BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

You really need to work on your reading comprehension, bud. I was illustrating the point that killing IS destruction of life, not 'shortening it's existence', just as arson is destruction of property, not 'shortening it's existence'. 1) Look up the definition of empirically. My claim was that YOU would find it immoral if someone killed YOU against your will, and because morals are universal, you must also find it immoral to kill other people against their wills. If you do not, then you admit to hypocrisy. 2) None of what you said makes any sense. Biologically, humans are members of Homo Sapiens. Humans are different than other animals, sure, but the only prerequisite for being a human is being a member of Homo Sapiens. 3) You can define it however you want, it still doesn't exist tangibly. You can't hold society, see it, touch it, smell it, etc. Therefore, it is abstract. But, if you want to continue to claim that it is, show me some data, even just correlational, that suggests that abortion is harmful to society (here's a tip: you probably can't). 4) If you're fine with doing something that's immoral, then you're either a) Irrational or b) Evil. You can admit to either one of these things if it pleases you, but I don't think it'd do much to help your argument.
Abortion

My opponent has proven that arsonist is not destroying building but merely shortening its existnce; Which is not relevant to this debate. last round 1) rebuttal: p1) is emprically false. I don't believe "it would be immoral for another to kill him if he doesn't want it. last round 2) rebuttal: Defition is within the google search. p1: If only thing by which human is distinguished from rest of the world is by being Homo Sapiens, then human = Homo Sapiens p2: Human <> Homo Sapiens c: My opponent's definition is invalid. Example for some people not owning what they make: People who make screws in car industry. (Those screws go to other group of people as soon as they are finished) " you can't say who for sure is in or out of the society" My argument 2 specifically says "citizens". We can tell who is citizen and who is not. My original arguments do not include statement that abortion is moral. So abortion being immoral(even if it was the case) does not refute them.
Abortion

Rebuttal to my Rebuttal: Destruction, n. - The action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired. Killing is destruction because you've caused damage to the life to the point that it no longer exists. To take this argument to the logical conclusion, an arsonist could posit that he did not destroy the building, as buildings decay anyway, and he merely 'shortened it's existence.' 1) I am most certainly arguing that killing is always immoral. Or, at least, unwanted killing. Following your format, p1) My opponent believes that it would be immoral for another to kill him if he doesn't want it, p2) Morals must be universal in order to be applicable, so c) Killing, at least killing that is unwanted by the killed, is immoral. 2) That is not a definition, it is a google search. A human being, in the biological definition, is a member of Homo Sapiens, which fetuses obviously are. Follow Up on Previous Points 1) Just because you've said something is empirically not true, does not make it so. You can provide an example, as I did, or else you're just saying meaningless things. 2) That's still abstract, because you can't say who for sure is in or out of the society. For instance, you cannot sue 'society' if your life doesn't turn out the way you wanted it to. It isn't a tangible thing, it's merely social connection and interaction. Anyway, you haven't demonstrated how would-be aborted children would negatively affect society. And, even if you did, it wouldn't matter, because that does not supersede the idea that murder is immoral. 3) You obviously did not read the post at all. I said that abortion could be beneficial, but that does not matter. If something is immoral, it is immoral, whether or not it benefits somebody. Theft is beneficial to somebody, but it is still immoral. The fact that abortion could be beneficial to the mothers of China has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of the act.
Abortion

Rebuttal of Con's argument: Clarification - Many people regard killing as destroying life, which is certainly not the case. Everyone who was ever killed would also die if he wasn't killed. Therefore, killing is only making life significantly shorter, where significantly is very relative. 1) p1: Some people don't think killing another human being is always immoral p2: Burden of proof is on people who claim it is p3: No evidence is presented that killing is always immoral c: My opponent's premise "It is (always) immoral to kill another human being" is false. * If my opponent is not arguing that killing is always immoral, then his conclusion doesn't follow. 2) According to this definition of human being, fetus is not human being: https://www.google.rs... Rebuttal of my opponent's supposed rebuttal: 1) "Everyone owns what they make" is empirically not true. Examples of some people owning what they make does not prove it is always the case. Rest of opponent's 1) are not arguments, so I will ignore it. 2) Clarification: By society, I mean large group of people who interact with each other, so it is not abstract, and "bad for society" is not word salad. Rest of opponent's 2) is not refuting anything in my argument 2) 3) Nothing in my opponent's 3) is refuting my argument 3), my opponent even kinda admits my argument 3) is correct in his supposed rebuttal. Here is one nice explanation of what rebuttal is: http://www.vocabulary.com...
Abortion

Con's Arguments: 1) Because it is immoral to kill another human being, and fetuses are human beings, it is then immoral to kill a fetus. Rebuttal: 1) While it is true that everyone owns themselves, it is also true that everyone owns what they make. For instance, a farmer who owns land, and raises crops on that land, owns those crops. Those are his crops, and he may do with them what he pleases. If one, who is not the farmer, takes those crops, he is committing an act of theft, which is immoral by current social standards. Because a child is a product of what parents make, is the child then owned by the parents? Would, then, it be perfectly acceptable for the parent to kill the child, seeing as how he is their property? The point here is that human beings always own themselves, and to put an arbitrary beginning to owning themselves (ie birth) is merely an excuse to kill them because it is convenient. 2) The woman will not necessarily be the parent, as adoption is normally an option where abortion is technologically available. Even still, the phrase 'bad for society' is mere word salad, it doesn't really mean anything. 'Society' only exists in the abstract, so things that are 'harmful' or 'good' for society are pure opinion; to some, the Holocaust, widely regarded as one of the most horrible events in man's history, was a 'good' thing for society. It is immoral to kill a human being, despite your opinions of their effect on society. 3) We can extend this to the world at large; a lot of people would benefit from abortion. It is a financial/time/emotional burden that is completely lifted off of their shoulders. But, simply because it benefits some people does not make it moral. If we killed the richest man in the US, and distributed his money/property to US citizens, they would clearly benefit. However, because murder and theft are immoral actions, we do not do this, though it may benefit us.
Abortion

Resolution: Women should be allowed by law to abort their fetus. BoP is shared. Con should make his arguments in Round 1. Voting rules: Forfeit in round 1, 2 or 3 means debate loss. Con using more than 300 characters in Round 4 means Con lost. Pro's arguments: 1) p1: Fetus is part of woman's body. p2: Everyone owns themselves. c): Fetus is in woman's property. 2) p1: Chances are woman who does not want child will be bad parent. p2.1: People raised by bad parents are (in average) worse citizens then kids raised by good parents. p2.2: People raised by parents are bad for society c: It is bad for society for fetus of woman who doesn't want it to become citizen. 3) p1: China has laws that punish people for having too much children. p2: Some Chinese people want more children. p3: China is more likely to soften those laws if people who don't want children don't produce them. c: Some Chinese people will benefit from women having right to abortion. p = premise; c = conclusion
Al Quaida" was made by Acme Corporation

Would please stick to the point brother , the ct of the debate is whether the Islamic fanaticism is supported by the West and the US or no , and it's not about ACME or ... So would you stick to the point please , about the fiction , I think that it's obvious as the US and the NATO declared 'the war against terrorism ' since 2001 , when they supported and they keep supporting this terrorism as I said in Lybia and Syria to acheive the geopolitical goals . Brother you accepted this debate as 'Con' which are against the idea that the west is supporting Islamic fanaticism , although you said 'don't disagree that the CIA didn't support Al-Quaida during this time. ' , i think you are here to disagree this idea , not to give us the definition of the word fiction .. Thank you
Al Quaida" was made by Acme Corporation

Okay my bad on that part.My opponet on this part is mistaken Afghanistan was netrual and the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1989 thus bringing them to the Allies side. http://www.britannica.com... don't disagree that the CIA didn't support Al-Quaida during this time. Lets go and disect this debate. The ACME company is from Lunny Toons, as a matter of fact Wile E. Coyote sues the ACME company http://www.lectlaw.com... my opponet says that it's fictional. Lets define fiction, fiction is the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration,especially in prose form. http://dictionary.reference.com...Now we will look to see if Al-Quiada is a work of imagination. One of the most notable acts by Al-Quaida is 9-11, but did 9-11 happen? Huh, according to this article it was http://channel.nationalgeographic.com... something real can't spur from something not real.
Al Quaida" was made by Acme Corporation

First of all thank you for accpeting the challenge . Sorry brother , but I think you missunderstood what I mean , clearly i was referring to the fictional corporation that features prominently in the Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote cartoons as a running gag featuring outlandish products that fail catastrophically at the worst possible times.(1) I mentioned that it was a 'funny' way to express my opinion , so do not take things literally.Moreover , you said it was made to ' protect Afghanistan from the Sovier Union',and I think it's a good point to start with ,The soviet union wasn't it the enemy number one of the West and the Us especially ? ,I think that we have to foccus on this period to point out the support of the CIA and the US to AlQaida and Osama Ben Laden (Tim Osman). Looking forward to your response. (1):http://en.wikipedia.org...
Al Quaida" was made by Acme Corporation

First off lets look at the ACME Corporation. http://www.acmecorp.com..., According to this link ACME is actualy a furnater company so lets see how Al Quaida was made. http://www.cfr.org..., Al Quaida was made inorder to protect Afghanistan from invasion of the Soviet Union, so therefore it couldn't have been made by ACME. Response?
Al Quaida" was made by Acme Corporation

Hello Well I am not here to talk neither about Illuminiati nor about 'Tim Osman ' or any secret society , since nowadays everybody know that the NATO the Western intelligence agencies , and their allies such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia , supported and are till supporting Islamic fanaticism and sectarianism in Lybia , Syria and in the Middle east in General .For this reason I believe that 'Al Quaida' is nothing but a product of 'Acme Corporation ' ,by this 'funny' sentence , I just want show the the western roots of Islamic fanaticism..
Why bacon should be a vegatable

Pro says a lot of vegetables taste bad. That is an opinion. Pro also says if bacon was a vegetable it would taste good. Also an opinion. Pro goes on to claim it would be healthy since "all" vegetables are healthy. Therefore if we just call bacon a vegetable, it magically becomes healthy or a vegetable. I must disagree on this! In order for bacon to become "healthy" it would literally have to change its genetic makeup. However, Pro does not say "use science to change bacon into a veggie", He simply says lets call it something else. Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal. So to answer "should bacon be considered a vegetable"? No, as the above lays out.
Would You Become A Sell Out? :'Everyone Has a Price'.

Much like how the devil tried to tempt Jesus, I want to know... Would you rather spend your entire life fighting your demons, trying to make a life for yourself? , or take money and 'sell your soul' in return for worldly pleasures so to speak. There are many pros and cons to both, that's why it's such an interesting moral dilemma. To make things interesting, I'll let my opponent take first choice, (s)he can either defend selling out or defend integrity. And i will just argue with you for arguments sake depending on your selected decision^. Furthermore in the comments, people can state their opinions, eg tell us what their sell out price is. Of course there are a variety of factors such as living conditions and health. ^=To maintain impartiality, at the end I'll reveal my true stance on this issue, ie if I'm willing to sell out or not, but for an early indication, check my main profile MRAAJ, if you want to see what kind of person I'm.)
Life is meaningless

Well from your standpoint the "meaning" behind your recent argument is from lashing out from defeat. One does this because to argue someone's beliefs triggers the same chemical reaction in the brain that makes you fight for survival. The fight for survival is the same reason why we create meaning. It is in hopes for a prolonged life cycle in an afterlife which you may as well now know that there is none. Meaning would make the existence of God real which has not been proven to exist with hard evidence.
Life is meaningless

A rock has no meaning, because it never needed one or had one. Life in general has just as much purpose as a rock and the human race was the effect of probability. That is why we can never find a real meaning behind life. It is because there never was one. Self awareness made humans scramble for a purpose and reason in life and have tried to imagine an afterlife in which we could still exist. When the rock is destroyed, it is done and life in no different.
The marijuana, evolution, gay marriage debate take 2

1. First of all, I have some friends that have a marijuana farm next to their property. It has made their property be zero in value. The people that are growing it are using the water from a well to water the plants, this has caused water problems for the surrounding neighbors and is totally forbidden in the area we live as I am sure it is in other areas. They have sent us pictures of people carrying AK47"s and have had them point them in their face because they happen to be walking on their own land and the growers didn"t have a clue as to where their property line was. They were suppose to only plant for medical reasons but got greedy and planted more plants than they were supposed to so they could sell regular marijuana causing all types of unsavory characters to come in and out of the area day and night. The dog they had on the property to guard things came over and attack their dog even though they were suppose to have a 6 foot fence built around the property. If my reasons aren"t enough for you then what"s the point of making a debate if you are so closed minded. You don"t care about children; you don"t care about what it would do to people and their families. So far you have not given any good reason why marijuana should be legalized, you"ve just been trying to shoot down my reasons of why is shouldn"t instead of providing logical reasons why it should. Legalizing it is just going to create more problems, not prevent them and not get rid of any. You"re comparing food, drinks, sports, and trash to marijuana? Seriously! People are smart enough to know if they don"t NEED a pharmaceutical drug, if they aren"t then that"s their problem. I don"t support the black market. It"s harder to get something if it is illegal. Making marijuana legal will just allow those selling them illegally to do it legally, it doesn"t change anything except that they can"t get in trouble anymore. 2. So if we let everyone marry their own gender, what"s next? Now we should let homosexuals adopt children the same way every normal married couple can! Then there will be fewer kids in the foster care system, right? Wait". now we demand to have a national holiday celebrating homosexuals! Yea! We want our kids learning about homosexuality in school! Change the curriculum and have a required test on it! Have a project based on homosexuality! You think I"m joking? Just wait five years or more once every state allows homosexuals to "marry". It"ll happen. They already have parades celebrating gays. 3. Apparently you"re blind. I am not an ape, but maybe you are? You sure you"re human, I"m not debating an animal am I? Never heard of man actually being apes, where did that idea come from? If we"re apes then what are those animals in the zoo? Are they man? Did we somehow switch bodies or something? You"re not on drugs yourself, are you? So, because I don"t believe we"re apes, I"m the uneducated one? More like you are. The more you say, the more uneducated you sound. Please do me a huge favor and actually give reasons and facts to support your argument. It would mean sooooo much to me. :)
The marijuana, evolution, gay marriage debate take 2

Holy Crap Dude... Did you read my opening post? You bombed this debate with the same nonsense that compelled me to start this debate in the first place. First you make cookie cutter arguments about the harmful effects of marijuana. If that was reason to consider it illegal.. McDonald's, Pepsi, Budweiser, Marlboro, Football, swimming, creating waste.. etc are all harmful. Do we make those illegal. You are also forgetting the sea of harmful pharmecuetical drugs that are given to patients willy nilly! Find a new angle.. cause I'm not buying it. My problem is if the people who claim authority over me do not pick their battles (or at least explain why this is even a battle) I cannot take them seriously and wonder if I need them at all. Everything you wrote about depends on prohibition being the remedy for marijuana abuse.. Clearly it is not! The only thing that would change is where the money goes. Apparently you support the black market because they are the only ones benefiting from this! Also your comparison to meth and heroine shows your amerature status.. its hard to take you seriously on this subject! You made the argument of procreation justifying the denial of gay marriage.. again this only proves you not only did not read my opening post, but you also made the second worst argument next to the (bestiality, necrophilia marriage) You have only proved once again that homophobia is the only possible answer. (It doesn't mean you think they are hiding under your bed) Why else would you think procreation is reason to oppress a minority! Evolution: "man evolving from apes" WE ARE APES!!!!! We did not evolve FROM apes or monkeys.. I think you may want to rethink your other debate on this topic. Its clear that you are uneducated. Why throw your hat in this ring?
The marijuana, evolution, gay marriage debate take 2

Okay, to tell you the truth, I am so glad this debate is over. After some of your arguments I was tempted to just forget about this debate, since it was made clear from the beginning that you would just keep throwing things back at me. I will admit, I will NEVER accept another debate that has three totally different topics again. I was also disappointed, but surprised too that you gave up just because I had a round with my Christian beliefs in it. From your previous arguments I just never thought you would give up that easily. Now my closing argument is just going to be a review basically. 1. Everyone takes marijuana for some kind of problem, to forget or to relieve pain, but soon it becomes the problem. The consequences of marijuana use are most likely worse than the problem you're trying to solve, often causing: *Impaired memory *Difficulty thinking and problem solving *Anxiety *Paranoia *Disorientation *Hallucinations *Impaired muscle coordination and judgment *Increased susceptibility to infections *Dangerous impairment of driving skills and slowed reaction time. (Studies show that it impairs braking time, attention to traffic signals and other driving behaviors. This impairment can last 12 to 24 hours due to accumulation of marijuana in fatty tissue.) *Decreased interest in completing tasks *Cardiac problems for people with heart disease or high pressure, because marijuana increases the heart rate. *Mental disorders and decreased brain development on younger people *Respiratory problems 2. Homosexual Marriage *It violates Natural Law *Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships *Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened *It validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle *It denies children of either a mother or father *It turns moral wrong into civil right *Decreased birth rates *Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow *It forces it acceptance on all society *It is not marriage 3. Evolution * Complex systems do not evolve bit by bit *Missing links are still missing *Mutations are contrary to evolution *Probability facts are contrary to evolution *Great scientist from the past and PhD scientists now disprove evolution *There is no conclusive evidence that supports evolution http://www.changinglives.org.au... http://www.icr.org...