BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Sorry that my rebuttal took so long, I have been busy Regarding the questions I "avoided" 1) Do you regard all life with an equal measure? No, I do not believe all existing life is equal to our human life. Bacteria are alive, however they are not equal to human life. 2) Do you eat? If so, you are prepared to extinguish the spark of life out of necessity and Impunity. Yes, however this does not correlate with abortion. The only justifiable reason for abortion is the mother not being able to endure giving birth. This is a life and death situation, so is eating. If you don't eat you die, however how is having a child a life and death situation? I do understand a child is a financial burden, but couples can easily avoid pregnancy. I stated that life is intangible, not tangible. Now let's go to my supposed double standards. OUR, as in humans. If you would have taken a minute to analyze the last paragraph you would have realized I'm talking about human life. Social legislation should be guided by rationale and not driven purely by emotion. Yes, many things mostly economic legislations are and should be guided by rationale. However by stating all legislation should purely be rational is utter nonesense. Murder, rape, cannibalism, and etc are prohibited by law in most of the world, especially western countries. However these fundamental laws are moral and emotional, the emotion that bringing in suffering to another human being is wrong. Many of these things were legal, and even endorsed centuries or in some countries decades ago. As morals change, laws change. Why is all life not equal? Have you ever heard of a keystone species, other organisms depend on these organisms, therefore from a logical/moral standpoint these keystone species's life is more valuable than others. Why? Whole ecosystems can crumble if a keystone species is not present or goes extinct. Explain what life is? Life is an organism that presents all 6 characteristics of life. The spark of life in humans is different. https://www.researchgate.net..., browse that page. It states exactly what I wanted to tell you, but couldn't find a way to spend less than 2 hours writing it. Addendum response: Yes and no, in some instances the taking of life is justifiable and in most others not. It is a way too broad question to be able to answer with a yes or a no, as these 2 governments have been doing this for decades.
Abortion

You avoided two key questions in my previous round. 1) Do you regard all life with equal measure? (Especially as you claim to be a non-religious person). 2) Do you eat? If so, you are prepared to extinguish the spark of life, out of necessity and with impunity. And yet in your final statement you claim "Life is tangible, Therefore shouldn't be touched". Double standards perhaps. In response. 1) If we do not have government and social conformity then we have anarchy. Anarchy means anything goes, especially murder, with no recriminations. As John Lydgate said. "You can't please all of the people all of the time". If you wish to live in a comparatively stable and safe society, then you have to be prepared to accept the rules of that society. I do not believe anything. I merely suggested a time limit, in response to your previous questioning. (Explanation given previously). It is possible to make a clear (realistic not emotive) distinction between an embryo or undeveloped fetus and a newborn child. Social legislation should be guided by rationale and not be driven purely by emotion. 2) I merely listed three commonly cited reasons for unwanted pregnancies. It's easy to take the moral high ground here and give no regard to people who find themselves in desperate situations. 3) Why is all life not equal? You either know the answer to the big question or you are being completely hypocritical. Explain what life is. Not human life, but life. The absurdly amazing spark of potential that occurs in all living organisms. Explain how the spark of life that occurs in humans, is different. I would suggest that your assertion is understandably human centred but nonetheless, selfish. Addendum. I am British, I assume you are American. Together are governments blunder around the world bombing and killing people in the name of freedom and democracy. Do you regard this taking of life as justifiable?
Abortion

1) "Society is also built of other people with individual opinions and should also be their personal freedom of choice." Do you mean the freedom to kill an innocent human life, this freedom cannot be granted. "Where a legaslative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to prepare to accept this decision." So from what I understood you believe we should accept everything our government does. If the government (I"m assuming you are American) decided to make murder legal which is what they are doing, would you prepare to accept that? You can"t accept everything your government does, you cant grant them that power. You believe abortion should be allowed until 10 weeks, but why do more than 90% of abortion occur on the 13th week. Why does the stage of development the fetus is at even matter to you? Your main argument is fetuses haven"t fully developed to become a human being, however newborn babies and even children haven"t fully developed yet. Do you believe killing a baby, or even a kid is fine? 2) A) forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. Are you aware that less than 0.1% of abortions are caused because of a forced pregnancy. This 0.1% does not justify the killing of millions of human beings. B) An individual or a couple may find themselves unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands of modern society. In what way unready? C) The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. The financial state of a family does not determine how good the life of the offspring will be. Many insanely rich people started off poor Oprah Winfrey Howard Schultz Just to name a few. This is no reason to kill a human being 3) All life is not equal, but all life is precious. We have no importance in the greater reality of the universe, but what we are experiencing is our reality, our only reality. Life is intangible, therefore shouldn"t be touched.
Abortion

I am also non-religious. Ultimately I accept the fundamentality of existence and the universe. I, like everyone else, have no truthful answers to the big question. As a consequence I can not attribute real significance to anything, including life. Ok. I'm happy to conform with the conventions of society, it will obviously makes my short life a whole lot easier if I do so. Your questions. 1) Difficult question, for a socially conforming realist. I debate for debating's sake and my debating stance does no necessarily conform with my personal, socially based opinion. That is to say. from a social perspective I would say that I am anti-abortion. But society is also about billions of other people with individual opinions and should also be about their personal freedom of choice. Nonetheless, where a legislative decision allowing abortion has been made, I have to be prepared to accept that decision. So under these circumstances my answer to your question would be: Up to ten weeks. Given that the recognised transition from the embryonic stage of development to the fetal stage of development occurs around the eleventh week of gestation. Even so If we pay regard to "awareness". It is fair to suggest that for a period of development after the eleventh week, major organs, including the brain are not sufficiently developed as to be properly functional. 2) An easier question to answer. Everyone has a personal opinion and everyone should be allowed the freedom of choice within the constraints of social legislation. We are not all affected by morals and principles in the same way and should not have the high morals and principles of others forced upon us. I will now list three reasons for your consideration. A) Forced pregnancy arising from a rape situation. B) An individual or a couple may consider themselves to be unready to cope with parenthood. Given the demands and expectancies of Modern Society. C) The one all consuming Global God is money. The financial demands of children may be considered to be overwhelming and unsustainable. 3) Yes. Life is that absurdly amazing thing. I would suggest that the spark of life is already present in the sperm and the egg. As a realist I regard all life as absurd and amazing and with equal measure. What is your point of view here? At this point in abortion debates religious people will usually ascribe to the Orwellian notion that, All life is equal, but some lives are more equal than others. Do you eat? Are you omnivorous or even vegetarian or vegan? If so you have to be prepared extinguish the spark of life, out of necessity and with impunity. Despite the amazing absurdity of life, it is still only transient and extremely tenuous, it can wiped out in the blink of an eye for all manner of reasons and without consideration. Isn't it simply the human condition? That we have a highly developed sense of memory and therefore continually subjugate ourselves to our own consciences. That is to say, we tend to worry excessively about things that are no more than intangible concepts, things that have little or no importance in the greater reality of the universe.
Abortion

I surely do believe we should take a more realistic approach too. More than 90% of abortions occur during the 13th week of pregnancy, at this time fetuses have already developed finger prints, vocal chords, and the part of the brain which is responsible for complex thoughts is developing. This is a human life that cannot be taken away. Now to answering your questions "At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence?" I as a non religious person believe life cannot be judged on awareness, for example when a person is in coma they aren"t aware of themselves nor environment. Do you believe it would be fine to murder a human being that is in coma just because they aren"t aware of their current state, and existence? "Does a fetus have knowledge of life and death?" Fetuses do have knowledge of life and death. One of, if not the most used abortion method is MVA. In this process a vacuum is used to retire contents from uterine. During this process the fetus"s body is completely destroyed by the vacuum. Doctors who have performed this form of abortion have recalled observing fetuses desperately moving to stay in womb. Fetuses are aware of their life, and will try to stay alive. "Does a fetus fear non-existence?" This is a question impossible to answer. If fetuses didn"t fear non-existence this does still not justify the killing of them. A suicidal person may often not fear non-existence, however would you kill them? Now I"d like to ask you a few questions? At what point in a fetuses life do you believe abortion shouldn"t be allowed anymore? How can a parent(s) justify the decision to have an abortion? Do you consider fetuses to be alive?
Abortion

Hello MUNER287. I will accept your challenge. Abortion. An emotive issue. Including expressions such as "stripping a fetus" in any dialogue is sure to raise eyebrows. I'm more pragmatic though, I always prefer to take a more realistic, godless approach to such issues. Let me ask you a few questions. At what point do you think a fetus becomes aware of existence? That is to say. We do not fear death itself, what we fear is non-existence. So does a fetus have knowledge of life and death? Can a fetus fear non-existence?
Abortion

Abortion is stripping a fetus from its most basic human right, the right to live. Parents do not have the right to choose to inhumanly murder a human being when conception may easily avoided by using things such as condoms. Couples have a right to choose, they have the right to choose wether to engage in unprotected sexual activity which may result in another human life, this human life is as valuable as ours, and can not be taken away.
Cartoon Network is better then Disney Channel and Nickelodeon

That's dead lmao. What 6-12 kid watches cartoons because of the graphics. Remember how south park started it was like construction paper and now its a 2-d cartoon is still one of the biggest shows in the world. But since this is cartoon network how about Family guy, American dad, Scooby Doo, Expecially Adventure Time. Adventure Time is one of the best cartoons for a kid because its shows Bravery, Friendship, Adventure, Even how to deal with break up ( Finn getting rejected by Bubblegum Princess ). Spongebob was super popular until season 8 when the demographic they were shooting towards grew off of it because its the same thing every episode.
Cartoon Network is better then Disney Channel and Nickelodeon

Well as you said that Disney has lost its popularity after the suite life but they have at least got a good content over a fixed theme. They brought some new amazing shows which most of us enjoy watching. And nickelodeon, they always brings up something new. They always experiments over they shows which most of the time comes successfully. And also the biggest thing of all to be noted is that the graphic effects of Disney & Nickelodeon & most of the other Channels is far better than the cartoon network. They now have 3-D visuals in almost their all shows. This is also a big reason why people love watching these channels. They find 3-D animation more attractive than others. Cartoon Network should work over this a lot.
Cartoon Network is better then Disney Channel and Nickelodeon

As you said they are lost, i don't think so because with millions of kids tune into their more recent shows like Steven Universe, Adventure Time (which has sadly ended), Gumball,Uncle Grandpa, We Bare Bears, and Teen Titans Go. There demographic is more of the rebel kid which there are many of. Even there late night program Adult Swim gets millions of teens who watched Cartoon Network and are now into more provocative content like Family Guy, Rick and Morty, Eric Andre Show, and Toonami (which shows Naruto, Dragon Ball Z, and now there more popular one Samurai Jack ). As Variety.com says "While other top-10 entertainment networks like USA, FX and History lost 15% or more of their primetime viewership among adults 18-49, AMC and Discovery both gained audience in the key demo, according to Nielsen"s "live plus-3" estimates through Dec. 16. Cartoon Network meanwhile, saw the biggest gains among top-25 cable networks in the demo while finishing No. 1 among ad-supported cable networks in its core kids 6-11 demo for the first time." Cartoon Network will stay on the rise and will stay the number one kid show. Disney has seen a MAJOR decrease in views manly after Suite life on deck ended but Nickelodeon will never be where it once was 10 years ago or at least before icarly ended. In which i do agree with you saying that it has replays a lot of the time kids still tune into it as they split it up during the day with the morning shows, mid day shows and then they start playing new shows when it is the time school is out.
Cartoon Network is better then Disney Channel and Nickelodeon

Well we all know Cartoon Network is known as a father of all animated channels. They brought up some great cartoon stuffs like the great Tom & Jerry series, Pok"mon, Dragon Ball Z & many more. But as the popularity has grown they started facing big challenges from their rivalries- The Disney Network & the newest Nickelodeon. There was a time when cartoon network were the most dominant animation studios in the world but now they have been given a very tough competition. Cartoon Networks made their worst mistake by stopping Tom & Jerry series. Earlier they stopped telecasting popular shows like Pok"mon, Bey-blade & Dragon Ball Z. Now coming to the rivalries. We have seen this from a long time that whenever a big dominant company makes even a small mistake, then its always the profit for the rivals. In 1985, when Apple's Macintosh was not a big success due to internal wars, it was Microsoft which took advantage of it & now became the world's biggest software company. The same situation is in this place where Disney & Nickelodeon has took advantage of the silly mistake of the cartoon Network. As cartoon network stopped their most popular shows without wasting a time these two channels quickly stood up with their best shows with latest and good contents. The audience also started loving their content. And both the channels always comes up with a new content unlike the cartoon network which displays the same shows again & again from over a long time. The audience wanted a change which these two channel gave them. And now the time has come when cartoon network has to play the shows of Nickelodeon, we all know that show. After this years of struggle to get back on their track Cartoon Network is completely lost. They don't know what they are doing, what they should come up with. They are not able to understand what the audience wants. Hence, this is straight win for Disney networks & the Nickelodeon until cartoon network won't understand their audiences.
January LD Topic: See Info Inside

Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. Seeing as my first tournament on this topic is this weekend and I'll pretty much be screwed unless I get a practice round in to help me formulate my case, I need someone to debate this with me before Saturday. First round is for acceptance. 24 hours is the time to argue, and the max for word count is 8k.
Mankind is slowly working its way toward Utopia

"Utopia is impossible, so it's not even worth shooting for. As long as mankind is flawed, and mankind will ALWAYS be flawed, an earthly Utopia is simply impossible" That's what most preachers, pundits and professors will fill your head with these days. To this, I proudly say: "BULLHOCKEY!!!" Instead, as I look back two or three thousand years into history, and compare where we are today with where we were then... Utopia seems just around the next corner. If you're within the domain of conventional wisdom, however, I'd love to hear from you!
The universe was created in 7 days and this can be explained by the big bang theory

It is said in the book of Iasiah that God stretched the heavens out like a curtain. The same book also gave birth to the idea that the world is round - a notion that took another 2600 years for scientists to agree to. The big bang theory along with evolutionary theory were both stolen from the Bible. The big bang claims that everything came from nothing. So does Gen. Evolution claims life came from the sea, then there were birds, then dinosaurs, then modern animals. This is what Gen. says. Scientists dismiss the Bible because they reckon the earth and universe is older than what the Bible says it is. But the Bible also says that a thousand years on earth is like one day in heaven. The Bible gives many clues that time is not what we know it to be. If gravity can affect time, and if all the matter in the universe was at or near a single point, what do you think would happen to time considering the immensity of gravity in the early universe?
The universe was created in 7 days and this can be explained by the big bang theory

Evolutionists claim that the universe is billions of years old. The Bible claims it was created in 6 days. I have a theory that connects the two ideas together. If all matter began at a singularity, then that singularity must have had a gravity so great that it caused time to race by at a phenomenal speed (as it has now been proven that Einsteins theory that gravity affects time is correct - the more gravity, the faster time passes), thus making millions of years pass by in an inkling. The whole process of creation could have taken a few days as written in ancient text, because time is not constant. Both science and the Bible says this.
Christian rapper (me) vs. atheist rapper

you act like i never gave God a chance the doctrines are flawed at every stance you only think you're right because of your arrogance how can believe so firmly in which has little evidence the belief of the atheist is about seeking further knowledge but you guys think your mind is flawless we know we don't hold all the answers this is something you should acknowledge faith is not completely harmless it makes an attempt to explain the marvelous regardless of how little science we have harnessed the flaws are bottomless how can you be so blind if everyone believed in God we would make no attempt to expand our scientific squad becuase we would've thought that everything was explained that nothing was odd but we atheists know there are still much more to discover our chances aren't based on superstitions and 4 leaf clovers Christians historically have done a lot wrong don't you dare try to put that under the covers if history had no God society would still be able to function morals would be given and we'd still have instructions don't think God is the only moral giver i bet the thought that humans can make morals makes you shiver how does it make you feel that your God was also a killer don't be so naiive, read the bible, and don't be a scripture picker sometimes i say "oh my god" not for the literal expression but only for the suppression of said emotional transgression if history had no God we might be more technologically more advanced the human genome might be enhanced its time for you to give this thought a chance now here comes my personal story of how i wished my soul was embraced in his glory born and raised in extreme fundamental illusory glossolalia, eucharist, sabbath day was all obligatory the problem was raised when we rejected other christian doctrines that we believed we were the only ones saved and that even other christians would soon be forgotten christians not only fight the atheists, but fight themselves its completely rotten how you guys are nailing your own coffins