BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
United Staes become part of British Rule again

My opponent has the burden of proof. He's argued that the United State's government is rooted in Britain's earlier democratic model. Even if that were true, it doesn't explain why our government, economy and laws should be based on Britain's preferences today. The fact that we made it a point to leave British government and rule in the first place proves that people residing within this territory believe Britain was unfit to rule us. Since then, we have embraced liberty and freedom from British authority. Pro has not given us reason to return. Just because the United Kingdom and United States might prefer and need change doesn't mean putting the U.S. under British authority will promote that positive change. The larger the state, the more problematic it can become and difficult to rule over; just look at the Roman Empire. We have no reason whatsoever to return to British rule. In fact, we should be asking for even more individual sovereignty from our current government. We need less government, not more government. Besides, the United States is doing better than Britain (especially economically) thus it would not be in our interest to combine market assets and status quo standards with a country worse off than ourselves [1]. [1] http://www.investopedia.com...
Abortion should stay legal in the United States

RebuttalMy opponent says that I didn't touch on the self-ownership contention. However, before I get to that I would like to point out that he concede two contentions out of three so I think that is good for victory on my part see as how he only stated alternatives to abortion rather then meating the issue head on. But I will play along. I did in fact refute his 'argument' against self-ownership being good enough to keep abortion legal. However, I will do it again. I stated that since the fetus was not a person it does not matter if women abort them and furthermore that since my opponent conceded that women have full self-ownership then the whole of the choices is theirs. Whether it be keeping it, allowing the father to have a say, puting it up for adoption, or aborting it, it is all her choice since it is HER body. And my opponent's attack is refuted.ConclusionIn conclusion, I will state that since a fetus is not a person, and the fact that women have all the power over their bodies. Then abortion should be legal. And since we are overpopulated abortion would be a good thing to have.Thanks to those who read this debate.
Abortion should stay legal in the United States

I concede the overpopulation point as I just cannot effectively explain my views. I don't really have any views on overpopulation. However you have to realize i said while this MAY be true. that does not in any way shape or form mean I agree with you. I think you could not come up with a legit answer to my questions regarding ownership, you had no rebuttal. Unless you can come up with a rebuttal on the issue of ownership, i suggest you concede this whole debate. I made VERY valid points in which you never touched on. Please, take all the time you need to come up with a rebuttal or concede
Abortion should stay legal in the United States

'It is really hard to define where life begins. That is impossible to do, there are several people who agree that life begins at conception and there are several who don't. Ultrasounds are conducted during the abortion and have shown signs of the fetus screaming. Explain how the ability to feel pain and scream still does not make the fetus human'I am not arguing for humanity, I am arguing that while human, a fetus is not a 'person' because it does not have a personality, self-aware, conscious, etc. Furthmore, I will sttae that even if a fetus is a human and a person, the woman doesn't have an obligation to let the fetus use her body. Self-Ownership. You say that women have complete dominion over there bodies. While this may be trueMy opponent concedes that women have full control over their bodies, and therefore then options that come with it. Making the rest irrelevant since all are choices and not obligations. Plus, fathers have no control over women's bodies and therefore, have no say in what the woman wants done to it. The rest being further irrelevant since how abortions is funded has nothing to do with whether or not it should be legal. And finally my opponent states:I view the concept of over population as kind of nihilistic. Cannot really explain why, but if it is really a problem, why not move to China or join the Church of Euthanasia? This is a horrible argument since the population problem is a harsh reality and require methods that will fix it so its not nihilistic since it requires the morals to do what is best for everything. Also, we are talking about America not China so I would suggest my opponent do better then that. I will now await my opponent's response. Thank you for reading.
Abortion should stay legal in the United States

It is really hard to define where life begins. That is impossible to do, there are several people who agree that life begins at conception and there are several who don't. Ultrasounds are conducted during the abortion and have shown signs of the fetus screaming. Explain how the ability to feel pain and scream still does not make the fetus human Self-Ownership. You say that women have complete dominion over there bodies. While this may be true, I have to wonder why they would make the choice to have sex, protected or unprotected, but not want to bear the consequences of that action? If we are talking about ownership, shouldn't the woman own up to having sex and thus carry the baby to term? if she is too immature to take responsibility for her actions, why not give the baby up for adoption. Another argument that I believe is very important is the father. If two people are participants in the baby making, and the mother wants an abortion but the father is willing to be responsible when the mother is not, it's a deadlock in the decision. The father had equal share in the baby making, why should he not get a say? And there are several deadbeat fathers out there who refuse to own up to their children and help take care of them, to me abortion is allowing the mother to refuse ownership of their actions. The father would be in serious trouble, why shouldn't the mother? If abortion has to stay legal, would you agree to an addendum to give the father a say? What about continuing to have the woman pay for the abortion out of her own pocket instead of it being covered by Obamacare? I view the concept of over population as kind of nihilistic. Cannot really explain why, but if it is really a problem, why not move to China or join the Church of Euthanasia?
God Couldn't Have Caused The First Moment Of Time

Contention 1:It is also conventional Christian thought that God cannot lie, be evil, or be unjust; would you also call this incoherent? There are many examples of things God is incapable of doing that we lesser creatures can. There are also examples of things that God cannot do because they are logically impossible: creating a square circle, for instance, is one of these. Another of these things that cannot be done by a maximally great being is thinking. What does a being that knows everything with certainty think about? What is there for it to consider? What questions does it have to resolve? You claim that the purpose of thinking usually pertains to mental reflection on what is already known and believed -- to what end does a maximally great being reflect on its own certainty?You claim that God is viewed as a pure intelligence and therefore requires the capacity for thought. However, there are multiple definitions of intelligence, and not all of them inherently require change over time. One Christian definition of intelligence is merely "the basic eternal quality of divine Mind" [1]; in this sense, it does not necessarily require thought. If your author on a "popular Christian website" spoke for all believers and defined all Christian belief with his words, you would have a point, but he does not.Contention 2:You are correct. I concede the point. Contention 3:I disagree with this argument. It is not incoherent to argue that God could exist outside of the dimension that we call time while still having inherent to himself the quality of being capable of change or of having an inherent sequence of experience that all events he performs (the creation of the universe, the incarnatio of his son, etc.) follow. Moreover, if God did have such an inherent quality, there would still be only one first moment of time, because God, being eternal, would not have a first moment but the space-time continuum, being temporary, would have a first moment.
God Couldn't Have Caused The First Moment Of Time

I'd like to begin also by thanking my opponent for this debate; it promises to be interesting.There are three problems with your assertion that God, with the attributes commonly attributed to him, could not have caused the first moment of time. The first is that it's not at all clear that it is necessary for a maximally great entity to be an intelligent one, the second is that it's not clear that an entity that does not experience time is therefore incapable of performing an action over time, the third is that it's not at all clear that a deity that does not exist within the space-time continuum is therefore incapable of change.Contention One: a maximally great entity is not necessarily an intelligent entity.It may seem incoherent to call an entity maximally great if it is not intelligent (that is to say, if it is not capable of thought) but think about the purpose of thought. The ultimate purpose of thought is to acquire knowledge or beliefs that are likely to be true. A maximally great being, being posessed of the quality of knowledge to the maximal degree, has no need of the ability to acquire knowledge or beliefs. "Intelligence" in the sense you reference when you refer to "intelligent design" is really much closer to "purpose" or "meaning."Contention Two: a being that does not experience time is not necessarily incapable of performing an action over time. I intend to prove this contention by way of providing a counterexample to its negation. The negation of contention two is that a being that does not experience time is necessarily incapable of performing an action over time. To provide a counterexample, I point you to the example of photons and the action of moving. Due to relativistic effects, photons do not experience time; that is to say, a mind travelling at exactly the speed of light would never experience the passage of time. However, a photon most certainly does perform the process of moving from one place to another.Contention Three: an entity that does not exist within the space-time continuum is not necessarily incapable of change.I here use the term "space-time continuum" to mean the set of four dimensions that we experience: three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. An entity that exists externally to our space and our dimension of time could conceivably experience another form of time; perhaps there exists another time dimension that is inherent to this external entity.Please keep in mind that only one defeating argument to Pro's stance is necessary; it is not required that all or even most of my arguments be shown valid.The resolution is negated.
I can Eat a Whole Watermelon Faster than you

I find it funny that you use what I brought up to combat me, but sadly you left something out, you forgot to take in count the number of times that I have smacked down a challenger like you in a food eating contest when this is your first one, so I am sorry to say the my superior skills in the form of that of eating the forbidden foods such as Bacon and Watermelon, that of only appeals to the higher class, succulent in design, and elegant in taste. I have mastered the arts from that of eating and am thi only one who can only compare to that of the masterful skills of my beloved' father. So for that I am sorry Taylor my overall skill and masterful art can never be beaten' by such a fool like you. Next time you dare challenge me you better come prepared for the pain and torture I will inflict to you lifeless foodless corpse, that will be left for dead after this debate of which I destroyed your hopes and dreams. Taylor, my dear friend, you will never compare to that of me, Overlord Lulu. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where do Seedless Watermelons Come From ? Seedless watermelons were invented over 50 years ago, and they have few or no seeds. When we say seeds, we are talking about mature seeds, the black ones. Oftentimes, the white seed coats where a seed did not mature are assumed to be seeds. But this isnt the case! They are perfectly safe to swallow while eating, and dont worry - no seeds will grow in your stomach. http://www.watermelon.org...
I can Eat a Whole Watermelon Faster than you

As you said, if that size is the case for the challenge I would win because as I said, I don't care about the outside or seeds in the watermelon. You are stating rules so I will state one. The watermelon cannot be cut/genetically altered without seeds, and you cannot use utensils to eat it. I will say it again, "if that size is the case for the challenge I would win because as I said, I don't care about the outside or seeds in the watermelon." Plus I could take larger bites with a better outcome. Watermelons are grown in rows of fertilized sand. Watermelons are the cheapest fruit for its size. http://www.watermelon.org...
I can Eat a Whole Watermelon Faster than you

You never give a full size on this watermelon that we are eatting on how we need to consume is I could say, the watermelon I will be eatting is no bigger than that of my palm or that the watermelon I will be consuming is now been turned into his liquid form after exstensive mashing of it. Both these methods would easily beat your eatting of a "Whole Watermelon". Next time define more things dear IAlwaysLoseDebates. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... I'd like to make a slight new rule: From now on everypost needs to have two facts about watermelons China is the top Watermelon producer, and Egypt is the fith.
I can Eat a Whole Watermelon Faster than you

I would like to start off by saying you have started a recent debate on a similar topic so it is obvious that you are not trying to avoid them. I will give you three reasons why I can eat a watermelon faster than you. Reason 1) I have been in several watermelon competitions and have won several. I have never eaten a whole watermelon, but if I went on a you can say "Hunger Strike" I believe that I would be able to eat a full watermelon because of my love for the succulent fruit. If need be I would even take no time spitting out the seeds, I would eat everything with very minimal chewing, just enough so that I can swallow without chocking. Reason 2) You seem like the person who wouldn't get messy at the dinner table to win, but I would. I would tear up the watermelon and make sure that I am constantly taking bites. I don't care where it lands on my face, just as long as I can put it in my mouth. Reason 3) I constantly am craving sweet fruit and would never give up the chance to consume a full watermelon. Small but huge reason why I would win this challenge. Remember this is a WHOLE watermelon.
Animals should be given equal rights to humans

If a society is poor and cant survive without hunting or using animals, then I guess it is not practical to tell them to switch to starvation. But this is not what this debate is centered around. The debate is centered around, the billions of lands land animals that die needlessly every year. Animals cause disease in humans. Humans aren't carnivores like lions and wolves, which eat raw meat and suffer no consequences of the cholesterol that is in the meat. Humans need to process the meat very well for it to be edible. That includes removing the bad parts, removing germs and bacteria (especially from fish) and heating the meat. Milk is another product which is not healthy to humans, it is meant for calves and baby goats. All those products are linked to diabetes, cancer, heard disease and more diseases. Animal farming leads to ecological damage such as increased global warming, imbalance in the food chain or the ecosystem in general (it back fires at fishers in poor african countries) and deforestation. As you can see, it backfires at you in the end, even if you dont care about animal pain. Watch the documentary 'Earthlings' on youtube, before you post your next post.
Animals should be given equal rights to humans

By "survival of the fittest" I mean that people should rise up and take what humankind wants. And that chaos within our own species will cause more harm than good. Why can't we do what we please to animals while we uphold human morality? Furthermore, the food argument. I can't fathom how many people are involved and center their lives around livestock farming. A majority of these people exist in third-world countries, causing a lack of jobs and turmoil in Africa, South America, Central Asia, etc, etc. This would surely cause a further disbalance between those communities. Don't joke and say that they should all transfer to biology.
Animals should be given equal rights to humans

I will disregard your last statement as it simply emphasizes your sentiment and doesnt try to put any argument. If you believe in Darwinism and the 'survival' of the fittest, you also justify violence towards other beings, theft, robbery, murder and rape. If you read a book on evolution such as the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, you would have known more about how the evolution theory applies to animal behavior and can be generalized to humans too. I dont think a society should be politically encouraged to fully support and base its ideology on the survival of the fittest. The first thing that would happen is huge layers of poverty, poor social policies and blue collar crimes being more justifiable... Your intelligence relating to you should tell you to support technology that deviates from producing animal products and looking for alternatives. There is already a technology that produces food that tastes like meat! That meat is expensive, but technological advances will get you to your juicy tasty meat. Use your intelligence, get a Phd in biology or biochemistry and solve that problem, dont pour salt on animals wounds and dont make your stomach their graveyard. Henceforth, the intelligence point just back fires at you when you tried to establish some supremacist view on differences that exist between us and animals. The pain should get more of our attention, cause pain is the feeling that is shared between all earth species.
Animals should be given equal rights to humans

Hello Mr. Burns,Humans are superior to every other animal. As a human, I say that as a superior mind to 99% of the animal kingdom.We, the human race, have been a driven force for the last 13,000 years, creating civilizations and creating an infrastructure to resist the deadliest phenomenon's of nature.Let's end these 1 sentence paragraphs. I think what you are thinking of is a trade, a trade between life and materials. Because you didn't put enough info in your initial argument I infer that you're implying that we should be completely ban and criminalize the act of killing (in any way shape of form) any animal. This absolutely disgusts me due to how it destroys human nature.I am a complete Darwinist and believe in the progression of species via natural selection. Survival of the fittest. That's what I believe in. (If you do believe DON'T believe in natural selection, I gladly volunteer to talk about that.)Honestly, I think if we should, we should destroy all other life on Earth. That's fine.And I do believe that all animals (besides insects) have sentience. Able to feel happiness and pain.Though what you're implying is so GRAY.How should we decide and play god on who we should pardon and who we should kill?How should we decide which animals are good and which are bad?We should just kill animals as we see fit (excluding mentally deranged and wasteful circumstances). And do as how EVERY OTHER animal on the planet does it.
Animals should be given equal rights to humans

This debate will have a few topics related to it. Not only philosophy, but health and ecology too. I understand that some societies rely on hunting gathering to this day and they cant survive without meat. But why societies that can can survive without it continue doing all that to them? I believe that animals deserve equal amount of rights as we are. We have no right to adapt the supremacist view that they are above us. Here is a list of things we do to them, which they dont deserve: - Cows, Goats and Chickens. We use them and what they produce (milk and eggs) for food. - Foxes and cows. They are being skinned to make leather or fur. - Geese and ship. Are victims because of their feathers or fur. Geese have their feathers plucked out violently to make products like pillows and Ship have their fur removed for wool clothings. - Horses and some dogs. Being forced to participate in races. They go through terrible conditions before those races. - Killer whales, dolphins and some other fish. Forced to perform tricks (in places such as Sea World) or simply live in small confined places. - Lions, tigers, elephants, monkeys. They either live in a Zoo or perform tricks in circuses. - Dogs. They are used in the military and police to find drugs and participate in dangerous operations. When they are not active they sit in a small cage. Some dogs dont participate anything, they are just tied down to some place. - Wolves, Deer, bears, rabbits and some other animals. Are targets for hunters. - Rats, cats and monkeys. Often used for animal testing, mostly which isnt necessary. - Fish. Are victims to fishing, a lot of time done for sports. So what arguments are there to justify all what I listed?
Ash should at least be 11 years old

You're taking the idea of this debate too much too a literal level. I am arguing on behalf of the imaginary Pokemon world which does not exist, not a world that is perceived to actually exist. In the non-existent world of Pokemon, Ash Ketchum starts his journey as a 10-year-old child who may receive his first Pokemon, where he gets his long-life partner Pikachu (well for us it's long-life). What I am saying is that in the anime he has at least gained a year in age due to other produced clips. http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ash should at least be 11 years old

Ash is in fact 0 years old because Ash exists neither on Earth nor in this universe.Thus, the time frame that occurs in Pokemon world and universe are incomparable with that of this Earth.A year is defined as he time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun.Thus, Ash is not at least 11 years old.Thank you, come again. http://pokemon.wikia.com...http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Oh and before you try and argue my definition of a year or argue that it's another Earth, there is no planet named Earth in the Pokemon universe so please try harder.In conclusion, Ash is in an incomparable time frame to the one that is measure din years and thus should not be at least 11 years old.Thank you.http://i.imgur.com...