BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should remain legal in the United States

"Well then why do you eat meat? In your profile it clearly states that you are against vegetarianism too." Contrary, when possible, I try to avoid meat. The main reason I said on my profile I was opposed to vegetarianism/PETA was because of PETA itself, the organization of which I think has a lot of its logic flawed. I am for vegetarianism, but merely against the (in my view) flawed organization. The reason I try to avoid eating meat is because of the rights of the animal itself. This brings us to a new level of the debate – who deserves the fundamental rights acquired with life, such as the right TO live? Obviously, not every living cell has these fundamental rights, and let me explain myself. Consider each and every living sex cell. Only one sperm cell becomes fused with an egg cell to form a zygote, and ultimately a human life. But what about all of the other ones? Simply because each sex cell, by conventional definitions, is considered living, does it retain the fundamental rights to life? Obviously not, as, otherwise, all remaining sex cells would be continuously preserved, and the population growth would be even more exponentially booming. The reason I try to avoid eating meat is because the animals DO deserve the fundamental rights. I argue that a first trimester fetus does not yet meet the requirements to acquire such fundamental rights. The requirements, more importantly, entail sentience. Sentience, however, can only be correlated with neural activity within an organism. Therefore, the reason I support vegetarianism is because the animals killed for meat have such a high degree of cephalized neural activity, significantly higher than a first trimester fetus. A first trimester fetus does not yet have a well-developed brain and nervous system. Such advanced development has not yet occurred. "Also let me give you some info, if I can't compare cracking a chicken's egg (one with life inside of coursE) to a baby, how can you compare eating meat to a baby? Besides, unless someone is eating the dead baby, or embryo to you, then what is the point of killing it?" Personal views, opinions, and beliefs have no place in public debate that requires debating members to think for a collective society. Like I said previously, just because I would give the chicken egg away, people are still entitled to have their own views regarding it. I was merely offering my personal view. I brought up meat, because, considering that you are pro-life yourself, I wanted to identify what you consider to be deserving of the right to life. Obviously, for reasons still unknown, you consider it alright to eat meat. The point of having an abortion may be to relieve the mother for actions which may not have been her fault, as well as those not ready to raise a child, and not wanting to give it up for adoption. Such abortions, during the first trimester, are ethical.
Abortion should remain legal in the United States

Babies do feel pain before 24 week abortion limit.(1) "And you basically state that taking the fetus's life away is bad, and should be illegal. However, let me ask you this: if such an abortion is so bad, why do you continuously eat meat? Meat is derived from living animals, killed solely for the purpose of consumption." Well then why do you eat meat? In your profile it clearly states that you are against vegetarianism too. Also let me give you some info, if I can't compare cracking a chicken's egg (one with life inside of coursE) to a baby, how can you compare eating meat to a baby? Besides, unless someone is eating the dead baby, or embryo to you, then what is the point of killing it? Please answer that. It's let Eric Cartman(as Cartmanes) said in the South Park Episode Eek, a P****!. Cartman: (As Cartmanes) Abortion is the ultimate form of cheating! You're cheating nature itself! Why do rich white girls get ahead in life? Because they get abortions when they are young. They get pregnant but they still want to go to college, so whatever, they just cheat. They cheat that little critter in their belly right out of a chance at life. (2) See what I mean? Sources--- (1)http://www.blogicus.com... (2)http://www.tv.com...
Abortion should remain legal in the United States

Allow me to proceed with my rebuttal. All words in quotation marks refer to your text. First of all, just because some may be skeptical about whether or not to get the abortion during the first trimester, it does not mean it should be outlawed. And remember, as made evident in my opening round, I have no clear stance yet regarding second term abortions, and therefore will exclude them from this particular debate. This debate only regards first trimester abortions. "To stop at an early stage. To end it before it is ready. " Assuming you mean "ready" as in the stage of birth, then, indeed, abortion does put a stop to it. "Would you smash the eggs on the ground, raise them, or give them away. " Well, I would definitely not smash them on the ground. In fact I would most likely give them away. "The same thing with a baby no? " The analogy you used does NOT apply to abortion, and let me explain why. Firstly, you were merely asking what I would do. And even though I am not a woman, if the choice to have an abortion was presented to me, I would most likely refuse it. Again, that is my own personal view. However, my own personal views do not dictate the inherent views and morals of other people, and therefore, if they choose to have an abortion, my own personal morals should not interfere with their decision. Therefore, such abortions should remain legal. "Why not give it away for adoption? Two reasons: 1)The mother can't bear the thought of giving away her baby. 2)To much pain and time to have a baby. " Indeed, those may be two main reasons the mother chooses not to give it away for adoption. As well, these are valid concerns, and by no means should be considered "selfish. " "So basically the mother is selfish enough that she would end her baby's life at an "early stage" so she wouldn't have to sleep at night knowing that her baby was being LOVED by someone else. So that she could spare herself, I'll admit excruciating pain, but still a life vs pain? A few doctors have proven that most of the time the baby or in your mind "first trimester embryo" can feel pain. Remind me to cite my source on that one next time, would you? " Perhaps most importantly, you keep stating that she would be ending her "baby's" life. Any abortion taking place during the first trimester would hardly be killing a baby, obviously dependent upon how you define "baby. " To be more accurate, allow me to use the term fetus. And you basically state that taking the fetus's life away is bad, and should be illegal. However, let me ask you this: if such an abortion is so bad, why do you continuously eat meat? Meat is derived from living animals, killed solely for the purpose of consumption. By outlawing abortions, perhaps we should also make everyone become a vegetarian? By the way, I assumed that you eat meat, considering the fact that you said on your profile that you were against vegetarianism. And indeed, if you could cite that source you were referring to, that would be great.
Abortion should remain legal in the United States

Well my opponent obviously has an very restricted standpoint on abortions. Still, first trimester is only 90 days away from the second. Women usually figure out that they are pregnant about 2-3 weeks away from the day of the "deed", I'll call it. 3 weeks= 21 days. 90 days- 21 days= 59 days. So a little bit less than two months away from you not being so fast to decide it is okay to abort it. A first trimester baby is a mere two months away from you thinking, "Hey, is this thing a baby or not?" Let's take a look at the word, abortion. ABORTion. Dictionary.com Unabridged definition of abort? to fail, cease, or stop at an early or premature stage. To stop at an early stage. To end it before it is ready basically, no? Let me ask you this, let's say a friend of yours sees some chicken eggs. The farmer says you guys can have them. They were just laid today. Either you can raise them, kill them, or give them away. Would you smash the eggs on the ground, raise them, or give them away. The same thing with a baby no? The mothers for the most part aren't ready to have a child. They can't take care of it, correct? Why not give it away for adoption? Two reasons: 1)The mother can't bear the thought of giving away her baby. 2)To much pain and time to have a baby. So basically the mother is selfish enough that she would end her baby's life at an "early stage" so she wouldn't have to sleep at night knowing that her baby was being LOVED by someone else. So that she could spare herself, I'll admit excruciating pain, but still a life vs pain? A few doctors have proven that most of the time the baby or in your mind "first trimester embryo" can feel pain. Remind me to cite my source on that one next time, would you?
Abortion should remain legal in the United States

I am advocating that abortions, at least those occurring during the first trimester, should remain legal in the United States. Just as a note, I am still undecided about second-trimester abortion ethics, and therefore will not be arguing that in this specific debate. My initial claim - first trimester abortions should remain legal in the United States. I will allow my opponent to make the first argument against my initial claim before I debate my views.
People should be allowed to marry people of the same sex.

This was quite an experience. Now let's get started, shall we? My opponents case relies on the notion that marriage is not inherently religious. This is mere speculation, and my opponent concedes this when he says "we don't know how it (marriage) started. " I took the liberty of viewing his source, and all I saw was just how influential the church was with the institution of marriage. The page said nothing about the origins of marriage, it was just 13 fun facts that pushed a pro-gay agenda. Pro also says that "not everyone is a Catholic, so the religiosity of marriage varies for everyone. " My question for my opponent is this: does that mean that the religiosity of baptism varies? Not everyone is a Christian, but does that mean that they should be baptized? The answer is no, and marriage is no different. The only sources in this debate regarding the origin of marriage point to religion as the main catalyst. Another thing that my opponent says is "If there's a separation of 2 things, then both things are kept out of each other. " This means that the state should stay away from the institution of marriage, which my opponent has not proved to be secular! He even says that "the state should never interfere with the church," and concedes that this was the original intent of Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Establishment Clause! In conclusion, my opponent has dropped Contentions 2, 3, and 4, failed to provide evidence against Contention 1, and failed to explain why legalizing gay marriage would help the situation described in Contentions 5 and 6. He has made no case for gay marriage, but has focused on debunking mine, and failed to do so. This necessitates a Con vote.
People should be allowed to marry people of the same sex.

I greatly appreciate that. My opponent says that, and I quote, "Keeping gay marriage illegal is not preferring either group, but rather keeping them separate for the sake of both". However, I disagree. Since church and state are separate in the United States, as both my opponent and I have mentioned, keeping them separate means that neither can interfere with the other. If there's a separation of 2 things, then both things are kept out of each other. My opponent also says that the term "building a wall" used by Thomas Jefferson means that the state should never interfere with the church. I agree. However, this also means that the church should never interfere with the state. My opponent says that, since matrimony is one of the sacraments of the Catholic Church, marriage is religious. However, not everyone is a Catholic, so the religiosity of marriage varies for everyone. My opponent says that the only difference between civil unions and same-sex marriage is the religious connotation. However, as I have stated before, marriage isn't inherently religious. It predates recorded history (. http://www.livescience.com...), so we don't know how it started. Many marriages have been religious in the past, but who is to say that non-religious marriages are less valid? My opponent says that he's sure that the people who refused to make same-sex wedding cakes would be fine with making civil union cakes, but I argue that he has no proof of this. This is mere speculation.
People should be allowed to marry people of the same sex.

My opponent says that, since the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States prohibits the government from preferring non-religion over religion, same-sex marriage cannot be legal. However, I disagree. My opponent has correctly noted that, and I quote, "Marriage is considered one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church". However, the First Amendment also prohibits the government from preferring religion over non-religion, as stated in my opponent's quotation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It also says that the government cannot make any law that respects an establishment of religion. Therefore, so long as people still have the legal right to marry in their churches, the rights of religious people against same-sex marriage are not being infringed. By basing our law on one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, that would be respecting an establishment of religion, which the First Amendment forbids. My opponent also says that marriage is a religious sacrament, but marriage doesn't always have to be this. Since the USA was founded on the separation of church and state (https://en.wikipedia.org...), religion should not determine legal status. My opponent says that, if we allow same-sex couples to be in civil unions, then they will get the same tax benefits as opposite-sex couples, so same-sex couples will have no reason to complain. I don't deny that same-sex couples will get the same tax benefits as opposite-sex couples with civil unions. However, some couples may also like the government to recognize that they are married, not just give them tax benefits. My opponent also calls marriage a religious sacrament, which I have already addressed. My opponent also says that marriage is, and I quote, "a religious contract between two consenting adults." However, I argue that marriage is not always a religious contract. I have already addressed why I don't think that marriage always has to be religious. My opponent says that it is unfair that Christian bakers aren't always allowed not to cater a gay wedding but black bakers are allowed not to make KKK cakes, gay bakers are allowed not to make Westboro Baptist Church cakes, and Muslim bakers are allowed not to cater gay weddings. I agree. I think that either everything should be allowed, or nothing should be allowed. However, just because some Christians are treated unfairly (and I don't think that they should be treated unfairly) doesn't mean that same-sex marriage is bad. Just because some people do bad things in the name of their beliefs (e.g. treating Christians unfairly against other people because of their views on same-sex marriage) doesn't mean that their beliefs are wrong.
aOL Mil Login **Error** 866-201-6261

'00; "لV3;"'00; "لV3;"'00; "لV3;"'00; "لV3;" '01;"لV3;" '01;"لV3;" '01;YOU CAME TO THE WRONG DONGERHOOD'00; "لV3;"'00; "لV3;"'00; "لV3;"'00; "لV3;" '01;"لV3;" '01;"لV3;" '01; o
aOL Mil Login **Error** 866-201-6261

Dear Customer, Please Call On 1{{{(((866 201 6261)))}}} for AOL Mail Support. USA AOL MAIL tech support phone number : 1{866 201 6261 USCANADA AOL Mail technician or cadre for you just a call away call 866-201-6261 for instant support |Help Desk 8662016261| AOL MAIL R02;"R02;AOL MAIL technical Instant support AOL MAIL tech support phone number : 1{866 201 6261 AOL MAIL tech support : 1{866 201 6261 AOL MAIL tech customer service number : 1{866 201 6261 AOL MAIL tech customer support phone number : 1{866 201 6261 AOL MAIL tech help phone number : 1{866 201 6261 AOL MAIL tech Instant Support Number :- 1{866 201 6261 USA AOL MAIL tech Instant Support Number :- 1{866 201 6261 AOL MAIL tech Instant Support Number :- 1{866 201 6261 USUSCANADA AOL MAIL tech Instant Support Number :- 1{866 201 6261 USA AOL MAIL tech Instant Support Number :- 1{866 201 6261 AOL MAIL tech Instant Support Number :- 1{866 201 6261 USCANADA AOL MAIL tech Instant Support Number :- 1{866 201 6261 USA AOL MAIL tech Instant Support Number :- 1{866 201 6261 USCANADA AOL MAIL tech Instant Support Number :- 1{866 201 6261 AOL MAIL tech Help Support Number :- 1{866 201 6261 USA AOL MAIL tech Help Support Number :- 1{866 201 6261 USCANADA ------------------THIRD PARTY SUPPORT Dear Customer, Please Call On 1{{{(((866 201 6261)))}}} for AOL Mail Mail Support. USA AOL MAIL MAIL tech support phone number : 1{866 201 6261 USCANADA AOL Mail Mail technician or cadre for you just a call away call for instant support AOL MAIL MAIL R02;"R02;AOL MAIL MAIL technical Instant support AOL MAIL MAIL tech support phone number :
The Enclave from the Fallout video game series aren't as bad as they seem.

This is my first debate on this site so I apologize in advance for not being accustomed to how these are usually done. I failed to give definitions to be used in this debate and am glad you have. Evil is difficult to define due to it being completely subjective, this is the very reason why it could be said that from a players point of view they are indeed evil. The stance I am taking however is that from the point of view of someone outside their universe (like any given person in the real world) the Enclave is far from the base definition of bad. "not such as to be hoped for or desired" If one were to tell any random person on the street that there were a large population of mutants a few towns over, some of which were violent murderous monsters and some of which acted and looked like normal people, most people would at least feel alarmed and uncomfortable. If you also told them that you could get rid of them if enough people agreed with you, they would probably gladly give you their support. Yes this argument is based on speculation and assumptions but is supported by mankind's ingrained need to destroy that which threatens their way of life, even more true when they themselves don't have to be the ones to do it. "Unpleasant or unwelcome" While it is difficult to argue that a group of people with advanced technology and a feverish desire to wipe out the majority of life on any given planet are not unpleasant, I'll try. War is unpleasant, genocide is unpleasant, killing for the most part is unpleasant. The trick here is that mutated humans in fiction aren't often viewed as people. Vampires, werewolves, ghouls, and monsters of this sort are viewed as creatures even though they were once human, I argue that such would be the same with humans irradiated in the way they are in the Fallout universe. Given humans obsession with superiority and history of dehumanizing those they deem enemies I believe they would gladly welcome the Enclave if they existed in our world. I understand that saying that we in the real world are, arguably, terrible isn't the strongest foundation for an argument about a fictional population of people but this is a universe that is a parallel to ours. To streamline my argument for this round: The Enclave does not necessarily fit the definition of bad, and only seem that way when viewed from the perspective of someone inside their own universe but outside of their organization.
The Enclave from the Fallout video game series aren't as bad as they seem.

I'm looking forward th this debate. i've been really loading up on lore while i obsess over fallout 4 and this argument is quite interesting to me. Bad: not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome. "bad weather" This is the definition of bad as given by google. Perhaps, the proper term we are looking for is evil. But what is evil. Yes, the illusion evil is given by the fact that the Enclave is a direct antagonist of the main character. However, if you take a deeper look at what the enclave are as a whole, the same conclusion can still be reached. Evil can be defined as selfishness, unnecessary violence, and for the good of few at the expense of the many. Through this then, the enclave can be described exactly as this. While the original goal of the enclave was to build a spaceship and terraform another planet, such as mars, it quickly transformed into the descendants of Government conspiracists wanting to take control for themselves. They discriminate against the people they deem "Impure" even though they didn't have any actual control of whether or not their genes were corrupt. The enclave seek to promote themselves as the "perfect race" rather than to help the many that had no control over the society that they lived in now. While the enclave may have a bias against them for being the main antagonists of fallout 3, there is still enough evidence to prove that they are still an evil and selfish organization.
The Enclave from the Fallout video game series aren't as bad as they seem.

The Enclave, as in the descendants of the American government in the Fallout series, are antagonistic to the main characters' stories in many of the Fallout games. This makes most people see them as evil since they are in opposition of the player's goal, but I say they are the lesser of the wastelands evils. I'm looking for someone to take the stance that the Enclave are the "bad guys" from the point of view of someone outside of the Fallout universe.
Mutations Cannot Produce the Type of Change Necessary for Darwinian Evolution

I apologize for the delay. Now, firstly I would like to clear some things up. My opponent has used the wrong definitions for much of his argument. If we're talking about Darwinian evolution, we should use the Darwinian definition, which is simply: "changes in population allele frequencies over time." [1] But my opponent's real definitive transgression comes from their usage of the word information. To be clear: information is a mathematical property that we impose on something. When we make a claim, that claim can either be true or false. Information is simply a number of truth claims, or binary choices of some kind. But notice that when you try to apply this concept to the physical world, the epistemic rules are completely different. DNA, for example, only contains information in the aspect that we use the configuration of it to figure out the truth of claims about a person's traits. Again, this is what we impose on DNA, it is not a property that is innately part of DNA. If I claim that the slope of a cliff is 500 meters long, then the slope could technically contain the information necessary to confirm or rebuke that claim. But again, this is an imposed property. [2] Additionally, Darwinian evolution, or evolution of any kind, has nothing to do with information. Unless you can cite a specific passage form Darwinian literature that unambiguously states that Darwin's theory of evolution is based on information, you are only grossly misrepresenting evolution. Also, even supposing that evolution does involve information in some way, why would adding information be necessary? If an organism has an unnecessary limb, a mutation that deletes the information for that limb would be beneficial, as the organism needs less energy to sustain the limb that was useless. Additionally, because as I've already mentioned the properties of information, it is impossible to change any piece of the genetic code without adding information in some way. Because by definition, a change in the genetic code, even one that deletes chromosomes, will change the truth of a claim about an organism's traits, thus adding new information. [1]: http://biology.unm.edu... [2]: http://www.ils.unc.edu...