BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

It is a true pleasure to be debating ToriDivine on this topic. Without any further ado, let's launch right into the debate. Opponent's Case:There are many problems with this case. Firstly, most of her case of not telling a woman what to do revolves around the assumption that a conceptus is not a person. I will disprove this later. Secondly, my opponent wrongly calls a conceptus a part of a woman's body. It is certainly attached to and depends on the mother, but my opponent must elaborate on how this makes the conceptus less of a person, which I will contest. Thirdly, just because the child comes from a terrible scenario such as rape, doesn't mean it is of any less moral value than another life and its murder is still wrong [1]. Why The Conceptus Is A Life:Obviously, if a conceptus is a person, than the killing of it is wrong and therefore abortion is wrong (Unless my opponent wants legalized murder). Here are a couple of arguments as to why the conceptus is a person:1. At the moment of conception a separate unique human individual, with its own genetic code, comes into existence, needing only food, water, shelter, and oxygen in order to grow and develop.2. The conceptus is the sexual product of human parents, and whatever is the sexual product of members of a particular mammalian species, is itself a unique individual member of that species.3. The conceptus follows all 10 signs of life. 4. The same being that begins as a zygote continues to birth and adulthood. There is no decisive break in the continuous development of the human entity from conception until death that would make this entity a different individual before birth. This is why it makes perfect sense for any one of us to say, "When I was conceived..."5. A conceptus' inherent capacity for self-awareness makes it morally equivalent to a fully grown human. I will expand on these later.As there are only 2000 characters, I must pass it over to Pro and hear her refute my points. Sources in comments.
Abortion

I think that yes, abortion should be legal/allowed. For me, abortion would be the last thing I would even consider doing. But I am not every other woman on the planet, and I do not have the same mind as they. If they want to abort their baby, we shouldn't be able to say anything against that. Sure, I may not be one to abort my child, but I have no right to say that they can't. I am not that woman. I am not in control of her mind or body. For someone to come up to her and tell her that no, she must absolutely have the child, and that she has no choice, is ridiculous. I honestly don't even think that men should have any say in whether it should be legal or not. They are not female, they will never experience anything like abortion, and therefore should not be able to decide what woman should do with their own bodies if they don't even have any idea what they might be going through. And, of course, there is always the case of a rape. I personally would not want to live 9 months reliving what happened to me, and then have the baby as a reminder. I know it is not it's fault, not at all, but it's really just a sort of psychological issue that you may have with it. As you can see, I am pretty strongly opinionated when it comes to this, and feminism in general. No uterus, no opinion!
The Bible is Ridiculous

Unfortunately Pro is stating that bible is ridiculous but yet cannot understand simple logic and thus prove any good rebuttals.I am going to explain my argument once again in a detailedmanner for Pro to understand so he can find an answer for himself or for another debate.1) Syllogism 1 : According to the dictionary a miracle is an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.Science claims that the resurrection of a dead body is something that surpasses natural power of our physical world So, we can affirm that resurrection is a miracle according to science.Conclusion: At this step I am only proving that resurrection is a miracle not that it necessary occured.2) Affirmation : Pro claims that I am trying to prove the bibe with the bible.Rebuttal: That is what pro didn't understand, I stated that the bible is true within the bible inner logic since jesus did rise from the dead according the bible. So the bible is considered within himself true. That is where we can come to what could prove that the bible is true in an universal matter that will be syllogism n°2.3) Syllogism 2 : According to the testimony of the bible, the miracle of resurrection of Jesus was a proof that he was the son of god and that his message was true.The apostles did certify that Jesus rose from the deadIf the claims of the apostles are true. Then the bible is necessarly divine and jesus is the son of god.Conclusion : Pro needed to refutate the apostles claim by using historical or logical argument but he didn't do it since he didn't understand my argument so vote Con.Thanks for the debate.
The Bible is Ridiculous

Well, here is logic in general: A: Your own personal logic and how you define it is irrelevant. Logic is logic. B: Correct, science has not figured out how to bring a person back to life. That doesn't mean that God exists based on that factor. C: For your point "B" please refer back to my argument for round 4. Proving the Bible with the Bible doesn't make sense. Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of Christ, meaning that's it's up to us to believe or not. To those who do not believe, the stories of the Bible seem absolutely ridiculous and illogical.
The Bible is Ridiculous

Well here is my logic :A= Science nowaday know for sure that bringing a human back to life when his brain is clinicaly dead is impossible.B= The bible states that if Jesus is resurrected the entire bible system is true, according to the bible Jesus rose from the dead so the bible is true according to the bible inner logic.SoIn order to say that the bible is not true you need to affirm that the factual/material evidence of resurrection is false. So here could be alternative explanations :- The disciples were lying and their testimony is false as a result- The disciples were hallucinatingetc.But now science is irrelevant to deny the highest miracle of the bible resurrection because like I said if science claims that resurrection is impossible it then actualy give credit to the bible that define miracle as an event that is above the common natural laws.Got it ?
The Bible is Ridiculous

1) Well I could say the exact same thing for modern science theories when you think about.Evolution theory: I have nothing against micro evolution but the macro evolution model is basicly a fish turning over time to a human... Without even talking about some of the biggest hoax of science about human/monkey such as the Piltdown man.Big Bang theory : From nothing so no matter comes an explosion and then matter appears and everything is organized into our universe...2) I see what you mean if something is unexplained it isn't the proof of god in itself of course. It could be lack of scientific knowledge about it etc. But the real difference with this situation and the bible is that:- The bible prophetized that the messiah would do some miracles- JC said he was god himself and clearly stated that he was doing these miracles as a proof of his divine natureSo it is obvious that the miracles of the bible have a purpose and a strong causality link to god.Then there is 2 possibilities: These miracles were true, these miracles had the purpose to prove that jesus is god = Jesus is god.These miracles were false= Jesus is not god.Since these miracles are in the bible, nowadays scientist can't verify that these claims occured, the only thing that they can do now is testing if the historical claims of the bible can be reproducible. Nowadays scientist still can't give life back to a dead person and consider it as being way past the limit of science, so the highest miracle of the bible = resurrection still hold his ground.Conclusion: Unexplained event by itself is only a clue to a higher power but is not enough. Unexplained event in the bible is the way that god want to attest his divine nature thus providing a strong causality link.
The Bible is Ridiculous

I never once said that what happened in the Bible was false. All the stories sound ridiculous once you take a step back from everything. We are reading stories that sound as if they were made up by a child that were written approximately 2,000 years ago. Think about it from an atheistic viewpoint. Doesn't it seem kind of strange? The miracles SEEM ridiculous for the most part. If science could explain it logically, I would have no trouble thinking that the stories seem perfectly normal. Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean it's proof of God. If a unicorn suddenly burst through my window then suddenly grew wings and flew straight into the sun then does that prove that there is a higher power? Technically yes because I can't grow wings but you know what I mean.
The Bible is Ridiculous

I-/ About the storyline of the bible The entire story of the bible is about the fight to eradicate the sin. The first human disobeyed so god had to intervene by making an alliance with human. He did set some laws that were a beginning of justice but not as perfect as he wanted in the old scriptures. God did all that in a pedagofic and progressive matter. God will after the fall was to save humanity from generalized damnation so he did that was remedies. In the new scriptures he perfected the law since humanity was ready for it. For that he sent his son that give us the perfect law and to pay the debt of sin for us by dying on a cross II-/ About the supernatural eventsYou cannot say that a miracle is ridiculous since science can't explain it. God obviously is above the natural rules that he set on his creation. Thus, it is invalid to affirm that because science and natural logic can't explain the events in the bible are false. Science goal is to determine the limits between what is within the natural laws and what is above the natural laws. It is because the miraculous facts that are described in the bible that are above nature that it can prove that the bible is divine. It is perfectly logic to say that in order for us to believe god would have to give us some proof, so if he acted just in a way based on the natural laws we wouldn't have any proof of the divine caracter of his message. How would you believe Jesus is god if he only did things an human could do? So I think logicaly science role would be limited to just affirm that these miracles are not reproductible using a natural law of the world. If these miracles are reproductible then it shows that they weren't real miracles and thus false. If it cannot be explained it is a proof of the divine nature of Jesus and in order to not believe you need to deny that these miracles occured.
The Bible is Ridiculous

But you didn't demonstrate why you think what you do. That's what the requirement of the first round was. Okay, I'll just say why I think the way I do. Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe God is real. Some of the things that are said in it though just seem absolutely ridiculous once you read it. It makes sense for people to be atheists because of these things. A talking snake, a person living again and flying into the sky, a person giving birth yet still being a virgin, and a guy healing people with simple actions and/or words. It just doesn't make sense logically and scientifically.
I have no reason to believe in a god

While I don't believe "Nope you are wrong, sorry" to be a very apt rebuttal, or to be very cordial, I will say that my opponent has refused to show how compelling evidence or cogent argument can indeed be in and of themselves knowledge. He has not shown this; until he does, his resolution has been negated. .. My argument stands. I do not have any reason to believe in god, and nor has my opponent provided me with one.
I have no reason to believe in a god

Thank you and no, I have no reason to believe that I'm in God's stomach...The argument stands. I written that I don't have any compelling evidence or cogent argument to believe in a god. Compelling evidence or cogent arguments are not in and of themselves knowledge; they lead to it. If they are knowledge, I will ask my opponent to show how. Yet, while you can still have belief in god, that does not mean that you necessarily have to have a reason to believe in one. I don't speak for those that do believe in god for no reason. I don't, because compelling evidence or a cogent argument has not been presented. And at least one of them, preferably both, is what I would need to first have belief...I suggest my opponent take more care into understanding what he is writing, understanding what I have written and then taking time to actually discern the logical aspect of my argument, than correcting my grammar for a cheap but albeit humorous quip (though I thank him that he did, he was getting a bit dry).
I have no reason to believe in a god

Pro contradicts himself in his arguement in a huge fail. However, you can still have a belief about something, despite the knowledge (or lack thereof) that you have of it. THEN HE SAYS: I haven't come across compelling evidence or a cogent argument to make God's existence a fact, and thus I don't have a reason to be in god… I assume he means believe in god and not residing in his stomach. I don't even know what we're arguing anymore. If it's that he has to belive in God, of course not, there are no laws about it. If it's if God exists then he should have an arugement that doesn't contradict himself and also think of more original debates in the future.
I have no reason to believe in a god

I will not be arguing that a god does not exist. I will argue that I have no reason to believe in a god...My argument: There’s a difference between “knowledge” and “belief”. For example: I can know that a black cat has four legs. I can have this knowledge despite any other beliefs I might have. I can believe that 1) This black cat will land on his feet if scooted off the table, and 2) This black cat is bad luck because it is black. And we can have many more beliefs despite the knowledge of it we have. Does God exist? I don’t know and that makes me an agnostic (a = without, gnostic = belief). No one knows for certain of God’s existence (especially for the way God is defined), which makes us all agnostic. However, you can still have a belief about something, despite the knowledge (or lack thereof) that you have of it. You all believe in the existence of God. I don’t, which makes me an atheist (a = without, theist = god-centered belief). And a true belief may be all that it needs to make it knowledge. But I haven’t come across compelling evidence or a cogent argument to make God’s existence a fact, and thus I don’t have a reason to be in god…
I have no reason to believe in a god

"Ok how do you think we got here? You think we're just computer generated? "Possibly, but you've given no reason to think that we are. "You think we just came out of a mud puddle? "There's no reason to think that, or that we came out of dirt formed by "god's hands" either. .. "I don't think the universe was created on accident or for no reason. God created the universe and did so in order that we learn about him and love him. "Empty assertion. My argument stands.
I have no reason to believe in a god

"God exists. It's in the bible. "And Batman exists in the DC Comics universe. So what? Just because a character is described in some book, it doesn't mean that this character exists as an actual entity in our reality. This is nothing but an appeal to antiquity, along with being a non-sequitor. He is also in danger of being circular. God exists causes it's in the bible. So? What makes the bible true? Because God says so? Let's hope my opponent doesn't go down this downward spiral. .. My argument stands.
Electoral College

Just because it was made to be fair, doesn't mean it is fair. The Electoral College is practically just a popular vote, but with electors. There could easily be a case where one candidate has just one more elector voting for him than the other candidate. A majority of electors beats a minority of electors. It's no better than a popular vote in this situation. One percent of the US population is roughly 3 million. It is not a small difference. Basically in a close race, the president will be decided by a couple million while in the Electoral College, the president can be decided with less than ten people. The Electoral College sounds very unreliable.The electoral college utterly fails at its purpose:-Candidates spend most of their time in states where people's votes count the most.-They spend less time in the large states.-Basically, the candidates care more about the minority over the majority.-The Electoral College was meant to be a fair system, which it is not.The founding fathers didn't know that there was going to be 50 states by now. The top ten biggest states in the US won't even make up the majority of the popular vote. The reason is because there are 40 other smaller states, not just ten. So, candidates can't spend all their time in the big states. In other words, the Electoral College fails to even fulfill its purpose while the popular vote can prevent the same thing the Electoral College was made for (fairness).The Electoral College will never be a "far better" alternative. You claim it would be far better if electors could not be swayed, but understand that they can always be bribed. Everyone should know that nothing is perfect. Don't try to say that "the Electoral College is not perfect" because you are just sugarcoating the truth on how bad the electoral college is.In short, the Electoral College is a flawed and obselete system that fails its purpose. The popular vote, with today's situation, is a better system.
Electoral College

While the Electoral College is far from perfect, I would argue it is a better solution to keep our current corrupt system rather than get rid of it in exchange for an equally corrupt system with significant flaws that I've already brought up. "The Electoral College was actually made to make the voting system fair. For example, it didn't want states with higher populations to dominate the voting system. It also better represented the state. It was not made to reduce the people's power."Here we can see your claim that the electoral college was designed to make the voting system fair. The popular vote, by it's very idea and application is not fair, since a majority of 51% beats a minority of 49%. While I will not deny the Electoral College is not perfect, and it would be better if electors could not be swayed, it is by far better than the alternative.
Electoral College

The electors we have are corrupt. They are no better than the majority of the people because they too can be can be trusted. The longer politicians stay in government, the more likely they are going to be corrupt. Sure they were established to represent the people, but the only problem is that they really don't. They can easily be bribed by big companies, just like how presidents are bribed. You are pretty much saying that the electors are good people, which they are obviously not. "This argument you make about making the voting system "fair" is invalid. You are in agreement with me, since the Electoral College was made indeed to make the voting system fair, and I never argued that it didn't." -I'M arguing that the electoral college isn't fair. -The current electoral college isn't working because although it was made to be fair, it isn't even a fair system.
Electoral College

I would argue the difference between a Republic and a Democracy is a very important part of the Electoral College. Total democracy uses the popular vote, where whichever opinion is more popular is the one that gets represented. The idea that the popular opinion is the "right" one is simply untrue. Electors were established for good reason. While it might seem aristocratic, they exist to use their own judgement on who will best represent the people they represent. The electors exist because the people alone cannot always be trusted to hold all the power. This argument you make about making the voting system "fair" is invalid. You are in agreement with me, since the Electoral College was made indeed to make the voting system fair, and I never argued that it didn't.
Electoral College

-The Electoral college has nothing to do with the difference between a democracy and a republic. In a republic, you can vote for your leaders. Leaders can still be voted for by using the popular vote system. Historical democracies weren't exactly democratic since only a few educated men could vote. It was practically a republic. -The electoral college was made for states to represent the people. "The Electoral College is an important part of the American Government, and without it the tyranny of the majority would be allowed to reign supreme." -The Electoral College was actually made to make the voting system fair. For example, it didn't want states with higher populations to dominate the voting system. It also better represented the state. It was not made to reduce the people's power. -Another problem of Electoral College is that electors don't have to vote for the politicians that they are expected to vote for. -If there is a tie in the electoral vote, popular vote isn't taken in account. The house of representatives vote for the leader (Adams vs Jackson 1824). This gives the government more power. -The founding fathers were politicians, not mathematicians. They really didn't know how to make the voting system fair.