BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is a justified practice.

I've elected not to view those pictures, since I just ate. I'll begin.First, my opponent claims I missed an argument, specifically the "babies are alive" statement. I must apologize. I thought this was a lead in to your next point, not a point on its own. I will now address that argument. Yes, a baby is no doubt a living thing. And it is mostly true that everyone has a right to live -- but this right does not extend to babies in the womb. Let me give a hypothetical example.Suppose that one day you are approached by the government and told that an important scientist is having liver issues and requires 'help' filtering his blood. The scientist has a rare blood type that you share, so the government decides that you and the scientist will be 'hooked up' together for a period of time. His blood and yours will run through your liver and his bad one. The government makes a few inurances: a) That you are unlikely to die or have long term damage from this. b) That you'll only need to do this for 9 months, then the scientist will be healthy again. c) That the scientist will surely die if this arangement does not happen. So the government decided that you must do this, that you have no choice in the matter. Is this jusified? After all, both the scientist and you have a right to live and without your body, the scientist cannot survive. Based upon your argument, this would be jusified, since "every person has a right to live."Clearly, though, this is not justified. A person should not have to contribute a part of themselves in order to insure that another person lives. The right to life should not be confused with an obligation to insure the life of others. This example should make it clear why a person's right to live does not matter in a parasitic relationship. Additionally, my opponent failed to actually address my parasite argument, again. In conclusion, I made an argument r1 that still has not been adequately addressed by the opponent. I have used logic and common sense in order to show that my opponent's position in untenable. I look forward to the opponent's response.
Abortion is a justified practice.

As I stated, my first argument was purely to gauge the opponent's strengths. I fully rescind said argument. However, my opponent's response to my second argument is woefully inadequate. I imagine much of the debate will focus on this argument. It seems my opponent's only real response to my second argument is this: "if you don't want a baby, use contraception".This argument holds no water. First, there are many cases in which a woman desires to get pregnant and, for whatever reasons, decides she no longer wishes to be pregnant. This links back to the parasite argument. Second, many women don't use protection because they feel the likelihood of getting pregnant is low (whether that likelihood is small or not.) They end up becoming pregnant, and my parasite argument is again in play. It doesn't matter how silly a woman is for becoming pregnant; there should be no obligation for her to hold this parasite on her body, especially when said parasite cannot survive on its own. Third, I will bring up rape victims. Some women, despite all their actions, cannot help but become pregnant due to rape. If a woman is raped and does not wish to have the child, my parasite argument comes into play. I recommend that my opponent directly refutes the logic behind my parasite argument. The fact that she is willing to have her tubes tied says nothing about the other women in this world who aren't. There are too many cases in which a woman wants to have a child, just not the one they are impregnated with, for that argument to be valid.I also recommend they use more than a paragraph to detail their argument. I set the limit to 10,000 characters, and there is no reason the opponent shouldn't use some of them.
Abortion is a justified practice.

Legality does not equal morality. Slavery used to be legal, did that make it right? What Hitler did was legal, what Stalin did was legal. In Saudi Arabia, it ius legal to kill rape victims. Also, abortion kills a living child. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. Abortion is child abuse and age discrimination. If you don't want a baby, use contraception. I want tohave my tubes removed for this reason. I am willing to live my own advice.
Abortion is a justified practice.

Based upon my understanding of most religious texts that reference Hell, it really isn't that boring a place. I will keep my opening arguments brief, and make only two of them. The first, to test the quality of the opponent, and the second is meant to be reasonable. 1. Abortion is legal todayHumanity generally tends toward creating laws that benefit humanity. What is good for humanity is in and of itself justified. The law allows abortion, therefore abortion benefits humanity and is, thus, justified. 2. The ParasiteIf we are to approach this topic from a secular persepective, then we must find a basis for justice that does not include religion. This 'justice' most often comes in the form of human rights and societal good.From a biological perspective, a baby is largely a parasite. The mother gives nutrients to the baby, while the baby gives little in return. My argument here is that no human should be forced to carry a parasite on their body if there is a reasonable way of removing it. The baby is a parasite and the mother has a way (abortion) to remove it. Therefore, it is justifiable for a mother to remove a parasite from her body if she does not wish it to be there. These arguments are limited, and that is the intent. I look forward to a fruitful debate.
Junk food advertising should not be band

I SEE THERE WAS A TERRIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING!! It appears that this debate is ACTUALLY about whether junk food advertising should BANNED, not band!!! Woe, was me!!--wasting a whole round on gibberish!!! Now I can clearly see that my opponent's arguments are not non-sequiturs, in-fact, they are fool-proof!!--perfect!!--incapable of being dismantled!! He has made a beautiful case for why junk food advertising should not be banned!!Not that I would want to refute any of his arguments, after-all, he made my own case for me. The resolution is that it should not be banned and my position in the debate is Pro.Banning doesn't work. It would hurt the economy. Wouldn't lower obesity. All fantastic arguments!CHEERS!! =D
Junk food advertising should not be band

Thankyou FREEDO for being my competitor for this debate. FREEDO has made pretty good points but I have made very convincing arguments but I have made much better arguments. Firstly banning something will obviously not work and secondly banning food advertisers would make the company advertising the product lose money. Now I will discuss banning. Firstly banning something will obviously not work, advertising of cigarettes in Australia has been banned for so many years, yet people all around Australia continue to smoke. Banning of junk food advertising was done in Sweden ---- years ago, yet statistics show no evidence in the reduction of childhood obesity or related illnesses. Secondly banning food advertisers would make the company advertising the product lose money. If the banning of advertising products happens all of the big companies will lose their money, for example Mcdonalds stores could go broke if this happens. Eating badly causes health problems, not advertising. To sum this argument up, Ladies and gentlemen, we do not need to ban the advertising of junk food. I have demonstrated to you firstly that banning something does not work. In fact banning something often makes it more desirable. And my second point was that big companies would lose money. Eating badly causes health problems, not advertising. Thank you.
Junk food advertising should not be band

ARGUMENTSFirstly, Yoshi makes some interesting arguments but I assert that none of them really get down to the task at hand. Before I continue, let's lay out some solid definitions. Junk food:nounA high-calorie food that is low in nutritional value. [1]Advertising:nounThe activity of attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in the print, broadcast, or electronic media. [2]Band:nounA group of musicians playing together. [3]Now, I can see clearly that Yoshi makes a lot of non-sequiturs. By discrediting critiques against junk food and advertising he thinks he can discredit any critiques made against junk food advertising being a good band name. I contend that this is not so. The reputation of a phrase is certainly something to consider in choosing a band name. However, just because something doesn't have a bad rap doesn't mean that it has a good one. You also have to consider what sort of crowd your going for with your music. "Disemboweled organs" may not have a good rap, usually, but for a metal band it might be just right. So the burden lays on my opponent to show just what group "Junk food advertising" might appeal to. Do you know any organizations that exist which have brought together like-minded obese, television-glued individuals to develop a musical culture? The success of the sound of a band name is dependent upon general opinion. I contend that Junk food advertising is just not something most people could get around and say "Hey. .ya know, that would make a real good band name! " No, you won't see that happening. It's purpose is confusing, vague at the least, void at the worst; it's length is obnoxious, which most do not appreciate; it's phonaesthetics is just plain dull and uncaptivating. Band-naming is an art, my friend, and nothing--JUST NOTHING--is artsy about Junk food advertising. This makes it unfit to be a band name. I turn it over to Con. SOURCES1. . http://www.yourdictionary.com...2. . http://www.yourdictionary.com...3. . http://www.yourdictionary.com...
Junk food advertising should not be band

I will show you tha Junk food advertising should not be band Advertising on television does not cause obesity. Advertising on television does not cause health problems. Eating badly causes these problems, not advertising. Now I would like to discuss banning. My first point is that banning something doesn't work. In fact it can have the opposite effect. My second point is that we can't escape advertising – advertising is everywhere. Firstly, ladies and gentlemen, banning something does not work! In particular, banning the advertising of a product does not solve the problem. My second point is that we cannot escape advertising. Children cannot escape advertising. Advertising is everywhere! Junk food advertising is everywhere. Whenever I get into a car, I drive past McDonalds, the famous Great Golden Arches that symbolise an "m". Thankyou
Joke Theft is Wrong

How does it harm people? How is it immoral? It is theft, If someone wrote a book and someone else copied that book exactly claimed it to be their own and published it to get millions, Would that still be "not theft cause you cannot own words" no that would clearly be theft. It results in confusion as to what is original comedy and what is not and it results in it being harder to see who has the talent in the world of comedy. If you write a series of jokes for a show and someone directly copies all the jokes and use it for their own show you would be understandably furious, As they just profited off your hard work. You act like writing a joke is not even important for comedy even though without jokes written you don't even have a show to perform, The jokes is one of the most important parts and stealing them is clearly immoral. It is simply not good for someone to take something that someone else wrote and worked on and then to claim it as there own even though they did not put in the work that the other person did.
Joke Theft is Wrong

You're only thinking about this in the short term. "I cannot grasp how intentionally taking someones joke using a claiming it to be your own is moral" They're not taking the joke. People cannot own words. Words belong to humanity. "we are not talking about bands we are talking about joke theft" You might not be talking about it, But I am, Because the situations are analogous. They both deal with intellectual property and they both share the same fight if they're copyrighted to death. My statements about music remain relevant. "If someone took a song word for word and passed it off as there own I would be pretty mad, " People are only doing it because of the stigma around using other people's jokes. If there was no stigma. This wouldn't happen. "But it is theft when you claim it to be your own and profit off of the other artists hard work" Like I said before. Comedians don't fill seats because of their material, It's how they deliver it. The person using the copied joke is not stealing anybody's hard work. They still have to get up and perform and earn their paycheck. All you've shown so far is that copying jokes is in bad taste. Since society has and could once again change their mind about that, You're argument is meaningless. The only way you can prove me wrong is to show how it causes any actual harm besides just saying that it makes people angry.
Joke Theft is Wrong

I cannot grasp how intentionally taking someones joke using a claiming it to be your own is moral, It is unoriginal and results in you benefiting from someone else's hard work. And we are not talking about bands we are talking about joke theft which is generally when someone takes a joke performs it and passes it off as if they wrote the joke. If someone took a song word for word and passed it off as there own I would be pretty mad, So your cover argument does not really make any sense. It is not joke stealing to re tell a joke that someone has said before if you specifically outline that its not your joke. But it is theft when you claim it to be your own and profit off of the other artists hard work in coming up with the joke without crediting him. Therefore joke theft is wrong and what I consider joke theft is better compared to copying a song than it is to creating a cover of a song.
Joke Theft is Wrong

I'm not arguing that the jokes are taken accidentally. I'm saying it would reach the point where we would have to knowingly use old material. Joke theft is the name of the title because that's what people call it. The phrase necessarily implies that a given string of words can belong to a person, That is fallacious. Words belong to no one. What's next, Are you going to say that people can't breathe other people's air? This basically comes down to your opinion. You think that using someone else's material means that the comedian is not talented. This is not the case. You're familiar with cover song right? When a band does a cover, They're version is weighed against the other version and if the cover was performed well, Or if they added they're own original twist, It will be accepted by the public. This attitude that you have towards entertainment is not helping the art. Artist should have the attitude that, If someone does a cover of their act, That is a complement to how good it was. Comedians don't get paid for their material. They get paid for the performance they give. The material is just their ice breaker to insert their personality after the fact. That's why they can go on tour and do the same act for a year straight while people have heard it already. Morality is based on harm vs benefit. Any action has to be placed within a specific state of affairs and measured for it's net harm vs benefit ratio. There is no inherent harm, Because they're not really stealing the material, Their just emulating it. So it's not like the joke got stolen and the victim can't use it anymore. Not like stealing a car. So the two don't compare. There's no financial harm because, Like I said, People fill the seats for the person, Not the material. The only real issue is the feelings of other people. But hurt feelings is not harm. On the benefit side, You give people the freedom to write jokes the way they want and they can emulate their favorite comedian without being needlessly shamed. Seems like a simple decision. your floor.
Joke Theft is Wrong

Just because I don't think it should be illegal does not mean I think its moral. Many different things that are immoral are legal and just because I disagree the law should be involved does not mean I agree with them doing it. I am not saying people can't have the same jokes I am saying people specifically and clearly taking others jokes should be looked down on as they did not put effort. And the premise to this argument is misleading your point was that joke theft is not wrong but what you are arguing for is not joke theft you are arguing that the premise of joke theft within itself is flawed because there are a finite amount of jokes making the accidental taking of a joke inevitable however accidentally using a joke that someone else wrote is not joke theft its just an accident. While intentionally taking someones jokes because you cannot be bothered to write your own is joke theft and should be looked down on as you are not putting in the same effort as the person who originally wrote the jokes.
Joke Theft is Wrong

Okay, So I think we both agree that people can't steal words. So lets start there. There's a limited amount of words, The minute you tell people that certain word patterns (aka, Jokes) are immoral to steal, Then you're hoarding them. In reality, The person hoarding the phrase is actually stealing that phrase from society. If you don't think that the law should be involved, Then you can't say it's immoral, You can only say that it's frowned upon, Because your attitude is objective. I can give an example. You say that using someone else joke is looked down upon, But did you know this was not always the case? Back before we had radios and televisions, Using somebody else's act was considered the highest honor you could show them. Most Jazz artists made their careers by ONLY playing other people's music and everybody was perfectly okay with it. Louis Armstrong is a good example as this, So I'm quoting his life as a source for this point. So if it depends on the opinion of society, Then it can't really be immoral and it's only looked down upon in our CURRENT society, That doesn't mean that society couldn't or shouldn't change it's attitude toward this. I'm also going to use another music example here to show why the idea of music stealing is also a bad concept and how it is analogous to comedy. So anyone who studies music knows that there are only 12 tones that can heard by the human ear. These are the only 12 notes in music, These notes repeat in rising circles called octaves. This means that every A note just sounds like a higher version of itself and I could play any song in any octave and it will sound identical except the tone will be higher. Most songs have 3 or 4 note patterns that anybody can recognize with the ear. So if people start copyrighting songs, What they're actually doing is stealing patterns from society. The note pattern for under pressure by Queen could easily steal over 100 patterns depending on how you define the copyright. Eventually, No matter how long it takes, All the patterns get taken of the table and nobody can legally write anymore songs, Or it can just be frowned upon and every musician would be hated for stealing even though they had no choice. This is a mathematical fact because the number of musical patterns is finite and any long pattern made will just be a combination of smaller patterns. This same concept applies to jokes. Sure, There's a lot of words, But most of them are synonyms for other words. Comedians can't use every word combination either, They can only use the ones that are funny. This already limits them severely because most comedy stems from specific kinds of situations that the comedian sets up. Eventually, So many situations will be covered that every joke will just be a rewrite and everyone will know it. It's inevitable so I think this stigma around joke stealing needs to go away. Victor Borge never once complained when people did his act and neither should anyone else.
Joke Theft is Wrong

I am specifically against intentionally stealing jokes, There is a difference between coincidentally writing a similar joke to someone else and taking and using someones joke without their permission. I am not arguing for the law to be brought into this issue, Of course it should not be considered a crime to take someones joke. However it is morally wrong as it not only devalues the work that the original author put into making and writing the joke, But it also means that your riding on someone else's success which is obviously not right. In the comedian community it is and should be looked down on as it means that someone who writes their own original jokes puts in effort to be original and funny while someone else can just take jokes they like and have the same popularity with minimal effort. This is lazy, It is not fair, And it should be looked down on. I don't think that it should be enforced by law but if someone consistently and clearly steals jokes they should be looked down on. And yes sometimes people accidentally write similar jokes to someone else and this is fine but the act of stealing jokes itself should be looked down on.
You cannot soundly derive morality from 'god'.

I thought I wanted this one short, but oh well. Firstly, when you say the Christian god, you just made this a mess. I wanted to talk about a plain intervening theistic god, it does include the christian one, but when you bring the religion to this table, you just lose. I was trying not to bring a specific god to the table to prevent humiliating my opponent, now that he has though, do I really need to comment on the moralities of the christian god? Do I need to show the sexism in the bible? The slavery, the racism, the ethnic cleansing? I need not to any educated thinker. This will get us in a whole mess of biblical contradictions of where you're supposed to stone an unbeliever to death, or an adulterer, but then a carpenter tells us not to, and the next page he tells us to always obey the laws of the old testament. I need not waste time with these propositions, and I will get back to the philosophical. You're basic argument was that we have no objective morality without a god, and you make the fatal mistake of attributing this to one specific god, now you see how holy wars can begin. The religious have always found ways in starting conflicts where there were none. Before my opponent makes another fatal mistake, of saying "But look, atheists were evil too." I'll correct this right now. Stalin's nation or Kim's nation aren't examples of what people do when they start becoming too skeptical or too scientific. North Korea is possibly the most religious nation ever, completely totalitarian, just like a monotheism. The definition of totalitarianism: a THOUGHT CRIME. This is what the christian god can do to you. But at least you can ******* die in North Korea and leave, not in this barbaric myth, where once you die, that's when the fun truly begins. So to say religions are moral you need to turn your back to these 3 1) History 2) The holy texts 3) Statements made by their leaders. Now on to the point. If it is to be said that religion is moral, then give me an ethical statement made, or a moral action performed that could not have been said or done by a non-religious. Think of the opposite, a bad saying or a bad action performed that could only have been done by a man of religion, you do not need a second to think of this one. Finally, observe the problem, ask a priest would you be moral without god? If he says yes, god is again, like the first problem which my opponent didn't answer, useless. If he says no, it means he is only behaving because he is being watched. Is this morality? I think not. Human solidarity has always transcendent the morality of religion.