BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pro Legal Abortion

Although the Supreme Court recognizes the "fundamental right" of a woman to choose abortion as an option since the Roe v. Wade case (1) failure to acknowlege the fact that abortion is the killing of a human life is evident. Since abortion was first legalized in 1973, over 54 million unborn children have been killed, whch is equivalent to one baby every 20 seconds (2). Abortion should not be an option for anyone because life is taken away from a person without their consent. What if that life could have went on the be a doctor and save lifes? What if that life could have found the cure for cancer? All those 'what if's' will never have an answer because the lives attached to them do not get a say in whether they will die or not. Many important and prestigous people throughout history are infact babies born from rape. These people include Eartha Kitt, Frederick Douglass, John Cox and Ryan Scott Bomberger (3). If their parents had not chosen to concieve these children, the world would have been without some very important historical figures. It is not just for someone to determine if the life of someone else is worth it, even if they have never met them before. Why should a mother decide whether a child should be able to live? Would you like it if someone else was able to decided if you should live or not? Ofcourse not, because it is not fair for the child. (1) http://www.foxnews.com... (2) http://www.tfpstudentaction.org... (3) http://www.rebeccakiessling.com...
Pro Legal Abortion

Abortion should be legal because it is a women's right as a human being to choose what she wants to do with her body. The Supreme Court recognizes the "fundamental right" of a women to choose abortion as a result of the Roe v. Wade case in 1973 (1). Also, personhood starts at birth, not conception (2). In the past, fetus' have never been considered a full human being, but only a part of the mother's body until birth. (1) http://www.foxnews.com... (2) http://www.dailykos.com...#
Does Marketing help reduce healthcare costs

Yes theoretically, marketing could reduce healthcare costs However we must consider other facts. According to the forbes magazine, our payment system is a fee for service type. So if we encourage people to use the fee for service system, we are encouraging doctors to do unnecessary procedures. That is why some people are proposed paying doctors by salary. Also many people do not have health insurance forcing them to go to emergency rooms and put the costs on us. Many people abuse medicaid also putting the costs on us. I will wait for your response.
John Lennon's song "Imagine" reflects a bleak existence rather than a socialist utopia.

So my position in this round is that the song "Imagine" represents a Utopian society. You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one This plainly says that Lennon is trying to establish a perfect Utopian dream. The line "You may say that I'm a dreamer" represents this perfectly as what it establishes is that Lennon thinks that people will think his ideas to idealistic or to perfect, thus a Utopia. As for my opponents point the problem is, is that Lennon portrays not bleak existence but an existence without war. With "nothing to kill or die for" there will be no war, no conflict. Thus utopia
John Lennon's song "Imagine" reflects a bleak existence rather than a socialist utopia.

My Opponent Neglects to Put that Line into Context. he says that "Nothing to kill or die for" is very different that "No reason to kill or to die" which taken out of context it is. But If you look at its placement in the song you will find that "Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Makes the line "Nothing to kill or die for" the same as ""No reason to kill or to die." Lennon is that line is referring to his vision that national borders and religion ought to be abolished so that people will have "nothing to kill or die for" My Opponent Further contends "Man must struggle against nature, himself and his challengers in order to truly enjoy his successes. It is the contrast that life offers that gives us our awareness of the joys and pleasures of our existence." While I fully agree this does not actually have anything to do with Lennon's song. It never says in the song that people would not disagree, but that they would not be willing to kill or be killed because of their religious or territorial boundaries. That is all that is reflected in that section of the song and the only part contested by my opponent as a bleak existence. So what my opponents point has become is that killing and death is good and to abolish them would create a bleak existence. What he proposes is rather dystopian, so we have to see that Imagine actually reflects a Utopian Existence.
John Lennon's song "Imagine" reflects a bleak existence rather than a socialist utopia.

The line "Nothing to kill or die for" is very clear and specific. He could have just as easily said "No reason to kill or to die" which would have had a completely different meaning. I understand that John Lennon fully believed that his song represented a utopia but it is my contention that it was not a well thought out utopia and that is the ultimate flaw in his vision. Man must struggle against nature, himself and his challengers in order to truly enjoy his successes. It is the contrast that life offers that gives us our awareness of the joys and pleasures of our existence. John Lennon was a brilliant entertainer however he was vulnerable, as many have been, to great but flawed ideas for society.
John Lennon's song "Imagine" reflects a bleak existence rather than a socialist utopia.

"In such a world no individual would be compelled to sacrifice the time required to accomplish a dream. Contrast this with a world in which individuals feel passionate about their beliefs." Lennon's point is that the world is Utopian, however impossible to achieve, what he is describing is a world in which nobody has anything to die for because things which people usually die for are gone, achieved. lets look at the rest of the line in the song to put it in context. Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace What Lennon does with Imagine is set up an idea for a Utopian society, where we will need nothing to kill or die for. Whenever people want something really badly, some people will be willing to die for it. So what this means is that the wishes of the people have been fulfilled if there is nothing to "kill of die for" Furthermore The song does not specifically refer to individuals. If you look at the context you will find Lennon is talking about wars, not beliefs. When countries live in peace with each other nobody has to kill or die for their country. Without religion nobody has to kill or die for their religion. Thus Lennon's message in this section is actually that of peace. Extend my other arguments from last round which were: You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one This plainly says that Lennon is trying to establish a perfect Utopian dream. The line "You may say that I'm a dreamer" represents this perfectly as what it establishes is that Lennon thinks that people will think his ideas to idealistic or to perfect, thus a Utopia. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Full Song for all reading this debate: Something you should know about Imagine Lyrics Title: John Lennon - Imagine lyrics Artist: John Lennon Lyrics Visitors: 559212 visitors have hited Imagine Lyrics since May 27, 2008. i Send "Imagine" Ringtone to Mobile Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one (http://www.lyrics007.com...)
John Lennon's song "Imagine" reflects a bleak existence rather than a socialist utopia.

An existence without war is not necessarily an existence with out things for which we would be willing to die for. If all of the worlds citizens agreed on what was to be valued then war might not be a potential however the problem that is presented with Lennon's dream is that in it their exist nothing for which individuals would consider defending with even the slightest protest. It's accentually the apathetic versus the passionate. A world in which no debate or protest exists and everyone has conformed to one set of values and ideals. In such a world no individual would be compelled to sacrifice the time required to accomplish a dream. Contrast this with a world in which individuals feel passionate about their beliefs. Those passions are what inspire progress and conflict. So all of this to say; A life lived in apathy is no utopia but rather hell.
Should all white babies be aborted

I'll argue that white babies should NOT be aborted.According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, "Abort" means:" Definition of abortintransitive verb1: to bring forth stillborn, nonviable, or premature offspring2: to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary3: to terminate a procedure prematurely <the pilot decided to abort due to mechanical difficultiestransitive verb1a : to induce the abortion of or give birth to prematurelyb : to terminate the pregnancy of before term2a : to terminate prematurely : cancel <abort a project> <abort a spaceflight>b : to stop in the early stages <abort a disease>"All Pro needs to do is select one of these definitions to argue for. Burden of Proof is shared.
Science is the best explanation of us and God isn't

Although Science might not be firm enough to prove their theory of the start of the universe right, but their duty is to discover the mysteries of the world with the evidence around. And of course, science CANNOT be a god to theists. Would you say you don't believe what science has proven so far? Science is not making things up like how any other religions around the globe. Science proves what is right and what is wrong with common sense and by the evidence given by the laws of nature. I meant science overall. I thought it was obvious enough for a person to understand, but turns out its not. So in case you were wondering, science IN GENERAL no matter what subjects of science you can possibly think of. By the ways of how science brings out new discoveries with legitimate proof. Please vote for me if you believe that science can prove what is right and what is wrong; vote for me if you accept how science has brought us where we are today without God's help. Thank you.
Science is the best explanation of us and God isn't

You are correct that there is no proof of God’s existence, but then again, there is no proof that we exist either (you can’t prove this is not a dream). While I cannot prove the existence of God, I can point out that God’s divine attributes as being maker of heaven and earth is clearly seen in nature, making it rational to believe in the existence of God. I do find that there is some problems with your case, I’ll list them. (I’ll ask questions too) 1. Science is an explanation No, science is not an explanation. It’s more of a subject of study with a bunch of different scientist that have their explanations\models of the universe. And the explanations don’t even have to be right, some older models in say astronomy were geocentric. If science can be wrong, it is certainly not greater than the belief in God. 2. God cannot be scientific. I’m not an atheist, nor did I come from an atheist culture. With me I don’t have any views with science and God being incompatible. I believe in creationism, from my point of view, God and science are one. 3. Science is the BEST and ONLY explanation of how… to live a better and healthier life. Better life? I can list you things from religion that can make your life better that science does not teach. I know not of any science that teaches you Why adultery is stupid. To honor your father and mother. Quit cussing. To control your lusts. Love God I know not of how disbelieving in God will make your life any better than one who believes. 4. What science do you speak of? In the first paragraph you were speaking of is natural science, sciences that rely on natural information and philosophy. Yet you list these kinds of science to making your life better, and healthier. I know not of any natural science that does this. Believing that you evolved from a rock isn’t going to make your life better, or healthier. Let me explain it from medical science, when someone comes into the hospital with a bullet in his chest the doctors don’t really sit down and have a peer reviewed discussion about how the natural processes uniformly formed a bullet in his chest over millions of years, They probably think that it came from a gun. Most sciences makes little to no use of naturalism. There’s business science, computer science, formal science, social sciences, etc. 5. What explanation of science do you speak of? When you say “Science is the best explanation”. Seriously, what scientific explanation is better than God?
Science is the best explanation of us and God isn't

As an atheist, and with the people that do not believe in God, we think that science to any extent is the best explanation of what we came from, how we grow and what we should or should not do. Science brings us the best, natural information by what is given from nature. Science respects the laws of nature therefore obeys the laws of nature. We do make up theories like any other religions. For every religions out there, God is defined as the ruler of the universe and source of all moral authorities OR a superhuman or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes. Without ANY prove of God's existence, we atheists do not believe that God anyhow should be ONE of the explanations of us. Science is developed for us to know how we should live a better and healthier life by the empirical evidence that people in the past have overcome. And therefore we learn from these lessons or "mistakes" and live a better life. That is why, as a conclusion, Science is the BEST and ONLY explanation of how we came, how we should live and how to live a better and healthier life. That's my perspective and how I see science. Thank you for reading.
Fiats are better than Toyotas

Toyotas are much better than fiats. If someone gave me a Toyota, I could drive it around, take my friends and family places, and go where I want to go. Heck, I could probably sell it for a lot of money too, which would be very useful.If someone gave me a fiat, then then I would be forced to do what they said, or potentially face some consequences. I wouldn't have any say in the matter, which is not fun at all.Comparing the two, Toyotas are much better than fiats.
We should military help in Syria

Intervening in Syria would be a terrible idea. Why would we help the rebels who are just as bad as Assads Government? The people don't want a strike, Russia might come to Syria's aid. "He's used chemical weapons" Seems like the rebels have been using them to me. Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack http://www.mintpressnews.com... SYRIA Jihadist Admits To Having & Using Toxic Gas http://www.youtube.com... UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin' http://www.bbc.co.uk... Russia: Syria has 'material evidence' that rebels used chemical weapons http://www.globalpost.com... Syrian soldiers enter rebel tunnels, find chemical agents: http://www.reuters.com... The rebels have violated human rights Beheadings by Syrian Rebels Add to Atrocities, UN Says http://www.bloomberg.com... Syria rebels 'beheaded a Christian and fed him to the dogs' as fears grow over Islamist atrocities http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Dozens of Shiites Reported Killed in Raid by Syria Rebels http://mobile.nytimes.com... The Syrian rebels are allied with terrisot groups Al-Nusra Commits to al-Qaida, Deny Iraq Branch 'Merger' http://www.naharnet.com... A Full Extremist-To-Moderate Spectrum Of The 100,000 Syrian Rebels http://www.businessinsider.com.au... Jihad in syria http://www.understandingwar.org... A strike would cost billions US military strike on Syria will cost taxpayers billions http://www.presstv.com... The people are against a strike CNN poll: Public against Syria strike resolution http://edition.cnn.com... Most in U.S. oppose Syria strike, Post-ABC poll finds http://www.washingtonpost.com... British Parliament Votes Against Military Intervention In Syria http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Obama: "I understand" American people aren't with me on Syria strike http://www.cbsnews.com... Russia would come to Syria's aid if US or her strike Putin warns Russia could come to Syria's aid over US strike http://www.foxnews.com...
Evolution is more probable than Intelligent Design

First I would like to address the BOP statement made by Pro. Unless otherwise specified BOP lies on Pro. If Pro wishes to share BOP or place it on CON, he/she should have specified from the beginning. This is once again poor conduct by Pro for not properly framing the debate. I hate to bring this up in the conclusion, but it is in response to a point of his final argument. Pro failed to show evidence that life has been created from non-living matter. Pro failed to show that show how natural selection creates variation. This point was dropped in the conclusion and has been accepted by Pro. Pro also failed to address the circular cause and consequence fallacy. Pro's argument is a moving target. Since this point was dropped it has been accepted by Pro. Pro failed his burden to properly frame the debate. This point was dropped and has been accepted by Pro. The resolution states that evolution is more likely than intelligent design. BOP lies on Pro who failed to show any evidence that evolution is more likely than intelligent design. His argument had no solvency and he dropped all but one point. Therefore Pro has lost the debate.
Evolution is more probable than Intelligent Design

CLOSING STATEMENTSMy partner has failed to meet his BoP to prove intellegent design. He hasn't given an iota of evidence in support for his proposition and has botched what evolution actually states versus what he thinks it states. As for my partner's argument that we have observed no cases of life from non life:Organic molecules were synthesized from inorganic compounds in the atmosphere — the "primeval soup" theory; rained down on earth from outer space; were synthesized at hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. . http://users.rcn.com...Amino acids are the building blocks of life. Likewise, to argue that "we don't know how life got here therefore god" is an appeal to ignorance - or as I like to call it - the God of the gaps.
Evolution is more probable than Intelligent Design

Pro states, "The fact is evolution explains the diversity of life." This is a circular cause and consequence fallacy, where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. Pro states in round 3 that one of the condition required for natural selection is, "Organisms vary in their characteristics, even within a species". Because Pro himself accepts this statement, it flows to Con. Pro also states that because we can create amino acids, therefore we can create life. This is a hasty generalization. a)amino acids are not living matter. b)we have never observe the creation of life from non-living matter If it's never been observed and cannot be replicated then it cannot be considered scientific evidence. A vote for Con. Pro failed his burden of properly framing a debate clarifying terms properly when asked to do so(a dropped point). A voter for Con Pro's argument is a moving target (a dropped argument), which is also a voter for Con. I urge a strong Con vote.
Evolution is more probable than Intelligent Design

A quick road map. Before jumping into my argument. First I would like to address my opponents argument as a whole, then address each contention. I will also give evidence for ID. I would like to point out that Pro's argument is a moving target, which is poor conduct and a sign of a flawed argument. 1. The resolution is Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. If life arose via Intelligent Design, Evolution can still happen. But if life arose via Evolution, Intelligent Design cannot be true. Because the resolution is ID vs. Evolution, we must assume a scenario in which the two are conflicting. Thus in the context of the resolution this debate is about the origin of life. Pro now states it is not, thus his argument is a moving target. 2. I asked for clarification in my opening statement, specifically saying , "Pro must give scientific evidence that life arose via natural means of evolution" Clarification was never given, also poor conduct. Because my statement was never corrected, I was left to assume it was correct. Pro stated two rounds later that "Evolution does not explain how life got on earth" This is a blatant and obvious moving target. Unfortunately Pro has given no evidence for the origin of life via Evolution, so he has already lost the debate. At any rate, I will also show that his new argument about the diversity of life is incorrect. 1. Pro states "Con states that it is impossible for natural selection to account for variations in species. This is wrong. Let's say that the green beetle migrates and is better adapted than the brown beetle in that environment. Consequently, they will each converge to make a variation within their species. Within time, specietation may occur. " Unfortunately, no variation is created. At the beginning of the scenario, we have both green and brown beetles. At the end of the scenario, we still have green and brown beetles. The amount of diversity has not changed. I'm afraid Pro is confusing diversity with some other term. 2. I already demonstrated in round two that variation is required for natural selection. Here is a refresher of my source which states variation is the first pre-requisite for natural selection. . http://www.globalchange.umich.edu... If variation (diversity), is required for natural selection, it must exist before natural selection can occur. If variation exists before evolution, evolution CANNOT be responsible for variation. I think we can plainly see life cannot arise by natural means. Therefore we must conclude life must arise from super-natural means. We also know order cannot arise from random naturally. Therefore such exquisite order exhibited in nature must be a product of intelligent design. So in conclusion, evolution requires diversity and therefore cannot be responsible for diversity. Also, Pro's argument is a huge moving target.