BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is morally wrong

Hi. We're back on track. That's good. Once again, when viewed at a socio-conceptual level, there is nothing I would disagree with in your round 2 evidence. Any issue relating to babies and young children is always emotive and relevant conceptual responses are easily retrieved from the brain's data bank. I will now regard that key to this debate is "value of life" and not essentially morality. Two concepts that I could easily clump together and refute with realist logic. But for now I will respond with some socio-conceptual rhetoric of my own. What is life? That wondrous, essential spark, that allows these amalgamated blobs of particulate matter to function and interact with the universe. Life could have a greater meaning, or life could just be pure chance. If you accept that life has a greater meaning. Then that should include all life, life that emanates from all beings. If so, what about the lives of the millions of creatures we slaughter with impunity on a daily basis. And, what if another human being was to murder your loved ones, or a terrorist was to kill and maim hundreds of your fellow countrymen. Would you consider that the lives of the perpetrators of these crimes still had the same value as the lives of their victims? Maybe you would. Maybe you are an absolute moralist and a vegan. But if not, then couldn't your proposition be regarded as a tad cynical, arrogant or hypocritical. Or in this instance, would you subscribe to an Orwellian notion: All lives have value, but some lives have more value than others. For me as a realist, based purely on the factual information that is presently available. I am compelled to accept that life and everything is pure chance. Everything being: Time, space and all matter. Ok. We perceive everything to be astoundingly amazing and wondrous. But for now we must accept, that is just the way things are. Therefore, ultimately the notions/concepts of value and morality, are merely notions and concepts. Information acquired and stored, then assimilated and retrieved and eventually issued forth as intangible notions. Intangible notions that have no real relevance to "everything". Notions that can not be judged. because there is no greater authority to judge them.
Abortion is morally wrong

Abortion is morally wrong for a number of reasons, and even certain circumstances do not legitimise it in my view. We have to start with the question, is human life after birth worth anything? If the answer is no, than abortion is not a concern to you, and you wouldn't care either way. If it is, and you are pro abortion, then you must reach a point either in development or circumstance where the destruction of the fetus is justified. For example, if you consider an unborn fetus not worthy of life at all, then what about premature births? If the fetus is delivered prematurely, it is considered human if it survives, but during the same stage in development, and it is unborn, it could be susceptible for abortion. Of course, this may not be your view, in which there are only two options remaining. 1. You believe human life begins at conception, and therefore agree with my view. 2. There is a cut-off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human rights. If your answer is 2, there is a fundamental error in your reasoning. The only way to instate a law regarding development is to base it on a set time period on when abortions can occur, and anything after that point is murder. This is the problem with this solution: In a hypothetical scenario, a fetus is close to it's termination deadline. Let's say it's April 8th. At 23:59 on April 7th, destroying that fetus is no more legal or morally wrong than plucking a hair from your head, as that fetus isn't recognised as a human life. So you could get the abortion on April 7th at 23:59, no problem. How is it right then, that exactly one minute later, that would be murder? How can one minute decide the legitimacy of human life? In that split second between 23:59 and 00:00, the entire moral and legal standing of that fetus goes from morally worthless to the highest value ever issued in our communities and legal system. Nothing special happens in that split second, nothing drastically changes withing the fetus that somehow makes it eligible for human life. So, if it is valued at 00:00 and then onwards forever, but is worthless before hand, it must also be valued before that, at conception at least. The problem is with the whole 23:59 --> 00:00 scenario is that it is illogical to attribute worth to something over a millisecond where nothing changes.
Abortion is morally wrong

From my point of view, abortion is morally wrong. I believe life begins at conception, and that a human life should be valued. Even in cases of sexual assault I believe no unborn child should be killed, as it wasn't their fault. I believe abortion should be outlawed and stigmatised. Also, I believe being anti abortion is not sexist, and that the fetus is not a part of the women's body. As well as this, I do not believe abortion is a 'reproductive right'.
The Bible Does Make Scientific Predictions

I have presented an argument with evidence and reliable sources. By all means, in a formal debate, you should take the opportunity to refute these claims of why I believe the story of Noah's Ark is fake, why I assume evolution is real, and so on. Tell me that there is more proof for things such as creationism, or say that I failed to use any information to back my claims.Your failure to refute my ideas and evidence is no problem of mine, but of yours.
The Bible Does Make Scientific Predictions

I appreciate your participation, but I am afraid that it is not a possibility for me to engage in a debate with you, for the reason that you are not standing upon a neutral ground when making your arguments, f.ex., you simply assume that evolutionary theory is factual and base your arguments upon that assumption. I respect your opinion that evolutionary theory (and other views) are factual, but in a debate, such opinions are not welcome. In order to make a sound argument, you have to argue from a neutral ground and build an argument from that perspective, not base your arguments on what your opponents is in disagreement with, f.ex., the lifespans of people in ancient times, the state of their genome. If you are willing to abandon these arguments, and continue with legitimate ones, such as the snow-ice layers argument from Bill Nye, or dendochronology, then I would be happy to debate you, as these are things which are built from pure data and require no assumptions. These are things that I can respond to fairly easily and have a good understanding of. Confirm that this is how you would like to proceed.
The Bible Does Make Scientific Predictions

I heard someone state that the biblical record does not contain any scientific predictions, but I thought, that is impossible: a text with a thousand pages of world history certainly would contain scientific predictions somewhere. I was not disappointed: I found a prediction in the very first book, where the biblical record writes of eight people being saved from a flood that the rest of the population did not survive. This certainly would have some genetic implications, I thought. Sure enough, it states that three of the women reproduced after the flood. What does this mean? It means that there should be three main mitochondrial lineages in the world (small loops of DNA that nearly everyone inherits from their mother, never passed down through males). What do we find? We find three main mitochondrial lineages in the world, often labeled M, N and R (haplogroups). I state that this is a scientific prediction that turned out to be successful. I have come across others as well, but I will only include this one in the debate, unless the opponent wishes to see more of them. Thank you.
Nazi Germany Could Have Defeated the Allies on Technology and Strategy Alone

What about in terms of aircraft. The Germans could have one with that. Given, they did never make an entirely succsseful long range bomber, the fighters and dive bombers were very successful. The Nazis could have one the air war using what they had. The fighters were of good quality and quantity. If you were to pit the English plane, lets say a better quality Spitfire or a Hurricane, against the Luftwaffes BF-110 or BF-109, the BF's would still win by a long shot. The fighters were well armored and in terms of firepower, the Luftwaffe wins. The BF's used heavy machine guns that would essentially fire cannon rounds. If my mind is correct, the rounds would tear apart the hull of British aircraft. The dive bombers were also fantastic weapons. They would always be used to support the ground troops. Pilots were also much better trained then the British. The only thing the British excelled in for technology was Naval Forces and maybe radar. The Germans also had some incredible generals. I personally believe the better ones were Rommel, Manstein, and Guedarian. Manstein orchestrated the attack in France. Rommel was well known and admired by German and English soldiers. Guedarian was also the master of tank warfare. There were many others of course, but they were the best of the best. I also should mention Model. While he was a very fanatical Nazi, known as Hitlers Fireman because he was always sent to save the Reich from defeat, he was an expert in defense.
Nazi Germany Could Have Defeated the Allies on Technology and Strategy Alone

While Germany was very strong during WWII and very advanced in technology, I don't think they would have have won the war on technology alone. The Axis alliance was very strong, don't get me wrong. The problem is Germany's other allies weren't very technologically advanced. A majority of the countries against Nazi Germany, were technologically advanced. Including The U.S, Great Britain, and Russia. I myself think that the technology of these three countries alone would be able to defeat the technology of just one major country along with a few other minor countries.
Nazi Germany Could Have Defeated the Allies on Technology and Strategy Alone

Hello, and thank you to whoever does this debate with me. As you know, we will be arguing about if Nazi Germany could have defeated the Allies with technology and strategy alone. I will slightly alter the history with this topic. This will make the war a different scenario but lets see where this all goes. The alteration will be that Adolf Hitler gave the generals the freedom to strategize and attack without Hitlers interference. Lets begin. I'll start with the technological capabilities that the Nazis had. First, I'll start with tanks. Germany was, and still is known for its very great armored vehicles, specifically, the Panzers. The Panzer, while starting out as essentially an armored car, grew to create some of the most lethal tanks on the battlefield. The reason for these tanks was to counter the Russians better tanks, so I will skip to the Panzer lV. The Panzer Four was the first Panzer tank that possessed the ability to destroy Russian armor. Its armor had a maximum thickness of 20 millimeters and was vertical, rather then sloped, as the Soviets did. While the Panzer Four lacked the greatest armor, its gun was the only tank mounted gun that could take out a T34, which at the time was giving the Germans nightmares. Then came the Panzer Five. This tank was much more suited for T34 hunting then number Four. This tank had a 75 millimeter main gun and much beefier armor that could be as thick as 80 millimeters. I also don't think I need to go into a huge amount of detail in terms of the Tiger One and Tiger Two. There is a true story about an SS tank crew that was able fight off 50 Russian tanks. They used their Tiger One to destroy 22 of the tanks, with the rest retreating, and only minor damage to the Tiger. I'll conclude by stating that there were many other amazing feats on the Western Front.
Nazi Germany Could Have Defeated the Allies on Technology and Strategy Alone

I can see where Nazi Germany could overpower any of the countries with their aircraft, especially the British who weren't very well trained. But the British still technically won the air battle didn't they? During the battle of Britain the Luftwaffe lost 2 planes for every 1 the Royal Air Force lost. The battle of Britain wasn't just a short skirmish that took place in the air either. It was a full on air battle between the RAF and the Luftwaffe that lasted for 3 months. And at the end of that long 3 month battle it was clear who won. The British Royal Air Force. I can see how the German Luftwaffe is very dangerous and deadly. But they took a huge loss after the battle of Britain, losses that they wouldn't be able to overcome.
Drug Legalization

Ok, I would like to say that I understand why you believe that drugs should be legalized, because they could be given to doctors and used as prescription drugs, but people are still going to get hold of them and use them to a dangerous extent, so making it legal isn't going to change things. It's like making theft legal, just because something is wrong and you know that whatever you do it will still happen, doesn't mean you should make it legal just to make it right. Does that mean to say that if too many people start stealing, it should be made legal? I do understand that it may have some benefits as some drugs can be used to help people if provided safely, but I don't think something that can kill people should be made legal! What kind of impression will that give the world! It's like saying:"Yes! You're allowed to kill yourself!" People will take advantage of them, overdose, and use it as an excuse for performing other illegal actions! So overall, I think despite the benefits of using drugs to cure diseases responsibly, dealers will get there hands on them one way or another and they will become ever more popular, be introduced to the younger generation and the whole world will get hooked!
Drug Legalization

The first post by each side will be to explain position and definitions, then debate with the other posts. My position is that all illegal drugs should be legalized. Definitions: Illegal- Currently banned under US law. Drugs- There are too many illegal recreational drugs for me to mention them all, but specifically, I will discuss marijuana, heroin, cocaine/crack, LSD, meth, ecstasy, and PCP, and any other drugs my opponent wishes to mention. Legalized- Currently illegal drugs would be given the same legal status as tobacco or alcohol.
Drug Legalization

I understand that you are saying that not all drugs can cause problems, and I understand what you are saying about the 'harder drugs' but I do feel that drugs don't always only affect the user. Like in your example, of a man who claimed to have been 'possessed by the devil' as an excuse for beheading his own son, he may have taken meth and therefore performed the action that would have been completely unthinkable if he had not been under the influence of meth or alcohol. Therefore, this obviously shows that the son, who isn't the user of the drugs was obviously affected by them as he lost his life! Is it not obvious to you that if some one takes drugs that are illegal for a reason, then they be prone to do other illegal actions? Just because people aren't affected by drugs in the same way as the user is, it doesn't mean they aren't still affected! For example, let's say a man is addicted to ecstasy and he hallucinates many things. If he has children or a partner in fact, it may affect them mentally and sometimes in physical situations. Also, if you stock illegal drugs onto the shelves, then they are openly available for theft! A child may buy them using fake I.D or thieves can merely steal them in a supermarket robbery, and sell them onwards to others as a business! What REAL benefits are there to making all drugs legal?
Our Sense of Morality Has Evolutionary Origins

DEFINITIONS:Evolution - The descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations. [1]Morality - a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons [2]Sense of Morality - The feelings we have about the morality of our actionsSOURCES:[1] . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...[2] . http://plato.stanford.edu...;
Belief in God is irrational

irï¿½raï¿½tionï¿½al/iˈraSHənl/ Adjective: Not logical or reasonable. Synonyms: adjective. unreasonable - surd - illogical noun. surd I only posted this definition to display that I do not believe in God. I am only trying to prove that a God is, in fact, supported by logic and reason. My case, while rather simple and short, will completely undermine Pros argument through simple logic. You seem like an intelligent person, I am sure that you have seen this before. However, I hope to make it clear so that all viewers get it. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT 1. It is possible that God exists. Explanation: A possibility of God (as defined in the New and Old Testaments as "The Creator and Ruler of the universe and Source of all moral authority, the Supreme Maximal Being.") is not a ridiculous one. While one might claim that a "higher being" is illogical, numerous sources (below) indicate that God does, in fact, exist. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, considered the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Tanakh ever found. MANY reputable historians agree that the authenticity of these documents alone sheds a great deal of light on the existence of a monotheistic God, seeing that they date back to before 10 C.E. So you can at least agree that a POSSIBILITY of God is not out of reason. 2. If it is possible that God exists, than God exists in some hypothetical situations. Explanation: Well, this claim is self explanatory. Since it is possible that He exists, he MUST exist in some hypothetical situations. 3. If God exists in some hypothetical situations, than He exists in all hypothetical situations. Explanation: This one might be a little hard to grasp. However, since God is defined as Maximally Great (as he is in the definition), than He is "perfect, the greatest possible." (according to the definition of Maximal from the sources below.) So if God is POSSIBLE IN SOME HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS, than He HAS TO BE POSSIBLE IN ALL, or else He is imperfect, which, according to His definition, He can't be. See, it's simple logic! 4. If God exists in all hypothetical situations, than he exists in the current situation. Explanation: Well, if every hypothetical situation literally means EVERY possibility, than it must entail the real world situation. Again, simple logic. 5. If God exists in the current situation, than God exists. Explanation: None needed. So as you can see, the idea of a God is completely rational and reasonable, and is easily supported by logic.
Cause of pimple is internal.

Pimples are caused when oil producing glands get blocked with dead skin cell, and become infected by the bacteria Propionibacterium acnes [1][2]. The oil glands are doing their job by producing oil, the skin cells are supposed to be sloughing off, and the bacteria is one of the many bacteria that is normally found on many people"s skin [3]. The oil glands are doing what they are supposed to be doing. The irregularity occurs when the dead skin cells do not slough off properly and the bacteria get inside and cause an infection. Both of these irregularities occur on the most superficial aspect of the skin, not on the inside. [1] http://www.mayoclinic.com... [2] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Imprisonment for life is a better punishment than death penalty

Death penalty should not be used as a punishment for any crime. There are many reasons for this argument, firstly in a lot of cases (admittedly in the past, but it is still an issue) innocent convicts have been put to death. This may be the result of lack of evidence to prove the case otherwise, death penalty being imposed before all the evidence has been found, or unjust power (such as is the case of Sacco and Vanzetti) Another reason that the death penalty should not be legal, is that new drugs being tested on convicts are inhumane, as with the recent cases heard in the news, one where a man suffered for over 10 minutes before he finally passed away. I realise that these are bad people, and in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes off the mass majority, they need to be punished, however, we must remember that they are still people at the end of the day, and killing them because they killed somebody else does nothing for anyone. An eye for an eye makes another man blind. We should make criminals realise the error of their ways with imprisonment, and the prison systems should be harsher, but Ibelieve death penalty is not the right way to go about it. I am starting as CON because I am against Death Penalty, I would like somebody to start PRO and show me why it should be used.
Imprisonment for life is a better punishment than death penalty

Thanks Adbad, I hope the time that you've committed is worth it. Should I have the privilege of having voters, I hope that you guys enjoy this debate as well. Adbad made strong points in his last round, therefore I have to make a strong rebuttal in order to make sure overall contentions does not fall.Argument I - The Death Penalty is more sane than life imprisonmentEntirely Dropped.Argument II- The Death Penalty is SoundHis last round is contesting my Argument II, therefore I'm solidifying my case.I have checked Abdad's contention, the wikipedia indicated that Joseph Szymankiewicz was a small time criminal, one which hardly affects our social life. The causal correlation is weak as evidences pointed out that Joseph was harassed by John beyond reasonable doubt. Joseph was hardly a criminal, the only thing controversial about that case was the blinds covering the execution.Abdad, you have misinterpreted the evidence to suit your case. In terms of who has the right to kill a human being,Abdad completely ignored that death penalty are reserved for extreme cases only, the murder of Travis Alexander was extreme as he sustained multiple stabs and gunshots to the head. This along with strong evidences from witnesses puts Jodi to a position that confessing murder is the only way to save her. This is an extreme case.Your line of ethical reasoning is difficult to digest. What about war then? Are all deaths justified in that case?. Appealing to relativity is a reasonable approach, but without a strong case to refute a child rapist charged with death, your argument is without merit.Final Rebuttal - Publicity is a thing of the pastThe Victorians thought that slavery was a normal part of life and that teaching extreme discipline to children was normal. The same can be said for death penalty. Since you appeal to relativity, this case obfuscates your contention and serves as an incentive to mine. Let me put it to you, in the past people perceive slavery as normal and in this age, slavery is entirely rejected.What you are dealing is irrelevant to the present time. Death penalty convicts are basically conducted under closed doors, all of which death penalty advocates agree. If we live in the past, we still endorse death penalty. Using history as an argument is henceforth denounced.Thus, the conformity to death penalty is normal as it is sound.ConclusionMy opponent hardly rebuts my points made especially the first premise. Abdab did however contest my 2nd argument but I've sufficiently defended my case successfully. All of his points have been refuted successfully and the majority of my arguments are dropped as he did not solidify his case when I contested them. Abdab accepted death penalty as a cruel unethical way but tailors the evidence to suit his/her case. The resolution is NegatedI'd like to Abdab for proffering a good case. Thanks for debating with me. Thanks to all the readers who have reached this far. I sincerely hope that I entertain both my opponent and my readers