BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortion

You are incorrect, just because a fetus is part of its mother does not mean i has the same rights. It cannot vote, or own property, or drive. You say that we cannot use the justification "because the mother isn't ready". So should we force her to carry a child for nine months. Forgo her working obligations, social life, emotional and bodily well being, just because it is morally wrong to remove an egg and a sperm. Women should have the right to make decisions about their body, the government should not be allowed to force a woman to carry a baby and live with the consequences of that for the rest of their life. Abortion stimulates the economy (job opportunities, keeps women who can't work off of welfare), prevents unwanted children, lowers orphan rates. The government cannot force a woman to make decisions that may harm herself.
abortion

A fetus may not be considered its own human being, but because it is technically part of its mother, it has the same rights. You say 'what if' in your rebuttal. This decreases the credibility of your argument. 'What if' the aborted baby finds the cure for cancer, 'what if' the aborted baby were to save a bus full of old people. You cannot fuss about what hasn't happen, or may never happen. A baby is alive, it exhibits all seven characteristics of life; - It is composed of cells - It has different levels of organization within its body - It uses energy - It responds to its environment - It grows - Its cells can reproduce - It adapts to its environment To kill a living thing without any justification other than 'the mother isn't ready' is not worthy to be practiced in the United States.
abortion

Fetuses are not considered individual living human beings, they do not have the same rights as a living human. They their own not entity. What if the the mother will die if she has the baby, she is a living human should she have to s so that sacrifice her life just so that this baby can live. You argue that it is morally wrong, and that may be true. But the law cannot interfere with personal moral decisions. It is that persons individual choice to do what is morally right or wrong as long as they do not break the law. A person and their doctor should be allowed to make the decision that they think will be right for their health and their future. By not allowing women to have an abortion we are harming the economy, women's health, and individual rights.
The media Promotes a Selfish Society

THE PRESS PROMOTES A SELFISH SOCIETY FREEDOM OF THE PRESS OR FREEDOM FOR THE PRESS ? This is the catch cry of the FOURTH ESTATE...is it a declaration of the need for independence to promote a freedom from persecution and prosecution to allow the news to be reported in an unbiased form thus enabling it to expose wrongdoing or is it a protection mechanism for the media magnates to strengthen their positions, to enhance their wealth and secure and grow their power and influence ?
The media Promotes a Selfish Society

I don't think that pro will be responding to any of my arguments so I will keep this brief. "According to Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, the life of man in the state of nature is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'(186).' From this description or depiction, it can be understood that natural condition of man is not good at all."[1] This was written in an article by "ağlar Yenihan"er that can be found in the link. I agree with the entirety of this so I will not go any farther into detail unless I need to. [1] http://www.academia.edu...
As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for the

Technology can make life easier for the person but also can destroy them. If we correctly will use technology, we can expand our horizons, learn a lot of useful information and make our life easier. For example in the past if you wanted to read ot to look for interesting and important for you book, you had to go to shop or library, you spent much money and your free time, however today you can use electronic books where you can download thousand books.And such examples are very much. The point is that we all should use the right for ourselves. For example if I give you a million dollars you can spend it and hurt yourself but you can help yourself and to a lot of people if you will use correctly.
As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for the

In this contemporary globalized world people remonstrate that technologies helps them a lot it is true. I also agree, even in astrology during older ages people struggled with calculations but today software came into picture and made astrologers easy for the calculations. But it has its negative part too. We can take the same example if a new astrologer comes and uses these softwares directly then he will never be familiar with the calculations. Here we can say a dabbler is getting abrogated by the technology. So my point is we can surely go with the technologies but during initial stages people should relay on their own capability. We all should know one thing each technology is developed by a human so human brain has even more capacity then a machine.
As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for the

yes, it is true that a president can even rule a country with today's technologies while sitting in his home. Today's technologies have developed so much. But we should know our limits. We can take children of this era as our example, childhood days are called as ebullient days. child should be tranquil and should participate in some corporeal activities like dance, sports and etc. But today's contemporary children play football but loves to play virtually in ps2s, pcs, and etc. They do not go out interact with people and this feeble their skills. Importance of their childhood days are getting oblivious. This is one such example of using technologies in the wrong way. So my point is that technologies helps people to do their job easier but people should know their limits.
Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes.

Conundrum "Also, my opponent has ignored the conundrum I presented" It was a red herring. It had nothing to do with the debate. TANG "Even if logic is a reflection of God's nature, logic would still be created by God" Wha-? If logic is a part of who God is, then God can"t create logic. God would essentially be creating himself. "However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything" I agree that God creates everything other than God himself, but logic is not a "thing." It"s an adjective, a description of reality. Equivocation "Facts do not require the existence of a mind, but only the existence of reality to make those truths." See my argument in CP2. 2. ""it is true that the laws of logic are descriptions of truths. However, what this means is that you cannot equivocate those two things." The laws of logic *are* truths. Truth *is* a description of reality. If I say "circles are round." That is a truth. Circles are not truths, but circles being around are truths. Absolutes "Euclidean geometry... shows how laws, which are thought up by cognizant minds, are relative and not absolute." The laws of logic are not thought up by cognizant minds . The laws of logic are what necessarily describe reality. Reality can"t be any other way than the way the laws of logic say they are. Euclidean geometry is derived from observation. Logic is philosophical concept. It is not derived by observing what is around us. (I"m not saying that observation cannot confirm logic). There is not one possible way that reality can violate the laws of logic. Reality would not be reality if it did. Saying that Euclidean geometry is incomplete *requires logic* for it to be true. The fact that there are other geometries requires that that Euclidean geometry is incomplete. It can"t be true and not true at the same time and in the same sense that there are other geometries. Con is *affirming logic* in order to argue against logic. His examples with geometry and the geocentric solar system actually help my point. Everything we see around us could be an illusion, we could all be brains in a vat, or God could have created us 15 minutes ago and have put all these ideas and memories into our brains. Nevertheless, logic would still necessarily hold. No matter how inconceivable reality (A) might be, it necessarily be (A). If it"s not (A), then we can"t call it (A). If (A) is true, then (A) can"t be false, because if it was false, it wouldn"t be true. If reality violates logic, then logic can"t be. Conclusion: Con has failed to provide a true counterargument. He used faulty arguments and he ignored several points I made in rounds 1 and 2. He also saws off the branch he is sitting on by denying absolute logic and calling logic relative. He is essentially denying absolute truth, and therefore cannot be trusted to have won this debate. Sources http://carm.org... http://carm.org...
Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes.

Argument I - Logical AbsolutesThe universe only exists of five things - time, space, matter, energy, and forces. Everything else, including logic, exists because of the mind, and does not exist apart from us. Logic and fundamental truths are not always the same thing. For example, it was once logical to believe in a geocentric solar system, whereas it was still a fundamental truth that the solar system is heliocentric. The laws of logic are simply descriptions of certain fundamental truths, and are therefore relative: "The statements made by the human in reference to the logical absolutes are not absolute yet the laws themselves are absolute and always constitute the reality of a thing or statement at a given point in time."[1]My opponent contends that Euclidean geometry is not a good example, but it is just that, as it shows how laws, which are thought up by cognizant minds, are relative and not absolute. Euclidean geometry is only valid in flat space, and that is a fundamental truth. And thee truths do not require a foundation from a universal mind. Arguments II and III - EquivocationMy opponent is missing the point of my entire argument - it is true that the laws of logic are descriptions of truths. However, what this means is that you cannot equivocate those two things. Facts do not require the existence of a mind, but only the existence of reality to make those truths. It is only when one wants laws is a mind necessary. Therefore, it only takes a human to rationalize about the facts through laws of logic: "The logical absolutes are not arbitrary prescriptive conceptual statements about what logic can and can't do. They are descriptive statements about the nature of the reality we observe, on which the laws of formal logic are then based." In other words, only a reality is required for there to be facts, and a mind (which can be human) for there to be logic. To conflate the conceptual absolutes with the existent absolutes is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.[2]Counter-Argument - TANGMy opponent's objection here is very weak: "However, according to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God." Even if logic is a reflection of God's nature, logic would still be created by God, and that logic would be defined through the nature of God. In other words, God had to create logic if it exists under this worldview. Because God can change his creation, including logic, logic must be dependent on God (and in all possible worlds). But since that dependency makes logic false, logic can't be dependent on God.[3]Also, my opponent has ignored the conundrum I presented in the last round. I would like him to address that.Sources[1]: http://logical-critical-thinking.com...[2]: http://wiki.ironchariots.org...[3]: http://infidels.org...
Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes.

My opponent appears to be arguing a version of the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG). It will be my burden to negate this resolution and prove that atheism and logic and compatible. Since only logic is considered here, it will be my only line of attack against TAG. To begin, logic is not necessarily absolute: ". .. logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal. " This point pretty much debunks my opponent's entire claim, but I can go deeper into refuting his claim. [1]My opponent, in his second and third arguments, argues that a transcendent God is necessary to account for the laws of logic. The main problem my opponent makes, however, is equivocating a description of logic through the laws of logic with the actual fundamental logical truths. The facts of logic are not dependent on the existence of an ultimate and necessary mind, but rather on the existence of something. However, that doesn't mean we can describe what that reality is from the facts of logic themselves, nor can we describe the foundation of reality. What this means is that the fact that there is logic is not dependent on a transcendent mind. I think I have sufficiently refuted the TAG, but I can even present a counterargument. This is the transcendental argument for the nonexistence of God (TANG). If I can prove TANG, that makes TAG false, because it is logically impossible to have two sound arguments with contradictory conclusions. By the very definition of a transcendent God, everything, including logic, is dependent on God for its creation. But that also means that logic, or anything else, is not necessary, and is contingent upon God. If this is true, then God could change the principles of logic, but since the facts of logic represent fundamental truths, they cannot be changed, and logic is not dependent on God. [2]I will close my argument with a conundrum - my opponent argues that atheists cannot account for logical absolutes, but I could very well argue that my opponent cannot account for God's existence. If my opponent argues that God just is, then I could very well argue that logic just is. What's left here is a lose-lose situation to pro, and with that, I am interested to hear his answer to this. Sources[1]: . http://infidels.org...[2]: . http://infidels.org...
Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes.

The transcendental argument: 1. Logic is absolute. 1.1. If we deny logic is absolute, then truth cannot be known. Ex. We must agree that *some* truth can be known in order to have rational discourse. If we deny that logic is absolute, then how can we be sure that anything is absolute? How can we be sure that the claim "logic is not absolute" is true? 1.2. Truth can be known. Ex. To say that truth does not exist is self defeating because in order for "truth does not exist" to be correct, it has to be true. And if it's true, then the claim "truth does not exist" is false. C1. Therefore it is more rational to affirm that logic absolute. 2. Logic is conceptual by nature (of the mind). 2.1. Logic is either a physical object, a metaphysical object, or a concept (of the mind). 2.2. Logic is not a metaphysical object. Ex. If it were, we would be able to measure, take pictures, see, hear or taste it. It is simply not in the physical world. It is not contingent on space. No matter how far or wherever you travel, logic applies. It is not contingent on time. It doesn't matter whether you go 50 million years or more to the future or back to the past. Logic still applies. 2.3. Logic is not a metaphysical object. Ex. It is a descriptive property of reality. The color red for example, is a property of an apple, but red is not an apple. A property can never be an object. C2. Therefore, logic is conceptual and contingent on a mind. 3. Logic is not dependent on human minds. 3.1. To say that logic is man-made means that logic did not exist before man existed. 3.2. Logic existed before man existed. Ex. Before man existed, did man exist or not exist? If we are to affirm that man did not exist before man existed, then we are affirming that logic applied before man existed. C3. Man did not invent logic. 4. Therefore, there must exist an ultimate and necessary mind that is beyond humanity in order for logic to exist. Conclusion: This mind is what we call God.
Living Wage

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting, and I will be defending the claim that the minimum wage should not be increased to a living wage, and that it actually destroys jobs. The US is very different on how it's economy works. It's economy was supposed to be a capitalistic entrepunor friendly based system. The minimum wage has put expectations on how start up businesses are supposed to pay their workers. People think its fair, but the results aren't. 60% of business owners say raising the wage will hurt their business. Raising wages will mean not hiring. http://www.bloomberg.com... Sorry my argument isn't very long, but the real arguments come in the rebuttal.
Quran Ethics: Homosexuality.

Dear audience, As demonstrated, the proof is clear that homosexuality is based on lust, not love, as I have demonstrated in my opening post. My opponent even acknowledges this fact, as he has forfeited the debate. Before concluding, I wish to address the claims that there are homosexual animals, thus homosexuality is natural. To answer the charge, homosexuality is natural, for lust is natural. So I don't question it's nature. But since it's based on lust, it is wrong. But we can not claim that animals are in fact homosexuals. For in humans, a homosexual, according to homosexuals themselves, is one who only sexually attracts to the same sex, not the opposite. So though there may be animals engaging in sexual behavior with the same sex, this is not proof of homosexuality, for the animal does not reject the opposite sex, nor is their any scientific evidence that any animal does. Secondly, let's look at this claim that homosexual animals exist because of same sex sexual behavior in animals. Do you know what this sexual behavior is? It's two animals of the same sex humping each other. Is this supposed to be proof of homosexual animals? Of course not. A dog will hump your leg when it's aroused. Does that mean the dog is a legosexual? This shows that just because animals of the same sex are humping each other does not prove that there are homosexual animals. Furthermore, there is no such thing as scientific evidence of homosexuality in animals, for the claim itself contradicts science. In science, to know the nature of a species, you study and analyze the nature of animals within that species. For example, when knowing the nature of a lion, no scientist has gone out and studied every single lion on the planet to know its nature. No. The scientists just studies a family of lions and from there conclude the nature of all lions. In short, the nature is the same for all lions, not just some. So to state that there is such a thing as homosexual and heterosexual animals in the same species contradicts science, for animals of the same species has the same nature according to science. Thus there is no scientific evidence of homosexual animals, as explained in the reasons above. In conclusion, I have shown that homosexuality is based on lust, not love, and my argument in my opening statement is in exact accordance to nature, thus further confirming that it is fact. Lust is the idea of using someone sexually to please your own personal crave for affection. And to use someone on an intimate level just to fulfill your own desires is clearly wrong, which is why sex based on lust is wrong. And since homosexuality is based on lust, it is wrong as well.
Quran Ethics: Homosexuality.

It is Important to remember this debate is NOT about the authenticity of the Quran, Nor is it about if the Quran is or is not the word of god. Although my opponent may if they so wish use these statements against me, and I may refute them. Round 1 - Initial Argument (No rebuttals in First round) Round 2 - Rebuttal of each Previous argument. Round 3 - (Extension of Arguments, and Rebuttals to claims in the second round. ) Round 4 - Conclusion (No new Arguments, Only Rebuttals and building of the previous Arguments? ) Con Argument: - Point One. First let me give some verses referring to Homosexuality so that the readers may know why my opponent affirms the position it is wrong. "We also sent Lut : He said to his people : "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. " Qur'an 7:80-81 "What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk. " Qur'an 26:165. These two verses coming from the book the Holy Quran believed by many to have been written by God himself. First let me address the fact that we know Homosexuality to be part of animalistic nature My evidence for this is in the following and I will quote some of these in my argument. [1] Q - "The pairing of same sex couples had previously been observed in more than 1,000 species including penguins, dolphins and primates. " Now if you consider the fact that we are a Primate [2] then it is natural to follow the path of logic that follows, let me lay it out for you. 1. If Humans are Primates. 2. If Primates are prone to Homosexual Activities by nature. 3. Then Humans are prone to Homosexual Activities. Whats more Islam states that all animals have no free-will and are under the influence of Allah at all times [3] then they would not indulge in that which Allah has forbidden. Point 2. It may be argued by my opposition that the Gay community is somewhat damageing to a society and infact can harm the society more than it can contribute to it, I would like to point out that Homosexuals have a higher Education rate, a higher Job rate, Better general health overall, They are cleaner. All this evidence comes from the ONS. I will also give a spread out. [4] If this is the case then we can only assume that Homosexuals actually contribute more to society than Hetrosexuals. If my opponent can prove me wrong on this I apologise. This is the remainder of my argument for the time being, I will add as procedure allows and also refute the argument as procedure allows. With this I pass to my Oponent and with them luck. [1] - . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] - . http://anthro.palomar.edu... [3] - (Quran 22:18) [4] - . http://www.guardian.co.uk...