BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion: A Topic of Deadly Consequences

You would say it would be wrong to kill a sentient being. I agree with you of course, however, you continue to call this justification for killing a fetus. My opponent says that since a fetus is not a sentient being, it is not murder, and is therefore, ok. How about killing a person who is in a coma? Is that ok. He or she has no stream of conciousness. They have less sensual perception than most animals, and they certainly couldn't sustain their lives by themselves. By that you can say that they are completely insentient. I think most people would agree that killing a human in a coma is still an act of murder. Why then would it be ok to kill a human fetus? Both are alive, both are human, and both have the capacity to gain conciousness in the future. Moving on to your second point: A human could be defined as a complex organism made up according to human DNA. For a fetus to meet this requirement it requires three characteristics. 1.It must be an organsim. Since is fetus is an individual living system, it is, in fact, a living organism. 2. It would have to be a complex orgnanism, meaning it would need more than one cell. A fetus most certainly has more than one cell, so it is a living and complex organism. 3. It must be made up by the blueprints of human DNA. It is, in fact, growing according exactly to those blueprints and is, therefore, human. Your point about a human blood cell being human and cutting an arm to be genocide is voided in that both are not organisms and therefore, cannot be defined as human. In conclusion, I finish this turn by restating my two points. First, to define a human by its concsiousness and perception is not reasonable since we consider those in in a coma and/or in a vegitative state, to be human. Second, to say that a fetus is not human simply based on its DNA is true, but it is human based on the three characteristics I mentioned. Seeing as arms and single cells dont meet all of the characteristics, they are not human.
Abortion: A Topic of Deadly Consequences

My opponent's argument is thus: 1. Killing an innocent human is murder. 2. Murder is wrong. 3. Abortion is killing an innocent human. 4. Abortion is murder. 5. Abortion is wrong. That is the sequence of logical thinking. If we agree with the first three statements, then the last two follow naturally. However, I must disagree with one of the first three statements. I take issue with #3: Abortion is killing an innocent human. My opponent already attempted to address the argument I am making, so I will reply to his counterargument. He argues that as long as something has human DNA, it is human, regardless of whether it can think, etc on its own. I have two responses to this, each attacking a different point on the logical reasoning pathway I provided above. First, is the fact that you have human DNA the reason it's wrong for me to kill you? I would think not: I would think it is wrong for me to kill you because you are a sentient being; because, like me, you have feelings, emotions, and the fact that you are part of the mutually beneficial society we all are oart of. Those same reasons cannot be said for an embryo, especially before a certain stage. Second, I would like to point out some things that are not human yet have human DNA. Blood cells, for example. If I cut my arm right now, many of my blood cells would die as a result. If we are to count anything with human DNA as fully human and deserving of the rights thereof, I would be committing genocide by cutting my arm. All cells in your body have human DNA, yet they are not human. Thus, it cannot be said that having human DNA makes something human. Therefore, the "killing embryos isn't murder" argument is still valid. And thus, I put that argument forward. I'll let my opponent defend against these points now. I look forward to the rest of the debate ;]
Global Warming is primarily caused by humans

Pro wants us to believe that we are the only reason the world can become warmer. Pro wants to directed complete control over idea, and resolvable solution. An equation using a fixed outcome has only one solution. This is basic math principle and is what needs to be disproved in pro"s argument. Pro is not lying, I am not lying, and the only reason some-one needs a lie in this debate is to fix the equation, to fix an outcome, only humanity. By doing this the forced answer becomes fixed as the only problem. We all hate word problems, we all know how complicated they are, not all of us can use word problems like Science, when left inside the fixed bias equation they can be used to create the answer wanted. "Climate manipulation", if science had been sure the Title of this debate would be Climate manipulation. It is being done here by witness account, is it being done by only by nature for the plants course, or is mankind now a play for human course. "All the Titles of this topic are focusing public attention on the event and not an investigation into cause." That is not a natural course of non-biased understanding. The rest of this is added to simply to clear misdirection of a fix equation. Reading is not required but welcome. Volcanoes are one large vent you may see on the surface it is not the complete system. It is only a very small part of a much larger network of vents, lava, and "gases." The deeper underground we explore hotter it gets, ground traps Co2, and cook out of crude oil before humans can ever touch it. Volcanoes are simple just a part of a process of circulation which gives us gauge globally of how rapidly it can move, then be released at one times. (Note the earth also has ways to naturally scrub Co2 out of our air, the earth surface proportionately is covered of this scrubber two to every one unit. "Earth is a dust magnet." And space is nothing but a dirty vacuum filled with dust. Science knows this is fact. Space dust has been used in models to show what has formed many plants including earth. If Dust cannot accumulate mass there would be no plants at all. Pro, Con may simply not be ready to exclude Co2 emissions entirely yet. There are a number of ways in which mankind can benefit by rising Co2 levels. Concern is a word a person might use, it provokes a look into expressions such as Intentional or unintentional, long term short term. We are products of our understanding. When understanding is fixed our understandings become fixed. Not all solutions that are given to the public fix result in positive outcome. This is not a problem which will benefit humanity with a fixed outcome.
Global Warming is primarily caused by humans

In conclusion, Con has essentially failed to prove the points I provided wrong. Instead, Con used his/her rebuttal to reply to my rebuttal. On top of that, I have shown that a fairly large chunk of the so-called "facts" Con has provided are in fact no facts but inaccurate information/lies. This ranges from "volcanoes emit more Co2 than humans" (when in reality humans emit 100x as much as volcanoes) and "the earth is gaining mass" (when it is, in fact, losing it). This means that not only has Con failed to prove my points wrong, he/she has failed to provide accurate as well as reliable information that backs their own point up. Regardless, I thank Con for their hard-worked arguments, but I advise them to structure their points more clearly, put citations, and next time don't reply to your opponent's reply... instead reply to the points they provide.
Global Warming is primarily caused by humans

Stipulation: " If Con is implying that conduction between the Earth"s atmosphere and space causes temperature change while they are trying to maintain equilibrium, that would be false since conduction is not possible when one of the sources is the vacuum [1] {space is a vacuum]" Rebuttal: Yes, I agree as mentioned a [ Vacuum ] pardon the pun full of dust. How much dust is this vacuum full of? Point three, fourth paragraph on. The amount that accounts for the addition of volume of the world"s total mass. 40, metric tons a year + -. This issue creates two possible problems. A) Additional overall mass weight = greater gravitational conversion to energy = more energy proceeds more heat. B) The added temperature of dust and meteors combines as these material are supper heated from the solar energy of the sun. C) Adding conversion of materials from liquid "States" to a "gaseous States" due to a minuet difference in volume pressure. Which now pro confirms with the introduction of gas elements leaving Earth"s atmosphere. (Thank you) The extremely large number of forces that we are deal with here puts are most sophisticated tool known to humanity, the 5 cent pencil to the test, as this information is well outside the detection range. P.S. I hate math. So when I put forth effort you are dam sure it"s not going to be to find fixed outcome. As that number is manufactured and not proof of intelligence used to solve and find solution. A declaration of personal preference and not an accusation of any kind, to anyone. There is a mathematical contradiction to use a fixed outcome to learn an unknown like mathematics. So how much volume does 40 + - metric tons of hydrogen and/or Helium two of the more light-weight elements account for. I"m not going to use my pencil, but I bet the earth does not hold enough mass in those materials to lose 40 metric tons since its creation. 0. 454 kg 2.68 Cubic meters 96.65 cubic feet. http://www.airproducts.com... Stipulation: "Con yet again misleads the reader with the unreliable statement that volcanoes emit more Co2 than humans do." Rebuttal: Yes misleading is true. I"m sorry. It is not all information for the reader to understand alone. It is a lot of data to take in, to see, I could not load pics or charts, it overall amount needs to be listed to be seen, so we know just how much extremely hot activity is taking place around the world. As all volcanic activities also creates earthquakes. Let"s go on a treasure hunt, because you are treating nature like it is human and can"t hide its emissions from science. Why would the most Co2 activity be at the volcano themselves? Science already knew all the action is deep underground. Carbon emissions are on a moving plate not standing still, this car is not parked. Scientist would be logically looking for a much closer to the source creation of fossil fuel Co2. Yeah, science already knew the only things coming out of the lava there will not in any way show the contamination at that point, the majority of carbon would be crystallized.
Global Warming is primarily caused by humans

If Con is implying that conduction between the Earth’s atmosphere and space causes temperature changes while they are trying to maintain equilibrium, that would be false since conduction is not possible when one of the sources is a vacuum [1] (space is a vacuum). It is true that radiation from the Sun warms the Earth, but it is also true that greenhouse gases, such as Co2, trap this radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere instead of reflecting it back into space resulting in the warming of the Earth’s surface.While it is true that friction creates heat… there are so little particles in the vacuum of space that any source of friction would not produce noticeable heat since there is little to no friction whatsoever in space [2]. This means, friction can not produce a change in orbital speed or orbit as Con has said. Space has roughly only 1 atom per cubic inch [3]. So while there is friction is space, there is very very very little of it due to the low density of space. We are faced with yet another lie from Con, that the Earth is getting heavier daily. When in reality, it was calculated that the Earth LOSES 50,000 tons of mass annually [4]. While it is true that roughly 40,000 tons of mass accumulate annually, Con forgot about the fact that about a combined 96,000 tons of Hydrogen and Helium are escaping from Earth’s gravity , resulting in a net loss of mass instead of a gain as Con implied [4]. Before Con argues that this net LOSS can also result in a change in Earth’s orbit, the net loss is a mere 0.000000000000001% every year, not even close to being large enough to provide a significant effect on Earth’s climate or any factor whatsoever. Con yet again misleads the reader with the unreliable statement that volcanoes emit more Co2 that humans do. However, it has been shown that volcanoes give off between 65-319 million tons of Co2 annually. While this is quite a large number, it is dwarfed in comparison with the amount of Co2 humans emit… humans emit roughly 100x as much with approximately 30 BILLION tons of Co2 [5]. Con implies that auroras seem to disturb weather patterns on Earth, however, this is completely false for they do not disturb weather patterns on Earth [6]. The only things that auroras have been shown to disturb are radio waves, electricity, and satellites [7]. As I have shown, the vast majority of Con’s points have been shown to be false and are incredibly misleading to the reader. I also apologize for the rather short rebuttal for I tried to keep it clear and to the point for I tend to ramble at times. [1] https://www.quora.com...[2] http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...;[3] http://hypertextbook.com...;[4] http://scitechdaily.com...;[5] https://www.skepticalscience.com...;[6] http://www.unc.edu...;[7] http://www.suntrek.org...;
nothing has truth

The thing you show a good point but the big part about this is that we dont know if this is true to be in theory we dont know if anything exists. Just think about it truth is a illusion in the mind i mean im not even certain that what im saying is "true". Everyone has different beliefs and cultures and what they think i true another person may this is true instead of that an then more people say the same thing. Another example of this is in the medieval time period most of everyone thought the world was flat and that was truth, but now everyone thinks the world is round because we went in space now thats truth in society today and you might say in the medieval ages they didnt know and yeah they didnt what if now we go into another point of view and then everyone believes the world is a triangle or a cube or something like that. Also with religious beliefs how do we know that Hindu gods are real or the greek gods mainly because normally people think different from other people what if im thinking right now that our gods are goats or the world is made out of jelly. Just what if this what if that, i have said this a lot but we dont know and what if everyone has their own ideas that this is true and this is true but deep in their minds they dont know. What is reality and will we ever find out we dont know.
Guns r culz yo

Clearly sir you are taking this on a personal level which I would like to keep separate from the argument. Protection: I succeed to the fact that guns have saved countless lives. Downside: I hate to reference this but, the Sandy Hook shooting was because of loose gun laws leaving me to question (Are you psychotic?) Guns are not cool they are weapons they KILL people (and living things) how is killing cool? Are you saying you're a sicko that enjoys taking life away from a living thing?
Creating this debate was pointless.

The entirety of life is pointless, nullifying all attempts at finding meaning in existence of any kind. No individual, no matter how benevolent or omnipotent has the ability to give life purpose. We are left with the facts that all existence is mechanistic and the complete end of all things is stability. All Existence is Mechanistic -All things are led by chemical means. Chemicals react in predictable patterns, and since our entire existence is made of chemicals, that means the entirety of existence run in predictable patterns. We may not know the exact means of the nature of our universe nor the probability involved in it, but nonetheless the fact is reached that all things are predictable. This in turn means we have no free will. This also means, that if a god were to exist, it would also lack free will. In turn, as in all closed systems, the end of all things is equilibrium[1] or stability. The Complete End of All Things is Stability -As in all closed systems, which our universe or set of universes is, it will reach stability. The time taken for this matter is completely unknown at the moment, but it doesn't deny the fact that it will eventually occur. This denies the fact of anything else occurring in our universe, or set of universes, that has meaning. The universe (or set of universes) in turn, in its entirety, is pointless, or "having little or no sense, use, or purpose." This in turn leads to the logical conclusion that this debate is in turn pointless. [1]a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced. -Oxford Dictationaries
Creating this debate was pointless.

This is a brief debate about whether creating it was pointless. I will make my points extremely brief: ----Why it is useful to me regarding Debate.org----- 1. It was not pointless because my opponent will try to rebut my arguments, making it somewhat NOT pointless because they decide to debate about it in the first place. 2. This is only my second debate, and making a debate this short will help me get closer to be able to vote on other debates, meaning that it is somewhat useful. 3. Every debate one participates in gives him/her the chance of winning, so there is a possibility that I will win this debate. If I do, my ranking will improve. This, again, makes creating this debate useful. One might say, "It is not useful/pointless in your real life problems, however!" However this is extremely flawed. Here we are with the definition of "pointless": Pointless: having no meaning, purpose, or effect [1] According to this, "pointless" does not mean having no purpose IN GENERAL LIFE. From this we can conclude two things: 1. I did not mention anything about it being pointless in my real life in the resolution. 2. I am only regarding the effects of creating this debate on this website. -----Conclusion----- The conclusion is that making this debate is not pointless, regardless of where its uses are... Well, used. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... Over to you, pro.
Death Penalty

The death penalty, if it were to be implemented, would need to be a murder case and would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there is a paradox of unanimity, so a unanimous decision would be a bad reason to convict someone of murder. At the same time, anything less than unanimous would mean that there is some kind of reason why somebody would not deserve the death penalty. Err on the side of not giving the death penalty rather than killing an innocent person.
Hitting a MLB fastball is the hardest thing to do in sports

Not only is hitting an MLB fastball not the hardest thing to do in sports, it isn't even the hardest pitch to hit in baseball. In a study done on 2009 pitchers. They showed who had the best pitches (looking at the individual pitches of the pitcher) and found that the top 10 pitches, not one of them is a fastball. So even the best fastball pitcher in the league couldn't make it to the top 10 (while the slider holds 3 of the top 5 spots). [1][2] Now that is a study going from pitcher to pitcher. But lets look at the actual pitches (on the whole, independent from individual pitchers). In a study of Fastball (FB), Changeup (CU), Curveball (CB) and Sliders (SL), looked at how often each pitch is thrown, how often it is hit, how often it is hit for a home run, and how often it is thrown based on the count. [3] The fastball is the most likely pitch to be hit for a home run, and the fastball is the least likely to be swung and missed, only 6% of fastballs are swung at and missed, 94% of the time, they are either hit, or just watched go by. Fastballs are also the most likely to be hit (38% of the time, be it fall, for a hit, or getting out, but contact is made), with curveballs being the lowest at 29%. [3] I do believe that this proves, without any question, that both fastballs in general are not the hardest pitch to hit (in fact one of the easiest) and that the best fastball is not harder to hit then the best slider or the best curve or even the best change up. [1] http://online.wsj.com... [2] http://mlb.mlb.com... [3] http://www.hardballtimes.com... I await PRO's further arguments.
Hitting a MLB fastball is the hardest thing to do in sports

ZAP! In less time than it takes you to ready that word Randy Johnsons famous 100Mph+ fastball would be out of his hand and into the catchers mitt. ZAP! A baseball thrown at 100Mph thrown by "The Big Unit" reaches home plate in less than 2/10 of a second. Thats half the time that it takes you to blink your eye. A baseball is 9 1/4 inches round, weighs about 5 ounces and half the time is the same colour as the pitchers jersey. On average there are only 750 peoeple in this world at any given time who are Paid to be able to come close to hitting this monstrous pitch and out of those 750 only a handful that can hit it 1/10 times squarley.(750 being the maximum numbers of players in the MLB before September where that number becomes 1200 due to the expanding rosters) These are the men then make their careers playing the game. No one is better than the players in the MLB and not even they can hit it more than once or twice out of ten times. If not even the Proffesionals can do it then why could anyone else even dream of it?
Hitting a MLB fastball is the hardest thing to do in sports

My argument is that hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports. I'm not talking about athletic feats such as completing a marathon, pitching a perfect game, beating Tiger Woods in a round of golf, etc, etc. I am talking about stepping up to the plate against a Nolan Ryan or a Randy Johnson, the best of the best. Some may say Scoring a goal in a shootout is harder... maybe shooting a hole in one but i am sure that i can formulate an argument to deny, and prove wrong, any of your statements.
Is there a "god"

god is a celestial being, meaning he was there from the beginning. and don't you know how many people have claimed to have seen god and heaven or hell and the devil and come back to tell the story? have you heard of Colton Burpo? he briefly died and medics were able to revive him. he had told the medics that he had "talked to Jesus" and met his sister who died before he was born and told his parents and they said that what they told them was correct. i think ive won my people
Is there a "god"

Ok so there is a thing called coincidence witch is exactly why we exist on this planet. science can cover almost anything. our ancestors came up with religion a very long time ago because there was not enough technologies to make studies and theories about our universe. all they had was their own mind so they would come up with whatever they thought of to cover it up. again we had no science do they thought there would be superior beings such as "zeus" who apparently made rain happen (myth)