BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Abortion should stay legal in the U.S.

Defense 1: PersonhoodMy opponent starts by bringing up his definition of personhood. But does not defend his choice because there are five different diffintions that are attributted to the word 'person'. I have defended the fourth diffinition that my opponent's source had on in. My opponent doesn't even defend his statement that a fetus is a child. I am taking a philosophical approach to the question of what a person is. I have alread made it clear that self-contiousness and the capacity for complex thought are far more valuable in determining personhood then bodyparts alone. A fetus has nothing that could even remotely be used to classify it as a person. Defense 2: Self-OwnershipMy opponent has in no way refutted my second contention. It doesn't matter how long a fetus is in a woman's womb, because the woman that owns the womb always has the final say. Further I will state that the chances of a fetus growing up to become a person who cures AIDs is slim and has the same chance as the millions of babies that are born every year, it doesn't make difference about it's chances or what it will become, the only time it comes valuable is when it reaches that point. Defense 3: Overpopulation As to my last defense, my opponent brings up a incredibly bias blog that has no scientific or geographic confermation. The two sources I presented were geographically confirmed. We are over populated and even if we weren't, at our current birth rate we would be, and it would be logical to make sure it didn't occur. My last contention still stands. Rebuttal 1: ReligionMy opponent's first point is not even arguing for anything other then abortion contradicts Christianity, but this poses a problem to my opponent since the First Amendment to the Constitution of the U. S. A. forbids the use of religion in government. Therefore, making abortion illegal just on the bases of religion is illegal [1]. Rebuttal 2: Health The health consequences are the consequences of choice. This does not rule out self-ownership. If a woman knows of these effects and gets an abortion then thats her risk. The government has no right to take away a right on the bases of health risks. We see this in Cigarettes, Alcohol, and even fatty foods. If we were to make abortion illegal for this reason, then we would also have to make a lot everyday things illegal and that is just absurd. I will now await my opponents next response. I thank tjose who read this. Sources[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: Abortion should stay legal in the U.S.

Contention 1: personhood. I'll start with defining person- a human being, whether man, woman, or child: http://dictionary.reference.com... So when my opponet states that you have to be a person to have the right to live well my friends I have defined person and the fetus is included. Then my opponet goes on to say it must communicate and I believe all mothers on this site will tell you a fetus will let you know what they like to eat and when they're hungry. Contention 1.5: Religon Here our some verse from the Bible that are against abortion. Romans 12:1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-this is your spiritual act of worship. John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. Acts 18:10 For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city." Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God Contention 2: Ownership No the fetus isn't entitled to a women's bird it's just sort of renting it for 9 months. To say it doesn't have the right to their mother's body is crazy, because the fetus doesn't stay there for a life time or longer. Who knows that fetus could be the next president or even the person who cures AIDS, but you wouldn't know, because you killed them. Contention 2.5: Health Abortion causes post abortion stress that might lead to suiside. http://postabortionsyndrome.org........., Wade V. Boggs upheld and prooved abortion should be illegal abortion raises cancer by 130% after an abortion now I'm sure women don't want breast cancer if I'm wrong please tell me http://www.deveber.org......... lead to depression and guilt for men, abortion reserch is inacurate (post abortion syndrome.org) Contention 3. Overpopulation (can't see you 1st pic) The world isn't overpopulated, as a matter of fact the whole world's population can fit into Texas. (if they're given the same living space as New York City) "Did you know"everyone on the planet (7 billion) could fit in the state of Texas (area of 268,820 square miles) at a density 26,040 people per sq. mile. Thats a 1000 less people per square mile than in New York City!" So with my fact here from this year a month ago this outways my opponets whole 3rd contention. http://guerillatics.com...
Resolved: Abortion should stay legal in the U.S.

Hello, here is my challange that you have already agreed to.The resolution is above. However, here are some rules for the debate.Rules8,000 charcter limit3 days to post argumentFirst round will be for acceptance onlyI also wish semantics will not be used.DefinitionsAbortion- the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
Resolved: Abortion should stay legal in the U.S.

PersonhoodMy opponet is still being absurd, due to the fact he discarded my definition claim in the 2nd round and claims it was irrelivant. So since he dropped this he obviously dropped this arguement. Self-ownershipThis falls under personhood aswell due to the fact that the fetus is alive and a perosn thus giving it the right to life. OverpopulationMy opponet is just tryin' to say the same thing as he did in rd 3. we can argue arguements all day man, but when you just copy and paste an arguement that's just sick. ReligonThen so what my opponet is brining up is a contradiction of itself by saying Congress can't make a Pro or Con religon law. HealthI did state what he dropped it was breast cancer. What is absurb is that people are all pro-choice and when people get breast cancer for it they're all like why me and how did this happen, well ladies you brought this on yourself. My opponet also dropps all the health defeats abortion has to offer. FederalismMy opponet doesn't even atempt to refute this and the Con has the Burrden of Presumption which is innocent untill prooven guilty which means I can say the sky is green and I'm right until the Pro brings up evidense that it's blue. ConclusionMy opponet is a highly biased person and he drops several arguements totaly ignoring the Burden of Presumption so in which case I should win.
Resolved: Abortion should stay legal in the U.S.

PersonHood Easily a fetus has a beating heart, organs, skin, the ablility to hear, Eyesite, the ability to communicate and you have all these things. Therefore the fetus is a person. http://www.youtube.com...Self-ownershipAbortion is killing the future sure not everyone is going to be an astrophyisist, but everyone has a purpose in life and a right to live. 10th amendment states that that everyone has the write to life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness. We wouldn't end up curing AIDS, HIV, or breast cancer, because the person that was suppose to cure the AIDS. OverpopulationMy friends my opponet brings up a conspiricy blog and he thinks he has the right to say my website is bias! You my friend are the one who is bias. http://www.youtube.com...Religon The 1st amendment also states that we as people have the write to the freedom to worship whatever we want and aplie it however we want otherwise you are a liberal hatin' on religon http://www.youtube.com....HealthWhat is absurb is that people are all pro-choice and when people get breast cancer for it they're all like why me and how did this happen, well ladies you brought this on yourself. My opponet also dropps all the health defeats abortion has to offer.FederalismThe U.S. federal government is the only thing keeping the U.S.A. together, but if abortion becomes legal permanently then the weight of Federalism vs. states rights will tear the U.S. apart like it did during the 1860s. Only this time it would be the midwest area that is highly pro-life and a U.S. civil war now of days will cause nuclear holocaust.
Saints are not unconscious after passing away!

I see. But qouting John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.", it seems like god is promising an AFTER life. Therefore, the physical body DIES, but the after life soul lives on. Based on the definition of death "the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation ofall the vital functions of an organism" Based on the definition of death, it is describing the PHYSICAL death. However, god promisies a SPIRITUAL immortality, not a physical one. Therefore, saints DO die.Because death is describing the PHYSICAL, the end of life. So, if your soul lives forever, your still dead because your physical body has decayed. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com...https://www.biblegateway.com...;
Saints are not unconscious after passing away!

Jesus himself taught how the friendship with God embarrasses death. For instance,«Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[a]? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!».In the same sense, he described Abraham hosting Lazarus and dialoguing (completely conscious) with the wealthy man; again, he ignored death when he promised paradise to the criminal of the cross to his right (from that day on). Besides, the apostles saw Elijah and Moses speaking to Jesus.There are many verses that lead to conclude death does not rule on the friends of Christ. Thus, I assure John 3,16 is literal.
Assassination: Immoral

My opponent does not clarify what he means, but looking at the title and my opponent's position, I will argue against murder. Assasination is immoral. Since my opponent has made no points at all, I will begin.Why is murder immoral?Assasinating someone is ending someone's life. Who knows what that person may do or become in the future, by assasinating someone, you are cutting their life short. Any logical person would agree that assasination is wrong. A physical person, breaths, has feelings, and may have future goals. By killing a person, you are ending their life. Put yourself into their perspective. Would you want to be killed? Also, think about their friends and family. Would they want him to get killed? Suppose you are under gun point, would you tell the one holding the gun to your head to try and convince him not to kill you? SourcesI really do not feel that there needs to be a source, but here is one anyway.http://www.convinceme.net...
Everything is a social construct.

Since my opponent has conceded that there are non-artificial, natural things in existence, then it would be prudent of me to show that society, morality, and values are not necessarily artificial. My opponent argues that these things are social constructs, made entirely by man. She provides the following arguments: Morality is taught by family and education Religion is a social construct and the Bible was written by a men. My opponent provides no clarification on how society is a social construct. I shall now address her points. Society- Society as we know it is very complex, and it is easy to attribute this as an artificial rather than a natural thing. However, we know from archaeology that societies need not have been as complex as it is today. Rather, our evolutionary ancestors were known to be social creatures even before language and tool use. Man, by nature, is a social creature, much like how apes and even dogs are social creatures by nature. In this regard, society is not simply artificial, it is in man's very nature to form a society. Society is natural, not artificial. Morality- Though also a complex issue, Morality's roots are similarly embedded in nature and not purely artificial. Examining the moral codes and sets of law worldwide, there are many acts that are universally seen as "negative". One example would be murder. Having established that mankind naturally forms a society, it must then go on to mean that there are natural ways by which a society is sustained. By the very nature of a society, murder cannot be rampant, it must be restricted in some fashion. Either by artificial laws, or by natural inclination against. Man is naturally inclined against murder because evolutionarily speaking, it would lead to weakening of the population in its totality. When we can attach a biological reasoning to a moral, it makes the assertion that morality is purely artificial, somewhat questionable. Religion- Again, my opponent views religion in far too complicated a way. While I agree that religion is SUSTAINED artificially, the very roots of Religion are not artificial, but natural. Just as fear and conceptual thinking are natural for a man, so is the development of fantasies such as an afterlife. . http://www.stedmundsbury.gov.uk... Homo Neanderthalis was known to bury their dead with flowers and tools, pendents, and deer parts. The fear of death, the fear of the unknown, the ability to conceive of concepts, these are all natural things, and the natural outgrowth would be the psychological defense mechanism we know to be Religion. Thus, I have shown that while these three things *seem* like purely social constructs, they indeed are deeply rooted in our very natures and biology.
Everything is a social construct.

It appears that I was too loose in my wording and for that, I apologise. By everything I do not mean every object, every substance and every material. Ofcourse things can be natural and not man made. The way in which we as individuals, view things, however, irrespective of what they are. Is impacted by or environment, our values and our beliefs. Every opinion that we have can be attributed to our society's norms, values and our own socialisation. Yes, as you highlight and have proven human beings have been in existance for a relatively short period of time. But, as far as I am concerned what was in existance prior to us, is irrelevant for this argument. For, at such a time we could not have had values and morals if we did not exist. It is our development as people that has enabled us to establish our beliefs and opinions. By everything I do not mean all matter and it is entirely my fault for the ambiguity. The way in which all things are valued and seen, are social consructs. Society, our values and our morals are all social constructs. Through our families and education we are all taught a clear distincton of what is right and what is wrong. Religion is also a social construct. For man wrote the Bible even if it is supposed to the word of God, this applies similarly to the Torah, Qu'ran nd any other holy text. The value and worth attached to such religious douments is attributed to them solely by our own interpretation. By our personal values and society's values that we have established over time.
Everything is a social construct.

First though, I would like to ask my opponent a simple question: Is it not true that mankind has existed for a finite amount of time? . http://en.wikipedia.org...(genus) . http://en.wikipedia.org... Is it not true that material has existed prior to the existence of man? . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... In such case, how is it possible that those materials are artificial, without mankind present to create it? This proposal requires a positive proof, and the burden of proof falls on my opponent to support his assertion that everything was created by man. As for the notions of society, culture, morals etc. I shall allow my opponent to present his case as he is the one making the proposal.
should holiday decorations be allowed in public school

Halloween decorations: Those are at my school, I think those are fine. Are they really going to offend someone with that? No. Christmas decorations: Christmas is a no, Christmas is directly connected to a religion and celebrating it with decorations inside of a school can offend people from other religions, And atheists. We can not celebrate a certain religion in school unless we celebrate every single one, Which is not happening, So you can't celebrate any. Otherwise, It's unconstitutional. Thanksgiving: Yeah who really cares thanksgiving is not a big deal we don't need decorations for it.
There is life after death.

If you truly believe in a life after death you have not made it clear as to possibly what kind of afterlife your are speaking about it (whether it be collective consciousness, Near death experiences that stretch on towards infinity). The one thing I have gathered from your argument though is simply that life continues without the individual in question in respect of after there death. This context is not anywhere near fitting for an end to this argument as it would appear it has gone nowhere. If though by chance your are speaking of the individuals perspective, then we have something (which is by no means going to be a religious argument as I am not a religious person). In fact the total recall of ones atomic properties (C,H,O,N...) back into the environment is by no means an continuation of the individuals existence. No quantum mechanical property can turn an atom into a human being nor any other form of consciousness (which i am using here to illuminate the closest possible essence of a individual). This sort of soul-like consciousness is now a very valid theory in cognitive neuroscience so to answer the last part of your statement yes there is a soul, only this one is not metaphysical and is in no way capable of stretching passed the biological senescence of an organism. For sources on the conscious soul and further explanation look up Consciousness: the romantic reductionist view... By Kristof Koch.
There is life after death.

You are arguing past me. You insist on interpreting the resolution narrowly as the religious conception of life after death. However, as the proponent of the resolution, I clearly defined the resolution outside of the context of religion. I am debating a matter of the physical world, not some fantasy dreamland. The resolution calls for life after death. Death is defined as the removal of life. When an individual dies, its life no longer exists. My argument is that the individual is but a single part of a system. The individual is an organism, yes, but so is the system. Life reproduces itself with modification, but it still reproduces itself. Death is a temporary and local occurrence, and generally life continues onward afterward. Therefore, life exists after death. In other to argue otherwise, you need to assert wholly without reason or justification, the existence of some kind of soul which somehow distinguishes some life from other life. Since to say that souls exist is a positive statement, in the absence of justification, the chances of its being actual approach 0%.
There is life after death.

Fair enough, but I will assert this to the matter of your argument it is in noway clear as to what to debate. If you believe it is fine, but i will most certainly disagree with you as a matter of any fine academic would. It would more than seem that your parameters are missing multiple steps that leave me unable to fit your logic though trying as any good person would I will debate. So, it is most certain to me that DNA, cells regenerating on your body, and family that are closely tied to your genetic association of your bloodline are not precursors toward the afterlife. The one underlying piece of evidence that connects these aspects together is that all are biological qualities. Biological of course means life, and Death is the absence of life in its entirety. As a premed student it is common knowledge that once biological processes fail, there is no return to the before. Only an absence of what was and either a filler of what is to be the replacement or the gap of what your missing. This of course is very problematic and most surely leads to eventual biological failure. The most defining moment of death is the absence of brainwaves, this leads to a loss of consciousness and ultimately the death of the individual. Whether you respond to this is up to you, but I must certainly look forward to this debate.
There is life after death.

I am not arguing for the typical conceptualization of life after death spewed by religions. I am only arguing for life after death. If you merely wished to post a comment, then you should have used the comments forum to do so. Instead, you have entered into the debate as my opponent, but have not even attempted a counterargument. I think I fairly explicitly argued that an individual continues to live on after they die in a very literal sense. I don't understand how you could have read the debate topic carefully enough to feel qualified to accept my challenge if you don't understand the parameters of the debate.
There is life after death.

I am an atheist. I am a scitic, animic, and moral nihilist. The base assumptions of this debate are 1. Contradiction is impossible. 2. I exist and am alive. 3. I am the same person as I have been since I have been born. I will begin by considering what makes me the same person as the person who existed in my body ten years ago. We have exactly two things in common. 1) common experiences/memories. 2) common DNA. But, I also share those things to a lesser or greater extent with my family, with other humans, and with all living things. I could literally live on more by saving several siblings than by saving my own life. I am not a distinct organism, but a part of something greater. When I die, I literally live on in my children, in my family, and in the fabric of life itself. Therefore, there is life after death.
Chevy vs. Ford

would like to let you check out this video http://www.youtube.com... and Let's see, General Motors owned by Obama, Ford ownedA279; by Ford. I'll stick with Ford. nuff said but i will say, saying that one company is better than another just by comparing one product that they both make that are similar is a terrible way to judge companies, with taht being said you should vote for me bc the basis for their argument is just plain bad, the only argument that my opisition makes is that one costs 65$ more and weighs more thats a terrible way to judge two items by price and weight in terms of hourse power the ford beats the chevy by 63 horse power and has a bigger gas tank by 4.5 gallons http://buyersguide.caranddriver.com... http://buyersguide.caranddriver.com... when looking at trucks horse power and gas tank size are better judgments than money and weight regardless, just bad logic
Chevy vs. Ford

Chevy's are way better then Fords. The style, sound, ride, and cargo holding ability's. The 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 3500 LT four-wheel-drive crew cab came from Mike Savoie Chevrolet in Troy, Mich., with 8 miles on the odometer and 0.9 hours on the engine meter. The "Job 2" 2011 Ford F-350 Super Duty XLT four-wheel-drive crew cab was sold at Harold Zeigler Ford Lincoln in Elkhart, Ind., and driven to Detroit by a third-party fleet service. Two Diesel Power staffers drove the trucks 1,250 miles to Denver. How equivalent were the trucks? They were probably the most evenly matched HD pickups we've tested. Besides the same rear axle ratios, the $54,805 8,440-pound Ford was just $65 and 220 pounds more than the $54,740 8,220-pound Silverado. Both lacked fancy equipment such as leather seats, navigation systems and sunroofs. So therefore Chevy would win smackdown in anything. FORD suck monkeys black butt. Chevy will run this world in the end of time before anyone knows it...................