BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Marxism on the rise once again.

My opponent quotes some 9000 year old marxist philosopher. I doubt frenchy there actually does anything but sit in his office and jerk it to Karl Marx's picture all day. Making that argument refutedNext he quotes some BS poll about muslims aying they want the marxists back. well one a poll only of those who polled. And second they polled germans. Teh Germans are drunkerds. Polling a german is like polling a man with down syndrome, trust me Ive been to germany. They don't know what they want and why. They just drink till they dieThe rise: The onlything thats rising is that thing in my pantsMarxism is on the rise according to some jackdaw at the NY times. The new york times is a paper in new york, hardly about it being on the rise. New york is full of liberal socialist marxist cicrlejerking it to marx. As the author does. Thus it cannot be accounted for.Why to support it: This isn't relevent to the debate, but it fails because the only sources opponent has is some circlejerk Marxist websites then with his economicsThere has been no good argument to show marxism is on the rise outside of some circlejerk websites. <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <body style="background-color:yellow;"> <h2 style="background-color:red;">This is a heading</h2> <p style="background-color:green;">This is a paragraph.</p> </body> </html>
Is Marxism on the rise once again.

Hello, in this debate I have chosen the position of an instigator, meaning that I believe that Marxism is on the rise one again and I will be supporting its rise. The opponent will argue against Marxism and against it being on the rise. Definition: Marxism: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx ; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society Sources: . http://i.word.com...
Abortion

"It depends on the site you look it up on. Could you kill a "fetus" that has a heart, face, organs and all things necessary for life, exactly the same as a baby out of the womb?" Depends. I myself don't desire to be an abortion doctor, but your description removes some important details in my opinion. If the fetus was under 24 weeks or is not biologically able to survive outside the womb, then the abortion would be ok. I'd just like to make the point that from your arguments this time around, you seem to think that a fertilized egg cell is a baby; please answer in the comments and straighten that out. "Yes to err is human and to forgive is divine but humans aren't punished at all. We have all sorts of electronics that spoil us and makes us think anything is okay until the damage is to far done." Yes let's blame our technology and not the irresponsibility of the adult's in our lives whose responsibility was to educate us on the real world. I was making a point that stupid mistakes are inevitable but should we punish them for that; I made it really clear so I assume you do think so. I can't respond because you have a completely different philosophy here; Let's continue "In my eyes, infanticide and abortion are the same thing." Well, in my last arguments I thought I made a very clear distinction. Let me reiterate: The abortion we are discussing is a legal termination of an undeveloped fetus under the age of 24 weeks. Infanticide is murder of a born infant. Yes we could be talking about all abortion, including illegal but I don't support illegal abortion, we have a compromise to keep things humane, it's just some people don't like compromise. "That's impossible, theirs no way for that babies heart to start beating, for it's blood to start flowing coming out of the uterus." Umm... "And yes you were saying we are happy with war. I got mad because you going off and insulting my father's work. He was gone for 3 years of my life stationed and fighting for our country and saying we are OK with it. I doubt any one is OK with war but can we control others that want war? No, so we defend ourselves. Me bringing up communism was one sentence. I doubt that means this third part of the argument is all about communism. Learn the difference between changing the conversation and stating an example." Well, even if I did say I was happy with war, I said in the next arguments that that is not what I meant. You seem to ramble again on a topic which hasn't anything to do with the debate at hand. Me bringing up war was one sentence as well, I just harped on it because when you said a sentence about communism, and when you that entire paragraph on war, it didn't support you argument or if it did you forgot to link them together. As for the definition of baby, well, we seem to be at a stalemate on that. In conclusion, abortion is ok because it is a medical procedure, which is for the humane interest of both parties, and it can only take place under 24 weeks. People are stupid and our technological advances can rectify our stupidity.
Abortion

Being a Catholic and Republican, that's where I get most my political views especially my view of abortion and the media, for as long as I can remember, has always gone against my views, politically and religiously. I don't like bringing religion to arguments but that's what this is about to me. The definition of baby is different on a lot of sites. Dictionary.com defines it as many examples 1.an infant or very young child. 2.a newborn or very young animal. 3.the youngest member of a family, group, etc. 4.an immature or childish person. 5.a human fetus. It depends on the site you look it up on. Could you kill a "fetus" that has a heart, face, organs and all things necessary for life, exactly the same as a baby out of the womb? And if you would say yes, don't answer it in your next argument. Yes to err is human and to forgive is divine but humans aren't punished at all. We have all sorts of electronics that spoil us and makes us think anything is okay until the damage is to far done. In my eyes, infanticide and abortion are the same thing. Abortion is the killing off a baby inside the womb. The only difference between the girl killing her baby and abortion is that she wasn't a doctor and it was done in a bathroom. You tell me that baby isn't legally a baby until the second it come out of the womb? That's impossible, theirs no way for that babies heart to start beating, for it's blood to start flowing coming out of the uterus. Their are videos of babies in the womb, being dismembered and trying to get away from suffering. I honestly doubt that's how how they say the baby will react. I watched a video to wear a girl went undercover as a pregnant mom to see what happens in an abortion clinic and what they tell you. http://www.youtube.com... I have a bunch of stories of people going to be a nurse during an abortion and quit working at the clinic because of watching what they do. You don't need a PHD to tell if something is alive or not. And yes you were saying we are happy with war. I got mad because you going off and insulting my father's work. He was gone for 3 years of my life stationed and fighting for our country and saying we are OK with it. I doubt any one is OK with war but can we control others that want war? No, so we defend ourselves. Me bringing up communism was one sentence. I doubt that means this third part of the argument is all about communism. Learn the difference between changing the conversation and stating an example. You brought up euthanasia as an example. Does that mean the conversation was about euthanasia?
Abortion

One thing that I can't stand is the media, you never hear anything to with God anymore. Its all about promoting stuff that has been looked down upon for centuries such as abortion. If a teenager gets pregnant by a birth control mistake, she chose to engage in sexual activities, not the baby. If she is still in school she shouldn't even have sex on her mind. She should be worried about passing school. That baby, at five weeks old already has a heart beat that is beating twice as fast as the mothers because it's heart is smaller then the tip of a pen, it has to pump the blood fast to go all threw it's body. If a girl gets raped, one of the lowest form of evil, then put the child up for adoption and abortions done because of rape only cause 1% of abortions committed. A prime example of abortions done of evil ,not from the parent but doctor, is the the Dr. Kermit Gosnell case. He killed babies that were already out of the womb ,exactly what people today are saying is it's OK to murder just as long as the mom's OK with it. I shudder to think what the next generation will do to unwanted "fetuses". Another evil, most inhumane story I ever read, a girl was at a bar and gave birth in the bathroom. Then suffocated the baby and threw it in the toilet to go finish watching the game. If that doesn't say "Theirs no hope for America" I don't want to hear it. Suffocation is one of the worst ways to die. I bet this girl did it because if you can kill a baby in a clinic why not in a bathroom? And how dare you say we are happy with war! My father was a marine, now retired, and would tell me stories of how his friend would die in front of him and nothing he could do but defend the country. If a count is going to attack us their is not much we can do but defend ourselves. If Korea launches missiles at us and we shoot them down, we have to attack to defend America. What can we do, watch and become a communist country?
Abortion

This is a very touchy matter, which makes it extremely hard to pick a side. Yet, I will take the side of Pro for this debate. My first point is that the fetus has no conscience or sentience. It's brain is too undeveloped if it has developed the brain at all, for the just-fertilized egg is just a combination of two cells. If it is so evil to eliminate single-celled organisms, then why do we take antibiotics; for health reasons. Granted that, not all abortions are done for health purposes, but how many abortions do you know are done out of pure hatred for the child...um fetus. This leads me to the second point that the abortion is never done (or otherwise shouldn't be done) without reason. If the woman is unintentionally pregnant, and the father isn't willing to support, then for the sake of the child, there could be the abortion. If it was a teen pregnancy, then it's likely that it could ruin her education for the maternity takes up so much time, and then the teen has to look after a child, with a struggled education without support from a father; it wouldn't be fair on the child. We call ourselves pro-choice because we respect the woman's' right to choose what happens to her own body, the child without a conscience and sentience cannot make the choice itself. My last point is that we, the human race, seem to be perfectly happy with war, but not so much with torture. We agreed to the geneva conventions in 1949 to prevent war crimes. We are ok with Euthanasia (which itself is a touchy subject in itself) because it excuses the pain the terminal patient would have gone through. The geneva convention and euthanasia are in place because we want to reduce the pain others go through. Abortion is ok, because the fetus isn't a conscience human and it is to remove suffering of the life the child would go through.
Mass Refutation Debate #1

My final batch of logical arguments:P1: There cannot be two different answers to a math problem which only requires addition to solve.P2: One plus one is a math problem which only requires addition to solve.P3: One plus one equals two.C: Therefore, one plus one cannot equal anything other than two.(Note: There are, of course, math problems that have more than one answer, but none that ONLY require addition to solve. Also, disguising alternative answers for "two" as "the square root of four" does not count, as its simplest form is still "two".)P1: At the end of a standard Go match, whichever player has more points than the other wins.P2: Hashimoto Utaro had five more points than Iwamoto Kaoru at the end of their famous Atomic Bomb Go Game. C: Therefore, Hashimoto won the Atomic Bomb Go Game.(Note: By the "end" of a standard Go match, I mean the natural conclusion when yose has finished, dame has been completely filled, and both players have alternately passed. Therefore, this excludes certain endings of a match such as resignation or exhausting of time. Also, by "standard" Go match, I mean the traditional and professional Japanese rules of Go outside of rengo. Furthermore, in order to clarify the second premise where Hashimoto won by an even five points, it should be noted that this game did not include komi.) P1: Only statements that have adequate valid evidence supporting them should be rationally believed to be true.P2: "The universe exists" is a statement that has adequate valid evidence supporting it.C: Therefore, "The universe exists" is a statement that should be rationally believed to be true.(Note: I define "universe" in this case as "every observable thing in existence". If you believe "every observable thing in existence" does not exist or that there is not adequate valid evidence to support its existence, then I don't know what you're talking about.)P1: It is possible for a coin to land on heads when flipped.P2: It is possible for a coin to land on tails when flipped.C: Therefore, it is possible for a coin to land on either heads or tails when flipped.(Note: These statements say "possible" not "necessary". Also, the conclusion does not rule out other possibilities, such as the coin landing on its edge or being destroyed in the flipping process; it merely states that it is possible for it to land on heads and it is possible for it to land on tails.)P1: If my opponent overall has stronger refutations than I do logical arguments, the viewers should vote for him to win the debate.P2: My opponent overall has stronger refutations than I do logical arguments.C: Therefore, the viewers should vote for him to win the debate.(Note: If my opponent does not refute this argument, it would not mean the viewers should take it as literally true. All it would mean is that one of my logical arguments remain unchallenged. Conversely, if my opponent perfectly refutes this argument, then he would therefore have one strong refutation, but in the process be damaging the reputation of his previous refutations.)Over to you, buckIPDA.
Mass Refutation Debate #1

Ah well, I digress; here is my next batch. Good luck. P1: Men who think about having sex with other men on a daily basis are probably homosexual. P2: My opponent does not think about having sex with other men on a daily basis. C: Therefore, my opponent is probably not homosexual. P1: It is possible for paper to be flammable. P2: Origami cranes are made of paper. C: Therefore, it is possible for an origami crane to be flammable. P1: buckIPDA is Pro in this debate. P2: DakotaKrafick is Con in this debate. C: Therefore, buckIPDA and DakotaKrafick are debating each other. P1: Yahweh only performs morally good acts. P2: Yahweh murdered people. C: Therefore, murdering people is a morally good act. P1: The definite description "that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier" is understood. P2: "that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier" refers to that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier. P3: The concept of whatever sandwich a definite description refers to has existence-in-the-understanding. P4: It is conceivable that a sandwich is tastier than anything that lacks a tasty-making property that it conceivably has. P5: Existence-in-reality is a tasty-making property. P6: Any sandwich the concept of which has existence-in-the-understanding conceivably has existence-in-reality. P7: It is not conceivable that a sandwich is tastier than that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier. C: Therefore, that sandwich which it is not conceivable for another to be tastier exists-in-reality.
Mass Refutation Debate #1

Here are my first five logical arguments:P1: Every color that is blue is not yellow. P2: Blue is a color that is blue. C: Therefore, blue is not yellow. P1: All human beings are mortal. P2: Socrates was a human being. C: Therefore, Socrates was mortal. P1: A week consists of seven days. P2: A day consists of twenty-four hours. C: Therefore, a week consists of 168 hours. P1: If God is capable of everything, then God is incapable of being incapable of anything. P2: If God is incapable of being incapable of anything, then God is incapable of something. P3: If God is incapable of something, then God is not capable of everything. C: Therefore, God is not capable of everything. P1: If premise one is true, then premise two is also true. P2: Premise one is true. C: Therefore, both of the premises in this argument are true. I look forward to your response.
Mass Refutation Debate #1

= Opening Statements = Hey guys! Thanks for taking the time to read this. Allow me to explain what this is all about; = Rules/Clarifications = + My opponent will present five arguments a round, for three consecutive rounds. I will have the burden to refute their arguments. + This debate is not traditional in the sense of extension or further refutation of arguments, but instead one of single refutation and argument building. What I mean is that if my opponent makes an argument in round one, they do not have the liberty to defend or extend the argument in a later round. In the same way, I do not have the liberty to further refute the argument after my round to refute it has passed. Instead, my opponent's aim should be to make as solid an argument as possible in the round that the argument is written, and my own will be to make as best a refutation as I can in my round which follows. + New arguments should be made every round, and they should be as diverse as possible. My opponent should not make all their arguments revolve around a single subject area, but should include many subjects. + Any argument style is permitted, but whatever style is used should be consistent and should follow the traditional Claim/Warrant/Impact format. + Whomever accepts this debate will begin in round one, and will not use their final round for any kind of argumentation or voting issue platform. = Closing Statements = I hope to have a clean, fun debate in which both mine and my opponent's minds are stretched. Good luck to anyone who would decide to accept this round, and if there are any questions please feel free to ask them in the comments section prior to acceptance!
Hell is real, Heaven isn't

< > You have not proven anything. No one experiences turmoil or pain in the center of the Earth because no one has ever been there. Nor could anyone survive a trip there. I'm sorry ShrimPman, but you thoroughly defeated yourself in this debate. You failed to prove that hell is real. Also, because you associated hell with heaven, we all know that you did not initially mean hell to mean "any place of turmoil and pain", but the complete opposite of heaven. Thanks for the debate!
Hell is real, Heaven isn't

<< Can you prove that hell deoesn't exist and that it doesn't have anything to do with volcanoes? since your the pro can you prove it>> Actually, I do not have to prove anything because you are the creator of this debate and you made yourself the "Pro". I am the "Con" that is an atheist that says neither exist (and negative no matter which way you look at it). So please, fulfill your obligation as Pro to this debate by answering the burden of proof. Thank you.
Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent

Condoms are not always the best protection method. Condoms can break. Women need to use birth control to guarantee that pregnancy will not occur. Using a condom alone is more risky than using birth control alone. Should parents know whats going on with their children? Yes. But are they ever going to? No. If teens know that their parents will find out when they go to the clinic for help and birth control..they will never go. They wont get help. And more and more teens will get pregnant. Teens shouldnt be responsible enough to have access to birth control is what con has said, however, kids should be responsible enough to have a baby? Which is worse? dealing with a pill a day so that you dont get pregnant, or dealing with a human being? Teens will never stop having sex. It happens. They will also never tell their parents and never want their parents to know. In a perfect world parents would find out and be there for their children, but were not living in that kind of society. Help teens not get pregnant, and let them have birth control.
Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent

Birth Control is extremely hard to manage, and should not be seen as this fool proof way of stopping teen pregnancy. Without a parent to help them, chances are a teenage girl will improperly administer it, especially if she is trying to keep it secret from her parents. No one should condone allowing a teenager to have access to something as important as birth control without parental knowledge and supervision because a) the parent has the right to know and can help and b) they will probably use it incorrectly at some point. If you want them to have protection without parental knowledge then they have condoms....you need to show why condoms are not an appropriate solution to the problems you've listed, and why we should allow inexperienced teenagers access to a drug that plays hell with their hormones and can be very dangerous. It's kind of like saying that teenagers should be allowed to get a vasectomy without parental consent. The resolution is negated.
Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent

Im sorry for the forfeit. Teenagers are going to have sex. They are NOT going to tell their parents, and while people say they should, they wont. So you're going to let them have a child instead of giving them birth control? Sure its expensive, but so is diapers, food, and everything else a brand new human being is going to need. The common age for teenager girls to have sex is 15.. you really think all these 15 year olds want to tell their parents? No. Let them have protection.
Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent

Con will argue that teens should only be given birth control if their parents are told. I am not looking for a 'formal' debate. I am not planning on posting sources or doing any of that formally, unless con asks me to, and in that case, i will. Thank you to who ever accepts to be con, and good luck:) -i will say this before you accept, i am not in this for winning. I am in this to hear others opinions on this situation, and also to give out my opinion.-
Easter should include presents

Having Jesus die on Easter just gives it a better reason to celebrate it. Jesus was born on Christmas and we get presents, so why shouldnt we get presents on another of his special dates. Even though I have stated my debate inxorrectly, we would still get more presents and focus on the presents rather on the chocolate eggs. Our parents will not want us getting sick or fat from the high sugar in chocolate eggs and they will tell us to play with the presents. My opponent, Jack, has stated that we can keep the memories from eating chocolate eggs, but can we? If we eat them every year, we cant keep memories but loose them. My oponnent has stated that we are to look under the " easter tree" but what are easter baskets and bags for? Nothing. Well if presents come into Easter thats what they'll be for!