BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The war in Georgia

Thank you for this wonderful debate monster. During this round, I will show how my opponent has shifted his argumentation. I will prove how he is wrong in his analysis of the situation, and how the evidence I have provided is enough to win the round. My opponents first argument says that if Russia invades then China would help Russia out. I have a couple arguments here. My first is that they wouldn't help Russia out. The reason for this being because China has given a lot to the international community. With the olympics being one of the biggest events in the world, China gave ground on a lot of different issues. They increased their cleanliness and effectiveness in order to please the international community. This has resulted in the international community's respect for China growing exponentially. In fact, China is no longer the international bad guy. Instead, with Russia invading Georgia during the world cease fire so typical of the olympics, they have taken the place of China. China is not eager to resume its role as the world's villain and therefore wouldn't help. They wouldn't be happy with the west interfering, but they wouldn't help Russia out. He then argues that Putin isn't a bad guy. The fact that Putin planned on invading Georgia and then did, shows that he is willing to go to war. Georgia is seen as an independent nation. They aren't Russian. You seem to be misguided here. Russia has absolutely no claim to Georgia whatsoever. So their invasion is unwarranted. Now to answer your question. Why is it any of our business? Because Georgia is a part of the world we live in. To stick our heads in the sand and let it happen is a naive way of dealing with things. Especially with the rise of a global market and economy, every other country becomes important to every other country. If we sit back and let the world do what it wants, then this will hurt us in more than one way. It is our business because we can't sit back and allow the little kid on the block to get picked on by the big bully. We interfere to show the other nations that they can't do whatever they want and get away with it. There has to be consequences. Now you start to say that we should send weapons to Georgia to help them. This is a contradiction to your statement. You originally said that we should stay out of Russia. Now we're going to interfere? You have changed your standpoint and that should lose you the round. And your last point completely agrees with mine about Russia not going to go to war with us. You have completely proven my point. Now to discuss where I'm winning on my argumentation. My opponent dropped the analysis I gave on Russia planning on interfering with Georgia. This argument has never been debated and shows how Russia's ultimate goal was to invade Georgia. Look up to the orginal three premises I gave in round one. Each one has been supported and won by myself. All of this proves why I should win this round.
Atheism is the default position.

I apologize for jumping the gun I should have just accepted. Your conclusion is that Atheism is a default position. Your premise leading to that conclusion is "Babies are born with a lack of believe in God" My contention is the premise is false. Babies are born with with a brain. The brain has structures and chemical signals that adults interpret as "religious experiences" Babies have these structures and chemicals in their brain and therefore indicate that they believe in God. Babies are theist by default. You can look up tests and interpretations done by Dr. Justin Barret. Or by Dr Olivera Petrovich of Oxford. ((reprint of previous points)) If a default position is to be defined as the natural state of things: then I would direct Pro's attention to the historical fact that all races of in recorded history had varying degrees of complex theology. This would imply that mankind automatically starts out with a believe in God. There are some scientist stating there is evidence that the belief in a supernatural deity could be hard wired in human genes. Hamer, Dean (2005). The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard wired Into Our Genes. Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-72031-9. If this were the case, then Atheism is not the default position but a position that goes against the genes one is born with. I think I have made sufficient case that Pro's premise is false or if at the least not validly supported. Being that Pro's premise is false then the conclusion would be false as well. Because it can be shown that a lack of believe in a deity is not the natural starting position of human babies. I as con am not asserting that a default position is deism, theism or something else. I am making the case that Pro has not shown a valid argument for accepting his conclusion as true.
Atheism is the default position.

I will ignore it and not respond to it. If he wants to repost it in the second round, I'll accept it as part of the debate. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists. That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it. That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist. Nobody is born a Theist. If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default positionof being an Atheist. It's that simple.
Atheism is the default position.

I am Con to the assertion that Atheism (as defined) is the default position. What evidence do you have that Atheism is default position? If a default position is to be defined as the natural state of things: then I would direct Pro's attention to the historical fact that all races of in recorded history had varying degrees of complex theology. This would imply that mankind automatically starts out with a believe in God. There are some scientist stating there is evidence that the belief in a supernatural deity could be hard wired in human genes. Hamer, Dean (2005). The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard wired Into Our Genes. Anchor Books. ISBN 0-385-72031-9. If this were the case, then Atheism is not the default position but a position that goes against the genes one is born with.
Atheism is the default position.

I don't think Pro has satisfied the burden of proof that logically leads one to accept "babies are born atheist". I offered some evidence to the contrary, but my closing remark was that evidence for babies lack a believe was inconclusive. The third option would be an agnostic approaching stating that there is no way we can know if babies share a believe in God. Pro states "So how is it even possible for anyone to be an atheist then? If every brain has "structures and chemical signals" that cause them to be theists, it would be impossible for anyone to be an atheist! That's insane" My example of the brain structures does not lead to impossible for anyone to be atheist. Just like babies have the natural default position to poop and pee on themselves, but they grow up and make a decision to use the bathroom. Then the analogy would follow is that Atheism is a conscious decision made. Thank you for inviting me to debate. I liked the rebuttal saying the God gene was evidence for us being hard wired not to say "I don't know" I found that line interesting
Atheism is the default position.

My opponent claims "The brain has structures and chemical signals that adults interpret as "religious experiences" Babies have these structures and chemicals in their brain and therefore indicate that they believe in God. "So how is it even possible for anyone to be an atheist then? If every brain has "structures and chemical signals" that cause them to be theists, it would be impossible for anyone to be an atheist! That's insane. My opponent then claims, "all races of(sic) in recorded history had varying degrees of complex theology". I will say that all races in recorded history have a need for answers. Almost everyone has asked the questions "Why am I here? , "Where did we come from? " and "How did it all begin? " Up until modern science, we have not had answers for these questions. Even modern science can only come up with theories based on current evidence. Up until now, most people who didn't have the answers, conveniently answered, "god did it". This is what's known as the "god of the gaps". How does thunder happen? The god, "Thor" did it. How does the Sun rise? The Sun god does it. Of course now, we don't need Sun gods or "Thor", because, with science, we understand how lightning works and the Sun rises. The more answers science comes up with, the less we need "god" as the answer for our questions. Even when science doesn't have an answer, we now realize that it's better to say "I don't know" rather than "god did it". So, even though mankind used to routinely use the "gods of the gaps", it doesn't mean mankind automatically starts out with a belief in God. Mankind just wants answers and uses god, instead of admitting "I don't know". That s what is really "hard wired in human genes". .. the inability to admit "I don't know". Atheism is the default position. Theism is just a position that goes with the genes one is born with for needing answers. There is no demonstrable evidence for a god. There is no convincing proof that a god exists. To accept the idea that there is a god, without proof, is not logical. It would be illogical to claim that the default position is deism, theism or something else (unless "something else" was atheism), because god can not be proved to exist! My opponent is trying to use the "god of the gaps" as proof that atheism isn't the default position. The burden of proof is on those who make the POSITIVE assertion. My opponent claims that babies are born theists. His evidence for that is his claim that "The brain has structures and chemical signals that adults interpret as "religious experiences". My opponent offers no evidence that babies also interpret the chemical signals as "religious experiences". Babies don't even know what the concept of "religion" is! My assertion that Atheism is the default position, is based on the fact that all babies are born atheists. My opponent failed to prove otherwise.
The people who get good grades cheat

Regardless of what percentage of students have cheated at some point in their education, this does not show that this led them to acquire good grades (this would likely have to involve systematic cheating over a long period of time). I have already shown that studies conducted on the issue have shown conflicting correlations between the amount of time studied and the grades acquired. In addition, the resolution of this debate states that, "The people who get goods grades cheat." The resolution does not say "most," or even "some." My opponent would have to prove that every single student who has acquired good grades did so through cheating, which he has not done.
The people who get good grades cheat

Why do students cheat? Students cheat because of pressure from their parents to do well in school, rather than laziness. Those students that do well do so because of cheating. -86% of high schoolers cheat.. -Most cheaters do not get caught. -80% of students at the top of their class cheat. My opponent: 1. Grades are achieved by hard work, as those who do not bring their homework home and work on it/ study for tests do not score well, and depending how well you learn, it will be harder to do well, which is why those who do not learn easily are more likely to cheat also, but it mostly depends on the enviroment they're in. Today, we place an extremely high value on grades vs. education, so it is more important to get an "A" versus learning material, which is why cheating is widely accepted. The internet also makes it very easy to cheat. http://www.essayforum.com... http://www.glass-castle.com... The worst part of it is, students don't believe cheating is wrong, because America emphasizing winning no matter what. I thank my opponent for taking this debate. http://www.parentdish.com...
The people who get good grades cheat

As a note for the spectators of this debate, the time limit for each response is 5 minutes which I did not initially notice but as I accepted, I shall play by the rules to the best of my ability. First of all, in order to win this debate, my opponent must prove that all people who get good grades get them by cheating. It is not enough for my opponent just to show that good grades aren't necessarily achieved through hard work. Studies previously conducted on the correlation between time spent studying (which could be considered how hard one works in school to a reasonable extent) and grades have found positive, negative and no correlations [1]. However, this does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that good grades are instead achieved by cheating by not some, but all of those who get good grades as my opponent is asserting. I look forward to the next round of arguments. [1]. . http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org...
Pro-Life, The only way to ensure innocent lives are not lost.

I get what you're saying, I really do. It makes sense. But to say we have " our own little holocaust" I think that's being a little dramatic. Most mothers do use abortion as a form of birth control but it is still their decision. I think that calling abortion a holocaust is a little too dramatic. Hitler tortured the Jews for months on end, abortion is quick, the baby may feel it and that's horrible but no matter how this ends up it's still the mothers choice. I cant really answer the question about how I would feel if I was aborted. I cant just because the baby cant speak and I wouldnt be alive right now if I was aborted so I dont really no the answer to that sorry. I will admit that some women are promiscous. I dont know if that's the right word but I'm gonna use it anyway. Even though they are at fault for getting pregnant, it still is their body that the baby's living in and it's still their decision. I know that you dont want to admit that it's the mothers body but it is. Until the baby is born it is living in the mothers body. I dont think that anyone can disagree with me on that. Maybe the baby is it's own person but it is still living in the mothers body. It's connected to her, and maybe it has got its own blood supply but it's still connected to the mother. and not all mothers breast feed so that really cant be relevent to anyone. Don't you know that the only way that the baby gets food during the pregnancy is through the umbillical cord. I've had fun debating you brandon, I'd love to do it again sometime!!!!
Pro-Life, The only way to ensure innocent lives are not lost.

Brandon- To answer your question, yes she could get rid of it. But what if it grows up hating it's adoptive parents? what if that leads to the child rebeling or worse. Not all people who adopt a baby are good parents. Yes, they have to pass several tests but what if they aren't suited to be parents. I'll even admit that it is a living person. But at that point it is a potentialliving person. I bet you're going to have something to say about that but oh well. Until the mother gives birth that baby is always at risk of death. There is no guarentee that it is going to live. The baby is it's own person, i'll give you that. But also until the mother goes into labor it is attached to it's mother correct? It's umbillical cord is what supplies it's blood, oxygen and nutrition. Without that connection to it's mother the baby would not be able to live. you can't even say I'm wrong, or you could, but to most people that fact is obvious. Have you ever heard of the 19th amendment. That protects womens rights. maybe abortion isnt highlighted or even mentioned but that amendment applys that women deserve to make their own decisions in life and I think that by making abortion illegal it is saying that women don't deserve that choice. I get that it's mostly about voting but it does inply that women should be able to as well make important decisions. is that enough facts for you? *-nikki-*
Pro-Life, The only way to ensure innocent lives are not lost.

Nikki- You bring up the issue of rape when it is such a small percentage of the actual abortions. In a study conducted by Dr Sandra Mahkorn, of the thankfully low rape victims she found that had become pregnant only 15% of the victims seeked abortion. http://www.pregnantpause.org... Could this be because having an abortion serves no real purpose in easing the pain of a woman who has been through rape? If it did wouldn't these figures be reversed? One of the women that was in the study put it best,"The solution to rape is not abortion. The solution to rape is stopping rape." Lets even say that abortion can be legal in that very minute situation where the mother is raped. How does that justify the majority of abortions (over 95% as you previously stated) that are used as birth control? As far as health issues are concerned I have already awnsered this fully. The risks of abortions can be just as high as the health risks of having a baby. Why should I repeat myself when you haven't refuted my argument? "I'm not talking about a premature that's like two or three months early." What about a premature birth? Thats a miscarriage not an abortion. But to say that abortion is ok because it couldn't survive out of the womb on its on is nonsense. Like I have already said, how many 1 year olds do you see sustaining themselves. They are already out of the womb and they can't live on their own. Should a mother be able to kill them too?? Yes the baby is developing inside the mother's body. So what? You still don't explain how that is justification to kill the unborn child. "Maybe the baby isn't her body but that's where its living for 9 months and if the mother doesn't want it that badly why should'nt she be able to decide whether or not to abort her baby?" Thank you for finally admitting it isn't the mother's body. Awnser me this, if the mother doesn't want it after its born can she get rid of it then also? Saying it doesn't deserve life just because of its residence doesn't seem that logical. "If you were a women, wouldn't you like to have that choice and have it be up to you?" Would I of started this debate if I thought there should be a choice to kill an unborn child or not. It has nothing to do with me being a woman or not. 2/3 of all pro-life activist women have had an abortion and have seen the damaging effects. Exactly why do you "love" the choice? How can anyone live the choice of taking an innocent life to fulfill their own selfish needs? What gives you the right to end a life? "It's the women's body that the baby is growing in, the baby isn't growing out in the open, is it?" Actually the human body doesn't stop growin until your last few years as a teen. I feel like I am running in circles with you. I constantly awnser your questions then provide my own evidence to support my debate. You bring nothing to the table but opinions. Nothing you have shown gives a solid reason why women should be allowed to have abortions. Maybe next round.
Pro-Life, The only way to ensure innocent lives are not lost.

Brandon- Here's what i'm thinking. you said that maybe the mother should have been more conscerned with her body before she got pregant. Well heres the thing what about the mothers who were raped? they probaly were conscerned with their body and didnt want to end up pregnant. what about all the mothers that wanted their baby and have to make the horrible choice: their life or their babies? what do you say to that. I'm not talking about a premature that's like two or three months early. i'm talking about the mothers who go into labor way to early. If the baby was born at that time it would be dead. It's a mothers choice because there is something growing and developing in her body. Maybe the baby isn't her body but that's where its living for 9 months and if the mother doesn't want it that badly why should'nt she be able to decide whether or not to abort her baby? If you were a women, wouldn't you like to have that choice and have it be up to you? I sure would. That may be a difficult analigy for you cause you're not a woman, but I know that I would love that choice. I personally would never have an abortion, but that's cause I would never want to kill my baby but for some women it is their decision that they deserve to have. What exactly is a cop out? Do you mean me using it in the debate, or what? I am only using it because it's true. It's the women's body that the baby is growing in, the baby isn't growing out in the open, is it? all for now, well actually i have to get off the computer but you get the picture.
Pro-Life, The only way to ensure innocent lives are not lost.

Nikki, you are failing to give me any reason why the Life inside a woman's body is not really a life but just an extension of her. "Thats all fine and dandy, but if it was born at that time it would die, there would be no help in trying to save it." What about babies that are born prematurely and live? 1 in 8 babies are born prematurely in the United States each year. Should we be allowed to murder those babies because the didn't develop as much as a baby that stayed in the womb for the full 9 months? "Yea, its brain and heart are develped but its lungs aren't. it would die. so why cant the mother choose to abort it at that time. it's at a stage where it cant really function on it's own." A newborn baby is self sufficient. Why can't you kill it? Hell, how many 5 year olds do you see running around taking care of themselves? "it's the mothers body and therefore the mother's choice." How is it the mother's body considering all the things I have brought up in the previous arguments? You are not giving a very compelling argument. Simply saying its the woman's body after everything does not make it right. To simply say that an unborn child has no right to life based on its residence and age is appalling. I have clearly established in my last argument that it is a seperate human being. You have shown nothing to refute this. The excuse that it is the woman's body is a cop out. It is a sorry excuse for people to commit murder. If the woman really is concerned about her body she would be more concerned about not getting pregnant in the first place. Sorry this is so short but I have already brought up so many points and you have done nothing to show that the unborn child is part of the woman and that she should have a choice to kill it or not. I really hope that in your next argument you refute my evidence with your own. - Brandon
Pro-Life, The only way to ensure innocent lives are not lost.

I understand what you're saying. But why dont you think that it isnt the mothers choice. It's her body. That baby was not wanted if she is aborting it for birth control reasons. Just because there are health problems that come along after the abortion doesnt mean that it's going to stop the mother. If she really wants to get rid of the baby then she's going to. I accept your argument that the baby is in fact living. Thats all fine and dandy, but if it was born at that time it would die, there would be no help in trying to save it. Yea, its brain and heart are develped but its lungs aren't. it would die. so why cant the mother choose to abort it at that time. it's at a stage where it cant really function on it's own. at the stage i was talking about, in the case of the fertilized egg. at that time the baby isnt even a baby. so why cant you abort the baby at that time int the pregnancy. i don't know, all i'm saying is that it shouldnt be the states decision or the nations. it's the mothers body and therefore the mother's choice. please explain the slavery thing to me. *-nikki-*