BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men should not be aloud to discuss whether abortion is right or wrong.

In this debate, should you choose to accept, I will be stating that Men have no place in the argument of abortion. I am a pro-choice male and I believe strongly that, when it comes to abortion, men shouldn't have a say in the matter. Rules: 1. No trolling. 2. No name calling. Rd. 1 is acceptance. Clarification: This debate is not on the morality of abortion in general.
Men should not be aloud to discuss whether abortion is right or wrong.

i too am an advocate for women's rights. I am also an advocate of fetal and child rights. By my opponent's logic, any two year old are just extensions of their mothers, since it stands to reason that two year olds cannot normally survive without their mothers. Should my opponent object and say that there are other adults, well, there have been not a few instances of embryos surviving in labs, and fetuses surviving premature. This is such common knowledge that i refuse to cite. Now it can be clearly seen that a two year old has rights, indeed, so does a fetus. The right to life. Cancer, unlike fetuses, are not 'living' in the sense that the latter is. With that. Welcome to DDO!
tangerines are better than strawberries

Con hasn't attempted to contradict any of my arguments. I never compared the orange to the tangerine. I compared the orange/tangerine to the strawberry. That may have been a slight misunderstanding. I am just going to reiterate some of my main points since con has said nothing new that has any relevance to why strawberries are better than oranges / tangerines. Oranges / tangerines have both higher carbohydrate and protein content and have absolutely no fat. Although strawberries contain higher vitamin c content they also contain harmful pesticides that can cause disease and up until 2012 they could cause cancer! Since con has not bothered to say anything about this then I assume that he knows that this is true. This means that I have clearly won this debate. Lets think about this realistically - Juicy delicious -fat free fruit (orange / tangerine) VS Poisonous, harmful small fruit - that may contain slightly more vitamin c than the orange ( strawberry)? It is obviously the orange (juicy delicious -fat free fruit) . Ask yourself if it is really worth the risk of death and harmful diseases just to get slightly more vitamin c into yourself. Just eat an extra orange if you really want some extra vitamin c. Besides all of the scientific reasons - oranges / tangerines are better because there is more to eat and therefore as well as filling you up more you can also share half with someone without being left with barely anything. They can also quench your thirst due to the high liquid content - this is another advantage oranges have over strawberries. Sources http://www.sparkpeople.com... http://www.prevention.com... http://www.whfoods.com...
tangerines are better than strawberries

Tangerine has less vitamin c then oranges but strawberries have more vitamin c than oranges s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="Image of Tangerine" width="149" height="115" /> Tangerine s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="Image of Orange" width="221" height="115" /> Orange Tangerine Tangerine Orange Orange Orange, Florida Orange, Navel Amount per 100 grams 1 small (2-1/4" dia) (76 g) 1 medium (2-1/2" dia) (88 g) 100 grams 1 NLEA serving (109 g) 1 large (2-3/4" dia) (120 g) 1 cup, sections (195 g) 100 grams 1 small (2-3/8" dia) (96 g) 100 grams 1 fruit (2-5/8" dia) (131 g) 1 cup, sections (180 g) 1 large (3-1/16" dia) (184 g) Calories 53 47 % Daily Value % Daily Value Total Carbohydrate 13 g 4% 12 g 4% Vitamin C 26.7 mg 44% So when Pro said that tangerines are better than oranges, they are not! Also in my second argument it said that strawberries are better than tangerines.http://www.differencebetween.net...
tangerines are better than strawberries

Vitamin C, also known as ascorbic acid, is a versatile nutrient that plays a fundamental role in numerous processes in the body. It"s essential to the production, growth, maintenance and repair of blood vessels, cartilage, collagen, bones, teeth and scar tissue. Vitamin C also enhances your body"s absorption of iron and folate from plant-based foods, and acts as a potent antioxidant that inhibits free-radical damage. The nutrient is water-soluble, meaning your body doesn"t store it so you need a consistent, adequate intake to stay healthy. All fruits and vegetables contain vitamin C, but some are richer sources than others. Tangerines/ Oranges The orange/ tangerine is perhaps most celebrated for its high vitamin C content, although several other fruits and vegetables provide more concentrated levels. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a typical large orange provides 86 calories and about 98 milligrams of vitamin C, or 163 percent of the nutrient"s daily value. Vitamin C content differs slightly among varieties, however, with Valencia oranges from California supplying slightly more vitamin C than Florida oranges. A small orange approximately 2.5 inches in diameter, or the equivalent of about a 3.5-ounce serving of the fruit, contains an average of 47 calories and 53 milligrams of vitamin C, or 88 percent of the nutrient"s daily value, according to USDA data. Strawberries A 3.5-ounce serving of fresh strawberries, or about five large berries, provides 32 calories and almost 59 milligrams of vitamin C, or 98 percent of the daily value. As such, ounce for ounce, strawberries are slightly higher in vitamin C " and lower in calories " than oranges/ tangerines . By weight, a serving of 10 large strawberries is roughly equal to one large orange. The serving of strawberries has 60 calories, almost 30 percent fewer than the orange, while providing almost 177 percent of the daily value for vitamin C, or 14 percent more than that found in the orange. The average pint of fresh strawberries contains about 350 percent of the daily value for vitamin C, according to the USDA.
Socialism

Socialism is an ideology that has already proved to be flawed. It's not me who says it, But history. The solution of trusting the state more than in people is very irresponsible. People do not want this, They are forced to accept a system imposed on them by an authoritarian state. We are not equal as the Socialists like to say. We have to accept our differences and give each one the freedom to choose the best for them. They talk so much of equality and laws to end inequalities, Yet they are the first to not enforce the law. Let us be concerned with creating laws that promote freedom and order and do not force the fight against inequalities. What is effectively the problem with inequalities? None. Isn't more important to fight poverty instead of eliminating wealth?
Socialism

I want to start by apologizing for an error in the last argument, I said that Cuba and Venezuela are communists, While I mean that they are socialists. In this respect, There are no historical doubts, They are countries that defend a great state control and the greater economic base of these countries is in state companies. Secondly, What has Russia achieved? A country is no more than its people, If its population is bad, The country is necessarily weak and in misery. I do not agree with the idea of R03;R03;development if the poorest people starve to death in rural areas with which there is no concern. The same applies to China and all countries that transfer individual freedoms to state authoritarianism
Socialism

so far, If you lived 300 years ago and started babbling about democracy and individual rights first they would laugh at you then flog you then hang you, Along the way some one would mention that historically democracies never worked, Individuals were in no way equal, And rights and liberties were a thing that the aristocracy was entitled to and no one else. . Times change and things evolve, Yes you are right so far capitalism has achieved many technological advances. . But study the ussr, It went in a short period from one of the most primitive nations on earth to a world power. . At a great cost in lives, There is no doubt. . But to say socialism never achieved anythng is inaccurate. . It took over 2/3 of the globe for a period of 75 years. . China which is still marginally socialist as the state still owns and operated much of the economy. . Of course with market reforms has pulled 800 million people out of poverty, Since 1980 the poverty rate dropped from 90% to 2%, No small thing.
Socialism

We must recognize that the greatest advances in medicine have been achieved by commercial freedom and by capitalism that allows free competition. Never has any state been able to develop this area without private support. This development allowed for a greater average life expectancy than ever before. To the fact that there are no truly socialist or capitalist countries I do not agree. Countries like Cuba and Venezuela are communists, While most Western countries are capitalist, For example. In Europe what happens in countries as referred to is called Social Democracy, A policy that in the political spectrum belongs to the left center. This presupposes that the market must be free, But there must be strong regulation of the state to control market failures.
Socialism

Socialism is a new idea, You may say it is old, But then so is capitalism, Modern capitalism, Is capitalsim in a modern form not just mercantalism, Since the industrial revolution it has created much advancement and wealth, It has also created inequality poverty and polllution, In Britian in the early stages of the industrial reovlution life expectancy dropped sharly from 30 to 25 years because of horrible living conditions. No madern economy is absolutely Capitalist or Socialist, All economies have elements of a public and private sector. I will conceed that the old model of Socialism state ownership and high taxation has failed, And the utopian definition of socialism or communims, A stateless society where private property is abolished and workers run everything has never been attianed and maybe never will be. . The Nordic Nations and other western european nations however have melded hybrids where market economies transfer resources to the state to provide services. Also china.
delusion is true to the deluded

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for opening this intriguing debate Before I give any arguments, I must implore my opponent to more clearly define what we are arguing about. I will point out however that the title is a truism, by definition delusion must be true to the deluded. Otherwise, the person is not deluded (for the person would not belive the delusion to be true) or the "truth" in question is not a delusion (for the delusion is in fact true). Therefore I deduce that the actual resolution of the debate is about the validity of christianity or whether or not Christians are deluded. Am I correct?
Historicity of the Bible

I do apologize for jumping the gun.Ambiguous evidence does not validate anything.You say the Bible is used as a source for archaeological study?You show me someone that believes the Bible can be a source,I'll show you show you someone that doesn't. The problem is that it comes down to conjecture and that ceartainly doesn't bode well for anyone looking for literal context.A lot of what you say actually supports my argument.You admit that different creationist have contradicting dates as to the age of the earth and shape of the earth.So if the believers can't agree how can we possible take it seriously?As you say in job 26:7 .."he stretches out the northern expanse and hangs the earth on nothing"that's a nonsensical passage.The earth doesn't hang on nothing, or suspended by something.the earth orbits the sun at 60,000 plus mph and rotates on its axis at approx 1,500mph.You put plenty of emphasis on the word CIRCLE..I don't know what other shape they would of thought the earth was?I do know they didn't use the word DUWR which is Hebrew for ' SPHERE' which is what it is.The conjecture that you use is how the Bible has been interpreted for millenniums. Like when you say KIND actually means family or phylum?..Noah did bring two of each KIND of animal aboard.The context of KIND seems very self explanatory. Most importantly you very briefly touched on my first argument.You haven't said anything that would lend any credibility that the Bible is the word of God?You've simply pointed out how the bible is up to interpretation.If the bible was the word of a omniscient being YOU would expect a little more decisiveness and not contradictions and incongruity..If we found out the the declaration of independence was forged by someone else,and Jefferson ,Adams,Franklin,Livingston and Sherman had nothing to do with it,wouldn't we all feel betrayed?it certainly wouldn't have the historical importance it once had.The historicity of the bible is contingent upon the validity of its content and its author..And so far there's been nothing to lend credence to either one.
Historicity of the Bible

The Bible at best is an allegory. Now when you say trusted I'm gonna assume you mean 'can we believe in any or all of it.I'll demonstrate why it shouldn't be trusted as an historical document. 1.The bible is said to be the word of God..The very foundation of the bible .the intrinsic nature of the bible presupposes that it is the word of God!So before we even get into the content of it you have to decide whether or not you believe that God articulated this to begin with.Imo there's no sufficient evidence to suggest this was the case(other than what the book says) 2.the many scientific fallacies.If we wanted to use the bible as tool of understanding our world we would believe the earth is flat and only 6 thousand years old.Natural selection clearly disproves genesis and so on. 3.The lack of evidence to support a great portion of the bible's content should be enough to dissuade any rational thinking person from treating it as historical fact.Even if there are some accuracy to the bible to cherry pick what you think is accurate is dishonest knowing that an overwhelming portion of it is fallacious an inaccurate.There for the bible should not be trusted as an historical document anymore then we would trust the (bible code)
Historicity of the Bible

So. Should the Bible be trusted as historical document? That's the topic. In other words, we're discussing the historicity of the Bible. I am saying, "yes". The first round will only be used for acceptance while the second will be used for opening statements. Round three is for rebuttals, and round four for closing arguments. Rules: 1.) No profanity. Keep your language at best G-PG rated. No cursing, or swearing, please. 2.) Back up your reasoning. You don't necessarily have to cite specific sources, but it would help. Just make sure you're either quoting correctly, or citing correctly. Avoid plagiarism. 3.) Be respectful. Please, do not make disparaging remarks, and avoid insulting another person's intellect, and/or character. 4.) Have fun. This is an open debate. Just keep in mind that the pressure is on since this is a pretty touchy subject.
Historicity of the Bible

Okay. I have to at least say that I had fun with this debate. It was very interesting. You brought up some excellent points, and I applaud you for being very logical in your arguments. I already made my closing statement by bringing out Bible prophecy, but I would like to remind you that any prophecies of the Bible (at the time of writing) were written BEFORE they happened. After all, Alexander the Great was never actually called by name in the Bible. You can, however look at the historical record to prove that it was Alexander who conquered the Medo-Persian Empire (which is what the two-horned ram in Daniel 8 represents, and we are told so within the passage itself). Also, it is worthy to note that the Bible is THE most well-preserved document in all of antiquity. No other writings even come close. We have more manuscripts that were written sooner after the events recorded in the New Testament, and that are more in agreement with each other than even Homer's Iliad. That's pretty impressive if you ask me. Thank you for taking the time to debate with me. I very much appreciate it. This concludes my farewell. I hope we may meet up again elsewhere for another debate. Again, thank you.
Historicity of the Bible

I get your apple analogy ..but to simplify it in that way would be like me trying to explain the 9/11 attacks to someone by saying "some planes hit the twin towers"does it really matter if its one ot two?We can all agree that should be a very specific answer.its about being factually accurate. Once again conjecture.As far as the words(DUWR, CHUG, KIND)You have Proven there is no clear way to interpret the meaning of those words.Interpreting them to fit your conclusion would be a fallacy from ambiguity.How can we trust something that we can all play fill in the blanks with?Yes the author of the Bible should be the centerpiece of this debate if we are to rely on it as a historical document and yet you've given no valid argument to suggest this is factual.You reference the Bible as your authority to determine this(who was the last king of Babylon)Yet it tells us nothing of the authenticity of its content or author.The profound problem with Bible prophecy is it tells us nothing about future events.It only (according to you)describes event that have taken place.Its very easy to assert the meaning of something that's already taken place.Does this sound familiar?Nostradamus was a 16th century French apothecary and prophet according to some scholars.However the accuracy and meaning of his writings are largely debated.The bible is very similar in equivocation.You hit the nail on its head when you said"if the bible is God's word,and God cannot lie,then how can we not trust it?Your right!So untill the day comes where it can be proven to be the word of God we can't and shouldn't trust it as historical fact.
The God of the Bible Could Potentially Exist

Well, I have no particular questions or comments to respond to, and I have no intention of making anyone slog through an entirely unnecessary wall of text. So, I will go ahead and thank my opponent for his contribution to this discussion, and I will also extend thanks in advance to anyone who may come in and vote on this. I know that voting may seem pointless, seeing as my opponent is no longer on debate.org, but any commentary you may have on my arguments would be greatly appreciated. Again, thank you for your time.
The God of the Bible Could Potentially Exist

I apologize sincerely for having them wait so long. = Framework = - My opponent's resolution is a impossible to prove "Con" as the "Potentially" clause assures that if there is even a minor possibility; I will win. - My opponent cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the God of the bible could not possibly exist. - I don't even need to refute my opponent's arguments to win, as thy are rooted in semantic interpretation of scripture. = Arguments = Although I don't need to do anything to actually win this round; that would kill the purpose of ha a debate in the first place. So I will actually refute my opponent's arguments. 1) Extend of the Biblical God's power My opponent first shows us that nothing is impossible for God, but then shows us two verses that would supposedly show things God couldn't do. I contend my opponent's interpretation and perception of these verses are wrong. Hebrews 6:18 - All God says is true, thus even if he where to say something that wasn't true in our logic; it would become true as it would be spoken into existence. - Lying is sinful; and sin is the absence of God. Thus if God too part in it it would no longer be lying. - There is no reason for God to lie, thus all things are still possible. Judges 1:19 - The wording is off due to translation; but it doesn't literally mean that God was unable, it means he was unwilling. 2) Extent of the Biblical God's knowledge Again, my opponent's interpretation of these verses are wrong Genesis 3:8-9 - This was a rhetorical question. This is made abundantly clear by context of the surrounding passage Hosea 8:4 - My opponent isn't even quoting the entire verse, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. " when looking at the entire verse, it's obvious that the verse means that God did no recognize the calf as holy or Godly. = Conclusion = - Ultimately my opponent's arguments are based on semantic interpretation of these verses. - Even if my opponent's arguments where true, that does not mean that the God of the bible does not exist. There is no other vote in this debate than for the Pro
The God of the Bible Could Potentially Exist

This is my first debate here, so I figured I'd give myself a challenge. This is a debate over whether or not there is a possibility that the deity depicted in the Bible could exist. I will be taking the position that there is no possibility whatsoever that the god of the Bible exists. I'm giving my opponent a fairly easy task here. After all, I'm trying to prove a negative, which is (in most cases) almost impossible. All I'm looking for is an opponent (preferably agnostic or Christian, but if you want to debate this and don't fall into one of those categories it's no big deal) with a solid understanding of how to present logical arguments, which I'm assuming won't be hard to find, given the impressive debates I've already seen here. The first round will just be acceptance of the debate challenge. We will then get into the debate. Good luck ahead of time to my opponent, here's hoping I can pull this off.
Noah's Ark is not true

I'm debating that it would not have worked Now I'm going to list the things i see make it impossible for Noah's ark story to be possibly true 1. since all the humans on board where of one race how did new races arise in 4000 thousand years? and 8 people is not enough genetic diversity 2.'"19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;"' So i assume you know Mount everest is the highest mountain in the world ? and since in the Bible it says that water was that high animals would either die because of Lack of Oxygen or because they froze to death 3. There would have to be 50 animals of each kind for there to be enough genetic diversity . there would be severe genetic defects 4. If there was only a few thousand pairs of kinds of animals why is there so many species right now estimates show there is roughly about 15 million species of animals so how did that happen in 4000 years 5.As the animals left the ark there was no plants and food therefore wouldn't the animals eat each other or just die out 6.There would be signs of migrations for example after leaving the ark the kangoro would travel to Australia and we found find fossils on the way 7.The Problem of Food and Water , i really dont need to explain much on this one for example 2 elephants would require 365,000 Ibs. Of Food and 36,500 gal. of water , the Girrafes are going to need 54,750 Ibs. of food , the hippos are gone need 65,700 Ibs. of food and the Lions 16,060 Ibs. of Meet and that meet is going to rott , what makes it even more incredible is that in Genesis 6:21 it says 'You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them." . 8.Most Sea Life would die , Because there would be Changing Water temperature , pressue , salt&fresh water mixing = fish die