BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion: A Secular Debate

I. Countering Con's Arguments. 1. Con's Question to Me: A) It is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS that Con would ask this question, "My question to you is why do you think that a newborn baby is obviously a human being, but a fetus is not?"This is equivalent to asking someone what is the difference between a seed and a tree. They are two of the same thing, in a different stage. It is a fetus, not a human being. The con continues... "If your answer is that a fetus is not a human being because it is at an earlier stage in development, is a young child any less of a human being than a grown adult?"This question is identically ridiculous as the first question. When I say "stage", I do not mean a stage of a human life, because a fetus is not a human. So to twist the words is, with all do respect, idiotic and ignorant of the Con to make this assumption.The con continues... "I am arguing that a fetus is a human being, and that its right to life should be protected in equal priority to the mother's." I would like everyone to sit back and read this comment a couple times. The fetus is not of the same level as a mother. A mother is a human being, fetus, is not. I know I keep reiterating this same dogma, but it is true. B) The con says this,"... it is a woman's choice to have an abortion, I absolutely agree that in many cases when a woman chooses to have an abortion, it may very well be in her best interest. Especially in cases of rape or incest. However, my position is that the life of the fetus should not be taken unless the life of the mother is at risk..."The con has just completely obliterated his argument. He is agreeing with me at this point. "It is a woman's choice" he points out, " it may be VERY WELL IN HER BEST INTEREST." Now go down a couple lines later and the con says that a fetus should not be taken unless a mothers life is at risk. The con is saying he would be okay to deliberately take away the GROWN WOMAN's rights as a human. He also is saying he doesn't care if she gets raped, he doesn't care if incest has happened, and he doesn't care if the woman chooses not to have it but, just because he says so.. the woman's rights should be taken away.II. My arguments. I have no arguments. I would just appreciate if the con backs up his radical ideal he has presented the audience and I, because quite frankly, I cannot find any reason, evidence, and morality in the con's arguments. I look forward to the con's responses.
Abortion: A Secular Debate

1. Countering Your Arguments.I am certainly willing to leave law out of the rest of this debate, however "when life begins" and the definition of a live human being is really the point of contention for this debate and cannot just be dismissed.Our difference in opinion really begins and ends with the definition of human life and whether a fetus residing inside its mother's uterus meets the requirements to be considered such, so I feel I must continue to discuss my reasoning for believing that a fetus is alive.You provided the following definition for abortion: "A medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus". I accept this definition and I would like to point out that it states that abortion "causes the death of the fetus". If you accept that the fetus dies when aborted, then you must also accept that it was alive before the abortion.As well, based on your definition of abortion, abortion kills the fetus. I use the following definition for kill: "to cause death or extinction; be fatal." You also define murder as: "The crime of deliberately killing a person". I accept this definition as well, but by using a definition of murder that describes it as a crime we are referencing law, and as this is a debate based solely on the morality of abortion, I would like to offer an alternative definition: "The act of deliberately killing a person".So, now that we have our definitions out of the way, we can agree that abortion is the act of deliberately killing a fetus. Now I am left with the burden of proving that a fetus is in fact a person. If I do so, then we can define abortion as murder.In response to your final argument, that it is a woman's choice to have an abortion, I absolutely agree that in many cases when a woman chooses to have an abortion, it may very well be in her best interest. Especially in cases of rape or incest. However, my position is that the life of the fetus should not be taken unless the life of the mother is at risk.2. My ArgumentsAs I illustrated in my rebuttal to your arguments, this debate is really about the definition of human life, and whether a fetus meets the requirements to be considered a live human.You referenced Mary Ann Warren's definition of a human being, but as you rightly said, we cannot rely on her definition because it doesn't include a newborn human baby.My question to you is why do you think that a newborn baby is obviously a human being, but a fetus is not?If your answer is that it resides inside the mother's uterus and cannot survive outside, then what do you say about newborn babies who are sickly or premature and cannot survive outside of an incubator?If your answer is that a fetus is not a human being because it is at an earlier stage in development, is a young child any less of a human being than a grown adult?I am arguing that a fetus is a human being, and that its right to life should be protected in equal priority to the mother's. Thanks again, and I look forward to reading your next argument!Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Abortion: A Secular Debate

I. Countering Your Arguments. 1. I'd rather you do not argue LAWS on abortion, but rather the morality of abortion. 2. There is no scientific consensus when life begins. So lets stay away from this guessing gameII. My Arguments 1. "Think about all of the advertisement you see advocating “Pro-Life. ” Most all of them show a fetus well into its third trimester or a baby who has already been born. Using this to their advantage, they want to dominate your emotions and persuade you to let those emotions influence your thought. Many Pro-Life advocates use the word “murder” when talking about a fetus/embryo and the term simply does’t illustrate the concept of aborting a fetus. Abortion, keep in mind is “deliberate termination of a human pregnancy,” not “the deliberate termination of a human baby. ” While most Pro-Life advocates will debate that these two are the same, this is proven wrong by the fact that a fetus cannot live outside its mother’s womb prior to 24 weeks after conception. A baby in its first trimester is not yet a child, it is simply a fetus. The comparison is similar to comparing a glass and a mug, and coming to the conclusion that they are the same, simply because they are both containers. While they both are containers, the difference between the two is explicitly obvious. The same can be applied to the comparison of a child to a fetus; they are both human, but are they both the same? Based on pure facts, the only proven similarity is that both are stages in a human’s life. But, there are countless differences in the progression and development of the fetus in these stages; therefore, they cannot be described or perceived to be two of the same thing. " *This quote is what I will base my argument on. I wish I could find the author, but I cannot.2. Now, lets get the definitions for the frame of this debate. Abortion: A medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus [1]Murder: The crime of deliberately killing a person [2]3. Now that we have gotten that out of the way, we should now clarify whether or not a fetus is a human being or not. What makes a human a human? According to philosopher Mary Ann Warren, these are the 5 things that make a human a human [3]: 1. A developed capacity for reasoning.2. Self awareness3. Consciousness and ability to feel pain4. Self motivated activity5. Capacity to communicate messages of an indefinite variety of types. You may argue, "Well then according to you a baby isn't a human". The only problem with that is, a baby is obviously a human. And killing that baby is murder. That's the problem with that argument. So, now I must find another reason to prove my point. I will resort to the "Its a woman's choice" argument. As much as social conservatives like to argue its not a woman's choice, it is. It simply is. When dealing with rape, incest, etc. it is absolutely a woman's choice to abort a baby. In the instance a girl cannot support the baby, she should be allowed to choose whether or not she aborts it. Its her choice as a human being. Sources [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . http://www.ted.com...
Abortion: A Secular Debate

I will be happy to accept the challenge and will be arguing that elective abortion is murder and that abortion should be restricted to when needed for medical/psychiatric reasons on a case-by-case basis. My initial arguments are:1) Elective abortion is legal up to 25 weeks in Canada. A fetus at 25 weeks has a developed brain and responds to light and touch stimuli. It is said that the majority of nerve development happens before 20 weeks gestation. The position that many pro-choice advocates take is that a fetus is not a person until a definitive point in development and until it reaches that point, it should not be afforded equal human rights. I reject this reasoning and assert that a baby developing inside a woman is a live human being who, without intervention or untimely death, will be born. So when a pregnancy is terminated, a human being is being killed. I define this as murder.2) If there is no definitive point at which a fetus becomes a live human being, then we are faced with the dilemma of discerning whether the right of the mother to control her body is equal or lesser to the right of the fetus to live. I say that when the mother's right to control her body infringes on the right of the fetus to live, the right to life takes priority. Thank you again for the opportunity to debate this topic, and I look forward to reading your arguments. Cheers!
Abortion: A Secular Debate

This will be a debate for atheists. I find no true reasons for the denial of a woman to get an abortion. I WILL ARGUE PRO.1st round: Accept and you give your initial arguments.2nd round: My rebuttal and my argument. Your rebuttal and your argument.3rd round: My rebuttal and my argument. Your rebuttal and your argument.4th round: Repeat. 5th round: Repeat and Conclusion.
The minimum wage should be removed

Well, 1. Without a minimum wage, not many people could afford to work. Many minimum wage workers already cannot afford an apartment, car, car insurance, also with the increasing prices of gas. These people survive by roommates or having a spouse with a better job. No minimum wage would put these people at risk, they would need to do something else. For people who live in some suburbs and the rural areas, a car is required. Gas is required with that car. Gas is not being based off the supply and demand. We are not limited on how much gasoline we can put in our cars, so the supply is reaching the demand. The gas companies are just greedy. Lower wages would cause these citizens to become homeless, unless they made living conditions really cramped to help pay for the rent, yet maintain all the vital appliances. 3. Immigrants would work for lower wages. Yes, many do with the current minimum wage, but suppose they came in and applied, and expected a pay a lot lower than yours for the same work. That puts many hard working people at risk. Especially since many are happy with really low wages, depending on where they came from.
The State should not suspend civil liberties in order to preserve security

Rules: 1. First round for acceptance, second round for presenting initial arguments, third round for rebuttals and extensions, fourth round for further rebuttals extensions and voters 2. By accepting the debate the Con agrees to the following definitions State: The ruling body of a nation or territory considered as an organized political community. Civil Liberties: Freedom from arbitrary restriction of rights 3. It is the burden of both parties to prove they have greater impacts in this debate 4. Counter-plans, Critiques, and disadvantages are acceptable 5. No Trolling, personal attacks, etc.
Nationalism is good

Just refer to the 20th century. Nationalism is one of the underlying causes of WW1. It is what fueled everyone to an extent where past that they feeled the urge to hurt others in order to be the best. For example, Germany along many other nations in WW1 felt nationalistic, causing them to overpower others and fight others in order to be the best. This is of the small causes of one of the worlds biggest wars
Nationalism is good

This is my first day on this website. I am proud to oppose today's resolution, in other words nationalism is bad. There are man significants points I would like to discuss. Here are my reasons: 1. Nationalism can be a gateway to worse situations and conflicts 2. Promotes and idea of inequality in some circumstances. 3. Leads to over confidence. I have more points to come and I will elaborate on all of these as soon as a debater joins in. Thanks for viewing this
Jesus was NOT God

Thank you for a good debate—I wish we could have more rounds! Well, these are my closing arguments My opponent asks the question why I should argue the idea of there being a minor fallacy in the Bible? Because if I can show the Bible is fallible, I have destroyed the very heart of Christianity. Christianity relies on the Bible being accurate. If it is not, then it can't be the word of god. "I not only intend to prove to him that the Bible is God's Word, but I will also prove that the Holy Bible is in fact infallible. " Then do it! You cannot show the Bible is the word of God by pulling out a few verses that says that it is, because the Koran and other holy books also say they are the word of god. Just because something claims to be from god doesn't mean that it is! "Jesus being the perfect, sinless being that he was and is, could not have lied and had no reason to lie. he did not come to condemn the World but to save it. (John 12:47). My opponent states that the Son Of God will fulfill the prophecy. While on Earth, Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies. (virgin birth, Born in Bethleham, would be a Nazarene, etc. ). Therefor, because it says in Deuteromety that the Messiah will fulfill the pprophecies, Jesus must be the Messiah. " Many of the alleged prophecies are misquotes, misapplied and misrepresented verses. Furthermore,the gospels were diapered by the writers. The gospels were written long after the alleged events, As for the first part, I have shown many cases where Jesus lies—AND YOU IGNORE IT! (all caps for emphasis) "Notice that in my opponent's arguments, there are many faulty points. When mentions Matthew 16:28, Jesus clearly says SOME will not see a kiss of death before the Son Of Man returns. This is traditionally interpreted to mean that some will not die before they see Jesus in his kingdom. There are two known cases recorded in the Bible as to where someone has descended into the sky while alive(Elijah and another unknown person). Thus, that scripture was fulfilled and valid. " My opponent has misquoted the verse. Ot plainly says "[t]this generation. Elijah and Enoch were not part of that generation. I am so glad my opponent brought up the Elijah story as it opened up a new can of worms. John 3:13ï¿½ And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Clearly, that verse contradicts the possibility of ELIJAH being brought up into heaven. Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. amein. Even so come Lord Jesus. I. e. "Surely I come without delay. .. " and it has been 2,000 year delay. Why vote pro? 1) My opponent forgot that the resolution was to test whether or not Jesus was God, not if the Bible teaches that. 2) My opponent has given no response to the lies Jesus told. "Jesus never sinned and lied.
Jesus was NOT God

My opponent's argument that Jesus is not the Son Of God(by the term Trinity thenceforth being a part of God) is supported by scriptures from the Holy Bible. How is it then that he should argue the idea of there being even partial or minor fallacy in the Holy Bible? It's kind of like saying 2+ 2= 4 and then saying you don't believe in mathematics or you believe that some parts of Mathematics are flawed. How then can you differenciate between what is and isn't false or inconclusive pertaining to the subject at hand? My opponent said that if I can prove that the Bible is God's Word and it is infallible, I have won the debate. I not only intend to prove to him that the Bible is God's Word, but I will also prove that the Holy Bible is in fact infallible. Jesus being the perfect, sinless being that he was and is, could not have lied and had no reason to lie. he did not come to condemn the World but to save it. (John 12:47). My opponent states that the Son Of God will fulfill the prophecy. While on Earth, Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies.(virgin birth, Born in Bethleham, would be a Nazarene, etc.). Therefor, because it says in Deuteromety that the Messiah will fulfill the pprophecies, Jesus must be the Messiah. Notice that in my opponent's arguments, there are many faulty points. When mentions Matthew 16:28, Jesus clearly says SOME will not see a kiss of death before the Son Of Man returns. This is traditionally interpreted to mean that some will not die before they see Jesus in his kingdom. There are two known cases recorded in the Bible as to where someone has descended into the sky while alive(Elijah and another unknown person). Thus, that scripture was fulfilled and valid. In Revelations when Jesus says he will come swiftly. Meaning that when he does come again(The Rapture), it will happen quickly. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies and foretold events that have already come to town(earthquakes in diverse places, daughters will rise against Mothers, sons against Fathers, etc.). If you look at the list, alot of what he foretold has come to past. Come on now, only a total fool(one who has said in his heart there is no God) can truly deny the powr and majesticness of Jesus. The Holy Bible is comprised of seperate Books all conjoined by the common ordinance by God to write his Word. John1:1- In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". If you Believe in the Holy Bible, you have to believe in God and vice-versa. It says it right there in the scripture.
An eye for an eye is the most just law principle

I understand how you feel, one should not be able to commit murder and get away with only a few years of their life taken away from them when they have stolen someone's away from them. However I am curious as to the case of manslaughter, should the accidental murder of another be punished with the offender's life taken away too? I see the benefits of the 'eye for an eye' principle as it would help to deteriorate others from committing crime at the risk of their lives, however if one accidentally ended another's life through self defence and was found guilty of manslaughter, should their life be taken as the 'eye for an eye' principle would require?
An eye for an eye is the most just law principle

An eye for an eye is the most just law priciple given that the culprit proven guilty. Imagine someone murder your own children...then the culprit 'only' sentenced for jail time...it is not just for the victim family...your children never be able see the sun and enjoy the life he/she supposed to have....but the culprit may have chance to have it.....where is the justice in that?
Cats Are Better Than Dogs

Thank you. I don"t know where exactly to begin. But first lets me answer your arguments: -cats are smarter -cats are better at taking care of themselves Let me begin at the "smartness" of these two domesticated species. Its hard to measure that. Because there is a problem. Cats are mostly solitary animals and Dogs are mostly social animals. This is a vital importance. We also need to know that both species have adapted to different stresses in their evolution and later domestication. Dogs usually do outperform cats on most animal IQ tests and have larger vocabularies and bigger brains, but dog enthusiasts shouldn't be too complacent. Cats have almost twice as many neurons in their cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex is considered the part of the brain responsible for learning and memory, among other things. Cats have 300 million neurons, while dogs have only 160 million. Also, dogs' brains, in fact, have been continually growing while cats' brains have remained virtually unchanged since they were first domesticated approximately 8,000 years ago, according to a recent study at Oxford University. The reason: Dogs are more social than cats, and the more social the animal, the bigger the brain, and, therefore, the smarter the animal. And the brain gap is widening, because dogs spend a lot of their time navigating the intricacies of their and our social worlds, which takes a lot of grey matter. Dogs are therefore overall smarter, however Cats are smarter on their fields, while dogs are smarter elsewhere. About drooling, Its true that cats do drool less than dogs. But Cats can also drool ( but usually it"s a disease symptom) and Dog drooling is varying; sometimes its pathological and sometimes its dependent on their breed. While domestication has happened, dogs mostly lost their ability to take care of themselves, its visible at almostly every domesticated species. But we"re seeing an amazing picture. Many Abandoned Dogs ("Wild Dogs", partly including dingoes) have united very similar as the wolves do. All over the world abandoned dogs unite in a pack (just like wolves do), create a territory and a hierarchy (just like wolves do), but unlike Canis Lupus they thrive in the human civilisation. But again its very dependent on their breed ( e.g. a Sphynx cat will have problems to survive the winter in Norway). Dingoes were a sort of a pet of the Aborigines, but today they are thriving in their territory. Morphology of Cats is specialised for individual surviving, meanwhile Dogs are specialised for haunting in groups. I believe that this is a philosophical problem, because of the Cat/Dog person dilemma, but in my opinion we should love every pet species equally (I"ve got a Dog, plus Cats and other dogs in my area know and like me), we just need to realise that every species is different. I might forgot something, but i"ll probably remember until the next time. Note: Dog was the FIRST animal to be domesticated by our species. Important sources: [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Good Luck.
Cats Are Better Than Dogs

Helaas I wasn't on DDO for a long time, so I'm not so fresh currently. Never mind that, I believe that Canis Lupus Familiaris (domestic dog) & Felis Catus (domestic cat) aren't really supreme to each other. I personally like both. Therefore this debate is a joke debate to me. In my opinion, this is a philosophical issue, because different species have different properties. But I'll take the Dogs' side. I wish good luck to Pro.