BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Late-Term Abortion

Because the actual claim was unclear in the initial arugment, it has been determined in the comments section that Pro's argument is as follows:Late term abortion, abortion occuring between 15-24 weeks, is always "exceptionally wrong". I intend to demonstrate that this argument is false by demonstrating that there exists cases wherein late-term abortion is necessary for the well being of the mother and should not be considered "exceptionally wrong" in all cases. I look forward to your initial arguments. ===========================================
Late-Term Abortion

"I have to admit that if the mother is risking her life and the babies life, IF they do everything possible first, then it would only be logical to remove the child from the mother... ...I do agree that this is not ALWAYS completely wrong. "Well I very much appreciate your intellectual honestly. I think we would probably agree on most things on the subject, but I always try to tread very lightly when making claims that involve "always" or "never" unless I have considered all of the options available to me, which is rarely possible.I think it's clear for those voting that the point has been conceded by Con."But in the case of parents who just do it because they can, that is wrong."I think we could end it here on a point of agreement, unless you have any final comments you'd like to make. Thanks again for the discussion, I hope it's been as enlightening for you as it has for me.
Late-Term Abortion

I have to admit that if the mother is risking her life and the babies life, IF they do everything possible first, then it would only be logical to remove the child from the mother. But in a way other than tearing them apart and practically throwing it away. the child should be removed through the stomach, as a C-section. So I do agree that this is not ALWAYS completely wrong. But in the case of parents who just do it because they can, that is wrong.
Late-Term Abortion

"Goodness your good."Well, thank you! I try my darndest."BUT, do you actually think it's right for a live human being to be torn limb from limb, skull crushed, just for the sake of yet another human being? They could find some other way to save the mother, if they tried.""For the sake of" is a slight oversimplification, it seems. What I've tried to do is at least demonstrate that there is no remote moral equivolence between a mother having an abortion because she thinks she will be simply inconvienced and a mother that cannot carry a child to viability without seriously risking her own life in the process.I AM in favor of attempting to do everything within reason to prevent the loss of life, which includes the mother as well as the unborn child. I personally find many instances of abortion to be morally reprehensible, but for the purpose of this debate I am not willing to accept your position that in every case and every circumstance is it always exceptionally wrong to terminate a pregnancy, and I think I've demonstrated why that is the case. What are your thoughts? Would you consider that there exists some instances where it is an extremely sad and unfortunate choice that has to be made by some mothers for their own personal well-being, rather than a callous and disgusting act of violence in order to rid oneself of their personal responsibility?
cats are cuter than dogs

I disagree that cats are cuter than dogs. One of the reasons you give is that cats are smaller;however, there is a lot of variety in genetics within cats as well as dogs. Some dogs are actually smaller than cats. You also state dogs can be mean, but cats can also be mean. Cruelty is not limited to the dog species. You'll find cruelty in humans, cats, dogs, and many other species. That does not mean that a species is mean as a whole. My stance is cats and dogs can be cute, and cats and dogs can be not cute.
Our society is a celebrity -driven society rather than a common sense driven society

You still haven't provided any evidence (or even an argument really) as to how society is driven by celebrities. Do you know anyone who bases their political beliefs on a celebrity? There may be a few influential philosophers who have gotten to celebrity status, but they are people who have formed their opinions based on common sense. Sure there are bad philosophers, (apologists come to mind) but I doubt any ones opinion was changed based on Ken Ham's recent debating. They confirm peoples beliefs rather than actually changing them. Again I think the problem with this debate is that you were not clear in your title we've ended up arguing two different debates.
Our society is a celebrity -driven society rather than a common sense driven society

I never said the Oscars are running some kind of agenda...you are putting words in my mouth. The Oscars and Academy Awards don't need to push a political agenda. They have actors, and that's all they need to grab the attention of the public. The fact that people are more interested in the life styles of celebrities and the elites and what they buy and what they do rather than about their own country astounds me. You mean to tell me that with people wanting to know more about what Leonardo Decaprio won at the academy awards and less about the night the president of their own country informs the nation, doesn't raise a red flag at all? Movies are fun and all, but they shouldn't dictate people's lives. They are entertainment. That is all. The salaries celebrities earn should be given to the men and women overseas and not someone pretending to be someone else their whole life. Celebrities earn millions. The average salary for a military member is about $35,000 a year.
Our society is a celebrity -driven society rather than a common sense driven society

How does more people watching the Oscars than the Presidential State of the Union Address mean we are celebrity driven? It's not like the Oscar's try to push any political beliefs on you. Also, the Oscars is a bad example as it is an awards show voted on by non-celebrities. If you truly mean that people just pay to much attention to celebrities then your title, "Our society is a celebrity -driven society rather than a common sense driven society", is laughably far from what you actually want to debate.
Our society is a celebrity -driven society rather than a common sense driven society

I am not saying that our society is completely driven by them. I am simply saying that instead of people being more worried about what our president has to say, they are worried about what Kenye West has to say or what Kim Kardashian thinks about the newest style of dresses or weight lose programs. The show "Keeping Up With the Kardashians" is the second most watched TV show in America. The show "19 Kids and Counting" is the fifth most watched TV show in America. That definitely says something about our society. And statistically, there is a about a 10 million gap between people who watched the Oscars to people who watched the State of the Union Address this year. Here is a link to the top 20 most watched TV shows in America. http://www.tv.com...
Our society is a celebrity -driven society rather than a common sense driven society

Today's society may place too much emphasis on celebrities, but to claim that it is entirely driven by them is absurd. There may be the occasional nut job out there who makes every decision based on one or two, but it seems crazy to me to therefore assume this is the way it is with the majority of the American nation. (You specifically stated the Oscars and the Presidential State of the Union Address.)
Newt Gingrich is engaging in class warfare when he suggests poor kids work as janitors

Seeing as how this is ambiguous and can be taken in several different ways I would like to give my opponent the opportunity to define what his definition of "class warfare" is first. I would also like to ask my opponent in advance that we do not derail off this subject. This debate is about one speech giving December 01, 2011 At a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa where Mr. Gingrich suggested job opportunity's for poverty stricken kids. All other views and/or any other political believes that Mr. Gingrich hold are off subject and should not be part of this debate.
should scientists research string theory

Yes we can do more research on it but it will be useless in the end because scientists can't test out this theory (yet). Anyways scientists still haven't found any 'strings' to gather data from, even if we find these 'strings' it would take a lot of energy to uncurl them. First of all, if these 'strings' exist then i will support research on the the string theory. But for now, it's just not possible.
Gun control is unconstitutional

I have two main arguments, plus a rebuttal.Argument 1: The WordingThe full text of the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Notice the first two phrases. "Well regulated militia" means the amendment only refers to an organized militia, and "being necessary for the security of a free state" means this militia can only exist if the sovereignty or security of the United States is threatened. This does not mean anyone has the unlimited right to own a weapon.Furthermore, when the amendment was written, the country had a very weak army, and a virtually nonexistent navy. We relied on militias to protect from foreign invaders, to put down Indian attacks, and to put down rebellions. The country needed militias, and protected the right for them to exist. We no longer need militias, because we have, by far, the strongest military in the world. Which brings me into my next argument.Argument 2: Amendments/Living DocumentThe founders included amendments for a reason. They would want laws to be changed if it proved necessary. This is why the right to vote, which only used to exist for white men, were expanded to black men in the 15th amendment, and to women in the 19th amendment. The old laws were outdated, and had to be removed, so new amendments were passed to change the laws. The founders knew this, and included a system to change the constitution if needed.If they saw the current state of the country, in regards to gun violence, they would be asking us why we haven't changed the laws. They would see that the current gun laws are woefully inadequate, and would need to be strengthened. Rebuttal:Pro states this in Round 1: "By implementing gun control, we are infringing the rights to bear arms, and therefore, we are implementing an unconstitutional law."Pro, does this mean you believe I have the right to own a bazooka? Or a nuclear bomb? Or a fully automatic machine gun? By Pro's argument, the rights to own those weapons would be protected under the Constitution.If Pro believes the regulations regarding those weapons are good laws that should be protected, then they concede the debate, as they agree that gun regulations are not unconstitutional.If Pro believes the laws regarding those weapons are unconstitutional, then go reread my second argument. The founders most certainly would not want the average citizen to have dangerous, military grade weapons, hence the reason why they included the amendment system. They would see the danger of letting anyone obtain weapons that could kill thousands of innocent people with the push of a button or the click of a trigger.
Where will LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, and Kevin Love Go

I. Opening statement As the instigator, Pro holds BoP I will be attempting to falsify any claims Pro makes to support his argument II. Cross-Examination My opponent made the claim "This is a discussion not a debate" however I have to disagree for a few reasons. 1.This was posted on a debate website known as Debate.org 2. This was posted within the "Debates" section of Debate.org 3. My opponents has made a claim and has taken a side (Pro) "but lets talk." Pro is attempting make Con do an impossible action. Verbal communication is impossible on a text-based website. Bing Dictionary defines talk as "having a conversation about something: to address spoken words to somebody, or have a conversation with somebody" As spoken word cannot be utilised on this debating website, Pro cannot expect either of us to talk. III. Conclusion Seeing as Pro has mad a false statement, and and demands an action impossible to complete, his argument is invalid. I await Pro's rebuttal!
Social networking sites are beneficial

First of all, social networking sites can help you gain confidence. Social Networking sites such as facebook, google +, and twitter lets you talk and argue or communicate with millions of people. The ones who cannot gain self confidence in real life could practice their self-confidence in the social networking sites. Since there are more people you can connect and communicate in the social networking sites, you can practice your self-confidence with different kinds of people you can't meet in you neighborhood. For example, I myself practiced my self-confidence in social networking sites, and it helped me greatly.
Resolved: Title IX is a positive influence on ncaa sports

Con's feelings that Title IX isn't fair to men aside, men's participation has risen after Title IX. Title IX has increased participation in both men and female sports and fostered education goals such as promoting health, following rules, etc. Title IX goes to the fundamental fairness in sports and allows women who might otherwise not participate in sports the same opportunities as men. Also, the diversity of sports has ballooned since Title IX was enacted. Title IX is a positive influence on NCAA sports.
Resolved: Title IX is a positive influence on ncaa sports

Title IX does not decrease participation in men's NCAA sports which makes Title IX fair to both sexes. If Title IX wasn't fair to both sexes it would be a negative influence on NCAA sports. My previous post actually showed men's participation rising after the enactment of Title IX. Con's plan might or might not work but it fails to show how Title IX is not a positive influence on NCAA sports or how it is better than the current situation. Con's personal feelings that sports shouldn't be treated any different than any other work place ignore the unique work environment that sports have. Since NCAA is education associated it is in the unique position of having to be regulated by educational laws such as Title IX to prevent discrimination and encourage educational goals such as promoting health, following rules and so forth. Thank you for the discussion. I look forward to your reply.
Resolved: Title IX is a positive influence on ncaa sports

sorry computer crash, so we can see if the newbie, new to me, is lucky. I feel we should not treat sports any different than any other work place. I am refering to gender segregation. If women are good enough they can play with the men. We don't allow racial segregation among sports. We don't even allow height and weight classes which is what I believe are principle arguements that are men are bigger and stronger. yet a 6-3 250 athlete is not segregated from a 5-4 135 athlete. I also believe that more men play high school sports. I believe that it is unfair to keep title IX as is therefore I offer the following counterplan. Plan Plank 1 raise the minimum of 13 sports to 24 sports allowing for not only more sports for men, but also for women Plan Plank 2 make title IX a truly gender equal law make athletic funding based on their states' high school sport participation rather than student population. My sources are USHAA, and NCAA.
Resolved: Title IX is a positive influence on ncaa sports

Thank you for posting this debate. I look forward to seeing how this plays out.Title IX is an overall positive influence on NCAA sports. While some men's programs have been cut (which is not the Act's intent) others have been added. I fail to see how the law determines which programs or cut or added -- that's the University's job. If as you claim they cut profitable clubs then that's the University administrations stupidity not the law's. According, to a GAO report in 2011, men’s intercollegiate athletic participation rose from approximately 220,000 in 1981-82 to approximately 232,000 in 1998-99. Between 1981-82 and 1998-99, football participation increased by 7,199, more than offsetting wrestling’s loss of 2,648 participants, outdoor track’s loss of 1,706 participants, tennis’s loss of 1,405 participants, and gymnastics’ loss of 1,022 participants[1].Source:[1] http://www.gao.gov...
Resolved: Title IX is a positive influence on ncaa sports

Title IX has had a negative effect on ncaa sports as it has increased participation in sports with less overall profits, and interests, while decreases allowance of sports with greater participation. Examples are increased scholarships in Women's rowing versus a loss in Men's Hockey which has a tournament that makes money. Furthermore, Title IX supports a system that is not paralleled in anyway in the real world. An example being division of men and women that is not paralleled in the workplace.
is urbanization solely responsible for pollution.....

i feel yes urbanization is responsible for the pollution.... of course wen it comes of land for increasing people in urban...one goes for deforestation nd contributes in contamination of air. wen it comes of vehicles there is no escape to the deadly gasses nd the shouting horns. all kind of pollution exist due to us. even if v c for agriculture poin if view urban farmers afford to use more nd more of the pesticides nd other chemicals which pollute the soil nd make the land unproductive. so in a way v ourself have created problem for us!
is urbanization solely responsible for pollution.....

"can u give me out some more points to clearify my doubts. .. " How many points do I need to make to win this debate? Well, none really. As long as my opponent has not given any positive reason to believe the resolution is true, then you default vote CON due to burden of proof. On top of that, however, I've already made more than enough arguments to show that urbanization isn't solely responsible for pollution: the resolution says solely, meaning all, and that means all I need to do to disprove it is provide just one example. And I've provided tractors, volcanoes, and stardust. (There are plenty more, of course. I just haven't mentioned them. ) None of which were responded to.
is urbanization solely responsible for pollution.....

"u jst giving a simple logic for hiding our mistakes...." And ignoring my refutations does not take them out. "i know that urbanization is a realistic approach but dont u think that with such a rapidly growing urbanization ratio we have made this earth more polluted then what it was ears ago!" Well actually on a per capita ratio, I think we're polluting the earth much LESS than we have in the past. In the cities, many things run on ELECTRICITY (which doesn't pollute much) as opposed to in the countryside, where many things run on DIESEL. Reapply the "tractor" and "deforestation" points from my last round here. "i'm saying dont go for direct cause but if you go to grass roots of anything you'll find urbanization is the main cause!" If you go to the bottom of everything, then you'll find that existence is the root cause of all our problems. But I digress. My opponent has thus far still failed to show that urbanization is the sole cause for pollution. He is not meeting the burden of proof and therefore is losing the debate.
Does God exist

God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent...CORRECT ;) Many scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light known as the Big Bang. This was the start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself. Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen." Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light." The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. In Genesis 1:3, God said"Let there be light". This is a logical explanation for the Big Bang. Some points for you to consider.... The Argument from Causality: Look around for something that does not have a cause. This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things. -The Argument from Design: Nature manifests a certain irreducible complexity. The design in nature requires a Designer. God is the creator and designer of all things. -The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate. -The Moral Argument: Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or a teacher at a school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil. Why else do we have laws, government, military, prisons, and self-improvement books? The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral obligation. Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind of a greater being, which is God.