BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Thou Shalt Not Kill (unborn babies included).

But even though the bible might state that "You shalt not murder", what about circumstances where the mother may not be in a position to raise the child, and therefore the child should have a terrible life in care homes, or what if a victim was raped and didn't want a child. There is also the current medical advancements, such as being able to determine whether an unborn child will be born with things like Down Syndrome. The Bible was written so long ago that circumstances have changed, and sometimes abortion is necessary. If a child is going to be born with a disease that may debilitate them, and they may die at an early age anyway, isn't it better to abort the pregnancy, rather than putting the parents through the trauma of losing a child they've come to love? Isn't it better to have an abortion so that the child won't have to spend the few years of their life in pain, never fitting in? The baby, which I agree is a living thing, can't yet make decisions for itself, so therefore it should be up to the parent to decide whether or not they will be able to look after the child. And what about money? In order to look after a child with a medical disease is expensive, and if doctors know that a child is going to be born needing a lot of medical attention, that the parents might not be able to pay for, what should they do? Sometimes there are special circumstances where abortion might be necessary. What do you think about that?
Thou Shalt Not Kill (unborn babies included).

Hello. Thank you for choosing this debate. To answer your question, this is a debate on why abortion is wrong based off of Biblical views. So in a sense yes, you will be stating why you believe in your views that abortion is not biblically right. So to start, I believe that because the Bible says in exodus 20:13, ""You shall not murder." That includes the unborn babies as well. Why? Because that is a living being in a woman's womb. Not some tissue or cells. Lets just say that if someone was to say that an unborn child is nothing but a cell or tissue, then that must mean that you, me and all other people that we know and have encountered were tissues and should've been aborted too if it's okay? What do you think? Check this website out too please. http://www.priestsforlife.org...
Homosexuality

This does not prove anything. I've never cheated on any of my past partners, and I never, ever, EVER will. Only a piece of garbage would do such a thing. There are bad people within every group, Atheists, Christians, Straight, Gay, Transgender, Fat, Skinny, etc. You've proven nothing. Yes, homosexuals may have a higher rate of cheating on their straight spouse, but that doesn't include all.
Homosexuality

My opponent has devoted a large amount of his argument to showing that homosexual is not a choice. I concede that homosexual desires are natural to some people. But what does this prove? People have desires inclined towards doing lots of stupid stuff. What is important here is the question of whether or not homosexual behavior should be tolerated, not whether or not it is natural. But, just because I have the time, I'll respond to what my opponent said about male homosexual traits being beneficial to females. If evolution and natural selection is such an intelligent force, why the heck would it maintain these genes in men when clearly they only benefit women? Now, I am going to plagiarize myself. I was once the (notorious) user known as Bubbatheclown, and I give my consent for me to plagiarize myself. If you need confirmation that I was once Bubbatheclown, ask some of the older highly active members of this Site. Anyway, here's the link to the debate: http://www.debate.org... In this debate, I showed that gay people who MUCH MUCH MUCH more likely to cheat on their same sex spouse and that they generally have an insane number of sexual partners. Oh, and they don't usually live very long. This is NOT a healthy behavior, and we as a society should not endorse it. Thank you.
Homosexuality

Homosexuality: Homosexuality is completely alright, natural, and not wrong, evil, demonic, a mental disorder, a choice, and not something you can change. Homosexuality is not a choice, no one would make the choice to risk being discriminated, tortured, killed, locked up, fined, etc. Anyone who does make a choice and risk these things needs to get immediate help. To further more prove being gay isn't a choice, a gay gene has been discovered already. The fact that we can't reproduce with other males don't disprove anything, there are no official natural laws or anything. Gay marriage: Gay marriage is alright, traditional marriage will not be attacked, and it certainly won't open up a gateway to men marrying children or anything. Why not change it? Why not progress and change? Alright, it's your turn, good luck!
Romeo and Juliet is Shakespeare's worst play

Well, it's all fine and dandy that you can find some way to get around the topic by taking the easy way out, but I in fact, will graciously accept your points. First of all, I thank you for your attempt to show me that there is a worse play than Romeo and Juliet by posting videos of Titus Andronicus(which I am already familiar with) but the fact that, yes, the cooking show setting is horrific, yet entertaining, does not mean that the original play by Shakespeare is as difficult to watch. Maybe next time post videos of Shakespeare's actual work rather than the work of modern day comedians. I don't feel I have to defend Titus Andronicus because the fact is, it does not touch on any themes that I feel are bad or offensive. Sure, they kill everyone, but in essence, don't we do the same? Don't we all kill to get to the top only to find ourselves killed by another hungry social climber? This is a theme that is present in Titus Andronicus and does not offend me but rather leads me to see the similarities between that and real life. Now you may be thinking, "Well, people are physically attracted to people," well yes, this may be true but do we want to promote marrying someone after only several hours of knowing each other? Of course not, it is offensive and something that I find is not something we like to believe we do. We also do not want to promote killing to get to the top, but I feel that Titus Andronicus outlines the problems with this matter rather than having it solve a long standing problem as the suicide of lovers did in Romeo and Juliet. Also, go ahead and think that there are themes that are anti semetic, but I am good an tired of going along with your points when you clearly didn't pay attention to the definitions I brought forth at the beginning. Worst meant leas skillfull or efficient. I believe that the Merchant of Venice has a much more creative plot and again, is something that we do not take seriously because if people are going to be anti semetic it is frowned upon in society. I now eagerly await the points and rebuilding of my opponents case.
Romeo and Juliet is Shakespeare's worst play

You error in the supposition that I need defend Romeo and Juliet, I do not. I simply need prove the resolution true by virtue of pointing out what an utter pile of dog feces that Titus Andronicus exudes by it's very aura. http://www.sparknotes.com... Sure, trite love story, passes itself off as a comedy until it winds up a tragedy and never a story of more woe. However, as many people know the play and understand it's merits, I can simply let it stand on it's own. Two Gentlemen of Verona is pretty much poo too. I've always thought the taming of the shrew was utterly sexist and stupid whereas the Merchant of Venice is blatantly antisemitic. I need only show that there is some play X by Shakespeare which is worse than Romeo and Juliet. I might as well fling the utter dreary and pointless boredom of Titus. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Romeo and Juliet is Shakespeare's worst play

Speaking for the pro side of this argument I will first outline the terms and then move on to my first constructive argument. William Shakespeare = 1564–1616 English dramatist & poet Worst = least skillful or efficient Play = the stage representation of an action or story All definitions from Merriam-Webster online dictionary I'd like to first leave the nature of this debate up to the con side because there are many ways you could go about defending Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, and I feel that all could be made an interesting argument. One constructive point that I would like to bring forth to the table is that of subject matter. Many schools read this play and I'm sure everyone can agree that literature can take deep effects with people especially adolescent school children. The play Romeo and Juliet is a love story. I agree with that statement, but what is the "most romantic" love based on? Physical attraction. Romeo and Juliet meet each other at a party and Romeo immediately forgets the woman whom he loves (who has indeed taken a vow of chastity, something many would find to be an admirable decision) and asks Juliet to marry him. This happens the DAY later. What sort of message is that sending to children? Of course, nobody can argue the talent William Shakespeare possessed and the story is written beautifully, but there are so many other wonderful Shakespeare plays that would be a more suitable choice to expose classes to. This is why I believe that Romeo and Juliet was Shakespeare's worst play.
The government is not very different from organized crime.

My stand on this argument is that the government is not much different from organized crime. You have the people at the top, who we allow to control everything in order to obtain social order. The government tells you what drugs are legal and illegal. People are allowed to smoke cigarettes, and consume alcohol although they do just as much damage to one's body as cocaine, marijuana, heroine, or any other drugs. Citizens pay taxes in return for privileges. This is similar to extortion. Prostitution is illegal but the government allows "escort services" You have the top man, the president, who has to work his way to the top and prove his worthiness of being the head man in charge. Yet, he still answers to a group of people who can choose to get rid of him. This could be compared to a don and "made men" in a mafia family. The government makes deals with other governments to preserve the peace in the world, or otherwise we go to war. Those who usually do the fighting in the battles are not the older men who decide to go to war, but the young guys and gals who want to make a name for themselves. The government calls them soldiers, organized crime calls them foot soldiers. If these soldiers are lucky enough to survive, they hope to move up in the ranks one day. How many presidents and politicians have been soldiers and war heroes? Finally, there are those who keep others in line who decide not to follow the rules of the government. Those who sell drugs not legalized, receive services from those who are not escorts, or who break the government's rules in any way are punished. The government gets officers and other law enforcement to deal with these people, to make sure they never break the rules again. Sometimes the punishment is death. Organized crime is known for doing the same.
There are Only Two Genders

"(At this point, though not important to the debate itself, I would like to point out that I am a woman, not a man, and I would, therefore, appreciate it if my opponent used "she/her" pronouns rather than "he/him")." I apologise profusely, your profile does not state your gender, so I went with the most probable option. "while simultaneously advocating prescriptive grammar over descriptive grammar." With all due respect madame, I am not arguing for prescriptive grammar, I am merely making the point that dictionaries, which formerly provided a prescription of language use, now provide a description of language use. Language use can be wrong. Just because the majority of people use language in a specific way doesn't make that language use right. A majority of nations have been at war at some point, that doesn't make war right. So it's really a case of manipulating the words of your opponent to suit your own gain. "Consider an analogous motion: "There are only two breeds of dog". Imagine we lived in a world where 99.99% of all dogs were either dalmatians or alsatians. If I can point to the existence of a rottweiler, then I have fundamentally defeated the motion, regardless of how obscure and uncommon such a breed is." A better analogy would be that 99.9999% of all dogs were somewhere on a spectrum between being wholly dalmatian or wholly alsatian. Some dogs may have spots, others may not, but they still exist on the spectrum with which there is a clear boundary between alsatian and dalmatian. An even better analogy would be to say that if on a number line, being wholly female was represented as being -10 and being wholly male was represented as being 10, a person who is 1 is a male and a person who is -3.5 is a female. There are clear boundaries. I know what you're going to say, you're going to say, well, what about 0? I can tell you, not one human on this planet will ever be absolutely 0. They may be 0.00021, then they are male. They may be -0.0000001, then they are a woman. I can tell you for a fact, that no person would ever be directly zero. There are two halves of the spectrum.
There are Only Two Genders

In recent years, there has been growing support for what is quite simply the bastardization of the language, biological science and society in general in favour of political movements that are more affiliated with how people feel as opposed to what the science is clear about. Sexual dimorphism is the way in which species are biologically different, in terms of gender, besides how they differ with regard to reproductive organs. The male Mallard is unmistakably different from his female counterpart in that he has a green head. The male Mandarin duck is more colourful than his female counterpart. In other species, however, the differences can be quite subtle. There are both subtle and superficially obvious differences in male and female humans. The primary difference, beyond that of reproductive organs, is height and muscle mass. Male humans are usually taller and have greater muscle mass than female humans. Another superficial difference is that male humans usually have larger chests due to a longer and larger Trachea (windpipe), a larger heart, and Bronchi that branch further and wider than female humans. Perhaps the largest difference between male and female humans is the endocrine system. For instance, on average, female humans make only less than 10 percent of the amount of testosterone that male humans make. Testosterone plays a key part in muscle growth and bone strength, which male humans are known for. Another key difference is blood. Female humans usually have more leukocytes (white blood cells) which assist in the fighting of diseases and the overall health and strength of a female during menstruation. Males and females are different and only males and females exist. No amount of bastardization will ever hide that truth.
Minecraft should be banned in schools!

Some video games are allowed in schools because of the benefits I have mentioned in Round 2 and numerous others. With all due respect, I ask Pro to refrain from using offensive languages as debates are not meant to be personal; as Pro said in the first round, this debate is meant to be fun. I also ask the Pro to provide his side of the arguments as I am highly interested in his opinions. I will not post more arguments unless Pro states his. I find no need to put in any more effort than I already have as Pro obvious has no interest in furthering this debate.
The death penalty should not be outlawed

I would like to begin by stating that i am against widespread use of capitol punishment because it does quite often kill the innocent, and it is more expensive than life in prison, but that being said, i do not think it should be illegal. Here is why: First, i would like to point out that the constitution provides for the death penalty. (or at least suggests such a provision) "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (14th Amendment). This indicates that there are cases in which the life can legally be taken from a person. (see also the 5th amendment). So it is legally implied. Second, murders and rapists can still murder and rape those in prison, unless they are isolated. In the case of serial killers and rapists, this often causes insanity. Therefore, for the sake of the others in prison as well as themselves, they aught to be executed. Third, prison, while bad, it not bad enough to punish certain crimes (in fact, some prisons provide better lives for the people in them than the ones they had before they were in prison. Fourth, some criminals (like traitors) are still just as dangerous in prison as they are out, because they still have top secret information that they could convey to others. Thus, to protect the nation, these people would need to be executed.
The death penalty should not be outlawed

I will argue against the death penalty. The number one reason why the death penalty is outlawed is because you can kill an innocent person who was wrongfully charged. If someone's put in jail, you can release them, but if you kill them, there's no coming back. Since 1973, 150 people have had their death sentence over turned, in some cases minutes before their execution. (Staff Report, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil & Constitutional Rights, 1993, with updates from DPIC) People who kill white people are three times as likely to get the death penalty as someone who kills a black person. So if a white or black person kills a white person their more likely to get death than if they killed a black person (Pierce & Radelet, Santa Clara Law Review, 2005) And lastly, the death penalty doesn't deter murder at all. The southern states which account for 80% of all executions have the highest murder rates also (2014 FBI Uniform Crime Report)
This house believes that the feminist movement should renounce the title of "Feminism".

What Pro fails to realize is that the feminist movement is not over. Like I said last round (the one pro didn't forfeit) there are still places in the world where women have to fight for rights. This is still a women's movement, hence the name feminism. 1. Money: Pro says that when you control for a bunch of different factors, the gap shrinks. Well, if we look at earnings by degree level, men earn more every time. Doctoral.............$1,352........$1,686 Professional........$1,362.......$1,881 Master"s..............$1,127.......$1,488 Bachelor"s............$909..........$1,188 Associate"s..........$677............$886 no college............$543...........$710 [1] Since it takes about the same time to earn these degrees, you would expect each gender to make about the same. 2. Rape: pro says that women aren't raped more on average, but his follow-up argument has nothing to do with this. He's just saying that women rapists tend to rape weaker men. That doesn't mean women rape men more often. He also doesn't provide a source. 3. Middle East: he says that women are allowed to be educated in the middle east. I gave a source, he didn't, so... Since none of the issues I brought up have been shown to be equal between the sexes, it's obvious that this is still a women-centric issue, so the name is apt. Pro is wrong, so vote Con! 1. http://www.catalyst.org...
This house believes that the feminist movement should renounce the title of "Feminism".

So far in this debate we have two completely different sides. We have a con who fails to recognize women have gained their rights over time and doesn't understand that it takes time for these statistics to change. Whereas our side believes that the name feminism has already been corrupted and has many flaws to begin with. Before I move onto my third point: the feminist movement has met its objectives, the title of "feminism"" is now no longer needed to empower women, therefore should be renounced, I would like to provide a few points of rebuttal. 1) Con has claimed that men earn more than woman. That is true. However this is not due to gender discrimination or anything related. In fact, statistics have shown that woman work less hours compare to their male counterparts and that if both female and male work the same amount of hours, this so-called gender pay inequality would be so minor that it is negligible. Also, a 1997 study shows that men's educational and experience levels are currently greater than women's and that men gravitate toward industries and occupations that are higher-paying than women, including union jobs. These factors reduce the remaining wage gap by 62 percent. Therefore your argument on this gender pay gap is invalid. 2) Rape. Woman has a higher chance to be raped. That is not true. While it is physically more difficult for women to rape the average male, the male victims of female rapists tend to be of much younger age, and much smaller build than the attacker. And, male arousal is a nearly purely physical response to stimulation and does not require emotional or mental arousal. 3) Women in middled east are ALLOWED to receive education. Look at Afghanistan and Syria. Now moving onto my third substantive: the title of "feminism" is now no longer needed to empower women, there should be renounced. In many developed countries, women have already gained rights. The only places where women haven't gain equal right as men are in 2 different type of places. 1) Religious inflicted countries and 2) countries that are in flux like Somalia. Therefore, generally this term is no longer needed.
This house believes that the feminist movement should renounce the title of "Feminism".

The reason why it's called "Feminism" is because it deals with social problems specifically aimed at women. Issues like earning less. In 2011, female full-time workers made only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 23 percent. [1] And issues like rape. In 2011 the US Centers for Disease Control found that "nearly 20% of all women" suffered rape or attempted rape sometime in their life. More than a third of the victims were raped before the age of 18.[2]. These are issues that us dudes largely don't have to worry about. Since the focus is on women, the name should obviously reflect that. Women's issues has a long history of fighting oppression and gaining rights, like being classified as "persons" and to vote and to drive and so on and so on [3]. Even right now in the world, you see women fighting their male dominated governments in order to gain rights, like being allowed to go to school and drive in the middle east [4]. You don't see this kind of thing happening to men, which is why it only makes sense to call it feminism. It's about equal rights, but since women are the ones fighting for equal rights, the name is meant to represent their perspective. Basically, to conclude, the name "feminism" is appropriate for this field of study because it is specifically dealing with rights issues with women. men don't have this problem, so just calling it "equal sex rights-ism" or something like that doesn't even things out, it just takes the focus away from what the actual issue is about. 1. http://www.iwpr.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.history.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...