BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is always immoral

I will be arguing that abortion is always immoral. Definitions: Abortion: "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks:" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... NOTE** Putting aside miscarriages also called "spontaneous abortions". Unborn: "A human offspring at any stage of development from the moment of conception up until birth." Supplied by me Human Being: Any living member of the species Homo Sapiens. Supplied by me Rules: 1:Let's stick to morality and not legality. (although the moral outcome could have legal consequences) 2: No Ad Hominem arguments. 3: Please reference hyperlinked sources back to place in argument. (or place them right after relevant portion of argument) Opening Argument: Prem1:"Intentionally killing innocent human persons is always immoral". Prem2:"All that is necessary to be a human person is to be a human being". Prem3: "The unborn are human beings". Prem4:"Abortion intentionally kills the unborn". Prem5: "The unborn are innocent". Conclusion: "Therefore, abortion is always immoral". I will wait for the challenger to present their opening argument and challenges to my premises before going into more detail.
Abortion is always immoral

Unfortunatley for you your "premise" was under opening argumentsTherefore it does not have any effect on the way i debate. If you put my opponent must have the fixed morality that killing innocent people is immoral then this debate would have gone a different way.However you didnt. I will not change my arguement just because you "want" me to.And again your premise was under Opening arguement so it has no impact. You were saying that as an arguement. Not a definiton.Morality debates are pointless but this is a debate. So i want to win.
Abortion is always immoral

"Look at how many debates i have had. And then look at yours. I know what im talking about."<<< That does not follow necessarily. "Because i have said that the killing innocent people is moral. You have lost the debate. " Awww, you take issue with my first premise. Well you simply made an assertion with no argument. Like I said, an objective or at a bare minimum societally based level of morality is IMPLICIT in the fact that we are even debating at all. Why can't you just accept that? "Your entire debate was rooted in the fact that someone had the same morality as you or more specifically said that its immoral to kill innocent people"<<< No I wasn't. I made it a premise and you made an unbacked up assertion that Prem1 was false. Winning a debate that does not make. If morality debates are pointless to you then don't enter them
Abortion is always immoral

Look at how many debates i have had. And then look at yours. I know what im talking about.I dont think you understandBecause i have said that the killing innocent people is moral. You have lost the debate. Your entire debate was rooted in the fact that someone had the same morality as you or more specifically said that its immoral to kill innocent peopleBecause of this you have lost.In this site you cant just debate anything you want. You need to understand what you are debating before you create one.
Abortion is always immoral

Like I said it is implicit in the fact that we are debating. Who would enter a morality debate like this if it was not? "Even we did use that arguement morality is subjective. Your right may be my wrong. Your wrong may be my right"<<<< You are making a contestable assumption here. That is not a universally accepted fact. If you are not in this to ACTUALLY debate, then don't sign up.
Abortion is always immoral

Im afraid all definitons must be included in your R1 introductionEven we did use that arguement morality is subjective. Your right may be my wrong. Your wrong may be my rightIm afraid thats itBecause you have not given a fixed morality standing for me to have in your R1 into and you still dont understand the basis of individual morality this debate is over.There was no way you could have won this one. I understand this your first debate so this can prove to be a learning experience
Abortion is always immoral

I am not sure why my challenger has responded in this way. If the challenger needs clarification of a term I am using, they should just ask for it. Besides, given the fact that we are having a debate on a topic in relation to morality, it is implicit in that fact that morality is not subjective to the individual. Otherwise what is the point of the debate? Perhaps morality could be subjective to the society in which one resides, or more likely (for debate purposes) morality is objective. The definition of morality to be used in this debate: "The rightness or wrongness of a certain behaviour, which is an objective reality to which all individual moral agents should abide." Again, if a definition or clarification is needed, ask for it. Don't just scuttle the debate. I await an actual argument from the challenger.
Women should not have the same rights as men.

So that is your argument? That they are "mentally strong then men"? I mean honestly I wanted a debate. However, I don't need a strong debate from you to show my side as correct. You want proof of mental strength; then lets look at a test that is not bias. How about... the SAT. Everyone takes it, in fact more women than men took it, yet they can't seem to score higher (oh and us Pacific Islanders scored the highest :P). "Women, now 54 percent of test takers, have made gains toward score-equality with men over the last 10 years but only very small ones. This year, women averaged 502 on verbal to the men's 509; women averaged 498 on math against the men's 533. In 1991, when women were 52 percent of students who took the SAT, they scored 495 on verbal against the men's 503. On math, women then scored 482 to the men's 520."-CNN.com August 28, 2001 http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com... So it took women ten years to climb one point higher on the verbal portion and three points higher on the math side? Maybe in another hundred years women will be equal to men mentally, but then neither of us will live to see that day. Perhaps this time you'll give a true, fact-based argument.
Women should not have the same rights as men.

I'll keep it short and simple to begin: Women in history have not earned the right to be at the same social level as men. The achievements men have reached give them the rights they have. Women want to take the rewards without the work. Not only socially, but also physically, men are the dominating gender. This now becomes not a matter of opinion, but science. It is a fact that men are stronger, faster, and more athletic than women, so why pretend they are on equal terms? Women were not meant for the same things as men. Men were built for the harder work, the more demanding things in life (other than giving birth. Ladies, I'll give you that). Women are there to hold together these pieces. They are essential in society; much in the way that the stitching is essential to a quilt. Essential, but are not seen or noticed while the patches bask in the hard-earned glory.
Wars are started by religion.

Let's face it, here. Without religion, our borders wouldn't be the same. In one of my favorite shows, Family Guy, there is a cartoon about this, than honestly has a ton of truth in it. It shows 2 men who say "I like you, I have no reason to hate you!" and the other says the same to him. Then a third person comes and said "Hey guys, have you heard about the birth of Jesus Christ?!" and they all start stabbing each other. What creator, Seth McFarlene is trying to show, is that after relegion, people died for their beliefs. Think about all of the wars that wouldn't have been fought! The Cold War, probably not relegion, World War 2? Almost every war between Israel, Egypt, and Syria? The Revolutionary War even! So many lives would have been spared if there was no relegion.
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

A single vaccine given to a six-pound newborn is equivalent to giving a 180-pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day. Because I agree with Dr. Boyd Halley and believe that compulsory immunization should be justified by public health concerns, I stand Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations. In order to clarify the debate, I begin with the definition of terms and offer the following definitions from Webster's College Dictionary, Kented.org, and worldnet.web.princeton.com 1.Concerns: to trouble, worry, or disquiet 2.Justify: to defend or uphold 3.Immunization: the act of making immunized (immunize) to make immune 4.Compulsory: using compulsion, mandate 5.Public Health: refers to the well being of the whole community The value I will uphold will be that of Individual Autonomy. The criterion for determining the truth of the resolution shall be the Individual Autonomy, which, The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence The side, which best provides for promoting a higher standard of health thereby upholding the resolution should win the debate. 1. Government does not have a right to forcibly inject substances into people's bodies without the individual's consent. Under a compulsory immunization regime, people would be forced to be injected with a substance that they know little about and would have to take the word of the government that it is safe. This is not comforting given the fact that the vaccines are made by companies who bid the lowest for the contract and that with liability shields, neither the government nor the manufacturers can be sued if the vaccines end up injuring or killing people. 2. Cost-benefit arguments treat people as just a statistic. Cost-benefit justifications of compulsory immunization programs are dehumanizing and treats people as a number. In matters that affect health, if not life itself, citizens should have a choice in participating in immunization program. That is a hallmark of a democratic society. Forced immunization is more in line with what authoritarian, dictatorial, and communist countries would do to their citizens. 3. Risk statistics that "prove" that vaccines are safe are questionable at best. These statistics take the total population (even in areas that are not likely to be affected) and divides it against the number of potential patients that will likely have a deadly adverse reaction. This number is kept as low as possible and is frequently defined as being in the highest risk factor who is likely to have the most severe reaction (serious injury and death). Under this criteria, the number of patients with adverse reaction would be quite low because it does not include patients who have moderate risk profiles but who would still have an adverse reaction and patients who have a bad, but not severe reaction. But the risk statistics overall are just a guess, not based on empirical evidence of that patient population using that particular vaccine.
I will molest a child no matter how young

I will molest a child no matter how young I used to have limits I don't have them anymore It doesn't matter how young the child is I will molest it I kissed a 6 years old girl on her lips I just approached and kissed her I didn't even care It felt good and I liked it I am not afraid of going to prison or jail Worse punishment would be abandoning my dreams My dream is kissing little girls on their lips I don't need money, I don't need fame When I see a little girl, I want to kiss her on the lips Prison is a place where I will rest It doesn't bother me that much, It doesn't stop me People say I am a monster and the worst human Because I kiss little girls on their lips I will not be in prison for a long time Once I get out, I will continue my quest I will kiss little girls on their lips I will give them something to remember Their first kiss on the lips, Their first love This gives me a lot of joy Nothing will stop me from my quest I will never sacrifice my dreams I have nothing to fear
In the US, All drugs should be legalized

I accept. I trust there won't be any semantics and hope that we both enjoy the debate.Also no-one with more than 3 "x"s in their username may vote on this debate. If they really want to, they must pm me a video of them hopping on the spot singing "St Elmo's Fire" in its entirety. Anyone who wants to do this of their own volition may also do so.
In the US, All drugs should be legalized

Drugs: illegal drug Definition A drug whose production or use is prohibited or strictly controlled via prescription. . http://www.businessdictionary.com... Basically I argue the current illegal drugs SHOULD NOT BE LEGALIZED. My opponent argues for total drug legalization. Format: first round acceptance second round arguments (refutations if pro feels the need) Third refutations more arguments if needed Fourth refutations and closing. Pretty normal format. I hope this debate is fun XD
Mharmans Rap Battle

Religion got you pissed Theory of evolution Your have no reason to talk Your a bowel movement I admit my last round was Apocaliptic but ill kill you with this one Show the people who's a limp dick I'm not finished i'm getting started After reading this line it will leave you retarded You're always throwing insults Saying your going to beat my a$$ But just like Mayweather I'm way to fast Float like a butterfly Sting like a bee The only person who can save you know is going to be me My raps the dopest Your girl she knows this she says shes training So she can choke less Im a freaking savage real life OG But you couldn't stop me Even if you had ADHD You can't defeat me I'm the living hades Spitting fire at your life but your not hercules I'm a mastermind with a killing conception You'll never understand me This is my thief deception So i'm going to end this I'm tired of all the hate ill delete you off my friend list Then forget your ugly face
Mharmans Rap Battle

First off, let me say That your rhymes are atrocious Your parting of words is stranger Than the Red Sea by Moses And that's just the beginning So go ahead and relax Because just by roasting your lines I'll have already kicked your a$$ "Ready to shot a freaking duck" Now what kind of rhyme was that? I could eat alphabet soup And a better line I could've shat! Camoing up won't save you Neither will going ballistic For in the world of twisted lines The hellfire I spit is sadistic Oh I'll be "dragging my balls" Straight across your face And I don't need to say it twice To emphasize that your second place My "one death wish" Is for your next round to be more skilled So maybe then it's not only Your ego that's been killed "I'm freaking poor" Isn't that a sad excuse for a rhyme? While your forming the simplest of lines I haven't even reached my prime! I'm richer both In real life and happiness In my minds eye Nothing but shining sun and bliss While in real life I wear that real fur and Gucci leather And make sure to have the class To knock your a$$ out like Mayweather I'm no "low level citizen" I'm the king of this debate Your a bigger piece of trash Then the "atheists" that you hate! Now let's talk about that I don't normally feel this dissed But when you insult others beliefs Now that's when I get pissed So get ready I'll be spitting truth until your head does revolutions How does the Old Testament Explain the Theory of Evolution? I would write more But your not worth time Maybe I'll be longer When your actually worth another rhyme So there you have it We haven't even begun And I've already proven Why I'm number one
Mharmans Rap Battle

Dont hate me for this yomama first time battle rapping just getting warmed up yomama this is a ending conception blast wholes threw paper like the lead zeplin i'm going to send you your head in a bag Then you'll taste this fire after i kill your sass i hope your ready for this i'm camoed up So you better run i'm ready to shot a freaking duck don't be scared i'm a god ill go ballistic rip your spine straight out and eat that crap ill dip it i'm a real g i put in real work you can catch these hands and maybe catch this hook i'm a murder your a sad dog don't try to underestimate me when your dragging your balls when your dragging your balls take 1 or 2 shoots to the head then you will fall yomama lets not get personal your low level citizen that came from persia bro Your religions sick what even is an atheist im praising god won't hit you with his almighty fist Ha, so catch get this Your freaking poor i'm motherloving rich i created this world you didn't create this im ending this tell me whats your one death wish
emotional suppression is better than venting

:) Okay, let me lose the conduct vote for plagiarism. That is okay then. I accept losing 1 point.I shall now go on to attempt to gain the 3 point arguments' vote and to cancel out your sources vote.According to this site: http://www.selfgrowth.com..."There is nothing wrong with venting. It is actually a healthy habit but it all comes to the HOW and WHEN we do it.""As a society I believe we have disregarded the importance of cleansing or detoxifying emotionally. It is importance to recognize that we have a need to do that as well; we have a need to vent.""Accept and express anger comfortably and indestructibly. First of all it is important to recognize that we all get angry. If you think you don’t, yYou must be repressing it and it will leak in other ways that will also damage your relationships.""Express your needs without destroying love. Most of us like to share with our love ones our frustrations and bad moments. Be sure you don’t hurt the listener by aggressive physical movements, high tone of voice, or bad language. Remember to respect boundaries. You have the need to vent but the other person still has the need to be respected. It is not all about you."" Learn to stay with your emotions. Venting in a healthy way helps to deal with them. As Miriam Greenspan states in her book Healing Through Dark Emotions, the so-called negative emotions have incredible transformation power. They are there for a reason and it takes skills to learn to listen to them and use them to our benefit.""In the cases when we aren't prepared for a venting episode, we can still ask ourselves (and possibly the speaker) "What is needed from me in this exchange?" If some feedback is implied in the course of the vent, we can respond to that. If not, we can simply let the vent run its course. In any case, keep in mind that the person is in an emotional state so do not take things personally or literally."Yay, I plagiarised... BAD ME!... OOOOH! Okay now to expand my arguments after those two nicely summarising quotes.So in this debate I have definitely conveyed that EVERYONE who FEELS EMOTIONS, has a NEED to release them eventually ore else they will 'leak' somehow due to conscious neglecting of subconscious feeling.What is my opponent's attempt to refute this? "The value of venting is a myth. The theory on which the idea of venting anger is based has been repeatedly disproved since the 1950s." what evidence does he supply to support this? "venting to reduce anger is like using gasoline to put out a fire" I have never hard such nonsense in my life. We are nothing like fire. If anything venting is like allowing a fart to be released that is bursting to get let out and if you don't it will be released at a very unwanted time. OHHHHHH what a comeback!I don't even care if I lose, I have been very angry at times and know that unless I punch a pillow or listen to loud music and dance madly to it, I will burst out later on. It's a fact of life we need to ventVOTE CON IF YOU LIKE SEX! VOTE PRO IF YOU HATE SEX!VOTE NEITHER IF YOU HAVE NO OPINION!Yay I have lost conduct vote. So what? Plagiarism my a$s; look at your round two.
emotional suppression is better than venting

Plagiarism and proving it RatMan, you are confusing plagiarism with something else, perhaps copyright infringement. Plagiarism is copying text from somewhere else without referencing it. I copied text, but I referenced it, see, so it’s not plagiarism. You didn’t cite your source, so it is plagiarism. In terms of proof, the usual procedure is to place the two passages side by side and compare. There isn’t space to do it here, but your first post consisted of almost 800 words that were identical to the source I cited. Then, the question applied is, would a rational and disinterested person believe that your copying occurred by accident? Some cases are ambiguous and difficult to prove. This is not such a case. Venting vs suppression On a much happier note…for the first time, here are two actual sentences of argument that you’ve written yourself!! I’m so excited. Ratsy, emotions don’t “feel ignored” because they don’t have feelings, they are feelings that you have. They are not distinct beasts that live inside you and come bursting out if you mistreat them. They will not “keep trying to attack you”. As was made clear in the passage I copied earlier, acting out emotions is a form of rehearsal and only strengthens them. Ignoring emotions and doing nothing is, over time, the best way to minimise those kind of emotions. I was surprised to see “horniness” classed as an emotion, but it is actually a classic example of the principle. Sexual activity results in immediate relief from desire (the emotion) in the short term, but will lead to increased incidence of desire in the medium term. In contrast, sexual abstinence usually leads to a reduction in sexual desire. “Increased sexual activity may increase levels of sex hormones…; conversely…during periods of celibacy, levels may fall reducing libido.” http://www.claremontsexualhealth.com.au... http://www.therulesrevisited.com...
emotional suppression is better than venting

You have failed to prove I plagiarised only that I happened to accidentally reciprocate and reproduce identical work purely from my own brain from that site. Not my fault. :)Unfortunately you directly claimed you plagiarised, DIRTY TACTICS!Here is the reason I prefer (safe) venting to suppression.It releases the emotion so that the emotion (yes the actual emotion) doesn't feel ignored and won't burst out at unwanted times. If you suppress or try to ignore your anger, depression or horniness, it will indeed keep trying to attack you until you have the decency to at least pay it a little credit.
Airline flights should be taxed much higher than they already are

Thank-you. My first point is that air travel is a major contributor towards global warming and climate change. The emmission contains extremely harmful gases which damage our ozone layer. (3)As much as we can turn off our lights when we leave the room, or always recycle our cans, it is basically all cancelled out by air travel. This article shows some major reasons why we need to help slow down global warming and the effects it is having on our environment. (1) This article shows that, among other things, global warming and climate change is also responsible for a huge amount of species becoming extinct (2) Air travel massively contributes towards climate change, therefore also contributing towards the extinction of species and the destruction of our environment. Should the human race really put the ecological balance of the earth on the brink, just so we can have some quick travel? My second point, is that having a higher tax on air line tickets will make people stop and think whether they really want to fly. As they becoming increasingly cheap, people buy them usually without weighing out other options such as taking the train. Taxing them higher will encourage people to look at other options which have a lower tax on our environment (no pun intended). I look forward to your arguments. 1. http://www.arkive.org... 2. http://www.endangeredspeciesinternational.org... 3. http://climatelab.org...