BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Baby-killers (AKA "Abortionists") Deserve the Death Penalty

My opponent wrote: "As I understand it, you are of the opinion that any woman who has an abortion is guilty of a crime that is so brutal in nature that it warrants the death penalty in every case, and should therefore be the default punishment for such actions." I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP. "The first and most obvious issue with this is that it deals in an absolute. Any Abortion=Death Penalty." That is your statement, not my statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP. "by your logic also be put to death if they have an abortion." Again, I never made that statement, so that's yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP. You also gloss over the idea of the intent of the "crime" being factored into a sentencing. You mention the difference "malicious intent" The intent to kill an innocent baby by tearing her body limb from limb using razor-sharp stainless steel implements is most definitely malicious. "Unless you"re arguing that every woman who has an abortion" Again, that is your argument, not mine, so you are committing another straw man logical fallacy: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP. "evidence that proves that EVERY woman who has an abortion" Not my statement, so another one of your straw man logical fallacies: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP. "If the mere occurrence of death constitutes the death penalty because of the loss of life involved" I didn't make that statement either. Almost all you have done so far is compile a long list of straw man logical fallacies and argue against your own straw men: Please attempt to argue against my actual position instead, WHICH IS CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED IN MY OP. You did almost nothing but straw man, from the beginning of your post to the end. Therefore you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Baby-killers (AKA "Abortionists") Deserve the Death Penalty

We should first establish the reasoning behind judiciary proceedings and the purpose behind sentencing issued once a person is found guilty of some crime. I think we can both agree that "sentencing" in most cases can be described more accurately as the punishment. IE: a person is convicted of a crime, and then issued a form of punishment; time in prison, community service, fines, and in some cases the death penalty. (I think it is also important to point out now that any sentencing, save the death penalty for obvious reasons, and life without the possibility of parole is typically issued as a "corrective measure" in that it should be designed to punish the offender in such a way that they are given the chance to understand their error, and give them the chance to turn it around. As I understand it, you are of the opinion that any woman who has an abortion is guilty of a crime that is so brutal in nature that it warrants the death penalty in every case, and should therefore be the default punishment for such actions. The first and most obvious issue with this is that it deals in an absolute. Any Abortion=Death Penalty. The most obvious arguments to this idea are also the most clich"; women who are raped, and women who during the course of the pregnancy are made aware of life threatening situations to themselves if they go through with the pregnancy should by your logic also be put to death if they have an abortion. You also gloss over the idea of the intent of the "crime" being factored into a sentencing. You mention the difference between deliberate murder, or premeditated murder, vs. a death or assault being the result of self-defense, and call abortion a "violent crime" but you do not unpack in what manner an abortion constitutes malicious intent (In the majority of death penalty rulings the prosecution is required to establish that the act of violence was inherently malicious in intent and therefore constitutes the sentencing of death. Which in this case your argument fails to establish such a precedence. Unless you"re arguing that every woman who has an abortion is acting out of malice for the unborn child, then again you are dealing in an absolute and would need to establish evidence that proves that EVERY woman who has an abortion is doing so out of malice. As stated above there are 2 very obvious examples of when this cannot be proven to be the case. If the mere occurrence of death constitutes the death penalty because of the loss of life involved, by your reasoning any judge, juryman, or those who carry out the sentencing should also be put to death. The convicted is in that moment "innocent" in that they are powerless to protect their own life, and they are ultimately killed in a premeditated manor. (There are several other merits to argue this topic on, but I feel like you may want to elaborate further on your initial ideas, and then we can go from there.)
Baby-killers (AKA "Abortionists") Deserve the Death Penalty

"No I don't. " -- Yes you did. "That has never happened." Yes, it has "Intrauterine Infection A pregnant woman might develop an infection in the uterus that infects the fetal membranes (chorioamnionitis). An abortion might be necessary to prevent maternal systemic infection and death. An intrauterine infection can also lead to premature rupture of membranes and labor or premature death of the fetus." "That has never happened." --Yes it has - http://www.cancer.net... "I never made that claim"-- Yes, you did. "ABORTIONISTS deserve death." "Thank you for your agreement and support, and God bless you!"-- Cherry picking and taken out of context. Both more examples of your own fallacies. "BTW, do you think that the terms "abortionist" and "pregnant woman" are synonymous? They are not." -- I never made that claim so you committed your own golden straw man fallacy. "Your straw man of my argument holds no water. You have yet to even attempt to address my actual argument." -- You never presented a coherent argument to address. Instead forcing me to spend the bulk of the debate explaining English 101 and the use of fallacies. I didn't commit such a fallacy. -- You did. "It is not a misrepresentation." -- It is, not only a misrepresentation it's also just wrong. "Your question had to do with malice, which is an emotional state, so you can't fault me simply because my response to your question included some emotional content. That would be an intellectually dishonest double-standard, but then again, believers in atheist Dogma are natural-born liars, so there is no surprise that you did that." -- I am actually Christian so your above statement is an "intellectually dishonest double-standard." "Yes there is".-- No there isn't http://gizmodo.com... "Without God, none of that could be objectively wrong." I think you're getting your debates, but then someone who is 0 and 9 (about to be 0 and 10) I'm not surprised you get your debates mixed up, losing so many... Thanks for making this easy...
Anti-Materiel Rifles Using the 50 BMG Cartriage Should Be Banned

Anti-Materiel Rifles using the 50 BMG cartridge should not be banned for numerous reasons. The first of these reason is that the topic does not specify civilian or military. In the military, anti-material rifles allow infantry to have a chance while fighting armored vehicles, so it is not a mass slaughter of infantry in combat. Also banning it from civilians is a violation of the second amendments of the Constitution, and the right to peruse happiness. The second amendment of the Constitution states that civilians have the right to bear arms. Also many people are happy going out shooting with their rifles, so banning it would be a violation of the second amendment.
The main tactics of democrats and liberals is Stalinist/Marxist in nature

Solarnan, I think you need to waltz yourself down to your locally owned bookshop and purchase a copy of the Communist Manifesto. I will not tolerate you manipulating peoples' feelings for responses. If you do so anymore, I will never debate you again. Lindsay had a right to say what she did and I highly doubt you made that happen. All of those examples you listed have NOTHING to do with Stalinist tactics. Mudslinging has been around just as long as politics itself, but remember, mudslinging is not limited to "liberals." Please do not even try to say all of those examples you listed are phony because you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up your statement.
The main tactics of democrats and liberals is Stalinist/Marxist in nature

To show the stalinism, I will simply point out Lindsays comments - see how she tries and defame and lie about me- that is one example front and center pf this type of tactic- I was actually trying to draw her out- it was easy She doesnt know the first thing about me , and yet tries her hardest to lie about me and try her best to convince everyone that I am this and that and misrepresting myself Im sure she has tried to shut me down but fortunately, debate.org is apprently run by the Stalinist Gestapo so she will just have to try her best with her own hate filled rants. Now back to the Democrats and their tactics recent examples are the CIA tape investigation - total BS- the CIA is supposed to be secret Valerie plame- total BS the fake story on Bush's military record that cost Dan rather his career the constant drumbet of BS i.e. "the republicans want to starve old people, take school lunches away from kids and end medicare and destroy the environment" the BS about the intel going into the war and there are numerous other examples I do like Dennis Kucinich and I think also Barack is an example of some who doesnt resort to this type of tactic Fortunately with the wide array of media available, smart people will be able to review for themnselves and decide for themselves. cheers all you lib teenagers SOLARMAN
The main tactics of democrats and liberals is Stalinist/Marxist in nature

Ok. Ok. Ok. I really don't have too much more to say, seeing as though I don't have an argument to rebuttal. So, I think I am just going to reiterate what I was previously saying. None of these so called "tactics" that liberals supposedly use are really marxist, or Leninist. Most politicians mudsling, fence ride, support only certain, limited interests, and make things seem more simple than they actually are. Conservatives can be caught using the same "tactics" just as much, not just liberals. Anyways, liberal is a commonly misused term. When referring to democrats, use progressive, or labour.
The main tactics of democrats and liberals is Stalinist/Marxist in nature

It is totally unfair to categorize the behavior of all leftist politicians in this extreme and mislabeled category. 1) Not all Democrats do this. Congressman Dennis Kucinich is a great example of that. Neo-Cons could be caught slandering their opponent just as much. Ex. Hillary Clinton.. 2) What is so wrong with beginning your response with a question? As long as you are proving your point and actually answering the question, I see nothing wrong with this. Could you please explain to me how structuring an answer in such a way is Marxist? 3)In most cases they are right! Why is it that the richest 1% of the US control 40% of the wealth. Is that unequal? I think so. 4)I see where you are coming from on this, but limiting this lack of diversity in views to dems is inaccurately. Republicans believe that you are either against the war or for it, or whether you advocate "socialized medicine" (which is a broadly misused term), or not. Please don't try to limit your argument to one side. If you expanded the argument to the two major political parties, I might have an easier time agreeing.
The main tactics of democrats and liberals is Stalinist/Marxist in nature

I will wait for a contender before I launch into my irrefutable proofs, incuding plenty from THIS WEBSITE- and I will furthermore show why this is so insidius to our great nation What do I mean here by Stalinism and Marxism as a tactic ? (1) continually lie and slander your opponents and painting him in the most abject and despicable terms, in order to paint then them not as worthy opponents with the same interest at heart but as an ememies of the state (2) never really debate actual facts- always answer questions with questions (3) always paint your positions as "we're for the working man (poor or middle class- they are for the proletatariat (rich)" (4) Always paint the positions as boldly black and white- you are white they black - even on tremedously complex issues any takers ? (please be over 18 years old and have studied the former USSR in the period 1890-1945 to apply)
God must Exist for Objective Moral values to Exist

[I] if God exists, then objective moral values and duties exist. [II] Objective moral duties, and values exist. [III] Therefore God exists. 1) If evolution is true, then we are nothing more than time+chance+matter+energy. If that is the case then where does the source of morality come from? Without God you cannot adequately explain why objective moral values exist, since you are the result of a biological process. 2) When you look around the world, you will see that Objective moral duties, and values do exist. For example: Murder, rape, torture, child abuse, cheating, lying, and stealing will always be objectively wrong no matter what country, culture, or society you are from. Deep down inside everyone knows that these things are evil; on the other hand for example: Love, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, justice, and things of that nature are always good no matter where you are from. Now before you call foul on me for thinking I am question begging the argument I raised is not question-begging, since the warrant I offer for belief in objective moral values and duties is not God but moral experience. The problem with the atheist is that they cannot objectively explain why we are obligated to do for example good. If God does not exist then what motivates someone to do good? Or if Satan does not exist then what motivates someone to do evil? If God does exist then we have a sound foundation for our morality. 3) There is too much evil and suffering for God to exist? This is a typical argument put forth to try and disprove God as an objective source for morality. Take the problem of evil for example. Now whenever someone raises the question of evil it is either raised by (a) person or about person(s). If you assume there’s such a thing as good, then you’re assuming there’s such a thing as evil. If you assume there’s a such thing as good and evil, then you must assume there’s a moral law to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s a moral law, then you must assume there’s a moral law giver who gives us a moral conscious to know right and wrong. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there is no moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no such thing as good, if there’s no such thing as good then there is no such thing as evil. If there is no such thing as evil then what is your question? The only way you can Philosophers and Scientists can argue morality is either subjective or pragmatic. They can tell you how to apply morals in society, but they can’t tell you why they exist, nor where they came from. 4) Based on premise one and two we have a sound grounding for our Morality, because God exists. If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo- sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. Sources: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization

Because this is the nov/dec LD topic and both my opponent and I do LD debate this is going to be done in LD format. This means that although I am technically the instigator I will not present a case in this round. PRO(AFF) should present their case in round 1. This is How The Debate Will go. Round 1 Neg: I am setting up the debate Aff: Affirmative Case Round 2: Neg: Negative Case And Rebuttal Aff: Affirmative rebuttal Round 3: Neg: Negative Rebuttal and summary Aff: Affirmative Rebuttal and summary. Alright, Good Luck to my opponent, Twsurber, who will be taking Pro(Aff) for this debate.
Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization

Thanks again to Metz for a good challenge. OBSERVATIONS: My opponent insists upon beating a dead horse. Bio political class ism is just a fancy term that amounts to discrimination toward the lower class. Marginalizing is just a fancy term that implies poor people aren't important. Placing additional emphasis on the word justify appears to be a tactic to draw our attention away from the issue at hand. While I am duly impressed that my opponent can use uncommon terms, he may have unnecessarily created some confusion amongst the audience with this banter of psycho babble bubble gum. My opponent claims that I have not addressed his positions when in actuality I have. I. He insists that compulsory immunizations are not justified because the lower class does not have access to them. Let's break this down logically. - Are there medical facilities in existence? YES - Are vaccines available at the existing medical facilities? YES - Are there trained people at these medical facilities to administer the immunizations? YES - Are the lower class people being physically held captive? NO - Are there signs outside the said medical facilities that read, "Lower class people cannot receive immunizations"? NO It stands to reason that this contention is invalid. There are medical facilities and the lower classes may go. II. Lower class people will be in a perpetual state of punishment. - I have established that they do in fact have access. - They may choose to receive their immunizations. (In compliance, no punishment) - They may choose to not receive their immunizations. (Not in compliance, consequence justified) It stands to reason that if the lower class follows the law, they will not be in a perpetual state of punishment. Medical experts state that immunizations are an efficient way of protecting society as a whole, including the lower class. Unfortunately some people will come up with all kinds of lame excuses to not receive their immunizations. This irresponsible action not only infringes upon the natural rights, it potentially & unnecessarily puts lives in danger. Therefore administering immunizations must be compulsory. In the interest of public health and safety, compulsory immunizations are indeed justified. VOTE PRO! Thank you!
One cannot be a real libertarian and a Democrat

What is a libertarian? It is someone who believes in the absolute minimum amount of government interference so that it does not infringe on freedom. My personal belief is that most of the entire laws of this land can be summed up in one sentence: Do whatever you want to do provided that it does not infringe on the life, liberty, property or pursuit of happiness of someone else. It is that simple. I am looking to debate with someone who calls himself or herself a libertarian who still calls himself a Democrat. I don't mean someone who votes Democrat because that may be because you are simply voting for the lesser of two evils and you don't like your choices. I am referring to someone who buys into Democrat ideology. You believe that government should provide "programs" to "help" people. You believe corporations are money hungry, soul-less entities who should be regulated to the teeth. You believe in a minimum wage and you love the Occupy Wall Street movement. You frown on businesses that make big profits but want your paycheck from that business. You think that the rich do not pay enough taxes and that they should be raised. You believe in "free" government-run healthcare. You know what I mean. You vote for candidates that promise more and more and maybe you even believe that the government actually has a revenue problem more than a spending problem. If you buy into all or most of the previous paragraph and yet think of yourself as a libertarian who believes in minimal government, debate me. You can start the debate with how you justify your conflicting belief system.
Windows OS Microsoft

For what purpose? Putting theses OS' back on the market wouldn't really serve Microsoft in anyways because they don't update them. Pre-7 they would be incompatible with a lot of hardware that we use today and pre-Vista would not be compatible with x86 architecture (as well as some other modern hardware components ). The biggest problem is that video game software is moving to direct X12 which is not compatible with any other OS except 10 - the latest GPUs also don't work with these OS'. The other thing is security. By having all these different OS' floating around it become very difficult to make them all secure as opposed to just one and, the longer an operating system stays out (with the same version) the more likely it is to be exploited in some way. The number of people that want the older OS' are very few. This means that they would be creating the various problems above to accommodate for a very small number of consumers - which is not what a global cooperation has as an interest. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.extremetech.com...