BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortion is murder

REBUTTAL OF CON'S ARGUMENTS. 1Con says babies before 20 weeks can not feel pain. I agree,this is accepted by most people.But no can be 100% sure that a fetus younger than 20 weeks cannot feel pain.No one remembers what it was like being that young. This is my argument of why we should not abort babies that may not can feel pain. Imagine if we had a drug that you could take and feel no pain.Now imagine that a mother gives her 6 month old this drug,the 6month old could then feel no pain.Then the mother stabs the child to death.After she kills the child she says she had the right to kill it because it could not feel pain,and that it was her body(even though it wasn't) This is the same thing that's anyone that aborts a baby under 20 weeks is doing. . 2. Con says the abortion pill is not painful to the fetus. I disagree,anesthetics may be given to the fetus,but i believe it would not block the pain of being destroyed. After 20 weeks the baby can feel pain,This is confirmed by scientific studies ,the studies also say that the fetus may can feel pain more intense than after being born.This is because the body has not developed enough to deal with pain effectively. The CDC reported that in the U.S. in 2011 that 1.4% of the babies aborted after 21 weeks.Thatds 10,224 babies.So if you say that abortion should be legal after20 weeks you are saying. That a mother has the right to kill her baby,even if it causes extreme pain to thebaby.Pain.worse.than me or you will ever feel. 3. Con says abortion does not cause family and friends to suffer or have pain. I disagree. What about a father that wanted a child of his own and was expecting his baby to be born and be his child. But his wife or girlfriend goes and get
abortion is murder

From a scientific point of view, Pro is right. Aborting a baby is the equivalent of murdering it. But I disagree with Pro when he says that it is the equivalent of murdering a live person, therefore it is wrong to have an abortion. We have to examine the issue deeper, and understand why we consider murder wrong and why, I would argue, it does not apply to babies in their mothers' wombs. First of all, in some cases, killing in some cases would be considered wrong due to the amount of pain it causes, a point which Pro raised. But this does not apply to abortions. If the fetus is less than 20 months old, it is incapable of feeling pain and will not have to endure pain or suffering during the procedure. Even if the fetus is more than 20 months old, the procedure will usually be painless as it involves taking "abortion pills" which do not hurt the fetus physically and cause physical pain. Considering that more than 99% of abortions occur before the fetus is 20 months old, I think the pain that the fetus endures is irrelevant when discussing abortion. Another reason why murder is considered wrong may be because it may cause suffering and pain to the deceased's friends and family. But in the case of an abortion, I would contend that an abortion does the opposite. There are many reasons why one would get an abortion, but the number 1 reason is because of premarital/ teenage sex. The couple think that they would not be able to support a baby financially or are not mature enough to support it. So they have no choice but to abort the baby to prevent their lives from being affected. So, abortion does the opposite of suffering and pain - it can relieve the couple of lots of future suffering if they think they cannot support it. The final reason why murder is usually considered wrong is simply because it takes away a life. The person who is murdered could have had so much potential and could do so many things in his life, and murder is essentially robbing him of his future. But I think this argument does not make sense. If you think that murder is wrong because it denies an individual's potential or future, then many other things are punishable. For example, you could punish a couple for not having sex and having a baby, saying that if they had a baby, that baby would have had so much potential and could potentially contribute greatly to society. Thus this argument is not relevant when discussing abortion as well. As such, I believe having an abortion is justified. I look forward to Pro's replies and rebuttals.
abortion is murder

1 Science. Science says life begins at conception,and killing a unborn baby is murder.Here's how. When the sperm reaches the egg,the sperm then fuses with the egg to form the zygote.The zygote is a new person.Because when the 23 chromosomes from the sperm fuses with the 23 chromosomes of the egg,the dna of both the father and mother are one.The new zygote has all 46 of it's chromosomes that it will have for the rest of it's life..The zygote grows and in jus.t 18 days the new person can feel pain. So science says that the baby in the womb can feel pain,has a beating heart 4 months after conception ,looks like a baby,so the fact is . it is a baby and not a some mass of cells. since we know it's a baby,the question is should women be able to kill the child in their womb.Since the baby inside the womb is a underdeveloped child,just as a child is a underdeveloped adult.It would be sensible to say that abortion is the same as a person killing their 1 year old baby. We all agree that a parent murdering their 1 year old is wrong and evil,Since the unborn is just as human as a 1 year old,it is indeed just as wrong. So all laws that protect people that has been born also should protect the unborn
Tupac Shakur faked his death and is still alive

Very well, Well let me first start off by saying 1 VERY IMPORTANT FACT that proves Tupac's death was planned. In the United States, their is currently only "ONE" state that allows a person to LEGALLY fake his/her death and be given a new identity. Only on the terms that the person who is planning their "death" has had someone attempt to murder them 2 times or more. Looking back at Tupac Shakur's life we all know people have attempted to murder him, examples include, August 22, 1992, in Marin City, California, When Shakur performed at an outdoor festival and a rapper pulled out a Colt Mustang trying to shoot Shakur. November 30, 1994, Shakur was shot five times and robbed after entering the lobby of Quad Recording Studios in Manhattan by two armed men in army fatigues. As the story goes we know this is when the whole beef starts between Biggie Smalls & P. Diddy VS Tupac Shakur In October 1993, in Atlanta, two brothers and off-duty police officers were with their wives celebrating a recent passing of the state bar examination. As they all crossed the street, a car with Shakur inside passed by them or "almost struck them," after which they began an altercation with the driver, Shakur and the other passengers, which was then joined by a second passing car. Mark Whitwell was charged with firing at Shakur's car and later lying to the police during the investigation, and Shakur with firing back, until prosecutors decided to drop all charges against all parties. And then theirs the staged death, On September 7, 1996, Shakur was shot four times in Las Vegas, Nevada. He was taken to the University Medical Center, where he died six days later. Again all this just relates to my first point about "Faking Death" in the state of Nevada. Now I would just like to present some a few other interesting details to the debate. Tupac was cremated the day after he died. Since when does some one get cremated the day after a murder? There was no autopsy. Plus, no one can ask to dig up his grave like they wanted to do with Elvis and like they did with Abraham Lincoln. Tupac always wore a bulletproof vest, but for some strange reason he didn't wear one the night he was with Suge Knight and was shot. The memorial services that were open to the public were canceled in both Los Angeles and Atlanta. Tupac's vehicle got shot 12 times and Suge didn't get hit once, He was 'grazed' by a bullet, Why did Tupac get shot all those times and Suge not get hit once? If a car pulls up next to you and shots at the passenger 12 times if one bullet hits the passenger the odds of 1 out of 12 not hitting the driver are 1-NONE.
Tupac Shakur faked his death and is still alive

Faking your own death:My opponent has stated faking your own death in Nevada is legal under certain circumstances I only that he show the source of this claim. I would like to point out even it is legal in Nevada to fake your death it does not prove 2pac did so.Autopsy photos:Any photo can be photoshoped it does not prove my opponents argument that "Tupac Shakur faked his death and is still alive" which is what this debate is about.see for yourself below http://thunder_1st.tripod.com......Ignition key:The reason you do not see the key is because it is black plastic it does not shine like a steel key would. I have had this debate before so I already knew this.**I did as my opponent said and oppened his pic in "paint" you can see the key ring*****See for yourself belowhttp://data.bmrparts.com...... The reason fans think 2pac is alive is because he was so beloved when he was alive this is why Elvis sightings are reported all the time. Same as my opponent I wish that 2pac was still alive in the physical form sadly he is not but he is alive in the hearts and minds of his fans evidence for that is the fact we are even having this debate............. Somebody help me, tell me where to go from here cause even Thugs cry, but do the Lord care? Tupac Shakur
Tupac Shakur faked his death and is still alive

I respect your response and can see you are a worthy opponent on this subject. Okay so lets begin. Well regarding the "plagiarism" you accused me of, well last time I checked I did not post everything WORD for WORD and actually put most of what i said in my own words and added more to what I found. Anyways not getting to far of topic let me first start of by saying how you totally disregarded by argument and basically said it was FALSE by telling me he has a death certificate..... THAT PROVES MY FIRST ARGUMENT IS CORRECT. According to the state of Nevada it is LEGAL to fake your death so it only makes sense that they would make a DEATH CERTIFICATE, hence the reason for faking your death you would want people to believe you are DEAD! Then give you a new idenity! Now to give more evidence that Tupac Shakur is ALIVE is the detail you brought up about his autopsy. Me as being a true Tupac fan would know at first that at the time of his death an autopsy photo was not released. Yet many months later one was shown on the news claiming to be his autopsy. After trying to relocate this photo since I had not seen it in years, this is the one i came across on the internet. http://www.google.com... NOW, whether this photo is real or not is the question, but after reviewing multiply sites all of them claimed this was the autopsy photo released. Now here comes the FACT, if this is the true photo where is the tattoo that should be located on his neck? Tupac got a "Makaveli tattoo" right before he died back in 1995 after being released from prison and studying the ways of Makaveli. I also noticed the tattoo on his right arm looks slighty different to the one I've seen in music videos of him. And for my next point I would like to point out the famous "LAST PHOTO EVER TAKEN OF TUPAC ALIVE" You know what i am talking about the one of him in the Black BMW sedan. http://www.bing.com... Well if you do the same thing i did and open up the application "Paint" on your computer and zoom in as far as you can and look at the KEY ignition, where is the key???? Reporters claim that this photo was taken when Tupac & Suge were stopped at a red light, last time i checked cars don't run when stopped at a red light (And please don't bother to try to convince me there was PUSH START for cars back in 96')
We know that we are independent,but sometimes we are feeling that we are so far from it.Do you agree

Since my opponent has failed to give definitions, or better clarify the resolution, so here's the interpretation you will vote off of.1) The Resolution begs the question of "Do you agree?" Essentially If I disagree, I win.2) My opponent doesn't specify what independent is, and the grammatical errors in the resolution prove you should by my interpretation over Pro's. Now for some definitions:1) Independent is defined as an individual not affiliated with any political party.Onto Con's Case:Contention 1- I Disagree with the resolution. (Look back at the interpretations)Contention 2- Pro presumes that "we" are all independent, but this can be analytically falsified, without the use of sources. Assuming "We" Means every single person on the planet, if at least one person is affiliated with some sort of political party, the resolution is negated. I am a Communist, and am therefore not independent. [1] It's not just me either, over 210 members on this site alone are affiliated with the Communist Party. [2]Sources:[1] http://debate.org...[2] http://debate.org... Now Enjoy the Powerpuff girls while we wait. Let's Go!Power, super, super-power, power, super, super-powerWould you like to play a game of hide and seek now?- LalalalalalalaaIf you have x-ray eyes, please promise not to peek now.- LalalalalalalaaFirst we count to ten, and then we'll have some fun now!- LalalalalalalaaOr will you fly away before we count to one now?- LalalalalalalaaA signal in the sky-ohThat's when you know that you have to fly-ohA signal in the sky- Ooooo!Let's Go!You know you got a lot to do, oooo.Let's Go!And everything depends on you, oooo.Ooooooo.Hey girls, hey girls, come out and play now!- LalalalalalalaaOr do you have to hurry off to save the day now?- LalalalalalalaaCan't you come over, watch a movie with your friends now?- LalalalalalalaaOr will you fly away before we see the end now?- LalalalalalalaaA signal in the sky-ohThat's when you know that you have to fly-ohhA signal in the sky- AhhhhhLet's go! You know you have a lot do to, ooo.Let's go! And everything depends on you, oooo.Ooooooo.Power, super, super-power, power, super, Super-Power!A signal in the sky-oh.That's when you know that you have to fly- ohh. A signal in the sky- AhlalalalaLet's Go!(Power, super, super-power...)You know you got a lot to do, oooo.Let's Go!And everything depends on you, oooo.Let's Go!You know go a lot to do, oooo.Let's Go!And everything depends on you, oooo.Let's Go!You know you got a lot to do, oooo.....http://www.youtube.com...;
I am Inexperienced debater

My opponent has set up a very good argument in witch I will try to disprove. 1.Lacking experience is different from lacking skill. I have no experience in debating except for this debate site and debates I have engaged my own debate team in. I feel that it is the other way around what if I have skill I just lack experience in using that skill? Think of this a man joins the army and he fires his weapon in basic and then is thrown into combat. He has the skill of firing the weapon, but he lacks the experience of shooting it in combat. The man would hesitate in firing at a live human being because he has never shot to kill. Think of me as the man and debating as the gun. I have the skill to debate in training but, lack the skill to debate when it really counts. 2. My opponent has initiated many debates with professional, skilfully created resolutions. I may set up proper and proffesional resolutions but again I have the skill to use this to my advantage but I lack the experience. Both the opponents in my two previous debates have more experience in using the skill that they have acquired in debating. You can have as much skill as you want but when it comes down to it if you have no experience using it than it is not useful. 3)My opponent's typical arguments in a debate are short, but effectively summarize his points and are intelligent in design. If my arguments are so short and summarized points and are intelligent in design, then why do I consistently lose debates to other opponents? I say again I have the skill but lack of experience in using that skill. My debate arguments are filled with parts of a subject that has nothing to do with the actual debate. 4)My opponent could easily be faking his inexperience for the sake of this debate. If I were hiding my inexperience just for the sake of a debate I would have won alot more than just one debate on this site. This would be a great strategy for one to use such as faking being shot to have your enemy to come closer to finish him off. I ask the readers of this debate to read all arguments and make up there own opinions based on our arguments.
The consumption of meat is ethically wrong

I hope for another great debate! As you have the burden of proof, I will be brief with the introduction. Beliefs:-Animals outside of humans do not deserve the rights of a person, since the holders of rights must be able to distinguish between their own interests and what is right. As professor Carl Cohen argues, "The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, [they] . .. must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked. " (1) -I also agree with his response to the contention that brain-damaged individuals deserve rights as well. His response is that the test for moral judgment "is not a test to be administered to humans one by one," but should be applied to the capacity of members of the species in general. -Since animals should not be given the inherent rights of a person (and therefore not the right to life), people should determine what rights they should have on a human needs/desires vs animal suffering basis. I believe that killing animals for consumption can be justifiable since it is valuable to us, and our need/desire of eating meat trumps the suffering of those other species. -I believe that there should still be laws against animal torture as it has no value to humans outside of the pleasure of a few sick individuals. This pleasure doesn't trump the suffering that is inflicted. -There should be regulations to ensure that animal farms are as humane as possible, so as to ensure a maximum net value for the suffering caused. With my beliefs outlined, you may now outline your arguments for the motion. I look forward to Round 2!1. . http://spot.colorado.edu...
The consumption of meat is ethically wrong

Greetings Valladarex,Here is the debate! Ethics: normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.Outlines:- First round acceptance, just so I can outline everything (you can briefly outline your arguments if you want to).- 4 rounds because of the outlining in the first.- No new arguments in the last round.- The burden of proof is 100% with me. - Prepare to have your arguments demolished Good luck!
Prostitution should be Legalized and Regulated

There are many, many reasons why prostitution shouldn't be legal in the United States. Not being able to regulate prostitution is the biggest reason why. If you can regulate prostitution it can lead to other problems, such as an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, underage sex, rape/violence just to name a few problems I"ll be touching on. First off the problem with regulation is that America just does not have enough money or man power to regulate prostitution. It would cost billions of dollars to test these women and men to ensure they do not have any STD"s. They would have to test them all the time to ensure safe sex. They would need manpower to make sure these people are getting tested on a regular basis, and we the American people are the ones who would have to pay for this. For these reasons regulation is not a possibility Without the possibility of regulation, STD"s would dramatically increase. They would spread like wildfire as more and more people paid for sex. Even with regulation there is no way to ensure the use of condoms during sex unless a government official was watching (costing even more money.) But condoms aren"t even 100% safe so there STD"s will spread. Underage sex would be a big problem as well. Since we can"t afford enough police to ID every prostitute and make sure they are of legal age there will be more and more minors having sex for money. Rape and violence will increase if prostitution is legal. Prostitution may be one of the oldest professions in the world; it is also one of the most dangerous. Let"s say a girl is 17 and decides to have sex for money there will be guys out there that might hurt her as they are aware she may think twice about calling the police as she would get into trouble to. It is a problem that would have to be addressed as it would be much more common. In conclusion It would not be particle nor possible to regulate prostitution. It will lead to an increase in STD"S, underage sex, rape/violence. As well as other problems I haven"t touched on. For all these reasons prostitution should not be legal.
Prostitution should be Legalized and Regulated

With changing times come changing morals....or are they so much of a change. The world's oldest profession is the world's oldest profession for a reason. Sex is a dirty word to so many millions of adults, when it really need not be. Offering a legal alternative to what is now currently an "illegal" practice of buying or selling of ones self to someone in order to make them happy or feel good is the only option that makes sense. Today we have rampant STD's and drug abuse that is related to prostitution that while, when made legal will not go away, it could offer states an option of regulating - making sure someone "licensed" in the profession is clean, just like any other professional status in the States. The law will change eventually....as the sexual morals of adults in the United States grow up.
evo THEORY is a Biologically Impossible Myth

Preamble: evo THEORY is nothing but a biologically impossible myth that has never happened, is not happening now, and shall never happen in the future. Prove me wrong and win $5,000.00 by watching this short video: Formal Argument: evo THEORY is nothing but a biologically impossible myth. P1: Without actual observation of concrete and successful inter-species propagation, evo THEORY cannot be anything but a biologically impossible myth. P2: There has never been, at any time, any actual observation of concrete and successful inter-species propagation. Conclusion: Therefore evo THEORY is nothing but a biologically impossible myth. QED
Is Obama a War Criminal

It dosn't matter if you hate our wars. The debate is about Obama being a war criminals. Whitch is wrong, he has done nothing to be a war criminal. Also those wars we fight there leaders are corrupt, and kill thete own people. They have poor human rights records. Also there would be no way that that libyian currency could beat the dollar. China and Russia can not, they can not, even if we disn't fight him. Also I am pretty sure the people where the ones who fought the war. We never sent group troops into Libya. Well let me just say they didn't want o be part of Russia. They said so, also all those votes where messed up. No vote like that gets 99%or 98% for passing it. That is a lye, also lets see did they want to be part of Russia no they didn't. Russia is no longer the Soviet Union, Ukrainian wants to be independent so let them have all of there land. So far all you have said is all anti american propaganda. You have shown no proof what so ever. Israel fights terrorism, they do not kill civilians unlike ISIS and other Islamic terrorist cells do.