BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pop Tarts > Toaster Strudel

While this debate may be somewhat lesser of overall importance, and may be considered to some as "polluting the site". I would like to open up by saying to all that this debate is in all seriousness, and I do not make it a hobby of mine to waste my time making pointless, stupid debates (i.e., mynameisjonas). My debate concerns the arugment that Kellogs Pop Tarts are indeed better than Pillsbury Toaster Strudels. I first gained interest in the two breakfast side dishes a few years ago, both at the same time. I was commercially attracted to both of their ads, with Toaster Strudels' squeezable icing and thick shape, and Pop Tarts' crude but creative animation gimmicks (CRAAAAAZY GOOD!). I pleaded my mom to buy both, for the opportunity of tasting both and determining which would be better. She grudgingly agreed, hoping I would only like one, so she wouldnt have to buy both kinds every week. Luckily for her, I did end up only liking one brand-can you guess which one? It was a sunday morning when I popped one of each of the pastries into the toaster, one blueberry pop tart and one blueberry toaster strudel. After 3 minutes or so they popped out, and I first sunk my teeth into the toaster strudel. I felt a few sensations at first, like a flaky, soft bread-crumbish feeling. "So the exterior isn't that great," I said to myself. When I reached the filling, I found barely any, and that the seemingly-stuffed strudel was filled not with fruity filling, but mostly air. My hope didn't dissipate quite when I realized I had forgotten the most important part of the pastry-the delectable, squeezable icing. When I attempted to squeeze on the frosting in the perfect, zig-zag formations like the commercials showed, I found that the sugary topping came out in amorphous globs, with half of it sticking to the sides of the plastic tube. I bit into the second piece to find the same result, except with the added bonus of overly sweetened frosting. Yechhh. "Ok, so that rules out the Toaster Strudels," I thought to myself. "Hopefully the Pop Tarts will be better." I picked up the Pop Tart, which seemed to be exceptionally hotter than the Toaster Strudel. I bit into the Pop Tart and was in a swirling world of taste, so much more that the Toaster Strudel offered. The Pop Tart sported a thin, crunchier crust, with the frosting previously spreaded and hardened on, with more of a crystal-glazed sugary taste. Before I could contemplate and compare the exterior of the Pop Tart to the Toaster Strudel, an explosion of hot, delicious filling burst into my mouth, with more of a genuine, fresh fruity blueberry taste than the Strudel. Trapped in a swirling world of delight, I happily devoured the rest of the Pop Tart, and gladfully had another. Not wanting to be a glutton, I limited myself to 2 Pop Tarts per week, on the weekends only, keeping the food somewhat sacred. As for the Toaster Strudels, I offered the rest of the box to my dad, who took one bite of one and threw the box out. True story.
a pregnant woman should not always be able to have an abortion

Yup, I just LOVE advocating the death of babies. "you said you take huge issue with this statement, but didn't really distinguish it other than to say it is usually a tough situation for women. but, as i just pointed out, we are talking about anything that i would see as tough if a commonly thought exception doesn't apply. so how is it different?" Well, I am telling you that there is rarely a situation in which a woman receives an abortion to which a "commonly thought exception" does not apply. It is my firm claim that there is nothing morally unjust with receiving an abortion, for any case whatsoever. This assertion is contingent upon the facts that aborted fetuses feel minimal pain, and that it should be a woman's right to chose what she does with her own body. As I stated before, it SHOULD NOT matter the stage of a fetus's development when an abortion takes place because a fetus is NOT A LIVING HUMAN BEING until it has been birthed. In making late-term abortions morally and legally unjust, the rights of women are being stripped; they should have singular authority over what they do with their bodies. "why is it not okay to kill a second outside the womb, when a second earlier inside the woman it was anything goes? the people who were to terminate are now to rush to save the baby? especially a week before due date, couldnt you just make inducing labor the mother's only choice? why should be be able to kill when she can just remove? aren't you just basically advocating blatant murder?" Let me ask you, what was your favorite memory as an unborn fetus? You probably don't have one. Why? Because until right before being birthed, you had no experience of life, you had no memories, no emotions. You knew nothing. Therefore, you are not eviscerating one's livelihood in terminating a pregnancy - you are simply extracting an unconscious fetus. So, no, I am not advocating blatant murder. It seems, though, that you are advocating the blatant oppression of women, and the nationalization of uteruses. And lastly, I respond to your signature metaphor, or "hypothetical" as you call it. The mere fact of the matter is that you can't victimize something that is not living. Biologically, one of the requirements of life is a degree of independence. Therefore, you can't say that a woman is a moral haphazard for wanting to terminate her pregnancy. You need to accept the fact that there is a difference between a fetus and a newborn. Through this debate, you have shown little scientific evidence, and have ignored all the reasons a woman would have for receiving an abortion. It is therefore evident that women should hold the inalienable right to receive an abortion at any point.
a pregnant woman should not always be able to have an abortion

that the doctor might use pain killers etc doesn't detract from the fact that he has killed the baby and the other arguments we are having. you didn't address the second point in the things that i pointed out that you didn't respond to: "2. the hypothetical of a person who causes an accident and the victim can't unattach themselves from the wrong doer for months. no sane person would say the victim should be able to be terminated." "In addition, I would like to pose the following question: what makes a woman want to have an abortion?" i acknolwedge that late term abortions esepcially are done by far for health reasons of the mother and such. but, this debate we are focusing on late term, so late as even a week before the due date... and a commonly thought of exception like mother's health doesn't apply. you seem to indicating that's all fine and dandy. "why would we legalize the latest most trivially based abortions, just because the mother might do it anyway? it's like legalizing murder just because people are going to do it anyways, so we might as well make it clean etc?" you said you take huge issue with this statement, but didn't really distinguish it other than to say it is usually a tough situation for women. but, as i just pointed out, we are talking about anything that i would see as tough if a commonly thought exception doesn't apply. so how is it different? and you didn't really specifcally address that she assumed the carrying for so long point. doesn't that matter at all? you seem to just say 'no' without any notable reasons. why is it not okay to kill a second outside the womb, when a second earlier inside the woman it was anything goes? the people who were to terminate are now to rush to save the baby? especially a week before due date, couldnt you just make inducing labor the mother's only choice? why should be be able to kill when she can just remove? aren't you just basically advocating blatant murder?
a pregnant woman should not always be able to have an abortion

Let me start by assuring you that I am, indeed, a clinically sane person. And, in MY initial post, I stipulated very clearly that abortion a week before the due date was okay; I even went insofar as saying an abortion a day before a due date was okay. I will respond to your rebuttals in order: 1) "yet, you state that with late term abortions, they don't feel pain etc?" you have any idea how late term abortions are performed? Do you just assume that abortionists take to the womb with machetes? They don't. In reality, the few late-term abortionists in the United States utilize the "MOLD" technique, MOLD standing for four drugs, Misoprostol, Oxytocin, Laminaria, and Digoxin, that are injected into a fetus throughout the course of several days. The fetus is dead by the time it is extracted, as soon as misoprostol is injected into the fetus to stop the heart. Does the baby feel the needle? Sure. Does the needle introduce a level of pain to such an extent the abortion could be considered inhumane? Absolutely and invariably not. 2) "you didn't address some major points: 1. assumption of the risk of pregnancy, assumption of the risk of carrying the pregnancy so far along that she didn't abort sooner when morally grayer." It does not and SHOULD NOT matter the reasons a woman has for getting an abortion. You clearly operate under the opinion that abortions are morally reprehensible. I disagree. As previously stated, fetuses do not feel an excessive amount of pain when undergoing termination. Then I pose this question: What makes an abortion, namely a late-term abortion, so morally unjust? 3) "why would we legalize the latest most trivially based abortions, just because the mother might do it anyway? it's like legalizing murder just because people are going to do it anyways, so we might as well make it clean etc?" I take HUGE issue with this statement. Clearly, you disregard all the possible scenarios in which an abortion would be the most logical decision for a woman. Do you think women actually have unprotected sex knowing they can just kill their baby nine months down the road? That is almost NEVER the case. As I stated in my previous argument, women who need abortions will stop at no lengths to get one. When late term abortions are attacked as vehemently as they are in the United States (I encourage you to look into the murder of late term abortionist George Tiller) women will do what they need to do to terminate their pregnancy. Therefore, it only makes sense to make sure these abortions are performed in such a professional manner that the fetus does NOT feel pain, and that a woman does not harm herself in trying to perform her own abortion. In addition, I would like to pose the following question: what makes a woman want to have an abortion?
a pregnant woman should not always be able to have an abortion

did you read my initial post? you have to be willing to accept that abortion a week before the due date is okay, even if a commonly thought of exception doesn't apply. yet, you state that with late term abortions, they don't feel pain etc? does a new born feel pain? of course they do. does the inch or two between being in the womb or not make a difference about pain? of course not. your point is just wrong. you didn't address some major points: 1. assumption of the risk of pregnancy, assumption of the risk of carrying the pregnancy so far along that she didn't abort sooner when morally grayer etc 2. the hypothetical of a person who causes an accident and the victim can't unattach themselves from the wrong doer for months. no sane person would say the victim should be able to be terminated. why would we legalize the latest most trivially based abortions, just because the mother might do it anyway? it's like legalizing murder just because people are going to do it anyways, so we might as well make it clean etc?
a pregnant woman should not always be able to have an abortion

I'll try to keep my opening remarks short. A pregnant woman should always have the right to an abortion, regardless of the stage of her pregnancy. My reasoning for this position is threefold: 1) Conservative media has played up the issue of abortion, claiming that life begins at the moment of conception and that ALL cases of abortion are also cases of homicide. This is untrue. Genuine human life begins the moment a baby is born, not a day before then, not a trimester before then, and certainly not nine months before then. Late term abortions, therefore, cause no distress, damage, or pain to the unborn fetus. 2) Second, and more importantly, women have been suppressed by the patriarchies that manifest in most modern nations. For middle-aged white men to limit a women's right to an abortion in any way is nothing short of arbitrary. Women - not their government - should have complete control over their own bodies. People who deny women their right to late-term abortions provoke patriarchal tendencies (by which men have ALL the say in a country's doings) and diminish the rights of women. Simply, if you don't like late-term abortions, don't get one. 3) This leads me to my third reason: the simple fact of the matter is one cannot prevent a women from getting an abortion, for if a women decides for herself that an abortion is the only route to take, nothing can stop her from terminating her pregnancy. If an abortion is what she wants, an abortion is what she will get, whether it be carried through by a doctor or by a coat hanger. If such is the case (rest assured, it is) then wouldn't it make sense to give women the safest option possible, an abortion?
a pregnant woman should not always be able to have an abortion

please note: most sane commentators to this debate say i am giving myself too much discretion, that it's not fair for that reason. i use the word 'not always' which means sometimes the woman should be able to abort. despite this, there are tons who have knee jerk responses and dont even negate that the woman shouldnt always have access to an abortion. not sure how they often win despite that, but. so, for this debate, you must accept that a woman should be able to abort a week before her due date, even if she doesn't have a commonly thought of exception, like rape or mother's health. if you don't accept that don't take the debate. at least later in the pregnancy... sometiems a pregnant woman should not be able to abort. a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, and then, she assumed the risk of carrying the child for many months. to be clear, i'm focusing on later in pregnancy. but there (and earlier but again not the point being debated), an argument could be made that she forfeits her right to not be pregnant by assuming that risk. much like... if you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attached to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated. that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. (if it's debatable, who should decide? the government? why not the mother who is more proximate?) when it was morally grayer. later in the pregnancy though, it's not debatable about person hood. if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems, or perhaps an issue or rape, aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply.
Karl Marx' Marxism is different than Stalin's Communism

I definitely wouldn't agree with your assertion that Marx despised capitalism. I would reiterate my previous point that Marx was only a theoretical socialist. Some might say a bourgeois socialist or some might even say a hypocrite. He was a well educated middle class scholar and married into upper class society. Stalin was the clever one who despised. Born into a poor working class society of bourgeois oppression. Maybe as a young man inspired by Marx's intellect and ideology, but ultimately driven by his loathing of those he was subordinate to. In reality Marx's and Stalin's political points of view, were merely conceptual smokescreens hiding the truth that drove their personal ambitions. And their personal ambitions could not have been more markedly different.
Karl Marx' Marxism is different than Stalin's Communism

Karl Marx was a thinker, not a doer. In theory he was a proponent of socialism. But in reality he was very much accepting of capitalism and very much a part of the 19th century European class system. I'm sure Marx would have been dismayed by the social turmoil created in Russia and the Soviet Union, under both Leninist and Stalinist regimes. It's very easy to prefix Stalin's philosophical and political ideologies with the word Marxism. But I think very unfair and disrespectful to Marx, to do so. As I hope you will agree. In reality there was no correlation between Marxist philosophy and the Orwellian chaos into which Stalinist society declined.
The United States is not the greatest country in the World.

America is the greatest country in the world. First the definition of great "Definition of GREAT 1 a : notably large in size : huge b : of a kind characterized by relative largeness "used in plant and animal names " [1]. "America Tops List of 10 Most Obese Countries" [2]. As anyone can clearly see America is the greatest because its the most obese. "1. United States 78 million people, or 33% of the adult population." [3]. "For the study, the researchers conducted what they say is a first-of-its-kind analysis of trend data from 188 countries. More than 50 percent of the world"s 671 million obese people live in just 10 of those countries: United States China India" [4]. "10 reasons America is morbidly obese " [5]. Con contends that America is the greatest nation based upon the above information. Thanks for the debate. Links 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://health.usnews.com... 3. http://www.businessinsider.com... 4. http://news.discovery.com... 5. http://www.salon.com...
The United States is not the greatest country in the World.

Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this debate. I will be presenting the rules and requirements of the debate rounds. Round 1: Con may introduce and start with his constructive arguments. Round 2: Pro starts with its rebuttals/Con starts with rebuttals. Round 3: Pro writes his finishing rebuttals and Conclusion/Con may do the same. Requirements: Always respect. Must show sources.
Windows is better than Mac

Windows is far superior to mac because: 1.windows can run on any computer and isn't restricted to certain hardware. Because of this the user has more options for the type of computer he wants. 2.windows has more software available for it. Windows has more users and as we all know the developer usually goes with the largest number of users to sell their software too. 3.windows computers cost significantly less than Macs. You can buy a windows computer for under 500 dollars and Mac's often cost a minimum of 700 dollars but more like 900-1000 dollars. for these reasons and many more are why PC is superior to mac.
Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.

Well must prostitutes use condoms will having sex. It reduces the risk of spreading sexual diseases and it allows the female to not become pregnant. If it would be legalized it would be strictly regulated. It would help raise millions of dollars in taxes annually, reduce sexual crimes, and help protect the public from sexually transmitted diseases. In Nevada where prostitution is legal they do testing on all the prostitutes yearly to make sure they dont have any diseases and legalizing it also helped Nevada reduce the amount of street prostitutes. To legalize prostitution states would have to be very strict but it could work out and help street prostitutes to be safer and healthier in their work of business.
Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.

If prostitution was legal it would allow them to do checks on prostitutes and make sure they dont have any sexual diseases that can be passed on. They should have check ups at the doctors to make sure they are healthy and if they are not they shouldnt be aloud in the profession. Prostitutes wouldnt have to be victims if it was legalized because it wouldnt be so underground and secret and they could build hotels for prostitution services and if the prostitutes had any issues they would just call the main desk and they would notify police right away and stop the crime. GOLFWANG OFWGKTA
Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.

While all of your points have some truth to them, they are not totally true. The first point about it being a victim-free crime is partially false. mainly because some people can pass STD's through this illegal act because not many people are being tested. Your second point just proved your first statement as a fallacy because you just said that their are no victims but then said prostitutes are victims. Finally, besides your bad use of grammar, the fact of it being illegal just shows that not many people are just there to participate in sex because as I explained earlier, it is a gateway to other bad things. So legalizing it would just give criminals more leeway.
Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.

I believe that prostitution should not be a crime and should be legalized. My first point would definetly be that prostitution is a victim-free crime. It is the prostitutes choice. My second point is that sex work is legitement work and problems within the job are caused by the fact that prostitutes are very vulnerable and thats what creates victims. My third point is if prostitution wasnt such an underground activity it would allow prostitution to be alot more peaceful and less abuse.
Islam is an Evil Religon

This is why I don"t normaly debate religion with people. Its pointless. You have used verses that have been mistranslated and mis intruprated and are using them as a base for an argument. I show you your wrong and you are just covering your ears". Well in this case your eyes and saying "LALALA I don"t care." You use a verse supporting Muhammad is a rapist and I showed you you"re wrong. I explain outliers do not speak for the majority of a religion and you keep repeating the rape thing. I talk about how sexist and evil are not the same thing and you just keep repeating there"re sexist. I have looked at your sources. Have you attempted to read mine? Show me how children being forced to marry adults a norm in Islamic cultures. There isn"t one. Show me these are the normals in Islamic nations or even Islam in general. This might scare ou but there are Islamic people in America" Your entire argument was based off of your opinion Not common sense.