BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Restricted abortion should be legal

I will submit some rewording to help in any confusion. 1. Abortion terminates an innocent living human organism. Pro is trying figure out in what sense I"m using "innocent": Pro says "" I agree & disagree, it depends in what sense you talking about innocence" So what I mean is a "living human organism" is not responsible for or directly involved in the abortion yet suffers the abortion consequences. The consequence is that the once living human organism is no longer alive. There are of course exceptions to this statement as some aborted human organisms have survived the abortion process. I think it is clear then, any kind of morality statement rest clearly on those that are responsible for the abortion event not the innocent one. Freedom not restricted unless justified "Con seems to agree with the point here and seeks to establish that abortion is murder in the embryonic period to justify not allowing such an abortion by a pregnant woman. " I do agree with freedom not restricted unless justified. I think it is justifiable to restrict abortions and make them illegal. I will not debate what law makers decide on what the law should say or the penalty associated by breaking the law. Pro keeps pushing that I must declare it murder. But that is Pro"s assumptions only. I"m simply saying abortions should be illegal during the embryonic period as well as with the rest of the pregnancy without stating any wording of the law or wording of the penalty or wording of any exceptions to the law. Humanity Con asserts that I deny the humanity of human things. I talk about things like 3 day HUMAN embryos, HUMAN organism, HUMAN fetus, embryonic period in HUMANS begins at fertilization, etc etc. Okay good - I don"t want to deny you humanity. I just want to get some clarifications though: 1. What exact point in a pregnancy, event horizon if you will, that you think abortion is no longer appropriate? 2. Are we debating restricted abortions or unrestricted abortions? Let us look at Virginia's Abortion Law: "The state of Virginia restrict second-trimester abortions to licensed hospitals, with third-trimester abortions legal only to save the life or medical well-being of the mother. Virginia law also requires women seeking abortions to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound of their fetus prior to the procedure. "[1] Pro are you saying by "restricted abortion" that you would subscribe to Virginia's abortion restrictions in the third trimester? - " third-trimester abortions legal only to save the life or medical well-being of the mother". [1] I'm not ignoring any contentions " I think it's more appropriate for me to clarify before any further rebuttals - and I will use my last round to finish any rebuttals and to finish my side of the debate. Good evening, x15 Sources [1] . http://statelaws.findlaw.com...
I will not contradict myself.

My opponent has contradicted herself a couple of times, let me list them;1. To sing can mean to tattle on someone; to betray someone. http://thesaurus.com...In question 10 she said she is singing right now, but in question 11 she said that she would never betray a friend.2. In question 4 my opponent said that she has never 'mooted' before. Moot is a synonym for bringing up a topic to debate. Since she created this challenge, she mooted, which means she contradicted herself.http://thesaurus.com...3. In question 5 my opponent answered '8 minutes ago' when asked when was the last time she bit herself. In question 15 my opponent said that she never takes notice of the time. This is another contradiction.I think that 3 contradictions are enough to prove that my opponent was unable to not contradict herself. I thank my opponent for this interesting and fun debate.Vote Con, as my opponent contradicted herself 3 times. Oh and, she doesn't like walruses....
I will not contradict myself.

1. I am a Vulcan and immune to emotion. 2. This depends on who "Black Maria" is. 3. He's a nice guy. 4. I've never done that before, so it's hard to say. 5. 8 minutes ago. 6. I do not have the powers necessary to be a sage. 7. I live in Seattle, so yes. 8. Not in conscious thought, but in unconscious most likely. 9. Food cannot think, so I cannot patronize food. 10. I am singing right now, so yes. 11. I would never betray a friend. 12. I would turn the other cheek. 13. Spaghetti 14. Yes. 15. I never take notice of the time, really. 16. No, but I have dogs. 17. What's a tiff? 18. Coke. 19. Hamburger 20. Windows Thank you.
I will not contradict myself.

*Takes out a pen and a paper, scratches down some notes and looks at patient* Please answer to following questions Miss.Brainmaster.1. Would you consider yourself a happy person or a sad/depressed person?2. Would you ride her, black maria? 3. Do you like the geek in pink? 4. Do you enjoy mooting? 5. When was the last time you bit yourself? 6. Are you a sage? 7. Do you live in an urban area? 8. Do you use 100% of your brain? 9. Do you patronize food? 10. Do you enjoy singing? 11. Are you the kind of person to betray your friend? 12. If somebody kicked you what would you do? 13. What is your favourite food? 14. Have you ever mugged someone? 15. Do you enjoy ante meridiem? 16. Do you have a pet cat? 17. Have you ever had your tiff in the ultimatum stretch? 18. Coke or pepsi? 19. Hamburgers or hot dogs? 20. Apple or Windows?
High School students should be allowed to listen to music.

Students should not be allowed to listen to music in the classroom environment. If rules were to be placed to restrict kids to listen to music, whether it having to be placed on a certain volume or having only one ear-bud, mandating of these rules will take time away from the teaching period of the class. Upon this shortage of time, students wkll become further distracted with thoughts such as, "what song do I want to hear?", "is my volume too loud?", "what is everyone else listening to?". Not only will it become a distraction to those WITH music players, but it will also distract those without them. Not only will the volume be able to be heard, but it can lead to conflicts out of the classroom. 66 percent of teenagers own an mp3 player, 76 percent own a cellular phone. Of those that do have a cell phone, they spend approximately (on average) 49 minutes a day using the media on their mobile device. [A] of that approximate 10-20% that do not have a device that plays music. Imagine these kids in the classroom hearing rumbles of rap, classical, pop, hip hop, screamo, and many other genres of music, at the same time. These students may not benefit from listening to music and working simutaneously as other students do. In addition, discrimination and maltreatment can become a factor to this small percentage of kids. Furthermore, not only does it serve as a distraction but also oens the door to unfairness, maltreatment, and possibly discrimination based on class and religion. Around Christmas time, christmas music may be played around someone who it may be against their religion to listen to. This also counts for christian music around athiests, and anti-christian screamo around christians. On the issue of a volume restriction, "ipods" have a setting to adjust the max volume, therefore all "ipods" will be set at a different max volume. This means that even a centimeter of differentiating volumes will make all the volumes different and then would therefore have to be called to the teacher's attention. In short, it adds to the instructors to-do list. There is simply too much to consider and far too many obstacles to dodge as far as the intertwining of music and the classroom. The expellment of such devices not only eliminates unfairness, possibility of bullying and fights, and discrimination-but also eliminates distraction in the classroom. Without the hassle of monitoring the kids to obey these rules, there will be more time in the classroom and less hostility between the student and teacher. [source A] http://www.businessweek.com...
High School students should be allowed to listen to music.

High schools students should be allowed to listen during class, tests, and quizzes. BUt only one ear. Music has been PROVEN to help students focus more and concentrate better. Personally tested this theory out. For a week i listened to music during class and tests and quizzes and i did SIGNIFICANTLY better than the week without music. plus music can make kids happy and more willing to learn. They can only have music in one ear so they an still hear and they can not blast it full volume. it can only be normal volume so only they can hear.
Mother Teresa a Hell's angel.

While this may be true, consider that if Mother Teresa had done nothing, all of the patients would have died. Yes, she made some mistakes, but in the grand scheme of things, she made the world a better place. Consider the tuberculosis patients. Perhaps the needles were reused. Do you have any specific evidence of where this created a substantial number of preventable deaths? These people were going to die, so Mother Teresa took a stand and, at great risk to herself, saved the lives of hundreds of people. How can you call someone like this a "hell's angel?" You can't Even though you just did. You shouldn't have. Because it's mean. Note the proper use of "it's" America.
Mother Teresa a Hell's angel.

First of all I thank you for accepting my challenge. Mother Teresa believed that suffering was a gift, even if caused by poverty, medical problems, or starvation. This by no way justify the state of her patients even if they were dying.Consider the fact that these patients in their final time of their life even if filled with suffering and pain had to endure a situation which could have been avoided entirely. Most importantly there was no way for staff of knowing which patients were curable or incurable in first place. Tuberculosis patients were not isolated.Needles were reused without proper sterilization, this treatment was for every patient who would enter the House of Dying.This do not count as a mistake this was a choice. I really doubt this counts as good work, and seems very far from an angel.
Mother Teresa a Hell's angel.

Terribly sorry, I must not have articulated sufficiently. Let's try this again, shall we? I in no way agreed with you. Tuberculosis kills, this much is for certain, but without Mother Theresa, who cares if they spread disease to already terminally ill patients? Mother Theresa saved lives, and without her, every one of those patients would have died. Are there any direct linkages between contaminated medical equipment and the death of a patient that, without having been either treated by Mother Theresa or having been contaminated, would have lived? The way I see this argument is that you feel as though it would have been better for everyone if Mother Theresa had left everybody alone. If you are not saying this, the debate is pointless, as I have already admitted that yes, Mother Theresa made some mistakes. But given the number of people who would have died had it not been for her, I say that the odd accidental death is justified. Not right, but justified. Mother Theresa saw the beauty in suffering. I know you didn't want to get into religion, but... seeing as I have the last say... lets go into religion! Mother Theresa believed that suffering brought you closer to God. This is a generally accepted view by many of the same faith as Mother Theresa. However, there is no evidence to support that she deliberately caused suffering in order to aid the poor on their spiritual journey. In conclusion, I see no evidence pointing to the fact that it would have been better for Mother Theresa to have minded her own beeswax rather than aid those who were in need. Thank you. All of you. Yes, even you, good sir!
Mother Teresa a Hell's angel.

First of all, I am not calling Mother Teresa a Hell's Angel and by no way I am debating this topic to be mean. Hell's Angel was a critical documentary by Hitchens written in 1994. https://www.washingtonpost.com... I want to make my stance very clear this is not about religion, and i don't want this topic to get a religion angle. Your argument seems full of contradiction. Patients died because Mother Teresa did nothing in the first place. And most importantly you agreed to my previous argument completely. Keeping TB patients in one room, reusing needles, does this count as saving lives? and by no way this made world a better place for the poor she claimed to help. During the poverty, medical problems and all suffering she called a gift, her clinics received donations. These donations were supposed to be used for medical care, systematic diagnosis, necessary nutrition, and to provide adequate analgesics to those in need. Estimated donations goes about 100 million dollars only about 6 to 7% of these funds were used for poor. Questions remains, where did this money go? http://www.dailymail.co.uk... And there seems to be a straight forward meaning behind not using these funds for poor, Mother Teresa at 1981 press conference"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ.I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
what number is the swaggiest? 6

You sir wrong!! 6 is not the best number if anthing it is the most FRICKEN dumbest number in the world! no one likes 6 if anthing 4 is way better... its even in all ways like 2+2 eqilze 4 and 4 is a easy number to count to!! i cant even count to six because it suks so much butt and makes me cry
U.S. policies established post9/11 have substantially reduced therisk of terrorist acts against U.S.

Substantially = to a great extent or degree Prior to and including 9/11, the number of Americans who died to terrorist attacks (the unlawful use of force or violence to intimidate America) was approximately 3200 over the span of 200 years. So pre 9/11, there were on average 16 deaths per year due to terrorism. Post 9/11 there have been 3000 American casualties resulting from terrorist attacks, for example terrorist attacks against American soldiers in Iraq, over the span of 7 years. Therefore US policies established post 9/11 (such as the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan) have increased the number of American deaths due to terrorism to over 400 per year. Of course these numbers are approximations. If you feel like correcting them with more accurate figures, then by all means. But the point still stands. Since 9/11, American foreign policy has placed more American lives in danger, ergo Higher, not lower risk for terrorist attacks.
U.S. policies established post9/11 have substantially reduced therisk of terrorist acts against U.S.

Oh boy, it's way too early to back out of this debate. I'm just getting warmed up over here. I haven't even touched the long term impact of our policies established post 9/11 Our Post 9/11 policies include not only the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the establishment of Guantanamo, the use of light torture, and the institution of stop loss. The use of Guantanamo and torture on prisoners has led to increased risk of terrorist actions against the United States for 2 reasons. Firstly, the widely publicized torture of Muslims cannot sit well with Muslims across the Middle East and the world. Now if these Muslims were tortured by other Muslims, then everything might still be peachy. But alas, that is not the case. With them being tortured at the hands of Americans, the hatred of America will continue to build an endless supply of recruits for future terrorist activities. The institution of stop loss has had the opposite impact. Because of the deceitful practices of the US government, we can expect our supply of volunteers to simply disappear over the next several years. When that happens, our ability to threaten foreign nations with destabilizing military actions declines because we will lose the ability to stay within those nations and engage in nation building. Taking these two post 9/11 policies in conjunction, we expect in the long term for the risk of terrorist attacks to rise once again.
U.S. policies established post9/11 have substantially reduced therisk of terrorist acts against U.S.

risk= probability or potential terrorism= unlawful use of force or violence to intimidate a state, power, or society. Substantially = to a great extent or degree Let's look at 9/10/2001. What's the probability that an American citizen would die of a terrorist attack on 9/10/2001? Well truthfully? It was approximately 1%. In fact, prior to 9/11, American "casualties" to foreign terrorists was virtually non-existent. Except for a smattering of American foreign nationals working at embassies, American citizens were well insulated from the terrorism and terrorist strikes. Then there was 9/11. And then there were the US Domestic and Foreign policy decisions which included the establishment of Homeland Securities and the invasion of Iraq. So now I'm gonna hold a little poll here. Audience, feel free to comment or respond. What is the probability that an American Citizen (such as our citizens in uniform) will die today from a terrorist? If your answer is higher than 1, then I've won. Through significantly increased exposure to terrorist resources and terrorist attacks, we've Significantly INCREASED the risk of an attack by terrorists. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Now Flor wants to persuade you that now we have all these new measures which will prevent all attacks on American soil and a 9/11 scale disaster will never take place again on America because of these policy implementations. But take a look . .. where's her evidence? She has NOT A SINGLE scenario in her "evidence" where a terrorist attack which would have taken place under the old system did not take place because of our new system. I'm not going to deny increasing the number of agents or increasing the size of the bureaucracy by pumping out more agencies might decrease the probability of a terrorist attack on American soil. But keep in mind these three arguments. First of all, the law of diminishing returns. After a certain point, throwing money or agents or acronyms have diminishing impact on security. Second, Flor still has presented 0 evidence (and lemme emphasize this, ZERO EVIDENCE) that these new safeguards have made a meaningful impact on security. And third, STATISTICALLY more American citizens are in danger from terrorism than in the HISTORY OF AMERICAN HISTORY thanks to the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan. (Not to mention that if Iraq goes sour it'll become a breeding ground for more terrorists) So as far as I can see this debate can only go in one direction.
U.S. policies established post9/11 have substantially reduced therisk of terrorist acts against U.S.

If we assume United States soldiers to be part of the United States, post 9/11 US policies have thrust them into substantial danger of terrorist action. After all, where else is a US soldier in greater danger of terrorist attacks than in Iraq? Now some might argue that post 9/11 policies have prevented a repeat of 9/11. HOWEVER if you would like to mount such an argument, you would have to prove that if it was not for the post 9/11 policies, another 9/11 scale disaster would have taken place during the previous 7 years. Good luck with that.
Existence Necessitates Purpose

And he cannot. " Third round my opponent said: "The logical answer is that the egg came first. Unless you accept creationism as a logical answer - and that would be a strange type of "logic. " I was asked to give a logical answer, my opponent does not like my logic but my logic is accepted by millions of people and Con clearly states that my logic makes sense if one believes in creationism as many do. I find his logic strange too. But none the less it is logic based on the non existence of any type of creation or god. That all things have no purpose until they interact. "But it exists in thought - the same way ALL abstractions like love, friendship, unicorns, and perfect polygons exist. This is a complete red herring. You can do better. Why is it a red herring, thought is sentient consciousness, what you think about is irrelevant, all thoughts are part of being sentient. "At some point in time, the rock was given purpose, therefore it always had purpose" Are you saying the rock had purpose before it existed. "therefore it always had purpose" "Always" implies it had purpose both before and after it's existence. This would prove my logic. As my opponent started, It would be the voters "belief in creationism" or the voters non belief in creationism that determines the correct logic. Also it is imperative to my opponents position that nothing existed before "this" universe came into existence. A completely logical position to have for my opponent. A completely illogical position for creationists. God existed before the universe, as intelligence had to set it in motion. It is illogical for intelligence to create something with no purpose.
Existence Necessitates Purpose

Hope you had a merry Christmas and thanks for the challenge. I accept all your definitions and point out that your existence necessitated this debate. What we have here is your classic "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" debate. Did purpose come first or did existence come first ? Nether can "Exist" without the other. One has to ask the question using the simplest of logic, Why would a universe come into existence with no purpose. To me simple logic dictates that it has a purpose thus making purpose first and existence second. The chicken and the egg dilemma still" exists" today. If one were to put purpose first and existence second then the chicken and the egg question can be answered. The egg would come first in order to give existence to the chicken.Yes we can debate what created the egg , but a chickens life begins from the egg not from adulthood just as the universe began at some point. All available data suggests that it is expanding thus at some point it could have possibly been as small as a chicken egg This debate will be voted on based on ones belief in how the universe and everything in it came to be. There are those who believe it was created and there are those that believe it just coincedently happened with no purpose rime or reason. My opponent mentions a rock in his argument as having no purpose. Again, using simple logic why would something exist if it had no purpose to the concept of existence? A rock does exist. On second thought I take issue with one of the definitions. A rock being thrown is an effect yes. But why it is being thrown could be considered a purpose. Rocks have a multitude of uses or purposes if you will. They are a necessity for the existence of man we could not live without them. I ask my opponent, Do all things that exist have no purpose or do some things have purpose and some not and if so which do and which don't and why. Simple logic suggests that if everything in the universe had no purpose what would be the point of existence. Pick anything on this planet it has more than one use or purpose and more than one effect.
fans acting negatively because of zayn malik leaving 1d

Thank you, juverina.I do not accept the resolution change. The resolution is:fans acting negatively because of zayn malik leaving 1dNOTfans acting negatively because of zayn malik leaving 1d is fineMy opponent has, unfairly, changed the resolution mid-debate. This is known as moving the goalposts, which is a logical fallacy [1]. It is a fallacy in this context because Con's counter-argument only has merit under this changed resolution, not with the one we are arguing under. Hence, assuming that Con's counter-argument works for both resolutions assumes alignment where none exists -- the "is fine" clause makes the two resolutions unequal. To put it simply, my opponent has changed the resolution.Since my opponent's counter-argument is a fallacy, my arguments are to be extended.Reference[1] http://rationalwiki.org...