BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Liberals are destroying colleges with their cult

(Con:) "Therefore, the evidence cited is not enough to cover all liberals." The words "all liberals" are never used by me anywhere in the debate. The title of the debate is not "All liberals are destroying colleges". And it is obvious & common sense to realize the term does not refer to all liberals on the entire planet Earth. (Con:) "You state that the president resigned, but then you state that he was pushed out. Which is it?" Both. The players threatened a walkout, had a lot of support outside of sports, & a walkout would have cost the university millions for every game missed. The Missouri football stadium, Faurot Field, Holds 71,168 fans. Multiply this by ticket prices and concession losses, & it's a loss of over $1 million per home game. When you don't show for an away game, you owe the same type of estimate in losses to the other school. In this case, Missouri is in the SEC, & most of its stadiums are much larger than mLMissouri's. It would have millions upon millions of dollars to have a walkout. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... SEC Stadium capacities- Texas A&MKyle Field 102,512 TennesseeNeyland Stadium 102,455 LSUTiger Stadium 102,321 AlabamaBryant-Denny Stadium 101,821 GeorgiaSanford Stadium 92,746 FloridaBen Hill Griffin Stadium 88,548 AuburnJordan-Hare Stadium 87,451 S. CarolinaWilliams-Brice Stadium 80,250 ArkansasRazorback Stadium 72,000 https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... ----- In this story, the liberal faculty at Missouri strongly supported the walkout and urged students to walkout in protest. https://www.usatoday.com... According to studies, Liberal professors outnumber Conservative professors about 12 to 1. https://m.washingtontimes.com... ----- (Con:) "You state that there was a hunger strike and boycott." I also pointed out they were strongly encouraged by liberal faculty. ----- (Con:) "Once again, you assume that all liberals are bad because certain groups are doing what they have the freedom to do, protest." I still have never mentioned ALL liberals. The title of the debate is "Liberals are destroying colleges". And I still hold that position. (Con:) "You are not only attack liberals but the constitution too. " I haven't attacked or even mentioned the Constitution. I have not attacked their right to protest nor claimed protests are illegal. I have simply pointed out that Liberals are destroying colleges, regardless of what the law says or their rights are. (Con:) "When you reference the polls, you are arguing the right to beliefs and expressions." No. I am proving through polls the positions that most Liberals take.
Liberals are destroying colleges with their cult

I shall start off by defining what liberal means. Liberal is used to define freedom, sometimes to the extent of utopianism (not in this argument). In this argument, liberal refers to a person or quality that acts towards freedom. Religions involve some form of deity, not just an ideology. Therefore, liberals are not a certain religion. A liberal is simply a person/s fighting for freedom, especially for civil rights like with racial segregation. No person is forced to go to a liberal college, and not all colleges have a liberal area, especially those that want students to specialize in STEM, as liberals have no almost relation to that area. Also, for brainwashing, liberal colleges are not forcing you to be liberal. If you go to one, you are already liberal since you chose to go there. As for destroying colleges, what context are you portraying? If you mean ruining college life, I do not understand how that happens, since college is a free area of study. If you mean changing the idea of a college, there is no evidence of a change in how college works (related to liberals, at least).
SAT cons students out of money

I have tried explaining that to my mother and her reply is always this, "You have a better chance sending in your SAT scores, So you better f****** send them. " Honestly I just feel humiliated by them and my parents are very protective of me so I have to stay in state for college and there is only one college in my state that SAT submission is optional and I don't want to go to that school cause its a really big party school and my parents tell me not to apply to it, They are just too damn protective of me. The other schools I have applied to require your SAT. I just feel like a students intelligence needs to be tested a different way.
SAT cons students out of money

There are a lot of colleges and universities that you need to have SAT scores for, But not every single college needs it. If you're looking to go into a job with stuff not on the SAT, You don't need to spend all that money on it because there are colleges that don't require them. Another thing I would like to point out is that the SAT is timed for a reason. If it wasn't timed, Anyone could get a good score. The thing with the timer is that it's to sort out the slow thinkers from the faster thinkers. The SAT doesn't need more subjects either. The subjects on the SAT are core subjects that everybody with access to education learns. These are to test your basic skills in the core areas, Later to be branched off in college, If accepted, As you choose what classes you want to take.
SAT cons students out of money

A lot of people who aren't good at math, Writing, And English are some of the smartest people I know and they good mediocre test scores. There was a study done a few years ago that kids who had good grades but really low test scores actually did better in college than people who had high SAT scores and mediocre grades. I just think your intelligence should not be defined by a test taken in one afternoon. I'm smart in business, Marketing and education and none of those subjects matter in the SAT. There needs to be more or different subjects on the test.
SAT cons students out of money

The SAT doesn't con students. It's a test to see how well you do in Core subjects, Like English, Math, Etc. The SAT might be hard but in it's essence, It's not designed to con people out of their money, It's for colleges to point out who is good and who isn't. If you take it over and over again the only one wasting money is yourself. Unfortunately there are some people who aren't good at taking tests, Whether it's due to stress or other reasons, But they are still very smart. All I can say to this is that it gives those people a chance to improve on something in their lives. There are test taking strategies that usually work for less confide
SAT cons students out of money

I took the SAT 3 times and my highest score was 930. I must have spent over 200 dollars on getting a seat and wasting a Saturday where I could have been working or had enough money to save for college, Have that money for my car and taking my parents out to dinner. The SAT says that I am a mediocre person and probably will never amount to nothing. But my teachers say I am a smart student. Who is right, A teacher, Or a test that took 200 dollars from my purse and put in a classroom for 6 hours to complete a test that isn't counted as a grade in your classes.
Abortion should be illegal

As a person with firsthand experience, I can guarantee that pregnancy and labor are both difficult and dangerous. This is something humans have know throughout our history which is why contraceptives and methods of terminating pregnancy can traced as far back as recorded history, It is even referenced in the bible and not in a negative light. Making it illegal would endanger the lives of many women who's bodies are not capable of undergoing such a difficult ordeal, Not to mention how difficult it would be for doctors who would have to standby and allow their patients to suffer just because the law deems it so. I am curious as to what evidence you have that proves how abortions lead to hedonistic behavior.
Abortion should be illegal

1. "A young couple living together, Or even not living together but having a sexual relationship over many years. According to the law this qualifies as a Common Law marriage. " False, Common law marriage only requirements very widely between states, But most if not all require the couple to agree to be married and reside together within the state. 2. "A woman who gets pregnant, If the Roe vs. Wade ruling received an Amendment from the SC which limited abortion strictly and only to the first Trimester following conception, This would resolve the abortion issue completely". The Supreme Court has decided that the important cut off point depends on fetal viability which occurs around the 24 week mark, Considerably later that the first trimester. So you are wrong about that as well. 3. "What if it were a gay or lesbian couple that has no fear of getting pregnant? " That's the definition of hedonism". Wrong again, I have already given you the textbook definition of hedonism, Your own interpretation of the word is irrelevant. 4. A bad parent(s) the State can not legislate against. That's like saying its illegal to have genetic disorders. This had nothing to do with legislation it was only pointing out the flaws with your understanding of hedonism, However you still managed to be wrong, Because there are in fact many laws against bad parenting. Poor parenting and genetic disorders are not that same thing. 5. Your opening statement bases your entire argument around your preconceived notion that abortions will lead to hedonism in society. So not only does the textbook definition challenge your thesis, It uproots it entirely. Lastly, When you decided to challenge me to this debate you had the ability to frame the debate any way you wanted and get as specific as you wanted, But you chose not to. Then you made your opening comment and again failed to establish any argument parameters, So i, After thinking i understood what we were going to debate and what points i would have to debate against, Accepted your challenge. You decided to shift the debate topic halfway into the debate, Either as a way to protect yourself from my argument or as a way to correct your earlier mistakes. The reason doesn't matter what does matter is you have tried to change the objective of this debate. Originally it was my responsibility to show why abortions should not be illegal, And i did that. You also stated reasons as to why it shouldn't be illegal, But then you basically said "no that doesn't count, You have to argue why a specific type of abortions should be legal". That is not the proper way to debate, It is disingenuous and wrong. It would be like challenging me to a soccer game and only waiting till after i have scored on you (and you have scored on yourself) to tell me, "no those goals don't count because you didn't score the way i wanted you to". If you read the comments posted to this debate you will see that everyone else understands that you made a mistake and you should own up to it.
Abortion should be illegal

C/P: " So would you consider a man and women who have been in a monogamist relationship for years, Hedonist, Just because they occasionally have sex? " A young couple living together, Or even not living together but having a sexual relationship over many years. According to the law this qualifies as a Common Law marriage. A woman who gets pregnant, If the Roe vs. Wade ruling received an Amendment from the SC which limited abortion strictly and only to the first Trimester following conception, This would resolve the abortion issue completely. C/P: "What if it were a gay or lesbian couple that has no fear of getting pregnant? " That's the definition of hedonism. C/P: "How about a married couple having sex every chance they get, Even to the point where they neglect their born and unborn children's well being, According to you these people would not be considered hedonist. " A bad parent(s) the State can not legislate against. That's like saying its illegal to have genetic disorders. C/P: "Hedonism is the belief that all people should do everything in their power to maximize pleasure as much as possible. " This definition does not serve as a challenge to my thesis. C/P: what i wrote: "Therefore, The subject centers upon "Should 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions be illegal? Most emphatically yes. Why? The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Prior to this Amendment slaves existed as property not human beings. A 2nd or 3rd trimester baby must not fall into slavery: it must not exist as property. " C/P: what your response: "According to the argument YOU proposed you believe "Abortion should be illegal" however in your previous argument you stated that not only should it be legal you even stated that in some cases it is perfectly acceptable. " Your response brings no challenge to my stated opinion which tolerates abortion within the first trimeste following conception. The Title of the debate: "Abortion should be illegal", This title my argument supports in the 2nd and 3rd trimester following conception. This seems to bother you. A zygote has no shape of a human child. During the first 3 months following conception an aborted baby resembles a sandal. Only during early in the 2nd trimester does the baby take on the shape of a human being.
Abortion should be illegal

"As plain and obvious as the sun shining in the sky. ", That statement sums up your argument perfectly. It's a statement that seems sensible but when you really look into it, You will realize that it is way off. Because as we all know the sun is not shining in the sky, It is in fact over 90 million miles away from our sky. I know this seems trivial but please bear with me. According to your fourth paragraph hedonism is when a couple engages is sex outside of marriage, You also state that a girl accidentally getting pregnant is an example of hedonism. So would you consider a man and women who have been in a monogamist relationship for years, Hedonist, Just because they occasionally have sex? What if it were a gay or lesbian couple that has no fear of getting pregnant? How about a married couple having sex every chance they get, Even to the point where they neglect their born and unborn children's well being, According to you these people would not be considered hedonist. Your points about hedonism are horribly flawed, Mainly because you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word hedonism. Hedonism is the belief that all people should do everything in their power to maximize pleasure as much as possible. Now this is the most important part so I would hope EVERYONE PAYS ATTENTION TO THIS NEXT PART. According to the argument YOU proposed you believe "Abortion should be illegal" however in your previous argument you stated that not only should it be legal you even stated that in some cases it is perfectly acceptable. You challenged me to an argument where in you were going to make a case for making abortion illegal PERIOD. You did not state any exception in the original argument nor in your opening statement. It wasn't until i accepted that you tried to change the argument and your position. I think it is only fair that you do the right thing and forfeit this debate. You clearly agree that abortion should be legal, Albeit in some cases, And thereby have undertaken the CON side of this debate which i had accepted. I do not think you did this out of malice but i do hope you do the right thing. I look forward to seeing your reply.
Abortion should be illegal

Preventing conception that's an entirely different discussion than aborting a viable baby living and growing within the Womb. C/P: "Making """it""" illegal etc". What does the word "it" refer to? Contraception or abortion? Your argument lacks clarity. Everyone agrees that the life of the mother takes precedence over the live of the child. Aborting the baby within 30 days of conception - perfectly acceptable. Abortion its something wherein a woman chooses to kill a growing baby in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, Not within the first trimester. Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal. That's the law of the land. No debate. Therefore, The subject centers upon "Should 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions be illegal? Most emphatically yes. Why? The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. Prior to this Amendment slaves existed as property not human beings. A 2nd or 3rd trimester baby must not fall into slavery: it must not exist as property. Hedonism. Clearly this excludes rape and most probably incest. Sex outside of marriage comes under the general category of hedonism. A girl just wants to have fun and gets pregnant by accident. Under these parameters hedonism directly applies. The guy that impregnates a girl by accident, That's not hedonism? A married couple, The woman conceives: assuming that the couple wants to build a family, This does not qualify as hedonism. This too - as plain and obvious as the sun shining in the sky. The Constitution protects the rights of all citizens, Both those currently living and those born into the future. The Constitution, The basic law of the land exists as the protector of human (citizen) rights for all American citizens since 1789. Casual sex between young unmarried couples who have limited sexual experience but whose bodies - at the height of their fertility, Invites unwanted accidental pregnancies. Youth by definition lacks the ability to see the consequences of their actions. A young horny guy or girl just wants to have fun and get laid - this defines hedonism.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

I argue that there is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences. Human actions have either a long term effect or a short term effect on society and the moral character of the individual will be affected. According to Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill each action either promotes pain or pleasure. If there are two pleasures both pleasures have to be experienced in order to determine which of the two has the greater pleasure. An action that a human performs doesn't have to have a moral consequence right away. The consequences can change for example sitting in class can be painful since it is boring but the end result will bring pleasure due to the fact that it will help you succeed in life. Human Actions have an effect on moral consequences by: 1.According to Bentham Happiness is intrinsic valuable. 2.Happiness being intrinsic valuable demands your respect. 3.All actions promote pain or pleasure. 4.The outcome of each action is either right or wrong and will have different causes and effects. 5.The actions will have an effect on society which can be either positive or negative. 6.In the Igbo society any crime that was performed was dealt with immediately in order to prevent corruption in society. 7.There are seven variables in pain and pleasure and they are intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, remoteness, purity, fecundity, and the extent. 8.Thus, depending on the type of action that has or will take place there will be moral consequences.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

Martin Luther King Jr. planned his actions carefully and chose his next step based upon what he believed the people will do and how they will react. Each step he took was a major decision because he was dealing with a major issue. He had something to challenge and prove wrong. That is not always the case. There were decisions he made in his personal life that had nothing to do with what he was trying to change just as i mentioned in the previous examples. It is possible for decisions to have no real effect to do with morality, and for it to not trigger a chain of events. My breakfast choice had nothing to do with morality. I chose cereal because I preferred the cereal, not because it was the right thing to do. There was no "right" choice in that situation. It was simply a choice that had to be made. As mentioned before there are very simple decisions we make that have nothing to do with what is considered to be right and wrong. The events that happen after could have nothing to do with it. In my example, maybe the driver was drunk or swerved to avoid another obstacle. There are so many possibilities and combinations that could occur. If you want to say that chains of events do happen, then it would go all the way back to a person being born. If the person in question had never existed then they wouldn't have done their action that you claim set off a chain of events which led to a moral consequence. This can be taken back even further to the person's parents, and their parents. A chain of events can't be considered because there is no definite starting or ending points.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

You claim that some decisions are too simple to have moral consequences however they lead to a chain of events ,reasons proving this was stated in round 3. Your example of your brother dying was your fault since you started the chain. Martin Luther King Jr. used this idea when he was in Birmingham Jail. He wrote a letter in order to start a chain of events which will lead to a pleasurable result. In order to create tension in people's mind he didn't retaliate against the people who beat him. Another example was Socrates, when he was on trial he knew that his death will start a chain of events in which will increase the pleasure in the society. In your example of classes right or wrong was not directly part of the choice however cause and effect was part of the choice. No one can tell the future and eventually the choice will either be right or wrong from the effects that arouse from the event. Every action is affected pain and pleasure and that will determine the choice made and the outcome. Every action leads to a moral consequence whether the moral consequence is positive or negative.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequences

Yes, and pain and pleasure are not necessarily indicative of a moral effect. Some find vanilla ice cream more enjoyable than chocolate. Some decisions are too simple to be caught up in the moral debate. We make a number of these small decisions everyday without there being a moral consequence to follow. When there isn't a moral factor to consider, we fall back on just what we think will be more pleasurable to us. Decisions will always have the pain and pleasure aspect which is why it is the main consideration in making decisions. We sometimes get caught between what we know will be more pleasurable versus what we know is the right thing to do. As for the class example, I meant class as in a school class such as Sociology or Philosophy, not class as a grouping. When choosing between two school classes there isn't a choice that is right and one that is wrong. A school class is a school class without any moral attachments. When dealing with a chain of events, how can a person pinpoint the decision that caused the following chain? It would be impossible to isolate one decision and claim that it was responsible for the rest happening and the eventual moral consequence. If i had the last of the cereal and forced my brother to go out and buy, and on the way he was hit by a car, did i make an immoral decision by eating the cereal? Was I the cause for his injuries? I would say no. I simply made a decision to eat the cereal because i preferred it over whatever else was available. There was no moral consequence so I just chose what I liked better.