BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

When I talk about abortion I am not talking about Ectopic pregnancies that rarely happen and only makes up to 1 percent of all abortions. When I talk about illegalizing abortion I am talking about the other 97% . IDK how this society can accuse of man with double murder while killing a pregnant woman but don't charge the woman who can kill the same baby with nothing . I like the fact you abortion supporters only talk bout the ectopic pregnancies or rape incidents when they only make up only 3% percent of all abortions. Lets see there are 1.2 millions baby aborted annually that means everyday there are at least more than 3,000 babies aborted daily and 97% have nothing to do with the mothers health or the babies well being this all done because they cant afford it or the baby would get in the way of their school or great plans . or their spouses pressured them into doing it and etc.. The point is Abortion is Murder because what is Murder basically means to kill a person who is innocent and idk whats more innocent than a baby in the womb.
Abortion

I would like to thank pro for starting this debate so lets get right into itDefinitions Abortion - the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as [1]Illegal - contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law. [1]So we are debating the act of abortion should be forbidden by law or not allowed. Premises [P1] Making abortion illegal would mean banning it in all circumstances[P2] If there is a time in which an abortion can be justified it should remain legal[P3] Therefore abortion should not be illegalDefense of Premise 1This speaks for itself but basically per the resolution, we are debating about making abortion illegal across the board. It clearly states it should be illegal and should be banned by law. Defense of Premise 2As I said my job in this is to show that there are some situations that can justify an abortion, but here are just a few. Fatal Pregnancies. Ecoptic pregnancies are rare pregnancies in where the egg implants itself somewhere outside the uterus. In addition to being outside of the uterus the mother generally can die. [2]Right to self defense According to US law this is essentially the right of another citizen to engage in violent behavior up and to ending another individuals life when the person in question is acting in sufficient self defense. [3]Justifiable Homicide Justifiable Homicide - killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with a crime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime [4]Wrapping it upEssentially when a fetus is posing a life threatening condition to the mother it is her right to terminate the baby. She has every right to defend her body against the attack, in this case the fetus. Defense of Premise 3This has already been essentially done above. Read defense of premise 2 for more details, but abortion should remain legal especially in cases where the mother could die. ConclusionThe resolution is false. Abortion should remain legal [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.mayoclinic.org...[3] http://www.princeton.edu...[4] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Humans are Ruining the Environment

"We can captive breed these animals to repopulate them if the numbers get too low"What about the Pinta Island Tortoise? Lonesome George, the last one in existence, died in 2012, thus rendering the whole species extinct before we could save it. And we don't know about many species before they become extinct, making it impossible for us to save them. So technically, we only can on a few animals. "Humans also put in efforts like planting native plants to restore the ecological balances in the areas that we destroy."But we shouldn't have to do that. We shouldn't be destroying this stuff in the first place. This just further proves that we are ruining the environment, or destroying it. This also goes for the engineered bacteria you talked about.And now, my arguments.Argument 1: GarbageThis argument is pretty straightforward and can't really be argued against. We (America) are producing about 251 million tons of garbage per year [1]. Where does it all go? It goes in landfills and in the ocean. Most of us know about that giant trash island floating smack-dab in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Its about three times the size of Britain [2]. This thing is so big it can even be seen from satellites, such as the imagery on Google Earth. And then, landfills. Garbage takes a real long time to decompose, and we are producing it at alarming rates. We need to cut down trees and destroy things to make a single landfill. Garbage is not produced by any other animal, also. Just us.Argument 2: Coal Mining and Energy UseCoal. We've all heard about it and most of us use it in some way. To stoke a fire. To use energy. But how many of us know what it is really doing to our planet? It causes water pollution, soil erosion, and temporary affected areas [3]. It creates air pollution in factories, also. In 2009, we created 130 million tons of waste and coal ash [4]. It is not clean energy. Lastly, it produced toxic chemicals, making not only animals lose their habitats, but humans to move because they know the dangers. And usually, they've got nowhere else to go.Argument 3: Global WarmingPerhaps this is the biggest danger of all: global warming. This is causing polar ice caps to melt, increasing the height of oceans by seven feet [4] since the beginning of the 20th century. On average, temperature has increased an astonishing two degrees in the U.S [4!] That would mean the difference from snow to rain. If we continue like this, beaches will be destroyed and our planet will become much, much hotter. This is just the beginning of many arguments that can stem from global warming, but I will name them later.For now, on to you! :)[1] http://curiosity.discovery.com...[2] http://www.mirror.co.uk...[3] http://www.worldcoal.org...[4] http://www.dosomething.org...
Humans are Ruining the Environment

While you brought up valid points, there are also many things that we do to help the environment. I will do my best to negate your arguments. First, I will start with when we screw up by overpopulation. If we are afraid of overpopulation of humans, why are we not afraid of overpopulation of animals? Although we kill millions, if not billions, of animals a year, it is to support ourselves and to prevent the animals from getting too overpopulated. But with this you may think, "Wouldn't killing them lead to extinction?" Well, this would be possible, but we have associations that protect endangered species, and believe it or not, we can captive breed these animals to repopulate them if the numbers get too low [1]. You mentioned that we destroy the rain-forest, which is an undoubted fact. However true, humans also put in efforts like planting native plants to restore the ecological balances in the areas that we destroy [1]. We not only replant forests, but we also save them when there is a wildfire or forest fire. We realize that we need trees and plants to live; we would not deplete the Earth of necessities. The air, there is no argument against it. We ruin the air by pollution, by factories and cars. However, with modern technology, humans are able to create efficient carbon filters and low-sulfur fuels to decrease the amount of pollution we contribute [1]. As if only saving the air wasn't enough, we have also made a huge leap with the creation of cheap nanotech water filters to kill harmful chemicals and bacteria in drinking water [2] and have engineered oil-eating bacteria for such things like the oil spill you have mentioned [3]. Resources: 1. http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com... 2. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... Your go~ :)
Humans are Ruining the Environment

And humans are doing exactly that. We are ruining the environment in many ways, as I will state. I have a different definition: Ruining: Destruction or disintegration, either physical, moral, social, or economic. [3]Argument 1: The Rainforest [1]The rainforest is home to many animals and plant life. And we are plowing it down. Literally 1 1/2 acres are being plowed down every second [1], that's the size of the normal city house. We are losing up to 137 species of plants and animals a day due to rainforest destruction. We have lost over 4,150,000 hectares of forest this year [2] due to humans. In 50 years, there may not be any forest left. For my last piece of my first argument, the population. It is estimated that 10 million Indians lived in the rainforest 5 centuries ago. Today? 200,000. That's right, we aren't just taking animals homes, we're taking our ancestors, too. Argument 2: The Air Many centuries ago, the air was fresh and crisp and ancient times were figuring out how to do things. Nowadays, the air is blackened with industrial smoke from our factories. Per worldometers [2], we have emitted over 30 trillion tons of CO2 emissions this year. We have released about 8.75 million tons of harmful and toxic chemicals. Recently, CO2 has reached 400 particles per million particles of air. It may seem like a little, but it is actually horrifying levels [4]. We are also destroying the ozone layer with all of this carbon dioxide. But I'll get to the ozone layer if you ask me to.Argument 3: When We Screw UpI'm not talking about when we screw up on our homework assignments, or forget to bring a paper to work. I mean when we sink a multi-ton oil ship smack in the middle of the Pacific Ocean or when we acidentially launch a nuclear bomb into a lake (ok, that's never happened, but still.) Anyone remember the big spill by the gulf? About 9.5 MILLION liters leaked into the ocean every day [5], and it is too soon to even estimate the damage we caused to the environment. And for part two of when we screw up, this is going to make you laugh, but I'm serious. When we forget to wear a condom. This leads to overpopulation. I'm sure that this isn't the main cause for overpopulation, but we are still causing some pretty big problems with it. We can screw up in so many ways... and most of them hurt the environment.Thank you for reading!!!Your turn, con! Good luck! :)[1] http://www.rain-tree.com...[2] http://www.worldometers.info...[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[4] http://www.theguardian.com...[5] http://dsc.discovery.com...
Humans are Ruining the Environment

I admitted that we destroy-ed the environment. As I thought your front would suggest, you would know that -ed is the past participle version of a verb. I stated that this would be hard to debate, I'm sorry that you use a cop-out debate, but I have given sufficient evidence that humans help the environment. To sum up the debate: I have given many, many, many ways that humans help the environment. I have shown that modern technology allows us to even restore the environment. However, you have used the same three/four arguments all rounds as I negated them and offered more extensive information. I would also like to point out that your quantity of arguments, links and rebuttals does not make up for the fact that they were of average quality. You also centered around specific areas as I negated all of the points and gave more broad, general ideas, meaning that while "we ruin" the environment in some areas, we are restoring it in others. Thanks for the debate!
Humans are Ruining the Environment

"We are cutting down rainforests for many reasons, including wood for both timber and making fires; agriculture for both small and large farms; land for poor farmers who don’t have anywhere else to live; grazing land for cattle; pulp for making paper; road construction; and extraction of minerals and energy"You- literally- just proved three of my arguments. Who needs paper? Humans. Who makes roads? Humans. Who extracts minerals from the ground? Humans. What does this do to the rainforest? Ruin it. "Recycled 65 million tons."...Wasted 251 million tons. Even with the subtraction of recycling, that's still a grand total of 186 million tons of garbage."I cannot imagine how that amount has skyrocketed in the last three years."I can say the same with garbage, can't I? This link [1] shows a graph of garbage/recycling of plastic bottles per household. Using an algebraic function, I have concluded this:x= garbage, F(x)= recyclingF(x)= 4x. For those who don't know algebra that well, I'll put it like this: 4 garbage bottles for every recycled bottle. "A 1.5 kilowatt PV system will keep more than 110,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, out of the atmosphere over the next 25 years. [4]."That may not seem like a lot. But we are producing about that much per second [2]. Even if we buy a million of those things, we only erase about 12 days from our CO2 history. Buy 20 million? Not even a year. And CO2 is only going to stay at a flat rate (most likely) from here."We can decrease the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere exponentially."But it would take a ton of time to undo the CO2 emissions we have already contributed."Humans are helping the environment even if it's immediately after they destroyed the environment"It seems to me that your only argument is that we are saving the environment, but you have nothing against me that, in some way, we aren't destroying it. I need rebuttals on that we aren't destroying the environment. Can I point out you have admitted that we have ruined the environment many, many times? Isn't that what this whole debate is about?"This only leads us to conclude that, yes, humans DID destroy the environment, but that is solely because of the lack of other resources and technologies that would allow them to help the environment."So you admit we destroyed, or in definition, ruined, the environment? Because I will state again, that is what this whole debate was about. Due to the fact that this is the last round, I will not post another reason as to how we are destroying the environment. All I will do is conclude. Please do not post an argument because I can't post a rebuttal. Thank you!To sum up, I told you in what ways we are ruining the environment. And now... Statistics time!I posted:•11 links•Six arguments•Nine rebuttals•Played all four roundsThank you for the debate!!! :)[1] http://www.sustainablebusiness.com...[2] http://www.worldometers.info...
Humans are Ruining the Environment

"We shouldn't have to do that. We shouldn't be destroying this stuff in the first place.""We are cutting down rainforests for many reasons, including: wood for both timber and making fires; agriculture for both small and large farms; land for poor farmers who don’t have anywhere else to live; grazing land for cattle; pulp for making paper; road construction; and extraction of minerals and energy. [1]" "This argument is pretty straightforward and can't really be argued against. We (America) are producing about 251 million tons of garbage per year [1].""America's solid waste industry collected and processed almost 65 million tons of recyclables in 2010, and more than 20.2 million tons of yard and food waste that was composted. [2]" Although this may seem outdated, we recycled 65 million tons three years ago. With an increase in demand for recycling, I cannot imagine how that amount has skyrocketed in the last three years. Garbage cannot be argued against because it is a fact, but people have been recycling more throughout the years. In addition, more biodegradable materials are being created an used such as "food scraps and coffee grounds, paper towels, toilet paper, newspapers, junk mail, paper plates and cups, clothing and towels... dish soap, dishwasher detergent, laundry detergent, glass and multipurpose cleaners, diapers, pet waste bags, trash bags and eating utensils [3]." (There are more materials listed in the site that I have cited.)Coal Mining and Energy Use (And some global warming)It is a fact that humans use coal and other natural resources for energy, and these resources may cause harm to the environment, but that does not change the fact that there are other resources for energy. Instead of being stuck on harmful resources, look at the other resources like solar enery and wind energy. "A 1.5 kilowatt PV system will keep more than 110,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, out of the atmosphere over the next 25 years. [4]." This very short, very informative statement shows that humans are actually helping the environment with these jumps forward in technology. Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas most responsible for global warming, and by using new forms of energy, we can decrease the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere exponentially.ConclusionHowever you choose to look at it, humans are helping the environment even if it's immediately after they destroyed the environment. We see a huge incline in helping rather than hurting as technology makes its way into the environment. This only leads us to conclude that, yes, humans DID destroy the environment, but that is solely because of the lack of other resources and technologies that would allow them to help the environment. Sources:[1]http://kids.mongabay.com...[2]http://www.environmentalistseveryday.org...[3]http://www.livestrong.com...[4]http://www.altenergy.org...
Gay Marriage Should Be Allowed

This type of marriage should not be allowed for several reasons that I will be presenting below. This has been a developing issue over the past decades, and is growing all the time. I will be taking the con side in this argument, and I am looking forward to a legitimate debate over this topic of your choosing. I want to start by stating my first reason why this type of marriage should not be allowed. There is nothing anywhere that can prove this to be a normal, natural lifestyle. It is undeniably obvious. Please tell me how the world would continue to increase in population if this type of marriage was normal. The world would simply die off because these type of people cannot have natural children, and therefore must adopt. If everybody in the world held the viewpoint that it was normal, then there would be no children for them to adopt, and thus the world would die off. I am not going to be bashing the people that hold to this viewpoint, I will just be talking about the viewpoint. Now, as that woman that you were referring to, I am very sorry to hear about that. That had to leave a terrible scar on her emotionally, even unto this day. However, I have a few questions, what do you think would have happened if it was a lady that took advantage of her? The circumstances would definitely be different. This is basically what happened to her emotionally. She had that incident happen to her, and she felt like she could not trust anyone that is a male. She developed a stereotype of the male gender in her mind, and she turned to the only gender that was left for her emotional comfort. If this had happened to her two different times, by two different genders, she would be in a very confused state today, as should would have stereotypes of both genders in her mind. The thing that should have happened, was a great deal of encouragement, and a good councilor to help the issue gradually become better. I am not demanding that they change, I am just showing them the fact that this type of lifestyle is not normal, no matter what viewpoint, or angle you look at it. The recommendation that I have, is for anyone that has this type of viewpoint, that they all move to they same country, and live there. It would make things much more simple. They would be able to enjoy their lifestyle, and they would not have to worry about anyone saying anything about how they live. I realize that I said I would bring out other points on this which I will do, once I have heard my opponents response to my argument.
Music is helpful to your concentration.

While yes it does say that, let's not try to cut this part out. "Furthermore, we should also note that these studies only looked at music with vocals, and not music that was purely instrumental. Research from the University of Dayton found that students performed better at spatial and linguistic processing if Mozart was playing in the background. So maybe having instrumental music can help performance, since it doesn"t have any distracting vocals. Again, think about it like you"re trying to work while someone"s talking to you (or just consider that maybe you"ll feel like singing along instead of doing your work! )"Obviously there is a variable that has not been explored and there renders the data that my opponent is trying to use as inconclusive while only allowing more room for possible growth for my theory. It also concludes that it still matters more on the person than anything else, so that would bring this to a draw if anything as it helps some but may not help others.
Music is helpful to your concentration.

Thank you, I've been hoping someone would enjoy this. I agree with part of the study as Heavy Metal, Hard Rock, Core music and such can be detrimental to be ability to study as to the fact that it can create increased senses of anger. Pop, Hip Hop, R & B, and such genres don't cause the same effect, though can still be distracting. It depends on the person as the study pointed out, though I would also like to point out that the study admitted to only using vocal music in the studies. I believe that there is a lot to be said for the quality of the test, and I believe that the quality is lacking at time. More studies have to be done for instrumental music, though I haven't seen a study say that instrumental music (Classical, Swing, Jazz, Ect.) is detrimental to the process of studying. http://www.mindthesciencegap.org...
Music is helpful to your concentration.

I accept your dare. I believe that listening to music while working has no benefits and, if anything, decreases your productivity. A research project done by the University of Phoenix concluded that test scores of test takers that were listening to music while studying were lower than those of the people that studied in silence. The difference is not very significant, BUT it is evident that listening to music while studying does not help concentrate. Similar experiments were conducted in several universities and none of the results imply that listening to music increases productivity or helps concentrate. http://www.phoenix.edu... I await my opponent's response.
Music is helpful to your concentration.

At this point, since I have established that most music genres decrease scores, my opponent's only remaining argument is that listening to classical/instrumental music would increase scores. This, too, will be refuted. The following source said that while listening to instrumental music is better than listening to music with lyrics, studying in silence is still the best option. Students who studied in silence scored 90%, those who listened to instrumental scored 83% and those who listened to music with lyrics scored 72%. http://takelessons.com... In conclusion, it is obvious that listening to music while studying is in no way helpful to productivity/concentration and, if anything, is only detrimental. Thank you for the good debate.