BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My opponent will try to win this debate

ROUTE 1) PRO has failed to actually confirm that I've 'tried tp win. To try implies action, and as stated in the first, I've most certainly went about this by lacking action (in not advancing my position, which PRO doesn't seem to dispute, hence accepts). ROUTE 2) VIDEO. http://www.youtube.com... Based on # 1, I dare say that I have not tried to win this debate, hence the resolution is false. Based on # 2, PRO has failed to uphold his stance. Thanks for the debate. :D
My opponent will try to win this debate

To win , I simply must not try. Thus, this is a debate where I shall not do anything to advance my position/ On the off chance you do buy PRO's speech, I ask that you think outside the box. If I am in any way trying to win a debate which is titled "He will try to win this debate", we would conclude that I was trying to lose, hence not trying to win, hence PRO being incorrect. ;)
My opponent will try to win this debate

Not very much though. Trying to win debates is what my opponent does. He did not attain the one hundredth percentile without trying. When my opponent clicked "accept this challenge" he was already putting into effect his plan to win the debate. At that point he was trying to win the debate, whatever his actions after that point, even if he attained http://en.wikipedia.org... at some later time. So when he declared "I will not try," it was already too late. He tried.
Do Females have any responsibility

You replied, "A woman should have the right to walk down the street in nothing but here underwear without being raped, and so by extension without being harassed......" sotheseedsofliberty2's rebuttal, round number 2 response: If we were only talking about a woman's rights you would be correct, people of both sexes have the right to do and conduct themselves in certain ways but they also are responsible for that conduct as well. If a woman dresses in a risque, provcative, manner, she knows that she is inviting attention to her feminine attributes when she dress like that. The woman who dresses in that manner is not innocent of the effects of dressing in a risque fashion and is not taken by surprised when men take notice of her and react in a normal male response to her apparal.There are all kinds of people though in this world with different levels of mental stabilities and a woman's risque apparal may be reacted to in unique and quite unsuspected ways. A funny quote I once read on a sweat shirt conveyed this message, " ASK ME, I MIGHT," this is the message that a woman sends when she wears dresses that are risque. SecularMerlin...posted," For many tribes and nations throughout history a woman with bared breasts would be considered quite normal...." America has been thought of as one of the more developed countries and the countries standards and modes of acceptable dress and conduct, until recent times anyway, have been viewed by other nations as a higher level of civilization and as an example for other lesser developed nations to emulate. But ," so-call, " Modern progressive Educators," like John Dewey, the father of modern education, modern thought in this country has bought the theory of " "relativism "....the...." Philosophy holding that truth or moral aesthetic value, is not universal or class absolute but may differ between class individuals or class cultures." Quote from The Free Dictionary SecularMerlin...posted," For many tribes and nations throughout history a woman with bared breasts would be considered quite normal...." But we live in the present, not as native tribes once lived their lives and dressed, or didn't dress, like the aborigine tribes in which the standards are minimal we have "progressed, or regressed, according to how one looks at it, in America to a more developed nation. For example, in America, it wouldn't be acceptable to use a open field where males and females relieved themselves /went to the toilet, but in India this use of a common open field is still used as a common shared toilet. Quote from, "Wisconsin Public Radio Web page June 9, 2014 ....Heard on Morning Edition "..... India needs to shift the mindset that open defecation is "natural and normal" " How A Lack Of Toilets Puts India's Women At Risk Of Assault" June 9, 2014
Do Females have any responsibility

A woman should have the right to walk down the street in nothing but here underwear without being raped, and so by extension without being harassed. For many tribes and nations throughout history a woman with bared breasts would be considered quite normal. More importantly she would suffer no negative social or sexual stigma. There are many reasons a person, male or female, might want to dress attractively. Among them, positive body image (I just wanted to feel pretty), social expectations (I have to dress up for the party), or purely coincidental (these jeans are a little tight but my other pair are dirty). If you assume that a woman is sexually receptive just because she is sexy perhaps you should work on your understanding of social cues. It's all right to express interest, you may actually be the reason she's dressed like that, but if she gently rebuffs you, you should probably back off.
Do Females have any responsibility

There is a natural relationship between males and females and it is the natural sexual attraction of each sex to the opposite sex. The female of the human sex is designed by nature to be attractive to the male just as the flower is designed to be attractive to Bees to attract the bees to pollinate flowers and produce other flowers. Maturity of the human male and female advances the sexual attraction of each sex towards the opposite sex and along with this sexual development stage that's reached comes the knowledge of what parts of the human anatomy of each sex that are designed to be most attractive to the other sex and how these devices can be used to display that part of anatomy. Clothing, feminine mannerisms, and traits are most often effective in attracting the males attention. If females didn't want and invite the special attention of the males wouldn't it stand to reason since the female of the human sex understands full well what attracts the male that they would then be more modest in what they did and what they wore. Can women seriously expect men not to make advances towards them when they flaunt their feminine anatomy by the immodest clothing that they wear. Can women suggest by their actions and dress that they are permissive and then not expect men not to receive the message sent by the females by their revealing clothing and provocative manners and then expect that the men won't react to the message sent by these women. Feminists will argue that because women dress in revealing clothing that emphasizes their feminity that men shouldn't react to to the females display as nature intented and the males then not to react as nature intended. This is a ridiculous and fallacious argument by the women and is the same thing as saying that todays women aren't smart enough to comprehend the basic relationship between the male and female as nature intended there to be and are thus victims because men are smarter and read the signals sent by women who dress immodestly. There was once a quote that expressed how nature worked and natures plan has not been made obsolete by the passage of time nor refuted. The Quote, " Bees go from flower to flower,not flowers from bee to bee." This is by natures design, although feminists reject this reality. Quote above, author unknown
Do Females have any responsibility

In my final argument I will address your last point particularly. You admit beauty is In the eye of the beholder and not the beheld. You then to go on to say for a woman to dress " slutty, identifies her as a woman who doesn't care about her moral image and respect. In my last comment I specifically used the words perceived sluttyness. You understand that women in general don't want to be perceived as sluts and so most do not dress in a way that, and this is important, they considered slutty, but that concept too is in the eye of the beholder not the beheld. So here we have a situation that bares considering. No woman, generally speaking wants people to think her easy, but they do want to be attractive. If You disagree with her assessment of her own personal mode of dress then you feel the right to make a statement about how much she cares about her moral image and your respect. Who are you to make that distinction for her. She has spent her whole life being shown an unattainable standard and told "this is pretty, girls should be pretty" and judged by that standard in real and documented ways. Then when she tries to live up to this standard, utterly certain she has failed, if she crosses some imaginary line in your head you get to say "she's a slut she doesn't care about her moral image or my respect". Are you sure that's the kind of man you want to be? You're right about society not being perfect. What I hope you understand is that the change needs to start inside you, inside me, inside all of us. The truth is this attitude of she was asking for it wouldn't be a half bad place to start. Won't you join me in the belief that no woman wants you to think she's amoral and all of them want respect?
Do Females have any responsibility

My opponent claims "if a woman dresses in a risque, provcative, manner, she knows that she is inviting attention to her feminine attributes when she dress like that. The woman who dresses in that manner is not innocent of the effects of dressing in a risque fashion and is not taken by surprised when men take notice of her." The problem is in knowing what any individual man will find risque or provocative. There are fetishists sights devoted to women dressed as nuns for example, are we to say "well if she didn't want that kind of attention she shouldn't have been dressed like a nun" in Saudi Arabia a woman is considered to be provocative and risque if jer hair is showing, even just one lock and especially if that hair is blonde. When you say women are responsible for inciting negative attention they don't want you are asking her to hide her sexuality all together. This is a subjective and prejudice view. To say "she was asking for it" is damaging to a person who has already been victimized. He also states "America has been thought of as one of the more developed countries and the countries standards and modes of acceptable dress and conduct," to which I reply so what. It was never specified that this debate is contingent upon having an American standard for the modes of acceptable dress and conduct. He also asserts that "in America, it wouldn't be acceptable to use a open field where males and females relieved themselves /went to the toilet" except that if you are camping it is. Also if I were deficating in a field that would hardly give you the right to force unwanted attention on me. However in his example he points out that women in India are subject to assault for this very reason. Should we considered then an Indian woman at fault because she ought to know how a woman crapping in a field gets an Indian guys motor revving. The subjective nature of attraction means that it is almost impossible for a woman to know if her model of dress or behavior would be considered provocative. Believe me its almost as hard to be sure that you are dressed sexy as to be sure that you are not. In conclusion in a country like America (since that is the country apparently whose biases are being discussed) where the negative social stigma of not being pretty are just as real and nearly as profound as the stigma of perceived sluttyness minus the threat of sexual assault, it is a very unfair double standard to say that dressing attractively, which is an expected social norm, is any excuse for the harassment of an individual. It is not a crime nor is it complicit to a crime to be sexy in and of itself. Thank you
There is no free will

planting a stone in the ground and watering it dosnt give you fruitsfree will, is the freedom to see, because if you dont see you dont have a choice, if you dont see which ice cream you are choosing how could it possibly be your choice when it comes to the ice cream you get to eat when the guy is done making it...a blind man dosnt have the choice to choose the right picture in the photoalbum by lack of sight, so sight enables him to make a choice because now he sees which picture is the right or wrong one in contrast with the one he is suppose to bring with him or whatever..if you see god is true how could you see hell is not true.. where as, if you see there are 10 choices of ice cream to choose from, you have memory of which you like, you can also choose ice cream based on the color of the flowers on the side of the ice cream store you see
There is no free will

The first thing that I need to clarify is that I do not see animal's consciousness as anything other than a mechanism that triggers responses to the chemical and physical stimuli that acts on the nervous system. So here is my base argument of free will being nothing but an illusion. Suppose you have two perfect spheres. One is still and the other, in motion, is in a collision course with the other sphere. When these collide a "calculation" will be made and an outcome drawn. Into this calculation many things are factored in, such as the mass of the spheres, the attrition of the surface they stand in, if there is an atmosphere or not, the velocity the moving sphere has at the moment of impact, the plasticity of both spheres, etc. So when the standing sphere is hit all of these factors will be "processed" and the sphere will move in a certain direction with a certain speed and acceleration and will eventually come to a stop on a certain spot. If you repeat the experiment in the exact same way you will come to the same result again and again. This because it all comes down to math. The equation that determines where the sphere will stop is still the same as when you did the first experiment. Just like x+y=w if you change x for 1 and y for 2 w will be 3, always. The same way you have the equation to determine where the sphere will come to a halt if you do not change the variables that factor into this equation the result will also be the same. In the real world there is no reason why this should be different and it never seems to be. Because the real world is a much more dynamic place than just two spheres colliding the equation turns a LOT bigger. So it's very hard to predict outcomes since this equation needs so many variables to be factored in. Now tell me why this should be different for humans. Take this in consideration. You are talking to somebody and they ask you "can you pass the salt, please". Now in order for one to predict what will happen (because, again, we are in the real world) one has to take many factors into consideration. What is your current state of mind, what is your relationship with this person, how did the sound propagate in the air, how far away the salt is, is your hearing working properly, and many more billions of factors. Based on these factors you will make a decision. One which might not even evolve salt at all. Now tell me this. If all the conditions were recreated perfectly. An exact same copy of the universe you were in. Would your answer to "can you pass the salt, please" be any different. I don't think it will. And there lies my biggest problem with free will. What do you say?
There is no free will

If? As I've previously stated I don't think I have the freedom to answer that question. I am not an actor, I am a subject. Subject to the laws the universe is ruled by and subject to the past. I don't see any astonishing difference between me and a rock. I mean there are many differences between a human and a rock but when it comes to the way we respond to stimuli we react just like the "software" intended both me and the rock. To say that a rock does not have free will but a human does is not in line with anything I'm aware science has produced so far. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but it's you who is defending a positive claim. You claim is humans are different to a rock in the free will department (I mean you did not say that verbatim but your line of thought makes it pretty apparent that you think that way so it's not far fetched for me to assume so and please, correct me if I'm wrong). That is a positive claim. You need to provide arguments in favor of it and back them up with evidence when you're defending positive claims. You have the burden of proof. You're saying that what humans act differently than other objects in nature. I don't want to insult you but this has been a very disappointing debate. I picked a topic that I thought was interesting and where I would be matched with a person that could offer me some insight into their world view but all I've gotten seems to be a man who smashes fortune cookies and types the randomly drawn badly written sentences when he should provide arguments to forward his position.
Abortion is O.K in the very worst case scenario.

--NOVICE TIER OF TUF'S TOURNAMENT--Thanks to TUF and MyDinosaurHands for making this debate possible. I wish to do my very best.First round for acceptance only. However, ground rules:Very worst case scenarios means the very, VERY worst case scenario thinkable. By accepting, you can not argue that my scenario is invalid.Forfeiting means an automatic loss of conduct and arguments.Plagiarism means a full 7-point loss.Arguing or rebutting in the fourth round means loss of conduct and arguments.No religious arguments or references from the Bible. Violating this means loss of conduct and arguments. By agreeing to this, you accept all of the terms above.
Abortion is O.K in the very worst case scenario.

Firstly, my apologies for messing up one of the statistics. My point still stands however, in regards to acquiring Tay-Sachs or Sandhoff. Next my opponent decides to make his scenario more specific, in the final round, specifying diseases that he claims will result in 100% death rate, which is in direct contradiction to his scenario, which claims a 99.99% death rate. A small difference, yes, but it is the difference that matters for the Con position. Given that these newly introduced diseases break the scenario, I do not need to defend against them. Their invalidity in regards to the debate and scenario does the job for me. So I'll just round off finish off with a closing statement. It's all about the odds. Under Pro, 1,000 out of 1,000 babies will die. Under Con, 999 out of 1,000 babies will die. We owe it to that one baby to take these risks. For Amanda, the risks are not as bad as what could befall that one baby under the Pro position. I have already shown several ways the costs could be covered, and I have countered Pro's rebuttals to those ideas, to which he has provided no defense. I have shown that we can't assume the baby that lives might be content in its life, to which Pro has provided no counter. Thanks to TUF for creating this tournament. Happy New Year's.
Abortion is O.K in the very worst case scenario.

My opponent says he does not care if I refute in the fourth round. So I will refute one of his arguments. --Diseases-- In the first section of his rebuttals, he points out that the baby has a limited chance of acquiring Tay-Sachs disease. Again, yes. Once again, I was just putting some diseases out there. There are many other diseases out there that the baby can get.My opponent also states that in this scenario, there is an 0.01% chance that the baby will acquire birth defects. I said there is a 100% chance the baby will acquire serious birth defects. Notice I said seriousin the scenario. Also note that I said many. If you want to, go back and check.Many: A large indefinite number (1).Serious: dangerous possible result (2).This may provide the single most important argument/rebuttal in this debate. Many is usually thought to be higher than some and half, correct? In this case, I will say that out of ten diseases (I'll go easy on you) the baby will acquire four. Say the baby acquires four of the lesser serious birth defects (like not Tay-Sachs) (3):1. Thalidomide2. Anencephaly 3. Back of brain Encephalocele4. Coarctation of the AortaSo now, the baby:1. Will have serious limitations in physical activities, such as walking, and emotional problems. 40% mortality rate. (4)2. Missing parts of skull and brain, most die soon after birth. 99% mortality rate (5).3. Will have serious seizures, will have unusually small and sometimes fatal head, complete loss of strength in key muscles, and problems with the five senses (such as vision.) 55% mortality rate (6).4. Narrow Aorta due to not developing correctly. 87% (untreated) mortality rate. (7).That is only for some of the less serious birth defects. Acquire one of the more serious ones and you're done. All together, the mortality rate on all of these diseases is 100%, as no baby has EVER survived all four of these. So the baby will die 1,000 out of 1,000 times, thus meaning that the con and pro side have the same chances of life.So I ask you, why not abort this baby? It is going to die 100% of the time shortly after birth anyway, and aborting it means that you don't get the consequences.(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(3) http://www.cdc.gov... (4) http://www.thalidomide.ca...(5) http://my.clevelandclinic.org...(6) http://www.mommypage.com...(7) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... With my arguments done, I pass the last round onto con. Thanks to the voters, MyDinosaurHands, and TUF for making this debate possible.
Abortion is O.K in the very worst case scenario.

I do accept that. However, I only agreed that it could not kill the mother. Anything else can be included.However, I did not agree that it could not significantly shorten the life of the mother.Scenario: A 20 year old girl named Amanda with several health problems was raped against her will. She does not have a job, access to a clean water source, and very limited access to food. She simply can not support a baby. Amanda would also have to face significant health problems after birth that would cripple her life. Doctors say that her life could be shortened as much as 30 years if she does not get an abortion. An abortion would cost $468 dollars [1]. Amanda has enough money to pay for an abortion, but not nearly enough to pay for birth.Furthermore, the baby is guaranteed to have many serious birth defects which may include missing limbs, Tay-Sachs disease [2], Sandhoff disease [3] and many others. Doctors only give the baby a 0.01% chance to live after birth and a 0% chance to ever be able to walk and talk. If she proceeds with birth, doctors give Amanda a 5% chance to be able to perform activities she was able to do before, like eat normally or walk. If she proceeds with the birth, doctors say that she will need at least 3 surgeries to fix the damage done to her body, which Amanda nor her family can pay for.So Amanda is left with two choices:•Get an abortion and continue with her life without any health problems caused by the baby.•Not get an abortion and have to support a child who can not walk nor talk. She will have to have three surgeries and her life will be shortened significantly. However, that is given the microscopic chance that the baby survives. If the baby doesn't survive (which is a 99.9% chance), Amanda will still have her life shortened by up to 30 years and have three surgeries she can't afford. There is a 95% chance she will never be able to resume normal activities like talk or eat normally.Con now must explain why Amanda should choose the second choice instead of the first.[1] http://civilliberty.about.com...[2] http://kidshealth.org...[3] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...