BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Sorry for the delay. On #1, you stated that killing of a fetus is a "lower class level than things that are really alive and functioning." Correct? I believe that's your own opinion. Now, On #2 you said that it's immoral to deny a woman her reproductive rights. But do you know exactly what the woman's reproductive rights are? Also, you mentioned that males dominated society, can you clarify what's your point/argument about that? You said that the vast majority of women that chose to abort their child were victims of rape, etc... -Only 1% of all women that aborted their child are victims of rape. - About " can't support the child -3/4 said the child would be an interfere to work - " are because of bad decisions I believe that those reasons aren't enough to abort their child. I strongly disagree that abortion is the best option to escape from the problems above. If a woman can not support the baby, then why would they have sex in the first place. Abortion is not the best option, if the woman/parents can't support the baby, they could give the baby to someone else that would love to have a baby. They could also give the baby for adoption. The woman can then visit the baby from time to time. Then when the baby is grown and the woman earned enough money, she can get her baby back. Instead of killing an innocent fetus that is already living- only waiting for him/her to be born. Just like what my wise teacher always said, "think outside of the box." I understand that there are women that can't support their child/ their upcoming baby due to a very low income or very low financial status. But do you really think that rejecting (killing) the baby is the best option to do? Don't you think it's selfish to not give the baby a chance to see the world? Let me clarify something, I wasn't ranting/exclaiming. What I really meant when I said "it's very unprofessional for the doctors that perform abortions" is the brutality of rejecting/killing the baby itself. I believe that the doctor's job is to try their best to help people not to die-- it's not their job to kill. When I used the word "brutal," I'm aware that they're not "hysterically laughing as they poke the small fetus with a knife" as you stated. I used the word "brutal" to describe the abortion itself, and not the process of doing it. And since when did killing, became a "very professional" process? So, of course I would describe it as "very unprofessional." Also, there are complications for some mothers due to Legal Induced Abortions, such as the 12 deaths of women in 2008. The thing is people seems to always reject the reality of the world. Statistics: -25% of all U.S. Pregnancies end in abortion. Do you realize how much babies those are? -1.2 Million babies die every year from abortion -50% of U.S. Women obtaining abortions are younger than 25 -most of the 50% are teenagers that aren't ready to have a baby, and who's fault would that be? The innocent baby that died or the parents that didn't have a careful sex or family planning? -Keep in mind that only 1 percent of abortions are from rape victims www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
Abortion

1. I will accept this challenge, and wish a good debate between us. I will start off with a short argument, and will refute the points you addressed. Abortion is no more murder than using antibacterial soap. This no more than killing millions of sperm when you masturbate. It is the murder of a fetus, which is subjected to a lower class level than things that are really alive and functioning. 2. It is immoral to deny a women her reproductive rights simply because of our early male dominated society, in which men would have absolute control over the woman. That is changing, and as a result, women are now given second chances and opportunities to be, or not to be a mother. 3. I do not understand how a woman who aborts a baby is considered brutal. They are not hysterically laughing as they poke the small fetus with a knife. The vast majority of women were raped, didn't use good judgement, or could not support the baby. "According to Guttmacher data, the abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level is more than four times higher that among women from middle-income and affluent households." The statistics closely represent the idea of the good intentions the women had. Many women were forced as their only way of income, or some might not be able to support the baby. So someone could reject their upcoming baby, as it is not always an amazing gift, but merely the inability to raise that upcoming child into a good life. 4. I believe the abortion that takes place is very professional, and is not this brutal process you are exclaiming. http://www.nbcnews.com...
A level examinations are necessary

Hello there comrade. In our country (that is, Great Britain), we have public school examinations for GCSE, AS and A2 level subjects. To get into universities as well as to access better employment opportunities, good grades from these exams are required (typically, a Cambridge natural science course offer is for example, 2A*s and an A). Some criticise the current system for emphasising more on exam techniques as opposed to applied knowledge, leading to students simply practice (i.e. memorise facts) for exams. Students supposedly retain limited knowledge from their subjects, or at least cannot apply their knowledge for real-life scenarios. In other words, 'jumping the hoops'. Although I believe their must be some reforms to the current system, I would like to defend the formal examination system (or the 'status quo' if you prefer) in this debate. First round is acceptance. Second is for the opening arguments Third is for rebuttal/more arguments Fourth is for closing arguments I now turn to my respected contender.
A level examinations are necessary

"Regarding university grades- it is the fault of universities" The universities mould their evaluation process in response to the examination system, and so changing the exam system would change the universities. "Rote learning is not what I said" "This demonstrates that the exam boards are not as rigid as some make it out to be. In fact, I might add that such a proposition that public exams are more to do with ROTE LEARNING is a straw man argument made by certain chemistry teacher/ conspiracy theorist (only my opponent will get the reference xD)" Yes it was what you said. "...which has lead students to believe that learning is just about passing exams" No the issue is the fact that given limited teaching time, teachers and students alike realise that exams are the bottom line. It is a sad fact, but it has become the main incentive. Students and teachers will both agree that learning is so much more than passing exams. "It is easy for gifted students to dismiss the exam system as memorising the mark scheme" But that's where it's the most competitive and important! That's where those several marks make a difference. "I may have failed to mention students get extra time" Some who may need it are often not able to get it. "You must train your concentration" If that were the issue, that motivation or something were possible to improve my concentration, I don't think it would happen in an exam, where my willpower is at its highest. "I am sorry if science subjects are very objective" Science is objective. It's the method that needs more flexibility and lenience. "Time is not a luxury you can always afford" What I mean is that the exams are an unrealistic time limit. No scientist will ever have to do that level of work in 75 minutes. "It has to be standardised to identify excellent students" Excellent cookie-cutter students. The best don't always fit e.g. Einstein, Bill Gates. "Exam boards in competition" "Dumbing down can be reversed" Choose one. The competition causes the dumbing down and grade inflation. Schools choose the exam board that gets them the best set of grades - lower schools will choose the ones that give the least low grades, and the best will choose the ones that maximise high grades. "The standard curriculum prevents pseudosciences being taught" State regulation does that, as far as I know, there is a national curriculum and then there is an exam curriculum on top of that. I think that exhausts my arguments. That was a seriously good debate. *Internet handshake* Vote for who you agree with!
A level examinations are necessary

As for the grading system, I understand how it works, but my issue is with the rigidity of the grades. A single mark could make the difference between getting into the university of your choice, and not getting in. The EP is not necessarily cost-free as it sounds. In that example, the extra time is spent on the project rather than possibly studying, of which is why it is taken into account. However, someone cannot choose to then start the EP after their exam if their results are not as high as expected, so it's a bit of a red herring. The disadvantages that can count are those that show up in simple tests of which I have personally completed. They are for visual memory, reading ability and spelling. These tests should only flag up when a student has a learning disability such as dyslexia, and other afflictions like ADD can pass by unnoticed. As I was given the tests to search for any issue with learning difficulties like this, I was found to be the highest performer in the tests the department had ever seen. Undiagnosed attention deficits and other difficulties can cause a disadvantage in an exam, as I have trouble keeping focus in some tests (even in the middle of answering questions I have to stop my mind trailing off!) but gain no extra support, and can be given none through the school. So this actually leads quite well into the next argument. For every second I lose focus, I have lost time in an exam. I daze out for five minutes, I am already at a serious disadvantage. My first exam, the final five minutes was pivotal. Ianswered ten marks worth of questions out of an available 72 in those last couple of minutes. Filtering for the ability to answer questions quickly is fundamentally flawed. That was why I referenced Bill O'Reilly (he actually isn't a creationist, he believes in god-guided evolution - don't tell him how that doesn't make sense) as explaining a scientific concept in a short space of time is woefully inadequate and so is a pointless task. The best explanations are those that take longer, as more can be explained in that time. I do not think that someone who spends longer explaining is necessarily worse. It is a lazy method of selecting people, it is just those who can jump through hoops and do it faster. Is that what an education system really wants out of their students? I am not sure what you got from the one size argument, but what I mean is that it assumes the ability to explain to one audience, the exam board, can be extrapolated to other areas. I myself feel more comfortable explaining to laymen scientific concepts, while others may prefer to explain to more educated folk. As for the cariacature (not a strawman, as that can't really apply to this area) of rote-learning I would agree. My issue is the way that it focuses extremely hard on "explain the way we like it" of which has by no means infected every question on every exam, but the actual requirement of knowledge is very little. Your move... *leans back smugly*
Atheism is an Illogical Worldview

Here is how the debate will go. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening arguments Round 3: Rebuttal/Closing arguments. To answer the question, we must first look at four questions that every world view must answer: Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. When you take Atheism and apply it to these four questions, atheism fails. Let us start with Origin. How did I get here? Atheism says that you got here through evolution, so you"re an accident. Next we begin with Meaning: Why am I here? Well evolution says you"re here to self-replicate and pass on genes to the next generation, but this is really misleading because there is no goal in evolution. What is good and bad? If evolution is true and God does not exist, then there is no real way of right and wrong, this is because atheism has no moral objective source outside of itself to explain good and evil objectively. This leads to the last point of Destiny: Where am I going after I die? Well Atheism says you are going nowhere. Eventually the Universe will cease to exist and all mankind will die and decay. (This also relates to my point of no evolution not having a goal). So when you take Atheism and apply to these four questions, you end up with no hope, no meaning, no morality, and no destiny. Let"s take a look at the Judeo-Christian Worldview. Origin: How did I get here? God created man from the dust of the earth. Meaning: Why am I here? God created man to be in a relationship with him, but man broke that relationship through his/her choice of sin. Morality: What is right or wrong? God created mankind with a moral conscious, to know good and evil. Destiny: Where am I going when I die? Because God loved the world so much, he gave his son Jesus Christ to die for our sins John 3:16, so that if we believe and put our faith and trust in him as our Lord and Savior we will have eternal life. (Hell is for those who did not trust Jesus as their Lord and Savior, therefore God has to do the right thing, because of their sin and send them to hell. He does not want to send anyone to hell. God desires for all mankind to come into a relationship with him through Jesus Christ. ) Only in the Judeo-Christian Worldview, are all four of these questions answered with corresponding answers coherently, and objectively.
Selling violent video games to minors is okay.

The Supreme Court has lately debated whether or not violent video games should be allowed to be sold to minors. "Violent video games" are bloody, gory, and sometimes offensive video games. They are usually, but not necessarily, rated M for Mature (17+). Some examples are Resident Evil 4, Silent Hill: Homecoming, and Manhunt 2. I believe it should not be illegal to sell these kinds of games to teens ages 13 to 18. Though parents might not want their kids to own these kinds of games, the law should not forcefully restrict the right. My contender will start his initial arguments in this round, and I will counter argue in the second. I personally do not play violent video games, nor am I interested in them. However, when I saw this article on Yahoo!, I couldn't help but think it was unnecessary to make them illegal for minors. (1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Good luck to my opponent.
Nothing can exist

my opponents resolution was that it is not possible for nothingness to exist. so the question is not whether there is such a thing as nothingness but if it is possible. The only evidence she has given is a word play argument. other than that she has given no reasons why it is not possible. I have shown that eventually the universe will contain no matter or energy thus becoming enveloped in nothingness. also that if a perfect vacuum could by made than nothing would exist inside. I have given ample evidence and examples as to how, and when nothingness can happen as for my BoP. my opponent has posed Zero evidence and has therefore failed her BoP.
Nothing can exist

I am disappointed that my opponent has turned this into a semantics argument. because of this instead of going directly into the true argument at hand I must waste time elaborating on definitions, and there meaning with regards to this debate. I suspect that my opponent attempted to set the wording this debate in such a way to make it impossible for her to lose. regardless of this attempt I will now show how nothingness can exist semantically, scientifically, and instances where does exist. 1. Semantically once again I will start with some definitions being 1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : life 2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality 3 : a living thing; especially : person state 1 a : mode or condition of being nothingness the STATE of BEING nothing nothingness is a state a state is a condition of being being is a quality of existence therefore nothingness exists now to rebuttal some of my previous points this is my opponents comment on my example "The scientific examples you have presented are not valid since they are misleading. "Nothingness" is being used here to describe dark matter". to disprove this statement I will quote part of that essay in titled "The great cosmic nothingness found" "It is empty of both normal matter - such as galaxies and stars - and the mysterious "dark matter"" I should have been more specific with my vacuum example I was referring theoretically that if by some means you remove all matter, and energy from any point than for at least a brief moment that point contains nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org... finally without any sort of empty space movement is impossible. If every space is filled up than there is no place for a molecule to move to. furthermore if nothingness cant exist than what is the universe expanding into.
Nothing can exist

Good Morning. I would like to thank my opponent for taking up this debate. It will I am sure lead us both to tax our brains quite thoroughly. According to the definitions you have given, and which I accept as correct dictionary definitions: In order to exist a thing must have a material or spiritual state. Does nothing have a material state? No, it does not, because it is no thing as the word suggests. Does it have a spiritual state? Again I fail to see how it can. We can not even imagine nothing. Nothing is an abstract concept. Consider the mathematical concept of zero or naught. (wikipedia: 0) It does not actually exist in the material world only in the world of concepts as a place holder. The scientific examples you have presented are not valid since they are misleading. "Nothingness" is being used here to describe dark matter. Dark matter is theoretical and in fact describes something. Dark matter emits radiation and has gravitational effects on visible matter. (wikipedia:dark matter) Just because it is not able to be observed does not make it nothing. It is a misconception that nothing exists inside a vacum. This again is a theoretical construct to help scientists. In reality no volume of space can ever be empty. I quote "the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice". (wikipedia: Vacuum) I am amused by the reference of the expanding universe theory as a proof since it is only one of a number of theories and to my knowledge does not in itself claim that nothingness will exist at any point. Therefore I would encourage my opponent to explain their claims further.
Nothing can exist

I hope these terms are acceptable. I would like to clarify a few definitions before I begin nothingness 1 : the quality or state of being nothing: as a : nonexistence b : utter insignificance c : death 2 : something insignificant or valueless 3 : void, emptiness[{Merriam-Websters} exist- 1 a : to have real being whether material or spiritual b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions 2 : to continue to be 3 a : to have life or the functions of vitality b : to live at an inferior level or under adverse circumstances {Merriam-Websters} vast expanses of our universe contain nothing. scientist have found a gap in our universe a billion light years across that contain absolutely no mater or light. this is one example of nothingness existing thus I have defeated your resolution that nothingness can't exist. another example is a vacuum nothing exists inside a vacuum. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... now to nothingness existing in the entirety of the universe. for this I will refer to a wikipedia page entitled the future of an expanding universe. it shows that because the universe is expanding and cooling eventually star formation will stop, and galaxies will be destroyed eventually the universe will only be left with super massive black holes which themselves will decay. do to the effect of proton and nucleon decay all mater in the universe will cease to exist thus leaving nothingness. I have fulfilled my burden of poof by giving examples of nothingness now and that in the future nothingness will envelop the entirety of the universe, because of this I have negated cons resolution.
Abortion

Alright I'm going to talk about roe v wade first. It's not in the supreme courts power create laws, only say this is what they think. So this Roe v Wade case is invalid. The only people that can make bill which may turn into laws are the congress. the president only signs them. I think Roe v wade should have been a case for congress. So yes if congress can make laws, then its in their right to be in this case, not the supreme court. The courts can look at the law after it has been passed. My Dad was a lawyer so this education helps. Also the vegetable thing, yes someone can kill them if needed, but assuming this is after they have had some age means they've already done their potential, whereas a baby hasn't even started. http://goodnews.ws... this is a picture of a fetus, it isn't just cells. I have talked to other women on this topic, and they dislike abortion. Even when a women doesn't want a child, she will usually not abort it because she thinks its morally wrong. And I am not for banning abortion, only for certain cases. If it threatens the woman's life by all means save yourself, but if you are out partying should you not ave consequences for a mistake you did. When you make a mistake I believe you should deal with it, is your problem not the baby's. No I'm sorry I used bad syntax with the 8th amendment thing. I believe that Abortion is against the 8th amendment because it is cruel and unusual. Putting a spatula looking thing up there then throwing the baby in a bio-hazard bad is immoral. Here's the bible's take on abortion since I'm talking about being moral: God knows the preborn child. "You knit me in my motherï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½„ï¿½s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret" (Psalm 139:13,15). God also helps and calls the preborn child. "You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my motherï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½„ï¿½s womb you are my God" (Psalm 22:10-11). "Godï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ from my motherï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½„ï¿½s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace" (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15). Abortion is linked to breast cancer through multiple studies, here's breast cancer and abortion people agreeing they are linked: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com...
Abortion

I agree people probably don't want one mistake ruining their lives, but it still can. Killing a child that could row u to cure cancer. The kid might be a ditch digger so what? he lives that's the important thing. You can't blame me for being dumb about the vegetables, I'm 14, and you syntax wasn't good either. Ok here is why we don't kill the brain dead people, because somebody likes that person enough keep him alive. It makes me ad to see no one care for the defenseless baby. Ok, 9 months of wasted life what a load of nonsense. If she is anything like someone with a heart, she would think " i get to let a child live, not be killed" if she was O.K. with abortion it may be different, I'm not saying you don't have a heart, but it just doesn't mind losing a baby in the world. Now not many adoptions go unadopted in the U.S. they d i other countries. the reason for this is because in this country you get a tax break for adopting children. That's a great way to have advertize. Ok they have almost undoubtedly linked it to breast cancer here's my site:http://www.dailymail.co.uk... No we shouldn't outlaw voting, because its against our constitution, and it is reasonable to say that abortion is against it too. 8th amendment.