BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

The resolution states that cause+effect=logicI am arguing that identifying a cause and linking it to an effect requires logic to do but that the cause and the effect are not collectively one unit of logic whatsoever.Let's say:Cause = xEffect = yLogic = zYou are arguing that an indeterminate splitting of 1 between (y and x) will invariably total up to the result of 1 unit of logic. whether it's a 50/50 split or not is irrelevant as the resolution does not specify it.Logic, as an item by itself, is the science by which we investigate the principles that govern what is correct or reliable.[http://dictionary.reference.com...] It is not cause an effect at all but rather the process by which we firstly identify the cause and effect independent of one another and then the process (and main component) used to determine if they are linked at all.The cause and effect together do not constitute logic because if this were the case, me pushing you off the cliff and you dying is just as logical as me arguing that you pushing me away from you made you die, due to Newton's this law [http://www.physicsclassroom.com...] that every action has to have an equal and opposite reaction for it to qualify physical action in the first place. Thus, you technically pushed me away from you and committed suicide, this is all logic according to you as I am randomly stating causes and effects.This is blatantly not logic, however, as only one of them can be true (if everything could be true, nothing would be the opposite of false in the first place as false concepts would not exist). Since you are proposing a paradoxical model of logic you must explain how you suppose to run this as a viable model of what logic really is since it contradicts itself.Your round 3 argument is a tangent about morality and logic... Firstly, you are arguing that morality is not objectively verifiable (since you distinguish it from logic) and have to prove this to be the case or you must concede that point and you have furthermore added onto your Burden of Proof (BoP). Second of all, your equations do not explain anything at all,You spontaneously bring in new variables such as reason and experience and somehow use the term 'reason' in two separate equations, the first one having zero of the original variables from the resolution's equation. This is all a little confusing for even the most intellectual members of the audience as you have failed to explain how any of the equations link to each other by either mathematical, linguistic, philosophical or scientific means.What does morality even have to do with the resolution? Your last paragraph is very vague and assumes that we are giving it to the children without already having given them the antidote. You are being rather odd with your extremist analogies and not truly explaining anything regarding the resolution whatsoever.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

we can reason, use the concept of logic(cause and effect as is applies in reality), so we can determine if this is reasonable based on our perception of logic like memory, I have lots of memory of how logic applies in the real world, push some one off a cliff and the might die, so that is not reasonable, but if the human body was as strong as superman and one could easily survive and its couid only be fun in reality to push some one off a cliff, then it would be reasonable, because of that logic, and we can reason about this because I just created a world of logic in your mind, because you already have a good concept of logic it is not reasonable to give a child battery acid because its bad for the child, so its unreasonable based on the logic that is the cause and effect relation between the poisonous effect of the battery acid on the childs body, so its unreasonable to do that if I want the child to be healthy reason+intent=morality logic+experience=reason cause+effect=logic (let me build on it, you don't have to argue with this, morality is on the side line)if all apples became poisonous today and we were all aware of it, would it be right to give kids apples if we wanted them to be healthy(logic)? and even if we didn't want children to be healthy, would it be right to give them apples(morality)?
Does religion provide a better understanding of morality.

The king James bible is a translation of a translation etc... you can hardly call it the original. However you are correct that it sets out a pretty clearly defined set of rules. Among them injunctions to stone to death many people such as homosexual, divorced women, non virgins, and unruly children. It also includes clearly defined rules for owning a person as property, passing them on to your children and beating them as long as they don't die in "a day or two". I know I know it says some very nice things about love too, but it only takes an observation of one immoral thing in your book and it is no longer "inerrantly moral". It in fact fails to be so by definition. By the by the fact that there are 43000 denominations hardly lends credence that any of them are inerrantly correct (there are only 31102 words in the bible, surely it doesn't need more interpretations than it has words).
Videos For people is a comedic genius.

I'm just going to make general attacks. Overall, the humor presented is flat and dull. Generic. This really isn't a topic that can be debated as comedy is subjective but in my opinion, it's just not funny. I don't really care for absurdist humor. I prefer humor that's more grounded in realism rather than putting bacteria on trial and while not all of the videos are absurdist in nature they all share similar traits that make it fall short for me. The amateurish artwork is also a big turn off. It looks like a two year old scribbling with a Crayon.
Videos For people is a comedic genius.

Hmm. I was expecting a bit more from you. I wanted you to rebut all five videos I've given above, not just E. Coli. I'm sure the fellow who runs the channel can spell comedy. I'm sure the word "comedy" is mentioned in there somewhere. I'm not sure how many times I've restated that I don't run this channel. Probably somewhere around ten. He sure relies on dark humor- but is anything wrong with dark humor? He executes it pretty well. He doesn't make light of E. Coli. He just makes it into a mock courtroom drama, like A Few Good Men or Perry Mason. And it's pulled off pretty well, really. The Bacteria is arrested. Isn't that a bizarre concept? He says he's not sorry because he's a killer. It's a good sketch. It hasn't been done before, I can tell you that. Everything on this channel is funny. Look, rebut the five videos I've listed above, check 'em out, then tell me why you hate each of them. This'll get real interesting.
Videos For people is a comedic genius.

What did I just watch? It became apparent after several excruciatingly dull videos that the proprietor of this channel cannot even SPELL comedy. The creator (frankfurter.) relies on dark humor and making light of disease in the people Vs. E.Coli which is about bacteria being arrested, put on trial, and saying he's not sorry. That's it. that's the whole thing. To summarize my argument, it is entirely obvious that this channel contains not even a clandestine vestige of humor in its entirety. I implore the voters to view this rudimentary "humor" for yourselves. GOOD DAY!
THW construct additional abortion clinics in populated areas where there are few

Quick and short response since it"s getting late. 1. Competition My opponent has claimed that allowing some governmental control into abortions would somehow mean crushing the private abortion clinics"which would somehow create horrifying abortions done using rusty saws. We tell you that this simply cannot happen under our model, because it would only lead to the construction of abortion clinics in places where there are few; in places already with abortion clinics, no new government clinics would actually be built. In addition, in states with private abortion clinics only in big cities, having more government clinics would siphon customers from the private clinics, forcing them to expand and offer better services to make themselves stand out from the cookie-cutter government solutions. It actually creates more competition, not less. 2. Burden on the poor My opponent has claimed that despite our progressive tax, the abortion clinics would burden the poor. In the real world, our progressive tax would simply prevent that from happening. Plus, the more affordable abortions from an increase in supply would allow poor families to choose not to raise unwanted children, which would actually reduce the burden on some poor families, as I have clearly explained in the first round. 3. Morality of taxation Con claims that I am supporting governmental aggression. In reality, if an action would benefit society from a utilitarian perspective"as I have proven above, my proposal will"then stopping it simply because it"s being done through taxation on people who can"t see its benefits would actively harm society. Thus, it is immoral to stop such an action. Con ridicules the idea of using taxes to serve a utilitarian goal, but does nothing to demonstrate that the logic behind it is in any way flawed.
America Is Better Than Every Other Country

Okay I admit every country has issues. America just simply better in most of them. Every country has poverty, and crimes. America isn't even the poorest country. Not even close. The one thing that makes America better than all other countries is freedom. No other country has a first amendment aka. guarantee you the right to say WHATEVER you want. Also no other countries have a second amendment. Our constitution and bill of rights is literally perfect, I couldn't think of any ways to make it better. You actually haven't done anything as the rules specifically stated to give me a country that you believe is better than America. This is the best way for you to prove that America isn't the best country.
America Is Better Than Every Other Country

Okay fine our poverty. But that's not really a problem as the poverty rate is going down each year. https://www.npr.org... Yeah, inflation rose higher than the real wage. So... Honestly, I believe in no minimum wage. How did we create ISIS? It was stupid Obama who created ISIS by REMOVING the troops from the Middle East. Free/government healthcare sucks. As for poor people, what about Medicaid, Medicare, and VA? Why are police officers shooting there gun a problem? If people are committing crimes that bad, they can be shot. Honestly, our guns aren't being spread enough. Everyone should have a gun, so a good guy with a gun can stop the bad guy with a gun. Children being shot from their parents gun is not a national issue. It is a home and at most local issue. We have about 375 million people. Of course, our murder rate is higher than every other developed country. The obesity rate isn't an issue again, it's more of a personal issue.
America Is Better Than Every Other Country

Well, how about 50 million people living in poverty? Or the fact that real wages didn't increase for almost 40 years. (Wages did increase, but so did the prices, and therefore, increase of wages was negated by increase in prices). How about the U.S.A. being the indirect cause of ISIS. If U.S. didn't invade Iraq and Lybia, ISIS would never spread in the way it did. How about the fact that you have niggers that just do crime and smoke pot. ( I am not saying all black people do this, but black people do constitute almost majority of crime rates). What about your healthcare? I mean, so many countries have free or cheap healthcare. Getting sick in U.S.A. can cost you a fortune. Sure, it's quality service, but not affordable to a majority. What about police officers shooting about 1000 people a year. Other countries barely have 10 police killings per year. What about your guns being spread everywhere, and children being shot accidentally because politicians are afraid to regulate guns to make them stored somewhere outside the reach of children? What about your murder and killing rate being higher than any of the other developed countries. What about the obesity rate? I mean, sure, certain parts of U.S.A. are literally heaven on Earth. But U.S.A. as a whole scores pretty bad. Maybe if you got rid of black people, it would improve dramatically.
America Is Better Than Every Other Country

>The older the better as the person is more informed and the chance of an unplanned pregnancy goes way down. The chance of unplanned pregnancy is irrelevant to the greatness that is sex with children. Also, not a valid reason to make sexual activities with children wrong. Sexual activities with children are the greatest thing there is, and any country denying 4 year-olds to have sex is bad. But what is also bad is denying 17 year-olds to have sex. Denying 14 year-olds to have sex is also bad. Also, U.S.A. has some of the strictest punishments for people who have sex with girls under 18. That is truly bad and U.S.A. is probably the worst country on Earth. >Please put forth a real argument. I did. You disagreed with it. Not my problem.
Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm

Okay; I would first like to respond to your challenge. "Why isn't a fetus a human life?" Here is my response: A fetus isn't a human life. Several scientific studies have proven that fetuses don't feel pain, they lack some senses etc. Those are defining characteristics of a human. I will respond with a challenge of my own: "why aren't all sperms human life?" I'm going to use your own logic against you. You say that a fetus is a human life, however, I would love to hear your definition of a human life. Because I think that if you give me your own definition, you will find it hard to encompass fetuses within that definition. Thanks
Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm

I will first present my case. Framing: Katha Pollit, "Abortion is part of being a mother and of caring for children, because part of caring for children is knowing when it's not a good idea to bring them into the world." I think that both my opponent and I can agree that doing what is best for the child is the most important thing, and sometimes abortion is the most important way to provide this type of care, because some people don't have the ability to take care of a child. Now I will move on to my own points: 1. Child's Quality of Life & Well Being: The most important thing in this debate is the well being of the child. Both sides can agree on this. However, the proposition side fulfills this ideal more than opposition. If a woman doesn't have the ability to take care of a child, then that child will be sent to child welfare programs, or the will be given to adoption centers, which have resulted in low education, absenteeism, trauma, mental disorders, etc. The opposition may say, "well at least you are giving them a chance to live," however, this is a rare occurrence. Most of the time, the quality of life for babies born into families who didn't have access to abortions have a very sad quality of life, and may end up ending their own life. Instead of forcing these fetuses to be born, it may actually increase quality of life if they are aborted. 2. Choice of the Mother: The mother should have the absolute power in the relationship of the fetus and the mother. According to LifeNews.com: "No, babies don't feel pain in dismemberment abortions." This means that the abortion DOES NOT come at the babies expense or pain. It only helps the mother, and doesn't hurt the fetus.In the end, abortion is an issue of fundamental human rights. To force women to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will is to deprive them of the right to make basic decisions about their lives and well-being, and to give that power to the state. The US vice president tweeted a picture of "a meeting about women's rights." The picture is of a bunch of white men sitting around a table. That's right: a meeting about women's rights is directed by only men. This gives men the power to decide what women have the right to do with their bodies. If you can't see the harm in this, then there must be something wrong with you. 3. Rape and Forced Pregnancy: A lot of pregnancies that end in an abortion are from rape or forced pregnancy. It is an illogical fallacy to say that women who have been raped have the absolute ability to provide for the child and give it a good quality of life. People that are raped should have the ability to undo the stress that has been put onto them, if it is the best thing to do. I will continue on this point after the opposition responds. Thanks
Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm

Thank you too. I meant I am NOT a vegetarian. I eat VEGETABLES/FRUITS AND MEATS. Humans are above all other animals making killing any animal besides humans okay. No actually can't feel the pain of being shot through the brain as you instantly die. As I have mentioned before; when boiling lobsters alive in restaurants they feel no pain. This does not deny them of their life. They are still living things whether they feel pain or not. If you switch the lobster with a fetus and boiling with aborting it is now immoral and murder. And it is proven a fetus's brain is fully active inside the stomach, so they do probably have conscious thoughts. And thank you for being such a tolerant debater, and not an idiot far-leftist who just says it's okay with no proof, evidence, or actual argument. You can eeeeemail me at aden.m.kamath at geeeeemail dot com if you'd like to debate this topic further with me. Thanks.
Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm

Okay, what I don't understand is your definition of vegetarian vs omnivore. Also, you said, "Anything with a HUMAN brain and HUMAN heart is a human being." I don't know how this is relevant in any way. You are killing an animal with consciousness, which is something that you have said is okay, but then when it comes to a fetus, you say, "thats over the line." It makes very little sense to me. Also, I am not justifying shooting someone in the head. And I think you know that, but here is what I am actually trying to say: Fetuses can't feel the pain, they aren't consciousness, etc. If you get shot in the head, you are still conscious and can feel the pain, while you can't do either of those as a fetus. Now, finally, I am going to address what you said about, "killing homeless people," and people with bad quality of life. No, you shouldn't kill homeless people because they have already created a foundation for their lives. Fetuses just live in a mother's uterus, and not have created any conscious thoughts, while other people do. Its just logic. Recap: It should be the choice of the mother, it is best for the child, and rape and sexual assault can be helped by an abortion,(which you haven't refuted). Thank you for a great debate! Sorry I won't be able to respond to your next response, but thanks. You were super thoughtful and logical! Bye
Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm

No I'm not a vegetarian (or vegan). I'm an omnivore. You know what I meant. I'll clarify. Anything with a HUMAN brain and HUMAN heart is a human being. As I have stated before, and I assume you believe a fetus has (human) life. A killing of human life is MURDER. I hope you understand this. So what you're saying is that if I shot a person in the head it is justified. According to you shooting someone in the head gives them no time to know they have been murdered, or enough time to feel sad they have been murdered. And according to you I can go and kill a broke, addicted, homeless, etc. person because their quality of life is bad.
Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm

I don't understand what you mean, because I think that there must be some flaws in your case. Answer this honestly: Are you a vegetarian? If not, then you are killing something that has a heart and a brain, which was your criteria for being a human. Are you saying that all animals that have a brain and a heart are human? Also, I would like to clarify, that fetuses again, DO NOT FEEL PAIN, DO NOT KNOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ABORTED, ARE NOT SAD TO BE ABORTED. So just saying, "they are alive," has not place or impact in this debate. I'm gonna go back to my sperm thing. Sperms could obviously turn into fetuses if they fertilize an egg, so is it that murder of a child if every sperm that you have isn't fertilizing an egg? I'm very confused by this. Pregnant women do have the right to have an abortion because if the baby doesn't have a good quality of life, then there would be no reason to live. Depression, suicide, cutting, and more self harm tactics are results of being put in adoption centers. So these people are often taking their own lives, and murdering themselves anyway. So abortion can actually raise the quality of life for the pregnant woman, and even the fetus being aborted.
Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm

First of all not having pain doesn"t determine if your a life or not. When lobsters are boiled alive they feel no pain, but they still have a life. Please specify the other things. Something with a heart and brain can think and live by itself. Every living thing has a heart and brain so I"d say those are the only things you need to be living. This means the fetuses are in fact living human beings. What gives you the right to murder them.
Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm

Oh I forgot to respond to what you said about the three options. "I support three options; motherhood, abstinence, adoption." Unfortunately, that doesn't happen. Yes, I support that too. BUT, it doesn't happen, and really, it is an illogical fallacy. Abortion solves problems, and it is a proven solution. But your ideals don't exist. Then I'm going to refute your definition. "Life begins at fertilization. They have a heart and a brain which for me is all a human needs to have." Okay but why does it matter if it happens after conception. You aren't killing someone who has had any experiences, pain, and other things. While yes, they do have a heart and brain, I don't see how that makes a difference.
All US Foreign Policy Initiative Should Focus on the Sanctity of Life and the Sanctity of Life only.

Resolved: All US Foreign Policy Initiative Should Focus on the Sanctity of Life and the Sanctity of Life only. I herby affirm the resolution wholeheartedly. ROUND RULES Round 1- Confirmation/Agreement to Debate Round 2- Argumentative Case and Frameworks Round 3- Rebuttal Period Round 4- Final Focus