BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm.

Chrmon2 has also moved the goalposts of this debate (though I must admit, I got caught up in it a bit as well), focusing a lot on when life begins and the viability of fetuses rather than the issue at hand - whether legalized abortion has done more good than harm. "I said 'if abortion is as bad as infanticide, and infanticide results in a net loss, then so will abortion'. Please tell me how that was 'begging the question'." You are assuming that abortion is as bad as infanticide in your argument which is the key premise that your conclusion relies upon. That is practically a textbook definition of begging the question. "So they're saving money? Isn't that a good thing?" Yes, they are saving money by not providing a range of services such as foster care, education, welfare, and the adoption of children who have physical and mental disabilities. Isn't that a good thing? I suppose that's up to you or the voters. Perhaps you also think it's wise to save money by not funding research and development into the cure of deadly diseases. Who am I to judge? " And why would they be stay at home mothers? Possibly, because these states have high marriage rates, meaning more stable families. (Utah for example.) [1]" This is so clearly plagiarised as the [1] citation doesn't reference anything. Nor does the [3] earlier in that paragraph. "Yes, abortion lowered birth rates. Imagine that." If you are going to be sarcastic, perhaps be sure you are properly reading the quote you are attempting to refute. The statistic stated that the decline in birth rates was among women for whom the health and social consequences of unintended childbearing are the greatest. Even if you already knew this statistic, it's possible voters did not, and that doesn't change the relevance to the topic. "I frankly don't see how your last two points are relevant to an argument. You argue that abortion only endangers the lives of 5/1000 women and that it decreased. You also say that Guttmacher Institute considered abortions to be safe 4 years ago. I will happily give you those points. (Although maternal death from giving birth is .0264%, a lower rate than what you provided for abortion complications.) [2]" Don't you see how the points are relevant to the argument even though you admit that legalized abortions are now safer than ever? That's a bit strange. Also, where is your statistic coming from here. I believe it's from a 2015 study. Again, you've cited [2], but not told us what that refers to.
Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm.

Exhibit A: Fetal personhood Fetuses are persons because they would become sentient in the future unless interrupted, which is the same reason it is wrong to stab coma patients. The notion that coma patients are persons because they were once sentient in the past and desired future sentience is baseless since someone in a coma who had never thought of the topic specifically would still have personhood in a coma. Exhibit B: Bodily autonomy Bodily autonomy is comparable to control over one's property in their own country. If someone, let's call him Joe, owned his own space station and terrorists rigged a bomb in said station that would blow up New York if he opened the door, he would not have the right to do so since it was his responsibility to keep his property safe in the first place. [3] This is more comparable to abortion in cases of rape than agreeing to donate a kidney, because with abortion and the above situation, the person forfeiting bodily autonomy had bad luck which led to the other person's problem, rather than the other way around. Exhibit C: Harm vs. Good Since infanticide does not cause more good than harm, if the above exhibits are seen as convincing, then abortion should likewise be viewed as a net loss for society. While abortion was arguably responsible for lowing crime in the US, the number of abortions required for this vastly outnumbered the benefit. [2] Many people born in poor situations also came to benefit society (ex: Beethoven). [1] If killing people to benefit society is morally okay, we may as well kill poor people. Works Cited: 1. Carole. "BEETHOVEN - UNHAPPY CHILDHOOD." AwesomeStories.com, www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/BEETHOVEN-UNHAPPY-CHILDHOOD-Beethoven. 2. Morgan, Edward, et al. "60,069,971 Abortions in America Since Roe v. Wade in 1973." Prepare for Change, 5 Feb. 2018, prepareforchange.net/2018/02/02/60069971-abortions-america-since-roe-v-wade-1973/2 3. "Two Officers Were Shot; Wisconsin Store Liable for Gun Sale." The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/gun-shop-held-liable-for-purchase-linked-to-shooting-of-police.html.
Rotten Tomatoes is the best way to identify a good film

Thanks for finishing the debate. RT vs Metacritic 1. He says Metracritic's 40 reviewers may be biased against certain genres. This is non-unique. Every critic is biased for and against certain genres. This incudes those on Rotten Tomatoes. 2. He says he was referring to RT. But here is his direct quote. "Metacritic attempts to gauge the score of each critic's review (not just a positive or negative, but a number 0 to 100) averaged together, giving you a better indication of what the response is to any given film" This has to be referring to Metacritic. RT does not give a critic score of 1 to 100, but Metacritic does. RT vs IMBD 1. He repeats his critic bias argument. But again, critics in general have certain biases, not just those on IMBD. 2. He says we can look trailers up on Youtube. However, IMBD gives trailer access instantly. If you go there to look up a movie and see its ratings, you can also view the trailer from the exact same page. This is n contrast to Youtube, which requires you to go to a completely ne website, search for the trailer, then watch it. IMBD does this much more efficiently. RT vs Friends 1. He says friends can be biased for and against certain genres, and that critics aremore reliable in this situation. My opponent just defeated himself. Many of his attacks against my arguments were that critics on sites I gave are biased. But here he is now, saying they're reliable. Furthermore, the friend bias is a good thing. Studies show that friends have similar interests and can influence each other's opinion (1). This means that if they like a certain genre, you likely do as well. What this means is that if a friend thought a movie was good, chances are you will as well, making them efficient at identifying a good film to you. 2. He says friends can lie. I find it doubtful that a friend has any incentive to leitimately lie about what he thought about a movie. Secondly, critics can be paid by movie staff to write a good review for them, so critics are actually less reliable than friends. Still, when evaluating sites that use critics, youhould still look to Metacritic or IMBD. Here's why I believe I should win this round. 1. My opponent took out his own critic bias argument by saying that they are reliable. 2. He conceded Metacritic's rating system is better than RT's, and its clear by his quote that Meta is indeed what he was referring to. 3. He did not capitalize on the majority of his sentences. I urge a con vote. 1. http://www.evancarmichael.com...
Rotten Tomatoes is the best way to identify a good film

"RT vs Metacritic: He says RT has more reviewers than Metacritic 1. Turn this argument. That actually makes the quality of the reviews and overall score worse. While Rottentomatoes grabs as many reviews from a many sites as possible, Metacritic limits theirs to roughly 40 of the very best (1). 2. He also concedes that Metrcritic's rating system is better. Huge point here, as that was my reason that Metacritic is better." 1. the 40 critics chsen may be thought to be the best, but there can be alot of film genres they can hate making the ratings more likely to be bias 2. sorry i ment to say RT "RT vs IMBD: He says IMDB is biased because it is only made up of user reviews. 1. This is false. IMDB also links to critic reviews, in addition to linkning to Metacritic's score, and user reviews. If you follow my source 2 link, you will see a hyperlink that specifically says "Critics: 42 reviews", followed by a collective score. 2. Furthermore, he did not address my argument saying that IMDB offers instant access to movie trailers, which was my reason that it is better than RT." 1. once again there is a limited amount of critics in that area than RT. there can be alot of film genres they can hate making the ratings more likely to be bias. 2. people can just simplely go onto youtube to watch movie trailers. this debate is about which site is better to evaluate if a film is good or not "RT vs Friends He says friends can be dumb and stupid. 1. He never explains what this has to do with being able to identify a good movie. This lacks a link to the resolution. 2. This only says that they can be dumb, not that they are. As such, this argument doesn't cover the entire scope of friends, as certainly not all of them are dumb. Remember, I only have to win one of these three comparisons to disprove the resolution." 1. friends like and hate different film genres. film critics are ment to sit through all film genres which makes them more relaible. 2. friends can lie but film critics have to be honest. so film critics should be heard more than freinds
Rotten Tomatoes is the best way to identify a good film

RT vs Metacritic: He says RT has more reviewers than Metacritic 1. Turn this argument. That actually makes the quality of the reviews and overall score worse. While Rottentomatoes grabs as many reviews from a many sites as possible, Metacritic limits theirs to roughly 40 of the very best (1). 2. He also concedes that Metrcritic's rating system is better. Huge point here, as that was my reason that Metacritic is better. RT vs IMBD: He says IMDB is biased because it is only made up of user reviews. 1. This is false. IMDB also links to critic reviews, in addition to linkning to Metacritic's score, and user reviews. If you follow my source 2 link, you will see a hyperlink that specifically says "Critics: 42 reviews", followed by a collective score. 2. Furthermore, he did not address my argument saying that IMDB offers instant access to movie trailers, which was my reason that it is better than RT. RT vs Friends He says friends can be dumb and stupid. 1. He never explains what this has to do with being able to identify a good movie. This lacks a link to the resolution. 2. This only says that they can be dumb, not that they are. As such, this argument doesn't cover the entire scope of friends, as certainly not all of them are dumb. Remember, I only have to win one of these three comparisons to disprove the resolution. I thank my opponent for continuing. I await his response. 1.http://blogs.indiewire.com... 2. http://www.imdb.com...
Rotten Tomatoes is the best way to identify a good film

Rotten Tomatoes vs Metacritic. Both sites have their advantages. Rotten Tomatoes includes a larger sample of reviews, while Metacritic features a smaller more-selected grouping of film critics. Rotten Tomatoes calculates critic scores using a positive or negative score for each review. One movie could be 100% fresh with all the critics giving the movie a 7/10 grade. Metacritic attempts to gauge the score of each critic's review (not just a positive or negative, but a number 0 to 100) averaged together, giving you a better indication of what the response is to any given film, and not just a percentage of positive reviews. For example, How To Train Youyr Dragon is ranked #2 for the year on Rotten Tomatoes with a 98% fresh rating based on 146 reviews. But on Metacritic, Dragon has a 74% average with 33 reviews. Honestly, I like how Metacritic calculates the numbers, but their refusal to incorporate a larger sample of film critics puts them behind Rotten Tomatoes in my mind. References' http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Rotten Tomatoes vs IMDB IMDB is the ultimate in selection bias: who is going to seek out a movie to vote for it – someone who already liked the movie. If I watch slumdog millionaire and think it's mediocre, my first thought isn't going to be to jump onto imdb.com and give the movie 4 stars out of 10. But if some hyped up tea caddie film fan boy LOVES the film, the first thing he will do is create 5 imdb.com accounts and vote 10 stars to slumdog millionaire on each account. In contrast, Rotten Tomatoes uses only real reviews to rate a movie, which avoids selection bias. Rotten Tomatoes does, however, include user ratings so people can compare. References' http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Rotten Tomatoes vs friends Friends can be dumb and stupid... simple?
Rotten Tomatoes is the best way to identify a good film

Rotten Tomatoes includes online reviews from authors that are certified members of various writing guilds or film critic associations. Rotten Tomatoes provides a unique and rather wise approach to summing up the general consensus of opinion from a large database of reviewers. According to their "tomatometer" if a movie gets more than 60% approval on weighted average, it's fresh, or if it gets less, it's rotten. this site is an exceptionally good tool for getting quick consensus on critical opinion of a movie, then linking you to the full detail of the reviews. Their overall score for a movie is given as a total percentage, and is based on a wighted average of all critics reviews, each of which is shown in brief and linked so you can click through to read any or every every one. Rotten Tomatoes is certainly the best movie review website to see if a film is good.
We need tighter restrictions on dog ownership

Well, I must say that you make a very convincing argument, I am looking forwards to debating this with you. I will begin by making one thing clear; I am not a dog owner. This Is mostly due to allergies. Now, the debate. Your main issue with dog ownership appears to be with noise from untrained dogs. I can understand why you would view this as an issue; it must be very frustrating. However, the point that I would make is that, as much as you should be able to have peace, does that dog not have a right to express itself as a dog. At the end of the day, the dog is not making noise in order to offend you; it is doing so to communicate information in such a way as nature has allowed it to. I believe that suppressing this behavior could actually lead to the dog becoming stressed and unhappy; much like if I prevented you from expressing your thoughts and emotions. Your answer to this is to restrict dog ownership, but this would cause the same issues for the dog owners, who likely keep the animals for comfort and companionship. Your ideas also appear a little authoritarian to me. You would seek to turn to the government for legislation to solve simple inconveniences in your everyday life. I can almost guarantee that to do that leads to the suspension of many liberties. That's coming from a Marxist, so take it as irony if you will, but I believe it nonetheless. You also talk about coming into frequent contact with dog excrement. I don't know what country you're from, but I'm from Wales, and we have a law that fines between "75-"1000 for leaving dog excrement on the street. If you do not have this in place, perhaps introducing it would incentivise people to clean up after their pets without having to put tighter restrictions on dog ownership. I'm glad that you made the distinction for assistance dogs; they are clearly a benefit to society. I eagerly await your response.
We need tighter restrictions on dog ownership

Sure most dogs are okay and they serve a good purpose, particularly service animals. But in many cases they are public nuisances. But I've had neighbors whose dogs are so loud and obnoxious that I can hear them three houses down with my windows closed, even above the TV! A person's privilege of pet ownership does not supersede their neighbor's right to peace and quiet. Unfortunately many owners are arrogant and oblivious to everyone else's comfort and desire for peace. Whenever I'm out in public and see someone with their guide dog or therapy dog, yes they're the cutest, most docile beings you could imagine, and proof that dogs CAN be trained to be "seen and not heard." But for every well-trained and docile animal there are about five that have to make incessant amounts of noise, defecate in places where people walk, and their owners are completely oblivious to anyone else's pleasure but their own. People like that should definitely lose their privilege until they can demonstrate their ability to be a responsible owner. If you can't keep your animal under control then you should lose it - it shouldn't be up to your neighbors to cope with insane amounts of noise and avoid stepping in s**t just because you want a cute cuddly furry animal.
Should we create a unified Aboriginal state in the NT

We need to create a unified Aboriginal State in the Northern Territory. By doing so, we would be luring many Aboriginal Australians into a certain area of the Northern Territory. This could bring crime rates down around the country, as well as create a sense of unity and equality amongst the Aboriginals. We could improve the health care of Aboriginal Australians, by having the more 'nomadic' Australians going to this place, without the fear of exposure to white supremacy. The unified state would be have a positive effect on both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal population of Australia.
Should we create a unified Aboriginal state in the NT

I do not believe that we should create a unified state in the NT as it would most likely be hugely poverty stricken due to the not high amount of resources. It would be much like Zimbabwe. Before it there was a country called Rhodesia which had good ties to the British, it made its money of of diplomatic relations. It was run by White men yet as soon as it was ruled by the natives the country went into ruins and a dictatorship which only ended recently. I believe that state would turn out much the same.
Money is the most important thing in the world

Air is indeed important we need it to survive. But money is more important as without money, society, the world will not survive. Money is needed to keep everyone motivated to do something with their lives. Money is what keeps the world from collapsing into chaos, money gives everyone in the world a reason to be educated, to work, to come up with new ideas, new businesses, life is not worth anything without the existence of money. Air is essential but air gives us no meaning we would die without it, but without a reason to live we would want to die anyway, or we would kill each other because of all the chaos anyway. Air helps us live, but money gives us a reason to live.
Swimming is a better sport than Soccer

I will rebut my opponent's case and make my own case this round. The BoP is on Pro, because Pro needs to prove why Swimming is better than Soccer.777777Pro's case777777Pro says that swimming is better because swimmers are stronger. Are all swimmers stronger? No. The sport is harder? Not always. If you have a soccer competition, you have to run a lot. "Soccer: 7 milesA large field, a fast moving ball, and rare substitutions mean soccer players can expect to log some heavy mileage over 90-plus minutes. Midfielders tend to run the most, sometimes reaching nearly 9.5 miles,according to SportVU. [1]"Source: . http://www.runnersworld.com...This shows that swimming isn't harder. Soccer needs hand-eye-coordination, when in swimming you just need speed at tactics. You need to dribble and master many skills. I believe that soccer is much of a harder sport.111111Con's case11111111My argument about soccer being a harder sport was already argued in my section of Pro's case. My second argument is that it is very hard to actually play swimming in circumstances. What do you need? You need a place where lots of water and the place has to be safe. In soccer, you just need a ball, to sticks for the goals, and players. This is why soccer is one of the best sports because it is the easiest to play. Swimming is much harder to play though.
Abortion

Human Being: a man, Woman, Or child of the species Homo sapiens, Distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance. Child: a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority. Ketchup: A spicy sauce made chiefly from tomatoes and vinegar, Used as relish The dictionary definition of a human being cannot disprove the person-hood of a fetus because the definition of child creates a loop back to the definition of human being. Also, The dictionary cannot be the only argument used because as you can see dictionaries can be flawed and therefore must be backed up by other arguments. The reason a fetus is a person is because the zygote at conception is a new form of DNA and behaves in a manner outside of a normal human cell or brain tumor. Different molecular composition separates the body of the zygote from the body of the mother and different behavior from regular human cells adds as evidence that the zygote is a human organism or human being. You keep making the point that a fetus is not a person because it is dependent on the mother. I have already addressed that point in my arguments in round 2 (see dependency). I am also using the philosophical definition of person because that is what I am referring to. Whatever a being who is a part of our moral community is, I call that a person. In context of abortions I would say that all are wrong with the exception of the threatening of the mother's life with no other options. "Where you are has nothing to do with your value or rights. " Environment: the surroundings or conditions in which a person, Animal, Or plant lives or operates. (Google: Environment define) What if the potential child is being brought in a middle of a war? What if the potential child is being brought in a contaminated area (Chernobyl)? There are two instances where it does matter what the environment the woman is in. " These have nothing to do with the value or rights of the fetus. If you are using the definition of human being to determine person-hood, Then if I get on all fours I am no longer a person because I lack an upright stance. Back to you