BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
most debate worthy subject that can exist

Ok..... ummm... well...... ahhh...... I am slightly confused so I assume that I misconceived the purpose of this debate. So I am going to assume that what im about to say is arguing the correct thing but if I am wrong please tell me. Yes, we can see rocks. Therefore this means that there is no value in arguing over their existence. However, God is not a visible being and therefore it would be valid to debate over his existence. I propose that a better debate topic would be to argue on something that is subjective rather than debating the existence of something the rest of the world confirms is true. Moral issues are perhaps the most debate worthy topics because it both brings different points of view into light, promoting informed thought on important topics, and helps to gather public interest and opinion in a topic.
most debate worthy subject that can exist

Why thank you sir! In response, I would like to question the purpose of the affirmative's statement. What are you trying to say? Rocks being made up of matter does not qualify the questioning of their existence, therefore, why do you find this such a worthy debate topic? I personally believe that we have more important things to argue about than rocks. Current world issues or subjects of public interest are more suitable for a debate topic and are more relevant than the existence of rocks.
Advertisements do more harm than good

My opponent merely copied and pasted his Whole entire argument from that site. Literally the only the my opponent wrote it this round is "Bam! vote for me" I refuse to argue something that was copied and pasted, and had absolutely no opinion or debate infused in it. You should vote for me because: 1. My opponent copied and pasted all his arguments in the last round. Didn't include one bit of his own intelligent information. Thus I get the conduct point. 2. He dropped every single argument I made in the last round and in the rounds before. 3. Given that none of my point were argued, he concedes to my arguments. 4. He agrees with my points several times. 5. Asks me to better explain an argument, then I do, and he still doesn't respond to it. 6. Again, he has horrible grammar, so I get the s/g point. I thank the audience for reading this "debate" And strongly urge you to vote pro for all the reasons listed above! Thankyou!
Advertisements do more harm than good

you should vote for me for because i unquestionably proved my points to the fullest degree of understanding, its not fair that you are attack me personally, im new immigrant from japan in canada first, i skipped over your ssome of your point because they merely do not relate well with the topic second, i only agreed with your ideals with its relation to the economy, not as a fact of your opinion third, your being very silly and rude.. this is a debate not a personal argument 4. your points are limited with examples from irrelevant websites that dont support your claim again advisement are polluting society, because it harm individuality and thought. if you watched the documenty super size me, there is on scene where they show a picture of Christ and ronal McDonald, only a few kids recognized christ and all knew who Ronald McDonald was. it show that kid are being over bombarded with advetisments.For children and young people there are particular problems associated with the effects of advertising. They are the one who are often vulnerable to messages which are put forward in the advertisements. They like to measure up to their peer group and feel pressurized by the images that they see on screen. This leads to eating disorders, for example, associated with advertisements featuring idealized thinness. It is extremely important for parents to inculcate a feeling of high self esteem in their children, so that they can see the advertisements as a part of the commercial world. They should be made to understand the techniques used in advertising and taught to judge things themselves. sorry for my spelling errors
Advertisements do more harm than good

thank you very good points your first point is irrelevant were are debating if ads to more harm then good, your point explains why we advitisments are needed. my opinion on your second point i agree ads do contribute to the economy, inorder for business to succed in societys attention they need ads. but, nowdays business are brainwashing us with millions of ads. Consumers are exposed to hundreds of commercial messages per day in one form or another -- from the boring, copy-laden radio commercial to the easily skimmed, forgettable newspaper ad, and from the billboard on the side of the bus to the logo on the side of the building. The average American is exposed to 247 commercial messages each day. Consumer Reports Website http://www.consumerreports.org... CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=18759&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=18151 People cannot just choose to ignore advertising, because advertisers use many underhand methods to get their message across. Posters have attention grabbing words, or provocative pictures. Some adverts today are even being hidden in what seem like pieces or art or public information so people don't realise they are being marketed to. By targeting people's unconscious thoughts adverts are a form of brainwashing that take away people's freedoms to make choices. Advertising gives an unfair advantage to big businesses. Small companies might have much better products, but they cannot afford to advertise them as well and so people don't find out about them. This restricts the quality of products for consumers, and places a huge roadblock to the success of small businesses. you last point is confusing in round three could you explain your point please and its relation to the debate topic? thank you
Abortion

Not your fault if you are new. Check out my first few debates; they were not good at all :P. Feel free to contact me or anyone lse for tips on the structure of debates or tips in general. For now, on to the refuting part of my debate. This will be rather short, as I do not have much to refute.--------Counter Rebuttal I--------For this argument, con agrees with me. I can't refute this becse he agrees with me, but I can show how it makes is resolution impossible. Con's resolution was a full banning of abortion, meaning he can not agree under any circumstance. However, he just did, meaning he fails to show his need for a full banning of abortion, or his resolution. Without a proper resolution met by con, it is impossible for him to win the arguments section, unless I forfeit, which I have no intent to do. Until then, extend this argument as a dropped point.--------Counter Rebuttal II--------For the following argument, con presents a rebuttal to my argument. I have two possible rebuttals to this.(a) Kiling someone is justified if it is in self defense or to protect others. In a way, abortion is like this. The woman who was raped and can not afford a baby without it crippling her life. So aborting it would be self defense of her life, correct? So even if it is murder, like you state, it is justified if you go deeper into the circumstance.(b) My second rebuttal is that a fetus is not human, thus making it not a murder. In the first round, I stated how a fetus was not human or alive (which you failed to refute), thus making it impossible to murder a fetus. How can you murder something that is not living yet? You are not taking away an actual life when you abort in the first or second trimester.That concludes the second round. I look forward to the third. Thank you for reading.
Abortion

I'm going to be honest here, I am new to Debate.org, so I don't know exactly how these debates are structured. I am going to go ahead and assume I respond to the argument you just posted. So, for this round, I will respond to your first argument, "Scenarios", while I listen to this amazing album by the London Philharmonic Orchestra. I will respond to each scenario individually. First, scenario I: "...the scenario in when both the mother and the child will die." I personally, agree with your argument on this particular scenario. Why both the mother AND the child? Scenario II: "...a woman in a poor household who can barely support herself was raped against her own will." This, as I'm sure you are well aware, is quite a controversial issue. I do NOT agree with your side of the argument, but I do see where you come from. Who are we to decide whether someone dies or lives? No, you may not be able to support yourself, let alone a child, but that doesn't give you a reason to kill. A life is precious, we can not simply take it because we think we need to, or have the authority to, just because we can. That concludes my response to your first argument. I apologize for any errors on my part, regarding the structural norm of debates on Debate.org.
Resolved: Abortion should be completely banned in the United States

First, I would like to say good luck. The first round was meant for acceptance, but that is all right. Case: There are two main reasons to vote con in this debate. Women don't always have the choice of having the baby, so if it would be harmful to them, aborting should be allowed. If abortion is restricted without being completely banned, there leaves room for exceptions like these and it is a vote con. The second reason to vote con is that anti-abortion legislation would harm blacks more than any other demographic. This legislation would promote an institutionalized racism. Finally, supplementing both of these arguments, aborting is not killing, Argument 1: reproductive coercion Pregnancies aren't always because of mistakes. reproductive coercion is the idea of forced pregnancies inflicted upon women. This is a common trend in the U.S. [1] In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, women deserve the right to undo what was done that could be harmful to them. Denying them that right is simply enhancing the patriarchy that is our society. In the case where they can't survive the pregnancy, this is effectively murdering the women. Argument 2: Racism Five times as many blacks in the US abort than whites. Any action against abortion is an act of racism [2] By denying a choice that is taken primarily by black individuals, it is effectively enforcing institutional racism, whites denying a choice that is primarily used by blacks. Argument 3: Killing a human being A fetus is not a human being. Google definitions defines human being as having qualities such as "superior mental development, power of articulate speech" [3]. Killing human being is awful. However, not aborting can result in a mother's death and this is not killing a human being. Since babies do not posses the power of articulate speech, they are not human beings. The aborting mothers, however, are human, and so killing them instead of aborting is much worse.
This is a Poetry Battle

I'm sorry my "opponent" has missed the other two arguments :(. But I do applaud her for an interesting debate idea. I quite enjoyed that. Falling Asleep As the silent weight of darkness falls, And the birds of night their sweet haunting calls And the leaves laugh sleepily in the nocturnal breeze, We shut our eyes and lie with ease. After a long day spent under the sun, My being calls for sleep with every ion. Whether little or much I've done in a day Attaining unconsciousness happens in much the same way. Head centered on pillow, body prostrate on bed My mind down the long tunnel of sleep is led But before I follow, I think and muse About the day's thoughts, fears, conversations, news. Finally sleep carries me gently down And thoughts leave my head as if I'm abdicating a crown. I journey through the long dark hall 'Til I hear sweet morning's loud clarion call.
This is a Poetry Battle

Again, I can't say this is a spontaneous effort. I wrote it on the shores of Kawishiwi Lake at the end of July. Water The vast, glistening expanse Locked in eternal, rhythmic dance. Sky's beautiful, fickle daughter Not gas, not solid, but water. The life-giving liquid of sorrow and joy; Its changing mood and caprices play with us like a toy. An unfirm foundation to our insignificant lives, From St. Ives all the way to Maldives. Titanic, Fitzgerald, how many thousands more Driven and riven by sea on the shoals of death's door? Yet how many battles, heights of human endeavor Have been lost and won on the sea, in the past and forever? Great Atlantic cries. Sweet Gitchi-Gumi sighs. Trackless Pacific shakes and moans. Mediterranean makes kings, Baikal moans. Water.
This is a Poetry Battle

Great idea! Here's my first entry: Partly Cloudy When Cloud and Sun fight And Battlefield Sky is filled with their might Vying for domination of horizons great; We ask -- What shall be our fate? Great long battalions, majestic and white Trying to extinguish Castle Sun's light. Volley after volley, they go back and forth, Their battles resounding from the South to the North. Full sun or full cloud, their ceasefires deem. When victorious one or the other might seem. But the battle goes on, for always they rally, And with hit after hit rises the tally. Locked forever in massive heavenly conflict, As if mandated by some higher edict. Sun and Cloud become good and evil in this, the inverse, And the battle for Sky flares into a fight for the universe. I can't say this was written spontaneously. About a month ago, in fact. Hope everyone likes it.
This is a Poetry Battle

This is a poetry duel. Each opponent comes up with a new poem for every round, and then the audience votes on whose poems they believe were better. I'll begin. The Absent is Present A dash here and a dot there, What I see are words. Five-thousand years ago These words made sense to someone. These characters would tell you what day it was And show you the way to the market. They'd race your eyes across the page, Daring you to pronounce them wrong, To ruin the delicacy they held.... It's gorgeous, the slender markings, The way the lines move across the paper As the dancer weaves upon a stage. The secrets within the locked box Are no different from the unknown letter. Their contents are mysteries, And are that way for a reason. The hidden depths of the ocean floor, Understood only to those who live there. An ancient language, Dead to all but those who once spoke it.
Scotland should become independent.

(1) What makes you think that Scotland would suffer? (2) This is NOT about fame. Do you genuinely think that Alex Salmond wants to be an A-list celebrity? Even David Cameron and Alistair Darling have admitted that Scotland could succeed on its own as an independent country. You have also pointed out that the oil will run out. So what? Everything runs out some time. Anyway, 60 years worth of oil would develop Scotland enough to become an incredibly successful economy. That would still be worth a lot of money.
Scotland should become independent.

The main point is that Scotland has lost there chance of being independent and so there were reasons for the loss. 1) Scotland would struggle without support end of. 2)They want the fame and are all power hungry politicians which they failed at. It wouldn't work they have oil yes but it will run out one day and do the government have money to properly support the country. The country has finance problems already and it would become worse if they are independent as they will be left to fend for themselves. Yes they would be part of the EU but they have to go through a long process of being accepted and have to meet all the requirements.
Scotland should become independent.

I'd like to rebut your points. (1) You said that Scotland would not earn nearly enough money to cover the welfare system in place. This is absolute codswallop. Scotland have oil, advances in life science, green technology and other future developments. You also said that Scotland has a reputation for losing money. Why do you say that? (2) You said that Scottish independence is pointless. So what if they lose the BBC? The people who want Scotland to be independent are politicians who want Scotland's future in Scotland's hands, rather than important decisions being made in Westminster, as they are right now. (3) You said that tax would be raised if Scotland became independent. Actually, it is the complete opposite. If Scotland became independent, it would abolish the 'bedroom tax', and raise the minimum wage. David Cameron is a manipulative man, who is not telling you that because Scotland may quit the pound, it would cost the rest of the UK "500 million pounds. On the subject of money, the UK has a national debt of a whopping "1 trillion (that's "1,000,000,000,000). If Scotland remains part of the union, it will still have to pay for the UK's national debt, while if they become independent, they will only have to pay a fragment of the national debt. Alex Salmond has described Scotland as 'a surly lodger in the United Kingdom'. The truth is, that this lodger is the victim of exploitation by a greedy, ruthless landlord who cares only about his tenant's wealth rather than his welfare.
Scotland should become independent.

1)Scotland would not earn nearly enough money to cover the welfare system in place. Scotland isn't advanced enough to become independent.- It would be disastrous, Scotland has a reputation for losing money and so wouldn't survive on their own. 2)Scottish independence is pointless, they would lose BBC, Security Services and other things and so the only people who want a independent Scotland are Power- hungry politicians who want their own country. 3) Scotland should not be independent as it lacks planning. Others have planned all details out and tax would be raised to cover extra expenses a lot of jobs would also be lost.
There is no reasonable, non-religious reason for abortion to be illegal.

You say to give the child away, but we must look at the amount of people the Earth is able to keep alive. In 2010 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation released a report stating that there are 925 million poeple without enough food to eat. Around 12 million people world wide suffer from Choleria, a desiese spread by infected food and water, typically found in over populated areas. There are many theories published though-out the years stating a wide range of populations that the world would be able to sustane, from one million people to one trillion. I know it sounds harsh, it sounds harsh to me too, but the cold hard truth is that it would be better for the entire world and the people that reside upon it, for that person to not be born.
There is no reasonable, non-religious reason for abortion to be illegal.

Thank you.Refuting Pro's objectionPro's objection to my argument is basically that what if the women doesn't want that child to be a part of her life in the first place? This may result in abuse of child emotionally, physically, and possibly sexually. Why? In the words of Pro: 'I have trouble believing the average person would "love" someone they did not want to be a part of their life in the first place.' Since the the women doesn't want that child to be a part of her life in the first place, having it may result in abuse of child emotionally, physically, and possibly sexually. This will then not be a good future for the child, and he or she may take suicide.However, how can the woman not wanting the child to be a part of her life in the first place when she doesn't even know it yet, nor meet it yet? When she actually sees the child she may change her mind. And even if she still doesn't change her mind and still doesn't want the child to be a part of her life, that doesn't justify killing it and depriving it of our very natural and important right. Namely, our own future and life.Even if the women doesn't want the child to be a part of her life, she doesn't need to kill it. There is a thing called 'giving the child to someone else after it is born'. Many women give their child to someone else after it is born (i.e Adoption).This is mostly because they just don't want them or cannot afford having them. If the biological parents want nothing to do with their offspring, there are families all over the nation waiting desperately to adopt a baby, families who are willing to adopt diseased babies of any race or ethnicity.[1] Indeed, this is much better than just killing it. So the objection that the women doesn't want the child to be a part of her life is no excuse, and nor does it justify killing it. Moreover, giving the child to someone else after it is born will save it from emotionally, physically, and possibly sexually children abuse by the biological mother who didn't want it. Indeed, there is no need to kill anything.Sources[1] http://www.abort73.com...
There is no reasonable, non-religious reason for abortion to be illegal.

I am very sorry for forfeiting earlier; my computer was experiencing some technical difficulties. You say "A fetus is basically a future human being. The fetus will become a human, so by killing it you are not even allowing it the right to become a human and have a life." But what would the quality of that life be? How do you treat something you don't care about and did not want in the first place? I have trouble believing the average person would "love" someone they did not want to be a part of their life in the first place. If someone has a child they do not want this would almost always end in a broken home, a home with one parent. This may result in abuse of child emotionally, physically, and possibly sexually. All of these factors can lead to depression which can lead to suicide meaning the child chooses to end their own life. Suicide is the sixth leading cause of death among those 5-14 years old. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among those 15-24 years old. I would rather see the life spared before it has to suffer so much.
There is no reasonable, non-religious reason for abortion to be illegal.

Accepted. As Con, I will argue that there are reasons which are non-religious but also still reasonable for abortion to be illegal. I however don't think abortion should be illegal if 1) The woman's life is in danger, 2) If the woman was raped, and 3) If the fetus is very bad and ill, meaning that it will probably die anyway. In all other situations, I think it should be illegal.
There is no reasonable, non-religious reason for abortion to be illegal.

There is absolutely no non-religious reason for induced abortion to be illegal. I challenge whoever accepts this debate to name any reason, beyond religious morals; this medical procedure should become restricted at a federal level. Definitions: Abortion - noun - The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. Illegal - noun - contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc. Federal - adjective - pertaining to or of the nature of a union of states under a central governmentdistinct from the individual governments of the separate states. Religion - noun - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Moral - adjective - of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical. www. dictionary. reference. com