BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
'Yes or No' questions are fundamentally different to 'True or False' questions.

Similar =/= Different Fundamentally =/= Externally To truly understand this topic one must comprehend that just as Spanish can be translated/converted/adapted into French, because they are not fundamentally different, heat/thermal energy can be converted into light energy and vice versa of course. I challenge my opponent to come up with a single y/n question that cannot be converted to a t/f question with equal difficulty to answer as the y/n question was. Example: Are you homosexual? Is it true or false that you are homosexual? All y/n is, is a broken down form of t/f On top of this, y/n is answered in the same way but it is simply cut short. >Is it true that you are a criminal? 1. It is true, it is false 2. It is probably true, it is probably false 3. It may be true, it may be false 4. I don't know >To what degree is it true, or false? 1. very true, very false 2. quite true, quite false 3. pretty true, pretty false 5. barely true, barely false 4. Indeterminable Now look at the y/n version >Are you a criminal? 1. yes, no 2. probably 3. maybe 4. I don't know >To what degree is the answer known? 1. yes, no 2. probably 3. maybe 4. I don't know Here we find one slight issue (or so you think). 'Yes' and 'no' are nouns/exclamations whilst 'true' and 'false' are adjectives regarding the correctness of an assertion in the form of a statement. This is not actually proof that they are fundamentally different because this difference is more proof that they are fundamentally the same and overall similar. Apart from 'Persian' vs 'Iranian', we very rarely see two items of a category being identical. This is because if they are both fundamentally and externally identical there is basically no point in keeping them both as functioning linguistic representations of what they mean. Instead one is 'killed off' so that the other can persist. If y/n and t/f were identical there's be no need for the other term to exist in the first place. They are simply a simplistic form vs a complex form is exactly the same concept of questioning. There are no y/n questions that cannot be converted into a t/f format. On the other hand, because t/f is the more complex of the two it is not as easy to break it down when the adjective part of it becomes part of the question ('how true' or something). Instead of the t/f format you can actually ask it for y/n like this: >How certain are you that the answer to the previous question is yes? >How certain are you that the answer to the previous question is no? This will be able to answer in very, quite, pretty and barely (as well as indeterminable). On the other hand, these again convert far better in the merged question: >How certain are you that the answer you gave to the previous question was true? >How certain are you that the answer you gave to the previous question was false? Then these merge better into >How true was the answer you gave to the previous question? (Asking how false is silly because it is an absence of truthfulness).
'Yes or No' questions are fundamentally different to 'True or False' questions.

As I am Pro, I am agreeing, and arguing FOR the topic: 'Yes or No' questions are fundamentally different to 'True or False' questions. I will begin to define the definitions I see necessary to debate this topic. I will also give a full explanation of the debate, as listed per Rule #7 in Round 1 by Con. "Yes or No Questions": Questions that are designed in a manner to achieve an answer of "Yes" or "No" "True or False Questions": Questions that are designed in a manner to achieve an answer of "True or False"(the above definitions decided upon common knowledge and use of words)Fundamentally (adverb): used to make an emphatic statement about the basic truth of something. Different (adjective) : not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality. (the above definitions are decided upon the links sourced below) . https://www.google.com...https://www.google.com...As Pro, I accept full Burden of Proof (BoP). To achieve BoP it is my duty to show how 'Yes or No' questions, are different (in ANY way) from "True or False" questions. If Con is unable to successfully refute any argument I make showing ANY difference between these Two Sets of Questions, I have then succeeded in BoP, and should be voted as the Winner as of this debate. I leave any further opening statements and opening arguments to Con.
'Yes or No' questions are fundamentally different to 'True or False' questions.

Conditions for eligibilityMust have 8-43 completed debates and must be able to follow rules.Rules of Discourse1. Absolutely no trolling whatsoever, even a slightly sarcastic joke or jest for any other purpose than highlighting a point. (It can be amusing for purposes of letting a point sink in, not to mock the opponent nor their arguments). If you are caught trolling, you will be given a warning and then a full strike will occur the second time. If trolling occurs in last round, even one instance of it results in full strike.2. No profanity at all. Replacing a letter in a rude word is not allowed either. Even if the word is permitted by the DDO filter absolutely no room for profanity of any severity is permitted. Using it results in full strike immediately; zero tolerance.3. No abuse of opponent allowed at all. Cannot attack them personally or mock them in any way. Cannot bring any profile information to sway votes.4. Round 2 must contain 0 rebuttals and only constructive arguments with round 1 being acceptance. Will result in warning if violated (transferable to trolling warning, meaning warning expires if this is committed).5. Accidentally misinterpreting which side one represents results in warning. If one has warning here, trolling warning allowance expires.6. No Wikipedia, or Wiki[anything] links are allowed. The resources on the Wiki page are allowed but not the Wiki page itself.7. Round 1 is up to Pro to offer definitions and full explanation of the debate. If they fail to do so, Con has full rights over these aspects of the debate.Any warning after another warning means strike.Warning = Conduct mark lost.Strike = Debate lost.If opponent has a warning but you have strike, you lose the debate. If both have a warning, conduct is tied (probably). If both have a strike then this is clearly very bad and voters can decide as they please.
it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

con has taken it upon himself to define what proportinoate reasons means, on behalf of the catholic church. given it wasn't defined, it is more open to interpretation. and, the quoted part where ratzinger said a catholic can't vote for a prochoice person because they are prochoice, was irrelevant to this situation.... the people are voting for them in spite of their prochoice stance. given proportional reasons is open to interpretation, it would make common sense to say if nothing is going to change to vote for a candidate, that you don't have to vote on that issue. a common issue presented back in the days of that quote, was torture. eg A is prolife but protorture, an intrinsic evil. B is prochoice but not protorture. the abortion issue won't change as a practical matter in this hypothetical. torture is pivotal on who wins. everything else is the same issue wise. how is it not proportionate to vote for B given torture has a chance of changing? it is proportionate. anything else would be to read an agenda into the pope's words.
it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

Although my opponent did not offer a source for the quote she used, I figured I should still respond to the quote so I can clear up the confusion my opponent seems to be having. She quotes then Cardinal Razinger as saying, "When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." My opponent seems to think that the Catholic Church says it's ok for its members to vote for a pro-choice candidate as long as the voter has other reasons other than the abortion issue. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The key phrase is "proportionate reasons". In this context, "proportionate reasons" basically means "of equal value". "We thus might ask: What kind of reasons could there be to vote for a pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia politician? Here is a clear case: Suppose that in a given election either Candidate A or Candidate B is morally certain to win, but it is not clear which will win. Candidate A"s only policy is that he supports abortion, while Candidate B has two policies: He supports both abortion and euthanasia. In this case, more harm will be done to society by the election of Candidate B, and so based on principles touched on by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae 73, one may cast one"s vote in such a way as to limit the harm done to society." [2] At any rate, in our current political climate, there has never been a presidential election where both candidates were pro-choice, so my opponent's claims that "proportionate reasons" exist is just wrong. And since proportionate reasons don't exist in the current political climate, the resolution has been proven false. Finally, my opponent said, "voting for a prochoice candidate despite them being prochoice is not engaging in propaganda for that law. and is not voting for it, it's voting in spite of it."the quote by con is irrelevant. and con hasn't even engaged my reasoning about how voting for a prolife candidate likely won't change anything anyway." My response: That's not what then Cardinal Ratzinger said. He said, "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," Sounds like the then Cardinal Ratzinger says voting for such a person would be a problem for a Catholic. And whether or not things "likely won't change" is irrelevant to this debate. We're not debating that. We're debating whether or not the Catholic Church is ok with its members voting pro-choice. Sources: 2.http://jimmyakin.com...
it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," wrote Ratzinger, who is head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department charged with ensuring fidelity to church teachings. But Ratzinger added: "When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. " voting for a prochoice candidate despite them being prochoice is not engaging in propaganda for that law. and is not voting for it, it's voting in spite of it. the quote by con is irrelevant. and con hasn't even engaged my reasoning about how voting for a prolife candidate likely won't change anything anyway. the debate is essentially over.
it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

My opponent has offered no source for her claims concerning the Pope, so please disregard them at this time. I, on the other hand, offer a quote from an official papal encyclical (Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 73): "In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it" Remember, dear voters, this debate is NOT about whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. It's about whether or not the Catholic Church says it's ok for its members to vote pro-choice. I think we all know the answer to that. With all due respect to my opponent, this debate is basically over. Please vote Con. Source: 1.http://www.vatican.va...
it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

by catholic church standards, it is not wrong for a catholic to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate the pope said a person shouldn't vote for prochoice politicians unless a proportionate reason exists to vote for them. this could include not just bigger genocides, but also the idea that voting on the issue of abortion likely wont change abortion. prolife presidents get elected, but not much changes. there's not enough people who are prolife to justify keeping voting on that issue alone, arguably.
Thou Shalt Not Kill (unborn babies included).

I am standing as the con of abortion and hopefully whoever decides to take on my debate will get my point of view. The point of this debate is not to bash anyone or call anyone names, but to hopefully get our point across to be more open minded about the topic and not be set for just one issue. Rules: 1. No profanity 2. No vulgar language 3. Be respectful to the others opinion 4. And use any resources you can to back up your views.
Thou Shalt Not Kill (unborn babies included).

I know that it's sad that these tiny babies have to be killed in an abortion, but I do not believe that being raped, and then having to choose between your life and a baby's at 12 years old, necessarily means that it's a sign that its "my time". Sometimes it is necessary to go against your beliefs in order to do something, isn't God meant to forgive you if you sin. I know a woman, who believes in God, who had an abortion. She knows that God states in the Bible, "thou shall not kill", but she believed that he would forgive her, and she still has her faith. No offence intended, but just because you believe in God, doesn't mean that you must always adhere to every single thing in the bible at every moment. Yes there are laws in our governments, but sometimes they need to be broken to save someone or for another reason. I am not sorry that I don't believe in God, you should not feel sorry for me, I don't think he exists, and my life is not government by the Bible. I have friends who believe in God, but they don't say they are sorry that I don't believe in God. And not being religious should not be used as an excuse for my views on abortion, as I stated above, I know someone who believes in God and the bible and they had an abortion. I would also like to thank you for debating with me, its been interesting to read about your views, especially since they are different to mine. I would enjoy debating in other arguments with you, although I do not feel the need to repent, and though I understand your views, it is not up to you to say necessarily that your belief in God is the truth, it is your truth, but not mine.
Thou Shalt Not Kill (unborn babies included).

Thanks you again for your thoughts, questions and answers. And I respect them all and respect you as a person. With that said... Concerning the rapped 12 or 13 year old, if that was me id rather die for my child then to have it killed by abortion. Are you aware of what exactly the doctors do to those babies? They snip their necks or crush their little fragile innocent heads.. To me, again if I was the young girl and had a choice to let my child live over death is choose just that life because if it's my time to go then it's my time to go. I cannot control how my body works or is. But a mother has the control to make a decision to either choose life or death for their babies... The difference between a mother dying and the baby being aborted is that the mother does because of an uncontrolled situation but a choice kill a baby by abortion.. That's not the same thing. I'm sorry that you do not believe the Bible or God as well. That greatly saddens me. And would explain you views concerning abortion. Anyways, I would like to thank my opponent for taking some time out of her days to have this debate with me and wish her the best. My opponent does not agree with my views, which is fine because I can't change her mind or anybody else's concerning this topic. I will only hope in prayer that she and the rest would come to acknowledge the truth and accept it for what it is and repent of it as well. God bless you and look forward to future debates with you.
Thou Shalt Not Kill (unborn babies included).

You aren't listening to what I'm saying though. You stated that a woman that decides to ahve sex despite being of a young age, should take responsibility. BUT, when I mentioned young girls of perhaps 12 or 13, I was talking about them being raped, which is defined as: any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Which means that this young girl did not decide to have sex, it was forced on her, therefore she should have the right to abort her child. If she is perhaps even younger than that, to have a child could kill her, having a child can kill some adults. You seem to care so much about the unborn baby, and you are forgetting this poor young girl, who suffered terribly being raped by someone, and you want to force them to have a child. That is simply not right. You are in love with Biblical, fanatical ideas of sacrifice and heroism. If this young girl, who has barely started her own life at 12 or 13, sacrifices herself or dies to have a child, then that child causes the death of the mother. If the mother aborts the child, then the mother causes the death of the baby. If one of them has to die, why does it have to be the mother. Ok, I will explain. If a child has a disease that is going to cause them a lot of pain, and cause them to have a horrible life, yes I would have wanted to have been aborted, and given my parents the chance to have a healthy child. If a child is going to be born, spend the 3 or 4 years of its life in pain and misery, and the parents know that, it should be up to them to decide. Not up to you or me. Not up to the bible. What if this person in question is like me, and doesn't follow a religion and doesn't hold the Bible in as high regard. If they know the risks of an abortion, you shouldn't make the decision, the parents should have that opportunity. I respect your beliefs, and you are allowed to view the world that way. But for me, I do not believe in God, I do not follow a religion, I do not believe that the Bible, written thousands of years ago is always right. So, if I was to become pregnant, and be thinking about aborting a child for one reason or another, the Bible and God would have nothing to do with my decision. I hope you understand and can respect my beliefs as I respect yours. In my country, where I live, we do not have the death penalty, so whilst that might be a useful analogy for you, we have already abolished it. However, as far as I'm aware, when my country used to have the death penalty, it was only used for people who had committed very serious crimes, like murder. So killing this person is saving many other people from being murdered at his hand.
Thou Shalt Not Kill (unborn babies included).

Thanks for your questions and my answers are that... Again if I may, a woman that decided to have sex despite her age range, should take on the responsibility or they're being selfish.. How can someone be willing to have sex and not be willing to take the responsibility? To me I'm sorry but that is selfish.. If a person wants to have sex then they ought to man up and woman up to the responsibility. Babies are not dolls they're living beings just like we are. They have hearts, lungs, a head, a face and is either a boy or girl... And if the woman is probable to die, then she would be sacrificing herself for her child and I can guarantee it the child would miss her but would appreciate what she did and even think of her as a hero... What would you do? What is worth more to you? Your child? Or yourself? To your next question, how is giving life to a child (even for a short amount of time) selfish? Can you explain that to me? If you were the child and you had so long to live because of a disease; would you have wanted your parents to have aborted (killed) you? I'm sorry, my allegiance is not to another man or woman.. My allegiance is to God and to the Bible.. I will obey what the Bible says because I know that in it has Living Words. :) and is always right.. What people think is right may not be right in God's eyes unless they've understood and studied His Word. Okay your next implication is an analogy, well I have one for you too :) Since you say that giving a dog some form of shot to "mercy" kill it, what about the people in prison who are charged with the death penalty, they either get the electric chair or the shot right? And if I ask which is worse, you'd probably say the electric chair right... But what's the difference? The person has been charged with the death penalty.. So either way, they are still going to die no matter which stances they're killed from.. It's the same thing with an unborn baby.. It's murder. :'(
Thou Shalt Not Kill (unborn babies included).

You stated that just because the pregnant woman was raped, doesn't mean she has the right to abort her child, yet what if the pregnant woman in question is 12 or 13 years old, the baby may have done nothing wrong, but putting a mere child of that age through the pains of having a child could result in her death. Do you think it is worth risking her life for the baby? But what about something like muscular dystrophy? That's a degenerative disease and the child won't live for very long. The child is a living thing and that is why the child should be aborted. That is horrible to live through and parents who decide to keep children who are known to have that syndrome are being selfish, not the other way round. Sometimes it is necessary to go against the Bible to do what is right, having an abortion for reasons such as I have explained is not murder. For example, if you were to have a pet dog, and you stabbed it with a knife, that is murder, yet if that dog was sick, or dying, you could use euthanasia, that is not murder, and the same goes for abortions of children, it is not murder. Aborting babies, embryos, who will have miserable lives anyway is mercy killing, doesn't the Bible say to have mercy.
Thou Shalt Not Kill (unborn babies included).

Thank you for your opinions and thoughts. However I do not agree that a mother has a right to decide whether to abort a child or not.. If she thinks she cannot raise the child then shouldn't she have thought about that before going and having sex (fornicating)? I mean, if a mother bases their decisions off of feelings, I'm sorry but that's pretty selfish and cruel... And that goes for those women who were rapped too.. What did that baby do to the pregnant woman to deserve to be aborted because of what happened to her? Nothing... Just because she was rapped does not mean the baby should have to pay for it.. That's not right.. The Bible may have been written a long time ago, but it still exists and henceforth should be obeyed regardless.. If the Bible says, don't murder than what right does a mother have to murder something that really doesn't belong to her.. Her being able to even conceive is a blessing and a privilege.. There are other women who are barren and would love to give birth to children.. But while they sit and hope to conceive they have to watch and hear of cruel and selfish women murder their babies for what... Rap? No money? Can't afford time? Disease? Those are ridiculous and harsh decisions.. And to your question.. What should the parents do if the babies are diseased or gonna die in a short amount of time.. Well, in my opinion I think it'd be better if the mother chose life rather than Seth because in the end they'll regret it .. Unlike women who miscarry their babies they didn't get the option to meet the baby at all.. The ones aborting having that option.. Which do you think is more important? The baby? Or someone's feelings?