BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should be legal.

I thank you. You thank me. Everybody's a happy family. Round 2 will be for opening arguments. I say a whole lot of stuff to support one side. You say a whole lot of stuff to support the side I'm not supporting. Debate commences. Round 3 will be for refutation and case reconstruction. I tell you what is wrong with your case. You tell me what is wrong with my case. We debate. Clash happens (ideally). Round 4 will be for closing arguments. Some ground rules: 1) I am more a rhetoric guy than a source guy. Your sources don't impress me. Your thoughts do. Sources are a means to an end in argument, not the end themselves. Use them as such. 2) If you use evidence, don't use it as a contention, point, sub-point, etc. Use it to support what you like. 3) This is going to be more a philosophical debate rather than an empirical one. I just like that style more; and it's a great way to avoid a source-war. Some topic-specific ground rules: 1) Present original arguments as best you can. Don't cite what you heard someone else say. 2) No profanity, slurs, derogatory terminology, etc. Let's keep it professional.
Gay marriage should be legal.

Before I begin my closing statement, I would love to point out how you ignored your own rules and used round 4 as a rebuttal round. Anyway, as a closing statement, religion is what started marriage, and still should dictate it. Gay marriage is universally panned by all religions, and one would have to imagine that the people that frequently marry people would know a thing or two. Beyond this, in many places, religion is a key part of life, gay marriage would turn this upside down and cause anarchy in many places, you can argue that said places should be set in anarchy, but that is for another debate, and in general, anarchy is bad. Religion has shaped and dictated society as a whole for as long as humanity has existed. You can argue that it is all wrong, but the fact also is, we still exist and are not in the stone age; so obviously culture is doing something right. We can't change it for a few people when the consequences are yet to be tested. This is a slippery slope that could lead to the collapse of religion as a whole, while some people call this a good thing, it would bring about chaos and in rare cases, suicide. Gay marriage could be the spark that ignites the gasoline and burns the whole house down.
Gay marriage should be legal.

I am not advocating for the government to tell the church what to do. Legalizing gay marriage does not command the church to act in one way or another, it only requires the government to permit gay marriages to be granted -by the government. Marriage, as an institution, is subject to tremendous governmental regulation -at present by individual states. It is taxed, subsidized, incentivized, and even defined -by every state other than MA and a few others, as between man and one woman. It is that definition, and only that definition, that legalizing gay marriage will change. Legalizing gay marriage will permit one man to marry another man, or one woman to marry another woman -as the government recognizes marriage. Wether the church should desire to perform gay marriage, endorse gay marriage, or support the practice of gay marriage is a matter entirely for the church to sort out. While it was originally the case that marriage was a religious thing, it is more than that now. That it was once only a religious thing does not mean that it has not transcended its origins. Christmas is celebrated by atheists, just as much as non-religious people get married (even if they are straight). As to the health insurance effects of gay marriage, I'm not sure it is appropriate to be discussing the finite details of intercourse on this medium and so I will abstain from doing so. I will only say that there are exceptionally effective means to prevent the spread of disease that are readily available at any pharmacy, grocery store, or gas station.
Abortion is both inherrently unethical and should be illegal

Patience, Patience. There are a great many things in life that are more important than typing. The only “Problem” with my response was that I managed to defeat most of your points with 4 sentences. Morality is based on what is fair. That is to say, morality defines what is the right thing to do in a given situation and is not based upon an individual perspective. Morality is not what is judged to be correct by any group or amount of people, but what is actually correct. Looking at morality seriously requires abstract thinking, the likes of which you are obviously not using. It is not something that can be studied using most thought processes, and has to be studied “Outside the Box”, that is to say, with creative thought, rather than conventional reasoning. Murder is the unjust killing of another human. There is my warrant. A human being is a collection of varied cells assembled into an organism that has human DNA and follows the structure of a human body to a fair degree, imitating basic bodily systems. A fetus contains all of the above and therefore is a human being. My hair does not have all of these features and is therefore not human. You cannot argue that a fetus is not alive, because even the paramecium in my backyard pond is alive. Once again, you need to use a slightly different thought process to arrive at a working conclusion in these matters. Ignorance is independent of being. Until 2 months ago, I did not know that the capital of Lichtenstein was Vaduz. I was ignorant of my outside surroundings, but I was still a human being. Until a few days ago, you were unaware that I existed, yet you were still a human being. Humans are ALWAYS ignorant of their surroundings to some degree. Do you remember Plato’s story of the men in a cave? They were there their whole lives, as ignorant as babies, and yet they were also human. Why do you continue to bring up ovulation and masturbation when I have never even mentioned them? You try to defeat a point I have never made to try to gain support. It is not unfair to you if I bring up new points, as you will be able to fight against them.
Abortion is both inherrently unethical and should be illegal

Hey! We got a response for once! The problem with my opponent's response is it doesn't address the vast majority of my arguments. The only thing he touches on is the argument I made about the fetus, but neglects to answer my argument about how something cannot be inherently immoral if morality is not objective. This means the resolution is negated instantly. Moreover, my opponent also doesn't respond to my point that nothing can be inherently immoral, presuming morality were objective, unless it was based in some ethical system. Otherwise, it would only beg the question of why it was immoral at all. Since my opponent has not provided some ethical framework, the resolution is negated instantly on another level as well. Furthermore, my opponent is still not warranting why abortion is murder. He says it's because it's killing a human being, yet does nothing to prove that it's true, but rather just assumes it is true. He needs to be providing reason and evidence to prove that this point is true. Since he isn't, then the resolution is negated on a third level. But now let's address the actual argument he made. My opponent claims that a fetus is a human being that isn't fully developed and legalizing killing fetuses is on par with killing humans with physical or mental deformities. However, this isn't true. A fetus is, literally, just a collection of human cells, by basic definition. It has yet to acquire human traits such as sentience and knowledge of it's outside environment. The distinction here is that although the physically and mentally deformed aren't on par with a normal human being, they still possess the essential characteristics to make them human. A fetus does not have those. It would be on par with the previous examples I gave of hair follicles, nails and scraping your elbow or knee, since they're the same thing: a collection of human cells that don't have human characteristics. My opponent claims the distinction to be made is that hair follicles are not an organism, but neither is a fetus because, again, it's just a collection of human cells. His argument here fails. But moreover, even if we presume that his argument is true and that it's wrong to kill anything that's human and has the potential to develop into a human, it would make things like masturbation and ovulation illegal as murder. My opponent never responds to this point either. Since he doesn't, his point is going to actually negate the resolution, as his line of logic would make the entire female population and a vast majority of the male population, by his line of logic, murderers. And, since the next round is going to be the last round, don't let my opponent make any new arguments in the last round, as it's entirely unfair to me. He's had plenty of time to defend himself against my arguments, and if he hasn't yet, then there's no reason why we should let him make a new argument in the last round of the debate.
Abortion is both inherrently unethical and should be illegal

I apologize, I was absent from round 3 due to family matters. Abortion is murder because it is the killing of a human. A human fetus is also a living human being, not yet fully developed. If You argue that it is not fully a human being, I argue that that makes it legal to murder those with deformities because they are also not fully developed. Hair follicles are a collection of cells but not a organism.
Abortion is both inherrently unethical and should be illegal

Before we even begin, my opponent automatically loses for attempting to change the resolution mid-debate. This is inherently unfair and abusive toward me. At the very least, he must forfeit the conduct point and debate the original resolution. But realistically, we should just call the debate now. In case the debate moves forward, lets still address my opponent's claims. My opponent's sole claim is that abortion is unethical because its murder, but this falls for multiple reasons. 1. Something cannot be inherently immoral since there is no objective sense of morality. While you may view abortion as horrible and an awful thing to do, I might not view it in the same light. In order for morality to be objective, there would be no variation in belief. My opponent must first be proving that morality is objective before he can even attempt to claim that something is inherently immoral. 2. Even if morality were objective, something cannot be inherently immoral, as that would only beg the question of why it was immoral at all, which can only be answered in the light of some ethical framework. As my opponent has provided no such framework, he cannot claim that something is immoral without begging the question, and you presume relativism. 3. My opponent claims that abortion is murder, yet does nothing to warrant the claim. 4. Abortion, which is the killing of a fetus, is not murder. A fetus is a collection of cells. Killing a collection of cells cannot be considered murder. If it was, the following things would be murder: - Hair cuts (cutting off your hair follicles is killing them) - trimming finger/toe nails (kills those too) - skinning your elbows and knees (kills your skin cells) My opponent may claim that it has the potential to grow into a living thing so it's different, but if THAT claim were true, then masturbation would also be murder, as it kills the sperm cells that have the potential to grow into a human being. Ovulation would also e a crime as it expels female egg cells from the body that could grow into human beings. This means that all women age 13-50 and pretty much all men would be murderers to my opponent. Is that true? Because my opponents claims are unwarranted and off the original resolution, he has yet to fulfill his BOP and this I urge a negative vote.
Abortion is both inherrently unethical and should be illegal

I will re-affirm my stance so that we can actually have a debate on ethics rather than a mistake I made in typing.STATEMENT:Abortion(except in the cases mentioned above) is inherently unethical and should be illegal.Debate:Murder is inherently unethical. Even unborn children are alive. If you kill a pregnant mother, it is a double homicide. Therefore, abortion is unethical because it is murder and should be illegal because there is a discrepancy in the law that needs to be fixed(Abortion of unborn children should be illegal because in other situations murdering an unborn child is illegal.)
books vs movies

Before movies were ever made books and writing were one of the only ways of spreading stories. Books are far more powerful than movies. Books like movies tell a story and put a picture in our heads allowing us to imagine we are in the story but books have been doing this for much longer and they have been doing it much better. Books don't provide you with a permanent picture they allow you to use your imagination and picture the characters and settings like you want to. Books also make you use your mind more because you are reading and comprehending and though you may be comprehending while watching a movie you aren't improving upon your reading skills like you would be when you're reading a book. Books can improve upon your vocabulary, and reading skills and without them, without literature movies may not even exist. Characters in books are much more relatable and enjoyable because although the author may give us information about them we come up with the ultimate picture of them in our heads and gather our one ideas about them, in movies we are given the characters and they leave less to the imagination.
books vs movies

Con has stated his reason for forfeiting the last round in the comments section, but I will continue the debate in case he is able to complete round five. I will further argue past points from con's round 3 for this round and I will conclude my argument in the end. "Visual stimuli are far more detailed than a line of text." Con brings up this argument and I agree to some extent, visual stimuli are detailed, but they are also permanent. This goes along with my imagination argument, If visual stimuli is presented we can not argue much against what we just saw. When we see a black dog we see a black dog it would be harder to argue against it and you can't imagine a character like you can in a book. In a book if there is a description of a black dog, we may have been told it is a black dog through detail but we can still imagine size, and what type of dog it is. To conclude: I have given several reasons as to why books are superior to movies the main ones being: They encourage imagination They encourage reading, stimulation in the brain, and improve upon grammatical and vocabulary skills Books allow narrative voice to fill in gaps without dragging on Books are more detailed, and don't leave parts out of the story Books are completely portable and can be read whenever you are available Con has offered up arguments like Books take longer to read, youth prefer movies, and action is portrayed better in film, but all of those reasons are a matter of preference and don't necessarily prove that books are inferior to movies. I thank con for a great debate and I hope to read his refutations/conclusion to the debate if he finds the time for round 5.
The legend of Noah's Ark is a historical event.

No archaeological evidence exist of a simultaneous and catastrophic flood event. Also the event cannot be proven plausible with current understanding of meteorology, zoology/biology, or the shipping material and technology of the era. if you feel otherwise please accept the challenge. Biblical and other religious cites are acceptable but must be qualified by an outside source that is not affiliated to a religious organization. Be prepared to offer specifics like how many "kinds" of animals were on board. Both parties may propose new questions to the other side related to the debate every round if they have provided proper answers to previous questions. http://www.talkorigins.org...
The legend of Noah's Ark is a historical event.

Thank you for accepting my challenge. Your debate strategy is interesting. Please be sure that the several floods can be tied to Noah. I don't see the point of proving that there were floods after Noah died. Also make sure it isn't the same story twice. For example if there is a Noah story in Hebrew and a Noah story in Arabic, it is still one story just translated. Both stories translated to English would look the same, like if harry potter is translated to Chinese and French it's still ONE story. If there is different but enhancing information then it is acceptable and counts as the same story with new information. That is what I suspect you may have. Good luck and let's have a great debate!
Abortion

The main argument against abortion, as far as I can tell, is that pregnancy is a risk agreed to between two consenting sexual partners. My opponent states that the violinist example fails because it is a false analogy; however, it is difficult to see where exactly the falsity lies. The sexual act is a contract, based on consent, between the sexual partners and not between the mother and a fetus. That consent is offered when the pregnancy is carried to term. The logic is also questionable. The possibility of a risk does not entail acceptance of that risk. Capitalists will invest capital in potential business ventures knowing they lose that money or have it stolen in the case of a scam. This does not entail that the capitalist has no right to legal recourse. The violinist analogy holds because no one would claim that the donor is morally obligated to keep someone alive against their consent, much less a fetus in a womb. II would also question the definition of consent here, but I do not have space to pursue this. My opponent"s account of why a fetus has inherent moral worth is solely because it is a member of the human species. I affirm and repeat the challenge to explain why belonging to a biological species alone transfers moral worth. With you counterexample, typically we wouldn"t expect a good outcome or know something like that. In that case, I would say it is up to the moral deliberation of others (we already have this system in place where family may make decisions on the health care of their ailing relatives). In the case that you outlined, I would say that you do retain moral value solely because the state you are in is temporary. One other significant different is that one can attribute post-life rights to persons. For example, we consider grave robbing wrong because it violates rights we attribute to the dead based on wishes expressed in life. This is not the case with a fetus. While abortion is an emotional topic, policy demands reasons.
Abortion

Your "violinist" argument is according to me, extremely bad. You said that the violinist is connected to a donor without consent. But this does not match abortion. The mother/donor has given consent, she gave consent to the risk of a pregnancy while having unprotected sex. While the child/violinist has not given any consent of being murdered what so ever, because they did not exist when the choice was being made. "The burden is on the anti-abortion side, if they posit inherent moral worth, to offer an account of just why the fetus has such a thing" Why would a baby not have a moral value? It is a human, created by humans, if left to its natural processes it will grow into what YOU would consider a human. The fact that people are saying that a baby does not have a moral value is scaring me. You said "We value things like intentions, plans for the future, subjective sense of the world, experience of pain, and so on" So lets say that I became braindead (No brain activity at all), and we knew for a FACT that in 1-2 months, I would wake up and have a healthy life. Would my mother have the right to kill me? Would I lose my moral value? Because by then, I wont have any experience of pain at all, I wont have a subjective sense of the world, I will definitely not have any plans for the future. But I WILL have all those things if they leave me to my natural processes in a couple of weeks. If this happend, would I then lose all my moral value over this time? Would my mother have the right to kill me over this period? The total deaths caused by terrorism in the us between 1995-2016 is 3393. The total amount of deaths caused by abortions are 21 000, per WEEK. If you value the life of a fetus even the slightest, you would agree with me that abortion is a bigger issue than terrorism. sources: http://www.start.umd.edu... http://www.worldometers.info...
Abortion

Abortion is a question that touches on our deepest moral considerations and raises serious philosophical issues to be addressed. Is it morally justifiable to terminate a pregnancy, which results in the termination of the fetus. My position is that abortion is a morally justified action. The first question regarding abortion is does the fetus have inherent moral worth that warrants moral consideration regardless of any outstanding circumstances or considerations. The burden is on the anti-abortion side, if they posit inherent moral worth, to offer an account of just why the fetus has such a thing. One possible answer is that the fetus is human and deserves the same consideration as you, me, or the mother in virtue of membership to a biological species. This, however, is only an assertion. An argument would need to be given that biological species membership entails, inherently, moral value. I suppose something other than species can be given, but one would need an argument regardless. The second question is obligation. Is a mother obligated to carry a pregnancy to term just because a fetus is in her womb? The answer, for me, is no. There are two reasons for this. A fetus does not possess the capacities that we, as rational moral agents, value when making moral decisions. We value things like intentions, plans for the future, subjective sense of the world, experience of pain, and so on. A fetus may possess some of these to varying degrees, but by no means to the degree humans and other animals do. Therefore, this doesn"t add any moral weight. We are also not obligated to other beings just because they are human. One thought experiment has a wounded violinist, out of necessity, connected to a donor without consent. If the donor disconnects then the violinist will die (dialysis is the original example); however, the donor must remain in the hospital until the violinist dies, which will take years. If the donor is not obligated then neither is a pregnant mother.