BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Biblical Debate: Abortion

My argument goes as follows: P1: A fetus is a innocent human being. P2: Killing a innocent human being is wrong according to the Bible. C: Therefore, abortion is prima facie morally wrong according to the Bible. P1: Most Pro-Choice Christians claim that a fetus is not human, but merely just a bag of cells. However, the Bible states clealy that all unborn children are both human and living. It is written in Exodus 21: 22-25: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Now it is clear that the Bible considers the unborn to be a human, cause if the penalty is death for a person that is the chief cause of death for an unborn child, then this makes it clear that the unborn child has the same value as a born child. If it was not then the Bible would not put the same penalty for an unborns killing as a born childs killing. I will state more biblical evidence that makes it clear that a fetus is a living human being: Jeremiah 1:5 says: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” Anyone who looks at this verse can tell the obvious. It tells that people that are unborn have a purpose and are already in contact with God. This means that the person before is birth is a human. P2: It is no doubt that it has always been a sin to kill those that have done nothing worthy of death. The Bible is filled with many passages that reflect upon this. However, I will only bstate a few. I will start with the most widelt used: The sixth commandment. Exodus 20:13 says: 'Thou shalt not murder.' This is point blank evidence that the killing of a inncocent human being is not tolertated in scripture. It is so untolerated that scripture actually puts the harshest of all penalties on the people who comment the crime. Genesis 9:6 states: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. So if God commands those who murder to be put to death then God is obviously against murder. Conclusion The Biblical Passages have stated pretty clearly that God considers that a Human fetus is indeed alive. It states that to killi it without proper cause is murder. Therefore, I have proven the Bible and God are very much against abortion and abortion is sin, I will await my opponent's response.
Censoring history books for high school students should not be allowed.

History is a very important subject for today's students, so important that school boards should not be able to "sanitize" the content. Currently, in Jefferson County Colorado three school board members propose to remove content from advance placement history that "condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law." They are also asking that the content "present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage." Both of these statements demonstrate the intent to sanitize the history that is taught to students in the hope of promoting patriotism while discouraging students from questioning the powers that be. The main argument for protesting such action is that it is only through questioning injustices that change is made. Our history is rife with examples of the populous rising up and causing civil (and not so civil) disorder to prompt a change in our country. Everything from the Boston Tea Party to the civil rights movement. If we start hiding such actions from our students we may take away that very important trigger for enacting change. A second argument against such action is how taking such measures have affected other countries. Japan and Turkey are excellent examples of countries that have tried to censer their history. Japan is widely know to have denied the Raping of Nanking repeatedly. While the majority of the world accept that Japan committed the atrocities that were happened after the Battle of Nanking, Japan still had denies their role in the massacre. This has helped to foster ill-will between Japan and China. Turkey also denies a dark part of their history. Turkey claims that they had no hand in the Armenian genocide that killed more than one million people during World War I. One of the reasons Armenians have not reconciled with the Turkey is because of this denial. If we start denying events in our history those we have wronged, here and abroad, will be alienated and any momentum we have made will be lost. If we allow student to be taught a version of history that prevents them from knowing the good, the bad, and the ugly of our history we can damage our future, our domestic interests and our international relationships.
There is no gay gene

"The debate is "no gay gene".It is not about the terminology.. I put "gay gene" in double quotes. I provided proof why there is no consensus on the term "gay gene".I showed the evidence there are anamolies in gene make up for homosexuals which i categorize as "gay gene".0You have to argue there IS a gay gene and it exists. Like 100% chance, hence the resolution. You just proved it is not a 100% chance. So you still need to fill the BOP."US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born."My sources indicate that all studies that say this are usually poliitically motivated as gay rights groups and goevrment entities pay them, skewing results. No proof has been thrown at the studies I have shown. Also I have provided 2 alternatives no 3 reasons for being gay that is not genetic:1. the brain.2, their enviroment3. a choice.probably 2. Now a few counter studies:Studies concluse no gay gene [1] A study to be published in the March 2005 issue of the journal Human Genetics, and available online now, actually undermines the commonly held view that homosexual orientation is determined by genetic factors. The study’s lead author Brian Mustanski from University of Illinois at Chicago said in a UIC news release that "There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression." However, a thorough examination of the actual report reveals no statistically significant findings for any of these DNA regions. [2] Well, as I have said, there is no gay gene. And there are factors more influential than biology. If you are a man and you grow up in a rural environment, you are four times less likely to have homosexual relationships than if you grow up in a metropolitan area. [3]from a doctor btw. Proving that enviroment not genes cause homosexuality. New research from the University of Western Ontario (UWO) in London, published in today’s issue of Science magazine, has again disproved the existence of a genetic basis for homosexuality. [4]C1: concededC2: proven tice in rebuttals twice in arguments, little response. Proof also in rebuttal above ^C3: no response drop = consession ==conclusion==There is no gay gene I have proven this. My opponent ha not proven that one exists. Vote pro!sources:http://www.godlikeproductions.com... [1]http://www.freerepublic.com... [2]http://www.livingchurch.org... [3]http://www.lifesitenews.com... [4]
There is no gay gene

The debate is "no gay gene".It is not about the terminology.. I put "gay gene" in double quotes. I provided proof why there is no consensus on the term "gay gene".I showed the evidence there are anamolies in gene make up for homosexuals which i categorize as "gay gene". Since your arguments revolve around studies.. let me point out two other studies on "gay genes" "US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born." http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.time.com...
There is no gay gene

"While I agree there is no consensus on "gay gene"So I win my first contention. "The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone."let me point out my study:A new study attempting to replicate Hamer's was released today by the same Science magazine, discrediting the 1993 study. The study conducted by scientists from the Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences at the University of Western Ontario and the Department of Genetics at Stanford Medical School concluded that "data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation." [1]Basically disproving your study. Also that reasearch as I pointed out are conducted by politically motivated men, and most studies do not replicate those studies. Also your study says it is because of family. just because being gay runs in the families doesn't mena it linkes to homosexuality:Previous studies have shown that sexual orientation tends to cluster in families, though that doesn't prove genetics is involved. Extended families may share similar child-rearing practices, religion and other beliefs that could also influence sexual orientation. [2]Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn't one so-called "gay gene." [2]"The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother." 1. above I provd just because it runs in the family =/= genetics2. my other studies disprove this3. not one gene is linked to being gay as mentioned in my round 2 argument. So this study is false. C1: not enough proof. He actually conceded this (therefore I technically win as he said there is not enough proof to prove a gene)C2: there is no gay genehere I go:"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda." [3]Saying all studies that link a gay gene are politically motivated. C3: evolution.no rebuttal==conclusion==He conceded point one and no response to point three. Point 2 has also been proven in this debate. I have fuffilled my BOP, my opponent hasn't. Vote pro! sources:http://fathersforlife.org... [1]http://www.foxnews.com... [2]http://www.onenewsnow.com... [3]
There is no gay gene

While I agree there is no consensus on "gay gene" .. I would like to point out in a study -"New Genetic Regions Associated With Male Sexual Orientation Found"..The term "gay gene" is not used but there are anomalies in gene make up for homosexuals. Below an excerpt from the study "In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers. The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother." http://www.webmd.com...
There is no gay gene

I categorized the anamoly as gay gene.. The debate is not about the usage of the terminology.. It is about a specific type of gene which is called as " gay gene" that exists.. I proved it by showing you the study that was done to show the anamoly in gene make of homosexuals. But Dr. Stanton Jones, a clinical psychologist and evangelical Christian, says genetics plays, at best, just a small role. "The scientific evidence doesn't support it," he said. And he's written a book, "Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation," illustrating his belief that gay men can be converted to heterosexuals. Dr. Alan Sanders, a psychiatric geneticist at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, is currently heading the biggest study ever undertaken on sexual orientation. He's looking at the genetic makeup of more than 700 sets of gay brothers. "I think the evidence is pretty convincing already that a substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from genetics," he said. "It's probably the single biggest factor that we know about." You haven't provided any one example of a homosexual converting to heterosexual because if it is in the genes they cannot become heterosexuals as they want.
I will not break a rule.

I remind voters that #23 and #24 will only apply to this round. I choose to ignore both, but that's OK, because my opponent was the first to lose in round two. Rebuttal: WolframAlpha's definition was taken straight from Princeton Wordnet. The balance talked about by wiki is misconstrued by my opponent - here is another way of putting the same thing - "similarly phrased and developed" (http://www.pearsoned.ca...). Indeed, all other definitions are more clear than wiki as to how this balance is to be achieved, and all of them accept mine as legitimate (after all, who could deny the similar phrasing and development). Cengage, for instance, says "two ideas in which each is developed in the same grammatical structure" - once again, this would easily meet the criteria. The burden was on my opponent to prove that sentence type mattered, and no evidence was given that sentence type relates to balance in this context. Therefore this issue falls to me. The strictness of repetition for epanalepsis is both irrelevant and un-noted in wikipedia (probably because it is irrelevant). The point is that it is still repetition. As I justified last round, using alternate forms of the same word is still considered repetition. My opponent ignores this fact entirely and so thus issue falls to me too. On the point about my apparent double use of alliteration in round one, my opponent should note that /ɛnd/ and /ˈɛvri/ (phonetics from dictionary.com) have a subtely different opening phonetic - the ɛ is soft in /ˈɛvri/, so it makes more of a "eh" sound. It's not alliteration unless the sound is the same, which in this case it isn't, as the phonetic spelling proves. Therefore I only alliterated once! My opponent states that I must edit my rules because an alternative to adding is possible - "he was not truly required to include an extra sentence when it was perfectly possible to get by without it." The problem with this is that the question is not whether I am required, but whether the rule requires. The rule clearly did require extra information. Therefore I can add extra information. This is irrespective of whether it is possible to integrate that information into a pre-existing debate construct. Not strictly related, but under the rules of logic, your statement "A requirement to do A or B cannot be restated as a requirement to do A or a requirement to do B." is the most wrong thing ever. Not typing the rules out is not the same as not presenting rules. While it is not to be assumed, the rules do have certainty because they are printed above, and thus are not "mere conjecture." Therefore I did not forfeit. I think this is an example of my opponent getting desperate. Conclusion: It seems that my opponent has run out of steam. All his arguments for my round one rule breaking have been defeated, just as he has been defeated in this debate. I thank him once again for this very entertaining and informed discussion.
I will not break a rule.

OK, so here's the deal. If I can prove I did not break the rules in round one, I have to win because you have already conceded that you broke the rules in round two, where you went first. This makes me following the rules now pointless because you've lost if I can prove I followed the 13 rules in the first round. My opponent claims that I broke rules 4, 7 and 12. I shall investigate these in reverse order. RULE 12 "CON must include exactly one example of parallelism...in each round" Definition of parallelism: similarity by virtue of corresponding (wolframalpha) Note that the sentence type is irrelevant here. And you misidentified them, but that's another story. My words: "thanks be unto him! Give him thanks!" Is it similar? YES! Do the two phrases correspond to one another? Yes they do, because one asks for him to receive thanks, the other for it to be given. I find it difficult to imagine that my opponent fails to see the correspondence between giving and receiving. Therefore I have met the definition and followed the rule. RULE 7 "Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule" This question is really about whether rule 28, that arguments cannot contain the same word twice, contradicts the need for epanalepsis required by rule 12. Therefore, even if my opponent is right, it is merely a rule that need not be followed under rule 1. It does not mean that I lose. However, my opponent is not right. Epanalepsis is "repetition after intervening words." Repetition can be exact, or it can be different forms of the same word. I highly doubt that your respected sources will say that "I see, he sees, we all see the truth" is not an example of repetition, despite the alternate central form of "to see". Thus this point falls to me too. RULE 4 "...a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null, unless a future rule requires otherwise." future rule says: "CON must include..." Yip. It requires inclusion. Therefore if there are no examples of the aforementioned things in my rules, I must add extra sentences to fulfill the rule. If that violates rule number four, then the fault for that is with rule 12, not me. No then-current rule said I couldn't add extra sentences if those sentences would be required to fulfill a rule. If my opponent counters by saying "adapt your rules," then I would counter by saying rule four doesn't force me to. The door is left wide open for extra rule-fulfilling sentences. They are required for my argument to fulfill the rule because without them, the rule is not fulfilled. Thus my argument did not break a rule in round one. My three new rules (35-37) are the same as 32-34. Oh, and by the way. Sonnets are not measured by exclamation points. They are measured by lines. You forgot to put a new line after one of your points. I didn't.
I will not break a rule.

Now, at this point, I have clearly broken numerous rules; however, my earliest breaking of the rules was in Round 2, so if I can prove that my opponent broke a rule in Round 1, then I win anyway, by Rule #3: "If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses"! My opponent claims that his inverted word order was parallelism, but if you read it, it really isn't: "Thanks be unto him! Give him thanks!" is first says that I receive thanks, then commands others to thank me; He uses two sentences of different types, imperative and exclamatory, which cannot be parallelism! In fact, one sentence involves the readers, while the other does not, ruining any chance of them being parallel! My opponent continues to claim that epanalepsis can allow different forms of words to be used, but I quote Wikipedia: "The epanalepsis is a figure of speech defined by the repetition of the initial word (or words) of a clause or sentence at the end of that same clause or sentence"! It doesn't allow for different forms of words to be used at all, and all of the examples provided by Wikipedia use the exact same phrases at the beginning and end, letter for letter, space for space! He can't just say things that contradict a reliable source without a source of his own and expect his argument to hold water! Finally, Rule #4 did not require non-rule, non-discussion writing; again, the devices could easily be included in his rules! For example, I could rephrase my opponent's rule #26 to say, "All rules posted by both me and my opponent..." (parallelism) and #27 to say, "Both debaters must pick a punctuaction mark other than a period to place at the end of every sentence," (alliteration) and #28 to say "arguments after this must not contain the same word twice; there must be no repeated words in subsequent arguments!" To follow Rule #12, my opponent should have adapted his case to include the rhetorical devices; he was never required by the rule to write additional sentences, only by his own stubborn refusal to adapt his own writing! Sonnet style was indeed followed in my last round; count the exclamation points, and you will find fourteen, fitting perfectly the sonnet! 20. Both debaters must, in Round 5, "respect" Chuck Norris, who can eat a "panda" in one bite and destroy an army in his "sleep," according to the CATO Institute and the AMA! 21. All future rules may only affect Round 5! 22. Both debaters are required to start and end their argument with the same word, regardless of what it was then or is now!
I will not break a rule.

PRO BROKE: 14 (this round was lacking device #2), 27 (previously), 28 (same), 29 (twice incorrectly pluralised), 30 (sonnet has 14 lines always, he's got 13 but 14 sentences - this also voids #17), 31 (see below)... A paralellism is any form of parallel structure! Like inverted word order! Epanalepsis DOES allow for different forms of the same phrase to be used! As I did! Under #4, a future rule required extra examples not in my case! So you're still wrong! Victory be mine - I'm victorious! One can also "use" phrases without quoting them directly! Example: Cheese & Macaroni! New stuff: 32 - Debaters must follow this argument's rhyme scheme, include 2 Chuck Norris facts and cite two academic non-web sources; 33 - Additionally, they cannot write "sacred peach tree," "heavenly wisdom" or "furious five"; 34 - We can only make rules if the rule has 2 words starting with "r"!
I will not break a rule.

Rule #4 was indeed broken, as the various rhetorical devices could still be used within rules! For example, when I was required to use epanalepsis last round, I included it in Rule #14! My opponent could have done the same thing with his rules, and yet he ignored the ability! He was never required to post non-rule sentences, non-discussion sentences, and yet he did, clearly violating Rule #4! My opponent's only defense towards Rule #7 invokes a valid use of epanalepsis that does not involve doubled words, and yet Wikipedia the source allows for no such thing! The clearest example is my opponent's lack of epanalepsis in his most recent round! And the rules has been broken yet again, as Rule #16 requires the use of "maraconi and cheese," while Rule #31 requires their absence! My opponent calls his first and second sentences in Roud 2 paralellism, but they are not! They are merely an example of inverted word order, which is not parallelism at all! I may have broken Rule #27, but the breakage was in Round 2! By Rule #3, as my opponent broke rules in Round 1, he loses anyway! 17. The form of sonnet required for this debate shall be the rhyming scheme used in this argument! 18. After this round, "noodle dreams," "dragon scrolls," and "awesomeness" may not be mentioned! 19. No debater may post hyperlinks!