BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Thank you very much for this debate, lighth0use3. I have very much enjoyed it, and as I said before, I hope you have good fun debating on this site. Now, with respect, I don't think you've given me that much to refute with your final round, although I do understand why this is the case. With experience, you get used to working within the time constraints. Regarding Australia, I would just say that I know nothing about the legal state of affairs in Australia. I could look it up but I don't need to, because it's irrelevant to my position, and I don't want to confuse matters. If it were the case that babies were being aborted after they had already been born, then I would consider that murder. Any reasonable person would, I think, consider that murder. So on that point we are agreed. My position is not, and never has been, that all abortion is fine. On the contrary, I have been consistently clear that I only support abortion up to a certain point in time - around 24 weeks or so after conception. After that point, I do consider a fetus to be a human being, and I would therefore consider any abortion to be an act of murder. Regarding the true story that you told (and I'm happy to believe you that it's true) I would say that it is quite horrific that any woman might be made to feel that she has to have an abortion because she can't afford the pregnancy. In my own country (the UK) health care is free, so this is not an issue I have ever considered before. I would argue however that the way to solve this issue is to reform the health care system so that women are not charged to have children. If the UK and other European countries can do it, then I'm sure that an advanced country such as Australia can do it as well. So, I agree with you that it is incredibly bad for a woman to feel herself forced into an abortion because she can't afford the pregnancy, but the answer to that is not to make abortion itself illegal, but to remove the bad reason itself, and thus not force women to pay for having their baby. This is because, as I outlined in previous reasons, there are perfectly reasonable and legitimate reasons for wanting abortions (such as rape for example) and I see no reason why choice should be restricted for those women who do have a legitimate reason. In summary, I reiterate that I too believe that a human life is precious, but that a fetus is not a human being until it is sufficiently advanced so as to be able to survive outside the mother's body (at around 24 weeks.) Up until that point, the woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body, and a more fundamental right to choose whether or not she wishes to become a mother - a right that is only overridden by the fetus' right to life once it becomes sufficiently advanced. I submit that my opponent has shown no substantial reasons for restricting the choice of these women, and since there are surely perfectly legitimate grounds for wanting an abortion (rape for example) I must therefore urge a pro vote.
Abortion

I continue to affirm my arguments. But there is 20 more minutes before I am forced to forfeit this round and I have no choice but to type up whatever I can think of in this much time. Though I guess this was my fault partially for not getting around into doing it. Damn it, Telanian, you have got me yet again. But did you know, that in Australia, (where I live), It is legal to actually abort a baby, who has already been brought out of the womb, into the world? This is for all those women who kept thinking whether or not to abort the baby, and when the time finally came around, they just decided not to keep the baby, and the baby is killed? Now how is this not murder? Human babies are precious, and women who actually WANT babies have miscarriages, which is very unfortunate. Yet all these women who are unwilling to care for them, kill them. Human life is precious, and If they don't want to care for the baby, why not give it away to someone who will love and care for it? Someone who actually wants to take the responsibility of the mother, who just can't bothered with her own children? Isn't that so much better? All those babies that were aborted could've reached so much potential, but was only stopped into doing so, by the mother's lack of responsibility I will tell you a true story that happened to someone I know. And I swear on me and family's life that this is completely true. A young woman had gotten pregnant, unintentionally, though she knew the risks. She had, at first, planned for an abortion, as she didn't have the money to even have the baby. 6 months later, she now holds her first baby, which looks absolutely perfect, and she could not imagine how she had thought of abortion at all. Do you know where she got the money? She didn't have to pay. It was 100%free of charge because the doctor was willing to carry out her pregnancy without payment. Do you know why he did this? It was because he was against abortion, and could not bear to have the thought of her, aborting her baby, when there was nothing wrong with it at all, because of the lack of money. The baby was actually born last night, and my mother had gone to visit her just this afternoon. Life could've been prevented in just one take of a pill, or just a bit of medication, and just like that, we wouldn't have the baby that is today. I have planned to write so much more but there is only two minutes remaining. I still am strongly against abortion, and though you have tangled me in my own words, I don't think much can change my point of view.
Abortion

I continue to affirm my arguments. Furthermore, I will be very disappointed if you don't make any further response, lighth0us3; because if I can be quite frank, although you are young, you do come across to me as someone who has a brain and who can think and reason. If I have shown some of your arguments against abortion to be naive (which I think I have) then let your response not be to run away, but instead to make your arguments stronger, and come back at me with better and stronger reasons as to why abortion should be considered morally wrong. That way, we both learn something and improve in our intellectual reasoning!
Mario is mentle

The reason Mario is a "crazy plumber" is right in front of us yet no one ever notices it. The first piece of evidence is in the classics. when Mario appears in the very first donkey Kong he looks like the hero but is he really the bad guy, YES in a prequel to the first D.K. Mario forces DK to juggle fruit while fireballs are tossed at him. Every time DK would get hit by a fire ball Mario cracks up, then Mario Puts DK into a cage so he can watch as his son tries to save him and gets hurt while Mario tries to KILL him. That is right Mario abuses animals for fun witch is a big sign of him being insane.
The Democrats were in the majority so they are the cause of the economic problems.

Yes, I understand. I have demonstrated precedent and causation. The Democrats have led the United States into, arguably, the three largest economic crises since the Great Depression. This establishes their track record. I further illustrated how the Democrats have been responsible for a systematic deregulation over the course of 40 years, causing the opening for the current recession. They appear to have a very short memory, as they criticized the Bush administration for failures in regulation, yet it was their party who allowed the economy to begin its destructive path long before Bush took the oath. You have so far not demonstrated exactly how George Bush managed to deregulate the economy enough in the course of 7 years so as to allow a massive meltdown in the housing market, irrespective of the fact that the bubble was precipitated by previous administrations. You also have yet to actually clarify your stance, other than to rely on an error in a conclusion that you yourself created ("The new Democrats that were elected did not enter office until January 3rd, 2007. The subprime mortgage crisis started (in the US) during late 2006.") As I have seen no evidence, logic or actual proof on your side of the debate, would I be hasty to conclude that you in fact, have no case and instead seek to rely on your pre-determined conclusion?
The Democrats were in the majority so they are the cause of the economic problems.

Many Republicans like to throw around that because the Democrats were in the majority when the economic crisis started, they are the cause and not the Republicans. I believe they are wrong. First off: The new Democrats that were elected did not enter office until January 3rd, 2007. The subprime morgatge crisis started (in the US) during late 2006. The entire recession was caused mostly in part to that crisis, and the Democrats were not in the majority when it happened. Thus, it would be invalid to say that they were the cause when it in fact started before they held their positions. Also, even if they had taken office before the crisis began, it would take some serious skill to suddenly cause the entire world to collapse. It is just not possible to completely spark a world economy destruction. I would like to save any Bush policy arguments for later, if my opponent doesn't mind.
The Bible

First of all I would like to kinda put you in the head of god the best that I can. Now understand that before the earth, planets or stars there was only him. Now just imagine if you had no family or friends, or if you were the only person left on earth. What would you do or feel? In Isaiah God said that he searched the universe far and wide and could find no one like him. He was the only one here at that time. God must have been lonely and needed some sort of companionship and we know this because of Gen. when god made Adam he visited with him often and after he made eve he visited both of them. Anything you create you love in some way but that doesn't mean you will be happy with it all the time this is one reason god did what he did in killing people. If you make a table and your not happy with how it turned out you will destroy it and start over. God did the same thing with Noah. I know its hard to grasp that but God tells us not to worry about the first death he said to worry about the second. God never said that he was ok with polygamy. he made Adam and then eve from Adam and gave eve to him for a wife (he never said wife's) this was the same with Noah and his sons. god said that he saw favor in the eyes of Noah fir what he did. It wasn't till the fall of (Gen 4:23) that polygamy occurs in the bible and was with a thriving rebellious society of sin with a murderer and a descendant of cain and his name was hamech. In Hebrews 13: 3-4 says that marriage is honorable above all. So that was not gods doing it was the culture of them back then and I promise you God never blessed them foe this. About the slave part God never said this was ok. You have to understand who he is talking to and why. Moses was a good man but Moses was not at all smart. He told God that he could not go talk to pharaoh because he was not a good talker that's why god had Aaron (mosses brother) do the talking for him. Plus you have to understand what Moses was told to go and do and that was to free the slaves. From my understanding God did explain to rules of slavery to Moses but God never said slavery was ok. And one more thing. God takes the life of people for reasons we do not understand. I do know that in the days of Moses God hardened the heart of pharaoh so that Gods people would know he was there God.
The Bible

I have finished reading the Bible, and I have discovered things like Incest, Polygamy, Infidelity, Owning Slaves, having sex with prostitutes, and destroying enemy civilizations because they practice a different religion than you is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of Yahweh, or God if you prefer. So I am challenging a Christian or Orthodox Jew to a debate to try and prove to me that these things are not acceptable in Judaism and Christianity. I know a lot of Christian and Jewish Apologists have tried to make excuses for these things, but they have not been successful. I have learned God is a mass murdering tyrant monster who not only condoned violent acts but committed them himself and ordered others to doing violence to others. So if you believe the bible is true and God really is loving and merciful, than why do several areas of the Bible contradict this?
Religion/christainity

i know it was posted ages ago but i just read it and wish to talk more about it there was a debate posted about the best agruments against christainity and two that jumped out at me were there is no free will or god takes it away and that god allows too much evil in the world but please explain to ur athiest friends that there is evil in the world cause god allows free will. god did not create evil he created man and man created evil...... evil is simply the absence of love and kindess because these are characteristics of god evil is no more then the absence of god so please give me a reason against christainity that isnt easy enough for a 5 year onl to counter
Religion/christainity

I use "him" as a general term for people who I assign no gender, usually because I don't care to find out which one they are. Again, I will simply respond to my opponent's pieces bit by bit, though I will save a special section for her remarks about the theodicy. "anyway i am christain because i like the things i hear in church or read in the bible i like having a purpose in life and believing that there is something beyond it something bttr then the currently horrid world we a r currently living in. .. " ----> I know believing a God exists may sound enticing, but this has no bearing on whether or not he exists. I may want to believe I am the most powerful person in the world, but this doesn't mean I am. "if i was atheist wat would be my purpose? wat would i be living for? " ----> Most atheists take an existentialist position - they believe they themselves make the essence (meaning) of his and her life. I would say this is quite liberating and befitting. ================== Concerning the argument from evil ================== There isn't much to gather, so I'll just quote some parts: ". .. so god does protect and care for and provide for his ppl and he provides those how r not his ppl w/ several chances to become his ppl. " ---->You bring up the interesting point of saying God is loving because he allows people to choose to follow him and become his people. However, you have failed to show why Hell exists then. Given the existence of hell, his love is more akin to coercion and blackmail. "anyway so yes their is evil in the world and yes god does allow it but he does so because of he eliminated all the evil from the world he would no longer be seen as a wonderful caring loving and forgiving God he would be seen as a murder" ---->How in the world would eliminating evil from the world make you a murderer, or seem like one? ================== Conclusion ================== ". .. so i apoligize skeptic that u wasted ur time on wat u obviously wanted to be a good debate" ----> It's alright, you challenged me so I accepted anyway. However, I will stress that it should be very clear that your arguments fail to meet their mark.
Religion/christainity

i know i just wasted it but idk how to do all that other stuff a debate just seemed like the fastest way to talk to someone i just dont like being called a guy it irritates me dont ask y anyway i am christain because i like the things i hear in church or read in the bible i like having a purpose in life and believing that there is something beyond it something bttr then the currently horrid world we a r currently living in if i was atheist wat would be my purpose? wat would i be living for? btw i dont like attacking ppls beliefs because ppl r supposed to see a difference in u when ur christian so i tend not to do normal stuff like i dont cuss i do my best not to well or cheat and it feels great! i luv not cussing or cheating cause it just gives me a great feeling and i know that comes from being christian.... anyway since u seem determined to agrue i will do my best god does care for the wellfare of his ppl those who r evil r not true christians so therefor they r not his ppl they r still his children but not his ppl, ppl of ur beliefs seem to get that wrong if they r evil or hav it in their heart they r not truly christains.....so god does protect and care for and provide for his ppl and he provides those how r not his ppl w/ several chances to become his ppl. anyway so yes their is evil in the world and yes god does allow it but he does so because of he eliminated all the evil from the world he would no longer be seen as a wonderful caring loving and forgiving God he would be seen as a murder and i do not believe he wants that. i am a christian because i luv the person who made me u r atheist because u do not believ in the person that created u i dont care who wins i didnt really want to debate but i didnt know any other ways to talk to ppl now i do so i apoligize skeptic that u wasted ur time on wat u obviously wanted to be a good debate
Religion/christainity

Since there isn't much to refute here, I'll just dissect my opponent's entire round and respond bit by bit. So keep in mind that if PRO doesn't pick up the pace and give a good argument for Christianity, I will win this debate. "dude b4 we go any further i want to point out that this is not an agrument..." ---->Then why did you challenge me to a debate? "...i simply want to further understand aitheism..." ----> That's great and I support that, but if you want to do that on this website you shouldn't start a debate. You should just message/comment someone knowledgeable about atheism, post a forum topic, or even read other debates. "...im not gonna attack ur beliefs so plz dont attack mine,..." ----> Political correctness is hogwash, what's so wrong about attacking other people's beliefs? Healthy skepticism is what helps fuels intellectual discourse after all. "...i am also a girl,..." ----> Now now, the way you are putting that sounds like you are saying girls are somewhat intellectually inferior to men :P. Point is, it doesn't really matter if you're a girl. "...lastly tone it done a bit my young mind does not understand ur very big words:(" ----> Sorry, but big words serve the purpose of making my arguments more clear, concise, and precise. Besides, you're 15. That's only 1 year less than me. "i cant really post my "agrument" until u post one that i can understand" ----> I shouldn't be held liable for your lack of understanding. I didn't employ anything that would need a degree or university level of training to understand. I'm not using symbolic logic, theoretical mathematics, complex physics equations, or economic lingo - my entire argument is easily understandable even to the layman. Maybe you should just read over it more carefully and Google anything you don't understand. If that still doesn't help, then just comment on this debate and I'll most likely clarify it for you. But take note, you just wasted a round.
Religion/christainity

It should be evident from the resolution and a quick read of my opponent's round that we are arguing about the merits of Christianity. He starts by giving a quick rebuttal of the argument of evil, and then asks me to give a reason why Christianity is false. Since it isn't so clear as to whether I'm supposed to defend the argument from evil, or attack Christianity, I'll simply do both - I'll attack Christianity by defending the argument from evil. If I do so successfully, then this debate will be my win. Therefore, I will present a simple case of the argument of evil and then refute my opponent's rebuttals: ==================== Argument from evil ==================== My case will be for the evidential argument from evil. Basically, I will argue that the incompatibility between the existence of evil and God's characteristics make it highly unlikely that God exists. Given that God is defined as the Christian god, who is purported to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent. ". .. that there is evil in the world cause god allows free will. " ---->This my opponent's main theodicy - the free will defense. I've heard it many times, and I'll give the same rebuttal that so many Christians seem to take for granted: why does God value free will more than the welfare of his people? This is now my opponent's burden; he has to explain free will is valued more than the welfare of his people. Furthermore, I will also argue that there exists gratuitous evil or suffering in the world, in which improving moral character or being the cause of human free will is not present. For example, a child dying of starvation - for what purpose was that suffering existing in his life? Or perhaps an incurable disease in which medicine has yet to defeat, for what purpose does this kind of suffering exist? ". .. evil is simply the absence of love and kindess because these are characteristics of god evil is no more then the absence of god" ---->Though it doesn't really matter what I say concerning this sentence, since I have addressed your free will defense already, I've always been perturbed as to why people believe evil is the lack of good. Haven't you ever heard of an amoral act? There is no "good' in eating an apple, so would it be evil then? The world is not a clear cut black and white, there are many shades of gray and neutrality between. So if you were to argue that evil is the absence of good, then you will have to back up this claim. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Well that's it. I have given my argument, and I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Should Mayonnaise Be Considered A Lethal Weapon

You make a mediocre point. Mayonnaise is a gift from the Gods. If you did not know, Mayonnaise can be used for much more than decorating a sandwich. Mayonnaise can be used in head hair. It can moisten the scalp, and make your hair luxurious. Your locks can be soft and shiny, all thanks to Mayo. Mayonnaise is oil based, and shines your hair. You can be beautiful finally. I bet you also didn't know that Mayo is the #1 food skin moisturizer. Mayonnaise contains lots of eggs and oils, that can benefit you and your skin's health. Instead of a lethal weapon, mayo is a healthy condiment ready to be eaten. It can be used on tons and tons of foods, especially sandwiches. Unless you eat gallons of mayonnaise every day you won't get fat I'm right you're wrong deal with it
Should Mayonnaise Be Considered A Lethal Weapon

Mayonnaise should be considered a lethal weapon for the following reasons: 1. According to isitbadforyou.com, "Mayonnaise is a condiment made with a base of eggs yolks, oil, and vinegar. The thick and creamy food is packed with fat and calories which gives it plenty of flavor, but also makes it a fairly unhealthy ingredient, especially considering that most people will use more than the recommended serving size of two teaspoons." Another resource, the Food Network, says mayo is "brimming with fat". One cup contains 1440 calories, 160 grams of fat, and 24 grams of saturated fat, as well as 50% of your daily recommended amount of sodium. Therefore, it is proven that mayonnaise could be a leading cause in obesity if you eat it a lot. Obesity can lead to death. Mayonnaise is a lethal weapon. Also, let's take a look at the container. Most mayo containers are made of hard plastic or glass. Both of which could be used as weapons. When thrown at the head, one could die from blunt force trauma. If one would break the container into shards of plastic or glass, they could cut someone in the jugular, wrists, et cetera, until they bleed out, or do a matter of other things. Essentially, the shards are knives. The paper on the bottle that advertises the brand could also cause paper cuts, which could get infected and kill you. For these reasons, mayo should be considered a lethal weapon.