BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion Should Be Legal

First off there have been countless societies that approved of the killing of innocents.(Aztecs,Mongols,Vikings).But regardless of that, it is acceptable to have an abortion, even if it is a innocent human life. Judith Jarvis Thomas makes three valid points. First, if you deny the mothers right to an abortion, you are dehumanizing her and giving more rights to the fetus than to her. This is not fair. Everyone should have equal rights. Second, say you are kidnapped and forced to provide life support to a random stranger. Is it your responsibility to provide support for this stranger? Third, say the women does not want a child and she uses contraception. Still, she winds up pregnant. Now she is forced to give birth and raise a child who she does not love or want. Also what if the Woman if raped? What if the child is the result of incest and is going to be born with countless birth defects? What if carrying the child to term endangers the mother's life? What if the mother is too young to care for a child? There are so many circumstances in which abortion should be allowed. It should be legal. If you admit that abortion should be acceptable in any of these situations, than you are committing a fallacy. you are saying that human life is only valuable sometimes. Adoption is a terrible option. Although there are a few cases in which foster kids get adopted and have a wonderful life, there are so many cases in which this does not happen. Hundreds of thousands of kids go adopted every year. They are forced to live in unstable homes always questioning whether anyone ever loved them. Many of them have limited options in life and do not make it to collage. Overall, abortion is acceptable and not morally wrong, even if the fetus is classified as a human.
Abortion Should Be Legal

Assuming the humanity of the fetus, abortion is wrong as it is the killing of an innocent human life. No society has ever accepted the idea that it is morally acceptable to kill an innocent human being. Even in such atrocities as the holocaust and various other historical genocides, it was first necessary to either deny the humanity of the victims or attribute some wrongdoing to that class of people before it could be accepted that it was moral to kill them. The woman DOES have a right to her body and her life, but, assuming it's humanity, so does the fetus.
The Superior Weapon in a Zombie Apocalypse

IntroductionI actually wanted to do this debate after seeing the original as well. I'd like to thank ishallannoyyo for instigating this debate.Definitions and AssumptionsI accept the two definitions proposed by my opponent and submit the following: Weapons must be within the realm of current reality (no energy swords, etc). The user of these weapons is assumed to have relative proficiency with said weapons. Medium to severe damage to the heart of a zombie should also kill it, as oxygen flow to the brain would also be affected. Zombies are not inhibited in terms of motion or their senses by their undead/infected state. This means all zombie physiological systems and functions behave as a normal human's would except that zombies are afflicted with blind rage towards humans. Humans are infected and become zombies when bitten anywhere on their bodies. WeaponsI will be advocating the following three weapons: Forearm machete blade with perpendicular grip and forearm strap Aluminum alloy baseball bat 9mm Beretta M9 semi-automatic pistol with a suppressor
The Superior Weapon in a Zombie Apocalypse

I would like to debate the same topic with the same rules which are: Both sides choose 2 mï¿½lï¿½e weapons and 1 ranged weapons and we argue that our selection of 3 weapons are better than our opponents. I define the following terms: Superior - the most advantageous Zombie - an undead corpse that can only be killed by a head shot, decapitation, or major damage to the head area of the corpse
Chromebooks are great or Education

Thanks Con, it's nice to meet a first time debater who doesn't forfeit!RebuttalCon has dropped my initial rebuttals of his claim that Chromebooks are faulty and prevent students from accessing websites, so I will assume that is a concession.1) The price of a high-end variant has nothing to do with the trend I described, which was a lower price relative to alternative products that fufill similiar purposes, ie Laptops and Desktops. It's true that high-end Chromebooks exist, but this is not relevant to the debate, since the resolution refers only to Chromebooks within the context of education. In simpler terms, Schools aren't going to buy the pixel, they'll buy the best value for money option, which will be the cheaper and more common Chromebooks. Since these Chromebooks are cheaper than the comparative Laptop, schools will be able to invest money into other areas, contributing to a better education.2) Simple does not mean functional. However, Chrome OS is simple and functional, in comparison with Windows operating systems. This is because it contains only a web browser and basic packaged applications. Once again Con has provided anecdotal evidence that does not stand up to scrutiny. Additionally, it should be noted by voters that it is not best practice to link articles and to be used as part of your case, they should only be used as references. Furthermore, this article is not even relevant, as we are not debating whether the Pixel is worth purchasing, but rather whether Chromebooks (in general) are great for education.3) I referenced Wikipedia to prove to voters that the Chrome Remote Desktop tool exists and to show it's functionality.ConclusionMy rebuttals have been dropped by Con. Additionally Con's rebuttals are insufficient, and my intitial constructive case remains unanswered. Over to you Con!
Chromebooks are great or Education

1) Yes Chromebooks are cheap, however now with the new Pixel, it is around $1,300. 2) Simple doesn't mean functional. The people that go to my school always struggle with WiFi when using Chromebook, which strange because the other computers work just fine. You can claim that I'm faking it, but try it yourself. Chromebooks are not the best with wifi. Now with the Pixel, there are many more problems. Check this website for more info on other problems. http://theweek.com... 3)I really don't have to disprove this,. You used Wikipedia, something everyone can change. Well this is my best attempt. I guess my conclusion is that our schools deserve better like the Google Nexus 10 or the Microsoft Surface Pro.
Chromebooks are great or Education

RebuttalCon notes that the Chromebooks his school purchased were faulty, and had to be recalled. This is not relevant to the debate unless it can be proven that Chromebooks are moreoften faulty than there alternatives. If this is not the case, it is an example of anecdotal fallacy. Additionally, Con states that many sites he attempted to access were blocked. This, has absolutely nothing to do with the Chromebook itself, but rather how Con's school filtering system was configured. The Chromebook will display websites like any other device connected to a network, by default. However Con's school used either used the Chromebooks customisation capabilities (which is arguably a case for Pro) or how they configured their internet filtering system (which is irrelevant).Constructive Case1) Chromebooks are cheap.Averaging around $250, Chromebooks are much cheaper than an average laptop, which is a commonly proposed alternative. This allows schools to spend the money elsewhere, potentially providing a superior education. It also means that more can be purchased, so in poorer schools, they do not have to be shared, allowing for a more engaging learning process.http://www.amazon.com...2) Chromebooks are simple.As they are only capable of running web-based applications, they take little expertise to set up, and even less skill to use. This allows even tech-illiterate teachers to take advantage of them, and tech-illiterate kids will not be able to break them - no matter how hard they try. Consequentley, this avoids the faffing that more complex operating systems often cause, allowing students to cut straight into real learning and education.https://en.wikipedia.org...3) Chromebooks are easily administrated.Applications that allow Teachers and administrators to filter trivial, non-educational content ensures that students are fully focused on the task they have been est. One such application is the Chrome Remote Desktop tool, which allows administrators to monitor multiple users computers.https://en.wikipedia.org...ConclusionI have invalidated Con's arguments and proved substantial evidence that Chromebooks are great for education.Good luck Con.
Chromebooks are great or Education

I'm not against Google or technology, but I don't see why Chromebooks are consider useful educational tools. Well I do but I don't understand why people think it's so useful. Already my school had to recall our Chromebooks because they were faulty and one almost caught on fire. Also, many places that I try to access are blocked. I understand certain Youtube videos, but why my Latin teacher's videos to help us understand new concepts and health websites? I don't know, just need to hear why people think these Chromebooks are useful.
Chromebooks are great or Education

It's been great debating with you, Con. Con concedes most of my rebuttals. I'll do your little test and raise one further argument in favour of using Chromebooks. Chromebooks are secure. This is because the underlying operating system is virus-resistant by design (it is based on the Linux kernel), needing no firewall because there's no network-available attack surface. This means the student or school will not have to fork out extra cash for an anti-virus or firewall to ensure their data is kept safe. . http://arstechnica.com...ConclusionCon has not successfully rebutted my constructive case, and I have successfully dismantled his negative case, which has been conceded.
Peter Singer is my hero: Utilitarianism is a reasonable argument.

"Therefore, measuring the outcome of the decision, according to utility, is absolutely unnecessary because the outcome of the decision does not have an effect on the morality/immorality." This is not true. Utilitarianism is an ends-based concept, and you make it sound in your argument like it is a deontological outlook. The means are not considered with utility, ONLY the ends, ONLY the outcome of the decision. Yes, the pros and cons are essentially weighed when making a utilitarianistic decision, but only with regard to the end result, not to the morality of the decision itself. You talk about the "positive value of life on earth". Would it be moral, then, to take away this value of life from one innocent to benefit five? All utilitarianism cares about is the numbers, and if those numbers add up to more than 50%. In theory, utility sounds great. But then again, so does communism. Again with the two sadists torturing the child. Two people are made immeasurably happy by this act, whereas one innocent is being forced to suffer in the name of the justice of utilitarianism. Another problem with utilitarianism is that it is completely idealistic. Not only is it impossible to implement into a society, but it has absolutely no room for checks and balances. Who is weighing the pros and cons of the consequences that you talk about? Who is ultimately making that decision? And why should that person be allowed to decide what is the "most beneficial" to the greatest number? There might be a few positives to utilitarianism, but I think that it is obvious that they are HEAVILY outweighed by the negatives.
Peter Singer is my hero: Utilitarianism is a reasonable argument.

First, let me clear up some popular misconceptions about utlitarianism and we can go on from there. Utilitarianism is not, as it is commonly defined, the greatest good for the greatest number or the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utiliarianism is the process of weighing the forecasted positive and negative outcomes of each possible consequence or actual consequence (depending on the version) in order to make a decision. That being said, lets look at this measurement problem. The actor 'assigns' values to each forecasted consequence as makes the decision accordingly. Therefore, measuring the outcome of the decision, according to utility, is absolutely unnecessary because the outcome of the decision does not have an effect on the morality/immorality. So, in order to make these decisions, one has to way to pros and cons of the consequences and the action with the greatest sum (the maximization you talked about) is the 'just' one. So, lets look at your examples. First, the 5 for 1 human exchange. If the five people are gaurunteed to live as full a life and we can assume the lives are equally valued etc. then yes, utility would take that action. But, what you have to ask yourself is whether or not this is really wrong. If you had to make a decision between killing 5 people and killing one, you would kill the lone person (assuming all things equal). Next, killing the world to minimize suffering. The fact that if everyone were dead, there would be no suffering is true. But, that ignores the positive value of life on earth. Certainly, there would be more pleasure than pain if we let the world continue. In short, utilitarianism is not a matter of majority, but a matter of positive vs. negative outcome.
Peter Singer is my hero: Utilitarianism is a reasonable argument.

There are a bunch of different types of utilitarianistic theories that you could argue, but utilitarianism in its most generic form is, in my opinion, a very bad concept. Depending on who you're referring to, utilitarianism could either be the greatest good for the greatest number of people, or the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, but they're not necessarily the same thing. I think that one of utility's biggest problems is that it's so nonspecific. How do you measure it? How can you honestly know if you've achieved the greatest good for the greatest number of people? Who determines what "the greatest good " is? There's never any way to fully know if the utilitarian ideal is achieved. Also, how do you know what is, essentially, the greatest "good" for the majority? You could take a vote, similar to a democracy. But utility doesn't allow for the structure of democracy - it's more like a tribal rule. And what makes the majority happy isn't necessarily just. For example, I'm sure you've heard of the example of how under utilitarianism, it would be perfectly just to kill a completely healthy man and take five of his organs for five sick people. Because five people benefit and only one person does not, in the eyes of utilitarianism, it is just. Another example: what if two sadists take physical pleasure from torturing one child? In a utilitarian society, because the majority is made happy from this act, it is considered just. Another thing is this: the utilitarian ideal would be to minimize suffering for as many people as possible. Wouldn't the easiest way to do that be to kill everyone on earth? Then there would be no suffering at all: maximum utility. There are a lot of arguments for utilitarianism and it does work well for some resolutions, but in general I think it carries a lot more negatives than positives. I don't like it.
Sexual promiscuity is inherently both immoral and detrimental to society.

Rebuttals: Con seems to have missed my point in round two, I will restate it. Despite societies best efforts it has been unable to collectively disconnect std's and promiscuity. This is due to std's being inherently connected to promiscuity. Pro is right, in that safe sex can prevent detrimental effects of std's on a case to case basis. However, we are not talking about case to case we are talking about society as a whole. It is empirically evident that collectively, despite those who do practice safe sex, promiscuity has lead to the spread of std's. This is detrimental to society and society has, as of yet, been unable to seperate the detrimental element from promiscuity. This shows that promiscuity as a society is inherently detrimental and thus immoral. The resolution stands. Pros logic is similar to saying if people donate to food banks we will end world hunger. Again, an individual might be less hungry due to donations, but solving world hunger as a society will require much more. The same is true with promiscuity and std's. The practice of safe sex has hardly stopped the spread of stds. Also to clarify I did not address cons argument because it is unessacary to support the resolution. Again a starving child may be able to experience happiness but eating one meal, but that doesn't stop world hunger from being detrimental. The same is true with promiscuity, a person may enjoy the moment. However, does nothing to change how it can be detrimental. Sexual promiscuity is inherently both detrimental and immoral to society.
Sexual promiscuity is inherently both immoral and detrimental to society.

Rebuttals:In the definition of "inherent" as provided by Pro, it states that it is something that is "existing ... as a permanent and inseperable element, quality or attribute. If safe sex is practiced promiscuity and STD's are no longer inseperable in that particular senario.I would also like to say that Pro only rebutted my R2 rebuttal and not my R2 argument. Therefore, my argument also stands.
Sexual promiscuity is inherently both immoral and detrimental to society.

Rebuttals: Con Say"s "with the practice of safe sex, promiscuity is no longer inherently detrimental to society." Despite society"s best efforts of educating, and supplying condoms etc.., people are still inclined to have unprotected sex. This again is empirically evident by the rates at which STD"s spread. This would suggest that despite society"s attempt to separate STD"s from promiscuity, due to STD"s inherent connection to promiscuity it remains detrimental to society. The resolution stands.
Sexual promiscuity is inherently both immoral and detrimental to society.

Thank you, kasmic, for the definitions I failed to provide. Especially for the definition of inherent. Rebuttals: Inherent: "existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseperable element, quality, or attribute. Pro stated that people who are promiscious, have STD's, and have unprotected sex spread STD's and therefore making promiscuity detrimental. But with the practice of safe sex, promiscuity is no longer inherently detrimental to society. Argument: Given preparation and the consent of everyone involved, I argue that "sleeping around" would be an enjoyable experience [1] and that a lack of sexual exploration would lead to stagnancy. http://www.m.webmd.com...
Sexual promiscuity is inherently both immoral and detrimental to society.

I accept, thank you Vedney for the topic and good luck Definition of terms: As Con did not provide definitions I will. Promiscuous: "characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis." (1) Inherent: "existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute."(2) Immoral: "violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics."(3) Detriment: "loss, damage, disadvantage, or injury."(4) Opening argument: A: Promiscuity and STD"s If a person has STD's and has unprotected sex, there obviously exists a good chance that the STD will spread. Ergo they are called "Sexually Transmitted Diseases." Many people have STD's and they are spreading. (5) While I concede that promiscuity does not equal the stupidity to have unprotected sex, the rate at which these diseases are spreading is empirical evidence that many who have an STD are promiscuous. It is only logical to assume that if people were less promiscuous that these diseases would spread much slower. B: STDs are detrimental to society. These diseases can cause "loss, damage, disadvantage, and/or injury." Due to this there is no question that promiscuity or spreading of these diseases are detrimental. C: Detrimental implies immoral It would seem to "violate moral principle" to spread or encourage "loss, damage, disadvantage, and/or injury." We live in a society where is would be against social ethics to cause the spread of these diseases. Concluding opening argument The spread of STDs suggests the promiscuity of those who have them. (5) These STDs are detrimental to society. Thus making it immoral. If people in society were significantly less promiscuous than the spread of these diseases would slow. Therefore it is only logical to conclude that "Sexual promiscuity is inherently both immoral and detrimental to society." (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) http://dictionary.reference.com... (4) http://dictionary.reference.com... (5) http://www.ashasexualhealth.org...
The Niqab Is Obligatory

1- Pro says even if it is not obligatory it still is obligatory ! Does anyone else see a contradiction here ?! he is able to assume it isn't obligatory in Islam , to prove it is obligatory with some men logic. unfortunately Islam is a revelation and does not accept people's opinions. 2-"All four of the founders of the mainstream Madhabs of today believed the veiling of the face to be obligatory" I am truly sorry that this statement is false, and no one of the imams say the niqab, or face veil is obligatory. the source of my opponent is not a trusted scholar of I slam anyways but as I already shown the opinion of one of the imams in my first rebuttals I will add one more imam here: وفي كتاب "البيان والتحصيل" لابن رشد الجد عن مالك أنه سئل عما يظهر من وجه المرأة، فأدار عمامته تحت ذقنه وفوق حاجبيه معلناً بذلك جواز ظهور دائرة الوجه.... وكذلك في "المدونة" (2/221(ونقله ابن عبدالبر في "التمهيد" (15-111) وارتضاه. Literal translation: In the book Albayan wa tahseel of Ibn Rushd Al jad, about Malik that he was asked about what appears from the face of the woman, so he circled his Amamh (head hat made of a long cloth) under his chin and above his eye browns announcing by this that it is allowed to show the face. ( also in book almodawana 2/221, and was taken by Ibn Bar in book Attamheed 111-15 and accepted it. So it is really sad what the translators are doing to Islam with their biased translations, I now can understand Christians. Please read in this link for more about the twisted translations that my opponent used : http://www.muhajabah.com... And in order to see the image I could not load in previous round, please to go here: http://www.debate.org... Finally I hope you have a good Idea now that the Niqab, although it is a good habit, is still not obligatory, and the women who veil but do not wear niqab are not sinning according to Islamic rulings.
The Niqab Is Obligatory

Firstly I thank Talib for challenging me on this topic,which has long been a subject of differing between islamic scholars.Definition:Niqab is a piece of cloth women use to cover their facesfrom stranger men, for modesty reasons.http://en.wikipedia.org...-My oponent will have to prove that the Niqab is compulsory in islam for any muslim woman. and I will have to prove that It is not , using ONLY Quran verses, authantic Hadeeth, their most accurate interpretations, logical arguments that follow the texts interpretations and the Ejmaee (or the consensus of islamic scholars).
Singing Contest

Hello and welcome to this singing contest! I'll begin my singing with this first round as my opponent may do the same or just accept. http://www.smule.com... (I will be using Smule to post my songs that I will sing whether acepella or with music) Please any song or songs you choose nothing vulgar or profane. Please keep it clean and appropriate and of course HAVE FUN! :) (And you may sing in whatever way acepella or with music). Best wishes to my opponent!