BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion Should Be Abolished

I am British, something of a realist and in the main, apolitical and definitely atheist. Interestingly the people of the Republic of Ireland recently voted to amend their current anti-abortion laws. Perhaps the people of The U.S.A. should be given the same opportunity to have their say. As I previously suggested social decisions should not be based on the edict of the few. Rape is legislated against and I don't think there is a collective will in the U.S.A to amend this legislation. Your rape argument is clever but does not directly address the point I was making. There will always be women who wish to have an abortion. Irish women would travel to the U.K. U.S women would inevitably seek alternative solutions too. Would you seek to impose the death penalty for foetal murder? As I stated in the previous round, human beings are selfish and selective in their regard for life. Perhaps you would care to address this issue. How do you regard deaths caused by U.S. military action? Do you regard the deaths of supposed terrorists as murder? And what about all the incidental civilian deaths, 3500 in Afghanistan alone in 2017. There can be no room for hypocrisy in an anti-abortion argument. Sorry, your references to slavery may be emotive and dramatic but are a completely separate issue. You also neglected to address the issue I raised, concerning the unnatural prolonging of life, specifically with regard to medical intervention. Another example of human selectivity and selfishness maybe. That is to say, morals are fine, unless they impinge on me personally. And yes, there may be other ways to stop overpopulation but there is certainly not the collective will to do so. Who are the 96 Americans? What is collective immorality? I thought that we had already agreed that morality was subjective. Further for your consideration: A embryo or early stage foetus is not independent, it is an insentient extension of the mothers body and thereby the responsibility of the mother alone and not the responsibility of a third party.
Abortion Should Be Abolished

Hello. Emotions are, as emotions do and emotions are brain held and not universally significant and levels of sensitivity are extremely variable. That is to say, there is no one, given, collective moral. Well morals are subjective and your opening gambit concerns the morality or should we say immorality of abortion and as you clearly state, morals are only subjective. Illegality is a collective social decision, whereas believe is a personal assumption and frowning is a facial expression. Therefore legislation must be the will of the many and not the edict of the few and certainly not based on assumptions or facial expression. I am no more inclined to accept the subjectivity of a Ph. D. than I am my opponents. Point 3, is basically a repetition of point 2. Abortion is a possibility and there will always be people who seek to have abortions. Therefore abortions might as well be carried out safely and legally. Choosing to undergo an abortion is just as much a subjective decision as the assumed moral proclamations of an anti-abortionist, therefore neither individuals decision can be judged honestly. Life is the potential that exists within all organic material. I would therefore assert, that the potential that exists within a single celled organism is exactly the same as the potential that exists within a fully formed human being. Human beings are instinctively selfish and selective in their regard for life. We have to behave this way in order to survive. When I die it will not be death that I fear, it will be the thought of non-existence. At what point does a foetus become aware of it's own existence and therefore fear death? One last point for Pro's consideration. What real loss is one foetus to an already overpopulated planet? Despite abortion the human population grows exponentially. If we base decisions solely on morality, isn't it fair to propose that unnaturally prolonging life, is just as immoral as extinguishing life prematurely.
Christians are the only ones who know what the Old Testament says

My opponent has ignored everything I said, instead just re-iterating his three non-topical contentions from last round. I can just copy-paste what I wrote last round. .. NONE of what my opponent has said so far shows that only Christians know what the Old Testament says. The only possible reason I can think of for why Pro's arguments seem so non-topical is that Pro is arguing in favor of a totally different interpretation of the resolution than I am, in which case the winner of the debate should come down to whose interpretation is more reasonable. I believe that, given the total lack of clarifications offered by Pro, my interpretation is more reasonable than whatever his interpretation is; the resolution clearly states that "Christians are the only ones who know what the Old Testament says". This implies that all I have to do to negate the resolution is show that non-Christians are also capable of knowing what the Old Testament says. But this seems to almost be a truism. .. anyone who possesses literacy in a major language and basic resources, which includes a large population of non-Christians, can obtain a copy of the Bible in their respective language and read it, thereby "knowing what the Old Testament says". The resolution is negated.
Christians are the only ones who know what the Old Testament says

Point 1: There were no Christians killed by the Roman legions during the destruction of Jerusalem. Not even one. Point 2: Nazism could only operate in Germany if the Christians let it. Point 3: "Honor your mother and father." This is a saying like- "Not one stone left on another." The 'stone' saying is not about the 'wailing wall' left by Titus. It is about the High Priest and his breastplate. There is no breastplate. There is no High Priest. There is no stone left upon another. The 'honor' verse applies to the U.S. Constitution whose mother and father are the Old Testament and New Testament respectively. The U.S. Constitution is going to honor its mother and father.
Christians are the only ones who know what the Old Testament says

I am not sure what to say this round other than that NONE of what my opponent has said so far shows that only Christians know what the Old Testament says. The only possible reason I can think of for why Pro's arguments seem so non-topical is that Pro is arguing in favor of a totally different interpretation of the resolution than I am, in which case the winner of the debate should come down to whose interpretation is more reasonable. I believe that, given the total lack of clarifications offered by Pro, my interpretation is more reasonable than whatever his interpretation is; the resolution clearly states that "Christians are the only ones who know what the Old Testament says". This implies that all I have to do to negate the resolution is show that non-Christians are also capable of knowing what the Old Testament says. But this seems to almost be a truism... anyone who possesses literacy in a major language and basic resources, which includes a large population of non-Christians, can obtain a copy of the Bible in their respective language and read it, thereby "knowing what the Old Testament says". The resolution is negated.
Christians are the only ones who know what the Old Testament says

Point 1: The Roman army under Titus destroyed Jerusalem, the temple and either killed or enslaved most all the people living there. The defeat of the High Priest and the Levites was completely catastrophic. And guess what? The Priest and the Levites were very well versed in the Old Testament. So much so that they pretty much had it memorized from cover to cover. Of course I don't have to tell anyone here at debate.org that there is no High Priest and there are no Levites. And even if there are some left it does not matter since they can't prove their ancestry. They can't prove their ancestry because in the fight for Jerusalem all the records were destroyed along with the priesthood. Think about it. The destruction of the High Priest, the priesthood, all the Levites and the Temple. Do you understand? The complete destruction of the High Priest, the priesthood, all the Levites and the Temple. And all those learned students and masters didn't have so much as a clue as to what was to happen to them all. And do you know why they didn't have a clue? Because all those Levites, all those priests including the High Priest didn't know that the Old Testament predicted their fall. Point 2: The Rabbis were completely taken by surprise by Nazism. Point 3: The United States Constitution will not protect American Jewry.
My opponent is a witch.

"even though it would be very pleasant to, I do not have the ability to float freely(in the air)" Although it'd be lovely to fly, or to use black magic to cast spells on people, I lack such abilities, therefore, I should not be referred to as a witch. The internet is used by billions of people everyday (for instance, wjelements). It is to every person's reach. It is 'like' magic, but really, it the greatest discovery man has ever made. With this being said, I can proudly conclude, that I'm not a witch.
My opponent is a witch.

Ha! She is a witch! Quoth the witch: "I have flown a couple of times" Further, she has not denied that it is magic to do so. Therefore, she has agreed with me. Not only has she conceded that she has floated in water, but she has also admitted to flying. Both of these are evidence of magic. Therefore, my opponent has used magic and is a witch. Also, my opponent has also used the magic of the internet several times. Things so practical now-a-days can be explained without using the word magic, but that explanation is no more valid than any explanation that does use the word magic. I have sourced many websites that further prove my point. My opponent floats. My opponent flies. She has used the internet. She must be a witch.
My opponent is a witch.

Fly- 1)move through the air under control 2) (on an aircraft or its occupants) travel through the air. I have flown a couple of times, yes, on an airplane, a powerful flying vehicle with fixed wings, and weight greater than that of the air it displaces, but even though it would be very pleasant to, I do not have the ability to float freely without any help. It is astonishing how easy it is to travel nowadays, anyone, can fly! http://hotpriceairfares.com..., my opponent was kind enough to provide this website with all kinds of helpful links. http://computer.howstuffworks.com..., due to the limited space I have left, I will let my opponent read this article about how the internet works. (Sorry no magic.)
My opponent is a witch.

She has also already used the internet, and therefore has used magic and is a witch. My opponent has conceded that she can fly. Therefore, there is no doubt that she is magic. Ordinary humans can't fly. Therefore, her flying is supernatural, which is occult. Therefore, my opponent has used witchcraft and is therefore a witch. Further, the internet is magic. There are a high number of claims that the internet is magic. I have already sourced a few. "The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that interchange data " But how do they interchange data? The answer can only be magic. My opponent has clearly used magic. Therefore, she must be a witch. Thank you.
My opponent is a witch.

It is a curious thing that my opponent claims that I am a witch, that, according the the Oxsford American Dictionary, is a woman thought to have evil or magical powers. A witch is a follower of witchcraft, the power of a person to do harm or influence nature through occult means, http://www.answers.com..., so, to start this debate, I would like to ask Pro, what makes him think I have evil powers? My opponent says that the internet is magic, but The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that interchange data (http://en.wikipedia.org...), while magic is defined as the power of influencing the course of events by using mysterious and supernatural forces... I'll talk about the floating in R
My opponent is a witch.

witch- a follower of witchcraft witchcraft- magic or sorcery http://www.answers.com... Anyone that can use post an argument must be a witch, because the internet is magic. http://keithdanger.blogspot.com... http://www.sandywhite.co.uk... The only way to post an argument is through the internet. Using magic makes my opponent a witch. In addition, witches float. http://www.shanmonster.com... My opponent floats. http://au.answers.yahoo.com... Therefore, my opponent is a witch. Further, witches can fly. My opponent can fly. http://hotpriceairfares.com... Therefore, my opponent must be a witch.
Non-biological Surrogate Mothers Should Have The Right To Keep The Child

I would like to apologize first because I realize I gave the same source to my argument. But now I will go into my main argument. What I believe is that the parents of the child didn't want to go through the pain of a pregnancy, which means they didn't want to go through the hardship of it. Rather, they wanted someone else to go through the pain. Which begs the question if the parents really want the child. The surrogate mother cares about the baby. And to me if she wants it she can have it. The surrogate mother feels the baby kick, she feels the personality brewing within her body. Also if there isn't a contract drawn up then you would question the mother's want to have the child. The parents of the child can make a contract insuring this does not happen, if a contract isn't drawn up it is almost as if the parents are daring her to keep the child. I am also confused that you brought up a source in the beginning that was from the UK https://www.gov.uk..., but then in your closing argument you used a source regarding the USA https://www.childwelfare.gov.... So I did not understand what country you were talking about this specific issue about because I sure know as well as you should that the UK and the USA operate very differently. and I will contest your last statement that the surrogate mother caused a mess for the child. I would say that the child's biological mother made the mess. She could have taken the precautions, this may not have happened, she could have made a contract to make this not happen. But have it be she was lazy, or wanted to believe the surrogate mom wouldn't do this. It is her fault 150%.
Non-biological Surrogate Mothers Should Have The Right To Keep The Child

RebuttalsIn regards to your lawful rights argument, I refer you back to the notice in round one: "Note: this is a debate on whether non-biological surrogate mothers should be allowed to keep the children, not on the laws and regulations of the UK, or any other nation."I also remind you and the audience that the source you have given is identical to the source I gave in round one: "UK Rights for Surrogate Mothers: https://www.gov.uk...;I therefore reject your argument on the grounds of irrelevance. This debate is not about the specific rights of a single nation; if this were the case, I could easily cite the surrogacy rights from other nations that state completely different things.ContentionsAlthough Pro has conceded to all of my contentions, I would like to add an additional argument.Adoption has been been shown to have negative effects on many children; identity development, loss and grief, self-esteem, unknown genetic information (parent's medical history). [1] I would like to make it clear that a surrogate forcefully keeping the child will not only hurt the biologically parents, but also set the child up to feel the same grief and anger that adopted kids do.I would find this specific situation to be even more detrimental than adoption because the child would eventually learn that its biologically parents never wanted to give them up -- their birth mother had made them. In essence, their birth mother had created a big mess for the child that could have easily been avoided.[1] - https://www.childwelfare.gov...
Non-biological Surrogate Mothers Should Have The Right To Keep The Child

Now an extremely large number of people will see this debate, and think like almost all do that the Con side has the moral high ground and I would agree with that. On legal grounds the surrogate mothers have the right to keep the baby if they would like to, Biological or not. It states in law this, and I will offer a source to this. https://www.gov.uk.... Thank you and good luck.
Non-biological Surrogate Mothers Should Have The Right To Keep The Child

Thanks -- good luck! People who turn to surrogates are often desperate for children, having tried unsuccessfully for many years. In vitro fertilisation is a tricky and costly procedure that can produce many failed attempts. The biological parents often pay the surrogate mother to support her through the pregnancy, and in some countries, pay her a lump sum just for doing the job. All of this puts great financial and emotional strain on the budding parents; it can be a very stressful time filled with fear and hope that everything will pan out smoothly. Surrogate mothers are aware of all the proceedings before they accept to carry a child. I find it immoral for them to change their mind, breaking an agreement as well as the hearts of the biological parents, by keeping a child that is not biologically theirs. I do not believe that the 'woman's body' argument is valid because the surrogate willingly elected to go through with it -- surrogacy is not a spur of the moment decision.
Non-biological Surrogate Mothers Should Have The Right To Keep The Child

Hello, I would just like to say that I am excited for this debate! It was a good topic! First off I would like to explain my side of the argument, I am coming at this also as I do the topic of abortion. I believe that it is the woman's body, she goes through the birth and the pain associated with it. She is the one that is harboring a life inside of her. Now that you know where I stand the ball is back in your court.
Non-biological Surrogate Mothers Should Have The Right To Keep The Child

This will be somewhat of an informal debate; I'm interested in hearing other people's views above all else.I've recently become aware of a case in which a couple supplied embryos to a surrogate mother, making the surrogate genetically unrelated to the children, but due to UK surrogacy laws, the surrogate was able to 'change her mind' and keep the babies as her own, despite the biological parents desperately wanting them.I believe that non-biological surrogate mothers should NOT have the right to keep the child, or be classed as the legal mother; full rights and custody should be given to the biological parents that produced the embryo with their own reproductive cells.You (pro) will argue that non-biological surrogate mothers should be allowed to keep any children they birth, regardless of the biological parents wishes.Note: this is a debate on whether non-biological surrogate mothers should be allowed to keep the children, not on the laws and regulations of the UK, or any other nation.UK Rights for Surrogate Mothers: https://www.gov.uk...Cited story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
God Is Not Real

Given my philosophical studies I would disagree with you about if we create a God within us then that is a different God than the creator. But nonetheless let's work with what you've said. In your blog you seem more like your arguing against the religion due to its consequences rather than disproving God. As an agnostic I'm inclined to agree that the supposed experts on its existence may be interpreting its message incorrectly, given the strong moral intuitions we have against many of the demands it seems to make. However let's debate over your definition of God. "God is the creator of all things... The giver of life... The reason everything we know of, exists." What evidence do you possess which makes it impossible for such a being to exist? What makes it impossible for there to have existed a grand creator who organized the universe to permit life? Next, the most frequently given argument for evil is the free will defense. Personally I am a utilitarian, so I argue that morality is either man-made or all religions have gotten morality wrong. However I can still argue against your points. Assume some religion, say Christianity, is the correct religion. How could a Christian God permit evil to exist? Only God is a perfect being, and all imperfect beings are fallible. We can only be so good, because if we were infinitely good we would be God. Perhaps God made us as perfect as it can such that we could promote the most good could we possibly can as fallible beings. This may not seem like we are promoting very much good, but perhaps its the most God could possibly create us to possess. As a result, God gave us the free will to promote as much good as we freely could choose to without making us more perfect than God. Now you, as most atheists do, have a problem with what has resulted of organized religion. So consider this, Catholicism has admitted to being wrong in their interpretations of God in the past. It is prudent to be wary of trusting someone who has deceived you even once, let alone Catholicism which has admitted to many instances of error (crusades, Galileo, witch burning, etc.). Therefore it is unlikely that Catholicism is the correct interpretation of God. If we take this a step further, I can argue that actually all religions have misinterpreted God. We have finite minds where God has an infinite mind. A finite mind cannot fully comprehend a infinite mind or its word, therefore all religions are incorrect because we are physically incapable of correctly interpreting God. This does not mean God does not exist, nor does it mean there is not a correct interpretation. If you are taking a test and you simply are not smart enough to get the correct answers, this does not mean there are no correct answers. In conclusion, we have reasons to disbelieve the words of preachers, we have reasons to doubt the morals perpetuated by organized religions, but we do not have the right to rationally claim God does not exist.
God Is Not Real

Look at your argument... If your statement was a shoe, it would fit on the other foot. You can't claim God exists within everyone, because that's not the image society paints of God; it's not the image Religion paints of God. God is the creator of all things... The giver of life... The reason everything we know of, exists. If you go outside society's scope of God you have in fact created yet, another God, your own God. When I say God does not exists, I do mean the God which lay within the scope of what society has adopted through Religion. Rather it be the Bible or the Koran... God is seen as a substance and he is not see as an empty intangible. If you read my Blog carefully, I have made points that prove God as society knows him and Religion defines him, does not exists. The belief in such a being that is false is a burden mankind does not need.