BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Italian food is better than French

That is intrersting. Korean food is very close to Italian food. You discovered my secret. Korean food is my second favorite in the world. Debate is not about sounding smart, its about being right, and Italy, produces the best food in the world...Beacause they go to the market first, then they purchase the most fresh ingredients. Thats the only thing they cook with. Go to Italy. Fast food does not exist. If you see one, its for the tourist. Italian food is the best food in the Uninverse...period.
Italian food is better than French

In this debate, I have to prove that Italian food is not better then French food. I don't have to prove that French food is better than Italian food. 1. You state that is italian food is better, but you don't state which part is better, therefore I must assume that according to you every part of italian food is better than french food. This is not true. 2. This argument is completely opinionated. You have no evidence, just what you think. Therefore you are making invalid statements, that are generalized. - You have no reasons accept that french food has more sauce than italian food. What if i like sauce. Does that mean that Italian food is better. Your arguments are stating your preferences. That doesn't mean that your preferences matter. - Just because Kim Jong Il prefers korean food over chinese food, that doesn't mean he is right. You whole argument is based on an opinion, and only one opinion, yours. Therefore your arguments are completely invalid. Also, one thing is never better than another for everyone. A good example of this is marijuana. Marijuana is bad for the general population, but can eliminate breast cancer. As you can see, just as apples aren't better than oranges, Italian food isn't better than French food.
Italian food is better than French

Talk about trying to sound smart. Your arguments make no sense. You are arguing something that can't be determined. Its like saying apples are better than oranges, just because you like apples. Of course that is not true because what is better to me is not what is better to you. Therefore your argument is completely false. You can't say that one thing is better than another according to what you like. On another note, there are 62 million people living in France and 58 million people living in Italy. As you can see there are more people who think that French food is better. Because you argument is opinionated and doesn't make sense, and I have shown that to a point of reason, I win this debate.
It should not be socially acceptable for women to hit men.

It was a pleasure debating you and thanks for all your responses. The video that you have posted makes both genders a bad individual in different perspectives. However, most likely, men are more likely to hit women according to studies. And thanks for clarifying the Mayweather story. You said it was basically an eye for an eye thing but society cannot go around when everything is an eye for an eye. In order for society to work out, all individuals have to respect one another's rights and properties that one has.
It should not be socially acceptable for women to hit men.

No,he did not attack her he used self defense,and the media tried and failed to make it seem like he was in the wrong when he was just trying to get the women to leave him alone.He swept her off of her feet and even softened her all.Also nowadays Chivalry- Men behaving courteously toward women.Is still very strong,and extends to not hitting women(and even if a woman hits you don't hit her back).There are many cases of this. The mayweather thing was meant for comparison. People say women can't hit men back because they are stronger than them and could hurt them badly. By that logic I could go to UFC Fighter Floyd Mayweather and slap him,but he could not hit me back because he is stronger and could hurt me. I have an eye for an eye view of things.While nobody should be hitting each other,if one breaks that rule then I believe that they should get what they did.If someone hits another person,that person should be able to hit them back. Overall,It was an honor to debate you.But I think that we were arguing two completely different points.You seemed to be going for a more general perspective of it.While I was going more into society and using real world examples.You made some very good points.And I would like to say again that it was a good debate.
It should not be socially acceptable for women to hit men.

I agree that you said this debate regards to society and no one in society is perfect. It shouldn't be allowed that women hitting men but that should mean men can't hit women either. On the video you posted, it shows a woman attacking a man first but however, at the end, the man knocks the woman down for 'personal safety.' And that shows that both genders attack each other, however should not be allowed. And in the past, society has taught individuals that men shouldn't hit women no matter what. But nowadays, the worlds has changed. Now society teaches individual value and individual liberty. They teach that all humans are created equal and by violating those terms, you are punished by a sentence in jail or even a capital punishment. Please clarify what you're saying in the last sentence about the Mayweather thing.
It should not be socially acceptable for women to hit men.

Let me ask you a question.Couldn't you say it is also ignoring human rights and sexist if someone was hit without their consent?This debate regards to society,and the double standard of women hitting men.I want you to watch this video-,and tell me if that seems fair.In today's society a lot of men are raised with the idea that you should not hit women because they are weaker,and that if they hit you just take it.That really dosen't make any sense.That is like me going up to floyd mayweather and punching him in the face,but he can't hit me because i'm not as strong.
It should not be socially acceptable for women to hit men.

Hello! It's a pleasure to debate you. Let me start off with my argument. Topic- It should not be socially acceptable for women to hit men. I'm saying that it should be allowed. First of all, let me start with individual liberty. All individuals are created equal and no individual is greater or lesser than one another. By saying it should not be socially acceptable, you are ignoring human rights and human dignity at the same time. This is also sexist. There is no evidence in the world that says men are greater than women so therefore, both individuals are created equally. I agree that there should be no violence to men but I also agree with no violence to women. If it is legal to one gender, it should be legal to the other. I'll respect all your arguments as long as you respect mine. Thanks for the debate.
CON will break a rule

"1. Debators have to put all arguments over whether or not a rule has been broken and all comments in between **. 2. The instigator of this debate has to change his avatar by round 3 as well. 3. The instigator of this debate has to post a comment on his party affiliation in round 3." **"3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate." Although you said I would break a rule Rule 3 states that the"rule-breaker losing this debate" NOT "my opposition will lose the debate". In other words this rule states ANY rule-breaker has lost the debate, not me. I win if we tie OR if you screw up. You screwed up so as long as I don't screw up twice you lose. This means you have to end with "Good luck my worthy opponent." As this is not a restriction of your English (it's an addition) and it doesn't break any othe rule. However you also broke the rule of answering your party affiliation in the next round and changing your avatar as no where you state that you breaking a rule doesn't matter. To reiterate, you simply say I must break a rule to lose, never that you can't break any rules. While you also state that any rule-breaker loses the debate. Because of this you already lost.** **"A blue moon is the second full moon in one month. It happens about 1 in every 32 months.(http://websplosion.wordpress.com...)"** **"Happy new year in Hebrew is said a couple different ways such as "Shanah tovah", "L shauna tov", and "Shana Tova". I could've kept looking but there's only so much I should be required to put down to be a satisfactory answer.(http://www.enchantedlearning.com...)(http://www.docstoc.com...)(http://www.infoplease.com...)"** **"The moon travels away from the earth at about 3.8 centimeters a year.(http://www.physicsforums.com...)"** **P.S. the word "fallowing" is spelled "following" for your future reference.** 1. All debators have to follow "Good luck my worthy opponent" with "Vote for me". 2. All debators have to follow "Vote for me" with one comment. 3. All debators have to change their avatar again before the voting is over. Good luck my worthy opponent. Vote for me. **I have clearly one this debate as my opponent has broke the rules multiple times (check rule 3) and I have broke none.**
CON will break a rule

**rules don't apply to me as the resolution states "con will break a rule"** "1. CON must state in "" if he agrees with thomas hobbes or john lockes when it comes to the social contract. 2. CON must change his avatar by the third round 3. CON must post a comment saying nothing more or less than "Monty Python and the holy grail is the best movie ever created"" 1. con must put the answer to the fallowing question in "", in hertz, what is the chance to have a "blue" moon (like once in a blue moon)? 2. con must put the answer to the fallowing question in "", how would you say happy new year in hebrew? 3. con must put the answer to the fallowing question in "", at what rate does the moon travel away from the earth?
CON will break a rule

"1. The debators of this argument have to put all 3 arguments posted from the previous rounds in "". 2. The instigator is not allowed to constrict the oppositions use of English either. 3. All participants of this debate have to end their arguments with "Good luck my worthy opponent." 1. Debators have to put all arguments over whether or not a rule has been broken and all comments in between **. **The instigator of this debate broke a rule by not ending his round with "Good luck my worthy opponent."** **"Monty Python and the holy grail is the best movie ever created"** **""I agree with John Lockes when it comes to the social contract"** 2. The instigator of this debate has to change his avatar by round 3 as well. 3. The instigator of this debate has to post a comment on his party affiliation in round 3. Good luck my worthy opponent.
CON will break a rule

"1. CON must not restrict PROS speech any in way. 2. CON must not use the following words: opponent, pro, con and must. 3. CON must use correct grammar." 1. CON must state in "" if he agrees with thomas hobbes or john lockes when it comes to the social contract. 2. CON must change his avatar by the third round 3. CON must post a comment saying nothing more or less than "Monty Python and the holy grail is the best movie ever created"
CON will break a rule

0. This debate poses off of another debate that I found. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule without forfeiting. 8. If neither player breaks a rule, CON is the default winner (End Foundation Rules) 1. CON must not restrict PROS speech any in way. 2. CON must not use the following words: opponent, pro, con and must. 3. CON must use correct grammar.
recent health concerns justify compulsory immunizations_ld format

Eradication- e⋅rad⋅i⋅cate  [i-rad-i-keyt] –verb (used with object), -cat⋅ed, -cat⋅ing. 1.to remove or destroy utterly; extirpate http://dictionary.reference.com... There were 1503 cases in 2009. http://www.polioeradication.org... Check your sources.
IVF Debate

The final issue regarding in vitro fertilization is the legal ownership of the eggs, when they appear in excess. When IVF produces more fertilized eggs than the couple wants, some of them choose to freeze them for later usage (or some discard them, donate them to science, or sell them to other infertile couples). In regards to freezing the eggs, many legal issues arise in terms of ownership. After doing some research, I found an article entitled "An Insight into the Ethical Issues Related to In Vitro Fertilization" (https://ispub.com...) that stated since the egg is fertilized, it is both property of the man and woman whose sperm and egg combined to conceive the embryo. As long as the eggs are stored in the freezer, they are the property of both the man and the woman. There is always a possibility that the couple will split up or divorce, and then whose eggs are they and who decides where they go? If there is one parent that wants to destroy the embryos, both need to be in agreement before they can be destroyed. Also, as of right now, there are no federal statutes that constitute the process of distributing/dealing with the eggs, which makes it hard for couples to make a decision on what to do. There may be legal disputes between the man and the woman if they split up, in terms of whose eggs they become. The woman will argue that since it is her egg, they belong to her; the man will argue that there would be no fertilization without his sperm, so they are his. Suing can occur between the man and the woman, and it becomes a taxing and emotional experience for both parties. Issues also arise if a surrogate is involved, because the surrogate at any time can choose to abort the embryos (since they are in her body). This brings up disputes between the mother and father of the embryo and the surrogate mother, since the fate of the children falls in the hands of the surrogate mother. The man and woman are not allowed to sue if she does decide to terminate the pregnancy (https://ispub.com...). These legal disputes that arise are serious problems, and completely outweigh the benefits that come with in vitro fertilization. In conclusion, although IVF does offer infertile couples the ability to have children, the ethical issues, risks, and problems that come out of in vitro fertilization are not worth the benefits. It is not ethical for humans to take control of life and death; to be able to control reproduction with their own hands. We need to leave human life in the hands of nature and G-d (or just a higher power in general).
IVF Debate

Right now, according to an article I read on http://www.oneatatime.org.uk... after the use of IVF and ICSI around 24% of pregnancies are multiple births, compared to only 1-2% with natural pregnancies. Data from the UK (2005) shows that almost 46% of babies born as a result of IVF to women under 35 (using fresh eggs) are multiple births. As of right now, HEFA has decided that the number of embryos that can be transferred is no more than 2 for women under 40 and no more than 3 for women 40 and over. Most clinics are now using the general procedure of transferring only 1 embryo (single embryo transfer, known as SET). By doing this, it greatly reduces the risk of having multiple births. Clinics will discuss with the couple their options some suggest transferring a single embryo and freezing any remaining ones for future use. Recently research has determined that chances of getting a young, healthy women pregnant does not decrease because the amount of embryos transferred is reduced to one with IVF! Another article I found was on http://www.nytimes.com... and it talked about some procedures that clinics are offering. Some clinics are focusing on transferring fewer embryos and also trying to develop more advanced ways in determining which embryo is the healthiest and has the greatest chance of survival. Dr. Judy E. Stern, director of the human embryology and androgyny lab at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. stated that "We have been getting better at I.V.F. over the years, and as success rates go up, the number we transfer has to go down accordingly, where three embryos used to work and give you mostly singletons, now we transfer two, because we"re making better embryos." For women younger than 35, The American Society of Reproductive Medicine now recommends that they have just one embryo transferred. Selecting that one embryo used to be based off of visual observations of their morphology, however now clinics can use procedures to find undetected chromosomal abnormalities like missing or extra chromosomes like genetic screenings. Overall, I believe that IVF offers a great opportunity for individuals or couples that are wishing and dying to have a child. With the advancements that our biomedical field is making in today"s age, the risks and issues involving IVF are disappearing and it is becoming more and more of an ideal way to stimulate the fertilization of embryos. In Vitro Fertilization is a scientific advancement that is immensely beneficial to the human population and I believe we should continue its research and development for future use.
IVF Debate

Going more in depth with the problem of multiple births in relation to in vitro fertilization, many problems arise that are not worth the hassle and risk of IVF. From the article "Pros and Cons of In Vitro Fertilization: Costs, Success Rate, Multiple Births, Egg Storage" (http://www.mamashealth.com...), I found that with IVF there is approximately a 25% chance of conceiving twins and a 2-3% chance of conceiving triplets. The negative aspect of multiple births is that there is an increased risk that the babies will have birth defects. Another article I found, "An Insight into the Ethical Issues Related to In Vitro Fertilization" (https://ispub.com...), stated that, "compared with couples who conceive spontaneously, for those who require IVF, the lottery is weighted more heavily against a successful outcome at every stage of the process, not just conception". I also found that "infants conceived following in vitro fertilization (IVF) are more likely to be born preterm, of low birth weight, and to be a twin or higher order multiple than spontaneously conceived infants" (https://ispub.com...). There has also been observation of an "increase in chromosomal abnormality in IVF babies due to technical inadequacy". Multiple births also takes a toll on the mother, and she is more likely to suffer from nausea, severe abdominal pain, and internal bleeding of the stomach. It can also take a toll on the mother"s body during the actual birth. Multiple births is an issue regarding IVF that needs to be seriously taken into consideration.
IVF Debate

In an article I read by Laura Beil on http://www.parenting.com... she included many options to help with excess embryos and how you can go about handling them. The first option is donating them to other couples that are dealing with infertility. Bill Petok, Ph.D., a Baltimore psychologist who specializes in counseling infertile couples said in the article that, "On the face of it, it's one of the most beautiful, altruistic things in the world." Helping others conceive a child can be the most rewarding and fulfilling thing that a couple with excess embryos can do. The couple, however, could also donate those embryos to medical research. A mother, Stephanie Smith, donated her embryos for medical research as a gesture of gratitude because she wanted to give back to the system that helped give her and her husband their dream of a family. Donating to research, for many couples, is a middle ground. Dr. Lyerly stated "Although the embryos will not survive, giving to science can be a very caring act. Couples who donate to research, feel like they were helped by science and they want to give back." Some couples can have their embryos pass on naturally and some perform a ceremony of some sort of thawing in order for them to show their reverence. With processes to conserve those embryos, couples can postpone their decisions regarding the excess embryos if they wish. Lastly, another option is the promise of stem cell research. In the article, it stated that recently President Barack Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding for Stem Cell Research so now embryos can be donated for this research. This research will be used in treating conditions such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, spinal-cord injuries, and others that involve the death of brain cells and other nerve tissue. A mother from Philadelphia concluded that, "The reason this kind of donation is so appealing is that it doesn't just end with the embryos. The cells have a good chance of being used for years and years."
IVF Debate

Continuing on with the ethical issues surrounding IVF, one of the main concerns is the issue of excess embryos (and how to deal with them). The article "Things to Consider" (http://invitrofertilization.weebly.com...) talks about the fact that, many times, not all the fertilized eggs are being used, and that some people believe that this is a waste of human life. Why should some people be able to choose whether or not to continue with human life, while others do not have the opportunity to have that control? Why should some people get the chance to choose life or death, while others that suffer from certain diseases or circumstances have to face death straight in the face? Human life is a gift and something that should not be tampered with, and the fact that certain people take control of human life (and even destroy it) is unethical. The issue of multiple births also arises; many times, the fertilized eggs can all survive, which results in multiple births. The couple may not want that, which then raises the question of "where do the excess embryos go?" Killing embryos is the murder of human life, which is unethical. If the embryos are donated to research, that lessens the dignity and creation of human life (https://ispub.com...). The excess embryos are either frozen, destroyed, or sold to other infertile couples (https://ispub.com...). Freezing the embryos is stopping life from progressing into a full child, destroying the embryos is destroying life (and killing a child), and selling the embryos is putting a price on the child, putting a price on human life. Each of those things constitute as unethical. Freezing the embryos also raises concerns of their safety, the exponential accumulation of frozen embryos in freezers (and how space is running out), and concern that "the length of time embryos are kept in storage might have a detrimental effect on the outcome of frozen embryo transfer and possible increase in fetal abnormalities" (https://ispub.com...).