BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortion

Thank you, first of all to answer your questions. I am against the war in Iraq, the death penalty and the other ones. Two I believe in the conception of life. If you think about it, you were a fetus and you would not be here if your mother had an abortion. But not only you, also if other people had abortions we might not even have the abortion or Microsoft and other technologies. because of the years we haven't had abortion we have maybe had technologies that we wouldn't have. Then you think about it this fetus we are talking about, will become a child, maybe even the greatest president or reformer. Maybe he is the one who will stop war, create peace across the world. Third I do not feel that abortion should be COMPLETELY wiped out, I just feel that it should have more restrictions. I don't feel that someone should walk into a clinic and get an abortion. They need to have a special circumstance on what they are doing. In the form of a disability, for if it will kill the mother, for these yes and for just regular old reasons such as you weren't responsible, no that is just using an excuse to get out of what you did wrong. Thank you and here is my question. If you knew that a certain fetus that was about to be aborted would change the world when it grew up into a developed adult but the birth would kill the mother, what would you do and if you would continue the abortion, how would you let this go on?
Is modern atheism just dressed up bigotry? Yes.

My answer is no, atheism is not bigotry. My opponent will have to show that my answer is incorrect if he wants to defend his position. Atheism is quite simply the absence of belief in the existence of deities, mentioning nothing about hatred or intolerance of groups of people. If my opponent is to have any chance of supporting his proposition, he will have to show that not believing in the existence of deities is the hatred and intolerance of a group or groups of people. " I don't believe that my opponent has shown this, or even attempted to show this. So I'll just forward my arguments.
Is modern atheism just dressed up bigotry? Yes.

Whatever atheism once was, for most of its adherents these days it not longer even has the pretense of rationality. As authors such as Hitchens and Dawkins have taken over the message of atheism, spreading a clear and clarion message of anger and intolerance, atheism as a simple conclusion of facts has long since receded. With nihilistic groups such as rational-wiki and others, we see an educational message that is misleading and increasingly inaccurate about the religion it basis its conclusions upon. Increasingly, the adherents of atheism advocate positions that are often ignorant of the religions they criticize, often leaving out critical points of the message to present straw men which they they then present to be mocked an derided with great fanfare. And that message, born form this educated ignorance, is increasingly on of hate. Religious people are irrational, they support slavery, they reject science, they poison everything, they should be classified as mental health cases, and it rapidly becomes clear that at some point, this hurling of invective is no different than klansman talking about black person or a Jew. Tat not all atheists are like this belies the reality that an increasing portion of atheists have abandoned all pretenses that there position is based on reasoning, and have instead adapted a mentality of superiority through false accusation, castigation, and deliberate dehumanization based solely on a faith choice - a choice that is protected by the US Constitution, but which the increasing prejudices of atheism sees only as a threat of poison to everything.
mcdonalds fries betterthan berger kings fries

My opponent has fully forfeited this debate. Although this is already a conduct-win for me, I never leave a debate without presenting some arguments. I. Overall Fry StructureA solid way to decide which fry is better would be to look at the structure of the fry, in this case the structure being it's square width. In a fantastic article posted on seriouseats. com the author did just that. When comparing the McDonald's fries to Burger King fries, it was found that McDonald's fries are a quarter-inch by quarter-inch, whereas Burger King fries measured out to be three-eighths of an inch square. The author then went on to praise the Burger King fries by saying: while an extra eighth of an inch may seem so minor as to be imperceptible, they were, in fact, noticeably more substantial, both to the eye as well as to the touch. By far the longest fries of the group, many of them were easily six inches tip to tip. [1]What this shows is that Burger King fries are indeed larger than McDonald's fries in regards to square-width or thickness. [1] . http://aht.seriouseats.com...The difference in thickness is also incredibly apparent in the picture below: II. Less fat/less caloriesBurger King launched a new kind of fries last year, called Satisfries. These satisfries have 40% less fat and 30% less calories than their competitor - McDonald's fries. In an article published in L. A. Times, it is shown that BK's satisfries are 150.5 calories per serving whereas McDonald's fries are 226.8 per serving. [2]They also share Matt Lauers opinion which is that they, "taste like a slice of heaven. "[2] . http://www.latimes.com...In closing, I've presented two cases where Burger King fries are better than McDonald's fries. My opponent, Pro, has presented no arguments whatsoever, which is a failure to maintain the Burden of Proof.
Gay Adoption

You're right that the system worked until divorce came along, but in a free society, such as ours, people have to be allowed to succeed in a relationship, or fail in a relationship. It's not the job of the government to force people to stay together just for the benefit of the child. Besides I wasn't talking about divorce (children aren't usually put up for adoption after a divorce) I'm talking about children in the system (who have no parents) having a better chance with gay parents than no parents at all. As for confusing a child, I'd like to offer that the question "why do I have two fathers?" is a much less detrimental and confusing question than "why doesn't anyone love me enough to adopt me and take me out of this orphanage?" Like I said gay parents are better than no parents at all. As for being 'scientifically immoral' science doesn't ask 'moral' questions about two men or two women together. Science is only interested in discovering why one man would decide to have sex with another. And (as I'm sure you agree) science has firmly decided that sexual orientation is not a choice; nature, for whatever reason, assigns people certain desires either for the same or opposite sex. Science is not about morality (of course we have to ask moral questions in the pursuit of science) it's about the 'how' and 'why' of our universe. Once again you're falling back on the abuses of society to justify denying someone else rights they deserve. Right now there is a lot of anti-muslim sentiment in this country. Should we prohibit muslims from adopting children just because the children might be exposed to social pressure? The fact is homosexual parents are just as capable of providing a loving, stable environment for children to grow up in. They are just as capable of failing to provide those things as well; that's why they should be subjected to the same scrutiny and rules as a heterosexual couple looking to adopt. You talk about abuse from various quarters (the church, government, and society in general) obviously no one can escape the negativity of society but negativity from the government and the church can be very minimalized in a person's life. Obviously the government would not harass a gay couple to whom it has legally given the custody of a child to. As for the church thankfully their influence is very limited. Not many churches would harass a gay couple once they left the congregation and if they did the authorities can be brought in to settle matters. But like I said possible harassment from a church is no reason to deny someone their rights. As for comparing mixed couples to gay couples, the only reason mixed couples are harassed less is because society has come to accept that type of relationship (in many parts of society it's actually celebrated) given enough time society (in general) will come to accept gay relationships as another type of normal relationship. I'd also like to end by saying that all the reasons you have cited, against gay adoption, are the same types that were used to keep mixed couples from marrying and adopting.
Gay Adoption

First off, you're welcome. To be honest I believe that the system is a loving family, which is a system that has worked for thousands of years, until divorce came. It doesn't make sense to have an illegitimate straight couple be replaced by an illegitimate gay couple. I agree that parents need to exist in a childes life, but it's better to have an accepted family in society than one that is scientifically immoral. Yes many things confuse a child, so why don't we spare them and don't confuse them anymore considering they might be going to an adoption process to replace parents. If a child can become someone in this world and do positive things, then great. Congrats. The ratio, however doesn't add up. Children who are raised by one parent have a smaller chance of college, and being financially successful. The single parent recipe doesn't set up for failure and that is true. The recipe for two homosexual parents is, considering the abuse from media, the church, the government, and society in general. If our society is so fair for women, why have we not had a woman President and why aren't they paid as much? You can say we have progressed, but until society is completely unbiased, Anti-Feminists will always have their power. I'm pretty sure that gay couples get harassed more than mixed racial couples do. I know from experience. I would like to say once again, wouldn't you want to make a childs life easier by having a smaller chance of struggle? If a child is taught that their parents are abominations, it sets up for self-esteem and confidence issues.
Gay Adoption

First off, thank you for accepting my challenge. Let me start my response by saying that I agree that the best place for a child is in a home with a mother and father. However, in our society today, there are too many children being raised by the system, instead of by a loving family; even single parents do a much better job of raising children then the government. So, if a straight couple can not be found to raise a child then a gay couple should be allowed to step in. Two gay parents is a much better proposition then no parents at all. You say that two people, of the same sex, will confuse a child. The fact is many things 'confuse' a child. Divorce is probably the biggest blow to a child's psyche (short of the death of a parent) yet we still allow divorce. Once again I bring you back to single parents. The single parent has been around for many years in our society. Many children brought up by single parents end up as failures but many also end up contributing in a positive way to society; one parent is not ideal but it isn't an automatic recipe for failure. Sometimes the parent is male, sometimes female, the lack of a masculine or feminine influence does not mean a child will fail to learn the roles of men and women. As for the "roles of women" I'm not sure what you mean exactly. I like to think that our society has progressed to the point where a woman's role is equal to a man's role; that is to raise a child and support the child as best she can. Single fathers (and gay men for that matter) are perfectly capable of teaching their child to respect women and comprehend their role in society. The proof comes in the form of many men, raised by single fathers, growing up and having healthy, normal, successful relationships with their wife or girlfriend. As for the child receiving "bad images" because of their gay parents, I'm afraid that is a part of life. Many kids are subject to bad treatment because their parents are of mixed ethnicity, yet the last time I checked black people were legally allowed to marry white people in this country (as well as any other racial mix). Just because kids will be subject to social pressures doesn't mean we ought to keep their parents from having to the chance to raise them. Sorry if that was so long. I look forward to your response.
Gay Adoption

Firstly, as a gay man, I can honestly say that two men can never play the roles that a mother and father can. Naturally, women have a connection with children that is more natural than it is with a man. Sure two women can do the job, but the child will have a system overload. It's scientifically proven that a child can comprehend and understand signals of one woman. Two women can confuse the child. If it were two men, the child will never understand maternal nature and never understand the roles of a woman, and her role in the family. Secondly, the child will receive bad images and atrocious things said about their parents. This can happen through media, and obviously The Church.
Jesus of Nazareth Did Not Exist

I will be arguing that that statement "Jesus of Nazareth did not exist" is false, and that Jesus of Nazareth did exist. My opponent will be arguing that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.I would also like to thank Pro for accepting this debate.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Conclusion
The gender wage gap is a myth

Well then I guess this is the last round; end the debate if you can. Frankly, your counter-argument doesn't really make sense because I was talking about women who were not childless but rather with child. It is also important to analyze this statistic more carefully. In regards to its origin, I could only find a study brought up by a conservative pundit, a study that was over severn years old and only analyzed women in heavily urbanised areas. As a matter of fact, there are plently of other, newer studies, that suggest that childless women make the same, or even less than childless men. Moreover, readers haven't been provided any links, only vague references to gvmt agencies.
The gender wage gap is a myth

Apologies, I wasn't aware. Anyway, your argument about paying women is a good one but there are several limitations. It is indeed illegal to pay women less than their male counterparts, and there have been lawsuits on the matter, but something being illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen (see the War on Drugs) and this does happen (see my previous argument). Another issue is that employers may see women as less qualified to take on jobs than their male counterparts. This is more likely to occur with women who have given birth or are with child. Yes, I would say social norms do play into this, but this is hard to measure. I would argue that though the wage gap exists, newer norms and trends mean it will actually disappear. Link in comments
The gender wage gap is a myth

I apologize for not including my sources. (AAUW) and (United States Department of Labor). And yes I did copy my last argument from MY older debate. The other guy did not respond so I copied my own argument. Back to the debate. If what you are saying is true, then businesses would have hired only women. It would be much more profitable. Not to mention it is illegal to pay a woman less than a man based on gender. And the social norm you brought into your argument ended decades ago.
The gender wage gap is a myth

I'd ignore the fact that you blatantly copy pasted this argument from an older debate, but even that aside, I want to point out that you did not provide any actual sources towards your argument, which really does complicate things. I'll try my best to provide a rebuttal either way. Yes, women's choices often reflect lower salaries, I mentioned that in my above argument, which I frankly doubt that you read. However, there are significant pay gaps for women at nearly all levels of education and line of work, according to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. ((U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017b). Another major factor is that of social norms- in many households it is considered to be wrong for women to enter such fields.
The gender wage gap is a myth

I believe the wage gap statistic that a man makes 77 cents to every dollar a man makes is false. The wage gap statistic that a woman earns 77 cents to every dollar a man makes comes from comparing the average earnings of all men and all women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupation, position, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week when such relevant factors are considered the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing the average man. Childless women aged 22 to 30 out-earned young childless men by 8% among workers who have never been married and never had children women earned a hundred and seventeen percent of what men do. I have provided statistics from government-funded sources
The gender wage gap is a myth

What does the term "myth" imply here? That women and men earn the same on average, or perhaps you are trying to argue that it is not institutionalized? Regardlessly, clarification will go a mile-and-a-half here, as I really cannot put up a very detailed argument only based off of this. My general position on this matter that I will defend is that there is indeed a disparity on the average wages between men and women overall, as well as in some (but not all) industries. These are in my opinion, partly as a result of societal norms, partly because of institutionalized issues, and in part because of the choices women in the Western World make. Good day!
Abortion

Essentially the only thing you have claimed that it is alright to kill people struggling based solely on financial reasons and on the mistakes of others. You have not yet attempted to refute wether the fetus is a human being or not, which is alright but makes my debate easier. 1. Should we kill those struggling with financial circumstances? In this case, we would be arguing that we would be willing the fetus out of mercy. However, how is killing an unborn human being showing any compassion? The truly merciful and compassionate reasoning leads us to protect the lives of those without a voice in all circumstances, whether that person may be the son of a billionaire or a poor man. We cannot determine the destiny and fate of anyone. Modern revelation of morality clearly shows that killing someone for how poor they might end up being is wrong. In this case as well, how are we to limit the time frame of the killing? With your reasoning, it would be just as merciful to kill a week old baby because they have been born into poverty merely based on the financial situation. Would you also be ok with this? Alveda King, the niece of MLK, a speaker on racial inequality and poverty, says this "The abortion industry plants abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods and grey upon women who think they have no hope. The greatest irony of abortion is that abortion has done what the Klan (KKK) dreamed of. " 2. The actions of others do not grant the condemnation of another human being. We are all responsible for our actions, and guess what, if you get pregnant you cant run away from your problems no more than a gambler can run away from his debt. It may not feel good, but at that point, people understand the risks involved in sex and therefore, that person is now responsible for the child. However, as I personally know four adopted people very well, adoption is always an option. Wouldn't you say adoption is better than killing? 3. There is nothing immoral about suggesting when to have kids. However, we cannot legally force people to not have sex. That is when it crosses the legal border. And yes, every child should have the chance to live a healthy life, but you say being poor eliminates that chance which is why abortion is ok? That is a contradiction because abortion does the same thing. Abortion eliminates the chance that the child may live a healthy life. Abortion removes all chance of life itself, all the struggles, but all the opportunities as well. So abortion essentially denies all opportunity, more so than any level of poverty.
Abortion

My opponent argues the morality of abortion. He argues the persuasive claim that Abortion is murder, and it is an act against humanity. I claim that Abortion is a moral thing to do, and is the right thing to do under the circumstance your in. People who usually need abortions are people who just don't want children. They do not want to take care of the child. It might seem heartless at first, but I can assure you that it is the mature thing to do. Here are the reasons: 1. What if the parents are dead broke? It is immoral to bring a child into this world with parents that cannot provide. If the parents cannot provide than how will the child live? Do you really think it is moral for children to live without daily access to food, shelter, and education? In those circumstances, the child will end up living a harsh life with the probability of being abused, bullied, or turn to a life of crime. The mother suffers. The father suffers. The child suffers. The whole family will suffer in Con's world. 2. Teen pregnancy-Humans make mistakes. It is fair to say that a teen pregnancy is probably the most horrible decisions people make in their life. Usually, what happens is the male makes a fatal mistake, and forgets to wear a condom. Either the male is scared of having a child, or he embraces Con's viewpoint and is going to have the child. Same applies to female. Lets say they agree to have the child. The male has to stop going to school, and get a job. The female is going to either become a housewife or get a job. Most likely get a job because they have to provide for their family. Think about it. Do you really think its going to end pretty well with two teenagers(going through hormones) taking care of a kid. I would not want to be the kid. The kid will suffer. Big shock, The parents find out they don't like each other. They get divorced, and the kid has to deal with a divorced family. The kid is screwed. The father is screwed. The mother is screwed. But, it will work out in Con's worldview. 3. Why are the parents thinking about killing their kid- Isn't it sad enough that the kid has to deal with the fact that his parents thought about killing him? Isn't it sad that his parents are sad, and are wishing back the times they weren't married? I would not want to live with parents that hate each other, because they have to take the extra time to provide for my services. Every child should have the opportunity to live healthy lives which includes food, shelter, and education. We should not motivate our society to just have kids when its not the right time to. It is immoral to do that. Life can be hard to live. Sometimes you have to make the decision to relieve somebody of the pain their going to have if their born. People would typically have bias against abortion, because simplistically it could be perceived as the killing of a child. But, in reality people who even think of having an abortion are probably not in a situation that has the status of wealth.