BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion, after the first trimester, is murder

In this debate I shall argue that abortion after the first trimester does not meet my opponent"s revised definition of murder. Before I do so, I"d like to thank my opponent for inviting this debate. As this is my first debate on here, I apologise in advance if there is some standard format I should be following that I am unaware of. As I see it, there are two elements to my opponent"s position (based on how he (I assume he, do correct me if I"m wrong) has defined murder). These are that the foetus should count as a human, and that terminating it would be an immoral act. I intend to use this first round to really flesh out what my opponent means when he talks of abortion after the first trimester being immoral. As I see it, there are three key questions he needs to answer to clarify his stance. 1.What are the morally relevant qualities of humans that make it immoral to kill them? (This may seem obvious but there are different paths one might take here) 2.Does a foetus possess these same qualities? 3.What happens at the first trimester that transforms the foetus from something it is acceptable to terminate into something that it is morally unacceptable to terminate? I accept your revised definition of murder for the debate, although the definition of human will need some adding to it to clarify exactly what it is that sets a human apart from other creatures in terms of our moral obligations to it. While I won"t try and give my actual points in this round, (as I don"t yet know your full stance and I don"t want to take a scatter gun approach to this), I would like to check we agree that the burden of proof should be on the side claiming something is immoral. For example, it is reasonable if someone says "action x is wrong" to ask for reasons before we agree. We wouldn't just assume all actions are wrong until they are proved to be morally correct. This isn't a point against you by any means, just one to clarify we"re on the same page.
Abortion, after the first trimester, is murder

It is my position that abortion, after the first trimester, is murder. My argument isn't a legal argument, but rather a moral argument. So arguing that it isn't legally considered murder is not a valid argument. Rules:1. First round is for acceptance, as well as providing additional definitions if so desired. Clarifications may be provided in R1 as well, or in the comments. 2. No new evidence may be provided in round four (except for Pro's rebuttal of Con's last argument in round 3.) Otherwise, round four is for summarizing, and restating the points of the debate. 3. Pro must affirm that abortion after the first trimester is murder. Con must affirm that abortion after the first trimester does not meet the definition of murder.4. No semantic arguments. 5. DDO rules apply.Definitions:It is important that we set definitions. I have listed two definitions below. If Con disagrees with these definitions, and wishes to provide their own definitions, they may do so within reason. However, their providing of definitions will not replace my given definitions, unless proven unfair, or misleading. Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. [1]Human: Relating to or characteristic of humankind.[2]However, as stated previously, I do not believe that legality makes something morally ok. Therefore, I would like to alter the definition of murder to: "The immoral premeditated killing of one human being by another."Thanks to my opponent for accepting the debate. Sources:[1] - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
The 9/11 terror attacks were committed by leaders of the United States government

I'm sorry. I had a very stupid moment here. I'm afraid I wasted your time. See I thought you believed in the conspriacy theroy, I didn't think to look at whether yuo were con or pro.... Sorry, there is nothing to debate because we both believe the same thing on this subject. The government had no hand in the 9-11 attacks... Yes, call me an idiot if you must...Sorry for wasting time...
The 9/11 terror attacks were committed by leaders of the United States government

Firstly, I would like to note how difficult it is for me to write what you call an 'official argument' when I am con, the burden of proof is on you, and this is primarily a refutation debate. How am I supposed to refute what you haven't brought up yet? I can only be brief again, as I have no idea what you might bring as reasons for why you think the US Government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. As for the things that you brought up.... Perhaps the president did not think that terrorism was very serious threat? Looking back as we are now and thinking about the presidents decision might make him look foolish, however, we must look at the situation from a time before 9/11 actually happened. Terrorism was rather low in the US, relatively small terror attacks happened every decade or so- we were not in a "war on terror". The president receives many memos every day, I agree that he did receive a memo regarding the 9/11 terror attacks. Looking back at it now, this seems like an obvious threat. Looking at it from that point of view, perhaps not. He gets at least one PdB (Presidential Daily Brief) a day. Even if he did think it were some sort of threat, what is he supposed to do about it? He had no information about the time of the attack. You might say that he could call the alarms, notify the US public, and shut down or add more security to airport- but pre 9/11 this would have been practically unheard of, and would probably have caused some issues, considering the president had just come into office not too long before this. From my investigations into the 9/11 terror attacks, all 'proofs' that the government was involved have either been totally irrelevant, relating more to incompetence than planning, or utter misunderstandings of how things work ( Fire could not melt steel). I am open for my opponents reasons why he believes that the US government was involved in 9/11
The 9/11 terror attacks were committed by leaders of the United States government

By the looks of it, you are defending the possiblity of an "inside job" by the government regarding the september 11 attacks. First of all, there are alot of questions about 9-11 that have yet to be answered. But my questions are not about "controlled demolitions" or missles in place of planes. My questions are along the lines of: Why did the president cut anti-terrorism funding from the F.B.I. by 12%, or what did Bush think when he got an F.B.I. warning of a terrorist attack on New York city? When dealing with a "conspricy" theroy, you need to first adress the basics. Now I really don't know what your logic is for this debate, so I would love to respond as soon as you give me an official argument. Thank you.
PC is better than console

"Has better exclusives" It doesn't matter if it depends. They still have more and better exclusives. By that i do not mean that they are all better. "Runs better" I have an 8-core CPU and it is overclock-able to 5GHz which beats both consoles even considering all the other things the PC is doing. My PC will be able to play games for about 10 years but will a console? You'd have to buy a new one every other year which makes Moores law irrelevant. "Has better graphics" PC has far better graphics because of its resolution capabilities. The PS4 and Xbox one both run the resolution at about 1920 x 1080 or 1080p, but the PC has the ability to run the resolution at 4096 x 2160 or 4k for short. Even if I had to to some "serious weed pulling" (Which I don't) the PC's graphics are better. "Is more customizable" I mean you can make your PC glow whatever color you want, make it how big you want, and use any type of controller you want. "Won't run out every year" No... I mean you're not going to have to buy one every year to get the newest games. "Can be used for way more things" Your evidence has been refuted! Lol. Look up a formatting for it. There are lots of different ways.
PC is better than console

Interesting topic. Well, I suppose I will begin by attempting to refute your claims. For analysis, I will compare your standard PC to the Xbox One and PS4. "It has more and better exclusives" That is completely arbitrary actually, It can vary drastically depending on the game, the game manufacturer, the time of year. "Runs Better" Well, the Processing power(CPU) of your standard Xbox One is 1.75Ghz, while the PS4 runs slightly slower at 1.6. Your standard PC runs from about 1.5 to 2.5. However, this is only due to Moores law, which dictates that CPU increases exponentially through the first 10 years of activity. Also remember, PC's are designed to do so many things, such as utilizing global information servers(The internet) or just looking up where the nearest starbucks is. Consoles are designed for only one purpose, and for that reason, and the close amount of CPU mentioned, I believe that Consoles run better for what they are designed for. "Has better graphics" Now, because the PS4 has better qualitative and comparative graphics to the Xbox One, we will is it as a comparison to a PC. You can compare pictures of gameplay between the PC and the PS4, and the honest answer is that it is basically the same. You would honestly have to do some serious Weed pulling to find any differences between the two. "Is more customizable" I'm sorry, can you abreviate? What exactly does that mean? "Wont run out every year" Do you mean break or malfunction? Because if so, you're completely wrong. In fact, because of the technology that goes into making a console more compact and powerful that small enough to fit in a drawer, its much harder to actually physically damage, but with PC's, there are so many intricate and delicate parts in such a open and spacious cage that it leaves a lot of room for error and mishaps, and of course they are larger and heavier then Consoles. "Can be used for way more things" Well yeah, that's sort of the purpose of a PC...Lol. Consoles are made for games, and I believe my refutations and evidence provided is worthy enough for them to be better at them. Can someone tell me how to provide references and websites URL's? I would like to show where I received my information.
feminism is marxism

First, not all socialism is Marxism, there are democratic socialists, Leninists, Maoists et cetera. Feminism may be similar to socialism, but it is not equal in meaning to socialism, and it is very different from Marxism. Also, it does in the paper refer to roots in the Old Left and New Left. A) that is roots, that does not mean they are one and the same b) the Old Left people were Trotkyists, Leninists, and Stalinists, differentiated from the Marxists of the New Left. She also speaks of Marxist materialism, which is not necessarily Marxism, it is one concept of Karl Marx's ideals. The paper shows that many of the so-called "Pro-Woman" feminists had roots in Socialism,but it does not establish the two as one and the same. "Consider these areas of interest to feminists in the economic area: Universal healthcare Affirmitive action Paid daycare Equality of Outcomes, not the Equality of opportunity" These are somewhat (okay maybe more than somewhat) socialist areas of interests, but they are not Marxist, there is a difference that you are not recognizing, and that is why your argument fails. "Feminist outright reject the free market and try through political action to establish socialism to benefit their class at the expense of the rest of society." These ideas aren't intended to hurt men, nor are they intended to make women the ruling class, they want a) women to be treated the same as men b) as they are mostly liberals, they want liberal ideas, does that surprise you? None of this makes them Marxists, and therefore, the resolution fails.
feminism is marxism

Definition and focus: I would like to focus this debate to a subsect of feminists, those that Christina Hoff Sommers referred to as 'Gender feminists'. Considering the unpopularity of being called a feminist, many have tried to expand the definition of feminism to include nearly anything a woman does to her advantage. This is not to debate the libertarian strain of 'Equity Feminist', as I do not believe they are Marxist. Moving forward, I will use 'feminist' to mean 'gender feminist'. Argument: The purpose of the initial post was to instigate a response to a well known document in feminist circles. Ms. Hanisch clearly espouses collective action and tries in her paper to expand the 'class' by including women who felt they were removed from her Marxist based movement. She identifies two groups of feminist: The first are women who are in 'therapy'. The second are the Marxist who are trying to affect political change. This second group, she clearly admits it's roots in Marxism: "Recognizing the need to fight male supremacy as a movement instead of blaming the individual woman for her oppression was where the Pro-Woman Line came in. It challenged the old anti-woman line that used spiritual, psychological, metaphysical, and pseudo-historical explanations for women's oppression with a real, materialist analysis for why women do what we do. (By materialist, I mean in the Marxist materialist (based in reality) sense, not in the "desire for consumer goods" sense.) Taking the position that "women are messed over, not messed up" took the focus off individual struggle and put it on group or class struggle, exposing the necessity for an independent WLM to deal with male supremacy." But,you are correct, one person makes not a movement. Feminism (American brand), is based on class struggle. It assumes men and women are the same. All differences are attributed to oppression by the patriarchy. In this, feminism argues that we are not a product of our biology and environment but rather purely by the environment. By assuming that men and women are the same, they come to the conclusion that the differences that exist are due to personal (and as Ms. Hanisch describes, this means it is political) oppression by the patriarchy. Consider these areas of interest to feminists in the economic area: Universal healthcare Affirmitive action Paid daycare Equality of Outcomes, not the Equality of opportunity If one is a capitalist then one would allow the free market to determine prices, supply and demand. Feminist outright reject the free market and try through political action to establish socialism to benefit their class at the expense of the rest of society. One could point to this as classic rent seeking, and I would agree that it is rent seeking, but by Marxist who have replaced the Proletariate with Women.
feminism is marxism

First, definitions: Feminism: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests Marxism: a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society is: present 3rd singular of be, dialect present 1st & 2nd singular of be, dialect present plural of be to be: to equal in meaning Source: Merriam-Webster That means that organized activity on behalf women's rights and interests is the same as a theory and practice of socialism including labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society. One could make the argument that Marxism would improve women's rights, and my argument to that would be that throughout history Marxism has only led to decreases in rights for everyone, ie North Korea, Cuba, USSR, East Germany, etc. The other argument would be that all feminists are Marxists, which is simply not true, plenty of people who fight for women's rights do not support Marxist ideals. My opponent's case is a complete non sequitur, it is simply some paper on a woman's experiences on feminism. It does not contain more than trivial evidence that the feminist in the paper is a Marxist, and even if it did, it would not speak for all feminists. Your move.
feminism is marxism

Okay, these quotes show that feminism has some roots in Marxism, that doesn't mean it is Marxism, that's completely different. "Class conflict? Check. Overthrowing capitalism? Check. Revolutionary dialogue? Check. Rewriting history? Check. Collective political action to force socialist policies? Check. Reconstructing issues to blame any perceived inequity on the environment and specifically gender(class) oppression? Check." Class conflict: It is a different type, Marxism focuses on the workers, feminism focuses on the women, it is very different Overthrowing capitalism: Feminists don't require that, and even if they want to, they go farther, the patriarch is their main issue Revolutionary dialogue: Is that exclusive to Marxism? No. Collective Political action to force socialist policies: Also not exclusive to Marxism Reconstructing issues to blame any perceived inequity on the environment and specifically gender(class) oppression: Also not exclusive to Marxism Face the facts, there may be similarities between the two, but they are not the same thing. I rest my case.
feminism is marxism

"My use 'Marxism light' was to address that issue. It is true that we live in a representational democracy. It is also true we have in socialist policies in place. At what point do we say that we are a socialist country? When the government spends 50%? 75%? That I think is where some of our differences exist. I do not see feminist today espousing free market economics. Nor do I see a let the individual decide policy prescriptions. What is happening is, feminist are trying to push through more government control of not only regulations but economic resources. What is unavoidable is that they do promote in large part socialist policies." We are nowhere close to 50% socialist, and even if we do all the things that are relevant to the feminists we won't be all that closer, we will still be solid capitalists. "The second area I think you disagree is the notion I put forward that you can only have socialism if you have marxism. As pointed out in my previous post, one can only have a redistribution of economic resources if one identifies classes and uses collective action to force the redistribution. In this way, as pointed out by von Mises, Fascism is really no different from Socialism." Okay, but fascism is irrelevant, you didn't prove that socialism is Marxism. "All of these points have been addressed. I will expand on them. Production is not only items that are traded for currency. Other production can include labor in the family. Much of the economic conflict argued by feminist occur in the home. The division of labor where women produce economic output at home forgoing currency based imployment outside of the home, is considered 'slavery' by many feminist. Only true freedom is believed to be possible where the woman has equal income to the husband and home duties are shared equally. Specialization is considered a loss of 'power'." You dropped my rebuttals for 1-3, and even with your arguments, the major difference is that feminism does not require the dismantling of capitalism permanently, they simply want gender to be irrelevant in capitalism. "I will agree with you that economic considerations are not the only area that feminist argue for. The fact 'patriarchy' is specified does not mean that they are not marxist/socialist, especially when they use Marxist methods to come to their positions. In both word and deed, it is clear feminist are Marxists." Marxist methods are effective revolutionary method, its not odd that they use them. The difference is that they feminism ideology is different than Marxist ideology, ergo they are not the same thing.
feminism is marxism

There are two areas that I believe you are disagreeing with. This is the crux of point one: "Feminism is Marxism light, where did that come from?" In your posts you claim that most of the left are solid capitalists. Most of your previous posts entail trying to explain how things are "somewhat (okay maybe more than somewhat) socialist areas of interests" but are in view not in fact socialist. My use 'Marxism light' was to address that issue. It is true that we live in a representational democracy. It is also true we have in socialist policies in place. At what point do we say that we are a socialist country? When the government spends 50%? 75%? That I think is where some of our differences exist. I do not see feminist today espousing free market economics. Nor do I see a let the individual decide policy prescriptions. What is happening is, feminist are trying to push through more government control of not only regulations but economic resources. What is unavoidable is that they do promote in large part socialist policies. Again equality of outcomes is not equality of opportunity. The only way to get the former is by using force. In this the original post clearly shows that individual's belief that it was only by increasing the class could collective action be taken against basically everyone else. The second area I think you disagree is the notion I put forward that you can only have socialism if you have marxism. As pointed out in my previous post, one can only have a redistribution of economic resources if one identifies classes and uses collective action to force the redistribution. In this way, as pointed out by von Mises, Fascism is really no different from Socialism. "Point One: This is saying that capitalism causes men to exploit women, which is not true, capitalism is not usually blamed. Point Two: A feminist "assault" on the family has little to do with Point Two Point Three: A feminist "assault" on the family has little to do with Point Three Point Four: Patriarchy does not equal capitalism Point Five: Multiple waves are not exclusive to Marxism Point Six: Men and women being equal has nothing to do with Point Six" All of these points have been addressed. I will expand on them. Production is not only items that are traded for currency. Other production can include labor in the family. Much of the economic conflict argued by feminist occur in the home. The division of labor where women produce economic output at home forgoing currency based imployment outside of the home, is considered 'slavery' by many feminist. Only true freedom is believed to be possible where the woman has equal income to the husband and home duties are shared equally. Specialization is considered a loss of 'power'. I will agree with you that economic considerations are not the only area that feminist argue for. The fact 'patriarchy' is specified does not mean that they are not marxist/socialist, especially when they use Marxist methods to come to their positions. In both word and deed, it is clear feminist are Marxists.
ODT: Global Warming Has an Anthropogenic Cause

As much as I believe you, the rules cannot be excused. I asked Microsuck, the tournament moderator, about this situation, and he contacted Airmax, the DDO president and organizer of the tournaments, and this was his reply, "While I'm sympathetic to Nerdy we can't make exceptions to the rules for having good excuses.. whats to stop someone who procrastinated from just making up a really good excuse?"P So unfortunately, you have lost the debate. I do sincerly apologize.