BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Hello, I accept your challenge. I'm excited to see how this pans out, as this is one of my first debates on here. I would like to retort my opponent's first argument by first saying that abortion, which is the termination of an unborn fetus, is not the same as "killing an innocent human child", as you claim, because first of all the fetus is not even a child yet. Comparing a soon-to-be child who likely isn't even developed enough to be sentient to an actual already born child isn't the same at all. If you claim that the terminating the fetus is murder because you prevent a child from being born, then by that logic you're also a murderer if you use birth control pills, condoms, if you masturbate, perform any kind of sex except vaginal, or even if you have a wet dream because you will have prevented a child from becoming a fetus which could then become a child. If we punish people for trying to prevent childbirth, what do you think will happen next? What will happen is you'll see a massive rise in birth control and alternative sex acts, as I mentioned above. When this happens, how long will it take before we start declaring birth control or alternative sex acts to be murder as well? As for my first argument, I would like to talk about the woman's right to life as compared to the fetus's right to life. Why is it that the woman's right to life is now no longer her choice if she becomes pregnant? A part of the right to life comes the ability to chose how we live it. If a woman decides she does not want to have a child, why is it suddenly not her decision to make? Is the fetus not in her body? When women are told they must give birth or they will be punished severely, to them it sounds like they are just objects to be used for breeding. Many argue that if the woman didn't want a child she shouldn't have had sex and gotten pregnant, and so her decision to terminate the fetus should be overruled, but there are many reasons why being pregnant does not mean the woman decided to have sex and get pregnant. Condoms break, rapes happen, alcohol affects judgement. And even if those aren't factors, there's still always the chance the woman could die during childbirth. Like you mentioned, you believe abortion is okay if the mother and/or child would die, but the fact is even if things seem fine there is always the chance of death during childbirth. In 2013, there was reportedly around 800 women who died during childbirth in the US. And that's just from childbirth alone, the same study also "estimated that 293,000 women died of pregnancy-related causes". Why should a woman who never wanted a child be forced to possibly die to give birth to a child she didn't even want? http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Adam and Christ are not synonymous

My opponent should just admit he was wrong about Adam being formed and not created. He also stated his opinion, meaning my opponent claims to be smarter than Dr Strongs who wrote the Strongs Concordance that explains what is lost in translation. Wow! Contention #1 Anyone can Google the truth and see who lies. Formed #3335 means squeezed into, the potter Created #1254 say absolutely created. Contention #2 Hey I did not write it. Not my plan! My opponent boasts that Adam (The Alpha of the bible.) was sinful. Or did God in flesh activate the plan of God. God gave Himself for all and Eve! Rev_13:8, And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev_13:9, If any man have an ear, let him hear. Contention #3 God left His bloodline record. The beginning of the line of David was is Adam................... Luk_3:38, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Rev_5:5, And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. Rev_22:16, I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. My opponent discredited Adam saying He did nothing but sin and die. That is a bold faced lie. Because it is written that Adam named everything in the beginning. Not so easy to name every plant, animal, bug, fish, fruit tree and the base nations named in Genesis. I bet my higher criticizing opponent does not know the names of everything in creation. " Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature that was the name thereof. Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Adam and Christ are not synonymous

Thank you for you reply, Con."Contention #1 I totally agree that Adam could not create Himself. Because the bible says Adam was formed. My opponent is totally ignorant of the Hebrew meaning of FORMED. Strongs# 3335 ya star= Squeezed into the potter, divine activity. Gen 2:5-7 Declares that Adam was formed to til the ground=make plants grow. Also this was singular, where in Gen.1:26 these people were CREATED IN THE IMAGE! Adam got the breath of God! Is what is written."The Strong's Concordance entry for "yatsar" (not "ya star") states that it means formed in the instance of Genesis 2:7. The word is used in reference to pottery-making in Isaiah, 1 Chronicles and Psalms, to be sure, but it certainly does not carry that connotation in any Genesis verse.[1] I am not sure why my opponent believes there to be a practical difference between "formed" and "created" in this case. Strong's lists several other verses that use yatsar in the same nuanced way as Genesis 2:7, and they have to do with obvious acts of creation.[2] For example, Isaiah 45:18, which reads: "For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else.""Contention#2 Adam sinned or paid the price for Eve, because in her womb was Noah, Abraham, David and the 12 tribes and Christ Himself=Adam's way to return virgin born. " 1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed then Eve. 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. " To be the Christ is why Adam did it.1 Timothy 2:13-14 does not mean that Adam did not sin, but that Adam sinned after Eve did. The second chapter of 1 Timothy focuses on Paul's view of the roles of men and women in the church. Paul uses the fact that Adam sins after Eve does in the Genesis metaphor to argue his complementarian viewpoint. Also, my opponent failed to explain why Job refers to Adam as being sinful while 2 Corinthians refers to Christ as sinless.My opponent provided no evidence that Adam sought to return virgin-born.Contention#3 My Higher Criticizing opponent puts his limits on the Almighty? Duh??????? (Sorry I do not care if I lose points for being nice!)Given that my third contention was that "The Bible clearly contrasts Christ with Adam," I believe that my opponent responded to the wrong contention here. He was most likely trying to respond to my first contention, "Christ could not have created himself." My actual third contention went completely unrefuted.While God may be all-powerful, this does not allow him to work outside of the laws of logic or to violate his own nature. My opponent has made the common mistake of conflating omnipotence, the ability to act outside the laws of physics, with the ability to act outside the laws of logic. Nowhere in the Bible is it stated or implied that God can or tries to do so."[...]"My opponent then proceeds to list verses as well as the etymology of Hebrew words that have no apparent bearing on the issue at hand.Sources 1. http://lexiconcordance.com...2. Ibid.
Adam and Christ are not synonymous

RebuttalsResponding to my opponent's speech is a bit difficult, as I honestly have no idea what he was trying to say. He copied and pasted a litany of Bible verses unrelated to the topic at hand (as far as I can see, at least) and then failed to expound on them and show how they prove his point.With the few verses that he did expound upon, his explanations were just as off-topic as the verses. The only connection I can find between Adam and Christ in the verses Con presented is that both of their stories involve figs, which is hardly a convincing proof of the Adam-God doctrine. The psalmist mentions sycamore fruit in Psalm 78:47 and the prophet Amos does so as well in Amos 7:14. Does my opponent believe that Amos and the psalmist were also the same person because of this connection?ContentionsI shall now present several arguments as to why the Adam-God doctrine is patently false.Contention #1 - Christ could not have created himselfJohn opens his gospel with these words: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."[1]This clearly identifies Christ with God as the creator of all things. Within the creation story, God creates Adam: "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."[2] Obviously, it is absurd to believe that God created himself and then breathed life into himself.On another note, it is equally absurd though not quite as impossible to believe that God put himself to sleep in order to remove a rib from himself (Genesis 1:21), to hide from himself (Genesis 2:8), to be afraid of himself (Genesis 2:10), to curse himself (Genesis 2:17-19) and to banish himself from the garden that he had created (Genesis 2:23-24).Contention #2 - Christ did not sin but Adam didThe Bible clearly states that Christ was sinless and that Adam was not."Christ was without sin, but for our sake God made him share our sin in order that in union with him we might share the righteousness of God." -2 Corinthians 5:21"If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom[...]" -Job 31:33Contention #3 - The Bible clearly contrasts Christ with Adam"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man [Adam], and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!" -Romans 5:12-17Sin entered the world by Adam, but by the grace of Jesus Christ are we saved.I look forward to Con's response.Sources1. John 1:1-32. Genesis 2:7
God exists

For this debate the question will be whether there is a God. I will be arguing for the existence of God. God will be defined as the most powerful and knowledgeable being in the universe. However I will have to show why these definitions are the way they are. The burden of proof will be shared equally, whoever's logic is more sound will win. The rounds go as follows: 1) Introductions and acceptance of debate 2) Opening rounds 3) Rebuttals 4) Closing remarks I look forward to a good debate as this is my first time defending the existence of God.
Morals are Objective

I must only provide one example of cases where morality is objective. But here are several.1. "Swearing is wrong." Says who? Says I. My opponent may disagree. My opponent may disagree on what is a swear. My opponent may live in a culture where sticking up his middle finger is a curse and thus immoral, while I may live in a culture that doesn't make use of such a symbol. 2. Morals are culturally dependant. In some cultures it's rude for someone to complement an item you own, and you not offer it to them. That's deemed immoral there, but in the US, at least, that isn't the case -- morality is subjective based on culture. There are also cultures with different rules as to touching and personal contact -- some see it as a sign of affection, some view, say, a handshake as formal, and others find it outright rude and insulting.3. A statement such as "killing is wrong" is subjective for a number of reasons. First, why are you killing someone? Are they threatening your life or your family, prompting you to act in self defense in order to save yourself (which is completely legal)? Are we discussing war, which people of good faith will disagree on? My opponent's position disregards nuance and subjectivity and wants to suggest that there is a singe, finite moral code. Hoewever, morality changes over time with new cultures, new information, etc. If we found out, for instance, that fetuses can feel pain at 5 weeks gestation, abortion at 5 weeks could be wrong by all means -- though we would have to question whether it is right when the mother's life is in danger -- though people will still disagree.I submit, morality is not subjective.
Bunnies are evil!!!!

The bunnies are everywhere!!! They are like ninjas!!! There under your bed and in your walls and at the exact right time they will come out and destroy all humanity!! Your in leage with the bunnies aren't you!!!! Your one of them!!!!!!!!!! You are part of the bunny alliance!!! Stop the revolution! Keep your children safe!!! Vote for squishy if you want to protect yourself from the bunnies!!!!!!!!!!
Evolution is real.

Ok, so it seems my opponent has decided to forfeit. His lost. I guess I'll work on one other topic. So I will be using this article --http://phys.org... as my background. What I will be proving today is that evolution is observable in real time. In this case, the time is 26 years (yes it is a while) in work days. A professor named Richard Lenski for 26 years has been studying 59,000 generations of bacteria. He has observed changes in their shape, response to environment, and numerous other changes that adapt to best fit the way they survive. Of course, he has slightly disproved one of Darwin's main theories of evolution: evolution occurs so slowly it is unobservable. He placed samples of bacteria in a new environment, a solution which contains glucose. He has observed the bacteria have doubled in size, have begun to mutate much quicker, and have become more efficient in using the glucose in their environment. More importantly though, he believes one of the 12 different bacterial lines has evolved into a new species able to use a compound called citrate for food. It has been observed that this change in the bacterial cells is caused by the glucose solution. The solution is measured so that it eventually runs out, causing a period of starvation before the bacteria is transferred to a new solution, now with glucose again. The bacteria, of course, were genetically identical. But over time, and adjusting to the periods of starvation of glucose, they have evolved so they can grow 80% faster then the first batch. He observed the genes of the 12 bacterial lines after 20,000 generations. His observation found that 45 gene mutations had occurred in the DNA and this is what allowed them do adapt, and become better suited to their environment. He also found the bacteria who could not adapt, or lacked the ability, failed to survive, and that group of bacteria died out. This is a prime example of natural selection, and how it works. The hardy, adapting bacteria survived to reproduce and pass their genes on. When testing early generations, Lenski found no mutations that increased size and growth of the bacteria. But when testing bacteria from generation 20,000 and on, he found 19 "mutants" that learned and changed to be able to use citrate for energy. He believes the citrate mutation was not of one single generation, but rather over the period of the 20,000 generations before the first.
Evolution is real.

I believe the theory of evolution and natural selection is false. Here's why: Darwin's theory of natural selection states; More individuals are produced each generation that can survive. Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable. Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive. This would suggest that a member of the same species would change differently based on their environment. For example, an organism in a cold environment would develop fur, an animal where little vegetation grows but animals thrive would develop claws. If this is true, one would assume homosapiens in Alaska would be different than people in Brazil, but in reality, they are the same anatomy wise. Another thing to consider: Yes, you can cross two different dogs and get a new dog, but can you develop a completely new animal?
A PlECE OF HAlR lN MY FOOD

There are a couple things that are wrong with your argument. I'll show you. I fully agree that the mouth is sensitive. However, hair is not painful. It is disgusting. These two things are hard to comapre. However, let's go back to the point of the unnoticed hair. The whole point is that you don't notice them. There could be countless hairs he's not counting.
A PlECE OF HAlR lN MY FOOD

My opponent did make a valid argument. However, he did overlook one important point. http://www.ehow.com.... The mouth is one of the most sensitive parts of the body to pain. Also, stepping on legos do not make one gag and gagging on hair is really painful. I'm not sure what world Rami lives in, but I have never eaten a hair without noticing.
A PlECE OF HAlR lN MY FOOD

To start, my opponent is incredibly wrong. To step on a Lego is to take a bath is lava. https://www.yahoo.com... In this article, it shows quite a few interesting things."A single Lego can bear up to 4,240 Newtons of force". Combine that with "your foot... contains 100-200,000 exteroceptors" and "A 165-pound person standing on a single Lego will [feel] under 3,262,222 pascals of pressure". That's pretty painful. With Lego, someone left them out and you weren't aware of them. With hairs, while it is disgusting, people eat them without noticing all the time.
A PlECE OF HAlR lN MY FOOD

The pain of stepping on Legos is like stepping on squishy marshmellows compared to the awful torture of finding a hair in your food. I have two supporting points. 1. It makes you gag (https://answers.yahoo.com...) The disgustingness is indescribable. (Why am I even debating this?) 2. It's someone's fault! The bitter anger towards that one person is too much to bear! *explodes* Also, legos can be used for good fun. Long hair can not.
Incarcerating Conjoined Twins

As my opponent stated, I will argue that Harry and Larry should not be incarcerated. My opponent, Pro, will argue that Harry and Larry should not be incarcerated. Anyways, I will define a few terms for this debate. Crime: an action or an instance of negligence that is deemedinjurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests ofthe state and that is legally prohibited. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Incarcerate: To imprison, confine. When used in this debate, I am assuming it means to "imprison in jail". . http://dictionary.reference.com...My opponent has not specified how the rounds will go. I am assuming the first round is for acceptance only. With that, I hand over the next round to my opponent.
Incarcerating Conjoined Twins

Ladies and Gentlemen, I propose the following: Harry and Larry are conjoined twins. Larry committs a serious crime that Harry could not stop although he tried to. They cannot be seperated, and they are attatched at the pelvis. Pro is to argue that Harry and Larry should be incarcerated. Con is to argue that Harry and Larry should not be incarcerated. Let it be known that each twin has control of one arm and one leg; they both have completely seperate minds and brains. If anyone wishes to take side Propposite just leave a comment and I will switch, I have no partiality to this extravagant topic. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Courts have the responsibility to creat racially balanced schools

1. No There Wouldn"t Be Any Fights Because There Would Be Surveillance And Cops Covering The Perimeter 2. The Students Will Be Forced To Go To Schools In Their Neighborhoods Because White Kids Tend To Live Around The Private Schools. Blacks And Latinos Live In The Ghetto Near The Public Schools 3. No I Don"t Think The Races Will Go Overboard.
Courts have the responsibility to creat racially balanced schools

I don't have enough you say? Hahaha well here's my assertions Mr.Nava : -The violence -Education was still unfair cause blacks couldn't still write or read -Parents didn't have a choice -Self esteem could be from somewhere other than diversity -Public schools are growing more segregated and the nation had become more racially diverse -Average white students are 80 percent, blacks 70 percent, and Hispanic nearly two-thirds
Courts have the responsibility to creat racially balanced schools

Affirmative Assertion #1: Schools And Society Will Benefit The People Evidence #1: Safer Evidence #2: No Group Of People Are More Higher Than The Other Evidence #3: Jobs In The Real World Require People To Understand Diversity Affirmative Assertion #2: To Create A Desegrated School System Evidence #1: Kids Will Be Forced To Go Back To Neighborhood Schools Evidence #2: The Judge Plan Kids To Leave Neighborhoods Evidence #3: Not All Neighborhood Schools Are Good Quality Schools Affirmative Assertion #3: Race Should Be Used As A Basis Evidence #1: Conflicts With Races Will Start Evidence #2: People Should Have More Society Evidence #3: Students Will Do Better In Diverse Schools
Courts have the responsibility to creat racially balanced schools

For my own saying of this arguement, i would say students (blacks and whites) shall be put in different placement schools. Reason Im saying this is because whites and blacks dont really get along because of thier skin color and race. Black and white should be in seperate schools. Blacks dont want to be bullied or white people dont want too neither. So why have all students from two different race together where it can cause a scene and can also danger someones live. thats my reason of why i go against this arguement Jon Nava !!
Use of Atomic Bombs to End WW2 Was Necessary

May I ask you something. Did you EVEN read it all the way to the bottom? If you didn't, let me read for you. "If morality is based on numbers, and in this case it must be, then perhaps not. But what is usually overlooked in this numbers game, is the number of Japanese killed on Okinawa, which amounts to a staggering 250,000 military and civilian, about 20 Japanese killed for every dead American. If we conduct the same calculation for an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands, we arrive at a figure of at least two million Japanese dead. The losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrible, but not as terrible as the number of Japanese who would have died as the result of an invasion. The revisionist historians of the 1960s - and their disciples - are quite wrong to depict the decision to use the bombs as immoral. It would have been immoral if they had not been used." I also urge the readers to read for themselves. At his second quote, he forgot about the previous paragraph's last line. "By the mid 1960s historians such as Gar Alperovitz had drawn up what was virtually a charge sheet, a belated indictment for war crimes." In another word, it was just a charge sheet drawn up by the historians, describing what had happened. "why would a nuke stop them" A nuke? There was 2 nukes. Why would a nuke stop them? In the radio, the emperor had said a sentence that can answer your question. "Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization." I await my opponent's response. https://www.mtholyoke.edu...