BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Mandela effect is fake.

The Mandela effect and the trans dimensional theory are intertwined. Without the trans dimensional theory, the Mandela effect is nothing more than a false memory. Something has to distinguish it from a normal false memory, so people have deduced a science fiction conspiracy theory to go along with it. In this way, it can act as a separate thing from a false memory, and give people with bad memories the excuse that their bad memory was true in another reality. I claim that having a false memory is stupid. If a person can't remember what Darth Vader says, or how Looney Tunes is spelled, they are bad at memorizing things, and thus probably have a lower I.Q. than people who can recall things easily. they're also very stupid to believe in alternate realities. Anybody who does that is either crazy or trying to fudge their way out of embarrassment, and it's usually a combination of the two. I am calling many people stupid. I can do that, because even if a majority believes something, it is not always true. Majorities can be equally as stupid as minorities. True, I'm sure anything could be solved with a Google search, but remember, Mandela effect situations use a sneaky trick. the fake memory and the real memory are so subtle that there can be an air of mystery about them. Don't you find it strange that EVERY Mandela effect has something to do with the misspelling of a name? This is because misspellings are subtle and people rarely ever notice them, and when a misspelling is brought to their attention they'll gasp in shock. Mandela effects would be much more astounding if they said that Al Gore had won the election or so on, but everybody knows this is not true, so nobody would have this false memory implanted into their head. In the age of modern technology, people can look things up easily, but misspellings can be tricky, so the majority believes it. As for multiple dimensions, people may not be able to disprove it, but they can't prove it, either. These nuts have created a story that nobody can disprove, no matter how unlikely it may be. But nobody has a book from the other dimension where the berenstAin bears are the berenstEin bears, or a Star Wars clip where Darth Vader says "Luke, I am your father." They haven't brought anything with them from the other side, so, for now, the Mandela effect is absolute hokum in my book.
Is it acceptable to refuse service to someone of a different race because they're of a different rac

Some people in this world have mental disorders upon which they cannot control. These mental disorders of such make certain people have lower emotional intelligence hence do not connect the dots via racial discrimination etc. Hence my claim is this; someone in the position of serving someone upon which is of a different race to them shall not have to indeed place them in a vulnerable situation upon which they feel comfortable. People have the right to voice their opinion, we have the rights to freedom of thought, we have the right not to be tortured in which relates because being uncomfortable in a situation in which you feel vulnerable e.g. when serving someone of the opposite race, is just like torture. But most of all we have the right to life. Is living going against one's feelings of safety just to avoid discrimination? Further, I could explore the rights of an employee and how they shall not be forced into a situation in which they are uncomfortable, however I believe its best to say people upon which do not feel comfortable in serving someone in a different race shall be able to peacefully walk away and ask another employee to attend to their needs and provide service. Discrimination is a cruel thing, it affects us all, yet we cannot ignore the opinions, the feelings, the rights, and the mental safety of others. Thank You.
Is it acceptable to refuse service to someone of a different race because they're of a different rac

No it is never acceptable to refuse services to a person of another race strictly because they are not the same race as you. The phenotype of a person doesn"t determine if they are a bad person, or someone who you should not help, or do business with. It is one thing to refuse service to a person because you feel threatened or they want to buy something they can"t, but just from looking at someone and seeing that they don look like you doesn"t mean that they are not deserving of your service. I may have a different skin tone than the next guy, but they are just as much a human being as I am, and science agrees. In a video about DNA differences that I watched in class says that the only true differences in all people is the difference in the order of your DNA. So there is no way that it is ever justifiable to refuse service to a person just because they don"t look like you.
a man should have the right to refuse a abortion

As Pro begins with an appeal to emotion, I shall as well. Imagine this scenario. You are a women having a personal conversation with your doctor. You find out the worst; your birth control failed, and now you are in the very very early stages of pregnancy. It was a meaningless one night stand, you doesn't want this child, you're too young, all the various personal reasons you might want to get an abortion. You decide to get in touch with the man and tell him about your decision. Before you know it, you are under constant supervision, you are forbidden from going to your doctor alone for fear you'll get your abortion anyway and if you do what? Prison? Is it murder? Theft? If Pro had his way this complete stranger would suddenly be able to destroy YOUR right to an abortion simply because it was his sperm that got lucky enough to reach an egg. Not merely interfere with your right, but turn the exercise of it into a crime. Imagine the pain and suffering you would be forced through (not to mention the danger, births resulting in the death of the mother are still not uncommon) against your will. No one should force you to receive or not receive any care you and your doctor agree on, it's not their place. Of course, I am nothing if not a believer in healthy middles and mitigating circumstances. Perhaps Pro and I could come to some agreement on specific situations (mental health of the mother or something) with which this idea could apply, but in general: A man has the right to refuse any abortion he himself is about to receive.
a man should have the right to refuse a abortion

I want you to take a second and imagine, you're an adult and you got the great news that you're having a baby. your all excited, telling your friends,family and in the highlight of it all, your baby is gone, you're told you're not having the baby, you have no choice in the matter, you're just denied the your right to have a child. The sad thing is this actually happens to people, and it happens more than once in a while. I'm going to be talking about the very controversial topic on a mans right in the say to a abortion, i'll have reasons like how no one should have their child stolen away when you did nothing wrong, women should have to keep the kid but are allowed to opt of of being a parent, and men and women should have the same rights as a parent. women believe they should be equal. well start acting like it!
Abortion is just morally wrong.

A young fetus is not a person. It has no ability to experience pleasure or pain, no human traits. Your opening argument was that abortion should be outlawed on the basis that it is "morally wrong." Since then, we have agreed that one's morality in of itself is not enough to warrant legislation. Let me address some other points that you have raised. "Would you let and innocent human die?" No, of course not. But a young fetus is not a person, not at all comparable to someone who can experience the joys and pains of life. ""It is simply the fact that the woman should bear responsibility for her choices namely to have sex. She and a man made that decision to have sex." In many cultures and households, the woman has no say in whether or not she has sex. Patriarchal societies hand such decisions to men, unfairly so. Even when the woman is a willing participant, her unwanted pregnancy is most likely due to misinformation or ignorance regarding responsible birth control techniques. This ignorance is largely because of ineffective sexual education programs, particularly the flawed "abstinence only" education prevalent in our country. In conclusion, abortions should be reduced. But the way to reduce abortions is to educate teenagers on how to have sex responsibly and how to plan financially for a family. You can't just change the law without changing social structures. The government should not make decisions for a woman about her body. We should not be governed by the morality of one, but rather by democratic elections.
Abortion is just morally wrong.

What you need to realize is that what abortion is, is killing a life. Many people get abortions so its easier for themselves. You kill a human life, because its inconvenient for you at the time. That quote was not so much about killing a grandma, I think you missed the point. It was really about saying if the girl chose to kill her grandma so it would make it easier for her in life by getting the inheritance money, would you simply sit back and let her? Would you do nothing about it? Would you let and innocent human die? I'd like to quote paul tigger, "It is simply the fact that the woman should bear responsibility for her choices namely to have sex. She and a man made that decision to have sex." Thats what its about, don't choose to have sex if you don't want a baby, because it might just happen! A human life isn't just a inconvenience that you may throw away if it isn't working for you at the moment. Thats all it simply comes down to. Thats why I say, your argument just isn't an argument. Even if you know it will still keeping going on, you have to at least try to do something. If you see someone getting bulled on the playground and you do nothing you are just as bad as the bully. Plus you wouldn't say well its gonna keep happening anyway, so lets just not even try to stop it. As for your death penalty argument, again this isn't about the punishments. However I think paul tigger makes another good point, "Furthermore the law supports anti-abortion policy as you see, a drunken person who kills a pregnant woman in a car accident is tried for two murders (or involuntary homicide). Aww you see two murders, not one. If you say life is only life after the birth why then does an intoxicated person get charged for two murders?" " Finally as for the death sentence, it is not as if the United States issues death sentence like they issue free condoms to school children. They have a formal system of appeals, I believe three until they are finally exhausted (not all times) at the US Supreme court. Those on death row have been found guilty of committing a heinous crime against society and after all means of appeals have failed are they sentenced to death for their crimes? Yet once again to bring up, abortion, what crime has the embryo, the infant committed to deserve a death sentence in saline or have his appendages and his body parts ripped from limb to limb?" I understand why you like the "choice" and "conveniences" of being able to say well I'm just not ready,thats human nature, but honestly THINK of what it is your doing. Your killing a life that hasn't even gotten the chance to live yet. That in my book is murder, in fact the worse murder anyone could partake in.
Abortion is just morally wrong.

Heller, Let me address some of your questions. "Do you believe it is right to say, well I would rather kill my son or daughter then have them grow up in a poor home?" Not at all. Abortion can, however, prevent children from growing up in poverty. If a pregnant woman knows that she cannot provide for her child, an abortion would prevent her from giving birth. The difference is that a young fetus is not yet a son or a daughter. I am not necessarily advocating that pregnant women living below the poverty line abort their fetus, but rather providing a rationale for them doing so. "It is homicide, just the same as if you would kill someone walking down the street." Would you really enforce this as a typical homicide? Would you hand a life sentence to a doctor who preformed an abortion? Would you send a young woman to jail or to the electric chair? What if she never had that abortion but rather, she just sought one. She would still be pregnant, but she would also be on trial for homicide. Would you throw a teenage girl in jail for taking a morning after pill if her boyfriend's condom ripped the previous night? It's such a difficult line to draw, you can't just dish out homicide sentences. "if your daughter comes and says "Dad, I want to kill grandma for the inheritance," you wouldn't say "well, this is not a good idea, but it's your choice." First off, Alan Keyes is a far-right fringe candidate with little common sense. This quotation illustrates that point. To compare a grandmother who has lived for 60+ years to an unborn fetus is a false analogy. The fetus is not yet a person, and the grandmother has lived a long and fruitful life. Another false analogy is the idea of an inheritance being compared to a life without a disadvanted child. An inheritance has a positive connotation, whereas an abortion is perhaps the hardest choice a woman would ever have to make. The analogy just isn't there, and neither is Alan Keyes' brain! "To simply say that it wouldn't work is not an argument. " No, it's a very good argument. If a woman really wants an abortion and is convinced that she cannot have a child, there is nothing that you or I or a law could do to stop her. At least if the abortion is legal, she will be able to have it done in a clean, safe environment. If abortion was illegal, she would risk getting an infection or doing serious damage to her body in some shady "back-alley" scenario. Do you really want the government making this decision? What would you do about miscarriages? How would you differentiate the two in the eyes of the law? What if a woman who had an honest-to-god miscarriage was tried as a homicidal abortionist? There's a lot of room for error.
Abortion is just morally wrong.

Hey ghatem, Im glad that you joined the debate site. Your right my feeling on abortion should not make a decision on whether there is a law about it or not. It should be majority. Though if I could I would like to ask you a few questions about your statement. You say no one likes abortion. It really should be as simple as that, you don't do things that you don't like. Although I understand what your saying. The problem is, you say " many women who become pregnant are simply unable to afford a decent life for their child. Would you like for your child to live in poverty or in a foster home?" Absolutely, when it comes down to whether I would want to kill a living being then rather them grow up in poverty I will choice life every time. You have to understand that no one has the choice of deciding who dies. Do you believe it is right to say, well I would rather kill my son or daughter then have them grow up in a poor home? To your second statement, "and if abortion was illegal, who would you punish and how would you do it? Although we are not debating the punishment of abortion. I will answer your question. It is homicide, just the same as if you would kill someone walking down the street. You also say, "Simply making abortion illegal is not going to solve any problems." To that I quote Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, " if your daughter comes and says "Dad, I want to kill grandma for the inheritance," you wouldn't say "well, this is not a good idea, but it's your choice." To simply say that it wouldn't work is not an argument. You can't just turn your check on something that you know deep down isn't right. You have to speak up.
Abortion is just morally wrong.

Hello Heller, This is my first debate on this site, so I apologize in advance if I should break any unwritten rules of Debate.org. It's one thing to personally feel as though abortion is immoral and should have no place in society, but it's another to legislate it. Your morality does not dictate national policy. The fact is that a majority of Americans support abortion rights, and we have elected legislators that reflect this majority. No one likes abortion. It's a traumatic choice to make. But like it or not, many women who become pregnant are simply unable to afford a decent life for their child. Would you like for your child to live in poverty or in a foster home? And what if the fetus is a product of rape or incest? What if the mother's life is also threatened? The government should not be making these decisions. And if abortion was illegal, who would you punish and how would you do it? Would you punish the mother? Would you throw her in jail? Would you try her for homicide? Would you arrest the doctor? The answer is not to make abortion illegal, but to try to reduce the number of abortions. Our country has a very lackluster sexual education program, favoring abstinence-only education over responsible birth control methods. Abstinence-only education doesn't work, according to a recent congressional study, and as a result, millions of teenagers are confused and irresponsible in their sexual relations. Simply making abortion illegal is not going to solve any problems. Women would still seek out abortions, probably in such a secretive, "back-alley" way that threatens their health. Also, there would be a great financial strain on young families. Simply put, your morality should not determine our national policy.
Christianity is "wrong" and therefore not divinely inspired.

I'm sorry that for whatever circumstances, my opponent was not able and willing to finish the debate. To recap my position in this debate, the fact that the bible is inconsistent is NOT proof that it is not divinely inspired because consistency is the definition of divine, nor does a lack of consistency equate to a lack of divinity. I'm not saying that the bible is right or that it is wrong, nor am I saying that it is divinely inspired or not. But we must all agree, whether we agree with the book or not, that the conclusion made by pro is not logically. There are plenty of other ways to argue that the bible may or may not be divine, or accurate, or true, but those were not the purpose of this debate or this resolution.
Christianity is "wrong" and therefore not divinely inspired.

my argument is based on the fact that Christianity believes both the Old and New Testament to be of divine origin, authored by the same God, and therefore that they are both infallible as they are both written by God. God, according to Christianity, is perfect. ("Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Matt 5:48). I contend that if I prove that there are certain undeniable internal discrepancies between the two "Testaments", and/or within them each individually as well, I then prove that they do not harmonize and were not inspired by the same God as Christianity would claim." He states that according to the bible, God is perfect (and shows a nice example of where it is written in the bible), and since God is perfect, he cannot be wrong, nor change his mind and if he cannot change his mind, then the bible should never disagree with itself. This is based on 2 flawed assumptions. 1) That "perfect" means unable to change one's mind or tell an untruth (along with other things). However the definition of perfect is "without defect or blemish" [1] the ability to change one's mind is not a defect nor a blemish, as the inability to do so would actually be the ultimate case of stubbornness, which would be a major defect. The ability to tell untruths is actually very important as a way to protect others and their feelings (which is often viewed as an act of kindness). Being unable to tell anything but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help me God, lol) would be the ultimate case of brutal honesty, which can often hurt people's feelings, anger them, and cause them to do more negative things (like punch you in the face if you say "yes, that dress does make you look fat"). The other flaw is that God has to be perfect to write the bible (or, more accurately, "inspire it"). God can be imperfect and inspire the bible to say that he is perfect (I believe it is called "journalistic embellishment" and is quite common), or whatever he inspires it to say, so long as he inspired it. My opponent is also slightly adjusting the topic when he added "...were not inspired by the same God as Christianity would claim." The topic is "Christianity is "wrong" and therefore not divinely inspired" with no mention as to what divine entity may or may not have inspired it. Also, in the OP, he states "was not created by God." This could mean any number of Gods and there are many within different religious beliefs. We cannot simply confine the entire heart of this debate half way through. I believe that leaves all points currently negated (Perfect =/= unable to lie or change and God does not have to be perfect to inspire a book) and addresses the attempt to adjust the topic. [1] http://www.google.com...=
Christianity is "wrong" and therefore not divinely inspired.

My opponent accuses me of not supporting the notion that "because text in the bible have faults, that means it is not divinely inspired." For specification, divine authorship is ascribed to something written physically by a human being supposedly through God's inspiration... With the exception of at least one set of Ten Commandments, which were actually written by God, according to Exodus 34:1. Though, ironically enough, some suggest that Exodus 34:27 contradicts 34:1. I do not necessarily agree that they contradict. Regardless... As I have said, my argument is based on the fact that Christianity believes both the Old and New Testament to be of divine origin, authored by the same God, and therefore that they are both infallible as they are both written by God. God, according to Christianity, is perfect. ("Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Matt 5:48). I contend that if I prove that there are certain undeniable internal discrepancies between the two "Testaments", and/or within them each individually as well, I then prove that they do not harmonize and were not inspired by the same God as Christianity would claim. Since the New Testament is supposedly based upon the Old Testament, we would then be forced to discredit the New Testament of its divine nature. If we are forced to discredit the Christian bible of its divine nature, we are forced to discredit the religion of Christianity of its divine nature. Since you are defending Christianity, and since I have pointed out indisputable contradictions within its Bible (a tiny sample, more to come) the only way you can retain your argument is if you say that the seeming contradictions are either a) not contradictions and therefore make now effect on the New Testaments' divine status, or that b) they are contradictions, but the contradictions do not make a difference to the New Testaments' divine status. The New Testament can still come from God, and this God can still be the same one who "wrote" the Old Testament, even with these contradictions. I am interested to see what you decide.
Christianity is "wrong" and therefore not divinely inspired.

My opponent is making the claim that BECAUSE text in the bible have faults, that means that it is not divinely inspired. My opponent has not done anything to support that notion. While he has spent a good deal of arguments pointing out that the bible has logical errors in it, that is not the debate. The debate is how those logical mistakes prove that the bible is not "divinely inspired." I will await for an argument that tries to make that connection.