BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Planned Parenthood sale of Fetal Organs is unethical

I will begin this debate with giving my opening arguments this round and then my rebuttals will be in my next round. Contention 1: John Rawls's Veil of IgnoranceWe my first clarify a few things and the first task is to eliminate the bias behind this topic. Here we have to look at it through John Rawls Veil of Ignorance. Here one must look through Rawl's Veil of Ignorance. In order to do that one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation does not matter. This in in order to eliminate bias from the viewer in order to view his two principles of Difference and Equality. The Equality Principle is that the greatest extent of Liberty for everyone. The other states that it must benefit everyone, including the least advantaged, must be open to everyone, and your enemy chooses your position in that society or scenario. [1] In order to come behind this Veil must be a Rational Creature. Though this creates an interesting point of view since the person having to get an abortion is in a temporary state of irrationality due to their situation. Thus this violatest the Equality Prinicple since we are abusing certain people in a vunerable state. It also fails at the Difference Principle as the least advantaged are not only being manipulated, but the fetus is being murdered and exploited. Whether you consider alive or not is another debate, but is still a key factor in this debate as it is one of the major player in this situation. Your enemy also get's to choose your place and his they hate you with a passion you wouldn't even get to exist as you would be the aborted fetus in this case. This situation fails the Veil of Ignorance and thus it is unethical. Contention 2: Ethic of CareThe Ethic of Care, or also known as the feminism argument, revolves around the protection of special relationships. The Utilitarian argument reguards the improtance of the protection of the soceity and this argument will get down to the individual level. The Ethic of Care values special relationships like that of family, but as well as the relationships between generations as the Eco-feminism argument pushes for the preservation of future genreations. [2] We can see in this very situation that they constant abortions that occur for Planned Parenthood to make this profit destroy future generations through the murder of the potential children of tomorrow. This here already shows that it destroys the Ethic of Care argument thus making it unethical. Sources1. (. http://plato.stanford.edu...) 2. MacGregor, Sherilyn (2006). Beyond mothering earth: ecological citizenship and the politics of care. Vancouver: UBC Press. p. 286
The Planned Parenthood sale of Fetal Organs is unethical

Planned Parenthood is a non profit organization to help people with reproductive health services. It is commonly agreed that this is a good thing. The fetal organs that they sell come from fetuses that are already dead and causes no harm to any living organisms. The profits made from these sales go to fund this charitable organization so that they can help educate people and provide birth control which will help prevent a future abortion. In addition the fetuses are sold to medical professionals to either study or use for treatments thus doing further good. Because the sale of fetuses does not cause any further harm than without selling the fetuses and it has the ability to prevent further abortions, save lives, and help the still living planned parenthood's sale of fetuses is the ethical choice.
The United Kingdom should leave the European Union

Great Britain's place in the EU is not one matched with history. Great Britain, was the world's first and arguably last hyperpower, a nation of great imperial riches. London, the world's premier city for everything humanity could ever conceive. It all tumbled during and after the Second World War. Britain had at that point controlled 1/3 of the globe's land and inhabitants. Through peaceful or violent means, the empire eventually collapsed, and by 1949 the empire had devolved into the Commonwealth. The reason this is important, is because this is a reminder of what Britain was, not what Britain is. Great Britain is today a leading developed nation. No longer the hungry and unstoppable imperial beast of the 19th century. Great Britain is more integrated into the European spectre. Although of independent currency thanks to the BoE, it still holds close ties with its fellow EU members. This is wonderful because a closer Europe is a more peaceful Europe. Great Britain through geography is a European nation, how a past of imperial dominance would alter that is baffling. With Britain's future in the balance this coming referendum (if the Tories get their way), it's important that the British people understand why European cooperation is so crucial. No, it's not just more dumb, business-stifling regulation, it's cleaner air, it's not anti-worker regulation, it's protection from exploitation, and finally, it's not just some meaningless duty, the money goes towards enriching Europe through the multiplier effect. Immigrants are a necessary aspect of Britain's continuance as Great, Britain, and I could find no better candidates than our European neighbours. Already highly-skilled, educated, and sympathetic to the British way of life, Britain is set for a bright future within the European Union as an appreciated equal, not as the default bully of the past.
The United Kingdom should leave the European Union

After previously posting an identical debate, my opponent did not partake in arguing and forfeited all the rounds. I hope the same does not happen! This house believes the United Kingdom should leave the European Union. The EU is a 28 member union of European countries, all of its 500million citizens may work, live, claim welfare funds (benefits) and move freely in any 28 of the states with no restrictions. The EU Parliament passes laws which affect all states, particularly in areas such as the environment, fishing, agriculture and the economy. Within the EU is the Eurozone, a collection of countries all using the Euro which usually exchanged at "1 to 1.20". I am from London, Great Britain and I shall be arguing FOR the motion. - Happy Debating. .! -
1 equals 2

Interesting argument, Pro!Pro's method of reaching 1 = 2 can be summarized as follows: The main problem with this can be found in the following portion of that method: In order to reach A = A + A, we have to divide both sides by (A-A) as shown below: But... we then realize that (A - A) = 0By substituting the (A - A)'s in the denominator with zeroes, we get the following: Of course, this is the famous "divide by zero" error (http://www.mathsisfun.com...). It is an 'undefined' operation, and since it is an essential step in Pro's calculation, this renders Pro's method as a whole invalidated, thus negating the resolution.The proper way to simplify this little set-up of Pro's would require going back up to the second step, realizing that both (A-A) and (A^2 - A^2) are equal to zero, and going from there: As of now, Pro has not successfully shown that 1=2. The resolution is negated.Good luck, Pro!
1 equals 2

It shall. I thank my opponent for mustering the courage to accept such an unusual debate, and hope he has a good time. Let's begin, shall we? I will be proving that 1=2. We start with a very basic formula that just about everyone who has done algebra should know: a^2-b^2=(a-b)(a+b) Since variables can be any number, we can safely assume that for this scenario, a=b. That being said, we can replace the "b"s with "a"s. a^2-a^2=(a-a)(a+a) Then, we can simplify the left side of the equation. a(a-a)=(a-a)(a+a) Notice, the two sides have remained equal this entire time. As you can see, both sides of the equation have: (a-a) This means that we can safely remove it, "cancel them out". That leaves us with: a=a+a Which equals: a=2a Then, if you divide both sides by "a", you are left with: 1=2
Resolved: free family pigeons kept for racing.

~~~ ANIMAL EXIT ~~~ Olivia loves animals, especially the birds. They loft with life and beauty, with grace beyond mere words. Her cousins are cruel to pigeons, though they are nice to her. They keep the birds for only sport; for racing, as it were. One day, in their unplanned absence, she finds the cages' key; A chance to lock them safe inside, or else to set them free. Olivia loves all animals, but is especially fond of the avian variety. Her cousins are nice to her, but she thinks them cruel to the pigeons they keep for racing and not as pets. One day, while her cousins are unexpectedly away, Olivia has the option to free the pigeons or lock them in their cages. Round 1 Reasoning Kant encourages duty and honesty, so he would support Olivia in liberating the pigeons provided that she take responsibility for doing so. Keeping the birds only for racing and not at all as pets seems to needlessly exploit the animals. It is her natural duty to aid these birds to loft with life and freedom. Note that the choice presented is for Olivia to free the pigeons or lock them in their cages. There isn't a third option, such as training the pigeons to unlock their coops or anonymously reporting her cousins to the humane society. On the other hand, Olivia's action can be in a manner that might lessen discomfort all around. This is probably what Mill would have in mind. Mill can see a good result as justifying the means of achieving it. Furthermore, animals and nature have a value that people must protect. Mill might be comfortable with Olivia just blaming their escape on a strong wind. In either case, the conclusion must be to free the birds. -- Noel Leon
Bisexuals can have a preference and religion is stupid.

I believe that religion is stupid because it is merely something created by mankind to scare them into living the way of someone else. With out religion there would be much less fear and people would feel much more open about their views! Bisexuals ARE allowed a preference because bisexual merely means "Attracted to both boys and girls",just because you like two things doesn't mean you have to like them both equally. For example if you like both pie and cake, and you happen to prefer pie, that doesn't mean you don't like cake as well it just means you like them both and you prefer pie!
Time never changes

It proves that when you move through the aether that the aether pushes on the mechanism on the clock which slows down the clock or watch. Time is just a concept which is not influenced by movement. A concept can be (a) a mental representation (b) a mental state. (c) abstract object ( not a real object). Thus, Time; which is a concept; can't change as an object because it never existed as an object in the first place. Note - You can't turn a concept into an object even if your name is Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. Lol
Time never changes

Time is a concept designed to separate order from chaos. But that doesn"t mean it isn"t real. The Earth orbits the sun once every year. A year is 365 days. A day is 24 hours. An hour is 60 minutes, And the minute has 60 seconds. Time was decided originally by the movement of stars, And the day and night system. If time didn"t exist, We would be living side by side with cavemen. Why would you even make this topic? It"s like saying Earth is a giant sponge, Or the moon is made of cheese. It just isn"t real. a28;A039; time is real. Deal with it.
Hockey is better than soccer

1.) Embellishment - If you are entire argument is based on a video made by some desperate guy determined to undermine the GREATNESS of Soccer using some archaic video footage of nondescript teams. I dont know what to say. I base my arguments on fact and the fact is that these days players who act like that are penalised. Here is the proof--- (there goes the argument on "embellishment". ) 2) Accuracy - This is a video of a 40 yard kick in the corner of the goal protected by a goalkeeper well above 6'3 with an entire wall in front of him . 40 yards almost the 2/3 of the length of a hockey rink. that's almost like an Ice hockey goalie scoring from his half. I doubt if you could show me a video of a ice hockey player make the puck swerve in the air from 40 yards out. 3) Toughness - Since you seem so hell bent on the toughness of this game let's analyze this a bit a) Adaptability - Soccer is played in rain , storm , snow and sweltering heats of brazilian maracana with temp of 42 centigrade, Does a Ice hockey player go through the same , No its always over ice , they would probably faint in any other condition. b) Endurance - How can one compare a game of 20 min halves of ice hockey with 45 min halves of hight tempo game of soccer. MLS in US is a very pathetic example of soccer , with sub standard players and worst style of play. If one wants to know how fast this game can be one should at least see barcelona FC in action, which would pale any. Yes any ice hockey game in pace and tempo. c) Ice hockey players wearing virtually a full body armor is not a contact sport, its sheer hypocrisy. I mean why have any protection if they are so tough play just the way actual rugby players slug it out. Rugby is a contact sport which in true essence has tough men not ice hockey. And if my purpose of watching sports is to see tough men i would watch boxing, judo , taekwondo , wrestling not ice hockey. The small minority of people who watch ice hockey watch it for their skill on ice not toughness. Some more facts which would make the position amply clear 1) Soccer largest watched sports in the world , World cup soccer most watched event on planet after olympics 2) Soccer clubs richest in the world more than NFL, NHL, Baseball etc etc. (If you can show me stats to disapprove this I would concede) PS - Ensure caution in choosing topic , either put "Ice Hockey is better than soccer "or accept both . Field hockey is still more popular than any Ice hockey.
Hockey is better than soccer

1. Embellishment- In soccer there are many players who love to fake injuries, as you can tell from the video in my last argument. It is very rare to see that happen in hockey. When a player embellishes an injury they are given a penalty. Accuracy- Hockey players have better accuracy. Under NHL rules, the opening of the goal is 72 inches (6 ft ) wide by 48 inches (4ft ) tall. In soccer, the uprights are 8 yards, or 24 feet, apart and the lower edge of the crossbar is 8 feet above the ground. Now take the goalies and place them in the nets. In hockey you have a goalie at least 6 ft tall with pads on. That is covering almost every opening of the net. In soccer you have a goalie of about 5'11" standing in a large net with many openings. However the average score in a soccer game is about 2 (depending on the team). In hockey the average score is about 4. Toughness - A recent ESPN study concluded that ice hockey is the most demanding team sport in the world. Durability is a quality that hockey players display perhaps, paradoxically, more than any other athletes. They play a sport that is more physically demanding than any other - 60 minutes in a confined area with no "comfort zone" out of bounds. Hockey is non stop action. Either you are rushing on a break, or hurrying back to get into your defensive zone. There is no time, especially in the NHL, where a player would really have the chance to catch their breath during a game. In hockey you are constantly moving your feet. There is no such thing as standing still while on the ice. Each period lasts is 20 minutes long and there are 3 periods in a game. There are only 2 intermissions which last about 15 minutes so they can clean the ice. Each game lasts about 2 1/2 to 2 hours. http://www.iihf.com... (this debate is only about soccer and ICE hockey. not field hockey)
Hockey is better than soccer

The reasons which have been enlisted are the Speed and Toughness or the level of contact allowed.I am a bit appalled at the choice of the two. Firstly the topic is Hockey is better than soccer. Where as my opponent fails to give legitimacy to the game of field hockey which is more popular and widespread, rather he chose to focus all his attention to Ice hockey. I don't want to get into semantics but Hockey is a much broader term which encompasses both forms and hence ignoring one for the other is unjustified. Secondly the quality of the game is never judged solely on the pace of the game. The parameters are the level of skill required , technical ability, team cohesion, simplicity and the high stakes involved. A spectator gets his money's worth while witnessing the sheer wizardry of Lionel Messi as he dribbles past 4-5 opposition players before putting the ball into the goal. While doing so he displays the positional awareness of both his teammates and opposition players, moving the ball at pace , performs evasive maneuvers, makes several judgments almost simultaneously. If this is not the what displays peak of human ability then I do not know what might. Similarly when Cristiano Ronaldo takes a free kick from 40 yards out , he kicks the ball with strength at specific angle which makes the ball swerve at pace before hitting the back of the net , leaving the goalkeeper dismayed and the spectator amazed. This is what elevates football from being just a game to a religion a faith. And talking of pace Borussia Dortmund forward Pierre emerick aubameyang clocked faster than WR sprinter Usain bolt over a 40 yard stretch. I would love to see an Ice hockey player attempt such a feet on foot . Thirdly Soccer is not a contact sport it is a game played in the mind and executed with skill on the field. There is no scope of contact in this sport hence it is looked upon severely by the referee. Ice hockey players have elaborate paraphernalia to make this a contact sport. Yet contusion , lacerations , concussions, broken bones are regular part of it. We do not know how many promising careers might have prematurely ended because of a rash tackle in hockey rink. Moreover judging a game just because it is not tough enough and players avoid injuries is just a bit sadistic. I recommend Boxing if someone is so inclined towards manning up, let the skill prevail on the field and not brute force.
Hockey is better than soccer

Hockey is a better sport then soccer for many reasons. First off, hockey is a faster sport. The average hockey player can skate up to 26.79 mph with some players speed even clocking in over 30 mph. According to physicist Thomas Humphrey, "skating is the fastest way to travel on the surface of the earth on your feet." When you run, your front foot slows you down every time it hits the ground. In skating, one skate pushes down and the other skate glides. There is very little friction to slow you down. A soccer players average speed is only about 20 mph. You also can add the speed in which the puck travels around the ice. Pucks can travel up to 105 mph, with the fastest shot being recorded at 118.3 mph by Bobby Hull.(slap shot). A soccer ball has a maximum speed of only 80-85 mph. Anything over 85 mph is extremely rare. http://forums.bigsoccer.com... http://www.exploratorium.edu... Toughness is another reason why hockey is a better sport than soccer. In hockey there is plenty of contact, wether it is getting hit into the boards or fighting every game has contact. If you were to hit someone in a soccer game the referees would be handing out the colorful cards and someone will be on the ground looking to win an Oscar award. Here is a video to show you what i mean. ( you don't have to watch the full 7 minutes to get the point) (I don't own this video, I do not agree with his choice of wording.)
Hockey is better than soccer

There are many reasons why soccer is the most popular sport in the world. The first being its simplicity and inexpensive nature. A game of football requires nothing but the ball itself , which is what makes it the most widely accepted sport on the planet. From the poverty stricken African countries to the more developed European nations the game has found patronage everywhere whereas hockey has been restricted to isolated pockets on the globe. The game which has such humble origins has evolved into a different beast altogether. Today the game is highly technical , which has evolved different styles of play. Be it the attacking tiki -taka of barcelona or the stupendous counter-attacking play of real madrid. Such dynamism of the game has spawned several global superstars such C. ronaldo, messi, pele , maradona and eusebio, while hockey still awaits its first global superstar, nothwithstanding the names of jamie dwyer, sohail abbas, there is yet to be a global star for the game of hockey
Hockey is better than soccer

Soccer games are too long. A game of soccer consist of two 45 minute halves. That is 90 minutes total. Then consider that the clock keeps running when the play is stopped. If the game is tied at the end of the two 45 minute periods, then you go into two 15 minute overtimes. If it is still tied after that, then you go into sudden death overtime. That is a lot of time for a game with not a lot of action. In hockey there are three 20 minute periods. When a regular season game is tied at the end of regulation, it goes into a 4-on-4, five minute overtime period after a one minute rest period. If there is no goal scored during that time then it goes to a three-round shootout. This sequence ends when one team mathematically has more shootout goals then the other, thus winning the game. That is the perfect amount of time for this sport to be played. Its not to long, and there is plenty of action to keep you on your toes. Scoring- In 90 minutes, you might see one goal during a soccer game. Or you might not. A 2-0 win would be considered a slaughter in soccer, but a close game in hockey. Goals are what makes a game exiting. You will see more goals scored in hockey then you do in soccer, making hockey more exiting. Out of bounds- In soccer, a lot of the time is spend kicking the ball out of bounds, and then throwing or kicking it back into bounds after a stoppage of play. There are not many stoppage of plays in hockey. You have the glass and boards keeping the puck in play about 99% of the time. The only time the puck is out of bounds is if it goes up into the netting (into the seats) or goes into the benches. Skill- hockey requires a certain level of skill to reach the high levels of professional sports, and hockey players have to have some of the strongest talents to even make the professional ranks. They have to be able to skate forwards, backwards and be able to stop correctly. And it is all done at high speeds. Skating is not something that everyone can do which makes it a talent. Unlike running. Plus they have to combine skating with stick handling. They have to be able to use their stick for various kinds of shots such as slapshots, backhand shots, and wrist shots. Hockey is not a sport for the weak. You have to be able to endure being thrown into the boards and having an open ice check come in your direction while at center ice. You have to put your body in front of fast moving pucks to block shots. You also have fighting which is not tolerated in any other sport. http://bleacherreport.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.iihf.com...