BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should remain legal, and anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.

First: My statements about your assuming I had no family members go through this was not hypocritical at all. Without knowing anything about my background, you said, and I quote "You also label me as a hypocrite. I've had family members go through this, I think I would know a bit more about this then you." Moving on. I thought about this for a long time, and due to previous mistakes I forfeit debating the first part of the topic. The conclusion reached solely from this debate should be: Abortion should remain legal. However, if the conclusion reached at the end of the argument also is: And EVERYONE that says differently is NOT a hypocrite, I win the debate. For both clauses must be proved for the Pro position for you to win. Now, you stated for your reasoning that people who say abortion should not remain legal was: "If you were a woman to be raped, you would most likely attempt to get an abortion. That is what is hypocritical about pro-lifers". But rape accounts for less than one percent of all abortions (I cited on previous arguments). I fail to see how this makes ANYONE who takes Con on this is hypocritical. Thank you.
Abortion should remain legal, and anyone who says otherwise is a hypocrite.

I do say that men have a connection to rape. I will quote myself "You should only be concerned about abortion if your the husband or man in relationship with said woman". My points do not say to abort over having children. When you are thinking about engaging intercourse, Financial, Habitable, and Emotional reasons and plans should be considered. F.Y.I, Aborting cost's less then raising a child. You asked me why children exist in the first place. Common sense tell's me your rhetorics are only self-harming, so I will not answer such an obvious question. "They try to reject the needle, but are unable to. They silently scream.It's terrible." How overly-dramatic and pathetic of you to insinuate that a fetus is self-conscious. As you stated, it is composed of cells and it grows. That doesn't mean it mentally lives. You assume you know what I assume. Now thats reaching a new low of hypo-criticism. And yes, I don't know your family background, but if you have had family members going through the trauma of having an unexpected pregnancy, the least you can do is not be inconsiderate and emotionally support the couple. Encouraging them to have a baby without financial backing, or enough housing space, is basically telling them to deal with it. Yep, you're gonna have a baby! It'll be easy! Have fun! No abortions for you! Deal with it! No money? Sucks for you! Living in a small apartment with rent due? You manage yourself! You're in high school and you made some terrible decisions that resulted in you conceiving a child that if your parents found out they would disgrace you and look down on your poor judgement for the rest of your life while you maintain the struggle of balancing the baby, school, a job, and the limited free time you have? Happens to everybody! Abortions should be undertaken at the circumstances of the one who is requesting, or the unexpectedness of rape, or the personal choice of having a career, a husband, and a future. Making abortion completely illegal is like killing 20 people out of a group that you suspect one is a murderer. Its like condemning racial laws for the actions of a few individuals. All you have done during the course of thee entire argument is ineffectively rebut my points. Your only point is that the fetus "endures unimaginable pain, they silently scream". THEY HAVE NO CONSCIOUSNESS, NO MIND OF THERE OWN. A woman's aspirations for a full-time career are eliminated with an unexpected pregnancy. Here own time is cut short, she works long hours to sustain the child, herself, and a bleak future. Is this what making abortion illegal is to accomplish? Straining today's modern woman into a pulp of actions, morals, and emotions? What is the happy ending of making abortion illegal? Well Mr. sunshine and Roses, THERE IS NONE. I apologize for my outburst at the end. Con has made no relative points to the argument.
God can be proven to have the power to determine objective morality

As we move into the rebuttal stage, I'd just like to establish a few agreed-upon points between both Pro and con - For the purpose of this debate, God exists - God's morality must be determined by MMR. Now on to rebuttals of my opponents arguments- Rebuttal 1 "God Works in Mysterious Ways" I am willing to grant that God does indeed work in mysterious way through punishment and reward for your moral good or bad ways. However, the very thing we are debating is whether or not God can be an objective decider of morality, and so God's adherence to his own moral law (which I assert is subjective) proves nothing about the content of said moral law. If Adolf Hitler were in God's position, he could work in mysterious ways, punishing those who harbored and aided Jews, while rewarding those who killed them, but that would hardly be proof of the objectivity of his moral rules. Thus far we can only assume that God's rules are arbitrary. Rebuttal 2: "You cannot prove God does not use Might Makes Right" What I am saying, is that God can only acquire the ability to dictate moral laws through the MMR principle. It is the only moral framework which squares with the conception of God. Questions such as "Why can God determine moral rules?" and "Why are my rules subsidiary to God's?" can only be rationally answered by using the MMR framework. But again, as I stated in my opening statement, this system destroys any possibility of God being the determiner of objective morality. Rebuttal 3: "Most People Coincide 'Moral Objectivity' With God" I agree - about 84% of the population identifies with a religion. However, this proves nothing. The fact that a lot of people think that God is a source of objective morality does not prove it true. Similarly, if 99% of the population believed that we all have invisible unicorns in our skulls giving us orders, we would not accept this as proof of the unicorns' existence. Rebuttal 4: "There is nothing else saying we must act against our instincts" That topic is actually in heated debate right now. There are many other competing theories as to where we get our morality. One theory, proposed by Christopher Hitchens (and many others), suggests that morality is a biological mechanism intended to keep us from slaughtering each other and increase the chances of reproducing to the next generation. God as the moral arbitrator is not the only theory out there. I summarize again by saying that all logic, reasoning, and evidence at this point shows that the concept of God as an objective moral arbitrator is demonstrably false, and cannot be adequately defended. Thank you.
God can be proven to have the power to determine objective morality

I will also assume for this that god does so exist. And so, what you are saying is that, If I could prove that god does (MMR), then that would essentially prove it to be true. But as many would say "He works in mysterious ways" as through punishment and reward for your moral good or bad ways. However,I cannot prove that. You have great information in your debate but by your own information you could not prove he does not (MMR). Although most people do coincide "moral objectivity" with god. Not with self will or programming. If you press humans for a reason why they behave in a moral way their eventual conclusion is god. And that is because their is nothing else that says we must act in such a way other than instinct.
God can be proven to have the power to determine objective morality

Hello, and thank you for debating. I will be presenting my case through several contentions preceded by two definitions, all from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: Definition 1: Morality "a doctrine or system of moral conduct" Definition 2: Objective "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind" Let us further clarify that for the purpose of this resolution, we assume God's existence. I am arguing that if there is a God, he cannot determine objective morality, as implied by the resolution. In other words, the Pro must prove that God can determine what is moral and what is not, and that this moral code is objective. With that out of the way, let's move to my contentions. Contention 1: Differences Between God and man The differences between God and man are, as I understand them, omnipotence, omniscience, extratemporality and extraspaciality. Of these, the only one that would have an impact on the determination of any moral code is omnipotence, as seen in contention 2. Contention 2: Might Makes Right is Subjective Might makes right is the idea that the person with the most power becomes supreme moral arbitrator. However, this arbitrator's morality is an utterly non-objective construction, unless there was a previous moral framework not created by said arbitrator. Contention 3: God's morality is subjective God's primary feature is might. There is, I believe, no moral framework which accepts knowledge as the basis for determining morality, nor temporality or spaciality. The only quality God possesses that can be even remotely linked to morality is omnipotence, which leads us naturally into Might makes right. We have established that might makes right is inherently subejctive, unless there is a pre-existing moral code (which Pro cannot contend, as God would no longer be the arbitrator). Further, we see that if another being became mightier than God, this framework would grant that the new being's moral code trumped God's conclusively showing subjectivity. Conclusion: God cannot determine objective morality We have seen that the only way to justify the idea that God determines morality is through the MMR (Might makes right) system. Further, if we accept this, we see that his morality is inherently subjective, and therefore cannot rationally assert that God is an objective moral arbitrator. Thank you.
God can be proven to have the power to determine objective morality

The moral principles that people claim to be "objective" usually coincide very well with what they feel subjectively to be true. When pressed to provide justification, the person in question will usually just fail to understand that morality might not be objective, and might consequently grow increasingly doubtful or hysterical as the subjective bases of their arguments are progressively revealed, as has been observed in recent times. This all is true, however, Humans have always used a god or being for a moral compass. Not all humans. But people have and still do. So I say 'YES IT CAN BE PROVEN" very much so that god has that power. People are still using him.
Adult females are more mature than adult males

In new research published in the journal Cerebral Cortex, an international group of researchers led by a team from Newcastle University in England found that girls’ brains march through the reorganization and pruning typical of normal brain development earlier than boys’ brains. In the study, in which 121 people between ages 4 to 40 were scanned using MRIs, the scientists documented the ebb and flow of new neural connections, and found that some brain fibers that bridged far-flung regions of the brain tended to remain stable, while shorter connections, many of which were redundant, were edited away. And the entire reorganization seemed to occur sooner in girls’ brains than in boys’ brains. Females also tended to have more connections across the two hemispheres of the brain. The researchers believe that the earlier reorganization in girls makes the brain work more efficiently, and therefore reach a more mature state for processing the environment.http://tinyurl.com...
Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future.

I accept sorry for last time. I will use the same beginning I will be arguing that China will NOT become a superpower and is not now. Definition of SUPERPOWER 1: excessive or superior power 2a : an extremely powerful nation; specifically : one of a very few dominant states in an era when the world is divided politically into these states and their satellites b : an international governing body able to enforce its will upon the most powerful states Define China as People's Republic of China NOT the Republic of China (Taiwan)
Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future.

I'm going to keep this final round as short as possible, as our voters already have quite a bit to read through before voting.I would like to take a quick moment to thank my opponent for one of the most enjoyable debates I've ever participated in. So thank you very much.heyFinal Observations and Clarifications.What this debate comes down to today is whether or not China is by definition, a superpower. Or at least will reach super power status in the next 15 years or so.These are the characteristics we must look at:1. Military Power2. Population3. Economic Power4. Nuclear Capacity5. Global InfluenceMilitary PowerChina has the world's largest ground force, 3rd largest navy, and an advanced array of figher jets. They are one of the largest militaries in the world, no debating that. My opponent has said that their weapons are outdated, however this is not the case [1]1- http://wareye.com...PopulationChina has the world's largest population, with more than 700 million available manpower. This is 4 times that the United States could muster. China's population is a deciding factor, regardless of how much each citizen produces [2].Economic PowerChina has the world's second largest economy, producing well over $10,600,000,000,000 (10.6 trillion) USD [2] in gross domestic product per year. In 2016, the United States will cease to be the world's dominate economic power, and the age of China will have begun. [3][4][5] China is also one of the fastest growing economies in the world.2-https://www.cia.gov...3-http://www.foxbusiness.com...4-http://business.blogs.cnn.com...5-http://www.ezega.com...Nuclear CapacityThis is not necessarily a characteristic, but an indicator of great military power. As only a relatively few highly powerful nations have the ability to obtain nuclear weapons. China has a nuclear weapons stockpile, there is no debating this.Global InfluenceChina has the rare ability, like the United States, to project power anywhere on the planet. In addition, China is the world's largest exporter [2]. China has massive global influence, not only over the Pacific Region but also over the entirety of the world market. Few other nations, besides the United States and perhaps Russia, have this unique ability to:A) Project power anywhere in the worldB) Exert massive influence over the world's economySo I'll end with a few observations.1) China has the world's largest and one of the most advanced militaries.2) China has the world's largest population.3) China will have the world's largest economy.4) China has a viable nuclear capacity.5) China exerts extremely strong global influence. Again, I'd like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate.I urge an affirmative ballot. Thank you.
Resolved: The US Army's classification of the American Family Association as a hate group is sound.

As my opponent cancelled his account before making an argument on this case, I'm going to place this debate on the open again. Once again, I'm not at all draconian about acceptance of the debate. All are welcome to accept the debate. By accepting this debate, one will concede to the following rules:(1) The first round of the debate will only be for the acceptance of the resolution whereas the succeeding rounds will debate the resolution.(2) The forfeit of any rounds will not constitute the loss of the debate, but any arguments that go unrebutted against will be extended to the next round and cannot be rebutted again. Any arguments that go unargued against will receive the automatic and implicit concession from the opponent.
Resolved: The US Army's classification of the American Family Association as a hate group is sound.

My opponent states that "my definition [of] 'hate group' is similar to the definitions of many organizations" and that he "concedes to my definition," but I have not yet even provided a definition of "hate group." I am guessing that my opponent hastily copy-pasted his argument from his last debate of the same name. Anyway, this is neither here nor there; I just wanted to clarify this point, in case any readers are left confused. ---The US Army's classification of any domestic organization as a "hate group" is unsound. (As an aside, despite performing an extensive search through the internet, I cannot find an official source that evidences that the US Army currently has an actual list of hate groups.")Here is a description of the domestic functions of the US military (as found in the "2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security"): "Federal Law prohibits military personnel from enforcing the law within the United States except as expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress. The threat of catastrophic terrorism requires a thorough review of the laws permitting the military to act within the United States in order to determine whether domestic preparedness and response efforts would benefit from greater involvement of military personnel and, if so, how." [1]Indeed, we can see that the US military has a very, very ability to enforce domestic law--and even in the case of "catastophic terrorism," a serious review would have to be conducted before military intervention would be allowed. The US Army, as a branch of the military, has little to no influence on the enforcement of domestic laws. There is no practical reason for the US Army to store a list of domestic hate groups--regardless of whether or not the category is justifiably applied. Unless TheSilentHorseman can explain why it is sound for the US Army to be organizing a list of domestic "hate groups," the resolution is, of course, deemed null.Moreover, until TheSilentHorseman explains this, the arguments he has posed are meaningless--at least, in the context of this debate. This is because government agencies' categorization of "hate groups" can only be rationalized through the practical purposes that that the practice serves. Until this "practical purpose" is defined in the case of the US Army, we cannot determine what ought to be categorized (and what ought not to be categorized) as a "hate group" under the US Army's jurisdiction. In conclusion, the US Army's classification of any domestic organization as a "hate group" is unsound.Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's response. [1] http://usacac.army.mil...
Should laptops replace the regular books for learning

The use of technology is important in the modern era, and the use of laptops is necessary to learn outside of the box which is the book. Internet provides interactive apps which are more interesting to learn than the knowledge in books. Use of laptops fills student with excitement to learn which is not the same in case of books. Another big advantage for schools is that they have to spend less annually as the laptops are really a one time investment and could be use logically between classrooms and periods.
Should laptops replace the regular books for learning

Well... possibilities are endless, but we can not let the entire generation suffer just because some freaking hacker hacked the computer. Why should students who want to work hard, sincerely and honestly suffer from someone who doesn't want to work. And if you check sources, you will find about 63% of students work hard in a school, or a college. And only about 37% who don't work. So, all in all it is a gift to have a laptop and also a curse. But majority wants to use it to prosper.
Should laptops replace the regular books for learning

I don't think somebody would punish an entire generation (everyone used Facebook at school at least once). Also, let's say some freaking hacker could put a trojan on his computer and make it send files(other trojans) to every laptop. They will still be there when he leaves school, and he could, for example, take down a small website with a DDOS. Now think the trojan would be sent to every student in several cities (a good text or something, send by a teacher to his colleagues and then to their students). He could take down Google if he wanted.
Most of geniuses are shizophrenic

Firsly I would like to say that there is no connection between children of geniuses and geniuses themselves. Shyzophrenia is a disputable illness. Scientists do not exactly know why it appears, but I have already written that it is mostly because DNA. I have seen "Beautiful Mind". I think Josh Nesh became shyzophrenic not because of his research, it also because of genetic predisposition, because there are many geniuses, who work hard like John Nesh, but they are all healthy. Thank you.
Most of geniuses are shizophrenic

However, you said that schizophrenia is a disease and you are quite right, but I already mentioned that schizophrenia could be acquired over time because of overloading the brain, in conclusion the diagnosis could be - schizophrenia ( kind of disease). I joined a site that you put into your arguments. And there is said that leading role in the occurrence of schizophrenia has a genetic predisposition. And here is the thing that I would mention is that children's of geniuses often born idiots. Einstein's son doctors found schizophrenia. When Einstein, fell into madness. After his death doctors found that there is no gray matter (carrier of intellect) in his brain. Another evidence that I can give you is the film "Beautiful Mind", probably you have seen it, the film is based on real events. The main hero was also genius and schizophrenic. In conclusion: not all schizophrenics are genius but most of genius are schizophrenics. Thank you.
Most of geniuses are shizophrenic

Beethoven, Da Vinci, Einstein, Socrates, Schumann, Gogol, etc. Found that these geniuses were schizophrenics (Lomborzo Turin, 1860). Greatness is not inherited, it appears unexpectedly. I believe that most of geniuses in our world were schizophrenic. Because their mind is overload, it is one of talent and all of them were very strange persons. Do you agree that if we will spend many times by learning and studying something without giving relax to our brain, in conclusion we lose concentration, have a head ache etc. Now is situation with geniuses they spend a lots of time to research and open something new for us! With such huge overloads the brain can not cope and the person begins to ache with schizophrenia. Conclusion: The increased activity of the brain leads to schizophrenia. In other way, we can say that schizophrenia is not a disease, but it is as a gift which discovers something new, genius, but at the same time makes it (schizophrenic), "not understandable" to other people because of their strange behaviour.
We should grant rights to Cetaceans

First of all, I would like to point out the great example of slippery slopes. However, how do you know that animal rights activists won't allow it unless all animals have "rights"? Are birds and fish as intelligent as cetaceans? Are they endangered? There is no need to give other animals rights. Just cetaceans. Cetaceans are rather endangered compared to other species. For example, whaling is a problem. Japan, Iceland, and other nations won't be stopped from whaling if we don't give the cetaceans rights. Once again, all he has said this debate, is mostly that giving "rights" to cetaceans will only result in giving "rights" to other animals.