BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is moraly necessary

[--Right to abortion--] My opponent has failed to provide an argunment here and instead just says he still thinks its a right. Not only is this false based on my points above, but it is a mere assertion only backed by opinion. The right to abortion usually goes into Roe v. Wade argunments and Doe v. Bolton argunments. Justice White notes critiquing the majority opinion in Doe: "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. . . . As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[1]" In relation to Roe v. Wade, the more famous one, White says: "In every other case, there was something in the Constitution you could point to for support. There, nothing."[1] In other words, there is no constitutional or legal right to an abortion and the courts opinion here was unfounded on constitutional law. [--Fetus a human--] My opponent has still failed to prove a fetus is not a human and continues with the illogical unsupported assertions. As French geneticists note: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence. [2]" My opponent has still failed to offer evidence. A fetus is rational as it has the capability to be rational. My opponent used a Strawman on this point. [--Pain--] My opponent argues it doesn't matter if you feel pain, then compares childbirth. False analogy, abortion always kills, birth does not. Further the golden rule states, treat others the way you would like to be treated. Therefore pain is of all relevancy to morality. If you say kill the baby, you better say yes if someone asks to rip off your limbs, crush your head, and yank you through a vagina. Conclusion: Resolution remains negated... {1} http://www.endroe.org... {2} http://www.christiananswers.net...
Abortion is moraly necessary

You're argument uses lots of high falutin langage, but I still thinj abortion is a right! A fetus is not a person, it is just a fetus! How would you like to have someone tell you you cannot control your own body I dont that you would like it very much would you???? If someone tresspases in my house shouldt I be able to kill them?? YES! So abortion should be legal And what do you man "It is already a rational being, but at a different level of development."??? It is not ratonal!!! its just a cell! Also wo cares if the fettus feeals pain?/ Women feelore pain in childbirth!!! and any way it is dead so it cant feel pain once idead. what you mean refuted??! My case is just as strong as yours!
Math is the most important subject in school

Math mostly consists of number. Numbers are not the same as letters so if taught binary you no longer have the need for English and binary is the code of computers. We need computers to do most things we have today. Computers use have a lot of algorithms. Algorithms that math provides. Therefore it is necessary to know have math more than English because there are more uses for math and math can replace every aspect of English classes. As well as there is not a time in your life where math wont be necessary.
Math is the most important subject in school

George Washington is dead therefore he is not a legitimate source many people could have billions of sources more relevant and better than a man who was essentially against all that we know today. So your bases of Washington holds no ground. Were as an important person or people such as their which is need of many people who are good at math for things such aeronautics and other things that are necessarily to defending our country from terrorists such as Isis. where as history holds little to no ground since people change and unable to repeat history.
Tom1997 will not contradict himself.

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited this round as I have shown him to have contradicted himself. As stated in R1: 1.)If Pro does not answer all of the questions posited by Con every round, Con will automatically win all seven points. My opponent has not responded to any of my questions and thus besides his contradiction from the last round my opponent loses all points and I win this debate. Even as my opponent has lost the debate and will probably not respond, I will post my questions for this round as is dictated in the rules. 1.)Do you have blue leg hair? 2.)Is Justin Timberlake attractive? 3.)Is Judge Judy a man? 4.)Do you like the color pink more than the color purple? 5.)Have you ever read 'The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster'? 6.)Is Glee your favorite show? 7.)Who do you think is more attractive, Brad Pitt or Matt Damon? 8.)What time is it? 9.)What color are your eyes? 10.)If I am 12 and you are 13 then which of us is older? 11.)Is House your favorite show? 12.)Which station gets better ratings overall, NBC or CBS? 13.)Are you a member of the lame stream liberal media? 14.)Is homosexuality a choice? 15.)Did you choose to be gay?
Tom1997 will not contradict himself.

It seem as though my opponent has apprently contradicted himself. In R1, question 7 asked "Is one hundred dollars better than nothing?". Tom1997 responded with "Yes". Also in R1, question 11 asked "Is nothing better than eternal happiness?". Tom1997 responded with "Yes". Also in R1, 'nothing' was defined as "the first definition from[4]". When looking at source [4], 'nothing' is defined as "no thing; not anything". So if my opponent believes that one hundred dollars is better than nothing and nothing is better than eternal happiness, then my opponent would also logically believe that one hundred dollars would be better than eternal happiness. This however was not the case when I asked my opponent in R2. 11.)Is 100 dollars better than eternal happiness? My opponent's answer, "No". However this is contradicting because if 100 dollars is not better than eternal happiness then either eternal happiness is better than nothing or nothing is better than 100 hundred dollars. My opponent answered otherwise for both of these questions, therefore his answers are contradictory and I win the debate. Even as my opponent has already contradicted himself, I will post my necessary 15 questions in this round, to see if I can get my opponent to contradict himself again. 1.)Do you think that the American TV show 'American Dad' is better than the American TV show 'Family Guy'? 2.)Have you ever meditated? 3.)Was Kate Beckinsale in 'Underworld'? 4.)When was the last time you visited the library? 5.)What color is your hair? 6.)If I weighed 120 lbs. and you weighed 135 lbs., which of us would weigh more? 7.)What is 'Goo Lagoon' made out of on Spongebob? Aren't they already under water? 8.)If all Nazis are white guys and all white guys masturbate, do all Nazis masturbate? 9.)What is your favorite band out of the options provided in my first five sources?[1][2][3][4][5] 10.)Who do you think is more attractive, Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie?[6][7] 11.)Do you have a German stepbrother named Benjamin? 12.)Are you afraid of sticks flying towards your head at ridiculous speeds? 13.)What is 90 divided by 10? 14.)Who do you think is more attractive, Jake Gyllenhaal or Maggie Gyllenhaal?[8][9] 15.)Was your answer to number nine, Slipknot? [1]http://www.beatles.com... [2]http://www.mudvayne.com... [3]http://www.ericclapton.com... [4]http://www.slipknot1.com... [5]http://www.offspring.com... [6]http://cdn.buzznet.com... [7]http://www.angelinajoliesite.com... [8]http://www.comicbookmovie.com... [9]http://network.nationalpost.com...
Tom1997 will not contradict himself.

1.)Are you a communist? No 2.)Do you believe that there is no god? Yes 3.)Are you a transexual? Yes 4.)In your opinion, is red a better color than blue? No 5.)Is 1 dollar better than nothing? Yes 6.)What is 9 times 11? 99 7.)Is John McCain president? No 8.)Do you think Mike Huckabee is secretly gay? No 9.)Have you ever seen the movie 'Tron'? The original one. Yes 10.)Out of four stars, how would you rate the original 'Tron'? 3 11.)Is 100 dollars better than eternal happiness? No 12.)Is 100 dollars better than 2 dollars. Yes 13.)Is Matt Damon attractive?(Before you answer please refer to my first, second, and third sources.)[1][2][3] Yes 14.)Is Jeff Bridges attractive?(Again, before you answer please refer to my fourth, fifth, and sixth sources.)[4][5][6] Yes 15.)Is George Clooney attractive?(Again, before you answer please refer to my seventh, eighth, and ninth sources.)[7][8][9] Yes
Tom1997 will not contradict himself.

Okay. I have looked over our last debate and my opponent has yet to contradict himself. Let's see if he will make it to the next round though! Here are the questions for R2. 1.)Are you a communist? 2.)Do you believe that there is no god? 3.)Are you a transexual? 4.)In your opinion, is red a better color than blue? 5.)Is 1 dollar better than nothing? 6.)What is 9 times 11? 7.)Is John McCain president? 8.)Do you think Mike Huckabee is secretly gay? 9.)Have you ever seen the movie 'Tron'? The original one. 10.)Out of four stars, how would you rate the original 'Tron'? 11.)Is 100 dollars better than eternal happiness? 12.)Is 100 dollars better than 2 dollars. 13.)Is Matt Damon attractive?(Before you answer please refer to my first, second, and third sources.)[1][2][3] 14.)Is Jeff Bridges attractive?(Again, before you answer please refer to my fourth, fifth, and sixth sources.)[4][5][6] 15.)Is George Clooney attractive?(Again, before you answer please refer to my seventh, eighth, and ninth sources.)[7][8][9] [1]http://4.bp.blogspot.com... [2]http://bigyellowtaxi.files.wordpress.com... [3]http://www.visualhollywood.com... [4]http://www.pastemagazine.com... [5]http://2.bp.blogspot.com... [6]http://2.bp.blogspot.com... [7]http://www.nilacharal.com... [8]http://topnews.in... [9]http://www.celebrity9.com...
Tom1997 will not contradict himself.

1.)Are you an anarchist? Yes 2.)Do you believe in Allah? No 3.)Are you a boy? Yes 4.)Do you think some girls are attractive? Yes 5.)Are you attracted to Brad Pitt?(Before you answer please refer to my first, second, and third source)[1][2][3] Yes 6.)Have you ever been married? No 7.)Is one hundred dollars better than nothing? Yes 8.)What is the square root of 4? 2 9.)Are Jews people? Yes 10.)Are black people people? Yes 11.)Is nothing better than eternal happiness? Yes 12.)How many debates have you won? Zero 13.)Did you win our last debate? No 14.)Have you ever seen 'Star Wars-A New Hope'? Yes 15.)Did you like it more than the 'Star Wars-The Empire Strikes Back'? No
Tom1997 will not contradict himself.

I challenge Tom1997 to a debate where he will try not to contradict himself. Every round I will ask Pro fifteen questions. Pro must at least provide one sentence to elaborate on his answer. Pro may offer more than one sentence to elaborate however if he wishes. Rules 1.)If Pro does not answer all of the questions posited by Con every round, Con will automatically win all seven points. 2.)If Pro is unsure of the answer to a question in any round then Con can simply ask an extra question the next round or an extra question for every question which Pro is unable to answer in the previous round. 3.)Con will win all seven points if Pro ever contradicts himself while Pro will win all seven points if Pro is never found to have contradicted himself. 4.)Any questions answered in rounds 1-4 will be subect to scrutiny for contradictions. Nothing from round 5 will be held accountable for contradictions. 5.)Questions will only be asked in rounds 1-4. No new questions may be added in the last round. I just saw a debate like this and it looked interesting so I thought I would try out a debate like this with my good friend Tom1997. Now on to my questions for the first round. 1.)Are you an anarchist? 2.)Do you believe in Allah? 3.)Are you a boy? 4.)Do you think some girls are attractive? 5.)Are you attracted to Brad Pitt?(Before you answer please refer to my first, second, and third source)[1][2][3] 6.)Have you ever been married? 7.)Is one hundred dollars better than nothing? 8.)What is the square root of 4? 9.)Are Jews people? 10.)Are black people people? 11.)Is nothing better than eternal happiness? 12.)How many debates have you won? 13.)Did you win our last debate? 14.)Have you ever seen 'Star Wars-A New Hope'? 15.)Did you like it more than the 'Star Wars-The Empire Strikes Back'? That will be all for this round. I pass on the debate to my opponent now. Definitions and sources for some important terms of the debate Brad Pitt is[6] Anarchism is defined as[5] Nothing is the first definition from[4] Judaism is defined as[7] [1]http://www.examiner.com... [2]http://www.manhairstyles.net... [3]http://images.allmoviephoto.com... [4]http://dictionary.reference.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://www.imdb.com... [7]http://dictionary.reference.com...
THW abolish patents

Since my opponent wasn't here to write an argument for his second round, I shall make a "conclusion speech" akin to one you'd find in formal, real-life debates. That's why I address you, the reader, as "Mr.Speaker". ====================== Mr. Speaker, I believe that there exist two main issues in this debate, and those are "how would abolishing patents affect consumers?" And "how would abolishing patents affect innovators?" While both sides raised valid points in this debate, I say that my side won the upper side on both of the main issues. I shall start by talking about the first issue. In my first round, I have argued that patents are bad for the consumer because they allow one company to patent technologies essential for making a product and therefore make it hard for competitors to even exist. With a lack of competition comes a lack of an incentive to improve on a product or make it more affordable. This point was not addressed in my opponent's first round. As such, I have proven that abolishing patents would benefit the consumer. Now, let's delve into the second issue. In my first round, I argued that patents actually encourage the creation of new ideas. Firstly, patents make it hard for innovators to improve existing ideas, since even if they make a "novel" invention, big companies with big legal teams owning the patent to the original invention could still sue them and argue that it is not "novel" enough; even if no actual patent infringement occurs, a threat of litigation could still scare an innovator away from improving an existing ideas. Big companies have an incentive to threaten lawsuits against them, as they are competitors. And secondly, I explained why abolishing patents cannot cause less innovation as a result of a fear of having one's inventions being stolen. My opponent stated otherwise, but his case was unclear, as pointed out in round 2; his case was later refuted. As such, I have successfully shown that abolishing patents would encourage innovation. Therefore, let it be resolved that this house would abolish patents. (Or whatever you say to end a debate.)
THW abolish patents

Hello, Unimag8nitiv, and welcome to Debate.org! Firstly, my opponent has stated that if a poor worker discovers a new method for doing what he did at his coal mine and cannot patent it, he would be unable to compete with the original business. He or she has not explained how that would occur, but I'll assume that it's because the original business would be able to use the poor worker's more efficient method. In reality, the original business would not start using the poor worker's method, even if it isn't patented, until it has been proven that it is more profitable in terms of yields and risks than the original method--otherwise, the original business would be wasting money on making a downgrade. As such, the original business would have to wait for the poor worker to start an at least moderately successful business before copying his method, as they'd like to ensure that "upgrading" their coal-extraction method would actually work. This is because the original business may fear losing yields at a large scale. Now, if the original business was as large as, say, Microsoft, it may be able to covert some of it coal mine operations as an experiment, so they wouldn't need to wait for the poor worker to create a business. However, if this were the case, then the patent-less and patent-existing worlds would be nearly the same, since the experimental operations would not change the original business' competitiveness by too much; it's too small, and it has to be too small to make a difference since they'd like to avoid risks. Now, let's examine another one of my opponent's points, the idea that removing patents would necessarily affect copyright. While, considering that they are connected, this may be the case, my opponent has not shown why its affecting of copyright would be more negative than positive.
THW abolish patents

Hello, this is my first debate on this website, so here goes nothing; Patents and copyrights have strong similarities, so eliminating one without affecting the other one would be an impossibility. I'm going to go on a slight tangent, but trust that it relates to the prompt. Jim is a coal miner from Eastern Kentucky, his family lives in dire poverty and he struggles to put food on the plates for his family to consume. One day while slaving away in the mine, he finds a new way to extract the coal from the ground, he wants to open up his own coal mine on his own land. He aspires to never have to struggle to feed his family, so he patents his new method. Under the logic you represented in your statement, he would never have been able to do this, and to compete successfully with the business that he left to form his own. This would effectively stifle the capitalist principles of free market. With patents, he could form his own business and compete with the company he left, if he decided not to pursue that option he could sell the idea to a bigger company, raking in the profits to pursue other endeavors.
Denmark will be the Antichrist's home

The Bible states that from the tribe of Daniel will come the Antichrist. He will be much like most guys during the age of conquest and the Jim Crow era, arrogant, bigoted, rigid, and even racist, and he will definitely hate the true followers of God. When black people and other minorities say the white man will be the Antichrist, there is an ounce of truth. I definitely believe the whitest of white countries will produce this monster -- and it will be Denmark. Denmark if you look at the root of the nation's name is rooted in Daniel. Now they don't descend from Israel mind you. Now, let me clear some confusion about Israel and the Jews. They are not the same. The nation of Israel was an oppressed one for most of its history. Judaism was not made by Israelis. It was made by people, who, and I know this will sound a bit racist, broke God's command to keep the Israeli bloodline pure. All the rules and legalism of Judaism comes from this punishment God gave. There's enough reason to believe that there were many of the European groups throughout ancient history in the Middle East. Nordic might have been one of them. Daniel was probably one of them. His descendants spread to what is now Denmark.Let's take a look at those people today. Denmark continuously breaks God's laws. It's a country that allows prostitution which is a big sin in God's eyes (to be fair most of the European countries allow it, but it's particularly bad in Denmark). They also had a history of brutal racism and they also discriminated against tomboys and they definitely discriminated against autistic people. They were the first country, in 1929, to have manditory national eugenics, and to this day, out of their Antichrist-like stubborness, refuse to apologize for it. Every country has made mistakes, but at least England, France, Holland and Germany have apologized for them.Denmark and Scotland, much like the spirit of the Antichrist, has never apologized for their brutal empires (since Scotland [the Lowlands] were the main people behind the British Empire and all its ruthlessness).Denmark is one of the most un-Godly countries on the planet. Their form of Paganism was extremely detestible in God's eyes. I think that it was the Scandinavian Pagan religions that started the whole white supremacy thing, and furthermore taught that black people were cursed.
Denmark will be the Antichrist's home

(As a side note, I would like to clear up one point of Pro's arguments: When he says "Daniel", he means "Dan". Daniel, who was thrown in the lion's den, was from the tribe of Judah. Interestingly, both tribes may have settled in the Scandinavian area, but it was the Tribe of Dan for which Denmark was named, according to Pro's sources.)This debate is over. My opponent did not seem to understand the burden of his resolution. His resolution and opening statements were not about the probability or likelihood of the Antichrist's nationality. To finish what he started, Pro had to prove both that the Antichrist would indeed be born and that he/she would be born in Denmark.Pro's sources support characteristics of Denmark, such as being inhabited by Jews and being accepting of prostituion, but none of his evidence linked these characteristics to the birth of the Antichrist. Pro provided reasons that he believes that the Antichrist might be Danish, but he did not provide proof that the Antichrist will be Danish.RebuttalsJews in DenmarkThere are Jews in many other places.[1]Sin in DenmarkEven if Denmark were the most sinful place in the world, what evidence has Pro provided that the Antichrist will be born in such a place?Denmark is RacistSee rebuttal to "Sin in Denmark" and replace "sinful" with "racist".None of Pro's arguments have proven that the Antichrist will even be born, much less be born in Denmark. The resolution is not upheld.Vote Con.--------[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...