BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Human Life Begins at Fertilization

I will summarize Pro's claims into one--as they all infer the same conclusion. Pro's Claim: The end of the fertilization process yields a "living, whole organism of the human species." Therefore, Pro is claiming a "zygote" is a member of the human species. A zygote is "a diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum."(1) I will concede that a zygote is classified as "living." However, Pro's argument that the zygote is a member of the human species is false. Now, I will refute Pro's claim by explanation of the hierarchy of life. The hierarchy of all living things is classified as follows(2): [Smallest to largest] 1. Molecules 2. Cells - (zygotes) 3. Tissues 4. Organs 5. Systems 6. Organism 7. Population - (humans/species) 8. Community 9. Ecosystem 10. Biosphere To be classified within a species, a living thing must have cells forming tissues, which form organs, which form organ systems, yielding an organism that can be biologically classified within a species(i.e. human beings). Zygotes are cellular. They do not meet the criteria for species classification. Therefore, they are not a member of the human species. Please note that I have refuted Pro's argument with a 9th grade biology book(Prentice Hall "Biology"). Pro's extreme interpretation of biology is invoked to intentionally mislead--to serve an agenda. It is a premise that is based on rhetoric, not science. Vote Con. References: 1. http://www.google.com... 2. http://www.authorstream.com...
Human Life Begins at Fertilization

I believe by the end of the fertilization process, (instigated by two human beings) what follows is this: a living, whole organism of the human species. I believe the entity is biologically alive. I believe the entity is a whole organism. I believe the entity is biologically human.There are still some who believe at least one of the statements I've just made are false. I welcome anybody who feels that way to debate the issue with me.While there's much more to the abortion debate than just the biological facts, I can confidently state that if someone can prove that the unborn is not a living member of the human species, than I have absolutely NO reason to continue fighting abortion.
Windows is superior to Macintosh

Thanks Pro for the timely, if not abbreviated, response. First, given your resolution, "Windows is superior to Macintosh", to win this debate, I only needed to show that Mac is just as good as Windows. Now on to your points: Apple is over-rated. I thought we were debating Windows vs Mac? But I'm happy to compare IOS to Windows Mobile if you like, or other products. I don't think that's going to help your case.Winning over the people with slick looks, and "Organized" set ups. Given that I've spent the last 20 years earning a living working on both Windows OS's starting at 3.1 and Macs in the last 5 years, I can appreciate the ease of use that a Mac offers. It may be "slick" to you. To me, I get my work done faster. But don't take my word for it, check out the article from infoworld:http://www.infoworld.com..."Oh, but Macs don't get viruses"Big whoop, neither do PC's if you aren't stupid about what you download.It's no secret that authors of malicious software target Windows because the market is larger. However, I don't think you are winning any votes by calling anyone who's ever had a computer virus stupid. By the way, I don't run antivirus on my Mac. It slows me down and I've never had a problem. My kids Windows PC's? That's another matter. I just tell them to re-install the OS ;)Also, just about every possible program runs on PC, and some programs aren't compatible with Mac.Not sure about that. I've worked on dozens of software programs that run on IBM mainframes, AS/400, IOS, Linux, etc. None of those run on Windows. Seriously though, there are a LOT (and I do mean a LOT) of programs that run on Windows. More than run on a Mac. But users just want software that gets the job done. The only users who are going to find this a problem are gamers, and I concede that market to you. However, I don't think you can prove Windows is superior to Mac appealing only to that group. I can bring the same argument for graphics designers, artists and musicians.Also, PC's are so inexpensive compared to MacsI wonder why people are willing to shell out that extra cash? Maybe because it's superior? Back to you...
Windows is superior to Macintosh

Oh my, your sarcasm is so demeaning. Apple is over-rated. Winning over the people with slick looks, and "Organized" set ups. Truth is, Macs have less to offer at an affordable price than a windows computer. "Oh, but Macs don't get viruses" Big whoop, neither do PC's if you aren't stupid about what you download. Also, just about every possible program runs on PC, and some programs aren't compatible with Mac. Also, PC's are so inexpensive compared to Macs
CSU schools are better than UC schools

So, as I am a transfer student, I chose this topic from my experience of going to both, UC'S AND CSU. CSU, is way better and easier than UC'S school, because when I did apply, the application was so simple and they didn't look for personal statement like what CS asked on their application. Additionally, the fees are cheaper from UC'S fees, which was $55 for CSU that is published in CSU MENTOR, in "CSU APPLICATIONS AND WEBSITE HELP." However, for UC $70--and that's according to University of California admission that is on the UC'S website.
Left-side traffic is not better than right-side traffic

The origin of left-side driving is in violence- it's easier to kill the traffic headed the other way if they are on the side of your dominant hand and your dominant eye. People get pissed enough at other drivers as it is without having a clear view of their face and/or, and a clear angle in which to pull out their AK-47 and pump that other driver full of lead. Therefore, right-side traffic results in reduction of the chances for violent crime.
Left-side traffic is not better than right-side traffic

This debate is about road traffic systems. I am against the resolution that left side traffic is not better than right side traffic. In other words, I will attempt to prove that left side traffic is in fact better than right side traffic. Left side traffic is the system where we drive on the left side of the road (eg Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand). Right side traffic is the system where we drive on the right side of the road (eg France, Germany, USA). "Better" ----- we all should know what that word means. But just in case someone is not sure, it means "more good" or (more coloqually) "gooder". What that really means is that on the balance one has more benefits or less faults than the other (even if the difference is minute). The debate is not limited to the question of which side of the road you drive on. Rather, the entire systems are to be considered in this debate. I am aware the the majority of people here are from the USA. So I ask you to set your prejudices and national pride aside (I'll concede that the USA has everything that's best in the world... except for road traffic system) and let's do this debate fairly. This includes the voters. I am Con and I let my opponent start. However, I assume the burden of proof. No semantics please. Just this one time.
Verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world...

Sidlee, you've been an engaging opponent, and apparently you believe you've won. I'm sorry that saying something doesn't, in fact, make it true. (insert evil laugh here) Unfortunately, here is where this debate must end. I present to anyone judging this debate the following finishing move: Sidlee has an excellent grasp of how to distract from the actual purpose of the debate because he realizes that he has a serious chink in his armor. He will go on and on about how I have "failed to prove" this and "not offered evidence" for that, and all of these points that he is hounding me on were entirely ancillary (and don't matter in the least) to my destroying the rock upon which his position rested. Three times have I called him out, and at no point has he answered my challenge. It's like this. If you are suggesting that "Verbal Communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world..." then you have to submit examples which explain why verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world. I know this seems redundant, and it is, but this is something which my opponent has failed to do over and over again. What he has done instead is set up a straw man argument and argued for the proposition "rationally thinking (sinful) humans are more harmful than beneficial to the world," which is absolutely true. Don't take my word for it- go back and read his arguments. He says things such as "Without verbal communication, there would be much less people... It's that simple." But it ISN'T that simple, because taking away verbal communication would in no means take away the advanced thinking which created that communication in the first place. People will always find another way to communicate- just look back at my opponent's original example of Hellen Keller. Yes, she turned out well, but I don't think that anyone could say that this is BECAUSE she was unable to speak. Look at Odd Job. You know, from James Bond. He doesn't talk. But he kills people. It's a ridiculous point, but hey, it's a ridiculous topic to begin with because it has no relevance to what sidlee was actually arguing. As I said much earlier on, all he had to do was convince us of his point using arguments about verbal communication, which he has clearly failed to do. Ignore the straw man arguments and look for arguments about the true debate, and I feel that you will see what I see. Thank you very much for reading, and thank you Sidlee for the debate.
Verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world...

Michael, I love the way you present your arguments. You've got a strong vocabulary and reasonable thoughts. However, what good are these tools if your argument isn't relevant to the topic? You can't fool me. I can sense that you have no reasonable information to back up your argument, so you try to sound like a genius while attacking my argument. Here's proof... "Look, I've read the data and it supports my claims, but I don't really feel like expending the energy to put in on here." ...Now THAT is good acting. Bravo. You have read my real statistical data, scientific proof that cannot be disputed, and realized you can't argue with facts, so you play it off by claiming you "don't have the energy" to argue against it. That's hilarious. You clearly said that "today's youth is the most altruistic of any recent generation" in your round 2 argument. I replied by presenting facts that show that today's generation is anything but that, and yet you say: "These facts support my claims." Huh? How? Now back to my main point... you chose to be on the con side of this debate, correct? Therefore, you represent the side claiming that verbal communication is more BENIFICIAL than HARMFUL to the world, right? So... where is your true argument? I've read only 2 pieces of information that are relevant to the topic, and neither of them were used until the THIRD ROUND. Here they are... "Humans will still kill each other. It's natural instinct." Umm, okay. I'm not disputing that. My argument is obviously that without talking, the world would be a BETTER place. Not once have I said that the world would be a PERFECT place. "We'd basically be animals." And? I don't see horses and dogs and fish constanly polluting the environment with nasty, unhealthy gases. Do you? This debate isn't about fun and entertainment. It's about the condition of the world we live in. Without verbal communication, there would be much less people. Without people, there would be much less pollution. Without pollution, the world would be just fine. It's that simple. Whether or not you want to accept or admit it, you've been beaten. Checkmate, and have a nice day.
Verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world...

The best definition of man that I have ever heard is that man is the "rational animal." What you propose is that taking away our verbal communication will result in the absence of... well, pretty much anything bad at all. We would eat and crap and sleep and return to all of our natural instincts. Of course, we would continue killing one another. That's a natural instinct. Oh, and our mortality rate would rise exponentially because we wouldn't be able to use modern medicine or technology. We'd basically be animals. And yet you think this would be better for the world. Look, I'm sorry if you're made fun of or you feel as though people enjoy taking advantage of you or whatever, but you should feel lucky that you're able to even understand why you feel like crap when that happens. You have this picture in your head of a Utopian society wherein all the creatures live in natural harmony with one another when there is no longer anything to fight for. You say "Do ants talk to sheep? Nope, but the two species coexist just fine." Well, wolves don't talk to sheep either. Ants don't bother sheep and sheep don't bother ants because there is nothing that they could gain from the other. "Any set of info can be additional to another set." True. If the first set exists. Otherwise it's just "information" and not "additional." I can't say to you "hey, plus two" and then claim that you have erred when you suggest that the answer is two and I inform you that you were supposed to be adding two to nine. "'our youth is the most altruitional and service-oriented of any recent generation.' DO WHAT??????????????????????? You can't be serious!!" *sigh* Yes, yes I am. And none of your "facts" refute this. Look, I've read the data and it supports my claims, but I don't really feel like expending the energy to put it on here because I find your own arguments entirely unconvincing to the point that putting up a defense is unnecessary. It's obvious from your own responses that you don't understand the role that technology plays in global warming, and you didn't refute that. You also fail to grasp the idea that technology is actually helping humans live longer. This isn't a debate about the environment, though, it's about verbal communication. And because all of your arguments rely on communication as a whole and not verbal communication specifically, you have failed to prove your point. The burden of proof is not on me because you're arguing for something that we're not even supposed to be debating about, and anyone judging this debate should be able to easily see this.
Verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world...

You say: "If we didn't have communication then humanity as we know it would never have come into existence." Oooookay. You're saying that's a bad thing? Earth is like a cell. It's a tiny fraction of the universe, and humans are nothing but its parasites, like parasites on a cell. For every one good thing we've done for this planet, we've done many many many harmful things. And in case you didn't notice, the topic of debate is clearly whether VC is harmful to THE WORLD. Let me repeat: THE WORLD. You represent the con to this debate, yet you have, in no way, proved that verbal communication is benificial to THE WORLD. Try reading the topic a little closer next time small fry.
Verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world...

If verbal communication did not exist, something else would rise up in its place. Verbal communication is not, in itself, harmful- and your examples prove it. What is sometimes harmful is communication itself- but I think we can agree that if we didn't have that then humanity as we know it would never have come into existence. Let's first look at the origin of verbal communication itself- it is theorized (and it happens to make perfect sense) that communication evolves from a series of grunts and groans made by our great-great-great ancestors as an indication of the location of food. Eventually, they came to use different grunts as signals for specific tactical formations and hunting strategies, and man found that the whole is oftentimes greater than just the sum of its parts. If you are a believer in evolution, as I am (though that's another debate) then you MUST believe that verbal communication is beneficial (and by beneficial I'm assuming that the rest of the sentence is "to man") because otherwise those who developed verbal skills wouldn't have become the dominant representatives of the species. If you are not a believer in evolution, then I can still win the debate because I can prove that verbal communication is fundamentally no different than other types of communication, and so you will have to defend the concept that ALL communication is more harmful than beneficial, which I think is something quite difficult to do. You bring up the idea of Hellen Keller as a reason why verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial. She turned out very well without it, you reason. The flaw of this argument is threefold: 1)She is one person and not representative or statistically significant. 2)Many more people who DO communicate verbally have led helpful lives. 3)She still found a way to communicate with the outside world through writing, and books have been used throughout history just as well as verbal communication to ostracize groups and cast hatred and start wars and all the rest of those very pleasant negatives which you believe verbal communication to be the harbinger of. Unless you can prove that mankind would be better off without any sort of communication at all, your implication that we would be improved without verbal communication will fail to be plausible and therefore will fail to move people to your side.
Verbal communication is more harmful than beneficial to the world...

This is definitley an odd and very broad topic, but it's fun to think about. Try and imagine that verbal communication had never existed. Would the world be a better place? I say yes, without a doubt. Talking, more often than not, creates an overload of unnecessary, and often harmful, information. We humans insult each other A LOT...especially nowadays. The youth is especially obsessed with placing others lower and lower on the totem pole in order to gain popularity and praise. It's sick, quite frankly. Yes, talking also yields plenty of compliments and praise...but let's be realistic. Humans, by nature, are more inclined to look at the negative side of things, and act accordingly. It creates a toxic environment. Primal and natural instincts are more powerful than talking. Are you familiar with Helen Keller? She was a deafblind...couldn't see or hear. Yet somehow, she graduated from college and became a social activist. Why? because she found a way to use nature to mold herself into a good and humbling person. Not by talking.
God has provided proficient evidence that Mary, mother of Christ, remained a virgin until her death

Resolved: God has provided proficient evidence (Whether it be physical, spiritual, written, human, or other) that affirms the statement that Mary, mother of Christ, remained a virgin until her death. "Change the resolution to 'Is there valid reasons for believing Mary remained a virgin until death.' If you do not mind clarifying the resolution and that we both conceded that Mary was a real person and that she was a virgin until after Jesus's birth and the debate is whether she remained a virgin until death or not." I agree that she was a real person. I agree that she was a virgin until Jesus' birth at minimum. I agree that the debate should revolve around whether or not she remained a virgin her entire life. I will compromise on the resolution. As you are the affirmative, I will again allow you to open and start to frame the debate. Good luck!
It's time Jesus finished the job

Don't bite the hand that feeds youWhat happened last time God came down? We crucified him. God cannot just let that pass, he has to show us who's boss. He should let us struggle a little longer. ResponsibilityGod needs to invest in our future. Many times he's tried to help us stupid and puny humans, and every time we've thrown it in his face. He cleaned our room and we left cig butts, Frosty Jacks bottles, roaches and puke stained clothes all over the floor the next day. Maybe after a while of stewwing in our own filth we'll clean up after our selves. Free willIf everyone wins, then how will the casino make money? There needs to be some losers. If God reveals himself in the modern age then the evidence will be clear. Somehow (don't ask me how, let the brainbox God figure it out), he'd be able to prove he is who he says he is, and not some powerful alien imposter. He'd also be able to make use all follow and love him. This creates a problem. Heaven's meant to be VIP, the white suit club, if everyone got in, then suddenly God isn't cool anymore. Meme cultureMeme culture's bad enough without Jesus 2.0 becoming one. No explaination needed. Area 51Last time God may have had the freedom to perform miricles, but this time he'd be locked away in area 51 for testing. Aliens got nothin' on Jesus 2.0. Game overI'm pretty sure when God comes to Earth again, it's judgement day. Sure when you get a new video game you want to complete it, but once you do you realise it isn't the destination that's important, but the journey. So when God comes down, he's turning on God mode, and boy does that become old quick. RemakesGod made a classic, he can't top his last creation this time around. Leave the original alone! ClassyJesus was classy. If Jesus 2.0 comes, he's profess swag. Very uncool. I know I haven't laid out many arguments here, but I believe they will suffice. God, if you can hear me (who am I kidding, of course you can, you can even hear my thoughs. .. creepy), please, please don't send down Jesus 2.0, at least give it another 500 years or so. :D
It's time Jesus finished the job

It’s over two thousand years since God sent his son, Jesus, down to Earth to enlighten humanity and make sure everybody signed up to Christianity, but he only managed to convert a small number of people before the Jews killed him. Notwithstanding this, some of his followers wrote his biography, which they called The New Testament and cleverly sold free with the Bible in order to spread the word. These early Christian evangelists peddled the Good Book around Europe and beyond and it eventually became a best-seller, and now 32% of the world’s population have read it and identify themselves as “Christian”. However, that still leaves over two thirds of mankind either not religious or signed up to rival religions such as Islam and Hinduism, and what’s more, Christianity is in decline. And no wonder - the clergymen are out of control and are running about getting drunk and raping young boys, the Pope has been forced to resign, and widespread access to scientific information is making preachers look like a bunch superstitious fools, so God can hardly blame disillusioned Christians for renouncing their faith and signing up to atheism or one of the competitors' faiths. Clearly, things have got to change, and fast. Of course I understand that Jesus must have been quite upset when one of his disciples grassed him up to the Jews and he got crucified, but surely two millennia is enough time to get over it? I say Jesus needs to stop snivelling like some spoilt little nancy-boy, dry his eyes and get back down to Earth to finish the job he started two thousand years ago. Thank you. Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org...