BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be made illegal in most circumstances. (Repost)

Introduction I accept your challenge. I take the position of fact, And the fact is: A fetus cannot be classified as a human life. My opponent states: "In the same way there are clear definitions for when someone is dead, There should be clear definitions for when someone is living, " There are. The scientific definition of a living human states that the organism must be self sustaining; The body be able to function independent of another body. This requires certain biological processes that a fetus does not possess. This is why a fetus cannot factually be classified as a human life. (source - https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Life (there are multiple references listed on that page)) My opponent states: "You are declared dead when your heart stops beating and your brain stops working. You should therefore be considered alive at the point your heart is formed and your brain is formed. " My opponent's logic is horribly flawed, For this assertion implies that a body only needs a brain and a heart to live. I assure you, If I were to rip out all of your innards aside from your brain, And your heart, You would die a very, Very painful death. When you are able to prove that a human being only needs a heart and a brain to live, Then their assertion here may become valid. As of now, It is utterly false. The only reason a person is pronounced dead at the death of their brain and/or heart is because the rest of the body cannot live without the brain and/or the heart. That doesn't mean the body doesn't need everything else to live. Conclusion: When my opponent proves that a fetus possesses the necessary biological processes to live independent of another organism(the mother's biological processes), Then my opponent's claims will have merit. Until then, Their entire premise is false. My opponent has the floor.
Abortion should be made illegal in most circumstances. (Repost)

This is the same debate as before, But I would like to challenge BrutalTruth. I think he will be a much more worthy opponent to debate with than my former opponent. Without further ado, Here is my argument, As posted in my first debate. My basic argument is abortion is the ending of the life of a human being, And for that reason should be rendered illegal in most cases and classified as homicide, And the law should be changed to fit with this. In the same way there are clear definitions for when someone is dead, There should be clear definitions for when someone is living, And these would conform to the same reasoning. You are declared dead when your heart stops beating and your brain stops working. You should therefore be considered alive at the point your heart is formed and your brain is formed. A baby's heart if formed at 5 weeks. Their brain is formed at 6. Thus this is the latest reasonable point where their life starts, And with a right to life, They cannot be killed except under specific circumstances. It's not reasonable to assume that personhood is gained at the point of birth, As there is little separating the baby inside the womb from outside of it. They have their own genes, Organs, And body, The only difference is they are not connected to an umbilical cord anymore, Which means they are less dependent on their mother, But is not any reasonable indicator that they are anymore of a living thing. Abortion should have exceptions for when the mother's own life is put at risk, For example an ectopic pregnancy, Where killing the baby can be reasonably classified as justifiable homicide.
Abortion should be made illegal in most circumstances. (Repost)

My opponent clings to the same already defeated argument, So I don't really need to say much. I'll just spell it out for them to an undeniable degree: A human being kept alive by machines has a lot more than a heart and a brain in their body. They have literally thousands upon thousands of biological processes keeping them alive, And the machines help the couple that don't function properly. A fetus who has just developed a heart and a brain has NO other biological processes. The two are therefore not comparable. If my opponent wants to explain how anything, Human or otherwise, Could live with nothing but a heart and a brain, Their argument may actually resemble something that isn't utterly ridiculous. However, Until that happens, It remains ridiculous and obviously invalid. A fetus is incapable of living until it reaches viability. It is not living inside the womb, And it would not be living if taken out of the womb. It has not ACHIEVED life yet. A fetus is to a living human as a single line of code is to a computer program. A single line of code cannot be a computer program. A fetus cannot be a living human. This is a fact, So my opponent can deny it all they wish to, And it will remain true. To conclude, If a living human in a hospital being kept alive by machines were to suddenly transform internally to the same biological development as a fetus, That living human would quite instantly become a dead human, Regardless of what machine it's hooked up to. Source: http://americanpregnancy. Org/while-pregnant/first-trimester/
This quantum vaccum would state: Math is false

You seem very brainwashed in this "math". Playdough say math is all hypotehical. There aint no one in nature. Hypothetically what if wes added 1 and 1. Math is "true" becuz humans think it is. There aint no math in nature. Playdough had to say there was but you cannot make love to the numers you cannot see the numbers in nature. How can playdough justifiy playdoughism? Yiu cannt. You says imagination is false yeah math exists in the imagination now your saying math is false now.. Ohhhhh the madness of these mathheads
This quantum vaccum would state: Math is false

Yes it seem 1 stone plus 1 stone is two stone but it is only an illusion. A very presistent one. Like magician. God magicians are soo creepy http://www.quickmeme.com...; />*Shudder*My Proof of falsitiy of mathSome math seem legit and straight. Like a this1+3= 4 or -3 + 1= -2. It make a da sense. 1 apple plus 3 pinecones= a sh1tty lunch with 4 items. If you owe your pimp 3$ and you pay him 1$ you only owe him 2$ (you probably have aids too because good hookers arent that cheap)The above math is a little complicated it took me a while to figure it out but its going to get a lot more complex.Here is where math takes a bong hit with the bong being laced with PCP http://www.quickmeme.com...; />Math must have been his friend.Here is what math saysIfff I have -3 and I multiply that with -5 I get POSITIVE 15. WTF MATH? POSITVE 15????? Your tellin me if I owe 3 dollars each to five pimps and rank up a debt i will somehow magically get 15 real postive dollars? Where is the positve 15 going to come from? The math farry? The absuridty!! Math has to propose a math farry to around this problem. Omg such madness I aint making this sh1t up. Google "-3*-5" You get postive 15https://www.google.ro...*-5&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gws_rd=cr&ei=SpBpVKiaOI3APK7IgYgG Math is a stoner math is an incoherenrt drug addict. Many of math's practicnaers did tons of drugs like acid and weed and stuff. Exibit A: Paul Erdös was a mathematication who doped up with amphedmines. http://www.nytimes.com... He was literally a methematicion. Exibit B: Richard Feynman. Feyn feyn was a huge druggie. He probably dealt drugs. He dipped in LSD Marijwanie and Ketaminehttp://books.google.ro... He was like cheech and chong but all in one guy!Exibit C: Neil Degrass tysonDegrass tyson (he has grass in his name come on!!!) is a huge drug head. He is noteablly known for noteablly noting that science is about gettin high http://www.quickmeme.com...; /> How can we trust mathematics when its founders are a bunch of dope heads!?!?!?!?!?Thats why math seems so true. The doped up dope heads burn it into our brains so much we have convinced ourselfs its absolute when ithrer isnt anything absolute about it. I can say one is proofle and 2 is doogle proofle and doogle arent absolute they are human inventions that help us, but its still false.B1tches stop dealing in your math. Math dosn't real and is fake.Wake up, stop pretending!
This quantum vaccum would state: Math is false

Con are you blind or can you not see? " 0 is defined by nothing" ohhh yeaaaah lets say 0 is defined by nothing then by you own statement "you can never show me 0 bananas" but zero exists and nothing doesnt therefore 0=/= nothing or math = false and you = crackbaby. "numbers as they exist are false" Contradicto mehn. If you were a super hero you would be the contradiction you save people and you don't. Math is purely illusionary Suck it.
This quantum vaccum would state: Math is false

i am one is true, and my body is nature. 1 is defined by everything or something, and 0 is defined by nothing you add the number 1 to a stone and use it in an equation, and now the math will fit based on what we observe in reality, not 2 stones, then I would have to imagine having an extra stone in my hand numbers as they exist are false, but as math is based on reality the answer of math becomes absolute you can never show me 0 bananas, you can show me 1 banana, I know this
Should kids under 10 years old be able to have iphones

That's what parental controls are for. The parent can limit the child's calling access, and the kid can still have a phone. If I was a parent, I would never buy my child an iPhone, but I know many people who would. Really, it's up to the parent to decide whether or not the child is responsible enough for an iPhone. There's nothing wrong with buying something, and nobody loses out if the child is responsible with their new tool. 1. https://support.apple.com...
Should kids under 10 years old be able to have iphones

Yes, I believe kids under 10 should be able to own iPhones. More to the point, I think their parents should have the right to buy iPhones, for their children's use. There is no law that says otherwise. An iPhone, or any SmartPhone, is just a tool, and one that can be used or misused as the owner decrees. If the parents choose to pay fifty dollars a month so that their eight year old son can play Angry Birds, they should be able to. I think it depends on the child, but parents can and will be able to buy them whatever they want. According to a survey by network security developer West Coast Cloud has revealed that 1 in 10 UK children under 10 own iPhones. 1. http://www.macnn.com... 2. http://www.digitaltrends.com...
The use of force to stop Abortion is justified.

1. My opponent, in making the argument that "when the definition of death is the loss of "x", because then it seems evident that to be a human being you must have "x." In this case, the "x" is activity in the EEG. Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual's life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?" seems to forget the wording of the very source she cited. My opponent cited ""For legal and medical purposes, the following definition of death has been proposed-the irreversible cessation of all of the following: (1) total cerebral function, usually assessed by EEG as flat-line" First, notice the word "proposed", not "resolved", or "a consensus has been reached that....". Second, notice that she has quoted only the first of a list of factors. I cannot complete the quote, as I, and I suspect many readers, do not just happen to be in possession of a Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 31st edition. Third, "irreversible cessation", neither word applies to fetal brainwaves. Not irreversible, because there brainwaves will begin in the near future, and not a cessation because they never had them before. "Recorded on the same instrument". I defy my opponent to cite one documented case of a human fetus being hooked up to an EEG. 2. My opponent correctly states that " a fetus is 100% dependent on the vitality of a woman to survive.". I might mention that a woman who chooses to engage in sexual activity invites this burden and responsibility. 3. "Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his brain function" My opponent cites no source for this categorical statement. Furthermore, doctors do not hook every person up to an EEG, before pronouncing them dead. Such would be impractical, and probably cost prohibitive. 4. My opponent argues that voters should take my conduct points for attacking her sources. Then, in the same paragraph, proceeds to attack my sources. " There is no need to laugh and be rude." My opponent apparently has hurt feelings over my rhetorical attack on her source, but if rudeness counts I would be happy to quote my opponents arguments: "(I'm not giving you that pregnancy link)" "Before I get into the statements my opponent so graciously copy and pasted" " who made you the police of the world?" My opponent quotes Margaret Sanger, and well know eugenicist, racist, and former guest speaker for the Ku Klux Klan.[1] Attacking a source is a completely normal and acceptable debate tactic. Debate is an intellectual contact sport, cupcake, I suggest you buy a helmet. 5. "During this time, abortion is illegal." This may be true in Canada, not in the United States. Sources 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Vegan Diet is better than the omnivore diet.

I will accept your argument on the CON side meaning my stance is meat is as good if not better for your health, for the earth, and for humanity then the vegan diet. Meat contains high amounts of protein. Protein is essential for the function of muscles and bones. The consumption of animal protein is associated with increased muscle mass, meaning people who eat a meat diet tend to have more muscle then a vegan diet. Studies show that consumption of protein is beneficial to increased bone density meaning with old age as your bones get weaker animal protein will help conserve bone mass. Meat is also nutritious; 3.5 ounces of raw ground beef contains large amounts of B12, Creatine, Carnosine, and DHA and EPA; these nutrients can not be found in vegetables. B12 is important because it cannot be found in plants, studies looked at vegans who don’t get B12 in their normal diet and 92% of them were deficient. Creatine reserves energy for the brain and for muscle movement, people who are deficient have reduced physical and mental performance. Carnosine is a powerful anti-oxidant which provides protection against many degenerative processes. DHA and EPA refer to Omega-3. It is easier than having to have specific plant based diet to just eat meat to acquire your nutrients. Meat eating is good for the environment because the raising of cattle if grass fed is good for the health of the soil and the grass. The eating of the grass stimulates vegetative growth. Also the trampling of hoofs and digestive tracts promote seed germination and nutrient recycling. There have been claims that the farts of the cattle is one of the leading causes to Green house gases. According to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2010; all of the U.S. agriculture accounts for 8% of green house emissions. The majority of the emissions are from crop farming because of the crop and soil management. Union concerned scientists reported that only about 2% of the green house gasses are connected to cattle farming. (http://www.wsj.com...) Finally meat is good for humanity. If you look at our history we are omnivores we eat meat and plants. It is in biological adaption to be able to eat meat and plants while taking in the nutrients. Humans have much shorter digestive systems than herbivores meaning we don’t have adapted organs to digest cellulose. This means we are not able digest the main fiber in plants. Humans also have canine teeth, thumbs, and a brain, which shows that we are evolutionarily supposed to eat meat because all three of those factors make us hunters. In conclusion eating meat is more convenient and easier then trying to get all vital nutrients from just vegetables and vitamins.
Vegan Diet is better than the omnivore diet.

I will be arguing on the PRO side of the argument that the vegan diet is better then the omnivore diet. It will be a quick one round debate. Please no Trolling. The grounds are that it is better for your health, the earth, and for humanity. As far as your health goes more and more people are switching to the vegan lifestyle. People are finding that they have increase energy and younger looking skin. With the right diet of plants you can acquire the right amount of protein, iron, calcium and other essential vitamins and minerals. The nutrients tend to be low in saturated fat, high in fiber and packed with antioxidants, which in some cases lessens the chances of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Secondly the Production of meat places a heavy burden on the environment. The feeding of the animals and the transportation of the product is a hefty impact on the environment. Also the carbon footprint is increased because of the methane flatulence from cattle farming. For humanity veganism is the sustainable option when it comes to our planet. Plant-based diets require only a third of the land needed to produce dairy and meat letting us use other resources for food.
Government exists to help the poor.

To start off I would like to remind the viewers of this debate that it is impossible for me to go into much depth on my points or cover all points due to the character restrictions strictly imposed by my opponent. Below I would like to refute the further arguments my opponent has made. 1. My opponent provided the definition for "poor" in the last round of this debate. His resolution clearly included the word "poor". "poor" is a relative word which has many definitions. Thus it was impossible to refute his resolution until the last round. 2. My opponent (as far as he has defined) has made his resolution "Government exists to help the poor. " NOT: that government solely exists to help the poor. By proving that government in any way was created to help the poor, I have refuted my opponents resolution. 3. I do not have refute that all governments existed to help the poor (As defined by my opponents resolution) I simply have to show that some governments were created in some way to help the poor. 4. My opponent has conceded that Red China (a country with a population of over 1.3 trillion) was created to help the poor. "However, this is a rare example. " 5. Wikipedia is not a valid source. Even if it was and I accepted your information as valid I would like to state that it says: "Government was created for many reasons. " To Sum up the debate: My opponent has conceded: 1. That more than one government was created to help the poor. 2. That China was created to help the poor. 3. That the United States (that was cited in his example as having never been created in any way to help the poor) 4. In his definition of government that the poor can be included. I have disproved my opponents resolution that "government was created to help the poor" by showing that governments have been created to help the poor including the US and China. Thank you for this debate
Government exists to help the poor.

The poor is the lower class, not the non-rich. The middle-class is not considered to be poor in this debate. My opponent is correct that our constitution as an example was created to help the people, which obviously includes the poor, but our government was not created specifically to help the poor. Historically, government was not created to help the poor. You have not disagreed with the fact that early governments existed for protection and not to help the poor, so my oppenent must agree with this statement. Red China as an example, my opponent has noted that government was created to help the poor. There was a revolution that destroyed the other government (which did not exist to help the poor) and replaced it with one that did. However, this is a rare example. In other instances, the government was made to help the less-affluent. Never did the government exist solely or specifically to help the poor. Even with socialism, communism, and marxism, the new system of government was established to help everyone (not jsut the poor) that the people viewed as victims of the rich. Merechriolus and Slrubenstein of Wikipedia wrote: "As in the case of the Roman Republic, or later the Ashanti Empire, the transition from a tribal society to a confederacy of tribes and finally to a full-fledged urban civilization with central government is a gradual process and lacks any clear definition." http://en.wikipedia.org... Government was created for many reasons. It originates in the local commmunities, villages, and tribes of prehistoric times. They banded together for protection from wild animals and other tribes. They hunted together. Law was probably started when ethics emerged within the community and crime (like murder) was to be discouraged. Over time, communities, tribes, and villages joined together to form larger governing bodies, like the Greek and Roman Empires. The origin of government was not to help the poor, but for defense. Thank you!
Government exists to help the poor.

I will now proceed to negate my opponents point Definitions (which should have been done by the Con) Poor - A definition generalized for the context of this debate to mean not having the same amount of money or possesions as another. 1. My opponents main point in this debate is that not one government throughout history has been created in any way to help people who have less money denoted by my oppponent as poor. His main arguments backing such are that the United States was not created for this reason (because it was not stated in the preamble of the constitutions) and because the Roman government did not help the poor. To start off refuting my opponents points, I would first like to bring up the preamble of the United States Constitution as stated by my opponent. I would like to call to my opponents as well as the readers of this debate's attentions that in the preamble is the phrase "We the People" This includes the people with less possesions than others. Furthermore it goes onto state it promotes the welfare of those people including the less affluent. Welfare under the constitutions meaning means: welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. Therefore you can interpret the constitution to mean that our government was founded to promote the health, happiness, and prosperity of all people, including the poor. This includes everyones descendents which may or may not be poor denoted as "posterity" or descendants Reguarding communism and socialism. When a new form of government arises such as communism, it does not simply become integrated into the previous government. This is obvious because in china when the communist party took power there was a revolution. Similar to when the US government was started there was a revolution. Since you acknowledge that the US is a new government, you must acknowledge the Chinese - communist govt.