BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pro-Lifers Are Lost

Thanks for the clarification, pro. My opponent, in essence, says that if anyone's subjective reality differs from the actual objective reality then they are disconnected from reality, i.e. if someone believes in the Christian God and the deistic God is the objective truth, then they are disconnected from reality. Why this is incorrect: Due to unascertainable truths such as the "God Issue" as well as codes of morals, many scientific theories, etc., it is impossible for one's subjective reality to be defined as completely connected with reality. There would be an inability for disagreement, an inability for this debate to be taking place, if objective reality was able to be ascertained in its entirety by human logic. Therefore, since subjective reality and objective reality cannot be equated in the human mind, those with a subjective reality that drastically differs with the subjective reality of the vast majority of people are seen as "detached from reality." Science has shown this to usually be a result of chemical imbalances in the brain [1]. These imbalances are categorized as diseases, and these are the only people we can ALMOST truly say are detached from reality (using Occam's Razor). Other people whose views are held to be rational and conform to the main tenets of society are not considered detached from reality, because they seem to hold a subjective reality that is rational. There is no way to prove most people are detached from reality. "Lost": The full Burden of Proof is on my opponent to prove: 1) What the objective truth concerning abortion is (That allows for no subjective interpretation) 2) ALL pro-life supporters do not conform to this objective truth 3) Their reasonings for not conforming rely solely in opinion and not logic (my opponent states "lost" means people believe something entirely because they believe it). I do not feel that I have to defend any pro-life ideas at the moment. Thanks for the debate, and good luck! Source [1]https://socialanxietyinstitute.org...
Pro-Lifers Are Lost

First, your assertion that being detached from reality requires some sort of medical condition is completely fabricated. Let me explain what being detached from reality is. Reality is an ongoing flow of variables within our environment. We interact with this reality. We perceive things from this reality, and at the end of the day, we are defined by those perceptions. If at any point your perceptions are wrong, meaning your perceptions of reality are not in-line with reality, you are detached from reality. You are now living in a world that essentially doesn't exist. It may seem real to you, but the way you are filtering data is flawed. It is providing a picture that only seems true, but at the core of it is completely detached from reality. This does not mean you are mentally ill. As far as being lost, this follows the same guidelines. You are completely lost in your own logic. You truly believe your answer is the right answer just because you think it. This is "lost". I will use up this round in order for us to clarify. If you can provide any evidence that being detached from reality requires some sort of medical condition, feel free to do so. I look forward to any comments you have supporting a ban on abortion or the pro-life movement in general.
Pro-Lifers Are Lost

Thanks goes to my opponent for hosting this debate. Opening statements: 1) Pro Lifers are not "Lost. " The resolution is easily rebutted. I am pro-life and know exactly where I am, and can point to my location on a map. 2) Pro Lifers are not "detached from reality" Being detached from reality is a serious medical condition associated with anxiety disorders, depersonalization disorder, and intoxication [1, 2]. If a pro lifer is not drunk and does not have some kind of disorder, then they cannot become detached from reality. Therefore: p1. In order for someone to be detached from reality, they must have a disorder/be constantly drunk p1.1. My opponent's opening arguments state that all pro lifers are detached from reality c1 (p1 + p1.1) In order for the resolution to be correct, ALL pro-lifers must have a disorder/be constantly drunk p2.1 I am a pro-lifer p2. I am not drunk, nor have I been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder or depersonalization disorder c2 (p2 + p2.1) At least one pro-lifer is not detached from reality c3 (c1 + c2) All pro lifers cannot have a disorder/be constantly drunk BoP is on my opponent to prove that Pro-Lifers are ALL detached from reality. Conclusion Therefore, my opponent's general claim that pro-lifers are "lost" and "detached from reality" has a burden of proof that cannot be fulfilled. I remind my opponent that due to his debate structure, he cannot offer new arguments next round and may simply attempt to rebut my arguments. I wish my opponent a good day, and good luck. [1]. http://symptomchecker.webmd.com... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pro-Lifers Are Lost

Thanks for the argument, pro. I assume my either opponent stopped reading once they saw the quoted sentence above or just didn't understand my intentions, because they misunderstood entirely what I was saying. "Detached from reality" has a different societal meaning than my opponent implies. We as humanity cannot fully determine what objective reality is. That's why there are so many disagreements over issues, why science searches for answers to make our understandings more objective. My opponent quotes "it is impossible for one's subjective reality to be defined as completely connected with reality" out of context. It is impossible because one cannot determine exactly what objective reality is. If my opponent claims that pro-lifers are out of sync with objective reality, then they must prove the objective reality of the situation and how the subjective reality of pro-lifers measures to it. My opponent next offers his subjective opinion, plagued with ad hominem attacks, on the argument, supposing it to be objective. He subjectively claims that subjecting children to an underprivileged life is worse than murder. Unfortunately, other subjective realities exist. US Laws ban murder, while they do not ban "bringing children up in a bad home." The Declaration of Independence speaks of an unalienable right to life. The ten commandments condemn murder. My opponent claims that these subjective realities are all incorrect. In addition, children do not have to be brought up in the home of a mother who doesn't want them. Adoption is a viable and safer alternative to abortion [1]. My opponent also cites that pro-lifers are wrong because they protest. This, whether it actually makes them wrong or not, is inapplicable, as many pro-lifers do not protest. I have never protested. Furthermore, they have the right to free speech. A lot of the rest of my opponent's argument rests on ad hominem attacks and supposing pro-lifers to be wrong because they are, something he himself condemns. Really, my opponent states, the problem is that babies will still die. Black Market abortions will happen. However, pro-lifers understand this. Over 1,000,000 babies died in the last year from abortion. How many died of back-alley abortions before Roe v. Wade? Roughly 1,000 per year [2]. 1,000 times as many babies die from legal abortion. If adoption is promoted more, this number may drop even further. Conclusion My opponent claims that pro-lifers are separated from reality. Unfortunately, he never presents an objective reality that they separate themselves from. He presents his subjective reality and claims it as fact. Pro-lifers are therefore not proven as "lost" or "detached from reality." Sources [1] http://www.americanadoptions.com... [2]http://www.johnstonsarchive.net...
Pro-Lifers Are Lost

Let me just point out where you said, " it is impossible for one's subjective reality to be defined as completely connected with reality." I don't even need to argue this point anymore. So then you agree that pro-lifers are detached from reality so long as they are drawing conclusions based on false perceptions of reality? I think you just explained everything to yourself. So what is the truth? What is the objective truth here? Well here it is. Pro-lifers are attempting to save life. Am I right? That is the entire point of pro-lifers and the pro-life movement. No more killing babies...right? You want to ban abortion and force mothers who don't want children to have them, raise them poorly, and produce yet another problem for society to deal with. Some parents never wanted to be parents. The detachment comes when pro-lifers attempt to tell you that their efforts are on behalf of unborn children, and that these living things don't have a voice. The "pro-life" approach is completely flawed. Banning abortion and protesting about the issue is such a waste of resources, and it all stems from people trying to yell loudly about something they think they believe in. A pro-lifers entire mind-set is plagued by logical fallacies. The information used to form a pro-lifers viewpoint is based on decades of rhetoric and fabrications. The real problem here is unwanted pregnancy. We focus on abortion not realizing that prohibition creates black markets. Babies will still die. If pro-lifers were not detached from reality, not detached from the facts, they would understand the real variables involved in this problem. You ban abortion and you still have the same problem. That being said, pro-lifers are most definitely detached from reality. The truth of the matter escapes them while they ride on a wave of subjective morality.
Universal Health Care Would be Beneficial to the U.S.

This debate is impossible to accept at this time However, if you do want to participate, please tell me in the comments section. I will choose an opponent in about 3 days time.Debate Structure: Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments and RebuttalsRound 3: Arguments and RebuttalsRound 4: Final Refutations and closing arguments; no new argumentsDefinitions: Universal Health Care: A National Health Care system which provides health care and medical financial protection to all its citizens. This system has been successful in the Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, and even in Canada.**Notes** Universal Healthcare does not imply coverage for everyone for everything, but ensures essential medical services for all its citizens.[1]Implementation of Universal Health Care will be taken into account, but we will disregard the Obamacare controversy. This debate will be about the effects of implementation in the U.S, and it's benefits to the country.Burden of ProofOn me, Pro. I will do my best to affirm the claim. With that being said, let's have a great debate!Source:1.http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

::Case Pro:: "1-3 people have a side affect some potentially life threatening. ASo yes vaccines are useless and hurt people and their rights. " My opponent provides no evidence for this claim, so it can therefore be dismissed. Despite the unsubstantiated beliefs of my antagonist, vaccines are effective at combating disease. I would imagine that some vaccines have minor side effects. However, the side effects of polio, smallpox, and SARS are far worse than the side effects of any vaccine. My opponent has not provided any sound arguments in his favor and has had nothing of significance to say in response to my arguments.
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

I think I understand your case. However, you did write a few things that caught my eye. "My opponents only contention says compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS. Which is incorrect because the diseases can be stopped by affirming or negating." The poliovirus can spread back into a society if everyone isn't vaccinated. Even if only a small number of people don't get treated it can become resurgent. Therefore, compulsory vaccinations would most certainly be justified. The fact of the matter is that there is no other way to stop certain viruses apart from mass vaccinations. "Immunizations are not to be used during an outbreak either, they are precautions that do absolutely nothing except hurt people and their own rights." It is now obvious that my opponent's case rests on nothing more than the unsubstantiated claim that vaccinations are useless at preventing disease. This claim is demonstrably false, vaccinations are an effective method to prevent disease. For example, the polio vaccine was largely responsible for the eradication of polio in the 20th century. [1] –[2] Wikipedia isn't the greatest source in the world, but it is largely useful in many occasions. Moreover, the disastrous affects of polio, smallpox, and SARS are quite well known even if I didn't use sources. ---References--- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.accessexcellence.org...
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

My opponents said vactruth. com will not work as a source but he did not say why and has no proof there's no scientific reasoning. Onto my opponents case. My opponents only contention says compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS. Which is incorrect because the diseases can be stopped by affirming or negating. Immunizations are not to be used during an outbreak either, they are precautions that do absolutely nothing except hurt people and their own rights. He also used wikipedia which everyone knows is NOT to be used as a source for anything! !! !! Because it can be changed by the public so his contention is not legit so therefore to be thrown out.
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization

My opponent cites vactruth. com, a lunatic fringe conspiracy website, in order to lend credence to his views. However, the claims of this site are entirely unsupported by science. In order to win all I must do is show that there is at least one scenario where compulsory immunizations would be justified. Contention 1: Compulsory immunizations are justified to prevent the spread of polio, smallpox, and SARS. In the case of an outbreak of dangerous viral infections, compulsory immunizations would be morally necessary. Even if I were to grant the fabricated claims of my opponent the negative effects of polio [1], smallpox [2], and SARS [3] would still warrant compulsory immunizations. People do not have a constitutional right to jeopardize the life of other people by refusing to get vaccinated any more than they have a right to murder someone. (Resolution affirmed) ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The use of cell phones by students should be encourage

I will rebuttal against my opponents statement. He admits that the 21st Century will be a computer world, with the given quote being: "Here I accord with you that it facilitates the student in learning without taking their books". So if our world is becoming that of a computer world, how could we prevent the usage of cell phones? In my opponents next argument, he states that with cell phones, there will be an increase in cheating. To counter argue this statement, I must ask the following question. What about at home? Kids can still cheat on their homework with their phones, and cannot get caught, unless by a responsible parent; but who doesn't say they don't cheat at home on homework? You cannot take that right away, because of being "afraid" of possible cheating; even though there are other ways, besides cell phones. Stated in a statistic, from "Common Sense Media", it states that only 35% of teenagers use their cell phone to cheat on tests. That is a more minority, than the common method of copying off ones neighbor during a test. My opponent claims that cell phones can cause cheating, and it can, but there are other ways to do it; like given the statistic that a minority of teenagers actually use their phone to cheat. Now to my new argument of why cell phones should be encouraged. In our society, we are advancing i technology, like my opponent stated earlier, and with cell phones; students can adapt to this technology. Here is a real life situation that is about to happen in my life. I want to become a police officer in the future, and did numerous interviews on police officers to gain some tips. One thing is that it is good to be young when joining the force, because it is estimated that in 5 years, there will be an upgrade to standard police methods. So if we discourage students into using their cell phones, what will that achieve? Our younger generation needs to put focus on technology, to see how it works, than disregard because of possible "fears". To conclude, with exposing students to cell phones, they can adapt to their new environment of technology. My opponent brings up cheating being an issue, but anything can be an issue. Even a pencil, where someone else could write the answers in; but are we banning pencils because of this "fear"? No! And my opponent also regarded my own argument, in the first round, about the statistic that students are learning when using their phone. Source: www.commonsensemedia.org/about-us/news/press-releases/35-of-teens-admit-to-using-cell-phones-to-cheat
The use of cell phones by students should be encourage

To begin ,we know we are in the 21th Century which is Computer world. Here I accord with you that it facilitates the student in learning without taking theirbooks. I discord with my opponent because Cellphones with cameras and/or internet connection aid students in cheating on exams and quizzes. Any cellphone with an internet connection permits the student to look up answers for quizzes and tests. Cellphones with cameras give the cheater an easy and discreet way of photographing exams so other students can crib off his answers. Given the purpose of testing is to prove the students grasp of the subject, these shortcuts to good grades are destructive and counterproductive. Cheating is already a large enough problem without allowing the students such powerful tools for bypassing the whole point of school. If students can merely look up the answers whenever they need them, grades lose their power as an incentive to study. Cellphones rob students of a powerful motivator to work at their education, and give them the means to slip by without working. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For emergency purposes, for communication with parents, and for whatever harmless entertainment or communication over the lunch hour the students may use them for, cellphones are useful tools. They are harmful to education during class, however, and should not be permitted in the classroom. I return this debate to my opponent.
The use of cell phones by students should be encourage

I speak against the motion that mobile phone shouldn't be encourage in school by students. A mobile phone is a wireless handheld device that allows users to make calls and send text messages, among other features . To set the ball rolling, I would like to note that I am not arguing against faculty, teachers, or staff having or using cellphones, if the need arises, nor against students possessing cellphones in their lockers for use after hours or in emergencies. All key words are assumed to have their normal meanings. Cellphones distract students from the lessons. Given the the purpose of school is to educate the students, anything that disrupts learning is counterproductive. Most cellphones are capable of sending and receiving text messages; most phones have games on them. Smartphones are mini gaming consoles, with thousands of games available to download. Most cellphones now double as mp3 players, allowing students to take their music into class with them and listen through earbuds. I hope that I don't have to establish the widespread use of cellphones in class, sending texts, playing games, looking up answers, listening to music. It is common knowledge that these practices are ubiquitous. The quality of the education that these students are ignoring is not the question here; the point is that by engaging in these other activities the students are missing out on their main opportunity to gain a good education.
What came first chicken or egg? -for egg, against-chicken

As you requested : http://en.wikipedia.org... You have a solid point, I like, I like: I'd like to point out that although it isn't the actual egg of the chicken that was being laid; it was through mutations and natural selection through breeding of the reptiles and bird species to be able to actually create the first modern day chicken as we have here on earth today. "Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken." And so that would mean that the first chicken would not be able to be created without the first egg. Which sounds logical... As you have to be born first to be able to bore others And that is all I really have to say, that you have to get the egg before you get the chicken. That was fun thanks for asking me to debate! :)
What came first chicken or egg? -for egg, against-chicken

Assuming my opponents last sentiment is true, it is my contention that the egg was not a chicken egg, but rather a junglefowl egg that produced a chicken through some manner of mutations. Which means, though a chicken did come from an egg, the egg was not a chicken egg, and the chicken came first. I would also like to request that my opponent produce a link or some other evidence to back the claim that a chicken was produced by two similar species of junglefowl.
What came first chicken or egg? -for egg, against-chicken

I believe the chicken came first, because, as was discovered by British scientists, there is a protein found only in a chickens ovaries that is essential for the development of the egg's shell. This means that a chicken egg can only be produced by a chicken. With the link to the article reporting the study, I pass the baton back to my opponent. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
atheism a superficial (weak) understanding of life and nature

My opponent contends that the world was created by a supernatural being with the above four goals in mind. I contend that those four things can exist without the intervention of God. As cognizant organisms, we humans can feel beauty, enlightenment and marvel as well as be nourished by foods. I do not see why God is necessary for this. Without likely evidence that God exists, we should assume he does not. My opponent has failed to show why atheism is a weak understanding of life and nature because he has failed to show why one should believe any gods exist.
atheism a superficial (weak) understanding of life and nature

no, the world has a meaning. the world is created with many goals. i state them as follows: 1. to entertain man with beauty. 2. to nourish man with foods 3. to enlighten man about his own self. 4. to amaze man with wonder of natural mystery at least 4 objective of the world can be found. but the ultimate goal is to nourish man throughout his life. if the world is not there, mankind and his civilization will also be not there. so the world has a meaning. con did not give sufficient reason why atheists deny god of all religion nor did he give any reason why should we not accept god because eminent scientists accept god. therefore my conclusion is that atheism has no sound reasonable ground. it is illogical, irrational way of spending young age. it is the final fantasy of the youth.
atheism a superficial (weak) understanding of life and nature

1. That is sound reasoning. You're the one with the fallacy. You're the one who said that since eminent thinkers were theists, God MUST exist. 2. Why should atheists believe the world has greater meaning and purpose? Until there is evidence that there is, that's what atheists will believe. Burden of proof is on the theists. 3. Atheists deny the gods of all religions.