BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Depending on the stage, a "fetus" can be removed as just a few cells. I don't think that a cluster of cells feel pain. Yes, it might hurt the fetus if it is a later stage, but would in some cases save it from months or years or torture. One example: A woman is given an ultrasound and finds that her baby has a horrible disease that will cause it to go through months or years of pain depending on how long it lives. Think of children that have such severe mental or physical disabilities that they would never aspire to anything in live. It is the merciful thing to abort them, Example 2: A woman is raped, and finds out she is pregnant. What if she is also young? 17? 16? younger? Should she really have to be harassed for 9 months and then have to give birth and raise a child that has an unknown father or the father is in jail,not supporting it? That's not fair to the mother, child, or family. There is also the Donahue-Levitt hypothesis, a theory that shows that legalised abortion is linked to lower crime rates. explained here:http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion

First of all, do not bring God into this. God has nothing to do with this. Who's to say if Buddha has the right to take a baby away? Or Muhammad? You could even argue Ra, the ancient Egyptian sun god. So no higher being decides weather to take a life or spare it. No you would not kill a person if they are sick. I mean a permanent serious birth defect. Like if someone was born with a serious physical or mental disease and could only live for a year. That baby would have to suffer for a year, as opposed to the few moments it would take to abort it. Example 2: It doesn't matter who's fault it is. You fail to rebuttal the idea of harassment and pain a young woman would have to go through during and after those 9 months of pregnancy. The father would not be there to support it at all. The mother might not even know who the father is. Abortion is not meant for lazy doctors who don't want to take care of the baby, as you stated in you last argument. Secondly I do not believe "vegeated" is a word, so I am not going to refute that sentence as a I fail to see what you are trying to convey. CON has failed to produce solid arguments, and only had one in the beginning. CON also did not rebuttal all of my points and postings. Therefore I may declare that I have won this debate, however the vote goes to the users.
Abortion

Example 1: If the baby has a diseise it is God who needs to decide when to take it or when to let it off. If someone is sick who is already on the earth you dont just kill them do you? Example 2: If a women is raped it is the mans fault. Not the fault of the child produced therefore should not be punished for another mans crime. Whether a fetus can feel pain or not, its still murder. Somebody in a vegeated state cant talk or dosnt have any brain activity and couldn't feel pain. Should the be killed just cause the doctor dont feel like taking care of them?
Trump is prepared to be president

Trump is a successful businessman, he know how the economy works, how to manage money, and how to manage large groups of people. Based on his policies, both social and economic, the living standards of the middle class and Americans in general would improve greatly. His taxes are some of the lowest since Ronald Reagan, which allows for people and businesses to flourish, the wall would increase border security making us safer. Although many people think this is a bad trait, he is brutally honest, this would mean great government transparency. He is also very tough and stubborn which would mean America gets the best from international affairs, his business skill would also contribute to good trade deals. Because he isn't a politician but has been very much involved in politics, he knows how the system works, but he also is clean and uncorrupted. His sense of nationalism is contagious which a great nationalist country would make everyone more motivated and generally happier.
University education should be free.

A unique topic by pro is presented here. Though I am not even in high school yet, I believe I have enough to formulate a reasonable opinion regarding this topic. Henceforth, I negate the resolution that University Education should be free. Since no definitions were presented by pro in the first round, the definitions are open. Below are the definitions to be used for this debate. University Education: A school/university that grants degrees. College. Free: Free of pay; not having to pay money for. ==Framework==Since the resolution lacks clarity, I assume that the instigator suggests all university education should be free. I also assume my opponent means an absolutely free education, which would exclude working on campus to pay off cost. This would also mean that the tuition is free, as is all cost of materials, classes, etc. I will be arguing against a completely free university education. Due to the nature of this debate, we can establish that the BoP is shared. Whoever meets their BoP better will win the debate. To specify, the BoP both con and pro must meet are depicted below. Pro's BoP:That University Education should be Free. Con's BoP: That University Education should not be Free. With all that said, I eagerly look forward to my opponent's opening case, and I hope for a good debate! I accept.
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent

Hello this is an ld debate so another ld debater would be great but if not that's ok. First off I want to clarify some definitions: All definitions are from www.thefreedictionary.com. morï¿½al (mï¿½rl, mr-) adj. 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary. 2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson. 3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. 4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation. 5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support. 6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty. n. 1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event. 2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim. 3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals perï¿½misï¿½siï¿½ble (pr-ms-bl) adj. Permitted; allowable: permissible tax deductions; permissible behavior in school. Permissible: that may be permitted. Therefore, morally permissible means that it is not forbidden to do a certain act, according to moral principles. Ok now that that's over lets get started. Topic Analysis: The way I see it this debate is bauot whether or not killing is moral. A simple version is would you be ok with killing someone. 1st argument: Killing anyone will never be moral no matter how you look at it. Killing can never be justified nor ok. Even if it is the right thing to do it isn't moral. Most of us probably would kill that 1 person but that doesn't make ok or moral. 2nd argument: To say that killing someone to save more people is morally permissible is devaluing life. A price can never be put on life, so killing 1 to save 2 or more is still not right. Thank you for listening and thanks to anyone who accepts.
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent

Man my computers been on the fritz and I haven't been able to track how much time was left on my debates there's no way I would forfeit this debate. To makeup for the accidental and unwanted forfeit of round two I'll just argue points from both two and three. Round two: You said "For something to be moral it doesn't have to be right." But how you discern right and wrong is based on your morals. Your fourth definition for moral states this "Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong" Also everyone has a different set of morals which means a different view on how valuable life is. So how can you say something is immoral when morals change from person to person. "Just because turning him over is right that doesn't mean it is moral. His life is in your hands and if he dies it is your moral responsibility." So are you saying you would turn him over? Since what you're basically saying is that you don't use your morals to judge right and wrong what do you use?(you can use the comment area to answer that because I really want to know) And you are correct when you say that it is your moral responsibility. It's your moral responsibility to save as many people as possible. "Killing is never moral, ever" So you're saying that if someone is trying to kill you or someone else and the only way to save your or another's life is to kill the person you should let them kill you. Round 3: Unfortunately my opponent underestimated me and automatically assumed I had resigned from the debate and did not post a last round. So I guess it's time for my finishing statement. Killing is moral if there is a good reason behind it like being able to save more lives. Whether or not you want to believe it we are not all created equal but your worth is constantly changing depending on the situation. To not save as many lives as possible is even if it means the sacrifice of one is immoral. To put your need to feel good about not causing someone's death when causing it would save more lives is immoral. Now I urge you to vote pro because I doubt many of you would say much different could you really say you would let 10 people die even if you could save them by killing one other? Random_Man out!!!!!!!!
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many innocent

Ok first you are suppose to post your points so I can rebut them, but since you obviously are new or inexperienced I will go ahead and rubut your rebuttals? 1st: For something to be moral it doesn't have to be right. Killing is never moral, ever. The question is whether it is moral not right which are two different things. 2nd: Just because turning him over is right that doesn't mean it is moral. His life is in your hands and if he dies it is your moral responsibility. So Random_Man thank you for accepting and this round post your points.
Jesucristo es el Hijo de Dios y es Dios, Creador de Cielo y Tierra.

Los cristianos creemos que la Biblia es la Palabra de Dios. Jesús confirmó la autoridad del Antiguo Testamento, los 39 libros aceptados como autoridad para los judíos -para ellos 24, pero son los mismos: La Tanaj-, cuando hablaba de "Las Escrituras" (Mat 21:42;Mat 22:49;Mat 26:54; Jn 5:39). Habló de Moisés ("la Ley"), de los profetas Jonás, Malaquías, Oseas, Isaías, Jeremías, Daniel, Zacarías, cita varios de los salmos al igual que historias narradas en los libros de Crónicas, Reyes y Samuel. Explicó durante su ministerio -por estas Escrituras-, cómo habría de venir el Reino de los Cielos, cómo es, quién es Él, cómo los profetas hablaron de Él, cómo habría de morir y resucitar. Resucitó 3 días después de ser sepultado. Su resurrección es la falsedad mas grande de la historia o el hecho mas importante de la humanidad, no hay intermedios. Pero si es cierto, cosa que habremos de comprobar, entonces Él es quien dijo ser y la Biblia es la Palabra del Dios Verdadero, por tanto, es Verdad.
Objective Morals vs. Subjective Morals

I take that Morals are Objective. People know right from wrong regardless of where they come from or what their culture says. As Creator, God has placed not only natural laws in the earth but also spiritual laws(objective). For instance, lying is wrong everywhere. So is stealing. Cruelty to children is wrong regardless of what culture you're in or country you're from. When these laws are broken. Not only does violating these spiritual laws separate us from God, but it causes pain in our lives and in the lives of those around us. Within every human is a desire for God. We sometimes attempt to satisfy this "hunger" by practicing a religion. Atheism, in all its railings against God, also has intrinsic beliefs, dogmas, and tenets that supposedly can't be challenged. It is itself a belief system with all the markings of a religion. Since we know there are moral absolutes, there has to be a moral law giver. That moral law giver has to be God. Subjective Morals (Relativism) can't compete on the same ground with Objective Morals. To me, this is a great example that there is a God, due to the Moral Law we have. Good luck.
Objective Morals vs. Subjective Morals

It seems to me that you're arguing that a Christian point of view is an undeniable, default world view. Why is rape wrong? Because it's physically violating another human being. But hold on, even as recent as World War II, women were seen as spoils of war and rape was simply seen as a part of war. Why is murder wrong? Because no one has the right to end another human being's life. But wait a second, many countries still have capital punishment, which is effectively just state-sanctioned murder. That means that some people agree that murder is right in the right circumstances. Why is theft wrong? Because ownership is a concept we coined thousands of years ago. Ownership doesn't work if someone can simply take things from you. But once again, some cultures don't value the concept of ownership, such as the Gypsies. Therefore, to them, stealing isn't seen as wrong. Why is child abuse wrong? Because it's the exploitation of someone that can't fend for themselves, but that didn't stop us from sending them into factories a few hundred years ago. These four things you constantly mention are considered wrong by most of today's society, but throughout certain points of history, to certain people, they all definitely haven't been considered wrong. You bring up Nazi Germany again. I guarantee you that if Nazi Germany had conquered all of humanity, after a while we'd all look back on some of the things they did during the war and would think of them as good things rather than bad things. Killing/slavery/child abuse/theft are all wrong as long as we, as a society, believe they are wrong. We believe they are wrong because they are detrimental to society, plus we have a little thing called empathy which helps us along the way. As to your final point, once again, it seems that you're arguing from a Christian world view. Large parts of humanity do believe that gay marriage is wrong, but there are also plenty of people who believe there is nothing wrong with it. And earlier you mentioned the natural law, so here's some natural law for you. http://www.bbc.com... Yes, that's right. There are plenty of animals which display homosexual behavior which leads me to believe that homosexuality must be natural. Therefore, homosexuality, along with heterosexuality, must be right! And you cannot possibly compare homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. There is absolutely nothing linking them together. But that's no what we're arguing. We're arguing whether or not everyone knows right from wrong. Well, here's a good starting example. You believe homosexuality is wrong? Well, I believe it's right, just as I believe bisexuality and heterosexuality are right. Maybe we just have different opinions? Or maybe I'm a criminal who is breaking the "natural law of the universe". Hey, and thanks for keeping it short. Fire away.
Objective Morals vs. Subjective Morals

Why is rape wrong? Why is murder wrong? Why is theft wrong? Why is child abuse wrong? Regardless of what your country says these actions will always be wrong. If Nazi Germany would've won WW2 killing innocent people would still be wrong. Just like here in America, slavery was wrong, regardless of whether or not the south (culture) said so. Even being gay is wrong. Sexual marriage will do nothing but harm our country. Hey, if gay marriage does become legal in all states... Let's legalize where men and women can marry children. Let's legalize where it's legal to marry animals. Why not? For the most part, regardless where you live, people know right from wrong.
Accept if you Dare #4: Resolved: Mortal Kombat Fatalities are too brutal.

I will first highlight that my opponent has burden of proof in affirming his case; regardless I will now proffer my own case. OpeningMy opening arguments will be short. I fully agree that Mortal Kombat Fatalities are very brutal. .. the question is are they TOO brutal? Here PRO's argument falls apart, as he has defined "too brutal" to mean "brutal beyond what is desirable or fitting. "Is there a demand for brutal video games? Absolutely. While I may consider such brutality to be excessive to my own tastes, I fully acknowledge that there is a tremendous desire in the marketplace for these kind of games. God of War for example involves a protagonist (about as anti-hero a protagonist as you can get) who, when battling Hercules, pummels him to the point where he is unrecognizable in what has become one of the most brutal scenes ever created in any visual media (). God of War is one of the most highly acclaimed titles to have ever been released in the history of video games, earning an endless stream of "Game of the Year" accolades (. http://www.webcitation.org...), near-perfect ratings from what constitutes video game critics currently, and is one of Sony's most valuable franchises. There is evident demand for this level of violence in these games, meaning that this brutality is imminently desirable, that the brutality is not "beyond what is desirable", and that it is thus not "too brutal". Mortal Kombat by comparison is tame. It does not involve 10 minute fights that end with 30 second death sequences in close quarters (most rounds are one or two minutes long, and fatalities, while brutal, are very brief). It does not show nudity, pornography, or prostitution (all rampant in God of War). It is not nearly as brutal as God of War, and since God of War is noted as being highly desirable and is not "too brutal", consequentially, Mortal Kombat is also not "too brutal". For an example of what is "too brutal", I point to this game: Thrill Kill (. http://www.askmen.com...), which was so brutal that the distributors had problems actually releasing the game to the general public. That game is orders of magnitude more brutal, violent, sadistic, and disturbing than either God of War or Mortal Kombat. ConclusionGod of War and Mortal Kombat are all far too graphic for my own tastes, but there is evident demand in the marketplace for such graphic depictions of violence. Demand equals desire, and since they are highly desirable games, the content of such games is not "beyond what is desirable". There are titles that are far more brutal that have trouble gaining an audience due to the disturbing nature of that brutality. Neither God of War nor Mortal Kombat fit this bill and are thus not "too brutal".
Accept if you Dare #4: Resolved: Mortal Kombat Fatalities are too brutal.

This is part 4 of my "accept if you dare" series of debates on unorthodox topics. Let's define "brutal:" 1. Savage; cruel; inhuman 5. Irrational (1) Now to define "too:" 2. To an excessive extent or degree; beyond what is desirable or fitting (1) Con may argue first if they wish.
The Media is affraid of Mitt Romney!

The media isn't "affraid" of Mitt Romney because there is no such thing. Ah! But being serious: One of the biggest flaws in your argument is that you were referring to the Democratic strategist who was downplaying Romney. If you pay mind to any pieces which are covered by a liberal media outlet (or I suppose in this case a liberal who is on air of a conservative station) they are going to be biased against every conservative. I know you say it "seems" that they are not as biased You do need to remember that just as in politics there is more than one facet of the media. Conservative news sources have touted Romney highly on many occasions, especially for being "electable" and looking the Presidential part. SOME of the media may be working against Romney, just as some are working against every candidate. It's the nature of the business and self interest. But if you think they're THAT afraid of him maybe you should see the front of CNN.com (As it stands right now: "Bold victories for Clintn, Romney and McCain." Written just below a picture of each candidate in that very order. I also specifically recall him getting coverage for having been EXPECTED to win New Hampshire and how he didn't pull through. Interesting that he gets that coverage when a guy like Giuliani who was by far the front runner in mid 2007 has been trounced repeatedly, and even beaten by Ron Paul in most states gets only mild mention for his disappointments. Romney gets a fair amount of coverage. He is considered a big time contender, and is treated as such.
The Media is affraid of Mitt Romney!

I hope Romney pulls off a Florida win, but not only is he going up against McCain, Huckabee, and Guliani...but also the MEDIA. I watch FOX News a lot and I notice that many Democratic strategist's down-play Romney and attack him a lot, whereas they are always saying that McCain and even Huckabee are the ones that the Democrats have to watch out for the General Election. I also noticed this on CNN too. And I think they do that because they know Romney is the only one that can beat them. I thought I'd go online and see what Anne Coulter thinks of Romney and to my surprise she completely agrees with me! *(at about 55 seconds she starts to talk about he media and Romney in the 1st link) http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Calisthenics is superior to gym machines and free weight training

Using machines to help exercise targets many different exercise groups. They also emphasis proper care of not only the equipment, but the body as well. They help to alert you to your stopping point. Using gym equipment also provides support to people. Those who join a gym are normally either attempting to get into shape, or trying to keep their bodies in shape. Calisthenics are used often as an alternative to a gym, or for people who are exercising for fun, such as physical education classes. Machines are used for training for certain events and for working out certain muscles groups. While there is nothing wrong with calisthenics, gym machines help to train your body faster and more efficiently. Take for example a treadmill. A treadmill is a great way to get into shape. Not only can it help with your weight, it can help with your running skills. You can set it for different inclines or declines, you can set it so that you have to run at a certain speed, and you can use it indoors. Many people use treadmills at home even. You can run while studying, reading, or even watching television. You also have the opportunity to use it all year long, instead of when it is warm enough to go outside and run. Gyms provide people with an opportunity to see how others are keeping themselves healthy, and can provide support for people who are struggling to get in shape or stay in shape. It can be very difficult for people who don't have support to keep or get into shape. In a gym you have the support to keep going.
Calisthenics is superior to gym machines and free weight training

Hello this is my first debate in debate.org. As I'm new here, I'm not used to the rules for debating. I would like to argue that bodyweight training aka calisthenics, gives better results in terms of strength, stamina and endurance, reflex training, muscle mass, lesser injury especially in the joints, when compared to training either with machines in the gym or with free weights. Basic rules apply. 1.No semantic re-interpretation 2.1st round for acceptance only 3.No trolling and profanity