BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The crusades were justified responses to Muslim Aggresion

All too many times, I have heard people shame medieval Europe and the Crusaders as conquerors, enslaves and savages. I have heard many liberal apologists try to compare Christianity with Islam by equating the Crusades with Jihad. Unfortunately, many of the arguments of the Crusades fall short in key areas and an in depth analysis into the wars will reveal that not only were the Crusades justified, they were necessary in order to preserve the Christian world from falling to Muslim armies. I would like to open a dialogue about this issue with someone who has a different opinion than me as differing opinions are incredibly valuable. Rules: 1. Be respectful: Id like for this debate to be a civil and well mannered dialouge between me and my opponent. I feel that a mutual respect between debaters always provides a better basis for contrasting the different views 2: Please use sources to back up your points: I think that ones pretty self explanitory 3: Most of all, keep an open mind :)
Abortion should be legal

Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure. Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, explains that the "most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex," is developed by eight weeks gestation, and adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester." According to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain." Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, the late abortion doctor who renounced his earlier work and became a pro-life activist, stated that when an abortion is performed on a 12-week-old fetus, "We see [in an ultrasound image] the child"s mouth open in a silent scream... This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction." Abortions cause psychological damage. A 2008 peer-reviewed study published in the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health found that "Young adult women who undergo... abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression." A peer-reviewed 2005 study published in BMC Medicine found that women who underwent an abortion had "significantly higher" anxiety scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale up to five years after the pregnancy termination. A 2002 peer-reviewed study published in the Southern Medical Journal of more than 173,000 American women found that women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who carried to term. A 1996 study published in the British Medical Journal reported that the mean annual suicide rate amongst women who had an abortion was 34.7 per 100,000, compared with a mean rate of 11.3 per 100,000 in the general population of women. An Apr. 1998 Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology study of men whose partners had abortions found that 51.6% of the men reported regret, 45.2% felt sadness, and 25.8% experienced depression. So before you start thinking that abortion is going to save you the psychological, financial and physical stress of raising a child, it won't. https://abortion.procon.org...
Abortion should be legal

Thanks to Con for setting this up and welcome to DDO! I'll keep this brief since I need some sleep but I'll elaborate next round.Abortion is not murder. The intent is a termination of a pregnancy. It's analagous to a situation where a parent offers to use there body to filter there babies blood assuming this were possible and necessary to keep the baby alive. If the parent later decides it the process has become too much and they simply need to cut that life saving cord would it be lawful to force them to continue filtering the baby's blood? Of course not and it is even illegal to harvest organs to save lives if there was no stated agreement from the person ahead of time.In your situation the equivalent action would be someone walking up and shooting that baby in the head which qualifies as murder. I'm skeptical as to whether I agree with that there should be an equal penalty for the killing of a first trimester baby, for instance, but I'll look into that in the next round.A fetus should not be considered equivalent to a human and does not have the legal right of a citizen.The prefrontal cortex which makes us uniquely human does not begin to form until the third trimester when most states in the U.S. have strict restrictions on the availability of abortions and the vast majority of abortions are in the first trimester when the brain is not remotely human. fetus is not considered a valid citizen with the rights that go along with that until after birth for good reason. Babies do not understand the basics of reality such as object permanance or even a distinction between itself and the outside world. They will not be able to state 'I think therefore I am' until much later. As it stands there is no positive evidence presented by Pro that the value of a 3 month fetus should receive the same rights as citizens or that they should be valued the same way.Religious textsThese religious texts/practices should be disregarded by any voters. At best it is an appeal to a false authority and they are stand alone moral assertions or statements presented without any evidence as to their moral efficacy. Con would need outside research to confirm any connection to legality. We derive morality inspite of Religious Texts, certainly not because of them. The Bible advocates slavery, sexual slavery, genocide, condemns homosexuality, advocates the death penalty for minor infractions such as disrespect of your parents and condemns people who simply can't believe the audacious claims of Jesus to an eternity of torture but allows pediphiles into heaven if they belive in Jesus before death. I'm not as familiar with the Quran but it advocates genocide and the vigalante execution of woman who have slept with men outside of wedlock (many interpretations this applies to rape victems) along with those who turn away from Islam and Infidels or those who are not Muslim. These texts are terrible for moral guidance and offer no facts or evidence to confirm any of the moral teaching is true or even useful. Hell the moral instruction is often evil when compared to the most basic of moral codes.I'll post sourcing next round.
Abortion should be legal

Abortion is murder. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens." At least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws. Muslims regard abortion as haram meaning forbidden. Muslims typically cite the Quranic verse 17:32 which states that a fetus shouldn't be aborted out of fear of poverty. Pro-life Christians support their views with Scripture references such as that of Luke 1:15; Jeremiah 1:4"5; Genesis 25:21"23; Matthew 1:18; and Psalm 139:13"16. The Catholic Church believes that human life begins at conception as does the right to life; thus, abortion is considered immoral. The Church of England also considers abortion to be morally wrong, though their position admits abortion when "the continuance of a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother". https://en.wikipedia.org...
fighting does not solve anything

Sorry for my forfeit. Anyways, I'll start the case again. Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything at all (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Nothing is clearly not anything but rather the absence of anything, so for my opponent to make the claim that is my burden to prove That I must prove that fighting does not solve nothing is wrong. As clearly the resolution and name of the debate read anything. I define anything as any object. While it is true that anything may be something, it is not true that something may be anything. Because anything is any object. Hate is not an object but rather a feeling. A feeling is an emotional state or disposition; an emotion (. http://www.answers.com...) So, a feeling is not an object and therefore cannot be anything and it must therefore be something. His ghandi quote I would contend argues for my side. "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" What does that solve? Once again Solve: to clear up or explain (a mystery, crime etc) as in that crime has never been solved (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com......) My opponent concedes that he has a flawed resolution and that something has the possibility of being anything but is not necessarily anything. "Fine, I agree, I should have used the word something in the resolution. " My opponent uses examples of emotions and emotions are not objects, so that is flawed reasoning and concedes that the resolution is flawed. I must say that you vote pro upon those facts alone and the definitions I have provided throughout all of my rounds. When Con only provided definitions in one of his rounds and his final round at that.
fighting does not solve anything

I will quickly clarify my rebuttal to pro's theory of how nothing appears differently then anythings. My opponents definition of 'anything' is as follows: Anything: Any object. My sourced definition of 'anything'. –pronoun 1. any thing whatever; something, no matter what: Do you have anything for a toothache? –noun 2. a thing of any kind. –adverb 3. in any degree; to any extent; in any way; at all: Does it taste anything like chocolate? http://dictionary.reference.com... Seeing as anything, in this case, refers to a wide variety of objects, I think that it would be safe to say that "nothing" would fit into anything, if not equal to. Fighting in this case, would solve everything seeing as a mutual respect is gained between both parties following a fights conclusion. At the least both parties may become friends, or at least ignore each other to the point where personal issues are no longer a problem for anyone.
fighting does not solve anything

First I will start with definitions Solve: to clear up or explain (a mystery, crime etc) as in that crime has never been solved (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Anything: Any object Fighting: is purposeful violent conflict intended to establish dominance over the opposition. I would first like to go over my opponents case His first point of the case of the two pointing fingers and yelling, is not an accurate example of a fight and therefore must be disregarded. In his second example using UFC this is an accurate example of fight. However, it solved something not anything. The two are very much different. Something is defined as One having some or many of the same attributes, character, or essence as another. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Being UFC fighters both have a strong endurance, muscle strength, and well want to fight clearly. Therefore, the hate between the two is regarded as something, as the hate is of the same attribute and essence in both persons. Anything, however is an object. Hate is not an object and is not tangible and therefore is not anything but it is rather something. His war example is hilarious. Let me get to some examples that have escalated because of fighting. Unless my opponent is unaware he United States has been at war with Afghanistan before and is now currently at war with Afghanistan with escalated tensions. However, my opponents example of is an example of something, not anything. We can use Freud to explain how the unconcious works. So, that even if all these somethings my opponent mentions it can boil down deep inside them and then they snap or have a case of trauma. Much, like TheLwerd and Mongoose/Mongeese example.
fighting does not solve anything

This topic is referring to people who get involved in a fight with a malicious hatred, or dislike towards one another. I stand against the resolution stated "Fighting does not solve anything" for the following reasons. Most of the time, before the fight begins between two people, both individuals constantly insult each other, get in each others faces, and just continue these things with non-stop pointless anger towards one another. Now a careful analysis, or personal viewing, shows that after the fight has ended, these things stop. Now there is a few cases where it few continues, but in most every other situation, the two individuals just either ignore each other, or make-up and become friends. Since that none of you could validate a personal experience, I will use a television UFC example. Before Chuck Liddel and Wanderlei Silva fought, they absolutely hated each other. At the weigh-ins, Silva got up into Liddel's face, which led to him flipping Silva off, and an almost pre-fight. After these two warriors battled it out in the octagon, with a very close match, (in which Liddel won) the two hugged, and had each gained a new found respect for each other. Many of these happenings take place around our schools, or homes, and other local places. Most every fight ends with truce, and eventually peace. I will even go as far as to use Wars as examples. What war have we been in, that didn't eventually end in both sides coming to a truce, and being generally peace-ful towards each other? The answer is none. We currently trade with just about every country, in which we have previously had wars with. Those that we don't, we simply ignore. It's not like we're going to constantly fight with those we dis-like. Now it is a very rare occasion, when after a fight, hate and discrimination towards each other continues. Even on this very own site we have examples on this! We all know there are many here who have had hot blood towards another in the past. But how much of that still continues, after a big argument clash? Right now our very own mongeese and theLwerd our slowly piecing back together after a widely popular and disturbing clash between the two of them in the forums (honesty box, and apologies). But slowly everything is becoming peaceful. This fight resulted with both individuals apologizing, and is now becoming a thing of the past. I stand by these arguments, and patiently await my opponent. thankyou -philosophical
They call Obama Socialist or Marxist

For the record, i would vote for Obama, but i would like to debate this topic with you. I would also like to add that this is my first debate, and not an easy one at that. To start, Socialism/ Marxism is an ideology where you have maximum government control over business' with little or no privatley owned business. As you probably saw on the TV, Obama voted for the huge bank bail-out, which puts government control on privatley owned banks, which give loans to and control privatley-owned business in effect. He also advocates bringing in a universal health care system, abolishing the health care companies, which weakens the free market more. The other main part here is his tax scheme, which would tax the wealthist portions of society instead of the lower ones. This is one of the key principals of socialism/marxism. As karl marx wrote 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. ' This translates to 'If someone has more than another, you give him that until you're all square'. To go further, Obama has admitted this, saying he will 'spread the wealth around'. This is oppresing the great 'american dream', where a man can start off small, as maybe a worker, and one day hope to run a large company, without being punished for his/her success. Obama also refuses to give education vouchers to students of private schools, meaning he strongly proposes more children use public schools, which teach them what he wants them to hear. To summarise my first round, Obama has called for more government regulation by voting for the bank bailout, make the population more equal and undiversified by advocating free healthcare and taking money off people who have worked tirelessly for years to get it and preference to students of public schools over ones of priavte schools. All of the above ideologies are socialist and therefore make Obama a socialist.
Should the death penalty be legal

I wish to start my argument off by saying that I will do three different points, the first on morality, the second on the cost of the death penalty and the third on closer for the family that has been wronged. I also wish to say that will link all my sources in the third round. With that out the way, let's begin. We reserve the death penalty in the world for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers. This is not, as some critics argue, a kind of world-run lottery that randomly chooses an unlucky few for the ultimate penalty from among all those convicted of murder. Rather, the capital punishment system is a filter that selects the worst of the worst. To put in other words, to sentence killers like those described above to less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty - presumably a long period in prison - would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims understand this essential point. Perhaps most importantly, in its supreme gravity it (being the death penalty) promotes belief in and respect for the majesty of the moral order and for the system of human law that both derives from and supports that moral order.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 10th Amendment. The U.S Federal Government cannot legally pass this law because regulation of medication is not something the constitution says the Federal government is allowed, there is not amendment that specifies the federal government has the authority to do that. The Federal Government would have to pass a constitutional amendment, In order to pass and enforce this kind of law. Secondly how would you enforce this kind of law ? You would have to have a Federal representative in every health office and have them constantly going over records. This is not practical as the manpower and budget needed would not be available. Or would you force schools and universes to require applicants to get the vaccines in question . If you did that then the Federal government would be over stepping the 10th amendment again. To conclude , currently there is no legal way to pass a law and enforce Federal vaccine regulations .
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.

This debate should be impossible to accept, if you accept without my permission then you shall forfeit the debate. If you wish to accept then please leave a comment.This debate's resolution is as follows: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)9. The BOP is evenly shared10. Con must present their case in R1, and must waive in the final round11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's terms and definition; Con acceptsR2. Pro's Case/arguments; Con generic Case/argumentsR3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalR4. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic RebuttalDefinitionsThe United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Should-must; ought(used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (http://www.dictionary.com...)Mandatory- permitting no option; not to be disregarded or modified (http://www.dictionary.com...)Vaccine-any preparation used as a preventive inoculation to confer immunity against a specific disease, usually employing aninnocuous form of the diseaseagent, as killed or weakened bacteria or viruses, to stimulate antibody production. (http://www.dictionary.com...)
It is unreasonable for a completely benevolent god to sentence all non-believers to damnation

You have 4 points but the last 3 depend on the 1st one, which is merely an assertion. Again, you are debating about something else, ie. whether God does exists and if he made himself known. I have already addressed this assertion in the second round. This is why this argument fails. If the debate is wether it is reasonable for the Christian God of the Bible to sentence people to damnation, then we have to debate with in the Biblical Christian context. With in the Christian context, God exists and the Bible is his revealed word. The Bible says that God has indeed revealed himself to the world through his creation, through his word relayed by prophets and ultimately through his own son Jesus. The Bible also says that the root of unbelief is rebellion against God not the other way around. God has made truth plain for all, but our rebellion tries to suppress this truth as it clearly says in Romans 1. If your basis for concluding that it is unreasonable for God to sentence people to damnation, is the "lack of evidence of the existence of God", then I will simply tell you to read Romans 1. If God exists and if the Bible is his infallible word, then your argument fails. If you're gonna accept the Christian concept of eternal damnation, then you also accept everything else that Christianity claims to be true. You can't pick and choose. You can't read one part of the Bible and ignore the rest. You can't judge God's character if you're not gonna accept his WHOLE character. God is justified when he sentenced sinners to death. But God loves us so much that He gave his only son to die in our place.
It is unreasonable for a completely benevolent god to sentence all non-believers to damnation

I apologize if my previous arguments have been confusing. This is my first time starting a debate and I realize that I have much to improve upon. I will now try to clarify what it is that I've been trying to say. 1) It is reasonable to doubt or not be sure of the existence of a god based on lack of convincing evidence. 2) The omni-benevolent god of Christianity sentences people to damnation for not believing that Jesus is his son and the savior of man. 3) Belief that Jesus is the son of god first requires belief that god exists. 4) Because of point "1)" it is unreasonable for god to punish non-believers. Once again I apologize for not being clear enough in my initial arguments.