BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

you say that the baby in the womb is " clusters of cells who are totally unconscious, can't feel pain and have no capability of feeling emotions." now there have been many studies on what you have said but according to Tony Perkins "22 days later, the child"s heart begins to circulate his own blood" & "At six weeks of life, electrical brain activity can be detected" so the baby has brain activity only after six weeks. now I don't truly know much about all that I am no scientist but I believe that doctors will call their patients if the patients heart stops beating or if the patient is brain dead (i.e. if their is no electrical brain activity). Now if death is when the heart stops shouldn't life begin when the heart starts? And if the heart starts at 22 days after conception wouldn't that mean that the baby is alive at that point? If the doctors will call a patient dead when there is no electrical brain activity shouldn't there be life when there is electrical brain activity? And if the electrical brain activity starts at six weeks wouldn't that mean life is called (again) when the electrical brain activity starts? You said "someone wouldn't be ready for maternity." now I understand that women don't like to be fat but is that really a reason to kill "What if the mother doesn't have enough money to go on maternal leave?" well I have three older sisters and two of them were pregnant(once upon a time) and neither one of them went on maternal leave, so it is possible to not go on maternal leave. Sources: (1) http://downloads.frc.org...
Abortion

You have said that "you and I we are all a cluster of cells." However, we are CONSCIOUS clusters of cells who can feel pain and have emotional attachments in this world. Embryos are clusters of cells who are totally unconscious, can't feel pain and have no capability of feeling emotions. Later in your argument you compared abortion to killing an unconscious man, but that analogy doesn't work at all because that man HAS been conscious before, most probably has people who love and care about him, and would not want to die. An embryo has never been conscious before and doesn't care whether or not they die because they simply don't have the mental capacity to think or feel any sort of emotion whatsoever. You then stated that "the baby will start feeling pain at around 10 weeks." However, I have found yet an other article with ample scientific evidence proving that the fetus feels pain around their 24th week (1). And by the way, even if your statistic is correct, most abortions happen even before the 10th week of the baby's development (2). I realize that the source I have cited also shows that some abortions are done very late in the baby's development. I am not in support of those types of abortions; however, as stated in the article, the majority of abortions happen within the first 8-12 weeks of the fetus's growth. In response to my point that sometimes abortion is necessary for survival, you have mostly responded by saying the mother can let the baby be born and then put it up for adoption. However, just taking care of the baby once it has been born is not the only reason why someone wouldn't be ready for maternity. What if the mother doesn't have enough money to go on maternal leave? (Many companies don't pay during that time) What if the mother isn't ready for the pain that comes with the entire process of childbirth? And sometimes, pregnancy/childbirth can put the mother's life at risk (3), in which case it is much more important to protect the life of the mother rather than the "life" of an unconscious lump of cells. Abortion is not the killing of a baby. It is the protecting of a mother by removing a burden; a burden that is unconscious, does not feel pain, and doesn't even know it exists. SOURCES (1) http://www.theguardian.com... (2) http://www.lifesitenews.com... (3) http://www.usatoday.com...
Abortion

Okay I will start off when you said "abortion is NOT the killing of a baby which has already been born; abortion is to stop a cluster of cells (an embryo) from continued replication" You are partially right, it is not killing a baby that has already been born because the baby has not been born the baby is still inside the uterus and yes the baby is a cluster of cells but so are you and I we are all a cluster of cells. If you want to stop clusters of cells from growing then children who are growing should be added to that list. You also said that "a fetus actually doesn't feel any pain in its first 24 weeks of growth" which is incorrect because the baby will start feeling pain at around 10 weeks. 1) Rape Victims-(we are talking forced rape) a woman is less likely to get pregnant due to rape because her body is resisting the man who is forcing it on her. Also if a woman does get pregnant due to rape she could put the baby up for adoption there are many families who want children but can't have any of their own. 2)Poverty- same thing they could put the baby up for adoption You asked "Does that look like something you would like to hold?" yes I would hold any one of them because they are still babies you see the embryo pictures are just unfinished pieces of art but they still have beauty of their own. If you want to have an example people who are missing limbs of something happened to them in the womb they are still beautiful in their own way. They may not be 100% but they are still amazing in their own way. Also when you say ""killing": an unconscious lump of cells." yes you are KILLING but also someone who hit their head really hard and became unconscious for a few minutes, does that mean that for the few minutes they are unconscious they are fair game to be killed. Sources: (1) http://www.prolifephysicians.org... (2) http://downloads.frc.org... (3) http://www.christianliferesources.com...
Abortion

You started off by asking the question, "...when is it except able to kill a baby?" First of all, abortion is NOT the killing of a baby which has already been born; abortion is to stop a cluster of cells (an embryo) from continued replication. That cluster of cells has no consciousness at all at the point that an abortion generally happens; therefore, it is not really a human being yet. Additionally, there is scientific evidence that a fetus actually doesn't feel any pain in its first 24 weeks of growth (1). Second of all, there ARE some situations where abortions are necessary: 1) Rape Victims- if a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape, then she never had any choice in the matter. She may not be emotionally ready for the responsibility of parenthood, and no one has the right to put such a huge burden on someone who isn't ready for it 2) Poverty- sometimes, a woman is simply not able to financially support a baby and. again, no one has the right to force that sort of burden on someone. You went on to state that "...when you hold a baby you just fell like you are holding the most precious thing in the world they look so cute...I want to know what would be a good reason for killing something that amazing something that precious?" Go Google a picture of an embryo. Does that look like something you would like to hold? I don't think so. Yet, that is what an abortion is actually "killing": an unconscious lump of cells. You don't seem to understand that abortion doesn't kill actual living babies. I agree that most of the time, unwanted pregnancy occurs as a result of irresponsibility, but sometimes abortion is really needed for the safety of the mother. SOURCES: (1) http://www.newscientist.com...
Abortion

I have to ask you when is it except able to kill a baby? You see when people say "only when there is a good reason for it." I always ask when is it a good reason? I ask this of you because if there is a good reason for killing a baby does that mean people can kill other people if there is a good reason for it? I cannot ever think of a good reason to think of killing people and I can never think of a reason to kill a baby. Babies are so precious(have you ever held a baby?) when you hold a baby you just fell like you are holding the most precious thing in the world they look so cute(picture the most amazing painting and babies are ten times more amazing) and if anything ever happened to that baby hat you are holding then your heart would just drop into your stomach. Yes some times they can be annoying but that doesn't mean that you should kill the baby, it that was true that being annoying can get people killed many people would be dead right now. I want to know what would be a good reason for killing something that amazing something that precious?
Abortion

"Scientist have proven that babies while in the womb flinch when an abortion is happening there for they do feel the doctor" performing the surgery, so therefore the babies do feel pain."I would like to see some sort of evidence of this finding from a scientific article of some sort. As far as I know, reseearch shows that a fetus's nervous system isn't developed enough to feel any pain before roughly the 24th week of development. "I am not underestimating that kind of pain but if they don't endure it now then when will they."When they truly want to have a baby, then they will be ready for the pain. No one should have to be forced into undergoing the process of maternity, and abortions provide a way for people to escape the process when it is needed for their own safety,
Donald Trump is Sexy

I sexually Identify as a Donald Trump. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of being a billionaire from New York. People say to me that a person being Donald Trump is Impossible and I'm fcking retarded but I don't care, I'm beautiful. I'm having a bank give me a small loan of 1,000,000 dollars and install a gold wig on my head. From now on I want you guys to call me "Donald Trump" and respect my right to build a great huge wall and kill dirty Muslim immigrants and Mexicans. If you can't accept me you're a Liberal, will get sued and need to check your political privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.
Students Should Not Wear Uniforms At Memphis City And Shelby County Schools

As a student that is graduating from high school this summer, the question of whether or not uniforms should be permitted in school is one that is asked frequently and over the past twelve years of public education without a requirement with uniforms I feel that it would be best for uniforms in public school. As our country continues to develop as a nation of equality, there is no reason for there not to be a uniform requirement, in this case it would not be fair for wealthy students to wear more expensive clothes than other students. In this day and age, we have instant information and we are surrounded by Social Media Sites like facebook and twitter here we instantly get a look at the person we searched for. This is very similar to developing a first impression, when people go to school wearing edgy clothes, it subjects them to bullying from other students and criticsm from teachers.
Students Should Not Wear Uniforms At Memphis City And Shelby County Schools

Thank and yes it can be in general. Students should be allowed to express themselves. Although I am only 12 I have a lot to say.If people wear school uniforms the school will look bold and boring like a prison where every one has to wear the same thing.If children have to where school uniform there style will disappear and there feelings will be more depressed because most school uniforms have dark colours which will make the people inside look sad. We should be able to express are own differences to show individuality and freedom. Most school uniforms look like a suit so we look educational yes mabye we do look like that but we are still children we are not 30 and ready to go to work every morning. Children feel they have nothing really to think about every thing is being told to them like stand straight, tuck in your shirt, this is to colourful, ect. Literally we all look like nerds the only thing that is mising is the glasses. The school uniforms are mostly uncomfortable and bad to play outside in the brake and they make you sweat a lot but if you cant take your sweat shirt of even if you are wearing a shirt and a tie underneath it will become more uncomfortable and if we try to switch it right in class we get told sit still and don't move. If we always get told to wear the same thing we will not know to well in the future if it is appropiate to to wear some things in public. What school may not know the children are divided int different groups and so what if you don't have the latest fashion trend you could just show yor cool personality but if we have school uniform we have only a limited way or no way to express our feelings or style. So I say no school uniform.
An Outside Intruder Did Not Kill JonBenet Ramsey

Thank you to ShabShoral, this is by far the most enjoyable debate I've had on here in quite some time. Conspiracies and cold cases are always fun. Really glad you suggested the topic.I'll get right to the voting issues. Remember that we did adjust the BoP, although it still falls more on Pro, as he is accusing the Ramsey family specifically, as opposed to the general idea of an intruder. Operating under innocent until proven guilty, the burden falls more heavily (though not completely) on the Pro(secution).I. Ransom noteMy opponent completely dropped my million pesos/escape to Mexico point. This disproves the idea of it having to be the Ramseys. If handwriting experts cannot conclude that it was Patsy, there is no reason we should assume ourselves better analysts than them. We must assume the note was not written by her, and therefore both parts of thecircumstances of the note point fall. Additionally, with Smit's "entry before the Ramseys were home" theory, which was also dropped by my opponent, the intruder would've had plenty of time to write the ransom note before the Ramseys arrived, therefore my buying time argument stands.II. PineappleI never realized my opponent was operating under the assumption JonBenet had eaten the pineapple after coming home. There's no reason to assume this. She definitely could've eaten it a few hours before, not sure why Shab made this assumption. Even in his own Round 1 Source 4 experts disagree over when it had been eaten. No warrant is given as to why the first expert should be believed and the second one should not.III. Basement entryI have proven this possible. Lack of footprints was due to lack of anything to make footprints in The shoe marks, open window, suitcase, etc. all make sense, and the abc report I sourced clearly states that pictures had been taken of the window, webs had been swept away, and the grate had been moved recently. It is clear there is a good chance an intruder was in the Ramsey family home.IV. The bloodThe blood was fresh or wouldn't have been considered evidence, and was used to exonerate the Ramsey men. It's very odd to suggest a man's blood was on her underwear but that man wasn't her attacker. There were also other pieces of evidence indicating a pedophile such as the garotte. Either way, the evidence has been used to exonerate the Ramseys.It is clear that if my opponent is accusing specific individuals, he has not sufficiently proven his side, and does not have enough to stand on. I, on the other hand, have proven reasonable doubt in the family theory and have proven that the intruder theory is credible enough not to convict the Ramseys, and in all likelihood, what happened on that fateful Christmas night.Thanks again to ShabShoral, and thank you voters.
An Outside Intruder Did Not Kill JonBenet Ramsey

This debate is for BSH's tournament. I will be defending the idea that an outside intruder (anyone other than the parents or brother of the victim) did NOT kill JonBenet Ramsey. As such, I assume the full BOP. I must prove, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, that one of JonBenet's mother, father, and brother was responsible for her death. Standard format.
Squirtle is the best starter to choose in Generation 1 Pokemon games

Okay, I'm going to be perfectly honest here. I have somewhat recently downloaded an emulator on my iTouch, and started playing old games (using new technology to play old technology). I started playing, and picked Squirtle out of interest, being the only starter besides Chikorita that I have never chosen. It worked really well. Much better then the other times I have played. You have convinced me. While all the starters are good choices, and I would still place Bulbasaur at number 2, at least for gen. 1, I have changed my opinion.
Squirtle is the best starter to choose in Generation 1 Pokemon games

This is a simply structured debate. My opponents job is to prove why Squirtle is the number one starter choice for playing any standard generation 1 game, such as Red, Blue, Green and Yellow. Other games, even ones that have Squirtle, Bulbasaur and Charmandar as the starters are not in the consideration. My job is to prove that either Bulbasaur or Charmander are superior choices. The considerations for best pokemon to choose are as follows: Building the best 6-pokemon team Raw stats Moves Playability in early game (gym leaders 1-6) and in the late games (gym leaders 7-8 and elite 4) Replacability Type advantages in battle My opponent will begin his arguments in round 1, and neither of us can make arguments in round 4.
Is the metaverse simulation theory valid

First off I would like to clarify what the word, "appealing, Harmony, And massive" meant and why I selected those words. Then I would like to support the rest of my arguments sequentially addressing my opponents perceived flaws in my statements. 1) I selected to utilize the above words due to the universes natural looks, And generally peaceful nature simply because I could not identify another way to bring attention to the viewers it's appeal to the naked human eye. A scientist cannot describe that the universe is appealing without getting a controversial reply. As expected, My opponent addressed my wording. Even Albert Einstein ran into this problem when describing the universe. 2) in regards to there being massive destruction observable in the universe, Yes that is true, But the way in which these planets are observed being controlled in perfect revulsion in perfect and exact timing during there annual revolution whether 365 days or 1000 days depending on the planets location in regards to it's star is clearly showing signs of control or at the least, A process that has been automated to continue it's revulsions. 3) I think that "massive" is the best way to describe this universe as this universe being "infinite" is not rational with the big bang theory as an explosion cannot create infinite size. Even billions of years after the explosion we can still observe debri as a result of a big bang. That does not make the universe "infinite", But vrather ever increasing. The only way that infinite is rational is if you can explain your opinion on how the universe came to be excluding the big bang. 4) Since a large explosion happening on it's own is just as impossible for us to currently explain as human like beings (not necessarily humans) creating the universe, I think that the simulation argument can explain more of a reasonable reason as to how the universe came to be as we do not know the background for how that society could be created or come to be. 5) Even Albert Einstein himself believed in some type of a created universe. When Einstein was asked if he believed in god, His response was something to the effect of "I believe in the gods of the stars, The planets, And the god of beauty, But when it comes to believing in a god that will give me something if I ask him, I have a hard time believing in that". Additionally, For what it's worth, Elon Musk a multi billionaire with a large established understanding of technology, Believes in the simulation theory. Elon Musk has created the blueprint for the hyperloop with prototypes and if successful, (which is likely) will be the creator of the biggest revolution in human travel since the airplane.
Is the metaverse simulation theory valid

Any theory is valid until it is proved to be either correct or incorrect. Your argument or the simulation theory are very human centred and unrealistic. The universe looks like it does. I would suggest that "appealing" is a very unappealing descriptive. 1. The universe is what it is and in that sense is as perfect as it needs to be. The universe may be limited in size or it may be infinite, Who knows? "Massive" is therefore an unrealistic adjective. I would suggest that "harmony" is only relative to a given moment of human observation. Universal events do not always occur at an observable rate, Therefore theory and harmony are only assumptions. Observable universal events are often catastrophic and could be regarded as incongruous. 2. The universe may be massive or it may not, Size is relative to the viewer. Once again the universe is what it is and may or may not be coordinated. So far your argument is extremely limited and ethereal and expects huge assumptions based on huge leaps of faith. 3. "Therefore". What a massive leap of faith and a massive assumption. And of course where did all those other intelligent human like beings appear from? Do you think that we will still be around a few thousand years from now? If we are do you think that we will still be a dominant universal intelligence? I would suggest that technology will be as technology will do. I would also assert, That so far there is nothing particularly rational in your proposition. And all the above, Notwithstanding all currently accepted knowledge, Theory and rationale.
Is the metaverse simulation theory valid

With the high complexity of the universe, Along with it's massive size and appealing looks, The simulation theory is the most likely scenario that humans are in. The theory goes as follows 1. The universe is inherently perfect and massive with evidence of there being continued control of Harmony in the stars and planets 2. Such a massive and coordinated specimen could not possibly be the result of an explosion 3. Therefore the universe was created by other highly intelligent beings such as humans Keep in mind that although this theory is currently not possible for humans to replicate other than in augmented reality i. E. Video games, The likelihood of humans having this technology in a few thousand years is very likely and completely rational
Cats are better than Dogs!

Dogs are the most awesome. Dogs come in many breeds, many different shapes and sizes. Anyone can get a dog that reflects exactly what image or personality you want to reflect in your pet. A cat isn't even really a pet. A cat does not care about you. The cat just needs you to fill it's food dish every day. That's it. You are just the mechanism they have to push in order to get food. A dog loves you. Like has actual emotions for you. Their entire world revolves around you. When you leave for work in the morning, they can't wait until you get back home again. And you do need to pick up after cats. They use litter boxes, so their poop is just sitting there. In your house. Smelling the place up. Oh my God that's so gross. Dogs bark and make noises. They express emotions this way. That makes them more humanlike and far better companions than cats. Dogs are Man's best friend. Dogs rule.
Marriage isn't a civil right

My opponent's argument does little to show that marriage is not, in fact, a civil right. His argument consisted of this: 1. The "current" social climate (presumably current refers only to modern, Westernized cultures) is more prudish than it used to be. 2. We should judge who should be married based "on the mind". I am not sure how either of these arguments disprove that marriage is a civil right. My arguments stand unchallenged: marriage is a civil right.