BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortion, case closed

That was only an example to address my point of a living being alive before coming out of it's, "development stage." The real premise that all my arguments come down to is: A living being isn't anything else while it is in development. No matter what stage of it's growth a creature is still itself, there is no time during the growth where it can be aborted and not be considered murder. I would also like to point out that my opponent has not actually made a case for abortion, but merely stated that abortion is better. As a final comment my opponent has not given any reasons to prefer abortion, I will not make the same mistake. As you read this I would like you to think through the issue fully, for there are many reasons to completely reject abortion. Abortion is murder and this isn't just my opinion, the actual definition of murder is: the premeditated killing of one human being by another.[1] A unborn baby(or chicken, etc) is still alive while in development. The majority of mothers who abort their children have emotional breakdowns or depression from doing it.[2] And finally the whole goal of having children is to raise them to continue the cycle of life. I hope that you will reconsider your standpoint for anyone that believes it is okay, thank you for a good debate and please vote for the negative. [1]https://www.google.com... [2]http://afterabortion.org...
abortion, case closed

It would be a chicken that died. Because a chicken is a chicken from before it came out of the egg. You can have a chicken that develops under controlled conditions that isn't in an egg and it is still a chicken. Just like with babies, there are many times especially recently where babies are having to be taken out of the mother prematurely for various reasons. But even then it is still a human, it doesn't become a human after the premature period of development is done, it is a human the whole time.
With the exception of national security, government has no place regulating speech based on content.

Freedom of speech, the right to communicate and express ideas and sentiments without reservation or fear of censorship, is foundational to human existence. Government, then, has the obligation to ensure that the right to free speech and expression are upheld. Content-based regulation, regulation where legality of any specific idea is based on the substance of the idea being communicated, cannot coexist with freedom of speech. If all people are created equal, what right does another have to tell his neighbor what he may or may not say? John Milton described a "marketplace of ideas" in Paradise Lost, an open forum for all to engage in discourse without fear of reparisal. It is the preservation of such a "marketplace" that freedom of speech is so imperative because speech is the vehicle for the mind to articulate thoughts. Where speech is limited, so is thought and the power to regulate and ban ideas are beyond the reach of any just government. That is not to say that all regulation on speech is unjust; content-neutral laws do not abridge free thought. Laws that ban books because they champion unpopular ideas, articles because they express dissent, or ideas because they challenge the status quo jeopardize that freedom to which we are all entitled. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that "If there is any principal of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principal of free thought -- not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." The cause for such a freedom is implicit. If we can regulate the thoughts of others, could others not regulate ours when we are the party out of power?
With the exception of national security, government has no place regulating speech based on content.

I thank you. You thank me. Everybody's a happy family. Round 2 will be for opening arguments. I say a whole lot of stuff to support one side. You say a whole lot of stuff to support the side I'm not supporting. Debate commences. Round 3 will be for refutation and case reconstruction. I tell you what is wrong with your case. You tell me what is wrong with my case. We debate. Clash happens (ideally). Round 4 will be for closing arguments. Some ground rules: 1) I am more a rhetoric guy than a source guy. Your sources don't impress me. Your thoughts do. Sources are a means to an end in argument, not the end themselves. Use them as such. 2) If you use evidence, don't use it as a contention, point, sub-point, etc. Use it to support what you like. 3) This is going to be more a philosophical debate rather than an empirical one. I just like that style more; and it's a great way to avoid a source-war.
With the exception of national security, government has no place regulating speech based on content.

It seems that I am no longer joined by OrEle... how disappointing. Nevertheless, I shall take the opportunity to further the cause of free speech. Stanley Fish wrote some years ago that there is no such thing as free speech, in the purest definitions of both words. Free speech, then becomes a buzz phrase used to describe the societal value we place on unrestrained communication. That is not to say that I contend for a world where no limitation is posed on speech or expression (content-neutral restrictions I largely have no problem with). As an aside, I am using the US legal definition of content neutral. John Stewart Mill makes the following argument: "If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered... If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." The only cause for silencing any member of any society against his or her will, Mill contends is to prevent harm from to others (innocent parties) -harm being the invasion of the rights of others. Free speech, though, is a right equally possessed by individuals. I have no more right to free speech than another and therefore my right to free speech cannot justifiably encroach upon that of another.
the death penalty is justified.

if punishments dont prove the crime is wrong then why do we have punishments? if we look at the majority then we will see that the death penalty doesnt deter as much as we think. thus its pointless to continue to have something that doesnt work compared to other things. if you are not dealing with what people may want or would want then why are you so concerned about the family of the victim?isnt that dealing with what people may want or would want? and yes i do believe it is ethical for the murderer to get bargaining rights. all the other crimes in america get the same thing so its equality. its justice. and most murders are the result of someone being wronged. while the murderer may not have been thinking about the correct way to address the problem he was still wronged as well. the united states just had to borrow money from china for oil and you are saying that money shouldnt be an issue??? if we dont have money then how else will we punish the other people who commit crimes? if this person feels no guilt perhaps it is because he or she is unstable in the mind. in which case they shouldnt be getting the death penalty anyways. this person eventually loses their life too. just not in the brutal way the death penalty is associated with. thus life imprisonment can make up for the loss of a life.
the death penalty is justified.

the death penalty is being used to prove that murder is wrong. any form of punishment for any form of crime is proving that the act committed was wrong. thus the death penalty is just a hypocritical thing for our goverment to scare us with. the death penalty isnt even a detterent in the slightest since. in the states that have the death penalty and actually carry it out there are more murders than those states that do not. so how then can u say that the death penalty is a deterrent? ill admit we do live in a world where we feel we must be vindictive towards the people who do us wrong. but does that mean we should take a life? what about the family of the person who was executed how would u think they would feel? dont u think they would want something in return for the loss of their loved one as well? and there are other means of punishing people. the death penalty is more expensive than just keeping them in a high security cell here in a texas prison for the rest of their life. so if we are just looking to punish them we shouldnt give them death that is giving them the easy way out because they dont have to think about the fact they killed someone. so the only good that the death penalty is doing is keeping or let me say attempting to keep our population under control.
the death penalty is justified.

"what is our society coming to if we have to kill people who killed other people to prove that murder is wrong? that is total hypocrisy. " The death penalty was not implemented in order to prove that the murder is wrong. If we had to prove that murder is wrong, we could not convict or punish a person for murder using the death penalty, don't you agree? "and what is it actually solving? nothing and that is because killing someone isnt going to bring back the person who was murdered." This statement is logically flawed. The fact that killing someone will not bring back the deceased does not logically conclude to "Therefore, the death penalty solves nothing". The death penalty, as with any sort of conviction, has multiple purposes. First, it is to punish the person who committed the crime. Second, it is to avenge those who were wronged by the crime. Third, it is to serve as a deterrent to others in the future who may think of committing the crime. The death penalty, although it cannot CORRECT the crime, adequately PUNISHES and AVENGES, and also acts as a proper DETERRENT. Thus, even though it does not bring back the dead, it is useful for the still living.
Should Gay Marriage be Legalized

Gay marriage should be legalized because people should have the right to love who they want to love and love them however they want. Boys with boys and girls with girls this will not ruin or society or how or what people from other nations think about us legalize it because if you find true love go for it and there should NOT be government, politics or the president to stop that from happening because they gay people should have all the rights in the world they want to.
Potatoes should have basic human rights.

Before extending on my argument, I would like to point out that by forfeiting the second round, my opponent has not fulfilled the Burden Of Proof. Now to begin with my argument. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines'potato' as the starchy edible tuber of the Solanum Tuberosum. This falls under the category Solanaceae. Now,the proposition has forgotten that this debate revolves around plant sentience, a paranormal theory that plants respond to human beings and that they experience pain and fear. The idea is not supported, as plants lack a nervous system. This idea is distinct from measured plant perception and chemical communication.Plants are living things with cellulose cell walls, lacking nervous or sensory organs. Animals do not have cellulose cell walls but do have nervous or sensory organs. Animals are sentient; plants are not. A brain and nervous system are necessary for sentience; plants don't have brains or nervous systems. Plants react to physical and chemical stimuli, but there is no justification for claiming that plants are aware of these reactions, that they are self-conscious or conscious beings. The Animal Liberation Front argues that there is no evidence that plants can experience pain. This just shows that the breach or upkeep of human rights would not matter to them. References: http://skepdic.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Potatoes should have basic human rights.

First of all, I don't think that potatoes can be compared with present-day humans in anything except their shape. All basic human rights don't apply to potatoes.They are living things only in a scientific way. As far as human rights is concerned,potatoes are but mounds of starch. 'slaughtering' them just means cutting them. Dicing potatoes is not homicide. For example, a basic human right states that all humans have the right to own property. Does this apply to potatoes? I beg to differ.
Predestination makes God look evil.

Predestination is the belief that before the world began, God chose (predestined) those who would achieve salvation and those who would not. However, God "takes no pleasure in the death of anyone", so He says, "Repent and live." (Ezekiel 18:32) If then God does not enjoy the death (or spiritual death) of anyone, does that not contradict predestination? If that is the case, there is a quite large contradiction in the Bible. For all I know, I could be predestined for eternal punishment. Therefore, free will does not exist. If that is the case, our faith in Christ is not authentic whatsoever. Instead, we are just God's puppets with no consiousness.
Communism/Marxism is superior to Capitalism

I extend my appreciation toward my opponent for taking time out of his busy life to talk about a very prevalent issue. I will refute my opponent's point and then talk about the voting issues and wrap up this debate. 1. I understand your point, but you don't seem to realize that there is a whole set of people who don't fit in your healthy affluent society. These people ARE working but for some reason (possibly health/mental) they couldn't meet the labor quota. What happens to these people? Do they simply not count? A society encompasses everybody and doesn't disregard any class. Thus, there would be two classes. 2. I absolutely agree that if you are born with natural talent, you should be rewarded. And, capitalism gives you those rewards. You are suggesting a communist society where talented people are not let to reach their true potential. Also, capitalism doesn't automatically give talented people rewards, they have to work for them. The aff agrees that money shouldn't just be given to anybody, but people with innate talents should be able to use this to their advantage. But still, as we see today, the average working person can still be successful, but only through hard work. 3. Sure, One can lose money in Wall Street. But losing money in Wall Street doesn't mean that conditions for the poor become so terrible that they need a revolution to free themselves. People lose money in the stock market everyday. Do you see a revolution starting? ?? 4. To clear up this misconception, racism roots out of our own insecurities about ourselves. We try to categorize each other to give the illusion that we are better. This has nothing to do with economic status. In fact, leading social psychologists now believe that prejudices were used by our ancestors to categorize a friend or a foe. Thus, this "racism" you speak of was created before a government was even created. Now, on to voting issues: 1. I have proven that communism has a class struggle between the ones who match the quota and the ones who still working hard but can't. 2. I have proven that people with talent SHOULD use this to their advantage when searching for jobs or in the work force. 3. I have proven that an imploding Wall Street has never made conditions for the poor worst and there is no "revolution" trying to free themselves from their oppressors. 4. I have proven that prejudices are innate and part of our instinct to know if somebody is a friend or foe when no language existed. It was used as a safety measure long before economic status and the idea of capitalism. Now, all of your contentions are refuted. The opposition has the burden of proving why communism isn't superior to capitalism. The opposition did this by disproving the affirmation's case. Again, I would like to thank you personally for making this debate so engaging. And with that, the opposition has clearly won this debate.
Communism/Marxism is superior to Capitalism

First, I will refute my opponent's framework, again, refute his contentions, and talk about voting issues and how the opposition has clearly won this debate. My opponent's repeatedly states that Bolshevik Communism should be ruled out. However, we should use this as a prime example of the detriments of communism. It is extremely abusive to limit communism to "Advanced Marxism." We should be able to also point to past examples of how a communist system is flawed. Now I will go over my refutations: 1. You stated that communism eliminates class struggle because the ones who don't meet the quotas "are not part of it." This is some extremely flawed logic. Just because they don't meet the quotas doesn't mean at all that they aren't part of society. Using your logic, I could say that everybody making under $250,000 annually isn't contributing to society and thus aren't part of it. Therefore, in capitalism, there is no class struggle because everybody is rich and everybody that isn't simple doesn't count. Obviously, this makes no sense whatsoever. However, this is exactly what you suggest: The ones who meet quotas are counted and all the people who don't simply don't count. So, I would like go make a quota of $250,000 of annual income as a way to operationalize "contribution." Everybody else doesn't count. Therefore capitalism has an equal class system. Obviously, you are forgetting all the people who DON'T make the quota and thus aren't paid the same. A communist society would include those who make the quotas the ones who don't. This simply is a class struggle. 2. You stated that those who aren't adapt to a competitive market should be paid higher. This is simply wrong. Why should someone be paid is they aren't apt to do their job. Also, there is NO way communism can simply get rid of ALL laziness. Laziness would still exist in a communist society. 3. How does Wall Street have anything to do with inefficiencies? How does a recession correlate to inefficiencies? The recession was simply a trend to our economy. All economies go through a time of prosper and a time of saving. It is a natural cycle of economies and even when it did go into the Great Depression, it didn't "implode." 4. Racism and stereotypes aren't a result from economic inequality. There are MANY counter examples of people who don't follow the stereotype. There are plenty of rich Latin Americans, strong, independent women, and giving Jews. Yet our society still fosters this discrimination. This is due to a cognitive bias within human nature; certainly not economic inequality. Lastly, it is stupid to say that laziness doesn't exist I communism. Laziness will always exist under any type of government. The opposition job is to explain how communism/Marxism is NOT superior to capitalism. The opposition can to this by saying that they are equally good form of governments. It is not the opposition's burden to prove that capitalism is superior than communism. Thus, the opposition will take on the side of both forms of government are equal. It is the affirmation's burden to prove why communism to superior to capitalism.
Genetically modified foods should be banned from the US

1. "I'm not sure what your definition of "safe for human consumption" is, but Golden Rice has been consumed for a while now and works.."" No, Golden Rice has not been available to the general public for quite a while now. It has only just finished field testing in the Philippines, which means that there are still at least another two years before that product becomes readily available there and in any other countries that trust Philippine investigators. (http://www.philrice.gov.ph...) Plus, Golden Rice will still be subject to logistical, cultural, and meteorological problems in third world countries, according to Keith West of Johns Hopkins University, putting it at only a slight advantage over standard humanitarian rice shipments. 2. "However, a "recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third accrues upstream" Could you please define "up" and "downstream", as the nature.com link isn"t doing it for me. Still, the main issue with that quote of yours is that it involved only studies in Europe. Nothing on Monsanto or other US companies, which is the topic of this debate. 3. "Because there is a need to be filled and they fulfill it. We can see demonstrably that GM Foods and antibiotics help us, but only have bad premonitions about their effect on the environment, the same fears that pop up every time technology advances forward.." I really don"t understand what you"re saying in this paragraph? Should we continue will-nilly with production and usage of GMO"s because the resulting mutation and curing process will "make us stronger"? Why not just avoid the mutation all together? And yes, we would not be able to make any progress if we held back on technology production based on a few short fears. But knowledge of prior technologies usually helps us alleviate those fears, for example, the steam pump demonstrating that a steam engine would not be a catastrophic disaster. But with GMO"s, there is no precedent. We haven"t done anything relating to crop or animal mutations with such a large magnitude before the past decade, so we have absolutely no prior evidence to go off of, and should proceed at least with immense caution, if not stop altogether.
universal health care in America

Its obvious that my oppoenent just does not understand the concept of the Federal Government and Healthcare. If the Gov't denies anyone they can and will be punish under my proposal. Gov't can't always be in control. Secondly, my oppoenet has never spoken to a group of small business owners like I have. If he did he would know that Universal Health care would help small businesses provide full insurances for its employers. The fourt point on Universal healthcare would have to have a national database availible for Physicans. This system would allow doctors to better track an indidvidual's past medical history. The information stored in one place would be more accurate, and that would lead to doctors being able to better diagnose a patient. If the CDC were able to acces the information i a National database, they would be able to better track the incidents of certain diseases. The centralized system would allow better data analysis that could pibly lead to medical advances.
universal health care in America

I'm going to touch on the deny claim you have. The goverment still can deny you! I have already said that the goverment will pick and choose what to pay for. At least our system now covers your lasik or you nose that was hurt in an accident. but politics shouldn't be even near healthcare (except for seniors). I already talked about how they choose what to do. With a normal insurance plan you have some leverage on debateing them, the goverment well you can't bargin with them. You say that universal healthcare helps buissnesses, but that is not the case. It raises taxes, higher taxes means poorer buissnes owners, poorer buissnes=less employment, less esmoloyment=bad economy, bad economy= america pissed off. It's simple, really simple. You still haven't attacked my other claims, my alternative, cost etc. So ALL, not some but ALL of my arguments still stand.