion”. In the final analysis, he hasn’t done anything to support his assertion nor has he in any way refuted my initial argument, so the argument stands unchallenged and I don’t need to expand on it as it is.
belief is theism, so science is a religion

belief goes to imagination, as i can at best believe what i can only imagine, unless its absolute. what are you most certain off, what you neighbor is doing, or that you are reading these words? know=Physical experience of now belief=be lie, as i don't know is true i don't know=i have to imagine it 1 pen in my hand, and 1 pen in my hand, is 2 pens in my hand, is true because matter is true, and know is matter now belief is false, and know is true religion=to rely on=false i am one is true imagination is false, and physical experience of now is true for balance science is not true, you are quietly admitting it with soft language
belief is theism, so science is a religion

I accept, and per my opponent’s instruction, I will begin to argue in this round.My opponent has declared that "belief is theism" and while it can certainly be said that Theism is a belief, the inverse is not true, all beliefs are not related toTheism. There are many beliefs that have nothing to do with Theism, I believe the sky is blue, I believe a square has four sides, I believe one plus one is equal to two. These are beliefs and they have nothing to do with Theism, consequently, my opponent’s assertion that “belief is Theism” is not true. . My opponent follows the clearly incorrect assertion that "belief is theism" with the assertion “so science is a religion”, because this assertion begins with “so” he intends it to be a true statement that Iis contingent upon the first assertion, which has been shown to be false, so he has already been negated even if his conclusion that “science is a religion” were true, and of course, it is not true. . Science and religion are two distinct areas of human knowledge, science is interested in causes, while religion is interested in meanings. Science asks carefully delimited questions about natural phenomena. It was not intended as providing an overall worldview, a philosophy of life, or a set of ethical norms. Religions are ways of life, their primary aim is the transformation of the person, they involve experiences of liberation, it is a subjective domain of knowledge. Science is an objective domain of knowledge, the scientific approach attempts to remove the rich texture of personal apprehension and response and construct a model of a depersonalized world of “pure objectivity”, without purpose, passion, meaning, or value. Science deals with information that can be publicly verified, religion deals with inwardness and self-knowledge. . While it is true that there are people that have elevated science to a role that is religious in nature, that is scientism, it is not science. A strong argument can be made that scientism is a religion, or at least that it performs the role of religion in the lives of those people, but again, scientism is not science, and while scientism may be equated with a religion, in no way is science a religion, my opponent’s assertion is simply wrong.
Deisim makes more sense then Christianity

Pro submitted his argument really quickly, so it turns out that I do have enough time to post my last round. My opponent drops his entire case, instead just resorting to the claim that a literal interpretation of the Bible defines Christianity... (1) Even if this is true, I still win the debate because Pro has dropped & conceded my refutation of deism, which essentially means that his BoP is completely unfulfilled (he can't possibly prove that deism is more rational than Christianity if deism is false). As long as I make some attempt at fulfilling my own BoP, which I have, I still come out ahead of him, and therefore I win. (2) Pro's only justification for his claim is an ad populum fallacy, stating that because many Christians adhere to a literal biblical interpretation, Christianity as a whole should as well. However, the explanation I presented in Round 2 debunking the theological authority of the Bible is clearly superior to Pro's fallacious appeal, and therefore voters should prefer my framework for affirming Christianity. (3) Just because I said Christians can get some historical information on the life and teachings of Jesus from the Bible doesn't mean in any way that I support a literal interpretation of the Bible... it just means that parts of the New Testament can be used for general religious guidance by Christians. That does not contradict anything I have said thus far. == Conclusion == Pro basically concedes that Deism is false, and his only attempt at attacking Christianity fails because it is based on the mistaken belief that the literal Bible governs Christianity. Meanwhile, I have affirmed Christianity by proving all three of its fundamental premises (all of which were dropped & conceded by Pro). This is a resounding Con win.
Deisim makes more sense then Christianity

I don't even need to rebut this, as con does not use the bible. With this, this debate would be impossible to for me to win, as my points involve poking holes in the bible. However, I do have one rebbutal. Con stated that Christianity should revolve around the teaching of Jesus. Most churches and books don't do that, they use the bibles stories instead. So my point of literally interepting the bible is still valid, as a large amount of leaders, Christians, and churches do literally interpret the bible. Also, where do you get the teachings of Jesus from? The bible. So why do you take all of Jesus's teachings and his reserection literally, but not the other stories that are impossible?