BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Curing Cancer, AIDS, etc. Be Outlawed and Genocide Encouraged

It is to my understanding that in order to preserve humanity as a whole for a longer period of time than what has already been presumed for us, global collapse by 2030 (Source: http://rt.com...) that we should outlaw certain life threatening diseases, including cancer, AIDS and polio, just to name the top few. As well as we should repeal the article in the Geneva Convention which bans genocide (Source: http://www.hrweb.org...). The direction of all of this being to lessen the currently exploding global population (Source: http://www.worldometers.info...) to a more reasonable standpoint, so as to be able to use less of the worlds resources and distribute food and wealth more evenly. It has been assumed that the earth should only have about 2 billion persons living upon its surface, as this would allow for the earth's resources to be used and regenerated in a normal fashion (Source: http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org...). So as I see it, finding a way to lessen the population, by any means necessary, decreases the chance of a global collapse, as well as the preservation of humanity as a whole for many years to come. I do understand that certain issues come to hand when dealing with a topic as controversial as genocide, because the use of that word insinuates the death of a certain race, or religious group, or other such party, and thus is an attack on human and civil rights. I feel that if this is necessary for the preservation of humanity as a whole, then we cannot focus on the short term struggles. I do not exclude myself from having to die from cancer, any other such disease, or from any war or genocide caused to my race/religion/etc. As I understand it, many humans of today would rather preserve themselves, rather than their species as a whole and this needs to change if we are to survive on a long term basis, past all of the death that should be allowed now, in order for a brighter and more concise future. It could also be stated, (though there is no concise study/proof) that due to the higher population, those who make intelligent achievements in science, political, or any other such world matters, have a decreased chance of being recognized on a worldwide basis for a long period of time, due to that just as one advancement is made, another soon follows that surpasses the first and the name is forgotten. Where as, in the past, when there was less of a population, the intelligence found around the earth stood out much more than it now does, because not as many geniuses existed particularly. To close my statement; I think that cancer (and other such life threatening diseases) should not be cured, nor should genocide be viewed as a crime by the UN so as to sustain humanity for a long period of time, rather than us (humanity) possibly pushing ourselves not only further into poverty, but also hunger, and ecological failure through our mistreating of the earth and it's resources.
Should Curing Cancer, AIDS, etc. Be Outlawed and Genocide Encouraged

So, this being my first time at Debate.org, I apologize in advance for any miscommunications or other unprofessional mistakes I make while conducting the current debate. For purposes of this debate, when referring to "we should" it shall be known that that is in context to what would be best for humanity as a whole, rather than any particular country, religious goal, etc. Also, when using "etc." it is to be assumed that the debater has further examples, and that if asked by the other to present such an example, they must or face public humiliation. Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and Internet access. (2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate (3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. (4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. (5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss. Rounds: (1) Acceptance (2) Opening Statement (3) Rebuttal (4) Rebuttal Other notes: (1) 72 hours to argue; (2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. (3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other; (4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
Abortion is murder

Re:" During the months leading to the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln repeatedly discussed the matter with his cabinet. During one difficult discussion, he asked: "Gentlemen, how many legs does a sheep have?" Each man answered correctly, "Four, Mr. President." He proceeded, "Let's call his tail a leg. Now how many legs?" Each man replied, "Five, Mr. President." Mr. Lincoln retorted, "Nope, still only four. Just because we call it a leg doesn't make it one." "First, this alleged quote from Lincoln is likely bogus. This alleged quote has been showing up on various anti-abortion websites dating back to 2001. (see, e.g., Google search results for the quote - https://goo.gl... --- and first appearance >>> https://goo.gl... ) I haven't seen any credible evidence indicating that the quote is authentic. I challenge Pro to demonstrate that the quote is authentic. Second, Pro has failed to cite his source. Pro merely copy/pasted the entire paragraph from some source and failed to properly attribute the source of the work - Pro didn't even try. This is a form of plagiarism, and it isn't acceptable conduct.Turning to Pro's other arguments, I do not understand why Pro has felt that it is necessary to discuss the issue of whether or not a fetus is a human being for purposes of murder. This wasn't disputed by me in the prior round as my case was built on the fact that abortion is lawful as rather than a claim that fetuses are not human. So, this entire discussion by Pro is superfluous as far as I'm concerned. Fetuses are human beings for purposes of murder. I agree with Pro on that point. I also do not understand the relevance of Pro's example of euthanasia. This debate is not about euthanasia. This debate is about abortion. I encourage Pro to stay on topic.Critically, Pro has presented no response to my point about abortion being lawful. Pro has accepted that abortion is lawful, and has accepted the Oxford Dictionary definition for murder which explicitly includes the descriptor "unlawful". Pro has presented no explanation as to how lawful abortion could be murder under a definition which requires an unlawful killing. Pro has dropped this argument entirely.
Abortion is murder

The claim that abortion is murder is sometimes made argumentatively by political opponents of abortion with the objective of associating abortions with the negative connotations of murder. The larger argument, of course, is that abortions are bad and should be outlawed, but whether or not abortions are bad or should be banned isn't the topic of this debate. So, the focus must be on the resolution. This debate is necessary semantic. So, it will be important to look at definitions for guidance. First it is important to establish a working definitions for "abortion" and "murder", as used in the context of a debate where abortion is argumentatively claimed to be murder. The following are four entries for "abortion" from reputable dictionaries: Oxford Dictionary - "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy." http://goo.gl... American Heritage Dictionary - "Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus." https://goo.gl... Collins Dictionary - "an operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable" http://goo.gl... Merriam-Webster Dictionary - "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus" http://goo.gl... From the same sources, the respective entries for "murder" - Oxford Dictionary - "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" http://goo.gl... American Heritage Dictionary - "The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting" https://goo.gl... Collins Dictionary - "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery" http://goo.gl... Merriam-Webster Dictionary - "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" http://goo.gl... I will not be hyper-technical with these definitions. A commonality from all of these definitions for murder is that the killing must be a crime, illegal, and/or unlawful. An abortion is certainly a killing but abortions are, by and large, legal killings that are sanctioned by the state. For that reason, and perhaps other reasons, abortions are not necessarily murders. This is not to say that it is impossible for an abortion to be a murder. In some jurisdictions, an abortion may actually be a murder, depending on the circumstances. For example, in 2014 the "Kansas Attorney General’s office [...] charged Scott Robert Bollig, 30, of first degree murder [...] after he laced his pregnant girlfriend’s pancake with a crushed abortion drug" which "caused the death of her 8-10-week old pre-born baby." http://goo.gl... However, cases like these are the exception rather than the rule, as the vast majority of abortions in the United States are performed legally.
Abortion is murder

Voting ELO 2,000 minimum. First round, acceptance only. You troll, you lose. You flake, you lose. Last round, rebuttals only. No new arguments. All citations to sources must be within the debate. No citations to sources in the comments. All citations to sources must be online only and working links must be provided so that the source may be examined by the opponent. No offline sources may be used as they cannot be scrutinized with reasonable ease. All citations to sources must be in the form of working links. If you cite a source, then you must directly quote the source. Only direct quotation from sources shall be deemed acceptable for a source to support an assertion or contention. No citing a source without quoting it. All citations to a quoted source must be adjacent to the quotation so that it is easy to determine which source supports which assertion. If you desire to use a URL shortener, you may. However, you must use goo.gl ( https://goo.gl... ) There is work associated with scrutinizing sources. The purpose of these rules is to make it easier to scrutinize sources. Violating the rules on sources is sufficient grounds for a loss.
Christians need to stop being offended every time someone says "Happy Holidays".

We're both right that people have the right to be offended; I'm offended by some rap music but I always exercise my right to not listen to it. People who are offended by "Happy Holidays" including Jews, Muslims, etc, should just be glad someone was a little nice to them and move on, just like Christians should. You're also right that "Happy Holidays" (used by companies to avoid offense) is actually offending Christians but that's the best solution they can come up with now; of course they could say nothing at all but it's better to say something than nothing at all. As far as Christians being the majority (as being the reason why a company should say Merry Christmas) so what? Just because they are the majority does not mean everything should be catered to them. And even though they are the majority there are still millions of other Americans who belong to another faith or no faith at; it may be the majority but the minority is a pretty big group of people. And just to clarify, I also think comapnies should be allowed to say whatever they want during the holidays.
Christians need to stop being offended every time someone says "Happy Holidays".

I'm not saying that you don't have the right to SAY they shouldn't be offended, I'm merely stating that they DO have THE RIGHT to be offended. You can say whatever you want. But ultimately, they do have the right to be offended. The topic being debated is whether "Christians NEED to stop being offended..." And I'm saying they don't NEED to. You admit that businesses say "Happy Holidays" in order to not offend Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, etc. "Happy Holidays" is generic, whereas "Merry Christmas" is specific. Theoretically, Jews, Muslims, and Wiccans could be offended by "Happy Holidays" too, but that is irrelevant. The point is that businesses are trying to avoid offending people, and they're failing at doing it -- they're offending Christians, who constitute a majority of the U.S. populace. I am against central planning and making decisions for businesses, but if I owned a business that was in this position, I would try to offend the fewest people possible. The reason some Christians are offended is that "Merry Christmas" is part of the American tradition. This cannot be doubted. "Happy Holidays" has been around for a long time, but it is only recently that certain businesses have begun using it as an ALTERNATIVE to "Merry Christmas." It is natural for people to be upset and offended by change. They feel as though they are losing tradition. As a libertarian, I do not hold tradition in high regard, but I respect the rights of others to do so, and I respect their right to be offended. Christians do NOT NEED to stop being offended every time someone says "Happy Holidays."
Christians need to stop being offended every time someone says "Happy Holidays".

I never said Christians didn't have the right to be offended; anyone has the right to take offense to anything in this society. My argument is that they should get over it. And I have every right to tell them they shouldn't be offended; it's called free speech. Just as you have the right to tell me I shouldn't tell people not to get offended. Sorry if that was confusing; I think I'm a bit confused :) As far as businesses caring more about jews, muslims etc, they don't care about those groups more than christians. Like I said it's all about pleasing everyone as best they can so they won't lose customers; it's not about treating one group better than another You're right that people should expect to be offended, and no one is free from that expectation, but Christians seem to me to be the whiniest of any specific group. Looking forward to your response.
Christians need to stop being offended every time someone says "Happy Holidays".

I am not offended by "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays." Nor would I be offended by "Happy Kwanza," "Happy Hanukkah," "Ramadan Murabak," or "Merry Winter Solstice." But that's me. You can't tell people NOT to be offended by something. I agree that this "War on Christmas" business is overblown. Big time. But the logic of your argument is flawed. You say businesses say "happy holidays" so they won't offend Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, etc. But then you say Christians have no right to be offended / should not be offended by "happy holidays." Why should businesses care more about Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, etc., then they do about Christians? Why do Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, etc., have more of a "right" to be offended than Christians? One thing individuals in this country do not have is a right to not be offended. But you do not have the right to tell someone they shouldn't be offended.
Christians need to stop being offended every time someone says "Happy Holidays".

One of the core issues in the so-called "War on Christmas" is the idea that saying "Happy Holidays" is a way of undermining Christmas. If you are a Christian and you are offended by the use of "Happy Holidays" you need to realize that you're not the only one celebrating a holiday this December. People say "Happy Holidays" because they know others can be easily offended in today's society. Some of the easily offended include: people who think you should only give Santa milk and cookies which contain no animal products or trans-fats, people who would rather fire old white disc jockeys, for racial jokes, instead of just changing the station, and people who worry about someone saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Businesses say "Happy Holidays" because they know that many of their customers are NOT Christian. Their motives are selfish (money) but they understand that "Merry Christmas" has the ability to offend people who don't celebrate the holiday. So instead of potentially offending, and losing, customers they play it safe and just say "Happy Holidays". Take a lesson from the Jews; you don't see them causing a fuss every time someone skips over "Happy Hanukkah". That's because they realize that not everyone celebrates Hanukkah. By the same token if someone wishes you a "Merry Christmas" and you happen to be Muslim (or a Scientologist) don't be offended. Be glad that someone decided to throw a little holiday spirit your way and move on with your life. Don't sue them; all you'll end up doing is giving Fox News more material for their "War on Christmas" segments; which are actually kind of cool because sometimes they find ways to tie the "War on Christmas" in with the "War on Terrorism". Merry Christmas
Christians need to stop being offended every time someone says "Happy Holidays".

The question is do Christians NEED to stop being offended? I say no, they don't, for the following reasons: 1. Anyone has the right to be offended by anything at any time. 2. The American version of Christmas is part of American tradition and heritage, and many Christians see the substitution of "Happy Holidays" as an infringement on that tradition -- and it is natural to be offended or upset by change. It doesn't mean it is "right" to be offended, but it is normal. Christians are a majority of the U.S. populace, but even more importantly, an overwhelming majority of Americans (Christian and non-Christian) celebrate Christmas. The fact that non-Christians and even atheists celebrate Christmas proves that in addition to it being a religious holiday, it is also an AMERICAN holiday, and part of the American tradition. This supports Point #2, above.
The Language That Everyone Will Know

Language is the system of words and signs that people use to express thoughts and feelings toward each other [1]. It is part of a culture and part of who you are. Some people speak English while others speak Russian. There many languages and to substitute that with only one language takes away a HUGE piece of your culture and your uniqueness. Come to think of it, it is probably impossible to make 1 new language that everyone will know. It’s not because of the words, grammar, pronunciation, etc., but because of the people who will actually speak the language. Seriously, who will actually give up their own language just for a new one? Leaving your own distinct language would leave so much history and culture behind. Let’s just say that somehow the language is accepted and eventually becomes the language that everyone knows. With the new language, many jobs can be lost. Businesses and websites that focus on one language (ex. Spanish) and teach it will shut down. Why you ask? Well, because Spanish is a dead language now like all the others so no one speaks it. Remember there is only one language that everyone knows. Language teachers that focus on one language will also lose their jobs. Also every single interpreter would lose their job. This actually would be major ingredient in the increasing unemployment rate. [1]-http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Liberalism will make future conversation impossible

I would start round 2 by saying that this debate has to be taken with a sense of humor, However CON did not list his, Her, Or its triggers of which humor may be one. CON also failed to state by which pronoun he, Or she or it wishes to be addressed, So PRO shall use the gender neutral "ZE". CON failed to list ze"s triggers so either ze has no triggers or everything triggers ze. Therefore we can either speak about everything, Or we can speak about nothing. CON failed to list ze"s boundaries. Therefore we can either speak about everything, Or we can speak about nothing. Ze did not list ze"s roadblocks. Therefore we can either speak about everything, Or we can speak about nothing. Ze has neither catalogued nor denied ze"s faults so again we can either speak about everything, Or we can speak about nothing. Pro has detected aggression, Macro aggression, Micro aggression, And sexism, Racism, Elitism, And Confusion in ze"s round one arguments. ZE then states. . "Liberalism is an idea. The tenants that people draw from them are just abuses of the concept and do not actually align with liberal values. " Ze here shows that liberals draw abusive actions from the concept of liberalism. The actions do not conform with liberalism. Actions such as the creation of the Berkley Liberal Fascist Movement certainly support the growth of non liberalism from liberalism. As ze says it "Does not conform with Liberal values" Yet it was not the conservative students who rioted at Berkley. Ze states "Triggering is not a liberal thing, It's a generational thing. " My experience is that it is more associated with the left than with the right. Ze then says "So your argument fails because it's not Liberalism stopping conversations, It's people. " That is my point exactly". It is liberal people who are making conversation impossible.
Liberalism will make future conversation impossible

That is a very well constructed straw man you have presented. To quote Christopher Hitchens "I'm still waiting to hear the argument" Liberalism is an idea. The tenants that people draw from them are just abuses of the concept and do not actually align with liberal values. Identity politics is prejudice and therefore, Does not conform with Liberal values. Triggering is not a liberal thing, It's a generational thing. False attribution. The rest of things you said were just part of a narrative constructed from your opinion about the average character of people who subscribe to liberalism. The people are not Liberalism, They're just supporters who may or may not have good character. So your argument fails because it's not Liberalism stopping conversations, It's people.
Liberalism will make future conversation impossible

My stance is that Liberalism will make future conversation impossible. IN round #1 CON must state by what pronoun or list of pronouns CON should be addressed. Also in round #1 CON must list any and all triggers that CON wishes to avoid. CON must also delineate the boundaries that CON wishes to install, As well as any and all roadblocks CON needs. CON agrees to denounce all faults CON may have even subconsciously. CON must identify all democratic candidates for President that have or will have announced. CON must avoid all aggression, Macro aggression, Micro aggression, And sexism, Racism, Elitism, Confusion and. . . . . . Have I made my point?
Jesus Christ Doesn't Hate Homosexuals

Let me start by saying that I have seen a debate like this before, and when I read the topic i was happy to hear that the debate was happening, but grew disappointed when I saw that the person who held my position had poor conduct and declared himself victorious in the third round. This made it so very little real debating even happened. So I decided to hold another debate on the same topic. Let me start by saying that many people have the misconception that since the bible itself has rules against gays, that Jesus HAS to agree with them, after all, he is God right. Well, not exactly. The rules against gays are a part of Moses's laws, but them being laws doesn't mean Jesus (or even God, for that matter) agrees with them, that is why I generally don't like it whenever the laws in Leviticus are used against Christianity. For instance, Jesus has shown his disagreement with Moses's laws before, when he defended an adulterer. In the book of Leviticus it is stated that if a women sleeps with another man, then she was to be stoned to death. He stood in front of a crowd and defied her right to live, despite what the law said. So why should we believe that this is the only law he doesn't agree with. Also, Jesus's message was not to love each other as Christians only, it was to love everyone, with no exceptions. He taught us to hate the sin, but love the sinner.