BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexual acts are immoral

Pro will offer their opening arguments in support of the resolution in R1 and will not post in R4 so as to maintain equality in case length.===Definitions===Homosexual acts refer to consensual sex acts between two or more members of the same sex. To keep the debate focused I will obviously not be defending male on male or female on female rape. I will only be defending consensual gay sex against the charges of immorality.For an action to be immoral means that it is contrary to right or to moral conduct. I'll refrain from posting anything more on the definition seeing as my opponent and I will no doubt have differing views on what constituted immorality.===Resolution and BoP===The primary burden on Pro to provide and defend an argument in support of the resolution. Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case. The resolution surrounds consensual sex acts between members of the same gender and whether or not those acts categorically constitute immorality on the part of the participants.I should note here (in light of problems in another debate with the same scope) that I reserve the right to either (a) refute Con's application of a given moral theory to the topic of homosexuality, to (b) bring my own competing moral theory (with it's own rival interpretation of the morality/immorality of homosexuality), or to (c) criticize Con's moral theory (thus also his application of it) via praxeological analysis[1]. Con on the other hand is burdened with presenting/defending some moral theory as well as its application to homosexual acts.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.===Sources===[1] "And yet praxeology may be extended beyond its current sphere, to criticize ethical goals. This does not mean that we abandon the value neutrality of praxeological science. It means merely that even ethical goals must be framed meaningfully and, therefore, that praxeology can criticize (1) existential errors made in the formulation of ethical propositions and (2) the possible existential meaninglessness and inner inconsistency of the goals themselves. If an ethical goal can be shown to be self-contradictory and conceptually impossible of fulfillment, then the goal is clearly an absurd one and should be abandoned by all. [...]we are not here attempting to establish a positive ethical system of our own or even to prove that such a system is attainable. We believe only that praxeology should have the right of veto, to discard any ethical propositions that fail to meet the test of conceptual possibility or internal consistency."Murray Rothbard. Power and Market. Ch. 6, Antimarket Ethics: A Praxeological Critique. Available online at: http://library.mises.org...
Atheism

Well... this is awkward...I will assume that Con's opening statement was his only argument, then.Based on the analogy he utilized, he seems to be implying that the universe is too complicated for it to have came into being by naturalistic means.Since it is likely that he is going to forfeit the rest of this debate as well, I'm not going to put forth too much effort in explaining why naturalistic processes CAN explain the origins and development of the universe...Cosmology- There is no reason to believe that it is impossible for the universe to have come into existence via the big bang without external cause. We have never observed nothingness before; we have never observed a plane of existence in which space and time do not exist. There is a very strong possibility that the conditions of pure nothingness are radically different to the point that our metaphysical intuitions, including that of determinism, no longer hold true. We simply cannot assume that the big bang must have had an external cause, as it would have come about from nothingness, a thing which we do not know enough about to jump to such conclusions. Earth & Life- There are trillions of planets in this universe; we have already discovered many different earth-like planets just in our relative proximity, so it is not surprising that out of the trillions of planets out their, there would be several that are just like Earth. This shows that Earth having the properties it has is nothing special at all, refuting any notion that it must have been "fine-tuned by an intelligent designer to support life". We have also observed through simulations such as the Miller-Urey experiment that 6 simple elements (i.e. Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Sulfur, Phosphorus, Nitrogen) make up the vast majority of organic compounds known to us. These organic compounds naturally react to form primitive cells, leading into the next step...Evolution- There is ample evidence in the form of preserved DNA and fossil record that naturalistic evolution did happen. Random mutations at the genetic level cause certain traits to form within individuals. Some of those traits just so happen to be favored by the environment, allowing the individuals possessing those traits to survive long enough to reproduce and pass down those traits to their offspring. Eventually, through that process, entire populations "evolve" to possess those traits. This is the process known as evolution. It is clearly completely naturalistic and does allow for life to develop and gain complexity through the gradual addition of advantageous traits. Evolution adequately explains how life developed on Earth to the point that it is at today, and is also completely consistent with available evidence.I have shown that not only is it possible, but that there is also plenty of evidence for the notion that the Universe came into being through completely naturalistic means, thus refuting the intelligent design/fine-tuning argument that my opponent seems to have made in his Round 1.Hopefully my opponent doesn't forfeit all the remaining rounds...
Abortion.

To start with I would like to repeat the condition on which you have agreed by typing "I accept": No religion shall be used in this debate, not any links to the bible, Koran or even Thora. As of my debate, here I go:In my opinion the decision is entirely dependant on the woman, no matter what the situation is, the woman should decide if she wants or does not want to abandon her child or keep it. This decision should of course be discussed with specialized staff. Abortion should be allowed (By that I mean generally accepted) because some people, in some situations, need abortion because they are/will be unable to provide a stable living for their child. A stable living does not necessarily mean an economically safe situation, the morals of the mother to the child are also very important. If the child is the result of a rape, misbehaviour or abuse, the mother will most likely choose for abortion, which is a choice I would allow and could not possibly counter. I personally am from Belgium, in my country abortion has been legalized since 1990. I will take the numbers from my country as an example since I think my country (being a pioneer in terms of human freedom) can be used as an example. So far, 13% of the pregnant population decides that abortion is a better solution. The reasons for this are quite normal and very acceptable, about 35% of them decides to abort for financial, material or relational problems. Only 10% of the woman do it because they feel like they have a complete family.The cost of the operation averages 3 euros depending on the situation. This is a very fair price, this also means the operation is accessible to anyone. Another important thing to note is that 60% of the people that abort did use means of anti conception to avoid having a child, yet, they got one. My conclusion to this set of arguments is that there or plenty of reasons why abortion should be legal, and plenty of reasons it has to be accepted in society. I look forward to an answer.Sources used:http://www.sensoa.be...http://www.abortus.be...Send request if translation needed.
Abortion.

The rounds will be divided as follows:Round 2Saying why you are pro/con to the subject. This by defending your statement through argumentation and facts/numbers. Round 3Counter of the opponents arguments. Do not be subjective, be objective. Round 4 A defense from both parties, countering the counter arguments. Round 5 A conclusion. The influence of this debate on you opinion before the debate. Has this debate in any way changed/modified your opinion on the subject? For this particular subject I would like to ask the contender to NOT use god as a source, neither should he use the bible. Religion is not a valid argument.
Abortion.

Thank you, con, for your arguments. The rights of the newborn should be given over that of a foetus since the newborn infant has caused more suffering than a foetus. The newborn is also physically visible and unique, whereas the foetus look like any other foetus on a first glance. The newborn has to be taken care of on another level than the actual foetus. This is mainly why woman have, according to me, the right to stop their pregnancy and abort a foetus. The bond between mother and child is unique and only gets there when the child is born, at this very moment the bond between mother and child are physically made, the woman will recognise this as her real child. As to answer your second question, the right to abort is the woman's, no other person and/or instance can take this right away from her, abortion has always been practiced (not officially that is) and has never been a problem for the mother or doctor (if followed correctly). Abortion will never be seen as a mean of contraception since it is in fact much harder to do and to withstand, an abortion has physical consequences too that have to be considered. Whereas an official mean of contraception has no physical consequences whatsoever. (yet again, if used correctly, don't swallow a condom kids!). Great debate anyhow and I truthfully learned from it, quite interesting to hear ones opinion. I do admit that my point of view is more ethical and easier to defend.
Abortion.

I am happy to take the debate loss.I thought I could support some aspects of an anti-abortion position and I did write several arguments but I felt very dishonest disingenuous and thereby unmotivated in doing so.I'll briefly summarize the points I do feel somewhat strongly about (and I would like you to address them, you can do so here or in private as I have already conceeded the debate loss)My main argument was this:Pro needs to discuss why the rights of a newborn or infant should be given over that of a foetus since1. Both have been demonstrated to excercise a level of suffering2. Both suffer from childhood amnesia, so it's dabatable if an infant has any intrinsic life-value over a foetusand3. Only difference between a newborn and foetus are varying stages of physical development and it's exit through the birth canal, is that really satisfactory reason to give an infant the same rights to life over a foetusAs for women's right to her body1. Both infant and foetus depend on their mother/host family for it's survival anyway. Thereby we already have some agreement that a mother sacrifices a degree of right to her life/body in bringing up a child anyway. Why shall we expect differently just because it's carried within? Alternative options:1. Adoption remains a strong option for mothers unwilling/unwanting to raise a child, and suffers much less of the morality complicationsSocial Issues:1. The issue of abortion becoming another means for contraception, whcih would erode into the progress we have made with contraceptives, especially regarding serioud STD's such as HIV2. Women generally experience regret after abortions** I corrected myself on this when looking for the statistics, indeed I was wronghttp://www.prochoice.org...As for positions on the points you already made1. I agree, very strongly, that medical or traumatic (rape, etc) cases should allow for abortion2. Also very early stage terminations should be acceptible3. The morality, or rightness or wrongness of an action should depend on the affect is has on the consious beings That's about it. I didn't elaborate, just asserted, so I don't expect any elaborative answer. I will the rest it up to you.
A potato is the only type of brick that can swim the English channel.

Crazy con says: 1: I love potatos, why would I let them drown? Potatoes wouldn't drown, they would swim away from drowning! Crazy con says: 2: Carrots and Beets can also swim the Channel. No, from personal experience [1] I can say that you're wrong. Crazy con says: 3: Water is allergic to potatoes. No, water is only allergic to Japan which is why a tsunami happened there! :O [2]Crazy con says: 4: Potatos are actually bombs, and England does not deserve to be nuked. *Potatoes, as in even potatoes can see that you're completely wrong! >:) (KingDebater is proud of this argument)Now for my own FLAWLESS arguments.1: Potatoes have been on BBC1, the English channel, before [3] [4]. This demonstration of great power shows that potatoes could infact swim the English channel.2: Other types of bricks, such as brown, have no swimming skills whatsoever. Just take this youtube audio-visual clip for example, where a brown brick is dropped into a bucket of water, the brown brick shows no ability to swim and therefore the Potato is the ONLY type of brick that can swim the English channel [5].3: Michael Phelps is an excellent swimmer, and he does look like a bit of a potato. So therefore, potatoes are good swimmers. Here's a picture of him waving to me [6].4: Potatoes have won 87.990% of all olympic medals for swimming, and that's taking account for contests in ancient Geek times. However, no other type of brick has ever won an olympic medal or even been good enough to partici[ate in any kind of sporting contest. Sources[1] Personal experience[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://www.youtube.com... video #1[4] . http://www.youtube.com... video #2[5] . http://www.youtube.com... video #3[6] . http://i.telegraph.co.uk...;
A potato is the only type of brick that can swim the English channel.

Her Majesty herself has pronounced this debate a 'joke' debate.Somebody came up to me the other day and told me that there was a type of brick other than the potato that can swim the English channel. I told him that he was an idiot for believing said, but he disagreed with me for some weird reason.To actually debate this serious topic, we must first of all understand what we are debating. By the English channel, we are obviously referring to BBC 1.Thank you.
The Story Teller's Debate

Donald.Keller v. JustinAMoffattResolution: Who ever adds the most overall content and best additions to the story will win.Voting:Who had better conduct: Who added the most relevant additions? How well did their addition match the story? Did it fit in nicely and feel right? Who best kept to the genre and emotions.Who had better spelling and grammar: Who had the better Spelling and Grammar?Who made more convincing arguments: Who had the overall best additions to the story? Who added the most entertaining parts and made the story overall better?Who used the most reliable sources: Who do you feel added the most overall content per post?The point of the debate is to be a better storyteller. This means making sure the overall story turns out great, your half and your opponents. We will begin with an introduction round. The story will be based on two Genres, Pro and Con will each pick one. Both may also decide one Tone/Style of the story.Examples:Genre - Science Fiction, Pirate, Adventure, Creature-Feature, Horror...Tone/Style - Sad, Dark, Cheerful, Deep, Terrifying, Humorous, Emotional...Using Goodreads.com, we will define both our selections with a list of books that best represents our categories.===========================================================Genre: Medieval Fantasy(a)Tone/Style: Deep(b)Con does not have to make his Genre and Tone fit mine. It may be more interesting to make a unique combination of emotions and genres. Because I know what Tone Con will likely go for, I want to mention that a story can be both deep and funny at the same time.The story will have 4 rounds. This means the story can be up to 80,000 characters (10,000 a post, 2 posts a round), so we will have enough characters to finish up a semi-complex storyline.If the debate is popular enough, we might beable to finish the debate with a "To Be Continued" and host a sequal.a) http://www.goodreads.com...b) http://www.goodreads.com...
Ban islam

Banning Islam Will Not Work My opponent appears to argue that to ban Islam will end the religion of Islam. To show why this is not necessarily the case it is necessary to look to the past where similar things have been tried. In 1492 there were approximately 300,000 Jews in Spain, this was about 3% of the population of Spain at the time. While up to 100,000 Jews were expelled and 200,000 were converted however many who converted remained functionally Jewish and practised in secret [2] in some places (notably in Portugal where similar events occored) Crypto Jewish communities survived for hundreds of years [3]. Should We Ban Islam There are a number of good reasons not to ban Islam, this is not me necessarily defending Islam as I concede there are many problems relating to the Muslim community in western countries, particularly self segregation and that Muslim immigrant communities are often less moderate than their counterparts in Muslim majority countries. However in reality banning Islam will increase radicalism in Muslim communities similar to what is seen in Israel where the state becomes an active oppressive agent, given the very large numbers of Muslims in western countries, with around 2.5 million in the UK and 3.5 million in the United States and over ten million in the rest of Europe of which often double digit percentages are radicalised [4] the result will likely be highly dangerous given the potential for revolts of hundreds of thousands of radicalised and disenfranchised Muslims. Furthermore in the west we generally recognise freedom of religion as a key value this is because we recognise that if freedom of religion is taken away for one group it can be taken away for any and the chances of this happening are no longer all that low given the rise of secularism in the west and its low key conflict with Christianity in many countries. Additionally there are a number of feuds within Christianity but no sects are banned by others when the attain political power because we recognise that to set that precedent would allow their banning in return by another group, they are also not banned because it would be illegal which we will discuss now. You Can't Ban Islam Virtually every western country has freedom of religion enshrined either in a constitution or in law [5] as a result any laws banning Islam would likely be shot down by the high courts of the country before it was every put into practice. Furthermore freedom of religion is protected by the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights [6] which in theory obligates every UN member to respect freedom of religion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.dw.com... [4] [5] https://upload.wikimedia.org... [6] http://www.un.org... (article 2)
Is Abortion Only Acceptable Under Extreme Circumstances (For Example Severe Birth Defects)

To Start My Opening Argument I Would Like To Get A Very Important Definition Out Of The Way. Abortion- Any Medical Procedure Designed To Terminate A Fetus Before Birth Pro-Choice Advocates Would Have You Believe That Because The Fetus Is Developing In The Woman's Body It's Her Choice What Happens To It. You Must However Consider Everyone Else It Effects, The Father, The Grandparents, And Perhaps Most Important Of All, The Fetus Itself. Another Aspect To Consider Is Responsibility, Hundreds If Not Thousands Of Contraceptives Are On The Market If She Didn't Use Them It's Her Fault. She Needs To Take Responsibility For Her Decision, Not Kill A Developing Baby. I Am Not However A Gung-Ho "Its Her Responsibility To God To Raise That Baby" Person. The Baby Can Easily Be Put Up For Adoption After It Is Born. There Are Thousands Of Loving Couples That For Whatever Reason Can't Have Children. To Move To Another Topic, There Are Certain Situations Where Abortion Should Be Allowed. For Example If The Baby Will Be Born Horribly Deformed And Is Likely To Die The Mother Should Be Allowed To Make It So Her Child Won't Suffer. Another Such Case Would Be If The Mother Is Likely To Die During The Pregnancy ( I Feel This Way Because The Mother Is A Person While The Fetus Is Just A Potential Person) To Summarize I Belive That In Extreme Cases Abortion Should Be Allowed However In Cases Where Its Just More Convenient To Do It Should Be Illegal. I Look Forward To Con's Argument.
Is Abortion Only Acceptable Under Extreme Circumstances (For Example Severe Birth Defects)

Pro says a fetus deserves the right to life because it is a unique human, and that all humans deserve this right. Why should humans have this right but not animals? A certain level of sapience is required for the right to life, which is why comatose people do not have it recognized. But Pro says that a comatose person is not analogous, because a fetus will eventually be sapient. We do not grant rights based on future abilities. Children under 21 do not have the right to drink alcohol, even though they will be 21 some day. As I pointed out, fetuses in the early stages cannot live on their own. When they can, they will have the right to life. That is like someone having the right to drink when they turn 21, and not before then just because they will be 21 "some day." Before it is a human fetus, it is a human embryo. Before that, a human zygote and sex cell. Does sperm have the right to life? Is masturbation murder? That sperm could have been part of a human fetus "some day." I've argued that we cannot make demands on the mother's body through force, but Pro says we can use force because of the woman's "choice" to get pregnant. Most of the time pregnancy is an accidental result of the choice to have sex. If someone gets lung cancer from smoking cigarettes, they made the choice to smoke cigarettes, not the choice to get lung cancer, so they fight lung cancer because it was an unwanted side effect. A poor choice does not mean we can control someone else's body anyway. If you make the choice to do drugs or eat unhealthy, it doesn't mean we can force you to donate a kidney. We do not have control over other people's bodies, even if they make bad choices involving their bodies. Also can I ask why abortion is okay in the case of extreme birth defects?
Is Abortion Only Acceptable Under Extreme Circumstances (For Example Severe Birth Defects)

I Apologize For The Saying You Were Putting Words In My Mouth As That Was Rather Blunt. 1. It Does Make Sense To Say That A Woman's Opinion Does Not Matter In Cases Were The Only Reason For Abortion Is Convenience. It Is Like This Because A Fetus Is A Genetically Unique Human And Thus Deserves The Right To Live And Is Not Trumped By The Woman's Choice Because As Previously Stated It Is Partially The Woman's Fault That She Is Pregnant. 2. Basic Human Rights Are Rights Afforded To All Humans Regardless Of Circumstance. The Right To Live Or Die By Their Own Choice Is One Of The Most Important. Abortion Violates This Right In A Fetus. The Argument That It's Like A Family Choosing To Cut Of A Coma Patient Is Non-Applicable Because The Fetus Will Eventually Be Sapient. 3. If We Were Talking About A Woman Choosing Chemotherapy Over Dying Of Cancer I Would Whole-Heartily Agree With You. However In This Case Since The Options Are To Birth The Unborn Child Or Terminate It And As Already Stated The Child Has The Right Live,She Cannot Terminate The Child Because Of Her Mistake. 4. This Statement Does Not Invalidate My Previous Points As I Simply Meant That The Physical Consequences Of The Pregnancy Fall On The Woman. The Emotional, Mental And Financial Consequences Pregnancy Fall On All Of The Previously Mentioned Affected People.