BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Abortions ought to be banned in the US.

Here we go! Obsv. 1: a: i) Basically all my opponent says in response here is that a woman has a choice to recieve a back alley abortion, and must accept responibility for that action. So the Pro is going against the "Pro-Life" point of view and saying that a woman should indeed have a choice. So, in all reality, he has just given me another point in which he agreed. ii) Notice that I never said that the government condones an immoral act. (I do not think they should!) We should not debate morals, because everyone's point of view is different. Instead we need to look at reality, and that reality is that if we accept the Pro's theory, we are allowing thousands of women to die! iii) My opponent talks about morals; how it is immoral to allow the death of a fetus. But, my opponent is allowing the women to die in the name of the Pro's high moral standings. This just doesn't make sense to me. b: i) Alrighty, again we see the definition of 'human life' come into play. I will disprove this yet again later in the round. ii) Again, I do not believe the government should condone abortions, and neither do I. But, when the lives of women who are scared and don't know what to do are at risk because of dirty practices, the government cannot attempt to lessen one problem in order to inflate another. There are other alternatives to attempting to stop a common practice all at once. That is a debate for another time, though. Obsv. 2: Thanks to my opponent for not abusing me! :) Obsv. 3: i) My opponent said I did not refute any of their case and that I dropped it completely. They also said I gave no warrant to my claim. Apparently they didn't read my Observation Three Subpoint A when I said that there are so many definitions floating around the internet that we cannot seriously take one into consideration without taking others into consideration as well... This means that they are not upholding the entire topic, but only a part. This means they lose on the grounds that I have attacked the entire topic and killed it, but also that they have no case to support it. ii) I do not need any statistics because it is common knowledge that a person can find someone to say anything on the internet. Just because my opponent brings up a definition they think I should be forced to use throughout the debate doesn't mean that it is correct. They want a warrant from me? They don't even provide a warrant on why I should accept this definition. This is yet another reason their case falls, and why they lose on another point. In conclusion, my opponent has lost on two out of two arguments. This is an obvious vote for Con. Vote for Me!!
Social Abortions ought to be banned in the US.

Observation I: Abortion used to be illegal. a) According to The Socialist Worker (http://socialistworker.org......), abortion was illegal between the late 1800s and 1973. When abortion was illegal, women had abortions anyway, and often times, this was done in "back-yard" or "back-alley" abortions. These practices were extremely unsafe and killed an estimated 15,000 per year. --> "Back Alley" practices and other criminal activited should not spur the government to condone an immoral act. Furthermore, it's the woman's "choice" to go recieve a back alley abortion, and must accept responsibility for that action. b) When this happens, it's obvious to see that when the United States makes 'Social Abortions' illegal, it happens anyway, and therefore causes unneeded deaths. --> Ok, then they must also accept responsibility for for deaths occurred by legally induced abortions as well, plus all the deaths of the living fetuses. so, lets see thats: > 40 million deaths (40 million unborn and roughly 500 - 1000 mothers) "a) My opponent brings up a good point, but the definition they have of when human life begins is easily debated with another definition. There are many many definitions of this floating around on blogs, in dictionaries, and in literature based on science, but the fact that my opponent tries to narrow it down to one is completely bogus. b) Based on the fact that my opponents definition is too narrow to uphold the topic, all arguments based on this definition should be made null and void. c) Remember: According to my 2nd observation, if my opponent tries to offer a new definition, they lose." --> My opponent has not refuted any of my case. Furthermore, he just drops it by saying my definition is too vague. He hasn't warranted his statement, and he has not provided another stat to counter it. Therefore, my definition plus my case extends for the round. [Extensions] Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Social Abortions ought to be banned in the US.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ Alrighty, here we go. Observation I: Abortion used to be illegal. a) According to The Socialist Worker (. http://socialistworker.org...), abortion was illegal between the late 1800s and 1973. When abortion was illegal, women had abortions anyway, and often times, this was done in "back-yard" or "back-alley" abortions. These practices were extremely unsafe and killed an estimated 15,000 per year. b) When this happens, it's obvious to see that when the United States makes 'Social Abortions' illegal, it happens anyway, and therefore causes unneeded deaths. *Note: I am not condoning abortion in any way. I am just looking at the facts of the matter. Observation II: Abuse by the Pro a) If you look at the second to last line the Pro wrote, it says 'I reserve the right to make any new arguments in the 2nd round. ' b) This is extremely abusive because it means that they can scrap their whole first argument and make a new one based on my arguments. It's the Pro's burden to prove the topic/resolution. c) If the Pro brings up any new arguments not relating to their initial arguments or my arguments, they should lose based on this alone. Observation III: On Case Arguments a) My opponent brings up a good point, but the definition they have of when human life begins is easily debated with another definition. There are many many definitions of this floating around on blogs, in dictionaries, and in literature based on science, but the fact that my opponent tries to narrow it down to one is completely bogus. b) Based on the fact that my opponents definition is too narrow to uphold the topic, all arguments based on this definition should be made null and void. c) Remember: According to my 2nd observation, if my opponent tries to offer a new definition, they lose. Thank you. Vote for me!
Social Abortions ought to be banned in the US.

I affirm: Social Abortions ought to be banned in the US. [Definitions] Social Abortions: Abortions induced for reasons besides potential harm to the mother, death, or rape. Ought: a moral obligation. Banned: made illegal. [Contentions] Contention I: Abortion is a form of murder. First, we must decide when life begins. For this, I will use a new structure of biology that has been merging in the past couple of years. It is known as Systems biology. In short this new biology explains the system of life, etc. Now, according to Systems Biology, human life begins when: "it first appears as a determined embodied process. This embodied process, from the outset, has an active capacity to be manifest in human ways." -Systems Biology Organization. Explanation: This definition is short means that life begins when potentiality exists. This potentiality exists at the implantation stage. 10 - 12 days after fertilization. Note: It is impossible to detect pregnancy at this time. So, now we have a clear understanding of when human life begins. Murder can be defined as: killing a human being with premeditation. Abortion is the killing of an embryo or fetus. Now, link the 2 together. Since life begins at implantation, and it is impossible to detect abortion at that time, then abortions occur when the baby does have life. Abortions are premeditated, intentional, and kill a human being. Murder is illegal, and any variation of murder is illegal as well. Therefore, to comply with the rule of law, banning abortion is both a moral and legal imperative. *I reserve the right to make any new arguments in the 2nd round. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Free-will most likely does not exist (Spinkos philosophy tourney 1st round)

Resolution: Free-will most likely does not existTo clarify, I believe we are talking about human free-will but I suppose my opponent is free to argue animals have it as well if he wishes to take that option. Burden of ProofI'd say we both have a degree of the burden of proof. The issue of free-will is a little complicated. Firstly there's the question of definitions. It's both our burden to establish a sound criteria for free-will. But it also is usually the one affirming existence who has the BoP but I also have the BoP in affirming certain theories that alleviate free-will. All in all I'd say we should leave it at 50-50. My opponent is free to negate my reasoning if he disagrees. The BoP is something to be rationally decided so I'm not going to leave it as condition of acceptance. DefinitionsUnfortunately often in free-will debates, debaters spend half or more the time arguing about what free-will even means let alone if it exists. Therefore I will only be brief and unspecific in my definition. It is also important that the definition remain something that is up for debate during the course of this interaction and not something that we both have to stick to. Usually free-will is equated with the idea of a both uncaused and non-random event in your brain that was brought about by rational and conscious reflection from the agent and done based upon the will of the agent. Those who take that stance would usually be libertarians (not to be confused with the political ideology). Compatiblists however say free-will is compatible with determinism and indeterminacy, often saying free-will equates to just rational and conscious reflection of an agent or, as Daniel Dennett would argue, evitability. I invariably disagree with the general compatibilist definition of free-will so if my opponent happens to be a compatiblist, what constitutes free-will will be an issue of debate. It is both our burdens to establish a sound criteria of what free-will should mean. Hopefully we happen to come to a mutual agreement however. It would be nice if con could say in his acceptance whether he is a libertarian or compatibilst, or other. Rules and guidelinesStandard conduct; no plagiarism, good conduct to participants and viewers, no cheating etc. .. I think it goes without saying but I'll just say it anyway, voters must read the whole debate before voting and give a reasonable unbiased RFD (Reason For Decision). Otherwise consider that your vote may likely get countered. 1st round is acceptance 2nd round I will make my case. My opponent is free to either make his case only, or to make his case as well as refuting mine in the same round.
Procrastination

"delaying something to the day before it is due will only motivate you to focus harder and drive you to get it done in time." No, It causes sloppiness in a panic to get the assignment done in time. "Procrastination is the best underutilized tool to prepare high schoolers for jobs who demand a lot in a very short amount of time and you have to "make the grade" in that short period of time or you could get fired" No one wants to hire someone who procrastinates, because they will do a worse job than one who takes time to carefully check work, perhaps even double check the problem. If you are in a hurry you are more than likely to not have time to get it done, and will come up with answers that may not even earn you points. Your theory that people do better work when they are in a rush is false, and you have no evidence to back it up. Yes absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if it can be proven without evidence it may be dismissed without it as well. Evidence that it causes sloppiness: http://researchnews.osu.edu... A study was done that proves procrastinators poor grades...
Procrastination

Granted that is possibly true, but delaying something to the day before it is due will only motivate you to focus harder and drive you to get it done in time. Procrastination is the best underutilized tool to prepare high schoolers for jobs who demand a lot in a very short amount of time and you have to "make the grade" in that short period of time or you could get fired. It also prepares you to be under pressure and to be able to handle the pressure with out cracking.
Procrastination

I accept. Definition of procrastination: the action of delaying or postponing something. You have the burden of proof. Procrastination is obviously bad. Waiting to do an assignment 10 minutes before it is due makes the user rush and therefor create sloppier work and have half answered questions. A student who spends more time on an assignment is more likely to get an A than the student who does it before class. (Meaning they sit down and try to do it before the class will start)! I Proof that it IS bad: http://gmadventure2010.blogspot.com...
Swearing/Cursing/Cussing Should be Allowed in debate.org Debates

You raise completely valid points. Debate.org has a good portion of its user base in America. I apologize for not looking up your profile and checking whether you lived in America before posting. In the case of those with dyslexia, there's not much I can do. This is entirely my fault; I should have been more clear on the subject of direct quotes. The text speech should only be used for when one absolutely has to cuss. That way, it is just as grating on the eyes as if they had just cussed anyway, and we can feel good about upholding standards. It's a win-win! Think before you speak only applies to the person writing. If they're quoting directly, and want the vaunted "[sic]," the censorship is waived. It also has to be in context, so no quoting rap songs on a technology discussion to get your cussing in. Language uttered without thinking is indeed useful, but as I've said earlier, belongs in a direct quote from a previous source, not on your "think before you post" original content. May all your wishes come true.
Swearing/Cursing/Cussing Should be Allowed in debate.org Debates

A Word On the First AmendmentI do not live in the states, in the country I live in I have no legal right to free speech. I never mentioned the first amendment and I don't even view this as that much of a free speech issue but instead as a measure which would make debates more fluent and coherent (I.E. not having to write "Physicists kind of [expletive] me off, 'cause they've always got their [expletive] pale hands"). Ways of Self Censorship That Won't Impede The MessageI find the methods of censorship that you mention to be tedious as they don't change the meanings of the message one bit but just make it difficult to read (in my case especially as I am quite severely dyslexic). Also to me this reduces the standards of debate.org more than simply allowing cursing as it causes those who would curse for either legitimate or illegitimate reasons to use what is essentially "text speak" instead of the correct spellings.Think Before You SpeakI generally agree with this policy and think it should apply to the users of debate.org However I don't think this policy should apply to those quoted by the users of debate.org simply because the reliability and usefulness of a source isn't necessarily contingent on the language of the source. A good example would be a literary debate on "to kill a mockingbird" or "train spotting" (or that bible passage I previously mentioned).Language Uttered Without ThinkingSometimes it is useful to show what a person utters without thinking. There are many times when it is necessary to do this. An example would be quoting someone who has had family members killed by some act of terrorism, their words will be uttered without thought but are useful especially when showing the physiological impact of terrorism.
Swearing/Cursing/Cussing Should be Allowed in debate.org Debates

Before I start I should say that I am totally in favour of the instigator in a debate setting up a rule where those who take part in the debate cannot curse.Personal ExperienceA while ago I was attempting to quote from the bible during a debate. I think this was the passage, Numbers 22:21: "And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ***, and went with the princes of Moab."Now in this context the word *** (donkey) is very obviously being used in a way that isn't at all inappropriate given the circumstances but because an argument with a*s spelt correctly is not permitted to be posted it causes problems for those who want to quote totally appropriate sources without having to change them.Obviously it isn't just the word ***, there are plenty of other words which you may want to quote on occasion for instance I recently had a debate against a religious fundamentalist where he claimed that a Muslim would endorse the biblical story of the foundations of Israel. I know a Muslim and the response I got from his when asked about the origins of Israelis he responded "The ******* came from Satan" [1]. I think that again in the circumstances that would be an acceptable use and if my opponent had disagreed we could have set up some basic rules before hand. Those Who Want to Cuss Will Cuss AnywayTo me it is fairly clear that those who want to curse will curse anyway [2].[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...
God exists.

Ignoring the pleas of a person isn't sinning in the god's eyes. Since it knows everything from any point in time and everything that will ever happen, it knows what will happen both if it ignores someone, and if it does not. It is very much possible that there are multiple gods in this universe, (one is certain), and we could VERY much be worshipping the creator. The god in this argument could very well be the creator, if you can imagine such an experiment that could turn yourself all-powerful. Since these gods are very likely to be from a separate universe, that universe could be completely different. Physics could be completely opposite from ours, there could be three time-dimensions and seven matter-dimensions. You never know.
God exists.

There are a few things I would like to point out in your argument, daMANN. First off, isn't ignoring the pleas of the people sinning? What if someone prays for something that is morally right? Would this god not have to help that person? And Secondly, if the god was created at the beginning of time, then what created it? If it came from an alternate universe, then why are we not worshipping the even higher power that was capable of creating a perfect deity?
God exists.

Now i'm not talking about the Christian god, or any religion's god. I believe that somewhere out there is an omniscient being that is perfect. Now, since this omniscient being cannot be capable of sin because it has to do everything perfectly, this god cannot make its own choices. It can only do what's right. That would explain why no god has "helped" us through prayers, etc. On to how this god was created. It was always there, created since the beginning of time or from another universe. That could easily explain the big bang, or that "universal switch" also sending interstellar particles. Your turn.
What way is the correct way to make tea without teabags.

If it isn't to hot to begin with after 1:20 why do you put it in it is pointless and a little kitchen towel won't draw all the heat so what is that point of doing it then i think the correct way to still this, 1. Get 1 mug 2. Fill the kettle with water 3. Hit the button on kettle 4. Pour hot water in the mug 5. put teabag in the mug 6. Squeeze it on side 7. Put milk in (till it looks nice then stop) 8. Use mug to Drink 9. Wash up And that is that
What way is the correct way to make tea without teabags.

I completely disagree with you. The reason I use a microwave is that a kettle heats up the drink too much, meaning you have to wait in order to drink it, whereas my technique allows it to be drunk instantly after heating. I understand that I am the minority, as most people use kettles, but my way has more advantages than your technique. My way only as one disadvantage, which is that double the washing up is required, but the kettle has more disadvantages.
What way is the correct way to make tea without teabags.

Okay, right. So I recently bought a lovely type of tea, this infact http://www.whittard.co.uk.... I have thought of a slightly different, but logical way to mix it up to have a delicious treat. This is it 1. Get two mugs (Because one gets very hot) 2. Fill one with water 3. Put it in microwave for 1:20 minutes 4. Pour hot water into the other mug (Using kitchen towel to hold it. Roll it up lots so that it fits between the handle of the mug) 5. Put 4 teaspoons of tea into the water 6. Stir until fully distilled 6.5. Enjoy This method provides a drink that can be drunk straight away, without having to wait half an hour if using the kettle. It also makes sure that the mug isn't too hot. My opponent, Matthew, has his own technique, here it is: 1. Get 1 mug 2. Fill the kettle with water 3. Hit the button on kettle 4. Pour hot water in the mug 5. put teabag in the mug 6. Squeeze it on side 7. Put milk in (till it looks nice (nice=nearly white) then stop) 8. Use mug to Drink 9. Wash up I would like to know which is the correct and most logical way. FIGHT!
Jesus is not god

"So God has acted like a Father in heaven, an incarnate son on Earth and as a Spirit present amongst his people. The persons of the Trinity are just personas, different ways that God has manifested himself in human history." http://www.saintsandsceptics.org... "While the three members of the Trinity are distinct, this does not mean that any is inferior to the other. Instead, they are all identical in attributes. They are equal in power, love, mercy, justice, holiness, knowledge, and all other qualities." https://www.desiringgod.org... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basically, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, but they are not three Gods they are all equally 1 that share the same equal KNOWLEDGE, therefore, Jesus should have known the time of the hour and it's not that he didn't want to know the time its because he doesn't have the same knowledge as his father which does not make him God or them equal. Matthew 15:24: He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." He was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to mankind only to a specific nation like the rest of the prophets except for prophet Muhammad whose message was for everyone. So therefore if he was God then his message would be universal. Hebrews 5:8 "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death and was heard in that he feared" 1. This shows that he prayed to God for help to save him from death and not that he's praying out of respect but that he needs something greater than him to help him 2. Jesus could not save himself from death, therefore, he is not God because God does not need anyone's help. And if they all had EQUAL POWER than he wouldn't need His Father's power to save him.
Jesus is not god

Jesus prayed to God: Matthew 26:36 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray." Why would Jesus need to pray if he was 'God' it would not be logical if he prayed to himself he would have told people to pray to him which also shows that he needed something greater than himself Jesus is also not all-knowing: Mark: 13:32 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. John 14:28 "The Father is greater than I." If Jesus the son of God and his father were equal and the Trinity was actually true how come he did not know when the hour would occur if they were the same person? And if they were equal how can one be greater than the other?