BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is Generally Immoral.

Once again, a human being is a man, woman, or child of the homosapien species [1][2]. Pro argued that this was not a valid definition but my own opinion. However there are a couple of references I will provide at the bottom that show this definition is valid. So once again, since a zygote, embryo, or fetus do not fit the definiton of a human being, they can not be considered human. Therefore, as I've demonstrated, Pro's 1st and 4th arguments are refuted. Pro dismissed my analogy of a caterpillar not being considered a butterfly by restating that a human exists as soon as fertilization occurs. But as I've already demonstrated, this is not true. The preborn child is not a human being. So Pro's rebuttal to my analogy is meaningless. Your quoting of embryologists and pro-choice philosophers in my opinion carries no weight. Whether they define a human being different from the actual defeinition is irrelevant. They don't get to redefine a word based on their own personal opinion. Their definitions of a human being is irrelevant to the actual definiton of what a human being is.ï¿½ You claim your example of a doctor operating on a fetus as a patient shows that the preborn child is human otherwise the doctor wouldn't be operating on it. This is flawed reasoning because the operation only occurs if the pregnant woman wants it to occur. The fetus has no say in it (obviously). Also, just because they treat a fetus as a human patient, does not make the fetus human. The doctor treats the fetus with the woman's consent on hopes that it will be beneficial to the fetus' development of becoming human.ï¿½ Your example of murdering a pregnant woman being a double homicide is also flawed. First off, not all U.S. states will charge you with a double homicide if you murder a pregnant woman [3] . Secondly, most of the states that do charge you with double homicide will consider on how far the pregnancy was and how developed the fetus was [4]. Supporting my position that not all abortions are immoral but only late term. In conclusion, abortion can not be considered the murder of a human being because neither zygote, embryo, or fetus are considered to be a human being. So overall, abortion should not be considered immoral. I urge anybody watching this debate to vote for Con. I have refuted most of what my opponent has said with rebuttals and have demonstrated that abortion should not be viewed as immoral.ï¿½ I am new to this website and this happened to be my first debate. So I would like to thank KeytarHero for offering this debate and once again, vote Con.ï¿½ References [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion is Generally Immoral.

You're right, I should of defined what a human was as part of my rebuttal. Most definitions of a human would define a human being is a man, woman, or child of the homosapien species. Neither zygote, embryo, or fetus fit this definition. Therefore, they can't be considered human. You are correct in stating that I too, was once a zygote, embryo, and fetus. But I wasn't a human yet. It's true that these stages lead to the creation of a human being, but they are not human themselves. You can't call a caterpillar a butterfly until it actually IS a butterfly. So since neither zygote, embryo, or fetus are considered human, your 1st and 4th premises are refuted. You're correct stating that the citing of embryologists aren't necessarily an appeal to authority, but I didn't necessarily say that. I said your citing of philosophers was an appeal to authority (and it was). You should of left that part out. Now to your claim that fetuses having human rights, you gave me an example of doctors operating on a preborn child in the womb and an example that murdering a pregnant woman is considered a double homicide. First off, the doctor only operates on the unborn child with the woman's consent. So your example doesn't actually show that the preborn child has rights. Now to your next example, the difference is that in an abortion, the woman makes the choice. In a homicide of a pregnant woman, someone makes the choice for her. So if a woman makes the choice to carry the term, then there is a good chance it will become a viable individual. When someone kills the fetus without permission, they take away the woman's right to carry to term. That's the difference. I must admit now that I didn't know when exactly the brain developed in the stages of the preborn child. So I apologize for my contradiction, it was ignorance on my part. What I should of said is, I am for early term abortion but against late term abortion when there is already a full developed fetus inside of the woman. I only mention this to show my stance on abortion. This isn't something I'm arguing for. So I admit this is irrelevant to the actual debate of all abortions being immoral and ask you to abandon this certain issue in the next round.
Abortion is Generally Immoral.

Nice opening argument. I disagree however, with your 1st and 4th premise. In defending your first premise, you mention life beginning at fertilization. But what you fail to acknowledge is, that the life that begins at fertilization is not human yet. Sorry, I know you said you didn't want arguing over semantics, but it must be mentioned. You're trying to redefine what a human is to support your position. That's dishonest. Seeing how an embryo is not a human being, it has no human rights. You also made an appeal to authority by mentioning certain philosophers who agree with your position. That is fallacious and irrelevant to the truth of the argument. But to get back to the point, since an embryo is not a human being, your 4th premise is false. My stance on abortion is that they should be completely fine until the fetus inside starts to develop its brain, then it should be considered too late. I can't comprehend why people think early term abortions are equivalent to killing an infant. Pro-lifers seem to think that babies are created as soon as the sperm hits the egg. If that were true then everytime a guy masturbates he would be killing thousands of his possible children.
Abortion is Generally Immoral.

The last time I tried to institute this debate, it was kind of a bust. So here we go again.I would like to debate the contention that abortion is generally immoral.I believe that abortions are justified in a case when the mother's life is in danger and it is not possible to save both mother and child. All other abortions are not morally justified.In the interest of keeping debates focused and interesting for our readers, please keep arguments on topic and no arguing over semantics, please.Con may either present his opening argument in this round or use it for acceptance, allowing me to make the first argument next round. If Con presents his opening argument in this round, I would ask that he not argue in the last round to ensure we both have equal rounds for argumentation.Thank you in advance to whomever chooses to debate me on this topic.
science is a religion

I accept. Excluded definitions: Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Religion: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."(1) Belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Atheism: lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Agnostic: the view that the truth values of certain claims " especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist " are unknown and perhaps unknowable. Science is NOT a religion. (1) [https://www.google.com.au...]
Vegetarianism

Forgive me for forfeiting. My opponent first addresses obesity. There is no reason to completely cut out meat out of your diet if you don't want to be obese. Just balance your diet and don't eat much fast-food. My opponent also addresses testosterone. I read his source and no where does it say anything about vegetarianism. It simply lists many problems result because of lack of testosterone. In fact, vegetarianism or lack of meat is the cause of lowered testosterone in many males. http://www.peaktestosterone.com... http://mentestosterone.blogspot.com... "If you eat meat, you are consuming hormones that were fed to the animals. No one knows what effect those hormones will have on your health." Well, nothing devastating is happening to people, so it's not quick-acting or obvious. There are many ways to avoid hormone-pumped meats: 1) Avoid fast-food 2) Buy organic meat There is no need to cut meat out of your diet. "Vegetarians are often more fit than people who eat meat because several of the worlds most successful athletes followed a strict vegetarian diet." My opponent lists some athletes that happen to be vegetarian and that is supposed to show fitness. That does not show any correlation between fitness and vegetarianism. I can list hundreds of successful athletes that are NOT vegetarian. In fact, most of the BEST athletes (those who earn 1st place in the Olympics for example) are not vegetarian. My opponent can start searching out all the gold-medal winners who are vegetarian but no matter how many he finds, there are always more that are meat-eaters. Also consider the fact that our bodies are made to eat meat. It is unnatural for us not to eat meat. http://listverse.com... Studies have shown that vegetarians lack the following nutrients: Calcium Iron Zinc Vitamin A Vitamin D http://chriskresser.com... Overall I do not see a single reason why people should cut meat out of their diet. There is no need to. Billions of people all around the world eat meat and are leading happy, healthy lives. Nature designed us perfectly, and nature made us omnivores, meaning we are MADE to eat meat. Then why shouldn't we? As long as its not the hormone-pumped, cholesterol filled meat that you get at McDonald's. There is no need to avoid meat. Thank you for the good debate.
Vegetarianism

2.6 million people die from obesity every year and avoiding meat is one of the simplest ways to cut down fat consumption Modern farm animals are deliberately fattened up to increase profits. Eating fatty meat increases your chances of having a heart attack or developing cancer.It's must easier to become (and stay) slim if you are a vegetarian. (By 'slim', I do not mean 'abnormally slender' or 'underweight' but rather, an absence of excess weight!) http://giveusahome.co.uk... My opponent said that vegetarians often lack B12 however B12 can be found in eggs, milk, yogurt, cheese and cream. By consuming one cup of milk a day vegetarians can get enough B12 and protein to live healthy well balanced lives. http://www.ehow.com... For females having high levels of testosterone is considered a health problem therefor becoming a vegetarian can help many females who struggle with this problem ad for males harmless mediation can be taken to increase testosterone levels if needed. http://mentestosterone.blogspot.com... If you eat meat, you are consuming hormones that were fed to the animals. No one knows what effect those hormones will have on your health. In some parts of the world, as many as one on four hamburgers contain growth hormones that were originally given to cattle. http://giveusahome.co.uk... The following diseases are commoner among meat eaters: anemia, appendicitis, arthritis, breast cancer, cancer of the colon, cancer of the prostrate, constipation, diabetes, gallstones, gout, high blood pressure, indigestion, obesity, piles, strokes and varicose veins. Lifelong vegetarians visit hospital 22% less often than meat eaters and for shorter stays. Vegetarians have a 20% lower blood cholesterol level than meat eaters and this reduces heart attack and cancer risks considerably. http://giveusahome.co.uk... Vegetarians are often more fit than people who eat meat because several of the worlds most successful athletes followed a strict vegetarian diet. Bill Walton,John Sally, Edwin Moses, Tony Gonzalez, Martina Navratilova and Carl Lewis are just a few examples of vegetarian athletes. http://www.nursingschools.net...
Vegetarianism

First, my opponent focuses on the risk of E. Coli bacteria in animals and the risks it posses if not dealt with. E. Coli is only dangerous if the meat is under-cooked. The infections are quite rare and E. coli is not really a reason to not eat meat. Plus, E. Coli is found in cow intestines. There are lots of other meats out there other than cattle. http://healthvermont.gov... My opponent then goes to list a lot of different health advantages with a vegetarian diet, while not citing a single source. Therefore, just about all of that is invalid. I request that my opponent provide a source. There are many important nutrients that a vegetarian diet simply cannot provide. For example, Vitamin B12. It is particularly important in the production of blood and function of the brain, but cannot be found in any plants. This poses a serious health risk for vegans. In fact, a study showed that 92% of vegans are deficient in this nutrient. http://authoritynutrition.com... Studies also showed that vegans are deficient in Creatine. This has a detrimental effect on muscle and brain function. http://authoritynutrition.com... Generally, vegans also have lower testosterone levels than meat-eaters. http://authoritynutrition.com... A vegetarian diet can also be the cause of infertility. 18 healthy, normal-weight women aged 19 to 27 years who had regular ovulatory menstrual cycles volunteered for a study. Nine women followed a vegetarian diet and nine a non-vegetarian diet. Both groups lost an average of 1 kg body weight/week. Seven of nine women in the vegetarian group became anovulatory while seven of nine women in the non-vegetarian diet group maintained ovulatory cycles with no changes in cycle length. http://www.babymed.com... I await my opponent's response.
Vegetarianism

Many farms are raising animals in inhumane conditions by feeding the animals antibiotics and giving the animals extremely limited space. In such conditions a dangerous bacterial called ecoli is created, ecoli can make a someone seriously ill and even lead to death; harmful bacteria such a ecoli can show up in any animal derived ingredient making a becoming a vegan not only a healthier but a safer choice as well. Many people think that becoming a vegan involves giving up protein however you can get protein from foods like almonds and tofu. A varied vegan diet reduces the risk of heart disease, heart attack or stroke, protects against cancers, prevents loss of vision, osteoporosis and assists lowered blood pressure. Plant based diets help to reduce cholesterol and saturated fat, and to increase carotenoids, healthy fiber, vitamin C and folate. Independent scientific studies state that a diet based on the principles of veganism is perfectly adequate for good health throughout one's life.
Privacy Can Be Forsaken For The Sake Of Attempting To Provide Security

A) Safety [1] is more important than privacy.B) For example, if somebody is holding nukes in his basement, is it more important to search that persons home or say that privacy is necessary and leave the person alone? Clearly, the first option is correct.C) Privacy can lead to death [2] since if he police don't know whats going on, they can't stop it.D) When privacy is forsaken, then security is often provided. Lack of security can result in death.E) Con provided no arguments, therefor I can not provide anymore.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...
Iron Maiden vs Metalica

I agree that sales aren't a good depiction of quality but it is the only OBJECTIVE analysis, therefore it is the only thing this debate can hinge upon. This is because objective analysis is far better than subjective. Subjective is often personal and always bias, objective is neither. I've given my opinion on the two bands but ultimately that is just my opinion. The only thing we can rely on is album sales, while that is a bad thing to judge with, it is the only thing we've got that is objective.
Iron Maiden vs Metalica

The sales arent a proof of wich band is better but wich is more popular.There is no doubt that a guy who doesnt listen to metal and hears the world metal would think of metalica first but thats only becouse their more mainstream.Maiden have far more allbum deed masterpice and i coudl say that metalica in their prime was better than maiden but they didnt grew as a band they fell as a band while maiden kept what their fans liked over the years and had many great albums and they grew as a band i would have to say metalica in their prime was a litle better but in the long run maiden wins.I understand they are two diffrent genres of metal but compearing the vocals of Bruce and James i would have to say that Bruce wins by a mile.
Iron Maiden vs Metalica

Okay, guess we'll debate this Metallica sold over 110 million records worldwide while Iron maiden have only sold 90 million. This is the only objective way to analyze this debate. But I guess I'll put my subjective opinion. Thrash metal is what Metallica is, at their core at least. While I enjoyed their "thrashiest" albums such as ride the lightning and master of puppets, I also greatly enjoyed how much more the band covers compared to other metal bands. Most metal bands find their niche and stick with it. Examples: Disturbed, although they had some slower songs that rocked Avenged Sevenfold, always kept their power metal/thrash metal fusion style System of a Down, not everyone considers them metal but they kept their eccentric style and hyperbolized vocals While these bands are great in their own respects, I feel like I can't just binge any of them and rock out. Metallica is different, the diverse sounds and styles, even if experimental at times, are great for setting them on shuffle and going with the flow. Other bands I enjoy like this: King 810, from "gangster" metal with real meaning to acoustic and deep hitting sounds Halestorm, from rock with cleaner sounds to metal with more screams and distortion Flyleaf, some great metal songs with a lot of awesome hard rock songs Overall this is purely opinion but the only piece of objective evidence that could prove anything is in my favor.
Society is anti-feminist.

http://www.stabroeknews.com... Anti-Feminist you say I"m a father and grandfather and I have raised males and females and have a clear idea of the arena of parenthood, of fears and expectations, of managing with a limited budget, and sacrificing to deal with expensive demands. Like most fathers, we have a clear understanding that demons are not invisible mythical creatures, that they lurk, male and female in designer clothing with coercing smiles all around us; some of them are in authority and appear innocent. Thus we must be on guard to protect our over-anxious, clueless offspring. Had it been my daughter who had left for school and returned the following day, I would have whipped her; yes, I have beaten my children, slapped and even cuffed. In this case as related by both Kaieteur News and Stabroek News on June 23, 2012, this father is a parent of three; there are two other girls yet the Magistrate sentenced this parent to six weeks in prison " to achieve what? The same Magistrate (June 26, 2012) fined a woman $15,000 for hitting her husband in the head with a rolling pin, while in another court a man who hit his wife with a rolling pin (in front of another female Magistrate) was remanded (Stabroek News, June 23). Were the male offenders sentenced and sent to jail because of their gender?
Society is anti-feminist.

Now, please understand this argument is NOT about if society should be anti-feminist, but about Whether society is anti-feminist. Now, I would like to briefly explain the rules of this argument.1. Please, no foul language. 2. Please, use evidence to support as many arguments as possible. 3. Refrain from introducing new arguments/evidence in the final round (Round 5) I would like to thank my opponent for debating me in this round. Now, my opponent, do you accept the terms of this debate?
Debate like this is ultimately pointless

org welcome him to this site. However, I disagree that debates "like this" (i. e. between two people online) are futile for the following reasons: 1 - Although one of the debaters may not be in power, the other debater might be, and the arguments put forward by the debater without any political influence may inform the opinion of the politically empowered opponent and thus cause them to adjust their policies accordingly. 2 – Even if neither of the debaters have any power at the time of the debate, they may be in power in the future and the debate may influence the decisions they subsequently make. 3 – These debates are public and, as they are published on the Internet, they have a worldwide audience. This site has 18,000 members and individual hits from non-members that run into the many hundreds of thousands [1]. The likelihood is that someone with political power will read the debate and be influenced by the arguments put forward therein. Finally, there is no evidence that debating increases stress levels, indeed the contrary is likely to be true as an online debating site provides a safe forum to air one's views and generally let off steam. The resolution is thus negated. Thank you. [1] . http://www.debate.org...
Debate like this is ultimately pointless

Debate between any two people that aren't in power to change what they are debating about is pointless. You spend time frustrating yourself trying to prove yourself right, and convince the person you are debating with that they're incorrect. This causes conflict that could be avoided, since it's best to just be at peace with life as much as possible, instead of causing extra frustration to an already stress filled life. By adding extra stress, you can ultimately end up damaging your health in one way or another, which not only goes to show that debate is pointless because it doesn't help one way or another, it can be bad by making you ill.