BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why time control is the best super power.

Thank you MrDelaney for accepting. You of all people should know that the future can be changed then. My first and foremost point is that you can prevent any bodily harm to your self. Which might not be the case with most superpowers. For instance, flight, there is always the chance of flying into something at a great speed which could be greatly damaging. Same with super strength, whats to stop you from accidentally crushing someone in a hug or dropping a building on yourself. Of all the superpowers you will be the safest and be able to do the most with time control. My second point is the fact that with time control you could learn about everything and become skilled at anything because you have unlimited time. You could read as many books as you wanted and practice whatever skill you wanted for as long as you wanted. You could with enough practice and perseverance become the best at everything, or at least a close second.
Why time control is the best super power.

I have to say, this sounds like fun.Thanks to Curreylo for setting this up.I will argue against the resolution that time control is the best (and safest) super power of all, and that it has the least amount of downsides in comparison to all other super powers.While I find it a bit unorthodox, I accept your definition of 'time control.'Since you didn't provide definitions for the remainder of terms, I will offer my own.I will take 'safest' to mean 'that which is most likely to be protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk, or injury.' [1]And I propose that by 'downsides' you are once again referring to it's supposed level of safety.I look forward to hearing your arguments.I should warn you, though. I have travelled into the future and seen the outcome of this debate.Best of luck.[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Why time control is the best super power.

I will prove while time control is the best (and safest) super power of all, and that it has the least amount of downsides in comparison to all other super powers. I define time control as the ability to stop pause rewind and fast forward all aspects of time, this includes being able to change events of the past that you have lived through (you can't go back to dinosaur ages). When you traveled back in time you would retain all your knowledge but your physical form would be reverted back to what it was at the time you decided to travel back to. When you would travel forward in time you would age as expected and go through life as a sort of A.I. Think of it as an extremely intelligent program that would make choices judged from previous choices you had made and act like you from the time you began to fast forward.
Why time control is the best super power.

Well, it seems that this is another debate wherein my opponent has had to forfeit.Being new to this site, I am beginning to see that this is the unfortunate norm, not the exception.This is the fourth debate I have taken part in, and the third that has ended in forfeits.Regardless, I feel I made my case in this debate as well as I could.And I believe Curreylo did not rebut my arguments in any significant way.I think it is clear that 'time control' is not the best super power.I'd like to thank Curreylo for the interesting topic, as well as the first few rounds that we had.It really was a fun discussion.And to those who may be reading this, I thank you for taking the time to do so.
Why time control is the best super power.

I can agree with your definitions of best and I'm very much impressed but there is one small issue I must address. Addressing the Time paradox issue: When I stated my definition of "Time control" I said "When you traveled back in time you would retain all your knowledge but your physical form would be reverted back to what it was at the time you decided to travel back to." By this I mean you literally reverse time. For example if MrDelaney were going throughout the day and decided he wanted a PBJ for lunch then later he decided that he actually wanted to eat a burrito for lunch then when he traveled back to lunchtime everything he did that day would be unwound and made as if it never happened. Think of it as a VCR and once you hit rewind all those "scenes" haven't happened yet. It has occurred to me that I might not have made my definition of "time control" apparent enough and I should be penalized accordingly. As for healing being superior to time control. I admit it comes extremely close but it falls short in one small area. If someone dies is there a way to cure them of death? No but you can change that with time control. Yes and by this time control is superior to healing.
Human rights regardless of color or race

Actually, that's false. Black people cause too much violence and are too stupid, so they don't count as human beings. Also, their dark skins absorb way too much sunlight, giving non-blacks hypothermia. Since those blacks are automatically murderers, they don't deserve to count as human beings. Also, Indian people are stinky and cause lots of trouble. Those perverted Indians aren't humans. Please read these: https://talk.collegeconfidential.com... https://www.reddit.com... https://www.quora.com... https://forum.bodybuilding.com... https://answers.yahoo.com... So now what do you think? Are Indian people actually "people"? Of course not! They are too stinky.
Human rights regardless of color or race

I believe that every person- regardless of their race or skin color- is worthy of respect and kindness. Ice Bear, I've noticed you debating on other threads and was hoping that maybe we could discuss this together. I'd be very interested in hearing what you have to say and listening to your perspective, although I would like to say ahead of time that I DO NOT want any hate speech or cruelty in this debate or the comment sections, and I hope that we can deal with this with kindness and compassion. I'm awaiting your response and looking forward to hearing what you have to say.
Abortion Is Morally Permissible in Most Cases for which It Occurs

"You addressed two things that last round, neither of which attacks my main argument, which has gone unchallenged the entire debate. It is pointless to raise new arguments on your turn since I can't respond." Obviously you can not read very well. I have given my point of view on what your opening statement said. I have given facts to support my opinion, so if you can not understand what I am saying, that is your fault. I even gave the website from which I got my info from.
Abortion Is Morally Permissible in Most Cases for which It Occurs

~~~ What Frank Addressed Last Round ~~~ Frank addressed: - "First, the legal age may be 16, but in California (which is where I live), the legal age is 18." My Reply: Your claim was that having sex under the age of 18 was illegal is false, as I showed prior. Even in California it is not an illegal offense for someone under 18 (or even 16) to have sex unless the person they are having sex with is over three years younger (1). Once again, you fail to logically explain how it would be relevant even if it was illegal. Frank Addressed: "Second, it is wrong to abort a no-rape baby because the mother chose to have sex, while with a rape baby, the mother did not choose to have sex; she was forced to, so she should have the ability to have an abortion if she wishes." My Reply: This goes back to implied consent of a pregnancy, which you never addressed. Also, you have an inconsistency in that prior you stated that: "First of all, whether the abortion happens within the first 21 weeks or not, killing a baby is killing a baby, regardless of when it is done." If this is the case, then you're saying that a mother aborting a rape-baby is the moral equivalent of a mother deciding to kill a toddler rape-baby later on. Somehow you have it so that the mother not choosing to have sex devalues the baby's right to life. Your argument doesn't reconcile this while my main argument does by implying that it may be morally impermissible after a certain time period in development. ~~~ My Conclusion ~~~ You addressed two things that last round, neither of which attacks my main argument, which has gone unchallenged the entire debate. It is pointless to raise new arguments on your turn since I can't respond. Other things I continued to notice: - You failed to address the conflict with relative mortality risk in your mother risk exemption where I show that all mothers get this exemption if you're going to grant it. - You failed to address how I responded to your abortion exemption when the child will suffer grief. ~~~ References ~~~ 1. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Abortion Is Morally Permissible in Most Cases for which It Occurs

"Other things I noticed: - You failed to acknowledge that I proved your law statement false. - You failed to address the conflict with relative mortality risk in your mother risk exemption. - You failed to address how I responded to your child having grief exemption. - You failed to address how your criterion (you never had a criterion to begin with) for how it is wrong to abort a non-rape-baby and yet okay to abort a rape-baby. If the excuse is grievance on the mother's part, then why doesn't the grievance of an unwanted baby should also act as justification? How does your reasoning reconcile with the rights of the baby?" First, the legal age may be 16, but in California (which is where I live), the legal age is 18. Second, it is wrong to abort a no-rape baby because the mother chose to have sex, while with a rape baby, the mother did not choose to have sex; she was forced to, so she should have the ability to have an abortion if she wishes.
Abortion Is Morally Permissible in Most Cases for which It Occurs

~~~ A Summary of Your Round 2 ~~~ All your responses in this last phase add up to you claiming that having sex (even when protected) implies that the mother is somehow making a promise to grant a fetus residence in her uterus for 40 weeks. Further, the mother would be committing an immoral act by aborting, not only by violating her unspoken residence contract, but also by killing the fetus. That is, because killing a baby is killing a baby, as you state it. Your statement may be slightly circular, by the way. Should I assume that you are repeating that you mean the moral weight of a fetus is constant from conception to toddlerhood? You leave this extremely vague. I'll let that vagueness be your problem to clarify. A refresher on a circular fallacy is that your supporting evidence for a premise is based on the assumption that the premise is true. You accomplish this by simply repeating your premise as evidence of your premise. ~~~ My Response ~~~ My comment that sex is not the same as signing a contract to keep a possible baby still holds. Your babies are babies response didn't change that. Further, my main argument explained the reason that abortion was morally permissible was because the characteristic that was morally relevant, some reasonable threshold of intelligent perception, had not been met. I still hold that the relative value of the moral weight from the fetus at the time of abortion is less than that the mother has in her right to her own body. You didn't challenge my ruler for measuring this at all, so I won't add to it. Other things I noticed: - You failed to acknowledge that I proved your law statement false. - You failed to address the conflict with relative mortality risk in your mother risk exemption. - You failed to address how I responded to your child having grief exemption. - You failed to address how your criterion (you never had a criterion to begin with) for how it is wrong to abort a non-rape-baby and yet okay to abort a rape-baby. If the excuse is grievance on the mother's part, then why doesn't the grievance of an unwanted baby should also act as justification? How does your reasoning reconcile with the rights of the baby?
Abortion Is Morally Permissible in Most Cases for which It Occurs

Yet again, whether the abortion occurs in the first nine weeks or not, killing a baby is killing a baby. Frank: "I'm sorry, most of those girls made the choice to have sex." "Having sex is not the same as signing a contract to keep a possible baby even if the risk is known. Also, just over half of mothers having abortions reported having used some form of contraception during the month they got pregnant" The only 100% way to make sure you are not going to get pregnant is to not have sex at all. If the mother does not want a baby, my response to her would be, don't even have sex at all then. If you absolutely can not have a baby, then don't have sex. It is not fair for the baby to die because she doesn't want a baby, but has to have sex. Frank: " Plus, the last time I checked, having sex under the age of 18 was illegal. If a girl disobeys the law by having sex before 18, she should not be allowed to have an abortion." "You may want to check again. You're going to need to put references next to every claim you make just so I know you're not getting mixed up. The federal age of consent is 16, although for those under the age of 16 a four year discrepancy is afforded before it's illegal (3). You'll find the specific laws vary from state to state. Also, I'm not sure how breaking the law to have sex logically connects to a mandate of no abortion." If a girl breaks the law to have sex, why should she get an abortion? She did not have to have sex, she chose to. Therefore she broke the law by having sex as a minor. I will say it again, why should the baby die because she wants the pleasure of sex, but does not want the baby. Frank: "If you do not wish to keep the baby you are going to have, you could put it up for adoption or send it to a foster home. The baby deserves a chance to live, doesn't it." "According to my argument at the beginning of this phase my mother's right to her body trumps your baby." Why does the baby deserve to die because of the mother's wants. She chose to have sex didn't she? If she really didn't want the baby, she should not have taken the chance of getting pregnant by having sex. Yet again, the only 100% way to make sure you will not get pregnant is to not have sex.
Abortion Is Morally Permissible in Most Cases for which It Occurs

Hello schoolglutton. I have gladly accepted your challenge, and would like to share my point of view on abortion. First of all, whether the abortion happens within the first 21 weeks or not, killing a baby is killing a baby, regardless of when it is done. Next, one statistic really encourages me to not agree with abortion. 20% of abortions obtained in the U.S. are from teenagers. 1.2% of abortions obtained in the U.S. are from kids under 15. I'm sorry, most of those girls made the choice to have sex. Plus, the last time I checked, having sex under the age of 18 was illegal. If a girl disobeys the law by having sex before 18, she should not be allowed to have an abortion. The parents in these kids lives also need to step up to the plate and monitor not only what their kids are doing, but who they are hanging out with. Next, I have researched the topic and found that 93% of abortions are for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted.) If you do not wish to keep the baby you are going to have, you could put it up for adoption or send it to a foster home. The baby deserves a chance to live, doesn't it. Just because the girl had unprotected sex for her pleasure, and ended up getting pregnant, that does not mean the baby should pay the price of death for her wants or dis-wants for that matter. Now, there are a few exceptions in which I think abortion should be allowed. First, if a woman is raped, she should be able to obtain an abortion. Honestly, who would want to look a baby and be reminded of the monster that raped her. Second, if a woman or the baby could die from death, I think an abortion should be allowed. If the mother is okay with dying for her child, then that is fine, but if she wants an abortion, i certainly think she should be granted one. Finally, if the baby is going to face serious mental or physical defects, an abortion should be allowed. No one would want their baby to suffer. If a baby has serious physical or mental defects, most of the time, the baby will die at an early age in life anyway. Other than the exceptions i gave, i disagree with abortion. Here is the website where i got some of my info from. http://www.abortionno.org...
Abortion Is Morally Permissible in Most Cases for which It Occurs

Claim: Abortion Is Morally Permissible in Most Cases for which It Occurs Argument: Over 98% of abortion cases happen prior to the 21st week of pregnancy(1). Over 59% of abortion cases happen prior to the 9th week of pregnancy(1). My argument will rest on maintaining that abortion is morally permissible at least up to nine weeks into the pregnancy. 1. http://www.guttmacher.org...
Vaccinations are more beneficial than harmful

First off, I would like to state what vaccines are, and how they work. Vaccines definition: a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease. (Google search: vaccine definition) Usually, vaccines contain a virus, although there are vaccines that shield against bacteria as well. For now, I'll just talk about virus vaccines, more specifically the live virus vaccine. Put simply, the virus is weakened and injected into the recipient. The weakened virus is unable to do any major damage (unless it mutates or wasn't properly weakened somehow), and the body creates antibodies to kill it, which then allows it to create antibodies faster for future infections. In some cases, a booster shot is required, usually because A: the virus mutates very quickly, or B: since the antibody production decreases after a certain amount of time, a fast-moving virus can take advantage of that and do serious damage. The booster shot increases antibody levels once more to make sure the recipient is as safe as possible. (. http://www.cdc.gov...) That was a brief overview of how vaccines work. They are one of the best preventative methods for deadly diseases. Since they can prevent deadly illnesses while (almost always) not creating any, they are efficient and safe. My opponent might say that vaccines are deadly because they contain "deadly ingredients. " I would imagine that the ingredients that my opponent might talk about are thimerosal, aluminum, and formaldehyde. a) Thimerosal Thimerosal, the infamous mercury-containing product, does not actually contain any deadly mercury. Instead, it contains a harmless version of organic mercury, Ethylmercury. (. http://www.cdc.gov...) Ethylmercury is broken down and leaves the body quickly. b) Aluminum. Aluminum has been shown to be toxic. However, quantity does matter here. According to the FDA (. http://www.fda.gov...), "Using the updated parameters, the authors found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant"s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum, based on the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. " c) Formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is something that has shown to be a possible carcinogen to humans. However, just like Aluminum, quantity does matter, and most of the formaldehyde is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged. (. http://www.cdc.gov...) There are only used for toxoid vaccines, because they can inactivate bacterial products. Hopefully, my opponent will not start spewing conspiracy theories. If my opponent were to argue that vaccines cause deadly side effects, I would counter by saying that these side effects only occur 1 in every million vaccinations. (. http://www.historyofvaccines.org...)
Photoshop contest

Photoshop Contest Welcome to the Photoshop Novelty Debate!Before we begin, I'd like to officially declare myself the undefeated champion of photomanipulation. Nobody can challenge my raw Adobe (c) 2012 power.Concept:I will be providing my opponent with an image and a theme. It will be his burden to manipulate the image using photoshop (or similar photo manipulation software) within the context of the theme. After he has finished rendering the image, he will post it as a rebuttal. In his rebuttal, he will also post an image and a theme for me. This cycle will continue until the 5th and final round.Rules: The image must be a .jpg, .png or .bmp file extension. (No gifs, PDFs or other odd image types). The image resolution must be at least 400 x 300. (Pre and Post rendered). The images may not portray hateful ideology or real human suffering. Fake human suffering is absolutely fine. Absolutely no cross-talk. The opponents may not speak in the comment section until after the debate has passed the voting period. Absolutely NO vote pandering. No direct correspondence. The opponents may not correspond in the rounds, outside of furnishing a theme or concept. Voting: Spelling / Grammar - This point shall be awarded to the artist who blends the photoshop layers most proficiently. No clipping, mismatched color tones / hues. The image flows naturally and does not appear edited or manipulated. (RFD Required) Conduct - Is the artist being flagrantly offensive or foul? Does the image convey humor and sarcasm without crossing the line? (RFD Required) Arguments - This is the "Wow" factor. Raw artistic talent score. (RFD Required) Sources - Which artist best presented the assigned themes? (RFD Required) Round 1 Challenge:Con must manipulate this Image - Use the Theme - " Welcome to McDonalds. How can I serve you? "