BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be legal

Thanks, Con for a very fast response! Rebuttals: 1) "The fetus is the same before birth as it is after birth. It has the same DNA." The difference is that before birth, the fetus is a parasite - it uses and depends on the organs of the mother to survive. It should not be able to use her organs without her consent, just as organ donors must give consent before others are allowed to use their organs. 2) "Most abortions take place 8 weeks or longer after fertilisation, when the fetus can feel pain." This is not the case. 64% of abortions are performed before 8 weeks" gestation, and 91.7% before 13 weeks. Not only that, but fetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks' gestation at the very earliest because connections from the fetal body to the cortex that are necessary for pain perception are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation - and even after that, fetuses abide "in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation" that "can suppress higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli." (1) 3) "The fetus is not part of the mother's body." No, but as I argued in my opening arguments, it is a parasite. A parasite is not part of the body of its host, it just lives inside it and takes its nourishment from it. (2) 4) "It is troubling when one group of people dehumanises another group of people." Only when the other group are actually people. There is no scientific evidence conclusively proving so (3) and the US constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights have not labelled them as people (4). 5) "Women have the right to use contraception if they do not want a child, but abortion is wrong unless the mother's life is in danger or the baby will die anyway." Contraception can malfunction, and sometimes sex education that isn't thorough enough or birth control that is strictly regulated or unavailable can cause a woman to not know, through no fault of her own, how to obtain or use contraception. Is it fair for her to then be forced to deal with all the side effects and emotional stress of pregnancy (and sometimes consequent abuse or shunning) and loan out her organs to something she hasn't given consent to to use them? 1. http://reason.com... 2. See Source 4 of my opening argument. 3. See Source 2 of my opening argument. 4. See Source 3 of my opening argument.
Should kids play MA video games

Ah, yes. The age-old philosophical question of whether or not kids should be able twist video game characters' heads right off of their bodies and watch the pixelated blood go spurting. Or watch them smoke cigarettes, or whatnot. What a deep query you have made, my son. The answer: The actual studies say there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behavior: . http://psycnet.apa.org...Case closed.
The Patriots undefeated season should have an asterisk on it.

"O.K. by "an asterisk next to their record" I assume you are talking about something akin to the one that was added to Roger Maris' single season home run record to denote he accomplished the feat in more games than Ruth had?" This is actually not the same thing. We can, without any doubt at all, say that it was easier for marris to hit the record because he had more games and thereby more opportunities to hit home runs. The asterisk next to Marris is really there to give credit to Ruth, not discredit marris. An asterisk next to the Pats would serve only to discredit them. "While the Patriots certainly won't get an official, physical asterisk attached to their season in the record books, historians will always note that they were found guilty of cheating and severely punished for it in the first game of the season. In that respect this season will always carry a figurative asterisk for the Patriots." A figurative asterisk, or historical criticism is not the same as having a physical asterisks next to their accomplishment. The difference between the two is similar to the difference between most people thinking OJ Simpson to be guilty of murder, and OJ being found guilty and thrown in jail. One is a hit to the reputation, the other is a guilty verdict. "While their overall record (wherever it finishes) will be a historical fact, so will the cheating conviction. I think you are saying that their accomplishments shouldn't be stained by the fact they were caught cheating in a game. I'd submit both will be historical facts and we can't pick and choose which parts of history to retell. Any historical mention of the 2007 Patriots team that doesn't mention the cheating conviction would be factually lacking and hence not solid history." That is true, but it still does not justify the physical asterisk. I'll go back to the Marris-Ruth thing. I don't know the numbers exactly but I am sure you could take the number of games ruth played and check Marris's numbers at that point in the season and he would have less than 60. An asterisk next to marris says that Ruth accomplished the most in that given number of games. Again the asterisk give Ruth credit, it does not discredit marris.
The Patriots undefeated season should have an asterisk on it.

O.K. by "an asterisk next to their record" I assume you are talking about something akin to the one that was added to Roger Maris' single season home run record to denote he accomplished the feat in more games than Ruth had? While the Patriots certainly won't get an official, physical asterisk attached to their season in the record books, historians will always note that they were found guilty of cheating and severely punished for it in the first game of the season. In that respect this season will always carry a figurative asterisk for the Patriots. While their overall record (wherever it finishes) will be a historical fact, so will the cheating conviction. I think you are saying that their accomplishments shouldn't be stained by the fact they were caught cheating in a game. I'd submit both will be historical facts and we can't pick and choose which parts of history to retell. Any historical mention of the 2007 Patriots team that doesn't mention the cheating conviction would be factually lacking and hence not solid history. Yes, the cheating conviction should and will be remembered just as much as the perfect season. In that regard, the figurative asterisk must be acknowledged. How that affects any individuals view of the team is a personal matter, but is a conclusion that should be come to with ALL of the facts available to them.
The Patriots undefeated season should have an asterisk on it.

"The best season in NFL history" is completely arbitrary and open to interpretation. I'd suggest that if you want it recognized in such a manner and asterisk would be necessary to denote that some entity in charge of such determinations (if one actually existed) decided it was, indeed, the best season any team has enjoyed in NFL history. However, in the real world, such things are subjective. You will be unlikely to convince a Bears fan, for example, that their season was better than the '85 Bears season or a Dolphins fan to accept it as a better season than the '72 Phins. This is one of the great things about sports, they aren't fixed by such things. You may feel it was the best season in NFL history, and can probably even give all sorts of legitimate reasons for that viewpoint. It will still be an opinion, not a historical fact. That they WERE indeed caught cheating in the very first game of the season provides someone who feels different than you substantial evidence to contradict your opinion.
God probably exists

Is God real? Hello. The BOP is on Pro to give arguments showing that God probably exists, while Con must effectively refute all of them. Both Romanii and I will be playing devils advocate in this debate, meaning we represent a side we don't agree with. Debate structure: Round 1: Acceptance/rules Round 2: Opening Contentions from Pro / Rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals / Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals / Rebuttals Round 5: Conclusions / Conclusions ; no new arguments or rebuttals on either side Clarifications on God: I'm advocating for the deistic God in this debate. The deistic God, in his wisdom, created all of the desired motions for our world, universe, etc in it's creation. The deistic God does not make mid course corrections, such as visions or miracles. It should be noted that Con is arguing for *atheism* in this, so Con advocating for his God or the exact same God I am advocating for with the exception of a few characteristics is not acceptable. Additional rules: 1. Forfeiting a round is an automatic loss for The debater who had forfeited. 2. A violation of the debate structure is a full forfeit. 3. Plagiarism will result in a full forfeit. 4. Semantics/trolling will result in a full forfeit. 5. And finally, voters should not take statements from the comments section into account when voting, with the exception being one debater pointing out that the other had violated one of the rules in one of his rounds. Thanks for agreeing to debate this Con. If you have any questions either PM me or tell me them in the comments of our debate. Happy Memorial Day.
Kids should wear school uniforms

Intro: I see the world become so uniform. Everybody has to be the same. I like people who are different. Eric Cantona Contention 1: Freedom of expression. We have a right to express ourselves how we choose. We are individuals. We are not the same. We need to express ourselves. The index did a story on March 20th, 2013. It states, "The lack of access to freedom of expression is a problem that particularly affects the already marginalised "" that is, minorities facing discrimination both in developed and developing countries, from LGBT people in African countries, to disabled people in Western Europe. While the scale of their struggles varies greatly, the principle is the same: within the context of their society, these groups face greater barriers to freedom of expression than the majority. If they are unable to communicate their ideas, views, worries and needs effectively, means they are often excluded from meaningful participation in society, and from the opportunity to better their own circumstances. In other words, discrimination is one of the core elements of unequal access to freedom of expression." We need freedom of expression. https://www.indexoncensorship.org... Contention 2: School uniform policies are bad. They don't have that much power. Plus it targets the wrong people.The gaurdian did a story on June 19th, 2014. It states, "The state sixth-form college I attended had a nonexistent clothing policy " many of us took our A-levels in pyjamas without a teacher batting an eyelid " and a track record in results that rivalled the nearby private schools. At one of those private schools, my teenage boyfriend was being harassed, repeatedly, about his haircut by a cohort of adults. At one point, the headmaster of this prestigious institution was left with his head in his hands by the very idea of a (clever, well behaved) young boy whose naturally curly hair went slightly past his ears. Suspension from school was seriously discussed " even expulsion. He was a straight-A student. It was utterly absurd." http://www.theguardian.com... Contention 3: Costs. I could buy a few days worth of regular clothes in exchange for this single school unifom. Here are the prices of school uniforms per gender. Now compare that to your own shopping readers. Think about how absurd this really is. Claims are there of saving money. Really? More like wanting them to spend more. http://www.classroomuniforms.com... Conclusion: School uniforms are bad in more than one way. I hope this has helped shed some light on the situation. Please vote for me.
Religion is the cause of many of the world's problems

Before I begin, I like your profile picture Pro! I will be arguing that religion does not cause the world's problems. Let's set some definitions. Definitions:Religion is defined as the belief in a god or in a group of gods [1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Cause means something or someone that produces an effect [2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...] World is defined as theearthorglobe,consideredasaplanet [3. . http://dictionary.reference.com...] Problem means something that is a source of trouble [4. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Interpreting definitions:The resolution is saying that a belief in a God (or Gods) produces many of the earth's trouble's. However, this is very vague. The only problems that planet earth has is global warming, pollution and Justin Bieber (half-serious about JB). Pro may correct me if there is more, because I would be glad to add to the list, as long as it pertains to earth's problems. What Pro must prove:Because Pro is the instigator, he has full Bop. In order to fulfill is Bop, he must show that religion is the cause of things that harm earth such as global warming, pollution, etc. I view this debate as a science experiment. An experiment is atest,trial,ortentativeprocedure;anactoroperationforthepurposeofdiscoveringsomethingunknownoroftestingaprinciple [5. . http://dictionary.reference.com...]Most experiments use controlled and independent variables. The controls are what stay the same, and the independent variable(s) are the things that you change. What we are going to do is have the earth be the controlled variable. Religion will be the independent variable. The results of this test will show us what the cause of earth's problems. Here is a layout of what Pro must show (backup with evidence) in order to prove that religion causes the world's problems: What Con must prove:I argue that religion is not the cause of the world's problems. In order to win the debate, I must negate Pro's arguments, and provide evidence that disproves the resolution.
Guantanamo Bay Detention Center Should Be Shut Down.

All of my points stand unrefuted. Military tribunals are constitutional, the Supreme Court's objections having been met by bipartisan legislation endorsed and signed by President Obama. The Administration intends to try 200 terrorists by military tribunal. Those trials could be held at GITMO or elsewhere. Keeping GITMO open and using it to detain terrorists saves taxpayers at least $200 million and solves many problems. The resolution is negated.
Guantanamo Bay Detention Center Should Be Shut Down.

I wish to keep it short, sweet, and to the point. ==DEFINITIONS== 1. Guantanamo Bay- a detainment facility of the United States located in Cuba. The facility is operated by Joint Task Force Guantanamo of the United States government since 2002 in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is on the shore of Guantanamo Bay. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Unconstitutional- not allowed by or against the principles set down in a constitution, especially a nation's written constitution . http://www.bing.com... 3. Terrorist- somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes . http://www.bing.com... ==ARGUMENT== On the day of Tuesday, February 1, 2005, a US Federal judge ruled that military tribunals for international terrorist at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp were unconstitutional. The Bush Administration, who created the tribunals stated. .. .. . ""We respectfully disagree with the decision," - White House spokesman Scott McClellan Many of the detainees attorney's mentioned that the ruling was a "smashing defeat for the Bush Administration. " There has been proof of torture against the the detainees. (. http://www.abc.net.au...) I want to thank the person who accepts this debate. Thank you. Sources: 1. . http://www.abc.net.au... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.bing.com... 4. . http://www.bing.com...
Humanity

I have two things to say in this round, so I will be brief. 1. My opponent has proven my point in the first round in my claim that they have no clear claim. 2. My opponent has committed the fallacy of Ad Hoc Rescue[8]. The very resolution is 'humanity' and yet my opponent has changed their argument to 'society'. At the point one commits a fallacy, their opponent is exempt from having to answer that argument -- I've won. [8] . http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... The conclusions are as follows- 1. is that my opponent has utterly failed to provide a compelling argument within the scope of the resolution. 2. My opponent has failed to attack my own arguments. 3. My opponent has committed the logical fallacy of Ad Hoc Rescue, so they have no argument to carry.
Humanity

Actually I was referencing the government and the demands the government puts on us as people. Let me be more frank, society. That was my error in saying humanity. I am aware there are good and bad people. That wasn't my claim. I was speaking against society and it's views against individuals and trying to back it's reasoning with the Bible and God. Back to my statement in round one, who are we as people if I have to succumb to someone opinion of who I should be. People are very judgemental as well as government and instead of it being posed as their opinion, it's posed as Biblical law. That's my issue.
Humanity

My opponent has still failed to provide a particularly compelling argument, but instead a few premises by which he never really draws a conclusion. I won't be daft however, and will concede to understand what it is my opponent is trying to argue: that humanity sucks. While I agree that there are people out there who probably don't deserve anything more than being beaten with sack of garbage, that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who are sincerely good people. Warren Buffet is famous for having donated 99% of his wealth to charity[3], Bill Gates alongside his wife Melinda Gates are responsible for the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation[4] which works to improve health conditions and education around the world. [3] . http://www.inquisitr.com... [4] . http://www.gatesfoundation.org... Beyond that, we can look to a myriad of historical examples of people who have exhibited works of love and compassion; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr[5], Mahatma Ghandi[6] and Mother Teresa[7] are a few of the names that come to mind in this respect. [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org.... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... Furthermore my opponent never really addresses my initial argument Con's lack of presenting a qualified argument; her claim is unclear, she has no warrant and she ultimately leaves nothing for me to refute.
Humanity

Okay I agree. It may be somewhat based on that theory, but "data" wise, I don't need references to make my claim clear. Anyone with eyes can see that this world is crumbling. Nothing is based on anything worth anything. Humanity in itself is a load of bs. We elect presidents and put so much confidence in a government that doesn't even know their right from their left half the time, but I'm suppose to let them dictate my actions and well-being? I don't think so. Show me what we have done outside of screwing up and trying to back it with the Bible
Humanity

As it stands Con does not pose a full argument, as they do not have a clear claim, there is no warrant, there is no data and there is no impact. This method of advocacy is known as the Toulmin method[1] was proposed by British Philosopher Stephen Toulmin in his book 'The Uses of Argument[2]; it has since been accepted at large by the debate community as the most effective method of advocacy as it lies out the logical and empirical structure of the argument for the most effective discussion. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... As the Contender in this debate it is not my responsibility to prove the resolution false, but to disprove the Con; I am unable to do this so long as Con fails to provide a legitimate argument. So as it stands the vote must go to the Pro for upholding their burden by omission of the Con. The resolution is negated; Back to you Pro!
Humanity

Who are we as people? Does anyone really know? Judged for our character, sexual orientation, lifestyles, religion, and race. What are we based upon if not these things? Is this not what makes us people? A person? Dare to be different,but pay the cost. No one is higher than God, yet we do not have control of ourselves. We hold true to a constitution that governs us as "people " to be what man thinks is what God wants us to be and live. And look where we are. A suffering nation divided by war, greed, selfishness, and biased. We tell others what they are allowed to think and feel, what's appropriate and what's not. And based on what? God said first and foremost, I am your leader, your judge, your source, your everything. Man is nothing. So who are you to tell me I can't look or dress this way. That I can't marry him or her. That I have to believe in your religion. The only person I have to answer to is God. The only thing you have is your opinion. We are living within the guidelines of man, not God. Yes, there are some references and I think they're only there to justify what man has set in place.
Pandas are the world's cutest and most awesome animal

well i see your point but what do you expect the penguin to eat? they live in the arctic like you said so there is no vegetation fish are their only choice so they harm animals for their survival. you said that panda only attack for their safety but penguins do even less then that because they need to survive and cant possibly survive without eating. and as for the cuteness of them i don't really know how cute it is to be a fat blob that chows down on bamboo. penguins just sitting there are cute and they have a wattle that is unbeatable. if you have ever searched a penguin family you see a bunch of close nit fur balls all bundled together for warmth (very cute). so on a different topic how many movies have you seen about how cute a panda is? happy feet is a movie that clearly shows how cute the animated penguin can be.
Pandas are the world's cutest and most awesome animal

Although I see your point of view, I disagree. Penguins live in the arctic where it is always extremely cold and unbearable living conditions. You say that Penguins are innocent and Pandas are violent and known for attacks, but let's take a look at both animals diets. Penguins eat LIVING animals. They go out and kill innocent little fish, how inhumane. Pandas on the other hand happily munch of bamboo all day, not hurting a fly. Pandas don't hurt anyone unless provoked by people such as poachers and someone who may have overstepped their boundary with the animal. Pandas do not deliberately go out and attack people they simply defend themselves in rare occasions just like any other animal would do. How can you call a penguin innocent when the kill other animals? As for the overall cuteness, name me one thing a penguin does that is 'cute'. A panda can literally do and make it cute. Sneeze. Rock in a rocking chair. Eat. Yawn. You name it if a Panda does it it will be cute. http://www.bing.com... How you gonna tell me thats not cute
Pandas are the world's cutest and most awesome animal

Pandas are not the cutest because they are not always nice and cuddly. Pandas, by nature, are still in the bear family and are known for attacks, however I have never once heard of an attack by a penguin who has similar fur types and are far more innocent. In comparison they both look similar, with large furry bodies and round cuddly shapes, but the penguin wins because it is cute and innocent at all times of the day. In the end the kind hearted animal will win me over.