BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pro Jews or Con Muslims

I hate Muslims because of wrathful jealousy over Islamic literature, philosophy, architecture, and the diversity of Muslim culture; also over the beauty and intriguing grammar of Arabic; the continuity and depth of Islamic legal thought; also over the fascinating interdiscursivity between Muslim cultures and our own; and besides, what is it like to experience Ramadan and Hajj (?), and over their cuisine and (easier) dietary rules; and over those cute prayer rugs; about their delight in learning so much more geography for Islamic lands, not to mention the historical complexity; and never having to be a minority anywhere (lol); over the chanting of the Quran and those eerie Persian melodies; and the abhorrent calligraphy and traditional textiles; the gentle harmony among sects; Sufi dancing and insights; the difference between sharia and fiqh; to be cont.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should ban the Confederate Flag in all 50 states.

This debate is about the USFG and the total banning of the Confederate Flag. RulesFirst round rules and definitions by Con, Opening arguments by Pro. Second Round Opening arguments by Con, no rebuttals. Pro refutes Con's arguments. Third Round Con's rebuttals, Pro's rebuttals and Conclusion. Forth Round Con's rebuttals and conclusion. Pro waives the round. In the Forth Round Pro shall only type, "No round as agree upon. "If anything but the above is written in Round 4 then Pro forfeits the entire debate. No profanity. No trolling. Sources may be placed in the comments section if need-be. No Kritiks. No semantics, the definitions provided are the ones to be used throughout the debate. The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (. http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must;ought(usedtoindicateduty,propriety,orexpediency): (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)bar- toprohibit,forbid,orbar;interdict: (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)
eminem is the best rapper

Tupac talked a lot about his life and how unfair things can be. He also reminded us how we should look forward to good things in life instead of weeping about the bad things. He criticises society and the law and doing so fanatically it caused him his life.Nas is great lyricist as well. One of the best and can definately outrhyme Eminem. He has a natural flow to his raps making it seem like he's telling stories instead of rapping. His flow is so natural he doesn't have to endeavor himself, he can just talk about things and it all seems to rhyme. That's skill that could top Eminem.Christopher Wallace, better known as Biggie Smalls was a great rapper and the biggest rival of Tupac. They used to be friends but got caught up in the turf wars with the east and westcoast. Biggie Smalls came the closest to Tupac's succes and in my opinion Tupac is better but they're both extremely good. So good that they both shared the same fate.I'm not saying Eminem is a bad rapper. He's in my top 5 and can top most rappers from today. But he's not the best. He's close though. But my top 3 would be Tupac, Biggie and Nas. I've showed you some examples of superior rappers to Eminem.Also note that Eminem has stated Tupac is better than him.Thanks for the debate.
eminem is the best rapper

First off most people don't know what good music or poetry is, and that blinds them to what is and is not decent. his songs may be a little out of hand sometimes but he is still getting his point across, wether he is talking about an ex or a life experience. New mainstream rappers are either talking about weed or other profound things all the time. but eminem is all round. Im new at this debate thing but please don't let that hold you back. This is my first one.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

"The only thing you asked me was why should the AK-47 be banned. " . . . Because that's the only thing i disagreed with Do you have statistics on how many murders are done with ak-47's? Because according to my source, Less than 300 gun murders per year are done with ANY type of rifle. Why would we bn them when they don't do harm? People can choose to hunt with them, Home-defense, And most importantly to protect against a tyrannical government. I don't know about you, But I would we toast trying to shoot authorities with a gosh darn pistol.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

"Automatic rifles, SMGs, Those sort of things, Just shouldn't even exist. They don't serve any purpose. You don't need an AK-47 to defend yourself from a home invader. " Automatic rifles have been banned since 1930. No questions asked here, Except an AK-47 is not an automatic, But semi-automatic, Like any other gun. Why shouldn't an AK be legal? UPDATE: Although I can't verify my email-address, I now can post arguments, But can not comment on anything. ASTA IS IN TROUBLE AS WELL. HE CAN'T LOG INTO HIS ACCOUNT BECAUSE DDO WON'T LET HIM. LOOK AT MY PROFILE INFO, AND CONTACT ME VIA PHONE OR EMAIL, SO WE CAN GET ASTA BACK IN HERE.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

It's good to be pro-gun. I feel like some weapons, Every citizen should have. But, That's too an extent. I feel like handguns and some shotguns should only be legal for normal citizens to carry/own. This doesn't include hunting rifles, Which should only be attained after attending many classes on guns and gun safety. Automatic rifles, SMGs, Those sort of things, Just shouldn't even exist. They don't serve any purpose. You don't need an AK-47 to defend yourself from a home invader. Although, If someone owns a legally shooting range, I feel like it'd be O. K for those really lethal guns to be used. Because in all honesty, They're fun to shoot. So I get you get what I'm saying. I think the majority of weapons should be banned, While the other half remains legal.
There is no rational reason for which an American civilian should want to own an assault weapon.

We're not debating whether society should ban guns beyond six-shooters. That, one can reasonably argue about. No! My opponent takes his resolution a step and a leap too far, when he claims it is irrational for any civilian to even want to own one. I object! I. What does Rational mean? A rational action? An action is rational if and only if we choose that action because we soundly believe it is the best way to achieve our goals, desires, tastes, etc. [1] A rational belief? - It obeys the law of probability, based on an agent's knowledge. [2] A rational goal? - "Our reason cannot tell us what to desire", although there are some reasonable limitations on our desires, such as consistency. [1] II. Basis of My Argument Since Pro resolves "There is no rational reason for which an American civilian should want to own an assault weapon [6+ round of ammo].", I need only present a single counter-example to win. My opponent says as much in round one, and even allows contrived scenarios-- "It is my opponent's burden in the initial argument to contrive a situation..." I will now proceed to offer a counter-example. III. The Counter-Example Simon wants to collect all the guns used by cyborg "Terminators" in the movie series of the same name. He sets a goal of buying real ones as he prefers when it's legal and possible, replicas otherwise. Ever since his early retirement, he's enjoyed inviting friends over to show them his collection. The T-1000 wielded a Beretta 92FS with a 15-round magazine and a left-handed magazine release. [3] The gun's legal in his state, so when he spotted one on a good sale, he bought it. Is his goal rational? Yes. There's nothing inconsistent with respect to his desires, either stated or implied, about buying one of each kind of the legal/available guns used by cyborg "Terminators". Is his belief rational? Yes. His belief that he will enjoy owning and displaying this gun is based on experience and the laws of probability. Additionally, today it is on sale, so today is a good day to buy! Is his action rational? Yes. He soundly believes buying this gun today is the best way to achieve his goals. IV. Conclusion Rationality now allows, even compels, Simon to buy that gun under favorable conditions. While it is not essential to win the debate, I would point out this counter-example isn't even so contrived, as there are many gun collectors in America, and even websites to help them identify movie guns[3]. V. Sources 1. "On Philosophy, Politics, and Economics" by Gaus, pgs 11-12 http://www.amazon.com... 2. "Truth and Probability", by Ramsey, 1931 http://fitelson.org... 3. Internet Movie Firearms Database http://www.imfdb.org...
There is no rational reason for which an American civilian should want to own an assault weapon.

:)I choose the first definition: Assault Weapon: any firearm which is capable of the semi-automatic discharge of 7 or more continuous rounds. Pro, I believe you made a mistake in defining the rules-- > "*CON may go first; if CON uses his first round for argument, PRO agrees his last round shall be a blank post. For the purposes of voting and posting "rounds" shall be offset by this one post. " While this would allow me to speak first and last, I will not take advantage, but rather allow you to open.
Being an arrogant elitist is the worst personality

Arrogance is not necessarily bad, but being an elitist is badI agree, there was a lot of sarcasm in my opening statement. Arrogance is generally a bad personality trait. My point was that they may well be good people if you look a little closer.Elitism Yes, I have conceded that elitism is bad but this does not support your argument. That Elitsm is bad does nothing to refute my arguments. Your argument is not, "elitism is the worst personality trait," Which is a stronger postion but still difficult. My arguments still apply. A lazy tempermental elitist is a worse personality.-You have dropped the majority of my arguments (you have not refuted them) and haven't made any of your own. Remember you have the burden of proof meaning you have to prove your position. Without proof your debate simply fails. All I need to do is refute it and I have already brought up several strong objections.
Bombing Japan was the best way to end WWII

Dropping the nukes was overkill. Most of the deaths were civilians. One bomb would have been enough, It can't be the best way if they dropped an extra bomb for no reason. Targeting areas with dense populations of civilians is a war crime. The best way cannot be one that commits war crimes if there are other reasonable alternatives that weren't war crimes. Retaliating for Pearl Harbor was also a war crime. In both of the aforementioned cases, I'm defining war crimes by the global standard. This standard applied at the time and now, So it's a reasonable standard to use. Non nuclear bombs could have prevented just as many losses as a nuke. These types of bombs would have been easier to drop with accuracy and could have saved innumerable Japanese citizens. I claim that you have not met the burden of proof due to the counterpoints that I mentioned. It's not just good enough to prove that it was a sufficient choice. You have to show it's the best choice out of all possible choices, Including choosing better places to drop the nukes. Your Floor
Abortion should be made illegal

Thanks to my opponent for the debate. Re: "the brain and heart rely on each other. " Yes, but as I explained last round, the heart is far more dependent on the brain than the brain is on the heart. The fact is, that thousands of people survive cardiac arrest every year, while not a single person has ever come back from neurological death. Thus, the cessation of brain activity is the proper criterion for determining when a human dies, and the presence of brain activity is the proper criterion for human life. Since a fetus lacks this brain activity before the first trimester, it is not a living human being, and so abortions in the first trimester are morally permissible. It is really very simple. Re: "[the fetus] will be a fully grown person. " That does not matter. In the same way that a bowl of batter is not a cake until it has been baked, a fetus is not a human until it has developed the brain activity which is necessary for it to be considered one. Simply having the *potential* to turn into a morally significant agent does not automatically mean *being* a morally significant agent. A fetus may be biologically alive, and it may be genetically human, but as I've repeatedly explained, that is not enough to be considered a living human being; only once it has developed brain activity can it be considered such. Re: "the brain does start developing during the first trimester. " Pro cites a source showing that the fetus begins developing brain cells around week 5, but simply having brain cells is very different from having true brain activity. My source shows that the fetus does not feel pain until the 24th week of its development, which implies that until then it does not have even basic brain function. Thus, Con's claim is blatantly false; a fetus does *not* really have brain activity until quite a while into the second trimester, and cannot be considered a living human being until then. Re: "knowledge makes us valuable. " With this, Con has conceded the debate. No fetus has any knowledge whatsoever, so by Con's reasoning, they are not valuable. A fetus in the first trimester is actually even less intelligent than the average bacterium, so Con's own claim completely negates the resolution. == CONCLUSION == Firstly, even if you do not buy my corollary-to-death argument, Con has completely neglected to uphold his own burden of proof; he has not given any compelling criterion for personhood with which we can reasonably call a fetus a person and make abortion illegal. Secondly, Con inadvertently concedes the debate by saying that the possession knowledge is what defines moral value, as that leads us to the conclusion that a fetus is *not* morally valuable, which fully undermines his entire case. Thirdly, my corollary-to-death argument does remain standing, as explained in the first reply of this round. The resolution is resoundingly negated.
Abortion should be made illegal

Are you serious? If you want to claim victory for yourself after not proving anything go for it. Also follow the rules. We're not 4 years old. Try to keep it a little more formal. Anyway, As someone in the comments section pointed out, the brain and heart rely on each other. The heart pumps blood to keep the brain going, and the brain tells the heart to pump blood. So you could say we're both half right. PLUS, cons logic is irrelevant. Your brain begins developing early first trimester, and continues developing until you reach full adulthood. So what con is doing is placing a marker on a certain point of human development, marking it the "human level". What constitutes significant brain activity? Also, because something is constantly developing from the point of conception, I would call it wrong to say a certain level of development is not good enough. The child to teenager argument is very applicable here. That a toddler is not less valuable than a teenager due to its lack of development. Again here con doesn't seem to understand how human life is more valuable that bacteria or grass. The only point I'm proving with the alive statement is that the person is alive, just not conscience or fully developed. So, we are killing something. And it's not just any thing. It is something that will be a fully grown person. Just on a side note also, we do know that second trimester abortions do cause the fetus to feel pain. So if you want to discuss moral significance that should be a talking point. Here con displays a lack of knowledge on the subject. He has probably heard somewhere that a fetus has fully functioning brain activity around and after 20 weeks. Which is the case. But, the brain does start developing during the first trimester. That's not debatable. http://www.nlm.nih.gov... . Gov website, week 5 the brains begin to develop. At this point the fetus begins to develop a brain that is continuous until adulthood. Con again doesn't understand that humans are more valuable that your average bacteria or flower. Very baseless? Take the least educated 10 year old in the us, and he'll be smarter than any other mammal you can pit him against. And yes, I am saying knowledge makes us valuable. Not that we should kill other animals, but being human does increase value from, say, a squirrel. By saying intelligent life, I hope you aren't comapring any animal to us. Intelligent might be a stretch. Cons arguments have been refuted. Brain activity does start in the first trimester, and it continues to develop. Hearts and brains rely on each other, which we both were technically wrong on, and being human does increase the value of a being. It is better to lose a lion and gain a person than vise versa, and I'm not sure who would disagree with that. Other than a lion of course.
Abortion should be made illegal

Well, this debate is pretty much over, as Pro seems to have given up on rationally refuting my case... Re: "Brain activity is not the source of life." Pro's claim is utterly false. When a person undergoes cardiac arrest, he is not automatically declared dead; doctors wait until brain activity has died out before doing that. The brain can continue functioning for several minutes even after the heart has stopped beating; meanwhile, the heart, as well as the rest of the body, immediately shuts down the moment the brain stops functioning, because it is the governing organ of the body-- it is what grants us life. Thus, that which does not possess brain activity cannot really be considered alive from an ethical standpoint. Re: "Being alive, and being conscience are different things." I'm not saying that *either* of those things are valid criterion for moral significance. I'm arguing that the presence of brain activity is the best criterion for moral significance because the cessation of that activity is what marks the end of a being's moral significance (i.e. death). Pro seems to believe that simply being biologically alive grants ethical relevance, but like I stated last round, that would require us the recognize even bacteria, grass, and insects as being valuable moral agents, which is absurd. Re: "all fetuses brains starts developing early in the first trimester" That is just plain wrong. Scientists have shown that no notable brain activity develops until the 24th week, which is towards the end of the second trimester [1]. Also note that contrary to Pro's claims, I am not equating the level of brain development to the level of moral significance a being has; I am simply saying that the presence of brain activity is necessary for any sort of moral significance to be granted. Other factors come into play for determining the extent of that significance. Pro is straw-manning my argument. Re: "We don't kill our own because we are different." Pro isn't making any sense. Why does being biologically human grant moral significance? That sounds like a very baseless criterion. Furthermore, it excludes all other sentient species from being ethically relevant, including other advanced mammals and intelligent life on other planets. My criterion is clearly preferable because 1) I actually warranted it with the corollary to death, and 2) it encompasses all sentient beings, rather than just humans. . The resolution remains negated. There is no reason to believe that a fetus qualifies as a morally significant being; it does not have any real brain activity until after the first trimester, and I have shown that brain activity is absolutely essential for something to truly be considered ethically relevant. . [1] http://www.newscientist.com...
Abortion should be made illegal

I'm not sure what to say to you. Brain activity is not the source of life. Your heart beating keeps you alive. This isn't a debatable thing, it's the truth. Your brain is directly affected by your heart. While your brain can shut off conscienceness, it is your heart that pumps blood to your brain and your body to keep it functioning. Plus, that doesn't necessarily matter. Con is twisting the situation. Being alive, and being conscience are different things. While a fetus develops a brain, it does not actually become conscience until birth, so your brain activity matters little. Like I said before, if you can kill it, that means it IS alive. The brain activity of a fetus is so little that it makes no sense for you to use that as your reason for determining life. Also, for this lets acknowledge the fact that all fetuses brains starts developing early in the first trimester. Accordingly, a persons brain does not stop growing until well well into life. So your brain, starting there, is constantly growing and changing. There is no point during pregnancy where the fetuses brain is "done" developing. Brain activity increases the entire time. And some people are different. Some barley develop brain activity, and they have mental disorders, but that doesn't make them less of a person. All you're doing is trying to place a point in on brain development, and declaring that that is the point at which brains function, when in reality it doesn't fully function unlil well after birth. Therefore, the entire premise of cons argument is invalid. Con also fails to understand the concept of human value. We have no problem killing bacteria because it is bacteria and has no value to us. We don't kill our own because we are different. We here, using sanity, have concluded that it is wrong to kill other people. Cons referral to bacteria is off topic and totally useless. My argument does not only appeal to emotion, it appeals to the simple idea that it is wrong to place a marker on human development and declare it "the line of full humanity".
Abortion should be made illegal

Pro claims that human death is defined by the cessation of heart activity, but that is patently false; that is what is known as cardiac arrest, and many people have survived that, since it can be reversed via CPR or defibrillation. Pro's definition of death leads us to believe that thousands of people are resurrected from the dead every year, which is absurd. "Brain-dead" people actually *do* have brain activity; it is just so limited that they appear to be in a vegetative state [1]. It is obvious that the cessation of brain activity is the more accurate definition of human death. Pro says that a zygote is biologically alive after conception, but simply being alive does not carry moral significance; bacteria are also biologically alive in that sense, yet we have no moral qualms over killing them en masse. What matters is whether or not the fetus is a living *human* being, and I've shown that they do not meet the criteria to be considered such. Pro's case is nothing but appeals to emotion, referring to the fetus as a "baby" to make abortion seem cruel, yet what he fails to realize is that the fetus is *not* a baby-- it doesn't even qualify as a person until several weeks after the first trimester. The resolution remains negated. Pro has not shown that abortion is equivalent to the murder of a living human being. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...