BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

AND WE'RE BACK ON THE ROAD AGAIN! Lemme start with a question to you: did you know fetuses, or unborn babies, can feel? They have feelings, both physical and mental. Before considering abortion, consider this: your baby, who has the potential for greatness, is in terrible pain as you slowly kill it. That's basic manslaughter and torture. I don't care what you think. It is scientifically proven that fetuses can move, breathe, and even think on their own, and most of their senses are developed. Kelisitaan, when I first debated you, I thought you were a confused soul, searching for answers. And while I have no proof or definite grounds, my theory is as follows: you are a prideful person, craving victory in debate and attempting to force people into your view. You give people that view. And it doesn't help that you are an atheist. Atheists are generally uncaring about life, and believe that there is no life after death. Therefore, who cares if another helpless soul dies, right? NO! Anyway, back to the topic. Abortion is lethal because it kills unborn babies, it damages the mother physically, and it creates rifts in marriages. Surveys prove that the average suicide happens after an abortion, for both men and women. Women who survive abortion generally die young, and divorce their spouses quite early. My grounds are stable, and I would like too see you take your shot at me. I have done endless research, compiled surveys, theories, and facts. And what I found is this: Abortion only benefits the doctors performing it by bringing in money. All others involved are devastatingly hurt. Your time has come to accept the cons of abortion and forfeit. If you don't, don't worry, I'll keep coming back. You can't stop me. You never will. Abortion is evil. And the more you attack me, the harder I will come back. Defeat is not an option for me, only for you. Oh yeah, and if your mom aborted you, we wouldn't be here doing this. And you would not be here.
Reverse-Racism is a serious problem in America today

That is not your argument, you copy and pasted an article titled "Why there's no such thing as reverse racism." I would like to say, however, that the argument is based around the statement that it is a serious problem. I would like to point out that racism at all, on either side, is a serious problem. I would also like to point out that while there may be much less of an opportunity for blacks to discriminate against whites (in a way that actually affects their physical well being) there is as much, if not more of an opportunity for whites to be discriminated against in an accusatory sense. Essentially, whites are now heavily scrutinized for what they say and how they act. Because racism was such a powerful tool throughout our history, and because its so frowned upon in contemporary society, whites are under a microscope across the nation. I think racism is something that should be completely flushed out of our lives, but in order for this to happen the accusations of racism as a tool of suppression need to be stopped. While whites are still the gross majority in positions of power through the country, it is still outright ridiculous how flippantly the word "racist" is thrown around. The word holds the power permanently brand someone with a set of values they may not even slightly hold. Granted, the N word is much worse, but if its even uttered seriously coming from a mouth that would be subject to racist thoughts and opinions, they would be stripped of their position and have their reputation completely destroyed. Look at all the CEOs and businessmen that have been fired and taken out of power simply because they accidentally slipped a racist word or thought. Actions speak louder than words, but in today's society you could be the most progressive acting person in the world, you could constantly work to insure equality, but as soon as any hint that your feelings may not back how you act and you'll immediately have your reputation ruined, and that is wrong. The point being that regardless of what a person thinks, how they act determines who they are. This is a fact people don't really grasp, and is the root of reverse racism. Because of this, people who could be accused of being racist (whites mainly) aren't allowed to speak and act freely because any accusation destroys their reputation and place in the world. The racism does not restrict them in a physical sense, it will rarely lead to lesser pay or a failed job interview, but it affects them in a mental sense in that they constantly have to watch what they say and how they act. If I was in a powerful position I would never hire based on race. But if someone accused me of hiring because of race I am permanently branded racist provided I'm white. This is wrong and is the main repercussion of reverse racism. The argument you posted ignores this fact because it only takes into account the physical harm caused by racism, not the emotional or mental harm.
Reverse-Racism is a serious problem in America today

After the civil rights movement, different groups that were traditionally marginalized (women, African Americans... etc.) began to achieve rights throughout the United States. While I agree that everyone, no matter what color, creed, sexual orientation or gender deserves rights, I would also like to point out that because of the suppression of the two groups mentioned above, hypersensitivity to the issue has resulted. Today, ethnically diverse groups are able to enter traditionally difficult colleges with much more easily than whites, they are given typically given extra help in school in order to account for the perceived "slow-start" they've gotten throughout history, and white people have to watch what they say around these groups for fear of being immediately labeled a "racist" or a "bigot." This is detrimental to our collective growth because it; A. takes the issue of race and it makes people hyper-aware of it. B. Destroys our ability to make as much progress as possible throughout the workplace, and C. Ruins reputations of respectable people by allow for flippant accusations that are rarely ignored. To expand on my first point (A), I would like to point out that by drawing attention to an issue, it is possible to inflate it past what it would normally be capable of. Look at the feminist movement--which means, by definition, to simply be in favor of women's rights--but because of third wave feminism there has been a resurgence in true sexism across the country. Now, when you ask someone on the street to characterize a feminist, they'll say something like "a bossy lesbian" or a "pushy woman." Feminism was instrumental to the expansion of equal rights, but now that there is much less injustice with just as much effort on the feminist front, the movement has received a horrible reputation. Because of this, by catering more to one race (in this case to those that were formally marginalized) it creates resentment on the other side, but because of things like affirmative action and the hyper-sensitivity to race, it takes a white persons ability to speak out against the repression away. B. If a white person is more qualified than an African American, the African American still have a shot at getting the job, while if the situation was reversed the white would have no chance. This destroys our ability to make the most possible progress in the workplace because it takes an employers ability to select the most qualified group away. C. The third argument is that whites have to watch what they say now and are more easily branded as "privileged and undeserving."
I miss Lil Uzi Vert

Lil Uzi Vert's personality was one of a kind. With his fashion sense, The shoulder roll, And his likings in music, He added a little spice to the rap game. XO TOUR LIF3 is one of the OG/Most popular Emo rap songs ever. Despite the satanist stuff and the telling his fans they're going to hell, He was truly one of a kind. He got screwed over by his record label, And that's awful. His career shouldn't have gone out like this.
I miss Lil Uzi Vert

I don't miss Lil Uzi Vert as in the sense of, "Oh he's gone forever and we're never gonna see him again" way. I just wish he would continue bringing in music and drop Eternal Awake at the very least. Plus, You don't have to be a close personal friend of someone to miss them even if they only retired. And his career is now dead, Apparently.
I miss Lil Uzi Vert

I enjoy listening to music and admire talented musicianship. Though it is always the music itself rather than the artist that I find truly inspirational. For this reason I am very selective and prefer to listen to individual pieces of music from a wide variety of musicians. I certainly have never felt the need to be over-devotional towards a specific individual. Technology allows us to replay and review, So even if an artist does not record or perform any longer, The images and sounds that we found inspirational are still readily available to us. Therefore there should be no reason for Pro not to be listening to and watching the sounds and performances of Lil Uzi Vert that they once found so truly inspirational. Quite often it is the case that a performers fall from grace and popularity is concurrent with a decline in the quality of their musical output. So maybe we have already seen and heard the best of Lil Uzi Vert and I'm sure there will soon be a new kid on the block capable of filling Uzi's shoes and firing Pro's imagination once again. I would suggest that unless Pro was a really close friend or relative of Symere Woods then there is no real reason for Pro to be to missing him.
Abortion is morally acceptable

Right, I'll start off by voicing my argument. Premise 1: A human foetus is human Premise 2: Life is a human right Premise 3: Life has intrinsic value Premise 4: It is immoral to destroy that which has intrinsic value and to negate human rights Premise 5: Abortion is the removal of the foetus's life Conclusion: Abortion is immoral. Premise 1 is analytically correct by virtue of it being a human foetus. I justify calling them human as they have a unique set of human DNA. Also, one cannot change species, so if a foetus will grow into an adult human, it must therefore be a human foetus, a human baby and a human child along the way. Premise 2 is Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org...). Premise 3 is an ethical statement and so must look to ethical theories for verification. A rule utilitarian would state that a rule of 'hold human life to be intrinsically valuable' would lead to more happiness and less unhappiness than the lack of such a rule. A Kantian deontologist would also uphold the intrinsic valuing of human life as a categorical imperative. This is because if we held human life to only hold instrumental value then society would collapse. Therefore it is moral to value human life intrinsically. According to J.S Mill"s Harm Principle, one only has freedom up to the point that their actions harm others. As abortion harms foetuses, one does not have the freedom to have an abortion. Finally, the Golden Rule of "do onto others as you would have them do onto you" would forbid abortion to anyone who values their current life and therefore grateful that their parents did not abort them. Premise 4 is another ethical statement. To consider whether it is immoral to destroy that which has intrinsic value I could return to rule utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, the Harm Principle and the Golden Rule to verify that it is indeed immoral to destroy things that have intrinsic value. If it was not immoral, such things would cease to have intrinsic value. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explains that it is immoral to negate human rights by saying: "[D]isregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind". Premise 5 is obvious, as any medical practitioner will inform you that a foetus is killed in the abortion procedure, for more information on this, see http://www.nhs.uk... The conclusion then follows the verification of the premises, that abortion is immoral.
Resolved: Debate.org should start its own Space Program

RIP Doggybag aka Douchebag <3Debate is now open to the public, except for Blade-of-truth, who spammed the comments section and will automatically lose the debate if he accepts. 1) We have the money to fund such a programSpace programs aint cheap, I know. The one im running in Kerbal Space Program and I cant even crash into an asteroid and kill 3 kerbals without blowing 200k on the mission. But here at DDO, we can all pool together our resources and be able to fund a very successful space program: http://www.debate.org...If you scroll down to the second mini-graph on the left hand side, you will see a chart illustrating how over 14% of people on this site has an income of over $150,000 a year. Assuming these people are being truthful about their income (because seriously, who would go on the internet just to tell lies?) then that would mean that with a user base of over 280,000 people....280,000 x 0.14 = 39,200 users whose income is > $150,000 a year39,200 x 150,000 = $5,880,000,000 Thats a yearly budget of 6 BILLION dollars! If we tap into people making just UNDER $150,000 a year, we could easily match the budget that NASA themselves receive every year!https://en.wikipedia.org...DDO therefore clearly has the financial means to fund a space program. 2) Technological gains from the space program will be worth itImagine using the space program to be able to discover new technologies and launch satellites.... We could build a whole new internet just for DDO so that it never lags or gets weighed down by all of the spamming that Lee and Joey do in he forums!.... We could lay the footwork for DDO's own spy satellite program so that we could snipe spambots from space using giant space lasers! Or snipe trolls in the poll section using giant space lasers!Plus, imagine what DDO could do with a DEATH STAR! Need I say more? I probably should, but I shant. 3) Colonization of other sites/planets. Having a functioning space program is critical to being able to settle new worlds and new places far away from home. Imagine being able to start an entirely new site, where only the best and brightest debaters from DDO travel to to start a new debate site? Imagine Edeb8 except it actually was cool and full of smart people and not just people who were washed out of DDO who have me on their sh** list. Our home planet of DDO is becoming overpopulated, polluted, overcrowded, and insert nefarious sounding 4th adjective here. A functioning space program will allow DDOers to be able to take those first bold steps where no person on d
China would have been better off under the Guomindang

Thanks to Pro for challenging me to this debate. Given that this is the first round, I’ll start off with a signel short arguments, and proceed with larger arguments along with rebuttals in the next round. Arg 1: China was still unstable before the communists Shortly after the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty, power shifted to a provisional government. Power switched hands between the Guomingdang and later Yuan Shikai, whom took the term for “President for Life” and later banned the Guomingdang. After Shikai’s short-lived term China disintegrated into warlordism [2]. By 1925, China had balkanized toan extent not seen since the Warring states period. As seen below: s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="" width="600" height="460" /> [3] By 1945 when the Japanese surrendered, China was devastated by civil war, warlordism, and a series of famines which killed up to 3.5 million people in Northern China alone. This barely accounts for the devastation the coastal regions of China faced during WW2. In short, the country was in shambles after WW2. [4] As mentioned previously, the Guomingdang was barely capable of maintaing power before WW2 and they had already lost power before the Communist Party even rose to power in the first place. Hence, after WW2, when China was in an even worst state than they were before the Japanese , the Guomingdang would not have been able to effectively consolidate power. When China was in compairovly better conidition after the overthrow of the Qing in 1911, Sun Yat Sen was still unable to stabilize China. Hence, it would have been unlikely for him to have been able to stabilize China when under worse conditions. Sources: 1. 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. https://upload.wikimedia.org... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org...
China would have been better off under the Guomindang

In this debate, I will be arguing that mainland China would have been better off than it is today, which is if the Kuomintang (Guomindang) won the civil war and the Republic of China had goverened Mainland China.UtherPenguin will be arguing in favor of China being best off under the People's Republic of China with the Communist Party winning the civil war.RulesStructureRound 1: acceptance and Con's initial argumentRound 2: My initial argument and rebuttals/additional arguments from ConRounds 3-4: Anything elseNo saving arguments until last roundNo trollingetc.
Abortion

"I am pro choice for abortions. Which is a termination of pregnancy during a time period less that 27 weeks. I personally have a reverence for life. That is why I say 27 weeks. On the 28th week we are now talking baby viability." According to thefreedictionary.com Viability is Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.Why does Viability make you human? It doesn't what makes you human is your human DNA which you have at the moment of conception. "But before that time this potential for life is an zygote and then embryo, non-human."I explained how even if the baby isn't viable yet that it is still living and still made of Human DNA making it human. "Looking back at your Article for human rights. Take at look at Article 1, it states all humans are BORN equal in dignity and rights. But this embryo is not BORN yet, so therefore has no rights, therefore its not considered human by law"One, it does not say only those born have rights, but if you follow your reasoning here which is you have no rights until you are born then abortion after viability should be legal. Two, it basically says "you are born with the rights" not "you have these rights because you were born". Three, it also says at the beginning "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world," As I stated before they are human and they do deserve rights."My point I am trying to make in supporting pro choice is that there is a middle ground. We always have two extremes."Middle ground logical fallacy which is "You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth." What you call extreme I call protecting life. That is not extreme."The liberals are irrational and thoughtlessness in their values; its a women's choice, its her body. And then the conservatives state inconsistency by saying abortion is homicide unless its rape or incest. And that person-hood begins at the point of conception."I never claimed to have exceptions for rape or incest. In fact, I don't have those exceptions because they are still human and still entitled to their right to life."There is no right or wrong here. Its a choice, and the only one who can take into account the situation at hand, is the female who is pregnant."There is right and wrong. It is wrong to kill humans. It is a choice and people will still try to abort babies even if abortion is outlawed, but those choices can still be wrong.Sources: http://www.un.org...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...;
Abortion

I can hear what you are saying. But I want be clear. I am pro choice for abortions. Which is a termination of pregnancy during a time period less that 27 weeks. I personally have a reverence for life. That is why I say 27 weeks. On the 28th week we are now talking baby viability. But before that time this potential for life is an zygote and then embryo, non-human. Looking back at your Article for human rights. Take at look at Article 1, it states all humans are BORN equal in dignity and rights. But this embryo is not BORN yet, so therefore has no rights, therefore its not considered human by law. My point I am trying to make in supporting pro choice is that there is a middle ground. We always have two extremes. The liberals are irrational and thoughtlessness in their values; its a women's choice, its her body. And then the conservatives state inconsistency by saying abortion is homicide unless its rape or incest. And that person-hood begins at the point of conception. There is no right or wrong here. Its a choice, and the only one who can take into account the situation at hand, is the female who is pregnant.
Abortion

I accept your challenge."You mentioned babies in the womb are human beings. They aren't. They are called a zygote. technically not even a fetus until 10 weeks. Their technically not humans in that state."According to thefreedictionary.com human is defined as "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens." Since a zygote is a single living cell with DNA we can look at this DNA to see if it is Human. If you were to take the DNA from that living zygote and give it to a scientist asking "what species did this DNA come from?" undoubtedly they would say Human, and as a Human they are guaranteed certain rights by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights like article 3 were it states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Therefore, aborting a baby even before it is 10 weeks old is still killing another human against their right.Sources:http://www.thefreedictionary.com...http://www.un.org...;
Abortion

Thank you for your response. "you state. Well why is it wrong to to get rid of this DNA, but getting rid of sperm (Human DNA) is wrong? If the potential for life lies in DNA then everyone who ejaculates is aborting a human. ""Sperm and egg cells in themselves are not complete. If left alone they will die after a few days, never developing into anything other than what they are. The sperm shares the genetic code of the man, the egg shares the genetic code of the woman. It is only in combination, when the 23 chromosomes from the father join the 23 chromosomes from the mother, through fertilization, that a new, biologically distinct human beings comes into existence. This one fertilized cell, in fact, contains all the information necessary for a lifetime of human growth. " Since they do not contain the 46 chromosomes like every human being it is therefore not human. "Being in the middle is the right state of mind. People who are completely for abortions are one extreme and people against it are another. With knowledge is where we empower the people. " This is still a logical fallacy since you still assert the middle is right because it is between two extremes. "So where you state there is a wrong. Wrong is simply a feeling supported by ethical guidelines determined by the society you live in. If the person aborting the child is ok with their decision and is not causing harm, emotionally or physically to someone, then stated simply it is right. "One, I have shown it does cause harm since it ends a human life; Murder is considered harm. Two, your definition of ethics of as long as it does not emotional or physical harm is too vague. People can experience emotional stress/harm for many things like giving a presentation, would making someone give a presentation be immoral? Sources. http://www.abort73.com...https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... My opponent provided no sources for any of his claims, and insisted on using logical fallacies.