BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is Murder

I completely accept that the moment of viability is more difficult to detect precisely when compared to the moment of fertilization, but it does not follow that because it is more difficult to define it then it is the wrong definition. It is an obstacle to be overcome. We should not select the definition because it is the most convenient or easily identifiable. What should matter is what the moment represents, not our ability to precisely detect the moment. A thought experiment: what if it were possible to detect the moment of viability as precisely as the moment of fertilization? Say we had the capability to peer into an adjacent reality where the fetus was surgically removed that moment, and we could determine the baby's viability at that moment without actually removing it in our reality. Of course it's ridiculous, but if there were a technology that would provide a definitive answer to the question of viability, I argue it should not change the definition of where human life begins, it would only allow us to pinpoint the moment more precisely. The moment happens whether we have the capability to detect it or not. Examining our various laws that define life in different ways is interesting, as it reflects the political makeup of the communities that appointed the judges and elected the representatives that defined the laws. Under some laws abortion is currently defined as murder, and under others it is not. But this debate has been more fundamental than that; theoretically our discussion could have taken place in the context of any legal system that does not provide a clear and indisputable definition of when human life begins -- we've been discussing where the line ought to be drawn, not just examining where various legal systems currently draw it. Our genetic identity is most certainly realized at the moment of fertilization, it is our individuality that has not yet been formed. Before the moment of viability there is undoubtedly a human identity, what is questionable is the individuality of the identity, since it cannot yet exist as an individual. The core of this debate over the definition of human life seems to be over the question of a distinction between an identity and an individual. Pro argues that the individual emerges at the same time the identity is formed, and I argue that the individual emerges when it possesses the capacity to exist independently of the mother. Before the moment of viability there is one individual--a woman who carries the identity of potential human life within her--and after that moment there are two individuals. The individual will certainly require assistance from others to survive, as we all do to varying degrees throughout our lives, but before the moment of viability no amount of assistance from others could save the fetus if it were removed; it does not yet have the capability to survive as an individual. Thanks to my opponent for this debate--I have really enjoyed deeply thinking through this issue with you.
Abortion is Murder

It seems to me that this debate boils down to two fundamental questions: 1. When does human life begin? 2. What constitutes murder? For point 1, I argue that human life should be defined to begin at the moment of viability. For point 2, I accept Pro's definition of murder as intentionally ending another human life. Human life can be defined to begin before conception, at conception, at the moment of birth, or after any arbitrary time span; I argue for defining it to begin at the moment of viability, before which time it is unlikely that the fetus would survive if surgically removed from the mother, and after which time it is likely that the baby would be viable. Before the moment of viability the fetus is alive, but for the purposes of my argument I do not define it as human life until after the moment of viability. Before this moment it is a human fetus, still alive and with thoughts and feelings, but human life carries the potential to live independently of the mother, which a human fetus does not. Debating the definition of a word might seem academic, but the output of the first point feeds into the second: what constitutes murder? By shifting the beginning of human life on a time scale, we establish a point after which the act of aborting a fetus can be considered murder. We could let the beginning of human life be defined as starting at the moment of fertilization, after which point killing the resulting zygote would be considered murder. A zygote is certainly alive, but it is not yet human life, and although it has the potential to become human life if it is kept inside the mother, it has not yet advanced to the phase where it would be viable if it were removed. If a zygote were removed from the mother (or the "host"), it would carry no potential to become viable human life (at least not with our current medical technology). We could shift the time to be the moment the zygote becomes a blastocyst, an embryo, a human fetus, or when the baby is delivered. We lack a universally accepted term for the moment a human fetus transitions into a human, "birth" is what we usually call it, but that definition has a fundamental problem: if it is murder to kill a baby immediately after it is delivered, why is it not murder to kill it immediately before? It would be tough to argue that aborting a pregnancy five minutes before delivery (except in cases where the mother's life is endangered) would not be considered murder--I'm certainly not a person who can argue that point. So what we require is a moment where the potential for human life transitions to become viable human life. The moment of viability. I argue that aborting a human fetus is not murder because a fetus does not possess adequate potential to become human life independent of the mother. Aborting a human fetus after the moment it becomes viable human life is murder.
Abortion is Murder

*****ONLY ACCEPT IF YOU WILL ACTUALLY DEBATE THIS. My last two opponents forfeited. In light of the recent Supreme Court decision, this seems a relevant topic. My position is that abortion should be considered murder in most cases. The qualifier "most" is used because I wish to exclude abortion in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. I believe these are unique situations and they only make up a very small percentage of abortions performed annually. Terms are defined as follows: Abortion - Intentionally terminating a pregnancy before giving birth Murder - Intentionally ending another human life Human Life - I anticipate much of this debate will focus on when human life begins. I am open to debating the best definition of this. I would ask voters to accept the strongest definition that is presented. Organization is as follows: Round 1 - acceptance only, no arguments Round 2 - opening arguments from each side, no rebuttals Round 3 - rebuttals Round 4 - response/additional rebuttals, conclusion I realize this is a very emotional topic. I am looking for someone who is willing to debate in a calm, respectful, and logical manner. Burden of proof is shared. No trolling. Use of sources is encouraged. If you agree to these terms, please accept.
Marijuna legalization

Excuse me?! How are you so sure that caffeine is a drug? Caffeine isn't a drug or else the adults that drink coffee would be dead by now. Marijuna can actually kill you unlike caffeine . Caffeine just wakes you up. Marijuna is bad. That's why if you are seen with marijuna you can get arrested. If you think it should be legal than how come you can only have prescriptions for marijuna? Because it is illegal and it should stay that way. That's that!so you don't be so impolite discriminating me. Mr. Unless you're just impolite.
Animal Rights

This is the Animal Rights debate. I will debate for the proposition. The rules are as follows: 1. In Round 1, I have thus revealed the rules. Con can begin the debate with the first argument and MUST FORFEIT ROUND 5. 2. In this debate, ANIMAL WELFARE being opposed to ANIMAL RIGHTS is STRICTLY DISALLOWED. The argument by Con must be against BOTH ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS. 3. All arguments should be pertaining to the definitions GIVEN BELOW, and definitions from other dictionaries, or any other definitions will NOT BE ACCEPTED unless the word has not been defined below. 4. Arguments involving euthanasia or related concepts are NOT PERMITTED, and any such presented arguments will result in my immediate 7-point victory. 5. Violation of the rules also results in my immediate 7-point victory. For voters: The debate will be on the simple decision of "WINNER" or "LOSER". The definitions are given below. 1. "Animal" is hereby defined as a sentient multicellular eukaryotic organism of the kingdom Animalia, with the ability to process pain and/or emotions. Sponges and simple polyps and medusans, for example, are excluded from this defining category; according to this definition, only fairly complex non-human species of the kingdom Animalia with a proper nervous system and the ability of a level of motion. Primarily, this debate deals with: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, cephalopods, gastropods, arthropods, echinoderms and annelids. Cnidarians and sponges (sponges, jellyfish, polyps, coral etc.) are not applicable in this debate, because of lack of complex nervous systems. 2. "Animal rights" is the idea that non-human animals (according to the above definition) are entitled to the POSSESSION of their own lives. 3. "Possession of their own lives" refers to the fact that animals must not be exploited for human purposes, and must not be manipulated thus; UNLESS: The purpose is for the betterment of the animal itself or another animal.
Animal Rights

When I said "animal rights", I did not mean animals having constitutional rights. I meant that animals must be treated as individual beings, with compassion, and not as human property. I also meant that animals should not be subjected to abuse. So, standing up for animals is what I meant. I defined what I meant while saying "animal rights" in the first round, and yet you have taken it in a completely different definition. "Animals having rights" is NOT what I mean when I say animal rights; as defined CLEARLY in Round 1, "animal rights" is the idea that humans do not possess animals and do not control them. Humans, thus, cannot subject them to abuse. For example, having a pet dog as a companion means you must treat the pet dog with love, affection, and compassion; the dog is not your property, he/she is your friend. Therefore, you have used a different definition of the term animal rights. Standing up for animals IS animal rights. So, the two of us have the same beliefs and are standing on the same side of the argument. As mentioned, "All arguments should be pertaining to the definitions GIVEN BELOW, and definitions from other dictionaries, or any other definitions will NOT BE ACCEPTED unless the word has not been defined below." Also, "Violation of the rules also results in my immediate 7-point victory." Therefore, since you used a different definition for animal rights, you have violated the rules, resulting in my immediate victory. My arguments were better and more refined, and my opponent forfeited one round and used different definitions, thus breaking the rules. "No offence to animals( i have a dog) but animals have no rights and why should they? they cant talk so really what is the point?" This sentence is riddled with grammatical errors; "I" is not capitalized, "They" is not capitalized in the beginning of the sentence, and "so really what is the point?" is a completely incorrect phrase. Thus, my conduct, arguments and spelling and grammar were better. I also used much better sources, and my opponent used none. Please vote for me. Thanks to @LoverBoy56 for accepting this debate, and for wanting to be kind to animals. The world deserves more compassion than humans give it, and we must give the world that compassion by animals. My opponent MUST forfeit Round 5, as stated in the rules.
Animal Rights

Hey stand up for your words that's okay because I know is that if an animal could talk the animal would be mad at both of us. But anyway, what I said was that animals can't protest against what we protest against okay? Look animals should have rights like they can't be killed but kids can't convince the government to do thus sort of thing okay? Animals may need rights but right now the only think we can do is stand up for them okay? I am sorry if you misunderstood me.
Animal Rights

I am not blaming you. Since you accepted as the Con of the debate, it means that you are completely AGAINST animal rights, the definition to which is given in the first round. If you have accepted this debate, you must argue AGAINST the opinion that animals are entitled to the possession of their lives. To further enhance this, I will give you definitions: Debate: "A formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote." Against: "In opposition to." Opposition: "Resistance or dissent, expressed in action or argument." All definitions from the Oxford Dictionary of English (American Edition: 2015). Therefore, as the topic is animal rights, defined in Round 1 as "the idea that animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives", you have to express resistance or dissent in an argument against the concept of animal rights in accordance with all definitions, and I must present proposing arguments and rebuttals as to why animal rights is an idea. You are thus against animal rights by the terms and conditions of the debates of DDO itself. Thus, my arguments are valid. I request the opposition to present a proper argument (as presented by them in Round 1) for the next round, as it will be the opposition's last argument. The opposition MUST forfeit Round 5. Source(s): Oxford Dictionary of English, American edition (2015); http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...; http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...; http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Capital Punishment

I admire my opponent's resourcefulness, but I am trying not to argue that the system is flawless, but that it is the logical course of action, and thus I believe that the defendants deserve mediocre lawyers, good enough to free them if they are truly innocent, but not sly enough to free a monster. On the plight of their family, I believe that they deserve counseling, but what can we do without interrupting justice? I realize this response sounds rushed, but I was hoping this round would actually be a time to answer questions from the audience.
Capital Punishment

I would like to begin by saying the obvious, that not every crime is worthy of the death penalty, and that not all killers deserve it either. But if someone is perfectly aware of the atrocities they are committing, can it even be questioned that they deserve to die? In my opinion: no. But logically, this should be treated as case by case. For an example of a case where capital punishment shouldn"t be considered as a form of punishment, I bring up a book I read in middle school, titled Monster. It was about a young man who was put on trial seeking the death penalty for either taking part in a robbery gone wrong as the lookout, or being stupid enough to walk through the neighborhood knowing full well what was going down that night. Either way, the punishment should fit the crime, and the death penalty simply does not fit. However, not every case is so easily made into a band-aid for the bleeding hearts among us. Take one of our most recent murderers, James Holmes, the "Dark Knight Shooter", who in my opinion, sloppily attempted to cover up his cold, calculating, killer mindset behind "the joker" as he pretended to understand the character. He got one part right though, the absolutely senseless mass murder of innocents. He knew what he was doing, how could he not? He walked into a movie theater, armed in more ways than I could describe fluidly, and gunned down several innocent civilians, men, women, and children. Some survivors will be mentally damaged for life, and according to reliable police testimonies, he smirked when questioned. Ask yourself, what does this kind of thing, pretending to be human as it wishes, truly deserve? Does he not deserve the death penalty? Do we all not deserve the cheapest, cleanest way to dispose of such filth? As a certain enlightenment philosopher named Immanuel Kant once said, "If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death."
Chocolate Ice cream is better then vanilla

True, no one said we needed to debate on the healthiness of choc/vanilla ice creams, but no one said anything about debating other choc/vanilla desserts as well; It was only ice cream. With this being said, there really isn't much else we can debate when only talking about chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Everything else aside, I will end by saying that, when it comes to vanilla ice cream, it is enjoyable by itself and with toppings. Also, vanilla ice cream goes with any/every topping, chocolate does not. Who wants to be limited? Not me.
Chocolate Ice cream is better then vanilla

No on said we had to debate the value of vanilla ice cream verse chocolate ice cream being healthier then one another. Chocolate is irresistible . That is in any form, and if you worried about hyperactivity you shouldn't allow so much chocolate to be eaten and there will be no issues. If you go to any restaurant the options of desserts are more complemented by and offered alone in the form of chocolate. It is more poplar; it is better
Chocolate Ice cream is better then vanilla

I'm not sure what you meant about "can't have choc. b/c it's irritable"? Aside from that, on the argument of Chocolate standing on it's own, you could say the same for vanilla, just a matter of preference. Oh, and don't forget, it's dark chocolate that's good for you, so to get those benefits you would have to like the dark. Also it may have anti-oxidants, but it also has caffeine, which can cause hyperactivity, whereas vanilla has been known to help with hyperactivity. As a parent, I can definitely say, I'd rather have the vanilla. :)
Chocolate Ice cream is better then vanilla

It is proven that chocolate ice cream as anti-oxidants as well; making it good for you as well. Keep in mind chocolate causes endorphins to be released; this makes you feel better. Chocolate also relieves stress, proven as a fact and by women around the world having major PMS issues. Vanilla is only good as a filler but chocolate like I already said stands alone. Everyone complains when on a diet that they can't have chocolate because its irritable, never do you hear about vanilla when in ice cream and many other forms has the same about of calories. Proven again its more desired, wanted and tasty then vanilla.
Jesus had Socialist Views

My opponent, Pro, has forfeited the round. He did, although, leave a comment to this debate in the comment section. It reads as follows: "We could not agree on a definition of socialism, therefore this debate is void. " I want to address this really quickly. First off, because no terms were defined before I accepted this debate, the terms were left for the opponents to define. In such a debate, you debate about what definition is best. There's a reason why it's called "debate". .. What my opponent asserted in his comment is truly doesn't make sense. It's like saying, "We disagreed, so the debate didn't work. " It's absurd.
Jesus had Socialist Views

Well according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, one definition of Socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" (1) Now I believe it is important to note that I will not be arguing that Jesus was a complete Socialist, rather he had views that today would be considered Socialist by many. 2) Socialism in the Bible My first argument will center around Luke 6:20 and Luke 6:24. In Luke 6:20 Jesus says that, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. " Also in Luke 6:24 Jesus states that, "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. " In these two verses, Jesus is clearly enabling and glorifying the poor. Socialists are known for attempting to enable the poor or as some call it the "proletariat" Jesus is also acknowledging that the poor work hard and deserve a piece of comfort and respect, as well as a place in Heaven. In Mark 19:23-24 Jesus said to his disciples that, "Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. " Jesus is saying that because many of the rich are extremely privileged it is hard for them to go to Heaven (I assume this is because many rich people are full of greed and contempt for the poor). But if it is hard for the rich to go to Heaven, how will any of them get there? Matthew 19:21-22 provides an answer. The Bible says, "Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me. " When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. " Jesus is advocating redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, a very socialist principal. In Mark 19:31 Jesus says, "Love thy neighbor as yourself" Jesus is telling people to treat each other equally at all times. In a Capitalist society, inequality is at the core of the system. Many consider (including myself) Socialism to be the opposite of capitalism. Therefore, equality is at the core of the Socialist system. 3) Conclusion As shown above, Jesus advocated for Socialist values and therefore had Socialist views. I don't believe there can be any other interpretation of the meaning of the verses mentioned in my second argument. Once again I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and I eagerly await his reply. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... All Bible verses taken from the New International Version