BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be illegal.

I am against abortion because it's just plain murder. A human fetus is simply a human being at a very early stage of it's life. It's not a woman's right to end a humans life, it's not about the woman at all. Every human being has a an equal right to life. Just because you're still in the womb doesn't determine the value of you life. Killing a human being just because it is "inconvenient" to you, is absolutely ridiculous. And if the mother is raped and is impregnated, the child should be born. The source of the pregnancy and the actual child are two completely different things. It's obviously a horrible thing to happen to a woman, but that doesn't justify the death of an unborn person.
Abortion should be illegal.

1. Zygotes are microscopic eukaryote cells, and have not even begun to or just started to grow. They have merely just been fertilized. Definition of abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. Miscarriage is definitely not on the same level as abortion, almost all of the miscarriages that have been documented, the mother wanted the child. It is not on the same level of abortion because it is not deliberate, and much of the time not the mothers fault. 2. So you say that it's not the woman's right to end a human life, yet you say that it's ok to kill it if she does not want it? You have contradicted yourself here. The fetus and the woman have equal rights, and the law says that you don't murder. Why is the choice about the woman? Is it because she can talk? What if the fetus could talk? He would likely say that it would not want die. If you had a disease, and you had to have a machine or else you would die, would you still be viable for life, just because you're not in the womb and have been educated and fully developed? 3.I apologize, as I should not have used the term 'value of life', instead I should have used 'the right to live'. I don't mean that we should make a chart and rate people according to who they are and what they are like. 4. Like I said, no the woman's choice to kill a human. Why would it be our fault that the woman doesn't have a healthy way to perform the procedure? Do you know a way to prevent you and your child from dying due to illegal abortion? Don't have it, instead, have the child, and put he/she up for adoption. This has proved to be a great method of reserving financial status without the deaths of thousands of babies. 5.The source of the pregnancy and the pregnancy are completely different. It is obviously a HORRIBLE thing to happen to a woman, and the person responsible should be hunted down, castrated and/or killed. I have never states that this was ok. However, if the woman was impregnated to due this, the child has rights. The child deserves to be born. However, I also think that there should be benefits (financial) from the government if a woman was ever in this situation. However that's not what we're talking about. 6.You're correct, it is a woman's right to have sex. It's also a woman's responsibility to be careful. I am not oppressing a woman's right to have sex, I am merely asking a question. Why? Why would a woman(who does not want to have a child), have sex? Again, they are allowed to have sex, doesn't mean they should unless they want a child. If a woman has sex and gets pregnant, that's on her. 7. 'Jesus Christ, you lib's really like to bring up history a lot.' Didn't mean it as an insult, and I apologize if you are offended. I also apologize for assuming you are a liberal, although you seem to be leaning towards the left. 8. Never said that every country is worse off than the united states, just said that we are in a better financial situation( besides the trillions of dollars in debt we are) than them.
Xbox One is better than Ps4

While you do have a good point when it come to Xbox live being more reliable you said some things that didn't make since. Firstly NFL is now becoming a cash cow meaning that you need to pay for the fantasy football. Also while I didn't said this in other rounds the kinect is poor with bad calibration and movement control also the games for the kinect are terrible. While the ps4 camera is more better with great calibration and good games such as just dance and the playroom they even thought of making some sort of oculus rift device I saw it on a game informer issue p. So even if Xbox have many good things about it it has many things that are just bad about it. And that's why the ps4 is better than the xbox
Xbox One is better than Ps4

Xbox Live costs a bit more, but it is also more reliable than playstation network. In December when PlayStation network and Xbox was spammed and players could not log in, Xbox live only took about a day and a half to two days to block the spammers. However, PlayStation network took about 5 1/2 days to fix the spam problem. This is a prime example of why Xbox live is more reliable than Playstation network. Xbox one can stream twitch and so can PlayStation. Off the topic of this Xbox Xbox has a more innovative interface then PlayStation because Xbox has a partnership with the NFL and with Xbox you can have fantasy football. The thing that makes this so cool is that while you are playing a game, you can check your fantasy football with the cool features Xbox has which is multitasking. Finally the connect sensors for the Xbox are more accurate and complex than PlayStation the cameras right now. In the end PlayStation and Xbox are very cool. In the future I hope that the next GEN consoles will be more Advanced an offer where you many more features then they currently do now.
Xbox One is better than Ps4

sorry I was busy with school anyway lets begin. while you may got a got a valid point I see something better in my perspective for example even though the xbox one may have a good controller than the ps4 the ps4 doesn't cost much and it even sold more than the xbox one. even PlayStation plus doesn't cost much but the xbox one require people to pay for xbox live and a monthly pay wich is bull. and the ps4 allows players to stream their game with many people with twitch or ustream xbox one dosent have that. i have many things to say about the ps4 and xbox one but im saving it for other round sources used: (youtube) (wikipedia) (gagadget)
This poem is a good example of the holy in poetry as it captures the numinous

con says "Burden of proof is on Pro as they are making the assertion." I have given proof ie the poem which it is assumed you have read upon which you said-without proof "The only thing that poem is a good example of is what people who don't seek help for their mental illnesses end up producing for a living." by saying that you are admitting you have read the poem and disagree with my assessment so now give us proof of your claim but seeing you are afraid to commit yourself to proof I will give some examples of the numinous in the poem and I will hang you on your own words you said "that poem is a good example of is what people who don't seek help for their mental illnesses" so its is up to you now to prove these lines =below-indicate mental illness -if you cant then I must win the debate "I can see that beauteous form that ravishing face of intoxicating bliss let me be drunk on that face reveal reveal that face to me that I can into intoxicated bliss drown in the ineffable sublimity of that gorgeous face of overabundant ravishment " "revel that face upon which all mankind longs to see that face that all the worlds upon longs to gaze oh the tears of I be my very soul that melts like candle oh beloved I be melting for thee from my longing for thee oh that thee would revel that face that face of incomparable beauty that I may kiss "
This poem is a good example of the holy in poetry as it captures the numinous

This poem is a good example of the holy in poetry as it captures the numinous http://www.scribd.com... Numinous http://en.wikipedia.org... "Numinous /G2;njuH0;m=6;nəs/ is an English adjective, taken from the Latin numen, and used by some to describe the power or presence or realisation of a divinity.
The death penalty for torturers.

"Justice is a right for victims, and torturers do not have the right to live off of the tax payers." I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with either statements. In no way did these help back up your main argument, and the second statement is especially irrelevant since, in your case, the torturer would be dead anyway. You have not only failed to back up your own claims with any supporting details, but you have also failed to refute any of my arguments. And all of your arguments were very poorly conducted. This was pretty disappointing; I was expecting a good debate from how I've seen you debate with other people, but your arguments in this debate has me questioning your skill. I think I can surely say that I have won this debate entirely.
The death penalty for torturers.

I feel that your opinion is biased since you have actually been tortured. Obviously, if someone was tortured, they would usually want the torturer to die; there is no doubt about this. Though that is what the person who was tortured wants, that does not mean it is necessarily the right thing to do. "You never know until you are tortured..." In that case, the only person who would know how to handle a torturer is the person who was tortured, and no one else. Does this make sense? Did you expect to debate someone else that has been tortured? If you never know until you are tortured, why did you bring up this topic in a debate? In other words, mostly everyone has not been raped or tortured in this world, so if we wouldn't know, why would you debate with us on this topic? I have a legitimate opinion, whether I have been tortured or not. To reiterate my previous argument, everyone deserves a second chance, unless they commit any of the crimes I mentioned earlier. At that point, the criminal receiving the death penalty is morally justified.Anyways, rather than simply taking the torturer/rapist's life away, how about just disciplining him and trying to help him through methods such as therapy. Taking another's life for one horrific mistake, in my opinion, is quite ridiculous. I understand that might come off as offensive or rude, but I'm simply stating the opinion that you asked for by creating this debate in the first place. You have yet to refute any of my points; I await your response.
The death penalty for torturers.

Even if I was tortured, I would still see no reason for my torturer to have his one and only life taken away from him; and like I said, that's the easy way out for him. The reasonable thing to do is give him a harsh punishment, let him sit in prison for some years, and have him receive help in therapy after that. I know that what he did to you was horrendous, but I think yanking his life away is still a bit extreme. This is why the government only executes the death penalty when someone commits murder, endangers government officials, or endangers the country. In summary, the only way someone should receive the death penalty is if they commit any of the crimes I listed above. Most of everyone deserves a second chance, and not for their life to be snatched away from them. Again, it's not morally justified.
The death penalty for torturers.

This is personal to me. I was raped by my father when I was 13, and I wanted to gun him so bad, because it was torture. There is a place called torture which is where you go mentally and emotionally when you are tortured. I do not favor current execution methods, but find something humane, and I will. I will finalize with the thought that all torture victims have post traumatic stress disorder, and being condemned to a lifetime of that warrants a humane version of execution.
The death penalty for torturers.

Hello, KJVPrewrather. I have seen you in a lot of other debates, so I think it would be interesting to debate you. Good luck. While I do agree with you that torture is the worst possible thing you could do to another person, I have to disagree with you on how you think the torturer deserves to be punished with the death penalty; it isn't morally justified. I believe he/she should rather receive a similarly harsh punishment and receive some form of help after that. I think no matter what you do (except murder), you should not deserve to have your one and only life taken away from you because of it. I see that you are a Christian, and so am I. Do you think that if you hypothetically did something as terrible as torturing someone that God should just take your life away as the consequence? Or would you want a second chance? I would assume you would choose the latter. The only way I think the death penalty should be executed is if the criminal took another person's life, in which the death penalty is morally justified at that point. To summarize my point, I believe everyone deserves a second chance- rapists, torturers, etc. (excluding murderers) And yes, if I was tortured, I would still not want the torturer to die- after all, it's the easy way out for them. I understand that I have not experienced what you have, but I'm just simply stating my own opinion on this subject. I look forward to your response.
Deployment of Lethal Autonomous Weapons systems(LAWS)

1)Even the Samsung SGR-1 can not distinguish between friend and foe and when used and it deems anyone who crosses the the line as enemy therefore LAWS can not be allowed to be deployed because if they shoot a friend rather than a foe. I fail to understand why they should be deployed at all? 2)What about glitches? How reliable is GPS control especially when the robot itself will be choosing its target area? 3)Also if we see this from international view point then not all nations can afford to develop LAWS so if a Developed nation like USA has a conflict with a developing nation then is the population of the Developing country to be mass murdered by LAWS? 4) LAWS have immense power and if this power falls in the wrong hands then there will be serious repercussions therefore it is better to neither develop nor deploy these weapons in the first place. 5) No innocent deserves to suffer and in a world where millions die every hour there is no need for LAWS to destroy many more innocent lives
Deployment of Lethal Autonomous Weapons systems(LAWS)

south Korea has developed a semi-autonomous gun turret called the Samsung SGR-1. It can aim and select targets on its own, but needs a human to tell it it can shoot. It is currently deployed on the border with north Korea. There can be devastating effects, but these things can basically be airdropped into a hostile area, and programmed to not shoot anyone wearing a kind of badge or other item of clothing (like a US military uniform for example). we could drop these things into the ISIS front lines and by the time they saw the turret it would have destroyed the entire front line. On the topic of the kill switch, the US military is bringing in GPS controls on its stinger missiles. This means that once the person at the air base selects the combat area, the missile will only work in that area. This means that if it is captured, it will not work outside of the target area. the target area can only be changed remotely, so if it was captured then it's working area could be set to the middle of the ocean, or some rural area in Antarctica. Also it is unlikely that they will not be encrypted.
Deployment of Lethal Autonomous Weapons systems(LAWS)

1)Lethal Autonomous Weapons System has not yet been developed and therefore there is no knowledge of what would be programmed into it or where will it be used. Till the time we do not know the answer of these questions we can not deem it as a device fit to be used. 2)" there should also be tight controls on their deployment and a destruction switch/button should be created for each one of them. if there was a glitch in the software and it saw everyone as a threat, then there would be huge problems trying to shut it down or destroy it if there wasn't." As you said that there can be devastating effects of LAWS. Do you it is worth taking the risk of using these weapons and putting human life at stake? What if the switch does not work? What happens if these weapons fall in the wrong hands? 3)If these weapons fall in the hands of a terrorist organisation then it would be capable of destroying millions of lives and since LAWS are basically robots they have no sense of preservation they will kill people without cease.
Deployment of Lethal Autonomous Weapons systems(LAWS)

In my opinion, LAWS are an effective way of stopping terrorism or other crimes in as short a time possible after they start or before they have even started. If a countrywide manhunt for a serial killer was happening and one of these weapons systems saw them, they would be able to either take them out or alert the authorities. However, there should also be tight controls on their deployment and a destruction switch/button should be created for each one of them. if there was a glitch in the software and it saw everyone as a threat, then there would be huge problems trying to shut it down or destroy it if there wasn't. However, if someone ripped out a gun/bomb in the middle of a crowded area, then the LAWS could neutralise the threat and save lives. on the other hand, there should be restrictions on their export/import to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands and strict international laws to prevent governments from using them against the masses.
There are no such things as needs

What has begun as a very simple debate has now been spun off into a discussion about the validity of free will. I would advise the audience to pay very close attention: The issue at hand is not whether free will exists, and the issue at hand in no way needs to be about free will. However, since my opponent has decided to spin the argument off into this direction, I will address the only important part of his very long and only partially relevant response. "Either free-will is an illusion and all "choices" are needs by definition, or the mind and body are distinct but connected, thus there are no needs, only wants. " First, I admit that I do run under the notion that there is no evidence of the mind being supernatural. As I have shown before, physical things can affect the mind, thus, we have no reason to believe that the mind is supernatural. It was my opponent's burden to prove this. Second, my opponent has not fulfilled this burden. The closest he has come to submitting an argument dictating that the mind is somehow beyond the physical realm, is to say that free will and the mind are self evident. He says that we must assume that free will exists, because we must assume that free will exists. (In other words, my opponent declares that free will MUST exist, because he wants to win the debate) It is regretful that my opponent has no outstanding argument whatsoever for his claim, besides the fact that he would really, really, really like for it to be the case. Thus, we must discard this request as he has no evidence for this claim, and we must discard the following parts of his argument that run under the assumption that we have given in to his pleas out of sympathy. *********** Now, we move away from distractions and back towards the key issue, my opponent wished to prove conclusively that needs do not exist. My only argument, plain and simple, is that existent things need to exist. The definition of existence is that a concept has an actual physical tie in this world, something that my opponent was trying to bypass by going off on an irrelevant tangent about the mind and the brain, one that I tried to correct by showing how it was irrelevant. Apparently, I instead have confused my opponent. My opponent's argument was essentially that things that exist, don't need to exist. The definition of a "need" is something that is required for existence. Thus, any conversation about non-existence is absurd. If a library card is required to borrow books, and some people choose not to borrow books, this does not mean that library cards are not required. Similarly, if things must exist in order to exist, the fact that some things act to cease existing has nothing to do with whether or not there is a need for existence. My opponent's entire argument was based on a misinterpreted and fallacious argument by semantics, and it has led him into a dead end. Since he has not upheld his burden, the resolution is negated. I thank my opponent for this debate, and the audience for their participation. Until next time :)
There are no such things as needs

There are several logical fallacies here. FIRST: The "I" does not exist. Only the body does. Unless my opponent can prove that there is a supernatural consciousness, then we must assume that our consciousness is a material thing. Why? Because consciousness does not exist without matter. In addition, material things can prevent our consciousness from operating, or at least affect its operation. This shows that consciousness is physical, and all things that are physical take up space. Since the "I" is physically part of the body, the "I" never really ceases to be, even after death. Death is simply when the thing changes. The chemical components of the corpse still take up space. The "I" still exists after death, just in a different form. My opponent's argument is like saying that a river stops existing if it stops running. Not so, as the running water becoming stagnant means the river has turned into a lake. Our definitions of a river and a lake don't matter. The existence of the water molecules matter. Similarly, when we die, our consciousness no longer runs like a river. It stays stagnant, like a lake. However, it still exists, and still has mass, and still takes up space. SECOND: Assuming that my opponent can conclusively prove that the consciousness is a non-corporeal thing, he runs into another barrier. That which is unnatural, supernatural, and/or non-physical, can not exist to begin with. If something is metaphysical, it does not exist. If my opponent declares that consciousness is not subject to physical law and is separate from the physical world, then it does not exist. Something must have physical form to exist. My opponent defines this consciousness as linked to, but not equal to, the body. Since it does not exist by itself in a physical form, it could not have the choice of whether to exist or not. Thus, my opponent's entire argument is void, as he is arguing using things that do not exist. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.