BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

I think that Abortion is wrong. The parents should have used protection and it also isn't fair for the baby. The baby shouldn't have to pay for his/her mother's mistake by being aborted. There are cases where the mother is sometimes raped. I still think that abortion is wrong because it isn't the child's fault that she got raped. This is why I say that adoption is a better option. human-rights should be respected, but it should never be the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others. In this case, one might wonder about the rights of the father to have a say in the fate of the foetus. More importantly, though, pro-choice groups actively ignore the most important right; the child's right to life. What is more important than life? All other rights, including the mother's right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies. Unborn children cannot articulate their right to life; their lives are vulnerable and as such must be protected. Where a restriction in someone's freedom is the price to pay for protecting an innocent life, then so be it. I await for my opponent's response. I thank you for challenging me and wish you good luck
Abortion

My opponent misstates the scope of my first argument when he claims that I say "the woman's life is automatically beneficial to society. " I simply state that where the value of the woman's life is known to be beneficial to society, she possesses the right to preserve it even at the expense of an as yet un-lived life. Admittedly, abortion might still be wrong under a strict valuation system based on individual worth if the woman was a triple murderer and her child, like all children, was unlikely to become such itself. However, the first point is not that some abortions are wrong and some may be right, but rather that some are clearly not wrong. By showing this, by way of inverse argument, I show that some abortions are right. Therefore they can not all be wrong. If Obama was aborted at this age, it would be murder. Admittedly, if that happened, he wouldn't be president right now and I would be quite upset. Especially because Joe Biden would be in charge. I think he fills the sidekick role well; I just don't think he's ready for the saddle. But I digress . .. as did my opponent. His example did nothing to refute my prior argument. As for my opponent's repeated argument that the woman might have more of a negative value, I have already explained that point and do not see the cause to do so again. As for my opponent's contention that "it is true that she is risking her life, however, she isn't going to live forever . .. " the same is true of every single human being and, by extension, children. (See . http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Either the mother or the child could die, and both will, so it makes little sense to use one's ability to live as a criterion. My opponent's best argument is that a woman with a positive value would be "giving birth to a new life in the next generation and also, she would still somewhat live on because the child is a part of her. " Technically a part of every dead animal you've ever consumed lives on in you, but I doubt you feel like a herd of cattle. Whether or not one's biological material exists in some form is not a valid criterion for establishing continuation of existence because there is no continuation of self identity, which is essential to claiming that one still 'lives. ' Your children may be the closest thing to yourself, but they are not 'you. ' My opponent also failed to disprove my second point, which means that the argument stands and basically all abortion is shown to be not wrong. (Personally, I think he should have attacked that argument, as it had the greater number of holes in it, not that I'm inclined to point them out. ) Because my opponent did not rebut my argument that abortion in general was not wrong, the argument stands, and abortion can not be wrong.
I did your mom last night, To accept this is to accept full BOP.

Humans are subjective because we are limited to the five senses and the ability to retain information from this.For example a blind man would never be able to fully comprehend the statement 'she has hot eyes' even though objectively this could be seen. In the same way I could have fvcked his mom last night having been unseen, unheard, untouched, untasted and unsmelt by him (and perhaps his mother if she had had a momentary lapse of consciousness). He has no evidence that he didn't pass out while she did and that I didn't 'do' her then whilst she then woke up with me inside her and whispered GO! Before he woke up then had his memories falsely replaced.
I did your mom last night, To accept this is to accept full BOP.

"Firstly even if you did your mother, I could have done her too while you were under hallucinogens."I wasn't under hallucinogens last night. My blood test came back negative. I was perfectly sober. I never saw you. Thus you weren't there. "How can a subjective entity objectivley know anything?"1. My opponent has yet to prove how humans are subjective. He must prove solipsism before he can even think about getting offense from this statement.2. But even if humans are subjective, he must prove how humans can't objectively know anything. He has yet to and it's juts an assertion.3. Humans can know things objectively. That's how we know that one plus one equals two.Hence you buy my eye-witness evidence."You seem to think I have BOP. I have 0% BOP read the resolution. thanks."I did and accepted it and fulfilled my BOP. You still have to refute my accessing the BOP. If you fail to then I win. In order to refute my accessing the BOP you must provide objective proof that you fvcked my mom since I never saw you when I was fvcking her. If you cannot prove that you fvcked my mom, then my eye-witness evidence stands and we can objectively know you didn't fvck my mom. Which means the resolution is negated.
I did your mom last night, To accept this is to accept full BOP.

My opponent must objectively prove that he hired a plastic surgeon to modify a different woman to look like my mom and must objectively prove how he knew what my mom looked like. Otherwise you prefer my precluding evidence. As my opponent must prove his BOP before we even look to whether or not I proved mine. Since if he fails to objectively show that I didn't fvck my mom, then he couldn't have been there for otherwise I would've seen him. Since I didn't, I know objectively 100% my opponent didn't fvck my mom.Unlike my opponent, I have provided objective evidence (a.k.a. I didn't see my opponent) as to why my opponent did not do my mom. My opponent must disprove my evidence objectively in order to win.
I did your mom last night, To accept this is to accept full BOP.

My opponent's entire claim relies on that his memory of the entire night is objectively true, that his assumption that there exists no way to completely erase and replace memory at present and that there exists no invisibility cloak in the modern world.He must now accept his full BOP to prove they don't exist at all, perhaps as a secret government operation (in which I was a part).My opponent fails to objectively prove anything as it is all based on his subjective interpretation of who he fvcked (no necessarily his mother, just a woman who looks identical) and additionally failed to prove the non-existence of the cloaking device and memory replacer.As he has accept full BOP is needn't prove any of my claims whatsoever. Thanks goodbye, I did your mom last night. http://www.youtube.com...
I did your mom last night, To accept this is to accept full BOP.

The point my opponent brings up is, at best, that people who are blind or have some other sort of physical deformity have a subjective sense of knowledge of descriptions. That doesn't prove that humans can never hold objective knowledge. But even if he does, he does nothing to refute my claims about how humans can know objective things, which means you prefer my arguments as mostly unrefuted to his completely refuted.My opponent then argues that he could've fvcked my mom while being unheard, unseen, untouched, untasted, and unsmelt. I will contest the first two.I certainly would've seen you had you been fvcking my mom since I fvcked my mom all night. Since I failed to see you, and no way to cloak yourself exists in the modern world, you can not have gone unseen. You could not have gone unheard since I was with my mom all night and thus would've heard his very quickly reached orgasmic grunts and screams as he came all over my mom. Since I heard none other than my own, he couldn't have been there. His last evidence that I didn't see or hear him was that I passed out and had my memories replaced. But that's false on both levels. I didn't pass out, as that would mean I wasn't fvcking my mom all night and is false, and he couldn't have replaced my memories as no way to do so exists in the modern world. Thus, all of his claims have fallen flat on his face. That means my claim of fvcking my mom all night stands and fulfills my burden of proof to disprove his claim.Thus, you negate the resolution.
Eating Meat is Ethical

Firstly my opponent is of the impression that we would have more cows on the planet if they were not killed for consumption, as if killing them and eating them was reducing the number of cows on the planet instead of increasing the number. .. . In the United States, around nine billion animals are slaughtered every year (this includes about 150.4 million cattle, bison, sheep, hogs, and goats and 8.9 billion chickens, turkeys, and ducks) in 5,700 slaughterhouses and processing plants. 150 million cows are bred and killed purely for consumption, each year, this is what is increasing the amount of methane produced by cows which is what is causing the warmth of the planet to rise. .. .. . http://www.answerbag.com... I see my opponent also never addressed the quote I offered from Einstien who proclaims we stand the best chance of survival by switching to a vegetarian diet. .. . there are more quotes I would like to offer which offer food for thought. Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men. ~Leonardo da Vinci While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth? ~George Bernard Shaw "Thou shalt not kill" does not apply to murder of one's own kind only, but to all living beings; and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast long before it was proclaimed from Sinai. ~Leo Tolstoy Finally, I would like to say that I need not the opinion of others and neither do I need any religious book to tell me that killing a sentient being which has a nervous system and senses to live and enjoy it's life, is wrong, it is wrong.
Eating Meat is Ethical

My adversary earlier stated the fact that cows are bred to eat, and this increases methane. If nobody ate meat, the cow population would soar, therefore contributing to a warmer planet. Also, it was mentioned earlier that these cows are killed solely to provide meat for fast food chains. Metaphor as it may be, I think that factory farming is the sole contributor to cheap restauraunts like McDonalds, and that they are horrific establishments. I live in a rural area where one out of every five people farm. They farm meat. It is local, organic meat. These cows live happily, and are only killed when they begin to stop producing enough milk. Is it worth it to leave the stinking, rotten carcass for flies to play around? Or, is it better to dispose of the body humanely, by consuming it? I've heard people say that "food is food," but it isn't. When you consume a bag of potato chips, you fare far worse than when you eat meat. Red meat can be harmful to your health if you eat too much of it, but if you limit the amount of meat that you eat, you are eating healthily, getting protein, and reducing animal overpopulation. Much of history has been reliant on meat. Could Lewis and Clark have opened up the west of the U.S. without deer, buffalo, etc.? Could the pilgrims have survived without venison? Could Sir Francis Drake have done what he did without salt pork? Even though this is long ago and we have access to more types of food, it is a simple and nutritious food source that provides for a lot of the worlds food.
Eating Meat is Ethical

Thank you Byndam for creating this debate, I will defend the position that eating meat is unethical for human beings who are wish to consider themselves civilised....... Eating meat in ethical in some cases where human beings must survive, but in such cases the human being must consider themselves as uncivilised, because in circumstances where a human being is civilised it is completely unnecessary to eat meat and the myth that humans need meat to obtain certain nutrients or vitality is easily busted by observing how the Shaolin Monks who are vegetarian by requirement can perform super human fetes and display strength and skills which are way above the average person who does eat meat....One monk called Shi Yan Ming even boasts the worlds most deadliest punch by far even breaking the record held by Bruce Lee, http://www.history.com... it is no secret that these monks perform super human fetes. and none of them eat meat to get the strength to perform such amazing skills is easily refuted by observing how strong and healthy the monks are able to live. I would like to offer some quotes by very famous and intelligent people concerning the matter of eating meat....The first quote I will offer comes from a well loved scientist, Albert Einstein. "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet". ~Albert Einstein This quote is not said whimsically or off the cuff, I believe Albert knew very well what he meant when he stated this and that is that the greatest chance of survival we have is to become a vegetarian race....My opponent states above in his first round how methane from cows is damaging the ozone, well that could be reduced significantly if we humans never bred the poor animals simply to kill them for their flesh to satisfy our taste buds and to supply fast food chains all across the planet. No more characters allowed. Thanks.
Eating Meat is Ethical

I think that eating meat is perfectly ethical. It is something that humans have done for years and years, and other animals have done it as well for a very long time. Life has always been survival of the fittest, and even with easier ways to obtain a wide variety of food, where only meat may have been available in years past. We should be thankful for any meat! I am completely against factory farming, but I believe that humane treatment of animals is key to many things in life. If animals don't graze enough, they don't trample the ground, contributing to climate change. I respect religious reasons for not eating meat, but cows release incredible amounts of methane into the air every day, which is wrecking the environment as we know it. To quote Ben Franklin:"...in my first voyage from Boston...our people set about catching cod, and hauled up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food... But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and, when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanc'd some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs; then thought I, 'If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you.' So I din'd upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do."
Biology should be a class required in every year of school

I've taken three years of biology, too, as you well know. I am very dissatisfied with the choices that have been made at our school recently. But my system would be different. Biology would be like Math. It would contain several sub-classes, like molecular, cellular, and human, just like math has algebra, geometry, and calculus. We'd focus on more specific things, and actually teach them. This article uses a very accurate metaphor. www.tbp.org/pubs/Features/W07Brown.pdf It says that the USA's public education is 'mile wide, inch deep.' We cover a vast amount of topics, but never go in depth enough for the students to understand or retain the knowledge. If we were to spend more time and effort on fewer topics, improvement would be practically inevitable.
Biology should be a class required in every year of school

The problem with your system is that there are only so many areas of biology able to be studied. Eventually you would just be repeating yourself. Due to changes in what my school system thinks is best, I have taken 3 consecutive years of biology. I can't tell you how many times I have gone through the same discussions about cells and their organelles or how cellular respiration and photosynthesis work. I can promise you that it gets very boring after a while. The same thing would happen to students in your system.
Biology should be a class required in every year of school

You're right, Anon, a lot of fluff is taught in school. With that in mind, maybe they should change the whole system. I think that by 5th grade, you know who the good students are and who the bad students are. The two groups will be sorted, and good students will be allowed to move on to higher education. Bad students will have some choices: they can go to a remedial school and attempt to redeem themselves; they can go to a trade school and learn how to do a specialized job; or they can go straight into working at entry level jobs. This makes sure that these bad students are wasting their time and the time of others in school. Everyone's problems are fixed.
Biology should be a class required in every year of school

Honestly, what subjects would you use on a daily basis? When's the last time knowing that George Washington was born on February 22, 1732 was useful? How about SohCahToa? Students are taught lots of nearly useless material (From here on to be referred to as 'fluff') in every class. However, I believe that biology contains less 'fluff' than most courses. You see, in biology, almost everything you learn is building up towards how organisms function, what keeps them alive. Imagine what the country would be like if every person had a working knowledge of the human body. There would be hundreds of doctors constantly patrolling the streets of every city. Of course, it wouldn't be the same course year after year. That would be a waste of time. You'd start off with molecular biology, then move to cellular, and continue progressing to bigger concepts as the years pass. Also, other science courses would be provided for students who want to go the extra mile. They could be taken online or after school.
Biology should be a class required in every year of school

We can all agree that biology is beneficial class. I can't imagine not knowing how a plant survives without eating food. I can't imagine not understanding how my body is split into millions of tiny cells, which work together to do amazing things. The thing is: besides sating my want for knowledge, what do I really use biology for in my daily life? The answer is nothing really.Try to name off all of the jobs that use biology on a regular basis. Of course many people use small parts of biology everyday, but the only jobs that use the in-depth knowledge taught in schools are research scientists. When I cut my knee, it's nice to know why and how it will heal itself over time, but is this a necessity? I want to save my main arguments for later rounds, so with that in mind, I conclude my thoughts for Round 1.
According to the Old Testament, Jesus is the Messiah.

Thank you for accepting.I think the word that is up for debate here is "Messiah". Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives three definitions[1]:1: Judaism: the expected king and deliverer of the Jews.2: Christianity: Jesus.3: a person who is expected to save people from a very bad situation. Now, the third definition is unimportant to this debate, because we are seeing if Jesus is THE Messiah according to the old testament, not a Messiah. The second one is also unimportant, because it presumes Jesus to already be the Messiah, which is what we are debating. So, we are left with the first definition. Is Jesus the Messiah the Old Testament talks about?The Messianic Prophecies: The concept of the Messiah comes from the Old Testament, so it is here we must look for the sign of his/her arrival. 1. Must be a member of the tribe Judah [2] and a descendant of King David and Solomon [3] [4]. 2. Ingathering of the Jews. [5] [6]3. Rebuilding of the Jewish Temple. [7] The temple was destroyed 38 years after Jesus' death and has not yet been rebuilt.[8]4. World wide peace. [9]. I don't think this one needs commenting on. 5. Observance of the Torah embraced by all Jews. [10].6. Everyone will worship the true God. [11]. Now I will show that Jesus does not fulfill these prophecies. 1A. If Jesus was the result of a virgin birth, how can he be a descendant of David and Solomon? [12]2A. I have a cousin who is a Jew and she lives in the US. 3A. Jesus didn't rebuild the temple as it wasn't demolished yet. 4A. [13] 5A. Messianic "Jews" are "Jews" that do not follow the Torah, just for example.6A. There are around 19 major religions. [14].Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://biblehub.com... [3] https://www.biblegateway.com... [4] https://www.biblegateway.com... [5] http://biblehub.com... [6] https://www.biblegateway.com... [7] https://www.biblegateway.com... [8] http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com... [9] https://www.biblegateway.com... [10] http://biblehub.com... [11] http://biblehub.com... [12] http://www.totheends.com... [13] http://www.warsintheworld.com... [14] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [15] http://www.jewsforjudaism.ca...;
3 divided by 0 is 3

Oh no I'm sorry yesterday my grandmother passed away so I was busy with that more than this debate so I'm sorry for my forfit. But continuing with this debate your second round is illogical and has no point for this debate as we are debating that 3*0=3 not zero we are not debating division and thus I do not have a rebuttle as your last argument does not pertain to this debate and hope nest rould you well bring an argument that pertains to this debate.
3 divided by 0 is 3

I have 3 real sodas, I divide them between no one, so no times, shared by none, so I have not done anything, so its true to say 0 division happened but I have 3 sodas 3/1=3 3/0=3 why is 3 divided with 1, 3 when there is no division going on? the outcome of dividing with 0 is the same as dividing with 1 everything is 1, everything is something, and nothing is 0, matter and information, physical and mental