BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is medically equivalent to murder

My opponent has stated that at the time when two vital organs are found in the embryo, then the abortion would medically be considered murder. I wish to clarify that the oxford definition would be referring to a normal, fully developed person, with no deformities. The definition would classify paralyzed persons as "not human" if it were taken as a definition without exception. I propose that since an embryo is made entirely of its own unique human DNA and that because said embryo is exhibiting signs of life as well as the potential to form all vital organs, then exterminating said embryo and thereby stopping it from exhibiting signs of life, is the equivalent of murder. I point out that even though there is no brain function for some time, there is a coordinated effort in which all the cells of said embryo operate together to create a fully functional human being. That fact classifies the embryo as an intelligent being. I thank my opponent for a clean debate, completely free of opinion and fallacy. I ask anyone judging this debate wether they be Pro or Con to cast aside all prejudice and opinion and judge strictly by evidence and arguments presented. Thank you for your time.
Abortion is medically equivalent to murder

First we must define murder. Murder is defined as the intentional termination of a human life ( termination meaning the prevention of that life's continuance [definition excludes extenuating circumstances such as defense of self or another person]). That being said, I as the Pro must clearly show that: a.) The human embryo/fetus is medically classified as "living" b.) Abortion prevents said embryo/fetus from continuing be medically alive a.) The seven signs of life are as follows: Movement The ability to gain energy from a food source Sensitivity Growth Reproduction Excretion Taking in and using food (http://www.bbc.co.uk...) A human embryo/fetus exhibits the following signs of life: Movement The ability to gain energy from a food source Sensitivity Growth Excretion Taking in and using food http://www.madsci.org... A newborn baby exhibits the exact same signs. Therefore an embryo/fetus is just as alive as a newborn baby b.) The entire purpose of an abortion is to terminate the gestation of a human embryo/fetus. Since the intention is to destroy the embryo/fetus and keep it from developing, I propose that abortion is the same as killing a newborn baby.
Misanthropy

If you're talking about the good humanity has done, then what? What are those really? Technological advancement? Yeah how could that contribute to our morality? Evolution of our culture? What exactly is it's contribution for the "goodness" of our brains and existence? Yeah, It is true that not all humans are this and not all humans are that. But if you think very well about it, I could say well that it could always be all of us! A good example of this is how we affected Earth for the past few millenia and how the unbalance in the system is created. We, humans, just like ants, teamed up on each other for survival, that's one point. It is noted that all existence are to balance things out. We are supposed to live like how our body dictates it, over the years we are fed up by the certain statement that "We are the pinnacle of evolution." Which is outright wrong. Considering our bodies, don't you think there should be something that would prey on us? Like some bigger predator that would prey on its prey? Because that is what it should've been from the start! Let's try to take something from the Bible this time, If we hadn't ate the "fruit of knowledge" we couldn't have sinned! Even if you don't believe in the Bible, It could apply to reality, since it is because of our mind that's causing every single negative human activity. That's why there is deadly diseases, to balance things out, That is why there is Cholera, Cancer, In our nature you won't see things like cure or any type if healing. Because these diseases are absolutely important for the balance of the population. We are compared to ants, if not worse. Choosing to love yourself for who you are could be "good", but is it really going to help?
Misanthropy

Misanthropy, Yes, The hate on humankind. Well I've been through a lot of talks about this, such as "If you hate humans, how come you dont hate yourself?" Yeah, so stereotypical. That's actually that. I hate myself. Eitherway this is to decide whether you'd want to hate everyone else or be with these unfulfilling sprites of false justice. After all, we humans caused every single fucked up thing in this whole damn world. We what? We steal, kill, and start wars on each other. We destroy nature and we also praise money, There are also all types of inequality in a way that you wont ever get finished just by talking about all of it. And yeah, what else? Because of this thick, rich brains of us, everything just fell to a despairful place. Everything. Thanks for anyone who would like to debate with me. This is my first time to debate here but I promise I'll try my best to entertain you sheeple.
1 does not equal 2

I shall now proceed and rip apart your proof *bows* This is my opponent's proof: Step 1; a and b > 0 Step 2: a = b Step 3: a2 = ab Step 4; a2 - b2 = ab - b2 Step 5: (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b) Step 6: (a + b) = b Step 7: b + b = b Step 8: 2b = b Step 9; 2 = 1 ha 1=2 In step 5, by dividing by (a-b), you are dividing by zero, something that is not allowed in math. If a=b, then if you subtract one from the other, you get zero. It is a well known mathematical fact that you CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT divide by zero. Dividing by zero will only give you an undefined answer. For instance, let us say that a=5. Therefore, according to step 2, b=5. Right? If we plug a=b=5 into step 5, we get the following: (5+5)(5-5)=5(5-5) If we divide by (5-5), like my opponent did, we get the following: [(5+5)(0)]/0=[5(0]/0 THIS IS WRONG. YOU CANNOT DIVIDE BY ZERO. THANK YOU
1 does not equal 2

Step 1; a and b > 0 Step 2: a = b Step 3: a2 = ab Step 4; a2 - b2 = ab - b2 Step 5: (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b) Step 6: (a + b) = b Step 7: b + b = b Step 8: 2b = b Step 9; 2 = 1 ha 1=2
1 does not equal 2

1=2 is a mathematically incorrect statemtent. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. For instance, you might say: a=b a^2=ab a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) a+b=b If a and b =1 1+1=1 2=1 This is a proof that I have seen all over this site. THIS PROOF IS INCORRECT!!! If a=b, then in the 4th line, when you divide by (a-b), you are really dividing by 0, and that goes against the rules of math. I CHALLENGE SOMEONE TO PROVE ME WRONG. I CHALLENGE SOMEONE TO PROVE THAT 1=2.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger may be a good moral motivation because Anger is often driven back by pity, and has no solid strength. Not only is it inconsistent, but it sometimes goes further than it should, or stops abruptly. Anger judges capriciously, refuses to listen, and leaves no room for defense. On the other hand, reason is a better moral motivation. Reason wishes to pass fair judgment while anger wishes the judgment which it has already passed to seem far. Anger is often misguided by irrelevant trifles, whereas reason considers nothing but the issue. It is quite foolish that one would find anger useful for moral motivation when it produces bad temper, something unstable, untrustworthy, and unsound in seeking protection. Anger cannot help us decide what is right and wrong because it has all of the above attributes. It acts as a barrier in which we are unable to have the capacity to make proper moral decisions.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS POSSIBLE that anger may be a good moral motivation because this bears no relationship to providing the equipment to aiding courage. Whether or not we take action on our moral disagreement with a situation may require courage but our understanding of that situation and our moral stance requires nothing but comprehension of the moral virtues taught to us through habit. Anger is not a requirement to develop morals but it is a possible motivation. Anger may transform into other things when it listens to reason and becomes controllable but that does not mean it does not assist in forming one's moral stance. Striking a middle ground and being good-tempered, according to Aristotle, implies that one has found a way to respond with anger justifiably and with good reason. These anger responses form and then become a result of our judgment of what is morally right or wrong. If you do not respond with any anger to a situation that clearly has a moral right and a moral wrong, you may be considered to be a fool because you have not indicated that you comprehend what is happening. Anger can be help us decide what is right and what is wrong and thus to what we must respond. If it transforms after that decision has no bearing on its capacity to be a moral motivator.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS NOT THE CASE that anger can motivate us to take action we find to be morally wrong. Anger does not provide the equipment to aid to courage. Rather, anger acts as a superficial replacement for it. For example, let us say there is an issue at hand you find morally wrong, and you find that your beliefs are part of the outliers. Having anger towards others who do not share your beliefs will not help you rise to action simply because you find them to be morally wrong. Moreover, some things are in our power, but after time they forcefully take control of us. If the mind throws itself into anger, or other affections, it is in the same way not allowed to restrain the impulse. The anger is bound to be swept along and driven downwards by its own weight. In this way, anger is inconsistent and it would be hard to find a middle ground.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

It is IRRELEVANT that anger may not necessarily be found to be good because the issue at hand is whether or not anger can be a good moral motivation. If we base our understanding of anger on Aristotle, anger is a natural human response. He believes that moral virtues are developed through habit. If we have the right kind of habits, our anger will tell us what is morally right and morally wrong. Through developing habits that are not contrary to nature, we discover what is right and wrong. When we understand these rights and wrongs, we develop a tendency to behave in certain ways. Finding and keeping to a middle ground in all virtues, but especially when angry, allows us to understand what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Our anger informs us as to how we should respond to the behavior of others. Anger can motivate us to take action we find to be morally wrong, forcing us to take a side in a moral issue. Thus, anger can be a good moral motivation by guiding our understanding of what is and is not moral.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

I think your argument has valid points, however, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger is found to be good. Anger is not useful because once you find the middle ground, which you consider to be ideal, it is no longer a form of anger. If it listens to reason and follows where led, it is no longer anger, the hallmark of which is willful disobedience. One premise in your argument addresses that excessive anger has several manifestations. This is not the case because once anger has developed into a positive form, it is no longer anger. In addition, virtue needs no other vice to assist it, it is sufficient in itself. I can elaborate about that longer later.
Anger can be a good moral motivation

Aristotle argues that there are two kinds of virtues, those that are taught and those that are learned through habit. He seeks to show that through our habits we devlope our characters. He believes we must seek out a middle ground in all virtues, as it is the nature of things to be destroyed by defect or excess. Anger, as a virtue, must also have a middle ground, meaning that it too can be good. 1) Virtue can be either intellectual or moral in nature, with the intellectual being developed through teaching, requiring experience and time, and the moral being developed through habit. 2) Some men become self-restrained while others become irascible due to their tendency to behave in either manner; these characteristics become, through habit, part of each mans moral virtue. 3) The kinds of activities we undertake define our character, and thus our virtues, by encouraging us towards one kind of behavior or another. 4) Virtues are destroyed by excess and defect and are preserved by the mean. 5) The desirable amount of anger is the mean between too much anger and too little anger and is considered good-tempered. 6) The good-tempered man is praised because he tends to be unperturbed and not led by passion but is angry in the way the rule dictates. 7) Those who are not angry at things they should be angry at are thought to be fools unlikely to defend themselves. 8) Excessive anger has several manifestations, the worst being called bad-tempered which cannot be appeased until they inflict vengeance or punishment. 9) We idealize good temper and oppose excess more strongly than we oppose deficiency since bad tempered people are worse to live with. 10) It is difficult to determine acceptable factors for one's anger, which can only be decided on the particular facts and on perception. Conclusion: 11) Anger is found to be good when a praiseworthy middle ground has been found.
Social media has more harms than goods

The con is now obviously confused. Very confused. He didn't both to read that I said that I am pro for social media in round 1. He is con meaning he is against social media. .. .. Yet he has provided no claims to his arguments, and only gave one liners. I have gave just a few good arguments as to why social media has more good than bads, and is overall a good thing as long as it's not over abused. So, extend everything I said the other rounds and then some.
Social media has more harms than goods

Con who against social media said "Social media lowers health risk" In that very statement, either it was an typo, or who knows, con basically said, anything that can be a health risk and harm you is lowered by social media which of course is arguing against himself at this point. With that said, con is either confused, or making a typo as stated above. To continue on with social media, it's more benefiting than it is bad and again, the positives outweigh the negatives here in this debate from what all you can achieve with social media. People have gotten rich and made their lives better by getting rich off such outlets, and people again have connected with those they haven't seen in a long time. So to say it's more so a bad thing is just laughable.
Social media has more harms than goods

Hello world. I am pro for this debate, and as pro, I am for social media. First off, con who (is against, and claims social media has more harms than goods has to clearly demonstrate beyond doubt that that social media is more harmful than it is good for this debate). Cons first argument is that social media in itself makes the world "round" but has not said why, or backed up such a wild claim that it does, nor do I think he can. I will defend social media outlets as well as rebuttal anything he has to say. First off, he will have to tear down the foundation of what makes social media good and list more cons. 1: Social media gives users a place to connect to loved ones, or lost family members, or to talk to strangers across the world that you'd never get to meet, and learn more of their culture through the internet. 2: Social media provides outlets for different categories, whether it be gaming, or debate websites such as this, there is something for all to be found when diving into the internet. 3: It's good to stay connected, learn what's going on (as long as you don't abuse it too much that is) and it's a fact that any negative that social media has is a low percentage that it effects people, cause the majority are not bad apples. 4: Social Media can be used to find out information as somewhat said above, but to go in more detail, it can be used to find out about someone and their background if looking in all the right places, and can help even find suspects. I could go on with this list for days, but it isn't my job necessarily to prove social media is more positive cause believe me, the positives outweigh the negatives here. It's the cons job to provide more negative's that social media has. Until then, i will wait for his response before continuing.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

My opponent claims that he starts all of his rounds with "aVe". and "vAlE", however, if he started all his rounds with an argument, that would not mean the first round was just for acceptance. My opponent even admitted that he added a "greeting" as part of his "acceptance". Well, using that logic, I could just say that I can add an "argument" as part of my "acceptance". If I said "first round for acceptance" then Con could have gotten away with it, but I said "first round just for acceptance". My rules were specific, I said:"first round is JUST for acceptance" Since my opponent added a "greeting" on top of the "acceptance", then he self-evidently Broke *Rule 3. Also, he claims that even if my argument above holds, that only means he should lose the debate, that does not mean he will. However, Rule 1 claims that he will. This means he broke Rule 5 by contesting Rule 1. Rule 5 is:"Rule 5: No contesting a rule after the debate has been accepted"However, Rule 1 specifically states that failure to break the rules will result in an automatic forfeit. Since my opponent is arguing that failure to break the rules wouldn't result in an automatic forfeit, this means he is arguing against Rule 1 after the debate as been accepted, and thus has broken Rule 5. Regardless, one must invoke the principle of charity(. http://en.wikipedia.org...). This means that I have a right to trust that people will vote for me based on honesty, because the debate rules specifically state that my opponent will forfeit all 7 points if he breaks any rules. We have no reason to think that voters will be dishonest with themselves based on the principle of charity here, even if it is possible. My opponent has broken 2 of the rules that I have mentioned already (*Rule 3 and Rule 5). Con also broke *Rule 4! !How did Con break *Rule 4? Here is from his last round:"alSo"He has two lowercase letters beside each other (a lower case "a" and a lower case "l"), that means that every other letter is not a capital letter! My opponent has no escape route here. He broke *Rule 4. My opponent broke 3 of the debate rules (*Rule 3, *Rule 4, and Rule 5). Thus, according to Rule 1:"Rule 1: If a rule is broken (directly or indirectly), then an automatic 7 point forfeit results for whoever broke the rule". .. He forfeits all 7 points. If he disagrees, then he violates Rule 5 again! I trust that the voters will do the right thing, and give my all 7 points.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

aVe.I pOsT 'aVe' AnD 'vAlE' aT tHe StArT oF aLl My RoUnDs. FoR mE, tHe DeFiNiTiOn Of AcCePtInG a DeBaTe Is 'PoStInG aVe, I aCcEpT, aNd ThEn VaLe'. ThE gReEtInG aNd GoOdByE aRe PaRt Of AcCePtAnCe,NnOt SoMeThInG oUtSiDe Of It. ThErE aRe No ReAsOnS tO tHiNk ThAt ThEy HaVe To Be OuTsIdE oF iT.alSo, EvEn If PrO iS rIgHt, AlL hE's DoNe Is PrOvE tHaT i ShOuLd LoSe ThE dEbAtE, nOt ThAt I wIiL. mAyBe It WiLl Be A tIe. maYbE sOmEoNe WiLl MaSsIvElY vOtEbOmB iN mY fAvOr At ThW lAsT sEcOnD. MAyBe NoBoDy WiLl VoTe. PrO hAs NoT oFfErEd A sInGlE rEaSoN tO aFfIrM tHe ReSoLuTiOn, ThErEfOre It Is NeGaTeD. SInCe ThE rSsOlUtIoN iS nEgAtEd, PrE hAs NoT mEt HiS bUrDeN oF pRoOf. siNcE pRo HaS nOt MeT hIs BuRdEn Of PrOoF, cOn WiNs.VaLe.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to uphold the law.

My opponent has not posted within the allotted 72 hours and has forfeited the round. Please extend my arguments from round 2 to this round. Conclusion: The world is a dangerous place, and anarchy breeds this danger. The government can protect its citizens from many of the dangers of the world. Society surrenders authority to the government, and the government upholds the law. But what about when the government fails? The law begins to fall apart, and society is left unprotected. Enter vigilantism. The courageous heroes of society protect their fellows against the dangers of the world. Vigilantes are a last resort to maintain the structure of society, after the government has fallen. They can effectively maintain order in the absence of a strong government. Yes, vigilantism is indeed justified when government has failed to endorse the law. Support society. Support justice.
My milkshakes are better than yours

Addressing Point 1-Doesn't mean your milkshakes are better than mine.I can conclude that those men were probably blind, deaf, mute virgins who like watermelon in their ice cream. Therefore I am a dog. Go Sparta. I win cos I better.Addressing Point 2-You probably whack off to those recipes you idiotic troll, you can't possibly win this debate because I pay the voters to have sex with me and I make a mean tuna casserole with barbeque sauce and KFC chicken, I once invited Chicken and Koopin to a dinner party, they plucked out their feathers and had wild sex with my TV dinner, I was pissed. My Case-Here's good, hard, long, sticky, painful photographic evidence that my milkshakes are superior to this guy with his pink hat and lousy persona; See, I win cause those are pictures of me and my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.
Chief Wahoo is an American Icon

I'll take your lack of originality as flattery. I enjoyed your Garfield mention and I think that is an important subject that the Catholic Church has ignored for centuries. However, this is not the discussion at hand. I am evolving my topic from Chief Wahoo to the necessity of killing you and anyone that resembles you, or is related to you. Because you are hideous and get no hoes I guess you can just thank me for doing you a favor. You calling Trump a globalist by default makes you a globalist and there is no more of a scum to the earth than a globalist like yourself. You should be neutered with Rob Manfred before you are killed. Death penalty is something that does not exist solely to eliminate criminals, it also exists to rid America of lizards like you. It is a shame you have the last word because basically anything you say I can immediately regurgitate right back into your disgusting donkey mouth. Go play more Pokemon Go you worthless slime.
Chief Wahoo is an American Icon

If you weren't such a pathetic dumb boy maybe I wouldn't have to explain garfeild to you. Being that you voluntarily accept debates based off if you are passionate on the topic or believe you can win, I can't understand why your idiotic self would accept this debate. But now that you did, let me spoon feed you this easily accessible information for you like an adult would feed a fat, slobbering infant.Garfeild has been the Christian church's logo since 10,000 BC and has been a reminder of the past and current Garfeild comics. Garfield lovers have expressed their indifference on the topic yet the simpletons pissis of our country decided to get rid of this logo. Just another example of the big fat trump and his globalist self ruining America's past time(Garfield). I would post more but considering you are too dumb to post a counter I'll leave it to you to shame yourself and your family again.