BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be banned.

Hi. I accept your challenge. I believe that pain-free abortion is something that must be legalized in our modern and progressive society. Firstly, the abortion I talk about is the voluntary abortion, as requested by a woman who is finding herself pregnant with child she does not want. CA 1) "if you did abortion, you are like a murderer" Abortion as I accept as legalizable is the one done within 14 weeks of period absence, aka 12 weeks of pregnancy. During this stage, the new organism is an embryo, never exceeding the size of several millimetres. It is not yet capable of thought, thus it is not murder. Furthermore, if killing an embryo was a crime, then killing rabbits, bugs, and any animal capable of brain stimuli would be even worse, since they have developed a life, thoughts, habits and reflexes, when the embryo cant even use its brain yet. 2) "It has negative effects on our society. Moreover, consequences are so horrible!" Please develop both these arguments. The "moreover" suggests an added argument to what you are saying. Please explain what these negative effects are, what the consequences are, and how they qualify as horrible. The seems an interesting and eye-opening path for the argument to pursue upon. I shall let you develop this part of the argument before countering it. 3) "After abortion this person will be emotionally depressed" "Think about your health and not born baby!" http://forum.sofeminine.co.uk... http://www.marieclaire.com... and especially; http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... Some women are too poor to afford having a child. This child will then have little or no education, and perhaps even turn to criminality to find the feeling of being appreciated he never had at home. Some women do not want a child. They will hate him all his life, because it was something they were forced to do and did not want. To avoid negative impact on mothers, mandatory psychological assistance should be provided, to accompany the woman, and help her survive this trying time of her life. But you do not have the right to say, that just for their good, you are going to FORCE them to have a child they do NOT want, to make two souls live a life of POVERTY and mutual FRUSTRATION, just so that they avoid, indeed, terrible psychological problems, but that you could resolve without impeding on their private lives. So, yes, you will help 10 mothers who actually will enjoy their baby, and who will be happy with them. But if you make abortion a long and trying process, where people have to battle through ranks of highly trained and highly experienced pregnancy experts, doctors and psychologists, where constant support and protection, meetings with real mothers who were in this situation is assured, then you will avoid putting 50 more mothers in permanent depression, and making 40 more suicide, or rely on illegal, unsafe and often fatal abortion. Don't avoid something new. Prepare people for it.
Gun Control in the USA

The United States is ranked 24th in terms of civilian murder. it also has the most highly armed civilian population. But up to 2009, crime rapidly decreased. The U.S. murder rate decreased 8.1% between 2008 and 2009, and has fallen every year since 2006. Yet, in European countries that banned handguns has had more crime rates than those who allowed it[1]. Yet, this does not work in our nation. We need to do wahtever it takes to make this stop. Even though kids with mental illness tend to be very bright, we need to stop this! We don't need to get rid of the 2nd ammendment, but we need to make it more strict! whatever it takes to prevent this again must be done!
Gun Control in the USA

Gun Control has presented itself to be a huge problem in American society- the last 2 tragedies with guns all had guns that had been legally purchased with permits necessary for gun ownership. the last 2 tragedies, both including suspected schizophrenic men. It has been said that guns should be banned all together, but only certain actions should be taken. I think Assault Rifles should be banned altogether, and Handguns should be completely legal. yet, when one wants to purchase firearms, such as a Glock, which was used in the last 2 tragedies, that one person should be reviewed in his/her psychological history, their criminal record, and history and then based on those factors, they will either be approved or disapproved.
god=information

Yes, I could argue that religion is true, but not only do I not think so (look at my profile, I'm an atheist and an anti-theist), I don't see that it is relevant. New "Arguments"PRO has now claimed that "god=false" and "false=information. " As these are not even coherent concepts, I will not bother to address them any further, except to say that if it was an attempt to redefine terms, I reject it; that part of the debate is past. Wrapping UpPRO made the claim that "god=information," but he never provided any evidence to support that claim. PRO has failed to meet his burden of proof. On the other hand, I have demonstrated how the definitions of both "god" and "information" describe different ideas. Therefore, they cannot be equal as claimed by PRO in the initial resolution.
god=information

PRO has not argued for his resolution, nor has he rebutted my comments. I would like to point out that if we accept PRO's comment that "god is imaginary...not real," then not only does it not fit the unchallenged definition I offered in the first round, it can also not meet the definition of information, as the imagined god cannot be verified and considered factual or knowledge. I look forward to PRO's next comments.
god=information

DefinitionsFirst off all, I reject the definition PRO is offering for information. Since PRO did not offer an initial definition, I provided on in the previous round. My definition is well sourced, and it agrees with the way we use the word in our everyday lives. Pros definition is unsourced, it does not conform to any usage I am familiar with, and it was not offered at the instigation of the debate. Imagining godsPRO has posed a question about imagining god. Although I fail to see the point of the question, and I am not even sure about the grammatical qualities of the question, I will do my best to address it. I assume that PRO is asking about whether or not a god can be imagined. Of course a god can be imagined; however, this means nothing. I can imagine a chair, but that image in my brain is not a chair. Similarly, if I imagine a god, that image is not a god. I can only imagine that PRO is trying to equate the imaginings of a god in my brain as information, but this point falls flat. As I pointed out above, the mental image I have of a god, is only a mental image; it is not a god. Therefore, it does not fit the definition of "information," since "information" is defined as knowledge about a thing, and I have no way to compare my mental image with an actual god to determine if it matches in any way. Also, even if we accept my mental image of a god as information, it still doesn't equate to god, since it does not meet any of the aforementioned qualities of gods. Pros ArgumentPRO has not offered any overt argument. So far he has failed to support his position. I look forward to his arguments in the following rounds.
god=information

PRO has made the following claim: "god=information"Definitionsgod: A powerful spirit or person, often considered to have created, or to have had a hand in the creation of the world and/or the universe [1][2][3][4][7]. Also often seen to be ruler of the world and/or universe [2][3][6] as well as the creator or arbiter of morals [2][7]. God is also often seen as immortal and without beginning or end [4][5][7]. information: Knowledge or facts about a subject [8][9][10]. RebuttalGiven these two different definitions, PRO is unjustified in making the claim that "god=information. "Sources[1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3]http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]http://www.bible.ca...[5]http://www.islam101.com...[6]http://www.shaivam.org...[7]http://www.jewfaq.org...[8]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[9]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[10]http://dictionary.reference.com...
god=information

theist=i accept reality is false(i accept imagination is true)=i accept reality is imagination atheist=i accept reality is false agnostic=i accept reality is true theist=belief atheist=disbelief, belief to the contrary agnostic=i accept i dont know know negates religious claims, and religious claims have nothing to do with knowledge if i show you a full hand with 5 fingers, and you see 5 fingers but i claim i am showing you 3, do you believe my claim? if i take my hand behind my back and say i am showing 5 fingers behind my back, is it true for you to say that i am showing 5 fingers behind my back?
9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States.

"Bush did not need 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq- he could have simply used weapons of mass destruction as his 'excuse'. There would be no reason for such a massive attack, when (playing devils advocate) he could just make up some stories about Iraq having WMDs." -Bush could have simply used WMD's, but instead he wanted to be sneaky. Therefore he made up stories so that the American people wouldn't think he had something to do with 9-11. "Bush has no reason to 'hate' America, and if he were to do that he could do it easier by just harming us though his executive level rather than going to the point of random attacks on our country." -Again, you underestimate his 'sneakyness' (not to quote Mr. deeds at all). He wants to make the people think he isnt hurting them and instead is completing his Mission: hatred america mission through (partially) an attack on america (9-11) You say I am yet to quote the 'official' report. How can it be official if he was behind the attacks? He simply altered the whole report. (there's your executive power that he is using) I would now like to speak to those who will be voting on this issue. Vote for who argued there point better in all rounds excluding round 1, not on what position you hold. Thank you
9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States.

Well, I have to admit I find it rather unorthodox to actually continue this debate you personally find to be absolutely wrong, and figured you would concede due to this error.... But if you choose to continue this debate, so shall I. Bush did not need 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq- he could have simply used weapons of mass destruction as his 'excuse'. There would be no reason for such a massive attack, when (playing devils advocate) he could just make up some stories about Iraq having WMDs. Bush has no reason to 'hate' America, and if he were to do that he could do it easier by just harming us though his executive level rather than going to the point of random attacks on our country. You've yet to counter anything in the official report, or propose how exactly Bush did this.
9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States.

D*** It!!! lol pardon my language...Yes, it was a very late night, and I now realize what position I have taken. I can't believe I did that. I thought you were insane for posting this topic but apparently I'm now the crazy one on the crazy side. I propose that everyone reading disreagards my first post in this debate. Now I guess I must try and convice the others reading this that it WAS an inside job huh? crap...well here goes... The Bush Administration made 9-11 happen and knew about it before it even happened and here is why: 1.) They wanted an Excuse for going into the middle east and capturing oil refineries so they could get richer (since we all know the Bush family are oil tycoons) 2.) They figured it would be easy to convince the American public of the connection between Iraq and Afghanistan and therefore made the attack happen so that they could overthrow a dictator they didnt like (saddam) 3.) They could inflict fear into Americans so they could be re elected 4.) They wanted to expand our empire to the middle east 5.) Bush actually hates america and wanted to destroy it as much as possible...by attacking on 9-11, he was able to kill 3,000 people and blame it on someone else, start a war and send our economy down the tubes, and kill american soldiers fighting for a cause they thought was important when Bush really has a 'secret' agenda. Let's pretend that first round didn't happen shall we? please?
9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States.

I don't think otherwise, I took the con position. The topic of the debate is "9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States." I oppose such a view, and as you can clearly see I am "Con" and you are "Pro" You must prove that 9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States. Sounds like a simple mistake to me, it's late at night, etc etc.
9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States.

Thank you DucoNihilum for posting this debate. This should be fun because they real reason 9-11 happened was because of our presence in the Middle East. Al-Queda warned us to get out of the Middle East before 9-11 happened. We did not leave, therefore they bombed one of our ships in the Indian Ocean. They followed that up by telling us to get out again, and we didn't comply, so they hit the Trade Centers and the Pentagon and were going for the White House but crashed in Pennsylvania. There is NO way that the United States Government would kill over 3,000 of its own citizens. No matter how horrible they are in office, it just wouldn't happen. I look forward to how you think otherwise. sccrplyr40
9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States.

It's not my duty to prove otherwise. I'm con. You're pro. To the voters- paying attention to the first and second rounds, it is quite obvious my opponent is not serious about this debate- he called me crazy for what he later found out was what he had to argue, in fact, he argued that it would be insane to support..... what he eventually did. He somehow managed to actually try this debate- in a very half assed way, he failed to show any real evidence that Bush was at all involved in 9/11 and just suggested that he perhaps doesn't like the US, which was obviously a false argument to begin with and was just silly. He failed to prove his proposition, thus I win. I do not need to provide negative proof.
9/11 was an 'inside' job, done by the government of the United States.

This is stupid. You should have just quit- its very clear that you aren't putting any real effort into this debate as you yourself called the view 'crazy'. You're just coming up with 'crazy' views to support your argument- views that you can not even convince yourself of. You're not showing any proof that 9/11 was an 'inside job', but rather speculating as to the intentions of GWB. You have not shown how Bush could have possibly done this. Perhaps, to win this debate, YOU personally did these attacks! Perhaps YOU attacked us! Maybe you just hate America THAT much. These arguments are silly.
Donating to Africa

Giving it to people who have children need the money to send their children to public school. Using the money, the government can build more work for people. Even a penny can make a difference! What you said about the business is right, which helps the economy. Some Americans go to Africa and deliver it to schools not banks or the government. You can't give money to people who are just slacking off or lazy, you have to give money to the homeless. Even if it leads to welfare without work, it will not lead to worldwide doom. When the economy is well, you don't have to donate any more.
Donating to Africa

It only helps if it is properly distributed. Giving it to everyone for doing no work does no good. When countries donate to Africa, they give it straight to the government. They give little of it to the people. What works is loaning to Africans. This gives them incentive to work hard to make a profit to pay it off. A potential employer could start a business, use the money to hire people, so then more people have jobs, new businesses arise, and they make a profit. The loaner gets his money back, and everyone profits, win-win. If you give a homeless person a dime, he might buy a packet of Ramen noodles (actually, even that is 15 cents), and eat it, contributing nothing to the economy through labor. This leads to welfare, which removes incentive to work, which leads to worldwide doom. Try http://www.kiva.org... to make a difference!
Donating to Africa

I thank you a third time for debating (which is a little annoying) because I am always debating you but: Donating can help people who are desperately in money, or a school. A school will need many money to pay back the teachers too. Homeless people are the one you donate to, not those richy guys. Even if you gave a little homeless person one dollar, he will dance for joy. Sometimes, you can tell if he is faking to get your money. Even so, it's best to give a dime. A dime for you might be piece of cake, but for them, they might think they are now a millioniare. Remember, their resources aren't as well as our country's resources. People can start a business that is a resturant that gives food for a medium-low price for people. Also, people have to travel in donkeys just to get water. That's hard to do your homework on a rocky road, and you need like at least a gallon of water. Their technology isn't as well as ours is. We can donate our resources like paper for them to use. The government can make more labor jobs for a medium wage, so it can boost some of their economy. I await your rebuttal Mongoose
Donating to Africa

Donating to Africa actually hurts its economy. When we give them money, a lot of it is kept by greedy politicians who decide not do do anything helpful with it, so this also causes a lot of coups when people take over the government to just get the steady flow of money from the fools who believe donating helps. When some of the money does reach the people, it can cause inflation, because everybody got money from no work. This means they really got less than nothing. Also they might donate food or other things to "make things better". When they do, they put the people in Africa who originally made that object out of business, causing more people to rely on other countries. With the giving a guy money, that is a bad idea. If you gave I guy your money, he would just use that to take advantage of you in the future and get more money, or never be seen again. It's lose-lose, in both the friend and Africa issue.
If Gender is subjective, then it has no practical usage

Pro is not only unashamedly trying to change the terms of the debate halfway through and redefine the key words he himself gave in R1, but thinks this isn't patently obvious or logically fallacious."Impractical" is not mentioned in the nature of this debate. Only "pracitcal" is. There are only two outcomes based on the point of view of how to interpret this, both of which result in a clear Con victory.Option A) "Practicality" and "Impracticality" are defined by each other such as with the relationship between "flammable" and "non-flammable"If practicality and impracticality are defined by each other and mutual opposites, impracticality must be the opposite of the definition of "practicality" given in R1. Attempting to change the definition in R3 is just an attempt to change the definition of practicality halfway through the debate with an extra step of using the reverse of the word to change the original version by proxy. This is done simply because Pro shot himself in the foot and lost his argument when using the originally agreed terms and definitions, and rather than conceding he would rather engage in poor conduct.In this case the change of definition cannot be accepted, he has already provided an example of how my argument is right based on the original definition accepted by both parties in R1 and voting Con is the only concievable option.Option B) "Practicality" and "Impracticality" are not defined by each other, such as the raltionship between heard (sensing sound with your ears) and unheard (Never having known something to have occured; e.g. "it was unheard of")If impracticality is it's own word with a definition unconnected to practicality, it is simply irrelevent. Neither the topic of the debate nor R1 mention impracticality, only practicality. If impracticality isn't an attempt to redefine "practicality" and is it's own seperate word whose definition isn't connected, why should we care when it doesn't enter into the debate.To sum up, there is no case where Pro's argument makes sense. He is either trying to change the agreed upon definitions or his argument is irrelevent as it doesn't relate to the definitions given in R1. I can see no basis for someone supporting Pro.
If Gender is subjective, then it has no practical usage

Pro, realising that his has shot himself in the foot, is now trying to change the definitions that were given in Round 1.There are two notable and different definitions and usages of the word practical. 1. of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas. "there are two obvious practical applications of the research" synonyms: empirical, hands-on, pragmatic, real, actual, active, applied, experiential, experimental, non-theoretical, in the field; More 2. (of an idea, plan, or method) likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible. "neither of these strategies are practical for smaller businesses" synonyms: feasible, practicable, realistic, viable, workable, possible, within the bounds/realms of possibility, reasonable, sensible, useful, helpful, constructive In Round 1, the very start of this debate, Pro made abolutely clear that he was talking about definition 1. He literally spelt it out. By definition 1 he has conceded his argument.How he suddenly wants to change this and redefine one of the key words midway through the debate. That is unacceptable behaviour in a debate and should not be tolerated.Pro's argument has failed and the only defence he can muster is trying to alter definitions that he has already provided in R1 as the basis of this debate.
If Gender is subjective, then it has no practical usage

I'm afraid that my opponent has misrepresented my argument. Con claims that I have conceded the argument because there is a practical usage for gender(when it is subjective). I have not done anything of the sort. Using gender in the example of sports, I was trying to show that gender being used subjectively is impractical because of sex being objective. If gender is subjective, it cannot be applied practically, because practical matters deal with objective reality. Using that example I was showing that gender has no practical usage because if someone identifies as female and is objectively a male, that causes problems. Gender being subjective is not practical - it is impractical. It is impractical because it causes objective problems. The definition of impractical is - (of an object or course of action) not adapted for use or action; not sensible or realistic. There is no sense in using gender because if gender is subjective then it has no usage concerning objective matters. It is not practical (the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas). Gender being subjective becomes a theory, an idea. My opponent has made the mistake that if gender is applied in an objective scenario it therefore becomes practical. This is not the case. If gender is subjective, it has to do with theories and ideas, not with practical application of those subjective theories and ideas.