BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be considered a right

I stand by my argument, as most man-made laws are based upon laws of nature. Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law[1]. Due to this, most legislations in the world are based on natural law, for example, The US Declaration of Independence[2]. Hence, my justification that abortion must be declared as a right because it is morally strong, is indeed well-founded. Besides, the ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization? Therefore, pregnant women's right of opting abortion must be protected by law. Sources: 1. Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Clarendon Press. 2. http://www.archives.gov...
Abortion should be considered a right

You make an argument to justify abortion to then assume that because it is moral, it should be a right. The problem with the syllogism that you attempted is that you have committed a logical fallacy. You attempt to justify abortion as moral by an argument from pity or an appeal to an emotion. An act can not be justified simply because not doing the act would cause some sort of negative result. You also assume that because it is moral, it should be a right. Just because something is moral does not mean it can be defined as a right. Your first premise is true but then the next premise is a fallacy and that results in your conclusion which is faulty.
Abortion should be considered a right

It is a known fact that no contraceptive is 100% effective. Hence there is a possibility of unplanned pregnancies, which may occur under various circumstances. While most are pleasant surprises, in some cases like pregnancies in teenagers or women with terminal illnesses, these unplanned pregnancies have the power to affect the lives of all parties involved in a negative manner. In such cases, abortion should not only be considered moral, but should be encouraged.
Abortion should be considered a right

If you are making an assumption or a prediction you are still using the slippery slope fallacy to justify why abortions should be allowed. The entire question of abortion is if what is in the mother is a life and if it is then it would be murder or if not then it would not be immoral to do away with what is inside. So you quote one "rule" and then conclude that you must be correct because of a rule someone wrote up. I challenge that because within the first 22 days a heart is beating and organs are working. A baby still needs its mother even after birth. A baby even though outside the womb is very dependent but is still an individual. You again make a false claim on your last paragraph. I NEVER said that because you are wrong that it makes me right. You have imagined that argument. What I said is that you make arguments that are logically fallacious. Until you stop appealing to pity and using the slippery slope you can not justify abortion. Find logically sound arguments then begin to debate.
Abortion should be considered a right

My argument does not contain an assumption, but a prediction. While an assumption is a shot in the dark, a prediction draws a conclusion about the future based on past or present data. In my case, my argument that violation of one right will probably lead to another is severely backed by historic occurrences. Now as that is cleared up, let us focus on individual liberty. Before that, we must define the term 'individual'. As of today, no clear definition is available for the term, as it is still a grey area (especially in our current topic). For instance, the 'Born-alive Rule' states that a fetus is not considered an individual until it is born alive, that is, it can exist independently without the mother[1][2]. Hence it can be argued that as an unborn fetus has no individuality, it has no individual rights. It all comes down to the de facto rights of the mother against the debatable rights of the fetus, at which point it becomes clear that abortion must indeed be a right of a woman. Finally, I would like to point out an irony. Your argument is that as my argument contains a fallacy, it is false - and by default yours is true[3]. This itself is a fallacy, and proves nothing with regard to the topic. Sources: 1. http://nationalparalegal.edu... 2. Edward Coke, First Part of the Institutes on the Laws of England 3. "Until you resolve those fallacies and build an argument without them, you can't have much of a debate."
Abortion should be considered a right

The law of nature believes in individual liberty. You obviously make the assumption that whatever is in a woman's body is not an individual so therefore a woman has a right over it. America was built upon individual freedom for all including those who can't defined themselves. If a woman who is pregnant drives to an abortion clinic to have her child aborted and dies on the way in a car wreck and the other driver is found guilty then it's ruled a double homicide. The courts that are based on the laws of nature you mention view a pregnant woman as carrying an unborn human child that has individual rights regardless of what the mother wants. Once again you commit another fallacy. You say that if (A: a woman can not abort the child) then (B: more government mandates will come and then C and so on. This could happen but again assumptions can not justify making abortion a right of a woman. I'm sure that your intentions are good and pure but you stand by arguments that are riddled with logical fallacies. Until you resolve those fallacies and build an argument without them, you can't have much of a debate. Assume that you are right and I am wrong....even if you are right you have to prove it and make an argument that is logically sound or you have no credibility.
Non Catholics are Preaching False Doctrines

St. Paul said that No one can preach the gospel unless he is sent. (Romans 10:14-15). Why only Catholic Church have it? because Catholic Church can trace its origin back to the time of the apostles. Protestants begin after 1000 years ago that is why they are not the true preachers. St. John said, they are not in our numbers because they separated from us (1 John 2:19).
Non Catholics are Preaching False Doctrines

*facepalm* my opponent has used incorrect data. you can prove the existence of air. If you take a vacuum and suck up all air from a certain area sound won't be able to travel. so yes air does exist. you are still using your personal beliefs with makes this a hard debate. I don't believe what i scene because I need PROOF. You have failed to prove anything in this argument, and when you try to all your details are wrong. You have only used one source to gather information, and You have accused me of not knowing things. Obvious decision.
Non Catholics are Preaching False Doctrines

YOU ARE REALY NOT STUDYING THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. Why I say this because you are using your computer with a special IP address. Computers have binary code of only two numbers ( 0 and 1 ). In human body there is what we call DNA which have letter code of G,A,T,C. In every person have different finger prints for special person's identification. All these things have not yet known on ancient times. The number 1 trillionaire in the world cannot buy even a single minute as an extension for his life. You don't believe in God because you don't see Him but you believe that there is an air. You only believe of what your senses have. But you don't think who made everything you have seen and unseen. You don't know that nothing will exist from nothing. The computer will not exist if there is no man who created it. It is very clear that all your arguments base from nothing that is why your way of reasoning is nothing!!!
Non Catholics are Preaching False Doctrines

Yes but how do you know that there is one god. You are still using evidence from personal beliefs. Atheists believe that there is no god. You need to use evidence other then the bible and personal beliefs. So far this argument is not looking good for you. You can't prove to me that god is true or that non Catholics are preaching false doctrines if you continue to use evidence from a bible. I have to say that you can't accuse me of not studying the history of the world when you only take in account of your personal beliefs. Until you use something real, all of your arguments are null and void. In other words, don't base your argument of a book or one religious source.
Non Catholics are Preaching False Doctrines

Different groups throughout the world used their own books as you have mention but ONE thing you don't know that there is only God.The Only God has one group for His Kingdom. Muslims believe to Allah Supreme God, Jews believe Yahweh as Almighty God and different sects have their own Supreme God. Their teachings are not completely the truth. If you study the revelation of God from the time of Adam and Eve up to this time you will know that there are variations of leaders. in the time of Abraham, Moses, and the Apostles have different style of teachings. All of this three groups believe to God Almighty. But the perfect teachings started from Jesus to the apostles delivered in our time. The only GROUP of believers who have a complete or perfect teachings is only the CATHOLIC CHURCH. God does not accept incomplete truth that is why He send His only Son Jesus Christ to teach the people which He entrustedto the apostles and the followers of t apostles (John 15:16) Sorry to tell you that your arguments shows that you have not studied the history of the world. Your reasons are very weak!
Non Catholics are Preaching False Doctrines

Jesus said,"Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16). Yes other religions teach to love one another but they did not follow the complete truth written in the bible. Jesus established the church in (Matthew 16:18). If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). They did not believe that we have to take the body of Christ through the BREAD which is called TRANSUBSTANTIATION after consecration of the priest during mass. It is taught by our Lord Jesus but non-Catholic did not do this. And also images in the church which already taught in the old Testament. (Ezekiel 41:18-19). It is very clear that they are not preaching the truth.
Non Catholics are Preaching False Doctrines

how do you know that they are giving false sermons. The preachers may think they are sent from god to. Jesus said to love our neighbors as ourselves. This means to respect all religions. It really depends who you talk to. Your church may think they are doing the right thing but a different church may think they are doing the right thing. Everyone has different beliefs and everyone has a different idea of whats right to preach.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

Why are we arguing off-topic? If that's your wish, granted. Agnosticism is not a religion, but it's not a complete disbelief that God exists, Agnostics don't say "God doesn't exist" or "God exists", they would ask themselves "Erm, does God exist or not?" or say "Not sure if God exists or not." Back to the topic, atheism is not a religion, atheism is anti-religion.
Targeted Killing

I think this should be a fun experience for both of us, and I look forward to the debate :)Full TopicTargeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. What is Targeted KillingAccording to Tom Hunter, of the Defense Intelligence Agency targeted killing is “the premeditated, preemptive, and deliberate killing of an individual or individuals known to represent a clear and present threat to the safety and security of a state through affiliation with terrorist groups or individuals. ” Hunter further makes a distinction between assassination and targeted killing, stating, “assassination is a killing conducted against an individual or individuals for purely political or ideological reasons. Targeted killing, in sum, is a killing conducted against an individual or individuals without regard for politics or ideology, but rather exclusively for reasons of state self-defense. ”Rules1. No forfeits2. All citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. BOP lies on Pro to show that TK is morally permissible and on Con to show that it is not6. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Constructive CasesR3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals, Final FocusThanks. :)
abortion, case closed

I was initially really confused by what you wrote in your Round 1 statement. I can see you will not let a little thing like grammar or punctuation marks get in the way of making zero sense, and I can admire that to an extent. To answer your question, "Was an egg that cracked, a chicken that died or an egg that never hatched." Well, it really depends on the egg. An egg that cracked, is simply an egg that cracked. Whether or not it has a young chicken inside of it or not is entirely up to whether it was fertilized or not. Chickens will lay eggs with or without a rooster fertilizing them. This is why small baby chickens are not found in your skillet on mornings that you make eggs for breakfast. ^ Sources: Common Knowledge And the following... http://blog.mcmurrayhatchery.com... http://www.backyardchickens.com... http://ps.oxfordjournals.org... I hope this answers your question on your cracked egg dilemma. Onto your next point... "Some one has to be born for there to be some one to die." Not sure how we jumped from your lack of understanding on chickens and their eggs, but you also have a lack of understanding on the concept of life and death. Something does not have to be "born", as in bursting out of a mother's womb, in order to be considered "alive". Only things that were once alive, can die. What is "life"? According to the dictionary, "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." Death would be when those conditions stop. This is the biological way of looking at life and death. The babies cells start to divide at conception, this means it is growing, adapting to its environment, and responding to stimuli around it. The baby has its own set of DNA, different from that of its parents. It is a human...a young human, but still a human. Sperm live and die, but will never be human. So do skin cells. When a sperm, and an ovum, come together and into fertilization...they become something more than themselves. They become a new distinct human. So I hope we answered your egg dilemma, and gave you some clarification on "birth" vs "life".
abortion, case closed

Goodness gracious, can you be bothered to use grammar? "I guess the question becomes, is a fetus aware...answer is simply though" Simply what? Aware of what? Are you aware when you're sleeping? Is a person in a coma aware? Is an infant aware the same way you are aware? Aware of what, it's surroundings? Being human? Is it aware of emotions like sorrow and grief? Does it know what year it is? Are people with dementia aware? What in God's name are you asking?
My tongue is longer than your tongue.

"You will just have to take my word for it." Technically, a tongue is a muscle[1], requiring it to be made up of cells[2]. Eukaryotic cells are at least 10^-6 meters long[3]. Therefore, my opponent lies. A tongue cannot be 10^-24 meters long. We cannot take anything my opponent says as true without evidence, as I have shown him to be a liar. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...(biology)#Eukaryotic_cells
It doesn't matter if you say "Soccor" or "Football"

My opponent has forfeit the last round.I have a short character amount so I will state the second part of my argument as short as possible.Disrespect is a serious thing and saying "football" when referring to soccer in America can and will offend some people. Offending people in another country is horrible and can lead to consequences like scams or getting targeted. Especially in foreign countries. Being a target is the last thing you want while being a tourist.
It doesn't matter if you say "Soccor" or "Football"

It actually does matter in a way. Not even by speaking it, but writing it. It's "soccer" not "soccor". If you live in the USA saying "football" means you want to toss the pig skin around. If you say "soccer" it means you want to kick around a ball into a goal. In Brazil it matters too. If you met someone that speaks English, you should say "football" instead of "soccer". This way they know what you are talking about. You should say it correctly too, as well as write it correctly. Confusing people makes you seem rude. It's best to avoid the confusion and possible argument and just say it correctly where you are. You wouldn't want to upset someone in their own country if you're a tourist. Being a tourist can be risky, but being a rude tourist is worse.
A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters.

cavemen didn't eat rocks, i don't understand your logic. I don't understand much of your sentence structure. The fact of the matter is, this debate topic is all relavent to one's own perspective. I see that a meat eating lifestyle is better than a vegetarian lifestyle, that is a fact. Look, people buy from companies and factory farms that conduct animal abuse, but places like the EU have banned commercial farming and the abuses and the meat is no longer incredibly cruely farmed like in the US. OK, maybe meat eating is correlated with cancer, i still have a choice and a belief that it is still better than vegetarianism. Arguing as con, I would like to reiterate that farming these animals have protected their existence. If we farmed Dodo birds, maybe they wouldn't have sadly become extinct. Honestly, I have seen many vegetarians, and they look really unhealthy and seem tired all the time. My old science teacher once had a weird chronic illness that stopped once she started eating meat. Vegetarianism, like i have said previously, may not be economical for everyone and vegetarianism is quite costly. When money comes into the matter, meat is cheaper per calorie then 10X the veggies. This is why i prefer to be a meat eater, as well as the fact that bacon tastes really really good and makes me happy. I don't really believe in living a life where im constantly forced to not enjoy 75% of the food i enjoy to live longer, thats trading quality for the quantity of years you live. Vegetarianism is not worth the loss of health, money, happiness, and my own views. Meat eaters do not cause mass cruelty, factory farmers do and place like europe have banned them altogether. Plaigerism is an offense to debate, you should never debate by copying a majority of your arguments from a website. That's not debating, it's just posting a website on a debate forum.
A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters.

First, you can't base your theories on our "cavemen ancestors" We live in a new era where development is key. Just because cavemen ate rocks doesn't mean we should start serving rocks to each other. And if you really believe that meat tastes good go ahead just remember that meat from mcdonalds promotes cancer.Yea, that McChicken can kill you Vegetarians in your mind might be anorexic, but you can't base you reasoning of stereotypes. Vegetarian people become vegan for all kinds of reasons. If you go back and see my claim it says the lifestyle is better not necessarily the people who Choose it. Animal cruelty only begins because there are so many people who demand to eat meat that no one cares for the animals. It works this way demand goes up then care for animals goes down. I apologize for plagiarism i truly thought that using the statistics and Harvard study results was permitted even after I credited Harvard. Please truly pick who you think had the more organized argument and good refutation. May the best man/woman win. Thank you for your time.
A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters.

better-ADJECTIVE-comparative of good and well. oxforddictionaries.comgood-to be desired or approved oflook, your whole argument is relative of what people desire or aprove of. Also, your argument is plagarized via http://vegetarian.procon.org...;I like meat, Bacon tastes good and i like it, therefore bacon is good. Since Bacon is better than salads or other vegetarian food according to me and other bacon and meat lovers, meat eaters lifestyles are better than vegetarians. Vegetarians tend to be more concious about their weight and exercise, otherwise why would they be vegetarians. accounting for this, it can be safely assumed that a meat eater with similar lifestyles to vegetarians would have similar health. Our ancient ancestors were carnivorous since they have cave painting drawings of hunting animals and were they unhealthy after running around hunting all day? probably not. Sure Greenhouse gas emissions may be higher for producing meat. look there is more than enough food to feed the world, it's just that food distribution and economics make it so this food doesn't reach those who need it most. Eating animals is key to their survival as a species. Animals like the Dodo bird could have been saved if they were mass farmed and maybe we'd still see these beautiful creatures. Existence of these animals is very important and its more ethical to ensure their species survive and that we benefit from it as well. Honestly, a good hamburger in my opinion is worth all the drawbacks of animal cruelty, health, and the environment. A good bacon cheeseburger makes me happy and i think my happiness is more important than raising pigs for my benefit. Sure, animal cruelty is bad and all, but in the end, is it really the meat eaters fault? It's the corporation that you should be fighting, not the consumer. Yes, the consumer is paying revenue to the corporation, but they need to get their bacon cheeseburger for their happiness. Some people can't even afford to go all out vegetarian since meat is cheap and affordable per calorie.OK, your main points are complete plaigerism of a website you didn't even site. That is really unethical and bad for debate. We are here to debate a topic and formulate our own arguments, not to copy and paste the arguments of others. I think the voters should vote based on that single most incriminating fact. Plaigerism is bad for debate, if we were allowed to plaigerize, would i really be debating or commenting on an article that my opponent has posted? Judges, go to this link and look at the pro aspects and you will see stark similarities.http://vegetarian.procon.org...