BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That a human life is intrinsically worth more than the life of an animal

Sadly, it would appear my opponent has either lost interest or otherwise been prevented from posting his round three argument. I'll just wrap up by summarising Pro's arguments and my responses. Pro has presented the following arguments for a human life being worth more than an animal life: 1) Humans live longer 2) Humans have the potential to achieve good things 3) Humans possess emotions and language (communication skills) 4) Humans form societies 5) Humans know the difference between good and bad To which my responses were: 1) The are quite a number of animals that live longer, on average, than humans. Does this mean that these animals are worth more than humans? Also, the worth of a life cannot be judged by its length, as I showed by example. 2) And humans have the ability to achieve appallingly evil things. There is no reason to adopt this as an argument for a human life being more valuable than any other mammal. 3) Non-human animals have also been demonstrated to experience all of the emotions typical of humans. Also, all species can communicate with each other, some far better than humans can, and in ways we don't fully understand. On any account, why should this be the determining factor with regards to how much a life is worth? 4) So do ants, bees and termites. So do all animals, but most other societies function more harmoniously than humans. 5) Some do, and a great many choose bad. Some assume that non-human species have no concept of right and wrong. I don't consider this proven, but even if it were, does that make their life worth less? Pro hasn't provided a single valid reason why a human life is worth more than that of a non-human animal, so I request that voters cast their vote with Con. Thanks to Pro for participating, and for his good conduct during the debate.
sixteen and pregnant should not be allowed on tv.

16 and Pregnant should be a television show. Because there is only one round of this "debate", I will break up my argument into two main parts. Part one will address the initial concerns that Pro has with the show and the positives the show can have on viewers. Part two will discuss how restrictions on what should and shouldn't exist infringe upon free speech rights. Ultimately the viewer is responsible for how the television show affects them. Part One Pro begins the argument stating that 16 and Pregnant tells teenagers that it is "OK" to be pregnant at sixteen. Pro's evidence for this is that the show depicts parents helping out their children with their pregnancies, and in turn, this will falsely lead to teenagers thinking their parents will help them which may or may not be true. Additionally it is argued that it will tempt more teens to try and get pregnant as they see it as a way of being loved and famous. While both these arguments may appear valid, research on how the show 16 and Pregnant affects teenagers disagrees. A study conducted at the American University1, found that 79% of the girls in the study agreed with the statement, "when a TV show character or character I like deals with teen pregnancy, it makes me think more about my own risk and how to avoid it". Furthermore, 93% of the teenagers agreed that after watching the show, they realized being a parent was harder than they imagined. This study suggests that 16 and Pregnant can have a positive affect on teenager's perception of pregnancy and it will discourage them from hasty decisions about sex. Moreover, many teenagers that watch the show are aware that it can not possibly capture all the hardships of motherhood. Part Two If this show should not be on television, who is qualified to make that decision? Restrictions are very difficult to put on expression as it infringes upon freedom of speech. If we must ban and eliminate any show that could possibly have a negative affect on anyone (keeping in mind there has been no concrete evidence to support that 16 and pregnant has negative effects, in fact the opposite has been shown), then it is difficult to draw a line. One could argue that violent television shows encourage individuals to be violent so should we cancel those as well? How about shows that display women as objects? The problem here, is that we will end up censoring more than need be, as there's no way to draw a line. Ultimately it is up to the viewer to be mature enough to handle the content and not misinterpret or create their own message. If the viewer of the 16 and pregnant thinks that getting pregnant will lead them to be famous, the problem is with them, not the television show. Sources 1. http://www.american.edu...
sixteen and pregnant should not be allowed on tv.

sixteen and pregnant shouldn't be a TV show because it shows teens that getting pregnant at a young age (such as 16) IS OK. they show that if you have a kid your parents will be there for you to help you take care of your kid and so on. but the truth on that is, a lot of parents wont help there child out on things like this because there child was stupid enough to go and do something like that at the age o f 16. it also could make some people think " hey, if I get pregnant at 16 I will be put on television and become famous, people will love me." when in reality what most people think when watching this show is " hey, look at all those whores and sluts who had sex when there only 16."
I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind

What is not legal right now? The right to bear arms is legal, And concealed-carry permits are legal in some places. " Like you said they will take it off the black market and no one will question then on it. " The black market will stay there even if guns are banned. Look at drugs like cocaine. It is banned but has it ever gone off the black market? No. You didn't answer any of my questions from before. I would appreciate if you did. If guns are banned, How will I be able to protect myself in public? Also, How will I be able to protect against a tyrannical government? Guns save far more lives than take them. There are 2. 5 Million defensive gun uses per year. This majorly outweighs the 10, 000 gun murders per year. Gun bans have proven not to be effective. In England, They banned guns, But murder rates spiked up and then went down to be the same before the gun ban. Gun bans in cities have not worked as well. Take for example, Chicago and Washington D. C. There murder rates did not go down after gun bans. Please rebuttal to these points, As you have not done so earlier.
I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind

Even if guns are banned, Thousands will still go to the black market. There is a black market now, And has violent crime increased? No. It has gone down 50%, Like I previously stated. If guns are banned, How will I be able to protect myself in public. Criminals still get guns illegally, And I will be stuck defenseless, Even if it is with another weapon such as a knife. Also, How will I be able to protect against a tyrannical government, Which is the main purpose?
I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind

Conceal-Carry is already legal in some places. Mentally ill people probably would not be able to pass a background check. There has been no increase of violent crime. Since 1990, As concealed-carry goes up by tens of thousands per year, Violent crime has gone down 50%. This includes murders and rapes. 90% of cases criminals get their guns illegally, Probably through a friend or the black market.
I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind

Right. You are telling me that I should be carrying a firearm with me at all times so when someone bumps into me I pull my gun and blow him away just because it's legal to carry a gun to "Protect yourself? " And that's what I was doing? That is the mentality of some people. Gun laws are strict right now and look how many gun incedants there are. If guns get so public that anyone can purchase them to " protect " it will become anarchy.
I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind

A logical corollary would be that guns don't defend innocent life, People defend innocent life. Do you think that's a fair statement? Expanding on that, A gun isn't a self defense strategy, It's a tool. Just because that tool is off the table, It does not automatically follow that a strong self defense strategy is impossible. Just really challenging. Additionally, Even if a firearm is on the table, It should not be allowed to become a crutch that limits a strong flexible strategy. Other answers have covered good close order weapons that are not guns, And all I will add to that is that having more options is better than just one. Cops carry an asp, A taser, And pepper spray in addition to a sidearm. Seems prudent to me.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not sound

I must concede this debate.I still believe that the Kalam Cosmological Argument IS sound.And, I would like to debate this same opponent on this topic later.The reason that I am conceding is that this debate, as it turns out, will require much more research than I have time to undertake before this debate expires.I plan on purchasing William Lane Craig's book on this topic.So, for this debate, vote Pro.But, I would like to debate this again in the future, when I am more prepared.My opponent has clearly done his research on this topic, and it would not be fair if I did not do the same.
Resolved: Raising taxes on the rich would not significantly grow the economy

"Doing well is the result of doing good. That's what capitalism is all about. " -Ralph Waldo Emerson http://www.brainyquote.com... It is because I believe in this quote, that I stand RESOLVED:Raising taxes on the rich would not significantly grow the economy. For clarifications sake, I present the following definitions; Rich: "Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy." (Dictionary.com) Significantly: "Having or likely to have a major effect; important" (Thefreedictionary) Grow: "To increase gradually in size, amount, etc.; become greater or larger; expand" (Dictionary.com) Economy: "the prosperity or earnings of a place" (Dictionary.com) Let's examine a couple of facts; Fact 1: The Rich pay a Massive amount Let's look at some evidence from Harry Jacobson in his article, "The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What"(http://www.forbes.com...) "The current discussion led by President Obama that top earners are not paying "their fair share" of taxes is not supported by the facts. Let"s look at the numbers. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service in 2009, the top 1% of earners, including individuals with incomes of $343,927 or greater, represented 16.9% of all income and paid 36.7% of all federal taxes. Their average tax rate was 24.01%. The top 0.1% who had incomes of $1,432,890 or greater represented 7.8% of all income and paid 17.11% of all taxes." Insinuating that the rich don't pay their 'fair share' is simply ridiculous. Fact 2: The Rich employ Rep. Pete Sessions stated, "The president wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. But what that does is it net loses 700,000 more American jobs that are really from people who need those jobs." What happens when a business owner has an increase in income? He invests it, possibly hiring new workers. But when he loses money, he is forced to cut back, firing workers. Because doing good is an essential to doing well, I hope the voters will agree that Raising taxes on the rich would not significantly grow the economy. Thank you, and I urge some one to argue the negative.
Continue the sentence.

Simply continue the sentence. I will say a part of a sentence, you continue you it, then I continue what you said, etc. For example: I say, "One day," You say, "the apple" I say, "jumped over a" You say, "very dumb, looking pencil." I am looking for something funny and entertaining that two people of different minds would be able to put into a sentence. When I was walking down the street,
As a non religion/religion, deism is the most truthful.

Well, dissecting my opponent's response, it seems we agree on far more points than I first predicted. My opponent seems to reject the rather harsh stance of deism, in favor of one which embraces a closer, more involved God.Since this debate is not about the temporal or spiritual power of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, I will leave his polemic of Catholicism aside. Whether or not God's revelation takes the earthly form of the Catholic Church, the fact of the matter is that a supremely good God is more likely to assist men in reaching their intellectual perfection by revealing Himself to them than not. Indeed my opponent admits, contrary to the stance of his deistic predecessors, "I also believe that God most likely has only revealed Himself to Moses," which would seem to affirm the veracity of the Torah and the Old Law contained therein. This makes him, at the very least, an intellectual (if not cultural) Saducee.I confess that of my own limited nature, I do not have the infinite wisdom of God. This is evident from the fact that I am a mutable, temporal, bodily creature. This very finitude is in fact the reason why I believe God has chosen to reveal a portion of the riches of his intellect to mankind, because, as we have seen, it would take generations upon generations of us to catch a glimpse of Him otherwise. I admit therefore that I do not know God's wishes naturally, but only as spoken through the prophets who He has mercifully guided, and through His own Incarnate Word.All of this aside, my opponent wisely maintains that God revealed Himself to Moses, and this would seem to concede deism in favor of a very Jewish -- but very theistic -- world-view.
As a non religion/religion, deism is the most truthful.

I apologize, because I did fail to read the conclusion of your essay, as at the end of a day of hard physical and mental labor, I am prone to running off at the mouth/keyboard, often time to the detriment of my ELO score. The fact is that I was raised Catholic also, and confirmed. I recognized very early on that the church was mostly about retaining power and wealth as every month or two there would be a sermon dedicated to church finance and how they needed more of your cash. Every religion that "god" has revealed themselves to, exists only to disagree with the other religions and to convert or kill or persecute the followers of those they declare as blasphemers. I could dedicate myself to any one religion, by believing god has revealed himself to me, but that would just be a plain old lie. I believe every religion has it's rights and wrongs. I also believe that God most likely has only revealed himself to Moses, and shortly after that human nature took control. The 10 commandments, in my mind are the only laws we should all so our best to follow, although anyone who says they have is most likely a liar, or not cursed with the urges and wishes of most humans. I do not pretend to know god, only to have faith that maybe God has been revealed to someone at one time. You really believe that you know God's wishes?
As a non religion/religion, deism is the most truthful.

I'm not sure if my opponent fully read my argument. The conclusion I drew at the end is that God would most likely provide revelation to mankind of His existence. However, deism necessarily rejects this kind of revelation as part of its definition -- otherwise, deism would not be divided against the great theistic religions which include revelation in the form of Scripture or Tradition. If my opponent did in fact read my argument and agree with it, then I invite him to reconsider his affection for deism, and perhaps turn to the knowledge which God has mercifully granted us.
Vaccination is a fraud (part 2)

1. The Ebola outbreak is just a big fraud. It is caused by insecticides which are consumed by bats. The humans eat the bats and they get sick. Ebola is a nervous system disease caused by Halogen poisoning. It stops people from breathing which occurs when you come into contact with fluorine, chlorine or bromine. The documentary below shows those little red/orange fences which separate the diseased people from the non-diseased people. When the so called 'diseased people' come in for an inspection, to determine if they have Ebola. The doctors are not wearing their funny plastic suits and only have a little red/orange fence with holes in it which separates them from the patients. Now, when someone is diagnosed with Ebola, the person is transferred into a big plastic sealed decontamination tent. The doctor puts on 2 layers of specially made decontamination suits with goggles and breathing mask and goes to examine the person who they were talking to minutes ago without any protection. Now, how stupid id that! This shows that Ebola is not contagious and that it is a product of pesticide poisoning. The doctors know this, but they just play along with the stupid game, so they can earn big dollars and become a national hero in their country. http://www.youtube.com... 2. How do germs INVADE? They don't have any legs to invade with? lol 3. Its not impossible that Tasmania is completely polluted. Its a fact. 90% of the rivers have high levels of herbicide, pesticide, fire retardants and fertilizers in them. 4. What does the government have to gain from disease? Answer - Border protection laws, pharmacy kickbacks, control over population with more restrictions on people movements. Fear of disease which makes people easier to control by making them scared. More government jobs in policing health issues. 5. "Iodine prevents the growth of disease causing micro-organisms" I never said this? When you operate on somebody you are cutting the skin and killing some cells. The dead cells can become poisonous. The iodine is what facilitates hormones to fix the problem. Its dead cells which turn into virus, they don't come from exterior sources. (germ theory) Patients are given halogen drugs to knock them out. Halogens cause iodine disruption and immune system breakdown. This is why you get post operation infections. 6. None of your references are working. lol
Vaccination is a fraud (part 2)

There are many ways to prove that germ theory is a fraud. 1.Germ theory is illogical. If germs kill their host, then, after a short lived evolution, all germs would become extinct. I was watching David Attenborough last night and noted that animals are always careful not to over hunt their prey. When ants attack an white ant nest, they only kill half the white ants, and leave the rest. Thus, nature is not stupid. Germs can't think, move, hear, or see. So, how does a germ differentiate between a healthy human and a sick human? Note - According to germ theory, germs attack humans from an exterior source. Thus, to do this, they must first determine if the human is weak or disabled first. This is what happens in nature when a predator sees, hears or smells its prey. It must first determine if the prey is catchable. It will look for a weak, isolated or sick animal in preference to a fit and healthy specimen. Where do cold and flu viruses go to when people don't have colds and flu? Doctors can't find a cure for the common cold. I wonder why this is so? Answer - Cold, flu, small pox, measles, whooping cough and asthma are all really all just the same problem - internal toxemia from - eating too much food, lack of vitamins, alcohol, lack of sleep, eating after midnight, grain food, dairy food, sugar and other food concentrates. 2. Disease doesn't occur in nature. Have you ever seen a sick ant? Answer - Never! Reason - Ants don't get sick unless some human has put out some poison bait. Have you ever seen a sick Tasmanian Devil? Answer - Never! Reason - Tasmanian Devils don't get sick unless some humans have put out some poison baits, pesticides, herbicides or fire retardants into their path. That's right! Animals never get sick if left in a pristine and untouched environment. Its only human intervention that can cause disease and cancer. The same basic rule applies to humans themselves. If humans eat natural foods and live a natural life as nature intended, then, they too, will not get sick either. Humans have strayed far from nature and must pay the price of constant illness, headaches, cancer, arthritis, dementia and neurological disorders.
Social networks should be banned for children under 16 years old

I agree that a lot of people in the world have difficulties with communication skills without the presence of social networks in their life. So if that people have problems, there is nothing to say about children. They have just been surfing the Web from the cradle. Children should direct their energy to education because education takes a special and very important place in the 21th century generation lives. Children should spend their leisure time improving weaknesses and developing strengths instead of liking new photos and giving comments. I suppose that life has a negative impact on child's self-confidence, he\she becomes more dependent on other people's opinions. Moreover, social networking means spending a lot of time in front of computer. Thus, children depending on social networks have health problems. They are just sitting in one position during a long time, therefore there is a chance to get spinal column problems. This period of lifetime is also important because of the formation of young organism and during this time it's necessary to lead not sedentary but active lifestyle. Consequently, if we want to raise socially developed, self-confident, active, healthy generation, we should limit the access of children to social networks.
Social networks should be banned for children under 16 years old

Your argument does make sense to a point, but the thing you have to consider is the fact that in some cases, like if people in "real-life" don't have much in common with you, or you are in a place where people aren't worth talking to, these networks are the ONLY things giving people social lives. For example, if you play an online game, you can chat with people and make friends. Or, as I mentioned earlier, which is contradictory to the face-to-face point, things like Omegle or Skype give the opportunity to develop relationships as well. And I know for sure that the public school system does require some sort of speech/working together activities. Also, the child's lack of social development cannot be completely attributed to social networks. First off, there are many people in the world that have the social skills of a hermit, and have no social network influence in their lives. In my opinion, social skills in a child are determined by how much a parent bothers to pay attention to their child, and help them develop these skills. I will however admit this. In excessive amounts without moderation, social networking can be bad, but this is for any age. One of the main reasons I decided to join this debate is that I've used social networks since 11, and while I didn't use them much, I'm still not a social recluse. And I would like to agree with you, sort of. Social networks should be banned for children, but not for 16 and younger. Most people by at least 13 are developed enough socially that social networking shouldn't have an effect. Plus, most social networking sites, specifically Facebook for this example, don't allow users to join unless they are 13 or older, as I said. Yes, one can simply lie about their age, I did and I know many others have, but there is no way for these organizations to not only legitimately verify all of these accounts, but to do the job of their parents in stopping them. To finish off, again with Facebook, it's not like they aren't trying either. I know people personally that had their accounts deleted after it was discovered they were underage. But what I'm trying to say is, 16 is too old of a limit, and not all people are the same. It is up to the parents of these children to stop them, not some government ban.