BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights

Just to point out, BOP is on Pro to prove a fetus is classified as a human. I do not have to present any arguments.1. Yes I agree to that2. First of all, you need to define baby, which you haven't done. "very young child, especially one newly or recently born."How can you call it a baby, before it because a baby? As far as science goes, it is classified a fetus. And that too, is only after 8 weeks of conception, before that point it is known as an Embryo.3. "Let me point out what you just said. "If all humans are continuously growing and changing, then that goes to show that fetuses, which are growing and changing, are human. Therefore, it is immoral to kill a fetus, as it is a human." Ok, so bacteria grows and changes, so would that mean it is a human?Let me point this out, we are arguing the legality of something. Just because Pro-lifers think a fetus is a human, does not mean it is classified as one. The United States federal government makes it clear that the two are seperate, so why would you argue something that is a law? You could overturn it, but the debate isn't about that. A fetus is not a human. Its in our law. Therefore you already lose the debate.Also you make a good point "When does life begin" When it begins is up to the family. Just because you think it starts during fertaliziation, doesn't mean everybody does? Why are you choosing what the family believes and what it doesnt? If somebody thinks your upbringing is harming your child, do you think its fair for them to take your child away from you?This very definition alone proves my side to be true. is a fetus not a member of the Human species?Does it say a fetus is a member of the human species?So far Pro has failed to establish any legality behind saying a fetus is a human. It isn't legally a human, therfore it isn't a human.The resolution is affirmed.
A fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights

1: It is immoral to kill a human being. I believe that we can agree on this point. 2: A fetus begins development right at the instance of conception. Prior to conception, two gametes are not together. Directly afterwards, the two cells have fused together. They cannot be taken apart again. development begins right at this instant. That is a scientific fact. The baby begins to grow right after conception. 3: All humans are continuously growing and developing. This is an undisputed scientific fact as well. We can both agree that as children we grow and change continuously. We are bigger and more developed at 10 than we are at 5. We are more developed at 5 than we are at 1. After reading this, please look back at point 2. It says that a fetus begins development right at the instance of conception. If all humans are continuously growing and changing, then that goes to show that fetuses, which are growing and changing, are human. Therefore, it is immoral to kill a fetus, as it is a human. Why is a fetus different from any other human? how can man kind possibly decide the exact time when a fetus is considered human? Any time decided upon is arbitrary besides conception. Please, Con, answer this question, as it will be an integral part of this debate: If not at conception, then when does life begin? I need an exact time. as exact a time as you can make it. Because if you can't decide a time, then you shouldn't kill it, for fear of murdering a human, correct? I will end my opening statement with the definition of human from The English Dictionary: Human: A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. This very definition alone proves my side to be true. is a fetus not a member of the Human species? Let's use logic here: A fetus is scientifically classified as a Homo Sapien. by the very definition of the word, a Homo Sapien is a Human. So because a fetus is a Homo Sapien, it is therefore, by the Transitive Propery, a Human by default. This is simply pure logic at it's most simple. If you can not argue this point, then I automatically win this debate. All living things must be part of a species. So, Mr. Con, If a fetus is not part of the species Homo Sapien, then what species I it a member of? Like I said, If you cannot disprove my final point, then I automatically win this debate. Try me.
A fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights

Pro seems to keep repeating himself, so I'm not going create another pointless long rebuttal. So, basically here is what Pro has conceded -When the right to live occurs -A fetus should be entitled to human rights. Pro uses the transitive property to show that Humans are homo-sapiens. Ok, so where did I say a Human wasn't a homo-sapien? The premise of the debate was regarding a fetus, not a human. Pro failed to prove a fetus is a human. Its simple as that. There is not scientific backing for his assertion, and he simply did not present any sources. Like I mentioned before, Pro simply didn't give definitions to what he actually meant, which is why there is such confusion on a human and a human being. His only reason as to why fetus is a human, is because it's part of the homo-sapien race, but he never actually gave proof of that. I can simply say I don't believe him, because he gave 0 proof of it. So I believe I won this debate, because Pro failed to actually prove a fetus is a human. Thank you for the debate.
A fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights

Con, you are mistaken. In my very first argument I defined human. Here is what I said: Human: A member of the primate genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. You said this: "you needed to first prove a fetus is a human in the first place. Which you haven't. You just said a fetus belongs to the human race, the whole point of this debate was for you to prove that a fetus is a human, therefore is entitled to all human rights. I asked you last round to prove actual sources to prove a fetus is a human. You haven't done that." You claimed that I did not prove that a fetus was a human. But as a matter of fact, I did. You said yourself that I claimed that a fetus is a part of the human species. Now please take a look back at my definition (Which, by the way, is a good source. So don't make the claim that I did not provide any actual sources.) The definition included in it this line: "a member of the species Homo sapiens." So therefore, JUST AS I SAID BEFORE, by the transitive property, because the very definition of human is a member of the species Homo sapiens, a Homo sapien is, obviously, a HUMAN. There is NOTHING that you can do to disprove that claim. And even if you could, you can not argue that point any more, as we are in the final round of the debate, and your refutes will not be considered. Because of this point ALONE I automatically win this debate. This is why throughout the entire debate I urged you to disprove the fact that a fetus was a member of the human species. Since you did not, like I said, I win this debate by default. You claimed that I did not prove that humans were entitled to human rights. And I simply do not need to. I will explain why all humans are, however. If there is a group (Let's use the present situation as an example) that has a title, such as human rights, then all of the members of the group of humans have the rights. Otherwise, the group CAN NOT be called HUMAN rights, as not ALL humans are in it. It would have to be called some other name that is a subset of human. such as Humans-That-Are-Not-Fetuses Rights , or something to that effect. But since they are called human rights, all humans, even fetuses, are entitled to them. I claimed that based on the very definitions from the English Dictionary, fetuses are humans because they are a member of the species Homo sapiens. Because you have not successfully argued this or any of my other points, I automatically win this debate. Remember, you can not introduce any new arguments to this debate, as that would take away the fairness of the debate itself. Since I HAVE provided the BOP, and have made many points that you have not refuted, and have also defeated your points indesputably, it is clear that I, the Pro have won this debate. Thank you for debating with me. I have enjoyed it.
A fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights

Debate PremiseOk, so I will just ignore the part where you said if you cannot disprove that a fetus is a member of the human race, then I automatically win this debate. I know that this sounds trivial, but we are not talking about a human BEING having human BEING rights, but about a HUMAN having HUMAN rights. For us to have that discussion, you needed to first prove a fetus is a human in the first place. Which you haven't. You just said a fetus belongs to the human race, the whole point of this debate was for you to prove that a fetus is a human, therefore is entitled to all human rights. I asked you last round to prove actual sources to prove a fetus is a human. You haven't done that. Instead, I did it for you, something I don't actually have to do, since the BOP is on you. I proved using sources, that a fetus is not a human being. Now you are saying that I haven't made an argument that a fetus is a human. 2 things, first of all, I simply do not have to. You chanllenged me to a debate saying a fetus is a human. Instead, you are asking me to prove it, or else you win the debate. Doesn't make alot of sense. 2nd of all, the big problem was you never gave definitions. I now understand when you said human, you mean the human race. When I accepted the debate, I assumed you meant the fetus was a human being. There absoulutley no way to tell what you meant, and the fact that you said "a human" made me think you were talking about an actual human, not the human race. Ok, I'll say a fetus is what leads to become a human. So? why should that mean it should be entitled to human rights? Thats something you stilll haven't proven. I have proven a fetus is not a human being, therefore it shouldn't be entitled to human rights, because it is not human. It is still physically dependent on the mother, because the umbilical cord is still attached to the mother. What the mother does with her body will effect the fetus.So, no I do not lose this debate. The BOP was on you, and you have to prove a fetus is a human being. and must be entitled to human rights.
FEAR of the Lord- the BEGINNING of Wisdom!

Proverbs 9:10 10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.To determine the truth of the accuracy of this statement each Believer must evaluate themselves on a personal basis? Upon review and reflection that you ARE or ARE NOT ... fearful of the Lord shall be self evident?Simple questions, simple answers? But SHOULD you be fearful of The Lord? The scriptures are innundated with warning to those who are not!Job 28:28, Psalm 111:10,Proverbs 1:7,Proverbs 30:3Were I to guess? I would land somewhere between 90% of Believers have NO FEAR of the Lord whatsoever, AND it is has been evident in their walk all along!But? we shall determine this as we go.Obviousy if a unsaved person accepts this debate it will be rendered pointless, but I will simply ignore them and their questions and plainly state the questions we must ASK and answer ourselves to determine where we actually are within our walk. By its end it will be plain to every Believer, what (IF anything) you can reasonably expect as far as position in Heaven. King or Follower, Rewards or NOTHING but saved!it is an appropriate time to reflect upon this as there appears to be enougn time for some to IMPROVE their report cards before we had them to jesus at the Bema seat? no acceptance speech necessary ... just begin?
Cryptocurrency Does more Good than Harm.

The Proposition stated that the transaction goes through a block chain that only SOME people can access. Sure some poeple can access it but there are highly skilled hackers that can goe through UNDETECTED!. Most Cryptocurrencys are SCAMS! You could get aressted for from using a fake cryptocurrency! Hackernoon.com states that 95% of cryptocurrencys are scams! If you use cryptocurrency, your probably using a fake one. Also, THe Proposition never stated any sources. THerefore, they're whole argument is refuted.
Cryptocurrency Does more Good than Harm.

Cryptocurrency is the future of money. Like many other types of currencies Dollar bills will crash. What will we do at that time? We would have no way to pay our bills or any necessary things. If we use cryptocurrency, we can prevent that from happening. TO REFUT YOUR POINT: Our transaction goes through the blockchain in which only some people can access. If some hacker steals the owner will get a notification that will say that you have paid this much amount of money. If you did not pay this and a hacker stole the money he will get caught. Hello, my name is Mala and I am on the Proposition side of this debate strongly agreeing with the topic that Cryptocurrency does more good than harm.
Phil Lester is better than Dan Howell.

Indeed Dan does post videos which help his viewer base such as ISG, but Phil is not as how Dan is; which is someone who procrastinates, complains about everything and has multiple mid-life crisis' . Phil, on the other hand, has great opinions about life, does not procrastinate and is very intelligent in the aspect of making quality content. Dan is not as great as a role model due to his multiple ways of life AND his actions towards his follower base. Phil is a great role model due to him having many positive ways of life.
Phil Lester is better than Dan Howell.

Yes, even though most of Dan's subscribers are only subscribed to him because of his looks, it is also because Dan is much more relatable to people than Phil. Even though Phil posts a wide range of videos, from challenges, to stories, etc. Dan usually posts videos on himself, and how he lives his life. He also posts his videos on helping out his fans, too. (The internet Support Group). This shows that Dan can be more relatable to people since he uploads the characteristics of himself to show to the world wide web, which does result in Dan having more subscribers than Phil.
Phil Lester is better than Dan Howell.

The only and most well-known reason Dan is more popular than Phil via subscribers is looks. Now, that is a bias opinion and therefore I shall leave it at that, but Phil can still reach out to the same audience as Dan, wether it be his own videos or even via collaborating with Dan. Whatever it is, Dan is only more "popular" than Phil because more people are attracted to his looks. This is also shown in advertising; advertisements which contain women with a curvy body, large breasts and slim hips will get more attraction to men rather than woman, because men are attracted to these things. Just as like how more people are attracted to Dan than they are to Phil; yet Phil has higher quality content than Dan, ranging from comedy to daily vlogs and more.
Phil Lester is better than Dan Howell.

Dan Howell, or better known as Danisnotonfire, is clearly shown to be better than Phil Lester or AmazingPhil, due to many points and facts. Just because Phil has gotten degrees in many courses in the University of York, does not particularly mean that he is automatically better than Dan. Phil has gotten these degrees in English Language, Linguistics, and many more, does not automatically mean that he has a higher IQ than Dan. It's based off of many other education aspects. Also, things can depend on different aspects of the two beings. As Dan is more popular than Phil (around 2 million more subscribers on YouTube) Dan is more well-known and can reach out to many different people in many different countries. Not that Phil can't do these things too, but since Dan has a larger following, he reaches out to a bigger audience.
Phil Lester is better than Dan Howell.

Phil is in numerous ways better than Dan, from his video content, to his appearance. In almost every way possible, Phil is of higher quality than Dan. Phil, first of all, has degrees in English Language & Linguistics, and is also a post-graduate in the Department of Theatre, Film & Television, and went to obtain a Master of Arts in Video Postproduction with Specialisation in Visual Effects at the University of York. Phil clearly has a higher IQ than Dan Howell, and more knowledge when it comes to creating quality content; as shown within his earned degrees.
Homeschooling is better than going to school

Agreeing to pro - Tthat there are smart parents,by homeschooling more attention can be paid towards children but students have the fear of their teachers and they are someone whom they don't know but they very nicely know their parents and are rarely scared of them hence they can speak much in front of them. About the attention thing it is obvious that that in a class more attention cannot be paid to a specific school but in most of the schools there are extra classes for weak students.
Homeschooling is better than going to school

CON has made a categorical statement; I will show that it is not necessarily so.First, "better" is a subjective term. 73% of parents who homeschool do so because they are dissatisfied with the public schools 1. In their opinions, homeschooling is better. Parents have the responsibility for the education of their children; it is their opinions that count.Second, homeschooled kids are not necessarily under-socialized 2. Smart parents make it happen.Finally, homeschooled kids get more one-on-one attention 3; class size is a non-issue. Also, since parents know their children best, they can easily tailor lesson plans.CON's absolute claim is not necessarily true.1 http://tinyurl.com...2 http://tinyurl.com...3 http://tinyurl.com...
Homeschooling is better than going to school

According to me homeschooling is not better than going to school. Homeschooling is the eduction of children at home, typically by parents or by tutors, rather than other formal settings of public or private school. When we go to school we are exposed to an outer enviroment where we meet different types of people and situations. We learn to adapt to them and also become smarter by dealing with various situations whereas in homeschooling we have a homely enviroment and don't have to bear difficult situattions. In the school we are also given many responsibilities whereas at home we do not have much of them. We live casually at home but in the school we are formal.
Should the goverment have a national registry of all gun owners in the united states

im not gonna have time to make a full argument so if this is a little short im sorry. Registering guns will -Help police solve crimes by making it easier to trace the last owner of a gun. -Increase personal accountability, as people who have a registered gun are going to store it more securely. -Ensuring owners of firearms are those actually permitted to own them. For instance, while one might need to pass a background check and complete other steps to purchase a particular weapon, some might feel a lack of registration requirement makes it too easy to transfer weapons from permitted owners to others (such as minors, those with criminal histories, etc). -provides means of tracking and tracing back to owners particular firearms used in the commission of a crime. i win by default as all your arguments are flawed.
Should the goverment have a national registry of all gun owners in the united states

You have yet to even answer my simple question then should guns be registered? And actually everything i just said is completely relevant becuase it explains why i feel like you should not have to have guns registered! You havent even given me any arguement! All you said is my facts are irrlevent! Thats not an arguement! The answer to my question is NO guns should not be registered in the united atates BECAUSE i feel like it will lead to confisation just like it happened in many other countries in the 20th century including germany the soviet union and china and many more.... these countries all enacted gun registraion then gun confiscation then genocide! So please feel free to tell me why you feel like guns need to be registered in the united states!
Should the goverment have a national registry of all gun owners in the united states

Literally everything you just said is irrelevant as you're still basing your argument off a logical fallacy. The title says nothing about confiscation, its just registering, therefore you can assume that there would be no confiscation in this situation; Occam's razor my friend, you can't just assume something is going to happen than base your argument off that; the question isn't: Should the government have a national registry of all gun owners in the united states than start confiscating them.".
Should the goverment have a national registry of all gun owners in the united states

First off no my arguement is not flawed! There was one mass shooting in austrilia in 1996 after that government sent letters to the people that there firearms had to be surrendered to law enforcement! There are alot if places around the world like the uk and canada who have utilized regestration to confiscate weapons from the law abiding! Theres no evidence to support that registration needs to be in place therefor why in the world is it the goverments business what the law abiding citizen has! Ive heard numourous reports of politicians wishing they could take all guns away from the general public and registraion will definetly be the first step! Heck even in new york they enacted a gun ban with any gun that can hold more than 5 rounds had to be registered! Later on they had to be turned in or taken out of the city! Back in the 50s and 60s guns werent regulated you could buy them at a hardware store yet there wasnt a single mass shooting! So what happened. Registration equals confiscation its worth a google! Look at canada as well
Should the goverment have a national registry of all gun owners in the united states

Both your arguments are flawed. 1) Yes, you are right, in the UK and Australia have taken away guns from people... those people are people who have committed crimes with said guns. Unless your saying that people who literally kill people should have guns, than your argument is wrong. Furthermore, your argument is based off a logical fallacy, 'the slippery slope" fallacy to be specific. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 2) Yes your right, it wont stop criminals from getting guns, but that's irrelevant. Of course it wont stop them from getting guns, what it will do it prevent normal people who didn't get their gun from the black market, from using it. a majority of gun related crimes aren't from people who illegally got a gun, its from people who have registered guns.
Rap Battle : Cloud (Pro) Vs Link (Con)

They call me cloud for a reason that"s because I reign on high Going to turn that tunic red, make a blood stained dye One swing from my buster blade will knock you in the sky Follow with meteor rain, and then watch you die This guy fuks with fairies, you pretty much can call him gay He likes to frolic in fields and pick up rupees all day I may slay this guy in the feigh forest, even if he decides to pray Let my Blade spray beams, It"s called blade beam and it shoots rays [1] I beat sephiroth, emerald weapon, and even ruby weapon as well I got that fire, lighting , and ice, call it a material spell Divide you with my blade and splits your cells You can"t even touch me, I got that protective shell People think you"re a lord, I"ll kill you with my sword Slice up enemies like they were a zombie horde Even if you damage me, I can cast restore [3] Then im back at full heath, what are you even trying for Cut you to pieces in a second, call it a flash Equip my sash and throw you on the ground like a bad train crash Pull out my material stash, and turn your body into ashe Do that solom and gomera sht, as I cast omnislash[4] [1] [2] http://finalfantasy.wikia.com...(Ability) [3] http://finalfantasy.wikia.com... [4]