BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Elective abortion should be legalized

I’ve actually been wanting to debate abortion again for a while, so it’s great to get this opportunity. Given that this is a 5 round debate, I’ll just use this an introductory round to lay the groundwork for our discussion. DefinitionsGiven that Pro declined the opportunity to do so, I’ll provide some brief definitions. Abortion - "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks". http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Elective abortion - "An elective abortion is the interruption of a pregnancy before the 20th week of gestation at the women’s request for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease. ". http://www.britannica.com...Legalized - "to allow (something) by law". http://www.merriam-webster.com...For simplicity, I propose "abortion" be used synonymously with elective abortion. As such the focus of the debate, per Pro's insistence, will be primarily on its general use, and not on extreme cases like anencephaly and so on. Debate frameworkIt seems to me that Pro's use of "should" implies that the main concern for both of us should be the moral implications of our views. As such, I will defend the view that abortion is generally morally impermissible. I assume Pro will be arguing for the moral permissibility of abortion. Whomever can present and defend the best case for their respective view should be considered the victor. With that, there's nothing left to say except thanks again to Pro and good luck! UnitedAndy
Hamburgers are better than pizza

Though, you can have many different kinds of hamburgers as well! Not to mention the different condiments to add along with one. You can add anything you like! Nothing beats a good ole sizzling, delicious, juicy, scrumptious, popping, brown, plumb, yummy, hot, greasy, spicy, heavy, meaty, beefy, satisfying, tasty, good, smoky, round, hamburger my friend!
Atheism is more probable than Theism.

Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Theism.For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e.: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc.) That is to say, we are not referring to anyspecific deity. "More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism). 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) RebuttalOther 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.
This house applauds GMA attempts in fighting terrorism in Mindanao.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. It is impossible to "fight terrorism," for every combat against one terrorist implies use of to some degree terrorist tactics oneself. I'm certainly open to the idea that certain terrorists exist in the philippines who should be fought, but you are fighting specific organizations, not "Terrorism." Further, not all terrorism is necessarily bad, though perhaps that in the country in question is-- terror has been found an effective tactic by, among others, the Sons of Liberty.
Video Games are a form of art.

In Pro's final round, he provides two understandings of what 'art' is and why we should believe that video games should be classified as them. The problem is, they are mutually exclusive and so Pro's position is inconsistent. Let's look at these two definitions; 1) Art is completely subjective. Whether or not something is art depends not on some criterion that must be met, but is relative to the observer. In Pro's own words "An artist determines what is art for he alone can understand why it is considered art to him" - the key word to recognise here is 'determines'. The artist does not recognise that something is art because it possesses qualities that match up to a criterion; whether it is art is relative to him. So, what's the problem? The problem is that given this definition of art it is impossible, in principle, for Pro to prove that the resolution is true. If I believe video games are not art and he believes video games are art there is no way way of determining which of us is right - the resolution is not stating any true fact about video games. The resolution is like "marmite is tasty" - it is not true or false, but is relative to the taster (observer). Pro illustrates the point perfectly "What one person sees a work of art, another sees as nothing artistic at all" 2) Art involves "Shapes, colors, sounds, movements, etc." - this is completely new understanding of art introduced in the last round and should be rejected on that basis. In addition, it provides a criterion for something to meet to be art and thus contradicts definition 1). Pro gives the example of Final Fantasy XIII and says why he considers it to be a work of art - he sees it as beautiful amongst other positive characteristics. However, we then have to accept that art not only includes those elements included in the definition but that they are used in skilled ways that excite the observer's senses, intellect or emotions. Pro's definition is incomplete
Video Games are a form of art.

I have to prove nothing as a majority in order for it to be art... To be belief so is to rationalize in ignorance. An artist determines what is art for he alone can understand why it is considered art to him. A picture is a form of art. The majority of pictures are not looked at that way, but could be, if the said pictures had characteristics that made them beautiful to the observer. A paper cup could be crumpled in such a way to make it look unique then painted a few colors to further this quality, then be looked at as artwork. Artwork does not need to be proven in a majority in order for it to be artwork, as a matter of fact, it is a goal of most artists to create something completely different and unique, something that is not part of the majority of artwork, but a rare beautiful piece in it's own regard. You see... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Majority has nothing to do with it. Someone could build a horse out of glue and beer cans, but that does not mean that the majority of beer cans and glue have to be considered as artwork in order for the horse to be looked at as art. Video games are a form of art because they involve a great amount of things that fall into the realm of artwork. Shapes, colors, sounds, movements, etc. I will give you an example of a video game that I consider to be a modern work of art... Final fantasy XIII for PS3, PC, or XBOX 360. This game is beautiful in every way. The movements, the characters, the dialogue, the music, the world the game is played in, etc. What one person sees a work of art, another sees as nothing artistic at all. A picture of sunset, a horse made of beer cans, the movement of a dancer, the clothing on a fashion model, all of these things fall into the realm of normal accepted art. Movies, pictures, books, music... All of these things make up the accepted majority of art forms. Video games consist of some or all of these elements, and the combination therefor cannot be denied as a form of art.
Video Games are a form of art.

1) If we are to take the resolution, instead of taking it in its literal sense to mean that video games have qualities such that they can, by definition, be categorised as "Art" and instead interpret the resolution (incorrectly grammatically) as meaning something like "generally, video games can be classified as Art" then fine - however, it is clear at that point that Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. He needs to show, not only that some video games can be classified as Art, but that a majority of video games can be classified as Art. Pro has brought forth no argument or evidence thus far to even attempt to fulfil such a burden of proof - either the former or the latter. In addition, he has yet to provide a definition of Art such that we can properly evaluate this question; my working definition derived from the first round will have to do apparently. For example, if the resolution were "Plastic Cups are a form of art" then, if we interpret the resolution as Pro does, he would have to provide evidence that a majority (or "in general") of cups are works of art. Pointing out exceptions such as novelty cups shaped like lion's heads will not do. It seems almost trivial to point out that an imagined conversation with someone from the past does not count as evidence - in any case, the resolution is that they *are* a work of Art, so even if they were considered beautiful in the past Pro has to show that they are a work of Art now, in the present tense. 2) If beauty is entirely subjective, then we have no real way of determining whether Video Games do fall into the definition of Art and thus it is impossible for Pro to prove the resolution. Things that are "in the eye of the beholder" cannot, by definition, be proven in a debate since they are not truth apt statements. If art is subjective, then I can simply say "Well, I don't think video games ARE art" and I will be just as right as you.
Video Games are a form of art.

[1] "if anything that were created fell under the definition of art, then not only books or painting but also suitcases, bicycles, plastic cups and literally everything manufactured in some way would count as "art", voiding the word of any usefulness." 1.) I never said that all video games are a great work of art, only that video games in general are a form of art. A suitcase that is designed beautifully and made from alligator skin is a work of art, where a plain black suitcase would not have much weight from an artistic point of view in todays world. A fancily designed bicycle with 3 seats that is made of gold could most assuredly be called a work of art, where a plain red bicycle might not carry the same artistic weight. I plain plastic cup might not be considered very artistic, but a cup made from plastic that is made into the shape of a lion's head, could most definitely considered art. Literally everything that is created or manufactured could be looked at as a great work of art, or not, but it is all in the personal perspective of the observer that gives it such a definition. Maybe you did not see the first video games as a work of art, but ask someone else, someone in the computer field from before video games were around what they think... they very well might say, "What you did with this computer code was a work of art". [2] "Firstly, it is only relatively recently that games have become visually what anyone would consider to be beautiful. For example, to take a random example, outdated games like this one would not be considered beautiful by any standard measure of the term" My opponent assumes his measurement for determining beauty is universal. There is no standard measurement for the term beauty, to assume so, is a stance of ignorance. I was around when the first video games were being made and played. I felt the games I was playing were very beautiful indeed and this was before Nintendo 64. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... And so is art
Video Games are a form of art.

Thanks to Pro for posting what has, in recent years, been a topic of some controversy. Firstly, it would be easy for Con to win just by taking Pro's first two sentences "Video games are a form of art because they are created. anything that is created is a form of art." and point out that this definition would lead to absurdity; if anything that were created fell under the definition of art, then not only books or painting but also suitcases, bicycles, plastic cups and literally everything manufactured in some way would count as "art", voiding the word of any usefulness. However, I will take a more charitable interpretation and assume that what he means by art includes the act of "enjoying and interacting" with the creation and also that "beauty" comes into it. Now, given this definition, it is clear upon reflection that such a broad statement as "Video Games are a form of art" is simply not true; some video games are art, certainly; perhaps a majority, perhaps a minority, but a great many are not. Firstly, it is only relatively recently that games have become visually what anyone would consider to be beautiful. For example, to take a random example, outdated games like this one would not be considered beautiful [1] by any standard measure of the term. In addition, some games are poorly designed and thus not enyoyable to play. For instance, Superman for the nintendo 64 was released with a multiplicity of bugs and most of the game was filled with mind numbingly boring ring flying challenges [2]. I don't have a precise definition of "Art" - there is no uncontested definition. However, by the definition Pro has posted, the resolution is false. Some video games are art, some are not; however, all video games are not art. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://uk.gamespot.com...
Video Games are a form of art.

Video games are a form of art because they are created. anything that is created is a form of art. A book or a movie can be looked at in the same way, you are enjoying and interacting with a creation, through one or all of your 5 senses. Video games are no different. The movement that a character makes was created and therefor is art. A stage that was created just as beautifully as a painting, also a work of art. Anything that is created, is a work of art. I would like to hear an opposing perspective on this topic.
Derrick Rose is way better than Dwanye Wade!

Derrick Rose is better because he is a professional athlete[1]. As far as I can tell whoever this Dwanye Wade character is, has never done anything of significance with his life. My opponent has failed to make an argument in his first round and doesn't spell no correctly. He also uses too many question marks, and then spells Dwanye's name wrong he spells it Dwade. He also spells the word if wrong. [1] . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
College Textbooks

There are careers that do not have good aspects. Many graduate, but not all will get a job. Then the ones that do get a job have to pay off so much that they are not enjoying the fruits of their labor. The schools has to keep in mind that they will already be making a lot of money through their tuition. Textbooks are non negotiable and not all are readily available online for free and are needed right away for the class. Prices are too high for comfort.
College Textbooks

Those elements do not make student's life easier. They will make their life harder because when they graduate they are accountable for all of the loans that will have to be paid back, including textbooks that have been paid or rented by credit card. Colleges should be around to give an education that adults can create a life and career out of. Textbook prices are one less thing to worry about for the struggling student that may not have a job when he/she graduates but plenty of loans.
College Textbooks

"Too much" can be defined differently by different people. A student that has to take out loans on tuition, pay for housing or take out more loans on that if they are in a dorm, plus pay for food and clothing will have a different perspective on what is too much. A 50 dollar rental on a book per class may still seem a lot to the struggling student who does not want his loans and debts to pile up. The school is not thinking about the impact the students expenses will have with all of the costs.
College Textbooks

Textbook prices are not accommodating students budgets. As you already said, most students have minimum wage jobs that they are expected to pay all of the pricy textbooks with (depending on the course prices can go upwards of 100 dollars for one book). These students are adults and have other responsibilities and duties that they have to use their money from work for as well, such as family and living expenses. Thus the money they receive from work will not go solely towards book expenses.
Homosexuals are delusional

In conclusion, My opponent doesn't understand the rules of basic Grammer Homosexuals (more than one) are delusional The 's' at the end of 'Homosexual' makes the word a plural noun Plural 1.:of, relating to, or constituting a class of grammatical forms usually used to denote more than one or in some languages more than two 2 :relating to, consisting of, or containing more than one or more than one To win this argument, all I have to do is proved that more than one gay is delusional 1. Delusion 1 Watch "Black Gay & Here to Stay at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parade in South Los Angeles" on YouTube https://youtu.be... Gay is the new black http://www.advocate.com... Gays thrown in the category with race Watch "stereotypes of blacks, mexicans, asians, gays, and blondes" on YouTube https://youtu.be... Delusion 2 A male nominated as prom queen. A queen by definition is a female http://fox2now.com... Delusion 3. Marriage equality. There is no marriage equality but since get marriage is legal, he Gays think marriage equality has been reached. That's a delusion because many other type of marriages arent legal Not one person has said marriage Marriage equality is not literally marriage equality. Gays really believe that marriage equality has been reached All I needed to prove is more than one gay is delusional
Obama was a bad president

Hello. I'm Andrea. I want to wish you good luck in this debate. Even though I don't live in America, Or have some particular opinion on Obama, I accepted this challenge because I'm trying to expand my knowledge at Debate, As my national Debate tournament is coming soon. I'll be debating in KP format. It's not very different from the one, Debate. Org is using. The only difference is that you have a criterion in this format. I don't think it's needed for you to debate in that format too, Because there's no big difference. Sorry for my grammar mistakes, English is my third language, And mistakes might happen. Once again I wish you good luck in the upcoming debate.
Why Blood is Enough Reparations for Slavery

'The opinion that the Civil War served as reparations is also assuming that former slaves have not faced any discrimination since then, And that is simply untrue. ' Discrimination and being a slave is very different. If we gave reparations for discrimination our government would be bankrupt. My point is only to focus on slavery and say that the death of so many soldiers is enough to pay the debt of slavery. While most people's ancestors were not at the signing of the Declaration, Most people's ancestors, Or at least a large majority were part of the process to get it ratified, As mine were. Also my ancestors actually fought in the Civil War on the Union side. I do not yet see a good reason from your perspective of why their lives is not enough to pay the debt of slavery. I would like to conclude by saying that I believe most slaves at the time did admit that the debt had been paid and they started a holiday that became known as Memorial Day.
Why Blood is Enough Reparations for Slavery

Reparations would mean everyone would be paying for the wrongs of slavery, However, The Civil War did"t impact everyone. As far as casualties, The North lost 360, 222 and the South lost 258, 000 (University of New York) meaning that the people fighting for slavery lost more than a hundred thousand less men than those fighting against it. This means that the slave owner"s and their supporters where impacted less, And one could argue that, Because the North lost more men, In fact an even greater debt is owed. The opinion that the Civil War served as reparations is also assuming that former slaves have not faced any discrimination since then, And that is simply untrue. Of course not everyone"s ancestors owned slaves, But most people"s ancestors were not at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Yet we all celebrate on the Fourth of July. In other words, We reap the rewards of the good things in U. S. History, Even if our ancestors played no role.
if you eat meat, you do not care about animals

praying for animals does not excuse their suffering. That is the least amount of compassion humanly possible. Compassion is a natural reaction to death, it is an egotistical feeling. It does not show empathy for the animal you are consuming. Moving onto your horrifically backed up points/sources. "Humans need to consume animals to survive" firsthand, my girlfriend's mother has been vegetarian for 25 years and vegan for 10, she is very healthy. For your education, here is a list of vegetarians: Mohandas Ghandi (died aged 78) Dame Jane Goodall (aged 80, still alive) George Bernard Shaw (died aged 94) Edna Parker (died 115 years) http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 'B12 is an ESSENTIAL nutrient, and cannot be found in plants a sufficient amount." This implies that vegetarians only eat plants, however, they don't,. This vitamin can be found in many sources: Thiamin (vitamin B1) Thiamin is also known as vitamin B1. It has several important functions, including: working with other B-group vitamins to help break down and release energy from food keeping nerves and muscle tissue healthy Good sources of thiamin Thiamin is found in most types of food. Good sources include: vegetables peas fresh and dried fruit eggs wholegrain breads some fortified breakfast cereals liver' and 'keeping skin, eyes and the nervous system healthy helping the body release energy from carbohydrate Good sources of riboflavin Good sources of riboflavin include: milk eggs fortified breakfast cereals rice' http://www.nhs.uk... Humans, historically, are omnivorous. Here is a definition of omnivorous: 'An omnivore /G2;;4;mniv;6;ər/ is an animal that can derive its energy and nutrients from a diet consisting of a variety of food sources that may include plants, animals, algae, fungi and bacteria.[1] The term means 'all-eater' (Latin, omnes, omnia, meaning "all" or "everything" and vorare meaning "to devour"), Omnivores often are opportunistic, general feeders which lack carnivore or herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, but which nevertheless consume both animal protein and vegetation.[2]' http://en.m.wikipedia.org... This suggests that there are no signs, throughout the known human dietary system, that humans have ever had or adapted anything that solely aids a carnivorous diet, henceforth we can get nutrients from plants and crops. 'there is no need to kill 10 year old children. And they pose no threat to our lives' As explained, there is no need to kill animals to sustain health. Also, chickens, cows and sheep do not pose a threat to our lives, either. In this unique case of the vegan woman who suffered a disease in which she specifically needed meat (which is already false as all nutrients from meat can be found in plants, that's where the animals get the nutrients from in the first place) this is a UNIQUE case, she specifically 'needed' meat, you do not. And self admittedly, you do not feel guilt either.