BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is a form of murder

Welcome, PervRat. I'm relatively new here too, and this is the first time I have debated abortion, so I hope that this debate proves educational to us both. To win this debate, I will need to show that Abortion is not a form of murder. However, I will not defend all forms of abortion, and like my opponent, will set one restriction: I will defend only abortion within the first trimester (0-12 weeks) of the pregnancy. --WE'RE ALL MURDERERS?-- Pro's definitions lead to absurd conclusions. According to Pro's definition of murder ("the willful taking of a life"), anything from plucking a flower to scratching your nose will be considered murder! You would be right to reject such a non-intuitive and ridiculous conclusion. Instead, I offer you an alternative definition, one that is more consistent with common sense: "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought." [1] So only if a fetus is a human person, is abortion murder. --THEN IS A FETUS A HUMAN PERSON?-- Under my definition, abortion is not a form of a murder, because a fetus is not demonstrably a human person. In the ABSENCE of any argument FOR why a fetus is human, we must profess ignorance about whether a fetus is human or not. In that case, abortion is not a form of murder. But moreover, I argue that a fetus is not human [2]: - A fetus brain is not capable of conscious thought or memory. - A fetus cannot breathe or make sounds. - A fetus lacks a social identity, an integral part of what we associate with a human being. - A fetus cannot be recognized as a legal person... would you want to include fetuses in our census reports, or grant them the freedoms of free speech and assembly? - A fetus is not a separate individual, and is entirely dependent on one person for its sustenance. CONCLUSION Since a fetus cannot be shown to be a human person, and as I argue, is in fact not a human person, abortion is not murder. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://mypage.direct.ca...
Men & Women are not equal and should not be considered as such

First I will address the definition of equality and we will see what exactly equality entails when talking about human beings and not objects, meaning there is a different definition. According to Cambridge Dictionary the definition of human equality is the right of different groups of people to have a similar social position and receive the same treatment. This means that women and men have the right to be treated equally legally and socially Secondly we will see how inequality is affecting the world negatively today. Right now we are under the assumption that women need special treatment. We create criteria in colleges and jobs that say employers need to have this percentage of women in the workforce, depriving them of the talents they could very well need. However women could very well posses those talents as well but aren't allowed to cultivate their minds properly because as a child and a teenager they were encouraged to pursue more domiciliary duties like learning how to sew or cook or take care of a child, possibly depriving us of things like the cure for cancer or the ability to travel at the speed of light because the scientist who would have invented it was taught that science wasn't for girls, science was only for boys, when in fact some of the greatest scientific discoveries were enhanced by female scientists like Marie Curie and her studies with radioactivity. And it's not just in the sciences. Woman are needed in programs such as the armed forces. They are soldiers as well as occupations like decoders. We are not the force we were once, and the other countries are much greater. If we are going to war we need every capable soldier we have. But moving on from that let's just look at it in a economic standpoint. Because people consider woman inferior they make, on average, 77 cents to every man's dollar (http://www.bls.gov...). That is a problem because women aren't always married, or married to a man. According to the US Census Bureau in 2009 only 44.9% of women over the age of 25 are married. That means they don't rely on a man for their economic stability. And then there is the issue that of that 45% how many are gay? Meaning they don't have a husband but they have to rely on a smaller income than a house that has a husband and a wife. Why should they work harder because our society is pitted against woman? There is absolutely no reason for woman not to be treated as equals yet we still haven't reached the equality that everyone is due.
Men & Women are not equal and should not be considered as such

Con will accept the responsibility of proving that Men and Women can be rationally compared as equal by definition and that a social acceptance of equality between the two sexes would be more beneficial than problematic. Pro will accept the responsibility of proving that Men and Woman cannot be rationally compared as equal by definition and that a social acceptance of equality between the two sexes would be more problematic than beneficial. This debate is concerning present day status of equality between Men and Women in the United States only. Round 1 will be for acceptance only. Round 2 will be for opening arguments. Round 3 will contain rebuttals and if needed, additional points of argument. Round 4 will be continued rebuttals. Round 5 will be for summarizing each argument and will not contain any rebuttals but focus solidly on the case each has made in summary. Disqualification criteria: Citing false or otherwise unfounded statistical data. Making generalized statements such as "Most people believe" without providing proof. Offering any statement that can be considered illogical beyond reasonable doubt. Attempting to use opinion to justify opinion.
Buy generic hydrocodone online | order hydrocodone overnight

Buy generic hydrocodone online best place to buy hydrocodone online buy hydrocodone online with credit card https://www. Onlinegetshop. Com/p-hydrocodone https://www. Onlinegetshop. Com/p-hydrocodone can you buy hydrocodone online is it legal to buy hydrocodone online where can i buy hydrocodone online hydrocodone buy online buy hydrocodone online legit how to buy hydrocodone online buy hydrocodone online legally can i buy hydrocodone online buy hydrocodone online without prescriptions where to buy hydrocodone online buy hydrocodone online without prescription buy hydrocodone online without a membership buy hydrocodone online usa buy hydrocodone 10mg online buy hydrocodone 10 325 online legal buy hydrocodone online buy online hydrocodone where can i safely buy hydrocodone online buy hydrocodone online no prescription buy hydrocodone online with paypal buy cheap hydrocodone online buy hydrocodone acetaminophen online buy hydrocodone online no membership fees buy hydrocodone online without a prescription how can i buy hydrocodone online buy hydrocodone online 2018 https://shipfromusaonline. Com/product-category/buy-hydrocodone-online/ https://shipfromusaonline. Com/product-category/buy-hydrocodone-online/ can u buy hydrocodone online buy liquid hydrocodone online buy hydrocodone online prescription buy hydrocodone online with prescription order hydrocodone online buy generic hydrocodone online buy cheap hydrocodone online hydrocodone online pharmacy get hydrocodone online
Adolf Hitler was a Christian

First off I would like to say I am appreciative of you continuing the debate, but one thing I'm not appreciative is of is your assumptions my friend. My personal quote misinterpreted by my opponent. "But if you still are not convinced take a look at one of Hitler's quotes that is definitely not (faked) that you claim" Just to be sure I said if anything had no doubt at all, it would be the quote I presented. I did not state they were fake my self by any means. Now that, that is out of the way I can begin. My opponent has not given me the source for the table talks therefore all that is said could be made up. My opponent insults my sources rather and he used Wikipedia, If not more than two other souces to compensate for his whole argument while mine are from a variety. He hasn't proved that every single word that came out of Hitler's mouth is in the book, even private quotes which is highly unlikely, Also I would like to state that a "god" and "God" could for all means be different. "Perhaps he was following the example of God in the Old Testament when he ordered the genocide of the Amalekites." Ugh... No, that statement is like saying Hitler had millions killed because he doesn't like their feet for example, their is just no proof behind the statement and highly unlikely you can prove to me he did something from the bible because you still haven't convinced me one bit that he was Christian at all to begin with. Exactly as my opponent stated, and he assumes everybody that doesn't go to church hates organized religion without proof once again. "At most, his lack of church attendan can be attributed to his dislike of organized religion. This does not prove he was not a Christian, because you would then have to say that everybody who doesn't go to church isn't a Christian." (notice his spelling and errors) And lastly my opponent states "A pro vote should be obvious.", the problem with this is you shouldn't have to tell the voters as it really should be obvious. Thank you. http://lukeford.net...
Adolf Hitler was a Christian

My opponent seems as though he choked at the words of my rebuttal definition of choke I'm referring to choke;[chohk] , choked, chokï¿½ing, noun to stop by or as if by strangling or stifling: The sudden wind choked his words. I extend my arguments to this round as my opponent simply made a mistake and hasn't negated mine yet. As I said I am kind of eager to see your response http://dictionary.reference.com...
Americans with Disabilites Act

I will be arguing that the Americans with Disabilities Act should be repealed. I accept the burden of proof for this debate. Definitions: ‘Americans with Disabilities Act'-http://finduslaw.com... passed by Congress in 1990. ‘Should be repealed'- I will be arguing that the US as a whole, and Americans with disabilities, would be better off without the Americans with Disabilities Act Please wait until the 2nd round to post arguments, and please only accept this debate if you intend to finish every round. Do not accept this debate if you think the Act should be reformed significantly, but not abolished. If you are Pro, you should be defending the current law, not what you think the law should be. I'm fine with changing the amount of rounds or voting period or whatever, just ask in the comments section if you'd like something changed.
Abolish the term terrorism-It is a point of view.

Terrorism can be defined in many ways. The following are courtesy of Dictionary.com... 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Better yet, terrorism is defined here by the American Heritage Dictionary... The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Finally, the best explanation of the term described by Wordnet... The calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. My personal belief is that A terrorist can not be considered a freedom-fighter if he infracts on any of another individuals freedoms or rights while fighting for his cause. Unless of course, if you mean "freedom-fighter" as someone who fights against freedoms.
Abolish the term terrorism-It is a point of view.

Those who determine it is unlawful could be either the governments affected by terrorism, or most importantly, the citizens who are victims of terrorism. As to freedom of opposition, you will first have to clarify about exactly what you mean, for there are many different ways that could be interpreted. I really do not know your motivational backing for the topic; I see terrorism as a huge problem today. It has caused the United States to back out of Vietnam, Somalia, and most recently Iraq. When you cannot tell who the enemy is, you cannot fight. As soon as you attack militia dressed as civilians, you take a chance of killing civilians. The moment you do that, the world is against you, and your soldiers lose heart, or even take their own lives. When your soldiers cannot fight, you have lost the war, and that nation is once again victim to the will of those terrorism.
Brown is the worst color (as opposed to green, yellow, blue, ect,.)

Just because something is associated with an object doesn't mean it deserves a negative title. For example, everyone knows of the "Friday" singer, Rebecca Black. There was a whole epidemic about her and her music. Both were deemed as awful. Now, since this singer was classified as a pop singer, does that mean that pop music is the worst type of music? No. Just because a color is associated with a few negative properties that doesn't give the right for it to be labeled as negative as well. Brown is just as equally desired as the rest of the primary colors.
Brown is the worst color (as opposed to green, yellow, blue, ect,.)

My argument isn't that brown is a bad color, but that it's the worst of the colors to choose from because of the undesirable properties that are also brown, making brown less desirable by association. Family can be whatever color you want it to be. If anything I think family would be pink because that symbolizes love. Pink "symbolizes love and romance, caring, tenderness, acceptance and calm." [1]. Source: http://www.incredibleart.org...
Brown is the worst color (as opposed to green, yellow, blue, ect,.)

As you stated, brown may be the color of the most undesirable but it is also the color of family. As people of the psychology field have conclude that the color brown is linked to family. A person who fancies the color brown often put family first. Brown gives off a sense of security. Just because it is the color of humanly waste, doesn't mean it is just a waste of crayon box space.
Brown is the worst color (as opposed to green, yellow, blue, ect,.)

*note - this has nothing to do with skin color, as every ethnicity is a shade of the primary color of brown. Reason why I say brown is the worst color: 1) it is the color of poop 2) it is the color of dirt 3) it is the color of burnt items (dark brown). It is the association of undesirable properties that makes brown the worst color in comparison to other colors. You could argue that yellow is bad also because it is the color of pee, but there is not as many undesirable properties in the color yellow as there is in the color brown.
Disney is better than Universal.

Firstly, how dare you call what I say is "childish" when you are making arguments like , "where did you get that, wiki answers?" You automatically assume that I am using unreliable resources, who's to say my statistics are false, you? I assure you my sources are as reliable as yours. You did not explain in the least bit how it wasn't unoriginal and repetitive, and are you actually that brainless? Who would accept the argument for amusement part debate? I'm sorry that you wasted a round, because I don't care about amusement parks, as far as being afraid, no, I am not afraid, I will come out right now and say that Disney has better amusement parks. (apparently) Honestly, though, which one really matters more here? Movies, that both companies produce and create, or crappy amusement parks, which both of them make, but they are no an amusement park company. By the size of your mouth, it sounds as though you would go as far as to worship Disney. Universal is better in movies. That's that.
Disney is better than Universal.

I would just like to start my closing argument by asking you: When did the debate become only about Disney movies, I created it so I'm sorry if my intentions weren't pure but I meant for it to be about the company, disney which include parks, touchstone, Hollywood records, disney channel, ABC, ETC."over 84 million children/day" False you got that from wiki answers didn't you. but you have to remember that those numbers are worldwide. and some countries don't get all the shows, also that Data is old and the Disney Channel has decreased in viewers since early 2012. also remember that h it but how many times people watch it.It's too bad that this debate has to be so short because I would really like to know how many times you would use that shitty argument "Unoriginal" or "Repetitive" specially considering that I already answered that in the previous argument.It seems like in this debate all you want to talk about is the Disney Channel (which even I must confess is crap) and the movies (only the bad one) even tough you haven't given me any examples of hose "bad" and "unoriginal" movies you are talking about. But still you don't want to talk about the parks and other companies/properties owned by Disney, Why? Are you afraid we might be better than the company you are defending right now. Of course Statistics like these depend on many factors like size but Disney (Magic Kingdom) gets a LOT more tourists than universal (IOA) maybe for a reason?
Disney is better than Universal.

Easy, the debate right now is about the quality of movies, not the theme parks. Absolutely a lot of children watch Disney channel, over 84 million children per day. As you are picking apart my sentences and putting them into disfigurements of your own, what I said when that I was talking about inanimate objects and animals is that Disney is unoriginal in its works. In a sense, it is copying, they take another persons story line and use cute little animated characters to cover the fact that the story wasn't theirs at all. As far as me being "childish" that's just low, as long as my arguments make sense, does it really matter? The founders of Universal are irrelevant, the parks don't matter and at this point they are irrelevant. Whats to defend? If you want an explanation about what we are debating, it is: We are debating about various subjects that revolve around Disney and Universal, the prime subjects are the movies, the amusement parks and whatnot are a footnote. Note now that the repetitive nature of Disney is both good and bad (mostly bad.) Though it may drive the point home for the children who watch the movies, it also drives the point on for the 84 million children a day shows that they should act like brats and that attitudes are cute all of a sudden.
Disney is better than Universal.

"That's not what this debate is actually about" So can you please explain what the debate is about then? You also did not defend your own opinion all you did was talk about mine in a very childish manner. "They influence children to be whiny and self-absorbed" I must confess maybe that might go for Disney Channel but disney Channel is nothing more than a cable channel which not that many people watch anyways. Also Disney is a lot wider than that, they also expand to parks and the movies which both teach for it's viewers to be brave, and keep dreaming which some people might find stupid, but that matters for kids,also it is a good thing for them, to learn at a young age."They add animals or inanimate objects as the characters" Of course they add them. Disney is about magic and believing. peter pan explain all of this. "just have faith trust..." that might not work/matter for adults but their targeted audience is kids anyways and they want to feel like magic is real and I respect that and find it a good thing to teach children at a young age. "They just repeat like a broken record player" The reason they do that is because luckily we live in a Capitalist World and just like every other company they must do whatever they have to do to make money and keep the company. Also they do it because they believe that children won't mind because they basically like everything anyways. Also some people aren't as judgemental as you are. Universal was founded in 1912, just a question: can a you name at least two of it's founders? even if you can most people cant, unlike the disney company. At Universal studios Florida you are treated like crap from the cast members. I myself am an annual premium passholder at Disney, Universal, and Seaworld(have been one for 5 years. and I can honestly say that not even at Seaworld (the cheaper park in Orlando) can you get treated like you are at universal. Completely unlike Disney, where the employees make you feel like home. one day right after the fireworks me and my friend started to look in the fireworks fallout areas that are closed during the show. because we wanted to find the remains of one, together we found 3 little tubes about the size of an inch. Then one cast member came to us and asked us if she could help. she went to this area where only cast members were allowed in and gave us a huge plastic "ball" it was about 6 inches and wee took it home. This other day I went to the lost and found and asked if they had found my iPod and they gave it to me, exactly how I lost it. this other day I went to universal and lost my sweater and no one had returned it. I've also lost: my phone, my wallet w/out money but it had my ids and house key. never found it again. you can tell that the people who go to disney are much nicer too. in lines, rides etc. they make an effort to talk to you and be nice. Disney also has cheaper souvenirs, also they have many more special event for people like passholder, etc
Disney is better than Universal.

Your full of it,do you honestly believe that Disney has ever done anything as well as Universal? Great, they have a theme park, but that is much less than what this debate is actually about, Disney makes crap movies, that's that. They make crap shows, (another awesomely huge mistake) and further more, they influence children to be whiny and self-absorbed and if they whine loudly enough, they will eventually get what they want. Ever heard of Disney XD? Nothing more should have to be said about that. Continuing on the movies, they copy off of movies that have been done before, and then they add animals or inanimate objects as the characters, honestly, how original is that? When they don't copy off of other moves, they just repeat like a broken record player.