BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be made illegal.

1. That was rude and uncalled for to challenge my reasons. I am not responsible for missing, my computer is. 2. Is there a problem with conclusion statements? I felt it necessary to use them to provide some sense of, well, conclusion. 3. My sources are all cited in my first argument. I will provide any others I use if I use any more. 4. Is it really reasonable to allow abortions to continue if almost half are unsafe? Sure, it is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" but an insanely high amount of abortions are unsafe- on average, abortions are more dangerous than actually birthing the child. This is substantiated with evidence, as I have mentioned. 5. It is not possible to only prohibit unsafe abortions. There is such a sheer number, included with the fact that many of those are legal. While abortion restrictions are put in place to protect women, it is not always successful. In third world countries they don't have the resources to police for unsafe abortions either. 6. I mentioned that I have cited sources for the Chile study above. In addition, look at this one: http://www.sciencedaily.com... 7. It is not an unsubstantiated statement to claim that women will not get illegal abortions. I have previously mentioned the Chile study. It shows that education, not abortion, decreases birth rates, as well as showing that women do not get illegal abortions nearly as much as abortion advocates claim women would. 8. It was not my intention to throw all abortions into the same group, but as I have stated before it is impossible to police these abortions. Look at this article: http://healthandrights.ccnmtl.columbia.edu... The article states how UNSAFE abortion accounts for 13% of maternal deaths worldwide, and up to 1/3 in some parts of the world. This only accounts for "unsafe" abortions- not for "safe" abortions meeting requirements but still resulting in death. 9. Look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org... Under the "Biology" section of "Definition" are the 7 most common criteria of life. Each and every one of those points are met by a zygote 1 second after conception. 10. By examining the article you cited as "1" I have found a moral crisis- that being of comatose patients. Within the section labeled "Abstract" the article noted that fetuses did have reactions to certain environmental stimuli, but it then said that fetuses are in states of almost constant dormancy and that the reactions are preprogrammed. Thus, this very same logic must apply to comatose patients. In addition, this sort of logic is not easily found on the internet and you have provided only one source about it. In conclusion, abortion is unsafe and kills an innocent human being. It is unacceptable and should be made illegal.
Abortion should be made illegal.

My sincere apologies. I have been experiencing technical difficulties for a while. Please excuse this previous round from voting. 1. I am not arguing that abortion should be outlawed because SOME abortions are unsafe, I am arguing that it should be outlawed because ALMOST HALF are unsafe. From a global standpoint, abortion is much more dangerous than childbirth, accounting for 13% of maternal deaths. As I said before, since such a high number of abortions are unsafe it is unreasonable to allow them to continue. Take Chile as an example. Chile has had abortion outlawed since 1989 and has the lowest amount of unsafe abortions as well as the second highest rate of maternal health in the entire world; even more than the US. This shows that it is a lot safer to naturally have a child and that the argument of "women will just get abortions illegally" is false. Con used a comparison between abortions and roads in his/her arguments, but this analogy again does not work at extreme amounts of danger. Abortions are so dangerous from a global standpoint it is not feasible for them to continue. 2. My point on the SISAC argument still stands. While people may try to make killing a fetus SEEM less repugnant than killing another person, all of my comparisons still work. It is not less repugnant to kill a fetus than any other human being because that necessitates many other moral dilemmas. As you can see, as abortion is unsafe, institutionalized murder, it should immediately be outlawed. That is what all of the factual and not supposed evidence points to.
Abortion should be made illegal.

1. Con used the argument that this reasoning is known as "throwing the baby out with the bath water." However, this argument fails under extremes such as when the likelihood of safety is equal to the likelihood of danger. As a matter of fact, millions of women die or are permanently scarred from abortion, far more than women who just go through with pregnancy. It is a fact that abortion is more dangerous than simply going on with the pregnancy except in extreme cases, so is there really any reason other than convenience (in most cases) to have an abortion? This leads into my second point- that regardless of SISAC a fetus deserves protection. 2. Thank you for actually acknowledging that fetuses are humans- the denial of that happens quite often despite scientific evidence. 3. Going to the SISAC point, there are a few flaws with this. One would be, again, that the vast majority of the time abortions are for convenience- the rest of the time (about 1%) is from rape, incest, or life-threatening cases. So going back to the SISAC point, an analogy would be that it is more convenient to run over a dog or cat in the road than to go around it so you have the right to do so. That, most people would agree, is disgusting. Abortion is the same exact thing (for almost all cases)- it is more convenient to abort this being with less SISAC than you so you have the right to do so. Next, if you want to adopt this point, you MUST agree that the very elderly and the very young can be killed because they have a lower SISAC. In addition, this would be acceptable for anybody with dementia, Down Syndrome, or people in certain stages of cancer. All of these things are justifiable using SISAC- but they are still morally wrong. This would be the same as testing lethal drugs on animals because they have a lower SISAC; but does anyone actually think that the animal deserves this? In addition to this, you have said that the fetus is, indeed, alive. In this way, why is it any more acceptable to kill and eat a cat than to abort an unborn baby? People who are revolted at animal cruelty turn a blind eye to fetus cruelty. So, the SISAC point really doesn't amount to anything. 4. These are not just imagined positions; these are real-life pro-choice arguments. 5. If you could provide sources for your original arguments so I can reference them it would be very helpful. As of now the credibility of many of your arguments is diminished because of lack of sources.
Drop the bombs, the big ones, please.

Thanks for your service to this country sir, and I do love this country, this land, and especially our constitution. No country has bombed more people in the last 40 years then the country we love. What is it that we love here? Our power to bomb? I fear that until the big bombs are dropped on the masses by one tyrant or another we will never get to a resolution. I am pretty sure that the Russians take their nukes more seriously then do our leaders. Of course, this a a free country, with Democratic lee elected representatives, so of course what the majority of the minority believes and votes for must be true. We drop bombs almost daily, and further the pool of our enemies, because who wouldn't swear jihad if a foreign nation dropped a bomb on your neighbors granddads head? Thanks for taking the debate, this is the last day of summer, tomorrow is fall, and winter is ahead. Our leader wishes for the Arab Spring, and created it. When the bombs do come here, please duck, sir. Drop your font pussius pantius..
Drop the bombs, the big ones, please.

As someone who has seen the destruction of hundreds of small bombs dropped strategically over enemy targets, witnessing what failure looks like and what success looks like, I have a unique perspective. While I’m not opposed to bombing, any suggestion of the use of nuclear weapons today, especially if in your comments of communism your referring to the former Soviet Union is just reckless, deadly, and frankly an invitation for a kind of global suicide. It was unclear whether this debate is structure to facilitate a debate over the use or interest the US should have in maintaining its nuclear arsenal. I suppose I’ll wait for further clarification. Thanks for the debate.
Drop the bombs, the big ones, please.

I will keep my comments brief for three reasons: First, my opponent’s lack of defending the other side in any round. Second, the burden of proof is fully my opponent’s, which means I only have to undermine his position and therefore do not have to advance my own. Third, the rebuttals and arguments made by Con appear to me as better from a substantive perspective. However, far from discounting my opponent’s view on the matter let me more fully engage with one statement made in Round 2. One argument left unaddressed is Pro’s contention if a big bomb (inferred nuclear weapon) then global society and US political gridlock will remain. This is true but if we imagine whether the use of a nuclear bomb and likely retaliation of nuclear weapons from another country is preferable to the status quo. Undoubtedly, the answer must be nonuse is the preferable option, especially considering the long-term (read permanent) damaged posed by the byproducts of using the weapon, among them radiation. Voters who consider Pro’s argument valid and encourage expediency, I would encourage them to watch the Vice News’s piece of Nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan throughout the cold war. I provide a promotional video but since the season played on HBO, there is not a way for me legally (or technically) upload a video on here. Not necessary to read the next few sentence they include only an explanation for my font choice. I would like to apologize for Times New Roman—and the text actually is not in bold, it only appears bold because of the size of the font. And my reasons are due are a matter of readability. And I don’t plan on becoming a politician just by the virtue I have a debate.org account. Thanks for the debate. If we debate again, send me a message or write in the comments section the exact font you want used.
Viruses are living creatures

Virus: any of a large group of submicroscopic infective agents that are regarded either as extremely simple microorganisms or as extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, lower animals, or plants; Living: having life : not dead or inanimate http://www.merriam...
Viruses are living creatures

What does infrared vision have to do with anything? Viruses do not move, feel, nor respond. Only when in a host, they may reproduce only. A rock is irrelevant. Almost everything my opponent has stated is irrelevant. Viruses do not have a living cell, they are dormant when not in host. I have not seen one single source proving viruses are alive by my opponent. He has only said they are animate. No evidence. I have stated evidence, for example, they cannot get killed, this they are not alive
Viruses are living creatures

Some insects see in infrared, not like us, are they not life? I have proved that viruses are not dead, for something to be dead it has to be lacking power to move, feel, or respond. Viruses move, feel, and respond (when they are in a host they respond and multiply). Lets compare, a rock is dead. Does a rock have DNA? No, does a rock reproduce? No. Viruses are clearly animate. Therefore, not dead. Bears hibernate, are they dead? NO! My opponent failed to prove viruses are dead.
Viruses are living creatures

I did not say that anything, no matter how big it is, declines it's ability to live. Viruses can't reproduce like us, they cant go virus-on-virus, now can they? Your source is irrelevant, for you have not proved that viruses are not dead. Source: http://library.thinkquest.org... Viruses do not have have an organized cell structure. And if the virus is not in a host cell yet, it is completely dormant. Source: http://serc.carleton.edu...
Viruses are living creatures

Definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com... IT doesn't matter how big it is, it has to be "ALIVE" in definition. Size does'nt matter. Just because a virus needs a host to reproduce does not make it "dead" Viruses go around, when they find a host they start interacting with it and reproducing, NO "dead" object can do this. To win this debate I have to prove that viruses are "alive" according to my definition. Because my opponent has not proven that viruses are inanimate, VOTE
Viruses are living creatures

According to your definition, your source is a lie, there is no page. They can reproduce, with themselves, and only with a host cell. Please explain how they develop and die, for there are no vaccines against viruses. on your last refute, how can a virus find a host just because it's in a different environment? It's not gonna go, "oo its cold, i'm in a host!" When they really aren't. Anyways, viruses cannot metabolize food, or turn food energy into chemical energy. Source next round.
Viruses are living creatures

[1] Just because they need a host cell doesn't mean they cannot reproduce, they do it differently. [2] My source is your source, I'm surprised you asked because you supposedly "read that source" [3] They CAN develop and die- viruses evolve therefore developing- there is no medicine that kills viruses yet, this does not mean they cannot die [4] Viruses react differently towards their different environments, that's how they find hosts! According to My definitions viruses are "alive" Vot
Viruses are living creatures

The only way it can reproduce is by attacking a host cell. - it can't just find a similar virus and mate with it, now can they? IT does not obtain and use energy.- if so, please explain the source IT absolutely cannot develop and die. IT does not grow up, develop and die. - a virus cannot grow inside its protein coat, therefore it does not grow. And it does not respond to the environment, they only react in hosts. Viruses do not have a single living cell in them, thus, simply, its not al
Viruses are living creatures

My opponent's source debates itself. It CAN *Reproduce *Obtain and use energy *Grow Develop and Die *Respond to the enviroment Viruses DO have DNA or RNA, they, like living things, viruses evolve through time and thus can adapt to their environment! Viruses do grow, develop and die because viruses evolve all the time, and viruses CAN die. My opponent's point has been refuted. Viruses (according to def.) are not dead, inanimate, or non-functional, therefore the motion still stands
Viruses are living creatures

Viruses are not in the kingdom of living things. It's not even a single-celled organism. A virus is little more than a strand of DNA or RNA covered by a protein coating. Viruses are a thousand times smaller than bacteria. To determine whether a virus is alive or not, we could compare the virus's characteristics to what many biologists consider the requirements of life. IT cannot: * Reproduce * Obtain and use energy * Grow, develop, and die * Respond to the environment
Princess Celestia is a tyrant/dictator

As what i have said before Princess Celestia is no where close to being a tyrant nor a dictator she helps them when equestria is in need she has helped them come back to life after there land was a being destroyed she is no where close to what you think she is she is the best money to help them yes she dose have a lot of power and magic but she puts it to good use, with your teen ponies who went on there expidition to help save equestria they have the same power as celestia they use there powers for good than for evil Princess Celestia in my opinion is there savior from destruction on there land. To conclude Princess Celestia is hope for there land who brings happiness to the ponies makes them feel loved safe they trust her not to do bad and she is there when they need the help. just look at hitler he was a dictator he did bad things and what dose Princess Celestia do she helps them hitler used his people for war he was the dictator and Princess Celestia would never come close to what he was. Again i thank you again for making this debate I would love to do this again sometime debating that is. Vote for CAHAL101 Fellow bronie is out :-)
Princess Celestia is a tyrant/dictator

At the absolute worst Celestia could be said to be a benevolent dictator which is almost nonexistent but has happened once or twice throughout history but I don't think this accurately describes her either. Yes she does have a lot of power much more than a typical president/prime minister but uses her power in ways most monarchs do not. Most rulers use their power to keep their subjects in line, put down any potential rivals or threats to their power and actively makes moves to expand their own power while Celestia's priority first and foremost is her subjects. I think she sees her job not as some divine right or entitlement but more of as a public service which runs completely contrary to the goals and actions of a dictator. So i still stand that the beautiful Princess Celestia was and never will be a tyrant/dictator Thanks for this wonderful debate Vote for CAHAL101
Princess Celestia is a tyrant/dictator

OMG you are the best person ever to have this debate. but lets get started Princess Celestia is not a tyrant nor a dictator her and princess luna have saved the poneys from distruction there land was destroyed when Discord was in charge he alone brought darkness to the land but Princess Celestia and Princess luna saved all of the ponies and when Celestia banished luna to the moon she had to fend off and keep the magical land of equestria she was no where a dictator she helped them when they were strong on the other hand if it was king sombra he would hae been the dictator. So i say that Princess Celestia would have never been that cruel to her fellow ponies and friends. A dictator brings sadness to the land but she brought happiness and love to all of the ponies. Now back to you btw i thank you again for this wonderful debate
The social contract theory is absolutely ludicrous

My opponent has chosen not to respond to my previous argumentation, rather introducing a new reason that Social Contract theory should be rejected. I will refute this new argument, before offering some bottom line reasons why a Pro ballot is warranted in this round. My opponent contended that Social Contract theory is in contrast to the desires of God. For the purpose of this argument, I will grant my opponent the legitimacy of the Law of God as a weighing mechanism for Social Contract. Let us consider the argument that Con has made. We have an unwarranted claim that Social Contract divides cultures and leads to revolution. This simply is not true, and has not been proved by my opponent. Rather, let us consider the Ten Commandments as the best known and simplest form of the Law of God. The Ten Commandments include commands such as, "Thou shalt not murder," and, "Thou shalt not steal." In his natural state, man can do these things without government intervention. It is only through the Social Contract that the Law of God, which my opponent championed, can be upheld by society. Thus Social Contract upholds my opponents values and has been proved as legitimate by the standards of both sides in this round. Permit me to condense this round to the following points. 1. The Con burden Con has the burden to prove that Social Contract is absolutely ludicrous, as defined in my initial arguments. If this is not achieved, a Pro ballot is warranted. 2. The legitimacy of Social Contract as a defined contract My opponent offered a definition of "contract," and claimed that Social Contract did not fit this definition. I showed in my opening arguments that Social Contract does fit my opponent's definition. This was never responded to by Con. 3. Social Contract fulfills the Law of God My opponent introduced a further standard to weigh this round in his closing argument. This was that of the Law of God. I have shown that this is fulfilled better by Social Contract than by the rejection of Social Contract. 4. Social Contract has legitimacy In my opening arguments I established that Social Contract is absolutely essential to proper society. My opponent has never responded to this. At the end of this round, we can see that Social Contract is far from absolutely ludicrous. Thus my opponent has failed his burden and should not win this round. Thank you for your time.
The social contract theory is absolutely ludicrous

God wants us to live as one happy family together and here you are saying that we should be separated by our cultures so that we will wage more wars with each other and try to revolt against unjust systems. You don't realize that God loves all of us equally, and he doesn't want us to build walls, but rather bridges between each other. So, we should rid ourselves of the burden of this "social contract" culture and move to a more universal stance on how different peoples operate with each other in the world today.