BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I can't decide whether to be for or against abortion - Convince me to be pro-life!

So with that logic, you believe women who freeze fertilized eggs (which is the most normal thing to do, as I said before, they are more likely to survive) they need to use all of them? If it so happens that my friend decided to use the second, the third and the fourth and they all worked, she still had to continue to use all of her eggs until there were none left? This seems as a hypothetical scenario. However, it is not. Freezing eggs is getting more popular, since people are starting their families later in life, which for women means they have more difficult time conceiving. Every egg she uses has a real chance of survival, and it is possible that if she uses all 12 eggs 5 or more will work. Then you could go ahead and say that we don't have to freeze that many. Then I have to tell you the opposite scenario, where it takes a lot of attempts for one to work. My friend could do 5 before the 6th works. So by freezing less eggs you there is a greater risk that you won't get pregnant at all. Some might say this is a ridiculous discussion, but I think it is very relevant and thought provoking to the question when life begins, which is the ultimate question to the discussion about abortion. You stated previously that you do think that discarding the eggs would be equal to abortion, I however wonder what you would tell my friend after having 5 children, with 5 embryos in a freezer.
I can't decide whether to be for or against abortion - Convince me to be pro-life!

I agree that it is generally wise to avoid making laws solely based on future possibilities (although it happens frequently). However, I dare say that you continue to miss my main point here. It is not about the laws or the technology or the week of viability. I am using these things as examples to illustrate the absurdity of using viability to define humanity and justify abortion. The scenario with your friend (and I am sorry to hear of her circumstances) touches on the main question we must address - is a fetus human life? I agree that humanity must have a start, and I do believe that start is conception. I believe this is the only rational, scientifically consistent definition to hold. There is no scientific or logical evidence to suggest that humanity starts at some point after conception. Even if there was, it would be highly variable and inconsistent. This is scary, because we are talking about potential human life here. If we are not 100% sure whether the growing life is human, why risk killing it? If we are unsure about when humanity starts, then it's best to err on the side of caution. If we are sure (as I am) that humanity starts at conception, then abortion cannot even be an option in all but the most extreme cases. Yes, the frozen fertilized eggs are human, and discarding them would be abortion. There is no scientific argument to justify why they are not human. These fertilized eggs are living cells containing all 46 human chromosomes and complete DNA distinct from the parents and unique to the homo sapien species that, if allowed, have the potential to develop into a mature human capable of reproducing with other humans. If these frozen embryos are not human, then why? What makes them sub-human? I pose your same question back at you - if human life does not start here, where does it start?
I can't decide whether to be for or against abortion - Convince me to be pro-life!

" In 1815 there was no chance that a 22-week child could survive. But now they can. Perhaps in another 200 years babies will be surviving at 12 weeks?" We cannot make laws that are determined by what can possibly be in the future. The reality is, a baby cannot survive outside the womb in the first trimester. If technology will change this is the future we will take that debate again when it is relelvant. You talk about that a fetus is human. However, when do you think humanity starts? Because it must have a start, yes? I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you believe it starts at conception. I have a friend who got cancer, and like many women with cancer do she decided to freeze her eggs. The eggs have a much better chance of survival if they are fertilized, so she had her husband 'donate' some semen, so they could freeze fertilized eggs. She told me that they froze about a dozen fertilized eggs, and the reason why they do so many is because it doesn't always work the first, second or even the third time. Now, my friend hasn't used her eggs yet. However let's imagine she wants to do that today, and she goes to the clinic uses the first egg. Luckily for her, it worked the first time, they are very happy, they have a beautiful girl and all is good. However, my friend realizes that she thinks one child is enough, however she still has about 10 fertilized eggs left in a freezer somewhere. Do you believe these eggs are human beings? If so, do you think it would be abortion to not use them? If not, if a human life doesn't start here, where does it start?
I can't decide whether to be for or against abortion - Convince me to be pro-life!

1 and 2. Even though science confirms, by law it is not called a human being. A woman miscarrying prior to the 24th week is said to have a spontaneous abortion, while if the woman miscarries after 24th week her child is stillborn. It is not true that a pregnancy can first be detected at 4-5 weeks, a pregnancy can be detected as early as 10 days. (source: http://www.webmd.com...) 3. Even though there is no clear or consistent definition of viability, we can say when there is absolutely no chance of it. A child 'born' in the first trimester has 0 zero chance of survival.
Optimism vs. Pessimism

Introduction An optimist is a person with a positive outlook on life. A pessimist is a person with a negative outlook on life. Dispositional optimism and pessimism are typically assessed by asking people whether they expect future outcomes to be beneficial or negative. In this debate, I will be arguing that it is overall better to be an optimist than a pessimist.Upon my opponent's acceptance, I will begin the debate in Round 2. I look forward to a thought provoking and fruitful discussion.
Being an LGBT is ok! 🏳A039;R05;🌈

There is nothing wrong at all about being gay. It"s like saying it"s wrong for one person to love another, Even though it isn"t. I know a lot of people think it"s wrong because of reproduction but a lot of gay couples adopt and give children a home, Or they have a donor, So there"s actually no problem. I think people should be a little more open to this stuff nowadays, I mean it"s the 21st century. Are you saying that two people should live apart from each other even if they are in love, Just because they are the same sex? That"s stupid. I know this post is very short, But I shouldn"t have to explain why two people should be allowed fall in love.
Being an LGBT is ok! 🏳A039;R05;🌈

Ok, I get all of your points, But none of this is about percentages, Or religion, Or anything else. It"s about love. I am actually a lesbian. I have a beautiful girlfriend who I love very much, And we"ve overcome so many obstacles as we were each other"s first same sex relationship, And I"m actually happier now. We have a three year old daughter who we both adore. I don"t see how we are doing anything wrong. As for the religion thing, I know that some religions are against same sex relationships and they are free to have that opinion. It is not racist that I support and am a lgbt. I never said there was any problems with their beliefs. I haven"t challenged any religion and I don"t intend to. No one is diagnosed with gayness. We were born that way and we can"t change that. I would like to know some of the reasons Mein Kampf thinks a man and woman should stay together. But none of those change the fact that we were born gay and we can"t change that. It"s only human. Families. My family is very happy. Sure it might be better an influence to have a female and male parent but it"s probably not great if one parent is actually gay because the marriage won"t be happy. So if someone is gay they should be free to date whoever. Another bad influence on children would be a family who did not accept any LGBTs. So yea I think I"m in the right.
Man has not made a single origonal invention since its dawn.

OK, you are making arguments of semantics based on a wiki definition of the word original and then a definition of the word derivative based on the wiki article? The dictionary.com definition of the word original that most closely associates to invention: "8. an original work, writing, or the like, as opposed to any copy or imitation" In order to obtain a patent, trade mark, or copy write for an invention it, by definition, has to be an original idea as opposed to a copy or imitation of a current product or idea. But even using your definition any useless invention would fit. For example, Andrew Jackson Jr. patented his invention for "Chicken eye protectors". Pasquale Nigro patented his invention for a "fire escape" that consisted of wing looking devices one would attach to their arms before jumping out of a building. These inventions are certainly original because they serve no practical purpose. Conceptually they may have been planned to be useful, but their very failure to serve the intended purpose makes them original inventions based on your stated view of such. Staying along the same lines and in keeping with your version of what constitutes an original invention, anything that was invented to serve one purpose but turned out to actually serve something entirely different would qualify. IOW, accidental invention. Viagra would be a good example of such. Viagra was invented to treat angina and was a complete failure, however you are probably aware of the side effects it causes so it was marketed as a treatment for erectile dysfunction instead of it's intended purpose. It may not have been invented for original purposes per your definition, but it's use certainly turned out to be original.
Man has not made a single origonal invention since its dawn.

Wikipedias definition of original is: Originality is the aspect of created or invented works as being new or novel, and thus can be distinguished from reproductions, clones, forgeries, or derivative works. A word we need to pay particular attention to: derivative. Which comes from derive which means to develope or evolve. These definitions mean that something bettered itself from something else. This means that if anything can be found to have been developed from a precedant, it is not original, only a betterment. I found a way that everything can be traced back to an original something. Sports gear and events are only an improvment on our natural competative traits. We have always had an urge for competition, and any sport has only been worked off of that concept, or derived. Breast implants are only a betterment of breast, which as you conceded we all have, and thus they are developed from a pre existing trait on our bodies. All bodies heal, and medicine was developed to better that healing, and artifical limbs are no exception. Technically, it would be possible to allow our bodies to heal on their own, heart/hip failure or not. But we made medicine, a derivative of the concept of healing. Helpful, but not a new idea. ANy medicinal advance was thought because something already existed. Flu vaccines came from the want to heal the flu. The vaccine was only a derivative. Toys were all developed off the concept of play, something every human could do without rubiks cubes or video games. Those where only made after the preexisting idea of play. Not a new idea, only better ones. The definition of an invention (again, wiki) is an object, process, or technique which displays an element of novelty. An invention may sometimes be based on earlier developments, collaborations or ideas, and the process of invention requires at least the awareness that an existing concept or method can be modified or transformed into an invention. Nothing has had any novelty (or newness) because everything came from something that already existed. Again, I ask, give me every single item you think could have any possible oriinality to it, even if it uses up all 10,000 characters.
Man has not made a single origonal invention since its dawn.

Very nice argument. The problem is it completely sidesteps the issue at hand, which is: "Man has not made a single origonal invention since its dawn." Sports gear - Absolutely competition has been around since the dawn of man, for all of the reasons you mentioned and more. However, competition itself didn't evolve into Baseball, Golf, Tennis, Football, etc all by itself. Each one of those games had an inventor with an original concept and original equipment. Nobody found a baseball or set of golf clubs lying around then started playing a game with them. Each game had to first be envisioned, then equipment invented to play the game. Medical advances - Yes, we all have breasts. That anatomical fact doesn't logically equate to artificial enhancement being an unoriginal invention. There is nothing natural about implants, hence they are an original invention. Hips and pacemakers - along with a ton of other medical advances and inventions are certainly original inventions. Necessity being the mother in invention ingenious people have studied a myriad of ailments and invented solutions. That an ailment exists does not make the invention of a product to address said ailment any less of an original invention. Toys - Again, the act of play doesn't invent the instruments of it out of thin air. You are confusing invention itself with the reasons for invention. Absolutely the purpose of invention is to better our lives in some way, that doesn't make them unoriginal in the least. Invention is the act of taking an idea and turning it into a practical (or enjoyable) use. Simply wanting to better something isn't invention, it's the reason for invention. I contend that all inventions are original.
Man has not made a single origonal invention since its dawn.

Oh my friend, it is not hard at all to connect these objects. Your first set of devices I will clump into: sports gear. Well, this is easy. As you know, males primarily like sports. Why? Because males are the competative sex, what with testoserone and hormones and what not. Back in the day, we had our competitions, many times breaking off into wars of some kind. Fights of physical prowess would be fought to impress females.The victor got the girl. It continues on until people get tired of fighting and killing and just want to live, so they make sports. Wrestling on of the earliest, then racing, then they started throwing rocks farther than each other, then made tools to throw those things farther and so on. Evolution of sports. Medicinal advances. I'll explain each in turn. Breast implants. We all have breasts, its only womens whom is better reveared. Lets look at history. We all started out naked. No one cared about naked bodies. Then it became cold, thus came clothes. You don't see things long enough and you start to miss it. Thus began our sexual desire for "private parts". We already had breasts, now we want them more. We imagine them to be something on the edge of holiness. So we better them with implants. Just a betterment, not something origonal. Hips and pacemnakers. Both actual, practical medical inventions. So they are under the "medicine" category. We've always had sickness. In the beginning, there was no method to deal with heart attacks, or broken bones, and bad hips. Then we find out broken bones heal evetually, and if you press on the victims chest they may recover from cardiac arrest (CPR). Once we discover that, we make casts, then heart transplants. Then we made artificial hips and pacemakers. We already had hips, and hearts, we just found something better. Again, only improvments. TOYS! WHo doesn't like a good toy now and then. SO how is it that we got rubiks cubes and pogo sticks? As infants, every young mammal plays with something. As apes, we could have played with grass, pebbles, or bugs, and each other. Then we sculpted the first toy, from either rock or tusk. It only took time and happy accidents to discover that putting wheels on shoes was fun, and wound up metal walked down stairs. We had play already, we just made it more fun. Bettered it. Nothing really special, but it is enjoyable none the less. All it takes is the want to better something and we do. Running made people strong, so we come up with a better running you can do in the house: treadmills. We have always killed, so we make it better: guns. We always had a social order, but we grew more numerous, so it had to get bigger: government. We don't think of new things, we think of better things. What else do you have for me?
Man has not made a single origonal invention since its dawn.

There have, of course, been many hundreds of thousands of first of their kind inventions. And, of course, you will simply call each an "improvement" over something that already existed. But here goes: Golf Clubs Football Baseball Tennis Racket Just this short list of items were original products that didn't replace anything. All are recreational/sporting goods items that had no predecessor because the activities associated with them didn't exist prior to their invention. How about medical things like: Breast implants Artificial Hips pace makers What were their predecessors? Children's toys? Rubiks cube Silly Putty Hula Hoop Slinky Pogo stick Roller Skates You would be hard pressed to claim any, let alone all, of these things on my meager list can be related back to something we already had as a "primal species" whatever that means.
New York City Is The Best City In The World

I accept, but I would like to change the definition of best.According to thefreedictionary.com, best is: Most satisfactory, suitable, or useful; most desirablehttp://www.thefreedictionary.com...Therefore, Pro must prove why New York City is the best city, according to this definition of best. Please, if you disagree, PM me or comment on this debate. Otherwise, I will assume you agree, as the definition you provided for best is vague.Furthermore, as the resolution is that New York City is the best city. Therefore, if I am able to find another city that is equal, or just as good as New York City or better, then I have won this debate. Pro must prove that New York City is the best city above all others and equal to none. I believe that the Burden of Proof is not shared in this debate. Again, PM me or comment if you disagree.
New York City Is The Best City In The World

Pro has forfeited the round. I understand that EsisCOA has deactivated his account, however, that is his choice, and I still wish to debate this resolution, and win, obviously.I will provide a simple argument to why New York City is not the best city, but rather, all major cities are equal. If EsisCOA decides to log back on, he can refute and present his arguments. Otherwise, I will win this debate.==============Contention 1==============What is Best?One city cannot be the best in every aspect, just like how one person cannot be the best at anything. New York may have, say the best infrastructure, but another city, like Orlando, may have the best tourism attractions. How do you measure the "bestness" of a city? Every city excels in different aspects, and it is impossible to rank these aspects above another. For example, the NYC and Orlando example. Why should infrastructure be more important than tourism? Why should tourism be more important than infrastructure? These aspects cannot be measured, and as a result, you cannot measure the "bestness" of a city. Therefore, all major cities are equally good, as they cannot be measured. It is merely a matter of opinion as to which city is better than another. I will leave the debate with this one argument. I hope EsisCOA decides to log back on.
Coldplay ripped off Joe Satriani's song

You're right like Chuck Norris vs Bruce Lee or Spiderman vs The Hulk arguments (sarcasm). Despite the fact that there is a category for art and I'm pretty sure music would fall under that category. I'm sure a debate over an actual lawsuit that is happening right now is more important than a fictional battle against superhero's, because we all know Bruce Lee would win and so would the Hulk.
Coldplay ripped off Joe Satriani's song

Well I am close to neutral on this subject, but I saw no one else has said anything yet on this site so I figure why not. I will vote pro on this. Anywise I think Coldplay ripped of the song If "I Could Fly" with their "Viva La Vida". Joe Satriani is suing Coldplay for this. Here are my reasons. 1) has the same harmony 2) has the same rhythm 3) this isn't the first time Coldplay has been caught 4) Joe Satriani has a degree in musical theory and knows a lot on the composition of music (and no, money is not an issue for him) 5) In the past the guitarist for Coldplay has sighted Satch as an influence I would also like to note that Joe claimed that he called on several occasions before about the subject before it got out to the point of suing but Coldplay ignored him.
The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People to maintain a Militia, not gun ownership

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is probably the most debated of all amendments (along with the 1st Amendment, free speech). The finalized amendment as ratified on March 1st, 1792 reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is my interpretation that: The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People to maintain a militia, not gun ownership rights of individual citizens I am taking the Pro stance for this.
The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the People to maintain a Militia, not gun ownership

This debate is about the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and whether it protects the Individual right to private gun ownership or only the People's to maintain a well regulated militia. I take the former position and provided supporting evidence that was not disproven nor really disputed. Pro seems to be of the view that the amendment in question is antiquated and can be violated if enough of the popular opinion deems it necessary. It has been already violated to certain degrees. I stand by my first argument and maintain that the 2nd Amendment is written as recognition of the right to private ownership of weapons for the purpose of self protection and by extension defending others. Now, Pro talked about other weaponry that seems to be available to the private person and this might be true, but why would any one want to own such a thing that would take an immense amount of resources to maintain. Though it would be awesome to fly a fighter jet, it would not serve much purpose on a personal level. Standing armies and their possible possession of advanced weaponry can be defeated. For instance, it takes alot to mobilize tanks, infantry, and air support. A person could put together a small fighting force and use fast tactics to cripple the army that has invaded. That fighting force is a militia and made up of willing Individuals taking a stand; this cannot be done if they are disarmed. Pro did not show any support for his stance other than to argue the practical aspects and that falls by the wayside when considering the dependency any large military force has on advanced weapons. Just one person can wreak plenty of havoc on a regiment of professional soldiers who are conditioned to obey orders without question; a requirement of any standing military. That one person could execute a mission of hit and run, then blend in with his surroundings. This is the substance of the 2nd Amendment and why it was put place.