BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should abortion be legal

Here, I will respond to Pro's arguments.1. Pro brought up the problem of home abortions, and her solution is professional abortions. I do not deny that home abortions might be a current problem (although I would ask Pro how common they are), but I propose a different solution: Don't get pregnant, or go through with the pregnancy. Do not get pregnant and then kill a child; why should the child be blamed for your mistake?2. Pro hinted at the argument that life for an unwanted child would be worse than no life at all, so I will briefly address this point. Does one person have the right to say to another person, "your life will soon be unbearable, so I'll just save you the misery," and then kill him? No! This baby deserves a chance to live.3. Pro brought up some evidence that the crime rates dropped 18 years after abortion was made legal. My response to this is that it isn't relevant. Regardless of whether kids in these homes are more likely to commit a crime or not, that still doesn't give us permission to kill them. By that logic, any group of people that has a higher crime rate than average should be killed off! Absolutely not! Every individual is innocent until proven guilty, people are judged on their own merits, and most of those crimes probably didn't deserve death anyway.4. Pro said that a fetus does not have life because it cannot adapt to the environment through changes that originate internally. My response to this is that this is not a good definition of life. Now, my definition of life is from The Free Dictionary, and it says that life is "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." Now, while this definition addresses some functionality commonly associated with life, it does not try to claim that this functionality is necessary for life. Pro's definition says that in order to be alive, an organism must be able to adapt to its environment through changes that originate internally. Before I can respond to this definition, I need to know exactly what Pro means by the word "adapt." I, as a human being, do not "adapt to my environment" in that my physical body changes (you won't see me develop a skin tone better suited for absorbing solar nutrients), so if Pro is referring to physical adaptations, then I, as a human being, am not alive either.5. Finally, Pro said that "abortion is not defined as killing abortion is defined as "the removal of the embryo or fetus to end a pregnancy." What Pro is missing is that the removal of that fetus or embryo will always kill it. If Pro can come up with a scenario of an abortion that was not fatal to the fetus, then I won't argue that that type of abortion is wrong. The only reason anyone would contest an abortion is because it is fatal to the fetus, so if the fetus can survive the abortion, I won't argue that it should be illegal.In conclusion, because abortion kills an innocent human, it must be illegal.
Should abortion be legal

Abortion is the act of inducing miscarriage which is safe for the women having the abortion in a doctors office but if abortion was illegalized than that safety is all thrown out of the window. A women could induce the abortion of the pregnancy in many ways such as coat hangers, bleach, alcohol, and pills; all of which are very dangerous to the women's health and life. Coat hangers as unpleasant as it sounds it is a method, and most likely the most dangerous if the women missed the fetus and hit an internal organ that would mean the loss of the fetus and internal bleeding and injury or death of the woman. Bleach, alcohol, and pills: may induce a miscarriage or leave the fetus with life long physical and mental disabilities. Crime; if these fetuses make it to humanhood they will either stay with a mother who will be in poverty or will be adopted to either a middle class family or will not be adopted and have a much greater chance of going into a life of crime. In 1973 abortion was made legal and when unborn pregnancies would have been 18 old enough to have a crime committed crime rates started to drop. Crime rates rose from 1960 until 1991 and the 1992 crime rates took a sudden down turn that has still continued http://www.disastercenter.com.... Rebuttals 1. Abortion is the killing of an innocent human life "Life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaption to environment through changes that originate internally." The definition provide is from dictionary.com as was the cons side. The last statement states that life has to be able to grow with its own metabolism and be able to adapt to the environment through changes that ordinate internally. If one was to preform an emergency c section before 24 weeks of pregnancy even the doctors will not help because there is to great a chance the fetus will not live because it does not have one major property of life the ability to adapt. 2. "The case assumes that abortion is killing" Assuming and stating are two different things abortion is not defined as killin abortion is defined as "the removal of the embryo or fetus to end a pregnancy" dictionary.com. Conclusion Abortion has kept the crime rates lower and has saved women's lives from the dangers of home abortion.
Should abortion be legal

People will argue that abortion should not be legal because of immorality to the bible but what is immoral to the bible that is moral to our everyday lives 1. Women's Rights 2. Banks 3. Gay Marriage(some find this still immoral) But woman's rights also should extend to the right to what they can and cannot do with their bodies. When does life start some say when an egg is fertilized but could that egg become a FULLY FUNCTIONING human being no if it was not in the womb, the earliest survivor of a premature birth is 21 weeks; even doctors will not provide assistance if it is befor the 24 week cut off. http://miscarriage.about.com... if life is said as something that can live without the womb than the earliest a human is alive is 24 weeks into the pregnancy. So life is at twenty four weeks but if the woman has known she was pregnant for 22 weeks than has she had enough time to think. Most women would have the hardest decision of their life during this 24 weeks, the real question on abortion is not if its should be legal but when should the cut off for an abortion be.
Mind Over Matter

Accepted. I should emphasize that I find no flaws with the practice of "mind over matter", and that it's an advisable outlook for one to adopt. My main argument is directed towards your opening statement: "Malice as a recourse is a greater temptation for females due to their hormonal triggers". Male and female, are both predisposed towards malice. Whether one is more likely to experience it or not is largely dependant on the character of that individual, and not their gender. Males, can also be vulnerable to hormonal triggers, testosterone (generally in younger males) being the primary one. (1.) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Mind Over Matter

You began your argument by referencing "malice" and attributing that to female hormonal triggers. Irritability and/or anger has a different definition to malice. Granted that females are susceptible to emotional changes brought on by the menstrual cycle, but this isn't to say that she has no control over acting on these changes. Additionally, the cycle only lasts for just under a week. Older women (who have passed their montly cycle) also do not apply. In round two I alluded to testosterone in males. As well as females being affected by their hormones, the behaviour of males can also by impacted by theirs.. However, as I've stated with women; not every man applies and most are able to assert control. Whether one succumbs to such traits is purely down to character.
The Biblical God does not exist

At my opponents request the following statement "Your argument of "This proves that God's origins (or lack thereof) could not have been within space and time" is therefore false, because nothing outside of space and time is logical in regards to our Universe. " should be corrected to "This concludes that a decision-making god cannot have origins outside space and time. " is therefore false, because nothing outside of space and time is logical in regards to our Universe. " For the sake of my next argument I would like to define 2 new terms Absolute omnipotence: The ability to do absolutely anything. No exceptions Non-absolute omnipotence. The ability to do absolutely anything within reason As I will demonstrate shortly Absolute Omnipotence is impossible. Omnipotence: God cannot be absolutely omnipotent. In order for God to exist some set of rules must govern his existence. These rules would actually be necessary to define him as omnipotent in the first place. Temporal states being necessary for decision making is not a logic of the universe, but is in fact something inherent of existence itself, and therefore God can't get around it just by claiming omnipotence. Absolute omnipotence itself would solve the problem, but is impossible due to inherent paradoxes. Could God create a stone so heavy he could not lift? Obviously Such a paradox will inevitably result in finding something that God cannot do. This means God adheres to at least some of our logic and cannot be absolutely omnipotent. By this logic the rules and laws of our universe must adhere to the same rules and laws that God does. Consider a set A with subset b. Subset b must adhere to the rules of set A. Decisions: A temporal-independent God who brought the universe into existence would have had to make decisions in order for such universal logic and temporal states were available. In other words God would have had to decide to create the temporal states in order to use them for decision making. Interpretation: Interpretation can be difficult, however I think it is pretty easy to see that God must exist independent of time. God is described both as THE beginning and as eternal. Time had a beginning, meaning unless God had a beginning he must be independent of time and have created time to begin with. Conclusion: Absolute omnipotence is an illogical rebuttal, and the universe must adhere to the same laws that God adheres to. Interpretation is my opponent's only valid rebuttal, however the assumption that God created time and exists independent of it can be shown to be a fairly safe assumption. It is difficult for our finite minds trapped in this universe to comprehend anything transcending it, however "we simply can't understand" is not a valid argument in this debate, we must simply work with what we have and know.
The Biblical God does not exist

I will take the burden of proof for this debate. My opponent is free to define any terms I failed to. Definitions: Biblical God: The Monotheistic God as described in the old or new testament. Origins: The "location" of God before the existence of time. Argument: 1. The biblical God cannot have origins (or lack thereof) inside space-time 2. The biblical God cannot have origins (or lack thereof) outside space-time 3. Therefore the biblical God cannot exist. proving premise 1. The bible clearly states in Hebrews 7:3 that God is without beginning and without end, this proves that the biblical God must be time-independent. Since the universe is made of a fabric of space-time, they are inseparable. Therefore God must be both time-independent and space-independent. This proves that God's origins (or lack thereof) could not have been within space and time. Proving premise 2. The bible clearly demonstrates that God makes decisions. He made the decision to create the earth, animals, and humans. Decision-making, however, requires distinct temporal states. That means that a time-independent God could not have made any decisions as he would not have distinct temporal states. This concludes that a decision-making god cannot have origins outside space and time, and therefore the biblical God cannot have origins outside space and time. Conclusion (3.) If God cannot have origins inside space and time, or outside space and time, than God cannot have an origin, and therefore cannot exist.
The God of Christianity exists.

There have been no arguments to date that sufficiently imply that a belief in God is rational and there are many reasons to doubt that the God of Christianity exists. It is the case that the claim of 1 religion, more than 1 religion, or no religion is true. It can't be the case that the claim of more than 1 religion is true because they are contradictory. The odds that 1 religion's claim is true are about 4,200 to 1, not including religions that don't exist anymore. If there is one true religion it means that the billions of people who aren't part of that 1 religion, including members of the other 4,199, have clearly missed something huge and that's unlikely. This leaves no religions' claim being true as the most likely case by a very wide margin. Many religions existed before Christianity. If it is the case that Christianity is true and no other religion that came before it is, then it should be expected for Christianity to differ greatly from all of the others and its claim shouldn't overlap with the claims of other religions but this is not the case. Christianity is very similar to other religions that came before it and its claim overlaps a great deal with other religions' claims. Christianity claims that God is All Knowing, All Powerful, and All Good. If God does exist, he watched, arms folded, for at the least 100,000 years of human suffering, struggling, fighting, dying, and almost going extinct with indifference. This is a direct contradiction with the aforementioned All Knowing, All Powerful, and All Good claim by Christianity's own definition.
yogi sarkar is best then akhilesh yadavs sarkar

No absolutely not . Because:- 1) You cannot compare them right now , yogi just started his term. 2) You cannot take a prime accused in babri masjid demolition an place him as a chief minister. 3) He publicly crictised muslims as a reason for the Kairana Exodus , where there wasn't one . 4) How can you take such a communal MLA and make him as CM .
Communism is better that extreme lassez-faire capitalism

Capitalism creates many of our social problems. Competition creates lots of damage. For firms, This can mean engaging in criminal activities like money laundering and collusion. The term "dog eat dog" capitalism refers to the fact that when there is too much competition, One person will try to "eat" their competition, I. E. To ruin them. Take, For example, The airline industry. It is very competitive, With no airline company having more that 20% of the market share, And with the 4 biggest airline companies" shares at 3% of each other. This creates many dodgy things, Such as the collusion claim last June against American, SouthWest, United Continental and Delta. For individuals this can mean social setbacks. It damages relationships as competition creates feelings of superiority as you must defeat your opponents. Also, The ones that have failed see themselves as worthless. Furthermore, Competition pushes one to work more and more, Leading to overwork. We can see this in Japan where young men are so burnt out, Their wander away from society in a condition known as Hikikomori. This is also detrimental because it forces one to get away from celebrating successes and achievements in favour of beating our competitors. Ever wondered why Bill Belichick never smiles? Football has been hailed as the most competitive of the major team sports in the US(see Scorecasting by Tobias Moskowitz and Jon Wertheim) and its competitiveness is taking a toll on Belichick. To quote the activist of Sure We Can! Pierre Simmons speaking at the UN, "When a man"s whole life has been nothing but an endless stream of disappointments and setbacks, He loses hope and may in some cases begin to doubt his own worth as a man. " This is the kind of atmosphere that capitalism creates. Capitalism creates inequality. Capitalism unevenly redistributes wealth. In fact, In the US, The wealthiest 20% own 85% of the wealth. And the poorest 20% do not own anything and are in debt. No government interference means that the upper class can get rich at the costs of the poor. This in turn creates differences between the classes and creates relative poverty. Relative poverty is more destructive than any poverty. The poor may see their existence as worthless. And as Pierre Simmons said, The poor may feel low self-esteem which can lead to apathy. Pierre Simmons was poor when he was a child. As an adult, He made an income by picking refundable bottles. He had a very good quote to say about his profession. "When people see you, They point out "Oh, Look at that man, He"s picking up our trash". But you can"t let that stop you. You gotta pay your rent. " Many poor people are affected by the stigma of being poor and their lives are destroyed. "Inequality actually undermines a person"s willingness to protect the environment. " -- economist Lucas Chancel As I have mentioned before, Capitalism creates environmental problems. I am running out of space so I will address this later.
Communism is better that extreme lassez-faire capitalism

So a couple of things. You say I'm only focusing on the short term effects. There's a limit to how far we can predict anything into the future, So going too far would be a slippery slope fallacy. We have no good way to determine which of the two systems would be better in the long run. We can only look at the models the have been presented to us and then make strong probabilistic arguments going slightly in to the future. That's it. Unless you can provide me with evidence of your claim of long term benefits/drawbacks, It's just a claim. Can you prove that the current system takes unnecessary resources? The basics of supply and demand suggest otherwise so I'm going to need some logical argument of why this is true without just claiming it. Can you prove that communism stops social classes from happening? Practically speaking, I don't see how any system could stop people from hoarding money and lording over people. You can't make having money illegal. You make a claim that capitalism causes more pollution, But you didn't show any correlation, So it's just a claim. How do we know that democracy or puritanism isn't the cause of the pollution? Communism and Capitalism aren't the only differing factors in pollution, So these two things alone are not enough to prove the correlation. Capitalism allows for the maximum financial freedom of the citizens and is much easier to regulate than Communism. It has been shown that the best way to address personal freedom is to grant everybody every freedom and then slowly take away the bad ones and financial freedom is no exception to this rule. So capitalism makes more sense because we grant financial freedom and then take away certain aspects of it for the net well being of the citizens as a whole. Communism does the opposite. They start with no financial freedom and require citizens to walk a financial tightrope. Capitalism allows people to pursue any career and even take breaks from working to hold out for better jobs. Communist societies would have restricted job opportunities and would force people into jobs that they might not even be good at or just outright hate. Now of course, We could always make similar changes to Communism to make up for what it lacks, But in the end, I think Modified Communism and Modified Capitalism and up being the same thing. Your floor
Communism is better that extreme lassez-faire capitalism

I am seeing that you like many other people are focusing on the short term detrimental effects of communism. It is the same behaviour that makes later year draft picks in the NFL not as valuable as earlier year draft picks. This kind of behaviour can be very detrimental. I am trying to argue for the long run. Laissez-faire policies can be very destructive in the long run. It creates inequality and social and environmental problems, Which you have not rebutted. You were talking about surplus in supply. This may happen and may be inefficient but the current capitalist system takes unnecessary ressources. Much of our ressources is used to fend off competitors. Our current system has the upper class living lavish lifestyle while the lower classes live in trash and have to eat the upper class's trash.
Communism is better that extreme lassez-faire capitalism

Okay, So for starters, I'm okay with your definition of communism. It's not the EXACT one that I would use, But functionally, It appears to fit the bill. I'm not sure if the invisible hand principle is a realistic portrayal of capitalism. I'm willing to argue for a loosely regulated capitalism, Since that would fit the current state of affairs that we live in, But I don't see how arguing for completely government free capitalism is productive, Since such a system is neither popular nor practical. I'm not completely polar on the topic, I think some aspects of communism are useful, But I think the model as a whole is simply too delicate to thrive on a global scale. At best, A small society would be able to take advantage of communism. But the topic is not merely about small communities, So we'll have to look at both systems on a micro and macro scale respectively. On a small scale, Communism is very efficient, Everybody gets to eat, Everybody has to work. Those who go against the grain can always move or will get pressured by the community to participate. The community will have a major voice in things like infrastructure, Tourism, And local economy. Hopefully, This builds a proper steel man of your position. Now to take it to the large scale. So the problem arises at this point, About the motivation of the people to participate in communism. Now the majority has a global lynch pin on policy. Personal freedoms evaporate due to communal pressure to only work for food production. Art declines, People stop working, The community feels cheated and start enforcing punishments on those who don't work and the accused has no other place to go to escape this system. There is also the problem of policy implementation. Communism necessarily implies state control. This means policies are implemented by the majority with no checks or balances and money has to go to a treasury to be mitigated to the population. This means at any moment, The treasury could face problems and, With all of our eggs in one basket, The country would face a large scale crisis over night. The control over the economy also causes issues. In a communism, Income has to be precisely budgeted at all times and halts financial freedom for citizens. This means that productivity has to be matched to these budgets and the natural flow of supply and demand would experience irregularities. This could cause production to be an issue, Since any type of surplus in product could be impossible to ever sell off. This means we would always be one fiscal quarter away from a great depression. I'm almost out of characters, So I'll cover capitalism to some large extent in my next statement Your floor