BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kill the porkypines save the cows

The cows are doing nothing. Yet then they are becoming an endangered species, as everyone are killing them. The thing is, porkypines are killing over one hundred people per day due to mishandling, miscontact and purposeful attack. So then, would it not only be natural to kill the porkypines and use them for meat? Porkypines are not endangered, nor will they; and therefore we should kill the porkypines, filet them and use them to replace beef or any form of that.
We Can Be Reasonably Confident that Abortion Entails the Killing of a Human Being

Last week Rasputin challenged me to this debate but I was too busy, so he graciously invited me to challenge him back when the business died down a little. We agreed on a title, and Rasputin decided on these definitions: Human: Homo sapiens sapiens Kill: Organismal death Here are a few other definitions for words I’ll use in my opening argument: Fertilization: The union of male and female gametes, during sexual reproduction, to form a zygote.[1] Organism: I’ll use Google’s definition,[2] which is comparable to embryology textbooks: 1: An individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form. 3: A whole with interdependent parts, likened to a living being. We’ve agreed on this format: Round 1: Opening arguments Rounds 2-3: Rebuttals/Counter arguments Round 4: Closing arguments (No new arguments introduced this round.) This is an important topic for people to consider carefully, as the ramifications of the conclusion are huge. If the unborn are not human, than the ethical debates over elective abortion, embryonic stem cell research, therapeutic cloning and the freezing of leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization are over. Here is the syllogism I will defend in this debate: P1: By the end of the fertilization process, instigated by two members of the human species, the zygote that follows is biologically alive. (The zygote is growing, metabolizing food into energy and reacting to stimuli.) P2: The zygote is also a whole organism. (Its parts are working for the good of the whole; it’s on a path of self-directed development.) P3: The zygote is a member of the human species. P4: Abortion ends the biological life of the human organism, either in the embryonic or fetal stage of development. C: We can be reasonably confident that abortion entails the killing of a human. While it is theoretically possible that humans will eventually begin evolving into a new human-like species, I have no reason to think that this is happening in the majority of pregnancies in the year 2011. I think we can be reasonably confident that abortion kills a human in the same way we can be reasonably confident that the earth is not flat, but closer to an oblate spheroid. [3] While there are still arguments being made today by people who believe the earth is flat, the best evidence seems to be that the earth is an oblate spheroid. Now that we have a combination of astronomical observations combined with evidence provided by global astronauts and satellites, the burden of proof rests on those that continue to deny these scientific theories and evidence, and replace them with stronger evidence for an alternative theory. I look forward to reading what Rasputin’s alternative theory is. Sources:1: http://dictionary.reference.com...2: http://bit.ly...3: Choi, Charles. "Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round." Scientific American 12 April 2007: n. pag. Web. 13 Jun 2011. http://bit.ly...
We Can Be Reasonably Confident that Abortion Entails the Killing of a Human Being

Josh Brahm said: "Based on the updated criteria of the IAU, Pluto was never a planet."So do you think the 1950s definition of planet was objectively wrong? (Is the discovery that Pluto is not a planet, the same type of discovery as, say, the discovery of the speed of light in a vacuum?)Or, do you think that the assignment of matter into categories is a subjective enterprise?(Please answer this question in your next post, as it is fundamental to this discussion.)Josh Brahm said: "I think it’s time for you offer your criteria"Well like I said, I'm politically prolife. So I personally would probably just jot down the same criteria you use. We can just say a human is anything that varies from Craig's genome within 3% or so. Here's Craig's genome:http://genome.ucsc.edu...Craig is a cool guy and three is a pretty number. But the question I ask is: Is the assignment of matter into categories merely a matter of convention, or a practice in the discovery of objective truth? (1)(1) In this post, I use the classical definition of 'objective truth'. An objective truth is one that is true - despite the presence of minds to examine it.
We Can Be Reasonably Confident that Abortion Entails the Killing of a Human Being

FOREWORDThanks to Josh for the debate. I should state my political position would probably best be characterized as "prolife." However, philosophically speaking, the way in which I arrive at this stance, is quite far removed from the prolife movement. Moreover I consider my stance to be more like a "preference" rather than a belief in a "formal truth."INTRO"Can we be reasonably confident that abortion entails the killing of a Human Being?"To answer this question, we start by asking, "Is material construct X of the set of Human Beings?"So how shall Josh and I try to answer this question? Well we need only jot down a list of criteria. If the material construct in question exhibits this criteria, then of course, we can welcome construct X to the set of Humans.But what happens when Josh and I disagree about which criteria shall go on our list?I drew a cartoon of this dilemma here.http://img263.imageshack.us...So the question we must ask is this:"Who among us holds the 'master list' of criteria which specifies which material constructs are of the set of Humans?"It is tempting to think that this is a "matter of biology", and that one need only ask a biologist for his list. What we must realize however is that taxonomies are not the kind of knowledge that can be revealed by the Scientific Method.The Scientific Method can possibly reveal some objective truths about the cosmos. (The Dimensionless Physical Constants for example.) But when it comes to establishing a set of criteria by which we organize matter, this is purely a subjective undertaking.We note further, that this observation is not limited to the "abortion issue." Consider the pictures below for more examples:http://img99.imageshack.us...CONCLUSIONLet's restate:"Can we be reasonably confident that abortion entails the killing of a Human Being?"How might one be confident that he is holding the objectively true list of criteria that defines which constructs are human?If Josh hands you his list, and Rasputin hands you a different list. How might you confidently select one?This would be easy to do if, for example, we all had access to God's list of criteria.http://img231.imageshack.us...But if this sort of divine communication is not available, then we simply have no way to know which metric we should be using to ascertain how far (or how close) any construct is from the mark.Another tactic Josh might try, may be to get Rasputin to agree on a "benchmark" -- that shall stand as the "perfect specimen" for what constitutes a member of the set of humans. Suppose we choose Adam and Eve (or Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie).http://img8.imageshack.us...So it quickly becomes apparent that indeed, we are back at the same problem. Josh is going to write down the criteria that he considers important. And I'm going to write down mine.But who among us is holding the list that closest resembles "the one true list"?That is something that cannot be known by any degree.And hence, one cannot be more or less confident about any given list whatsoever.
Atheism is a religion founded on faith.

Religion: b4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Websters Seventh New Collgiate Dictionary,1969 Athiest believe that there is no diety. It should not be contested, as this site is full of examples, that Athiest use lack of evidence and modern scientific knowledge to defend their beliefs and challenge pro diety religions. Yet any scientist worth their salt would hold the position that the lack of proof of something does not negate its existence. Darwinism v. Creationism Modern science has observed that animals(including humans) have evoled over a period of time, through genetics, leaving the best equipped to survive. A change in environment can almost immediately cause change in species adapting to such change. In England, the peppered moth changed its color from white to black in order to comouflage themselves from birds on soot covered trees at the turn of the last century. Once soot output was diminished, the liken grew back and the moths changed back to white. Domestic pigs that escape to the wild, not only change the color of their coat from pink to brown, but also their tusk will grow in order to feed on roots and for defense. My point is we humans have the ability to effect the evolutionary process. So it is safe to say, that so could a diety, if one exist. Most religious people today do not take Genesis for word. The earth has been around for a little longer than 6000 years. However, the theory of evolution leaves plenty of room for an "unearthly" force to control the evolution, either in part or as a whole. Its existense has neither been proven or disproven. If it walks like a duck...... Religion has certainly had it's effect on scociety. Most notably the struggle for dominance in thought. Atheism is now fighting(and winning) for dominance in public thought just as any other religion has. Most notable examples would be the restrictions on public displays and thought in public classrooms. Evolution without intervention of an unknown is a theory. Yet the athiest seek to ban any examination and discussion in the classroom. The church used to control thought. If it talks like a duck...... The belief in a diety is based on faith and has not been proven. The belief that no diety exist is based on faith and has not be proven. Both are forms of religion.
In order to preserve the racial integrity of the U.S. (full resolution in my opening round)

It has garnered a lot of views and has even sparked some debate in the forums. However, my opponent's reading of my arguments has been misguided, at best. I will quickly go into them one by one before completely a summary. 1) "Con starts by saying that "negative effects" are subjecive. Thats all well and good, but he has already conceded to their negative effects so for the purposes of this round they are universial. " This is false, I have agreed to the effects themselve, but not to their status as "negative" nor to the degree at which they effect us. As stated in the last round, I view sex as a good thing, not a negative thing. Since my opponent has not provided anything as to why they are negative, these are all dropped. 2) "Con also tries tolink iimmigration restrictions to genocide. That is absolutely ridiculous. " This is false. I linked discriminating in immigration to discriminating in WW2. Drawing additional links between the two that were not made is a strawman tactic. This also fails to address the primary point, that if we disrciminate against them because of "negative" effects, we must discriminate against all things that have that "negative" effect, including ourselves. If we are creating only a special case of discrimination against them, then it is because of their skin color or race, rather than the actual negative effects. 3) "Con states that my quiote is an appeal to authority. So what? " I believe that this speaks for itself. Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy and as such does not follow reason. 4) "Con tries to link immigrant poverty with crime, rather than race. You can vote pro. He's conceded that immigrants from non European countries bring about more crime (although for different reaons). He's given no reason TO allow them in. Sure, poverty=crime. Non-white aliens are more than likely to be poor. " This goes back to my initial case, that not allowing people in because of their actions is superior to not allowing them in because of their skin color. There is no real link between being poor and one's skin color, and Pro has not provided any link to show causation. Summary Pro has not provided any evidence or reasoning that discriminating against people based on their nationality (i. e. skin color, as he specifically said that European nations are okay i. e. white nations). He also provided no solid reasoning that basing immigration off of other factors would not be a better alternative. With nothing but his own opinion, and the opinions of his appeal to authorities, there is no reason to support a vote for him. Thank you,
In order to preserve the racial integrity of the U.S. (full resolution in my opening round)

C1.Con starts by saying that "negative effects" are subjecive. Thats all well and good, but he has already conceded to their negative effects so for the purposes of this round they are universial. Con also tries tolink iimmigration restrictions to genocide. That is absolutely ridiculous. All we are doing is excluding some people from immigrating because of cultural perversion, not killing them. Con states that my quiote is an appeal to authority. So what? I've given my opinion, and the opinions of several others, and explained how racial admixture results in cultural destruction. Con has given his own opinion, and nothing more. Please vote Pro. Con disagrees aout the harms of inter-racial marriage. I have given an analysis about how it is cultural destruction which he ignores. Vote Pro. C2. Con tries to link immigrant poverty with crime, rather than race. You can vote pro. He's conceded that immigrants from non European countries bring about more crime (although for different reaons). He's given no reason TO allow them in. Sure, poverty=crime. Non-white aliens are more than likely to be poor. Conclusion:Con has lost this debate. Many of his objections support my side, and during the entire round he offers nothing more than his own personal opinion. I know almost all of you disagree with me, but I respectfully ask for a Pro ballot.Thank you for the debate Ore_Ele, and for not insuing me despite this being a subject of controversy.
In order to preserve the racial integrity of the U.S. (full resolution in my opening round)

C1) "Negative effects" are a subjective measuring stick. One that if my opponent wishes to use, he must back up his reasoning for reaching such a subjective opinion and present a case why we all should follow it. For the time, my opponent has not done anything other than restate his case. If we assume that the qualities that my opponent listed are indeed "negative" to the point where an entire race of people should be discriminated against for them (because of their cartoons, at least Hitler was blaming a war on the Jews, not cartoons on them), then we must also, by the same logic, discriminate on the entire American and European races, since those "negative" efftects are present (in a much larger degree) in us. One must also ask, how "negative" are these if we don't even bother making them illegal? Is "sex" really that bad? I personally enjoy it, and we kind of need it to continue on as a species. So I subjectively view it as a "good." We can let the voters decide. The Quote from Bishop Alma is an appeal to authority. Nothing of logical value was presented, no facts, no reasoning, no nothing. Just personal opinion from a man with authority. "If he cannot understand this, than I cannot explain it to him." Probably not, but as a rule of thumb for a debate, you at least want to try to explain it to the readers, if not to your opponent. C2) "Con has attempted to by-pass the fact that immigrants from latin america (where the vast majority come from) commit more crime than whites." My opponent has shown nothing to why blasklisting the entire race is proper solution, merely restated this statistic. In fact, he hasn't even shown that this anything more than correlation. To make such a damning act of racial blacklisting, one would have to prove racial casuation. More likely, this is caused by a spurious relationship of poverty or wealth. Immigrants tend to be poorer, and the poor tend to commit more crimes (the logically link being that the poor are more often in desperate situations and so need to take desperate risks, i.e. crime).
In order to preserve the racial integrity of the U.S. (full resolution in my opening round)

C1) Pro claims that "Japanese anime has very negative affects on our society." While I accept that anime often has underlying themes of sex and violence, drug based themes are actually not very common in modern animes or mangas. And all of these themes are actually far more common in modern American films and TV shows. But that actually doesn't matter as restrictions on anime (whether justified or not) have nothing to do with restrictions of Japanese immigrants. Just like immigration of German people with the import of German cars. Pro has also made several claims about about people marrying outside of their race (both in R1 and R2), while he has presented no logical reasoning for why this is a negative act that should be prevented. I would also like to point out that if 40% of asians are marrying outside of their race, then they are actually being very biased towards marrying within their race. Since they only make up 4.8% [1], they should (statistically) only marry in their own race 4.8% of the time. The fact that they are not, shows that some driving factor is pushing them towards their own race (like genetics that makes them more attracted to a similar race rather than a concious choice). C2) Basing immigration based on criminal history is not limited to just the legal system of their home nation. Many nations provide a probation period of several years, where if you break the law, you are booted out and not allowed to return (pending the law, they don't kick you out for a speeding ticket). Regarding attacking what my opponent has said, that is not required. If I can provide a superior policy, I don't need to attack yours at all. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
In order to preserve the racial integrity of the U.S. (full resolution in my opening round)

Thanks, Ore_Ele. Let's look over Ore_Ele's arguments and find the flaws in them.C1. He begins by stating that Japanese immigrants commit very little crime. While I accept his statistics, Japanese immigrants harm us in an entirely more obscure, but just as sinister way. For one thing, Japanese anime has very negative affects on our society. In fact, Japanese anime quite often has underlying themes of sex, violence,and drug use. Such an attack on the cultural hegemony of Europe in our nation is quite dangerous. Also, asians are much moe likely to disrupt our racial integrity. In fact, 40% of asians marry outside their race.[1] C2. Ore_Ele wants us to discriminate based on criminal history, not ethnicity. The problem with this is that the nations from which many of these immigrants come have very un-developed legal systems, making their criminal ctivity much less likely to be detected. The fact remains that immigrants commit more crime (save for the notable example brought up, however they harm us in other ways.) He has not attacked any of what I've said so really, at this point, theres no reason to not vote pro.Source: 1. http://pewsocialtrends.org...
In order to preserve the racial integrity of the U.S. (full resolution in my opening round)

I'm going to take this as a two prong debate. In order for the resolution to stand, both parts must be refuted. If either stands, the resolution falls. Since my opponent's resolution only deals with legal immigration, and not illegal immigration, that is what will be argued. C1) According to the resolution, immigration from Asia should no longer be allowed. This includes, but is not limited to Japan. The Japanese American population is only .3% of the US (1,200,000 people), however, they make up so few in prision that they are not even counted in most incarceration charts [1]. These individuals are more often than not, law abiding citizens, and contributing members to society. The resolution would greatly harm our relationship with Japan, and the companies, and economic gain we receive by doing business with them. C2) It is better to discriminate based on criminal history, than on nationality. Several stats that were given were rather poor. Example is the "non-citizen Hispanics were 74 percent of immigration offenders. .. Non-citizen Hispanics are 5.1 percent of the nation's adult population. " These two numbers do not go together. It would be more accurate to point immigration offenders to the imigration percentage, not total population percentage. Of which, hispanics make up 67% of all our immigrants [2]. That said, only a small minority of immigrants commit crime, so preventing all imigration based on nation of origin, is a poor decision, especailly when considering that criminals can immigrat from other European nations. A far superior method would be to base immigration off of criminal history and usefullness to society. I will leave this as these two short points and allow my opponent to address them. [1] . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
will china and russia partnership end the reign of the USA

when I have started this debate I have noticed that these things depend on how you(public not just one person) understand the ulterior of the events. my arguments are based on my predictions and analyzes, I can not find a way to explain it and evidence is not evidence until it is shown, fact is not fact until it is proven, everybody is innocent unless the crime he or she has done is proven, hence here I claim that my opponent wins and i have forfeiten this debate. congrats.