BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
men have a say in abortion

First, I do not accept your clarification as the resolution specifically referred to men, and I do not wish to give you argumentational advantages with clarifications whenever you see fit. Second, your “men should have a say in abortion” goes both ways as to forcing a women to have an abortion, and taking away her right to an abortion. You should have clarified this in the first round, if you did not want forced abortions to be part of this debate. Addressing your first argument;” a father should have a right to say if the mother of his child can abort it. he should not be able to force her into it. “ First, your resolution would condone both forcing the woman into the abortion, and keeping her from having one. Second, what if the mother was going to die if she had the baby? Your resolution would allow the father to risk the mother’s life, just to prevent the abortion of a parasite. Or, what if the mother simply did not want the baby to grow up in a terrible situation, such as with a felon or a crack-addict father. The felon, or crack-addict father would be able to keep her from having an abortion under your resolution. Answering your questions: 1. I believe the holocaust was wrong because it was state-sponsored killing. 2. I believe the death penalty is ok. 3. I am against gun control 4. I am not Jewish, I am a card-carrying Deist (If you get the joke there).
men have a say in abortion

first I'm going to clarify that men as in all people should have a right into saying if abortion is legal or not. men should not be able to force a woman into abortion. now what im saying is that woman cant use the excuse "if you cant get pregnant, you dont have a say". now my first example is a father. a father should have a right to say if the mother of his child can abort it. he should not be able to force her into it. the father should also be willing to take care of the kid or be able to put it up for adoption. i will explain why the excuse "if you cant get pregnant, you dont have a say" in the next round. i believe in the rights of an unborn child, and that a mother should not be alowed to abort it unless it is threatning the mothers life. please answer these questions with a "yes" or a "no" 1. do you think the holocaust was wrong? 2. do you think the death penalty is wrong? 3. are you for or against gun control? 4. are you Jewish? this is not a troll
Get "clean".

First we need to establish what is meant by "clean". A few that come to initial thought are: 1) Cleanliness in hygiene, 2) Getting clean of drug addiction, 3) An aptly named disinfecting/surface cleansing surface. In the interpretations 1) and 2) there should be no questions as to the benefits of achieving those versions of "clean". Interpretation 3), however is arguable, which I shall try. Purchasing the cleaning product: "clean", as I now assume the debate topic is about now, might not be a good idea. Nothing is known about this product. Case studies on its use, and testimonies weren't provided. It seems to reason that one should not even consider getting "clean". Ball's on your court mate.
Catholic Mary is not All holy,Queen of Heaven ..etc

YEs ! I agree some of your facts that she was the 1st woman to become pregnant without sexual intercourse, but I want to emphasise that being called as Christian why they worship Mary if its not written in Bible. Who are called Christians ?? they are the followers of Christ and His teaching. Then why this strange faith ??. Second I want to correct you that you can not become holy if you reach heaven after living an sinful life here. You have to lead here an sinless life. So as you say if Catholics should worship Mary because it's part of their religion! then they are not followers of Christ and His teaching. I once again tell you Jesus did not mention any religion name in his teaching , all these are man made.
Catholic Mary is not All holy,Queen of Heaven ..etc

At the moment, I am not sure of my religion. However, I do understand Catholicism to an extent. I believe for a few simple reasons that the Catholics should praise Mary. First, she was the first ever woman the become pregnant without sexual intercourse. She remained pure and birthed God's child. Second, she was a very good women, and even if she was not entirely holy in this life, it is inferred through the teachings of the church that she was purified when she reached heaven. And finally. .. Catholics should worship Mary because it's part of their religion! By omitting the worship of the Holy Virgin Mary (HVM) the entire Catholic faith is changed. Catholics worship Mary because it has always been this way. Telling Catholics they shouldn't worship the HVM is like telling Seventh Day Adventists to go to church on Sunday rather than Saturday. It's part of their very nature.
Catholic Mary is not All holy,Queen of Heaven ..etc

I welcome my opponent ! well I do not believe in any cult religion but am follower of Jesus alone ..I am not bashing any religion or individual thoughts but want to learn about Catholic belief and to find out where the error is . This debate is for the people who believe in Mary and worship her and consider her as All holy, Queen of heaven and sinless. I am saying to the Catholic that we should not worship Mary nor pray to her nor consider her as Holy , sinless and Queen of heaven. If you believe I am wrong then justify .. Truth will let you free, Thanks
Catholic Mary is not All holy,Queen of Heaven ..etc

Thanks my friend ! First of all I will some verse from Bible so that you can get an clear idea and to clarify you that according to Bible we can not pray to any one except Jesus. 1) 1 John 2:1 says, "And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins." 2)Matthew 23:9 says; "And call no man your FATHER (this includes Priests) upon the earth: for one is your Father which is in heaven." 3)1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, My friend, Mary is a normal person like you and me. She has no other special power. She was faithful to God as other children of God. She was just chosen by God as God choose people today for his purpose. She was just an medium. Thats it full stop. Jesus was there before Mary or you and me was born. Rather than praying directly to God, we are praying to person who is dead and asleep now. Only Chirst has risen from the dead, not mary. Whats these people are ignorant and they are blindly following what the church is telling them. Its our duty to enlighten them.
Catholic Mary is not All holy,Queen of Heaven ..etc

I would like to state that the Catholics do not worship Mary. Forgive my mistake in wording. They venerate her. Basically, they count on her to bring their messages to God. Therefor, she is not a deity in the Catholic church, which proves my point that Catholics are followers of the Lord. Jesus may not mention in particular any religions in his teaching, however, that does not make any religion invalid. He merely spoke to "his children, followers, and disciples." Therefor, the Catholic faith is perfectly valid. Through praying to Mary, the Catholics hope to have their prayers reach God. There is no shame in this ritual. It is merely something that is the equivalent of passing a note in middle school. They give her the message, she delivers it to the proper person.
My Opponent is Moar Awesome than Me

My opponent has a better profile name Yes, cats are cute and cuddly! Potatoes taste awesome! In contrast my name could be misunderstood. .. Do. You. See. What. I. Mean? This. Looks. Terrible! !! 2. My opponent has a better profile picture I base my pic. On some other user while Fuzzy depends on his pure awesomeness within his amazing beard. REBUTTALS 1. Skills I have more experience. .. in losing. Thus I am not more awesome. Multi- tasking within debating will only help me lose those debates. My opponent uses many logical fallacies within his arguments by claiming some random celebrities to be trustworthy. Why should we believe what they say? ? Thus most his arguments fall apart. Also, I cannot disprove that Fuzzy can see the future. Because of his amazing magical powers, I am less awesome than him. Name: already countered this. In addition my opponent has shown photo- shopping skills which I don't have, making him more awesome than me. Lying-- um, I didn't realize any of those were lies until you told me. Since you're such an amazing liar and I'm not you're more awesome than me. And another new argument-- I'm a jerk. Bookworm and rationalist probably hate me, as I stated above. Not only that, within my debate against Dennybug, I don't even try. My opponent has shown to try within most of debates, and will be admired for his effort. And is thus more awesome. Plus, I force my opponent slash the audience to look for the sources by clicking on my profile and shuffling through my lost debate. Such an in- gentlemanly gesture, surely looked down upon. Thus, my opponent will obviously win conduct and be more awesome than me, manner- wise.
My Opponent is Moar Awesome than Me

Alrighty! The conditions are accepted.Why my opponent is more awesome than me 1. Better Debater If my opponent is the better debater than me, surely he would cause more admiration for him. He is much better than me, having a massive 3,566 elo and only losing twice. [1] In contrast I only have a lowly elo of 2,083 and lost 47 times! [2] Furthermore, my opponent has much better win ratio, and if somebody wants to take their chances, they'd probably try to defeat me instead of FuzzyCatPotato, since I only win 56% of the time.2. He does not take apart relationshipsI have probably made enemies with EsocialBookworm and EndarkenedRationalist. Nothing shows FuzzyCatPotato might even remotely have any real enemies. On the other hand, I'm willing to challenge Mikal to disprove and take apart Bookworm's and Rationalist's love. [3] This is terrible and inacceptible. Obviously less people would admire some guy who's jealous of two other's love. Therfore Fuzzy is more awesome than me.3. I'm going crazyInsane people would have no one admire them. Fear? Not exactly. Nobody can do anything online to anyone, at least not unless they meet each other. Nothing suggests Fuzzy is going crazy. On the other hand, if I go completely bonkers, no one will like me, and I won't seem as awesome. One example includes my thinking that MassiveDump was Imabench [4], another includes accepting a challenge from the mighty Ore Ele, [5] even though I knew my chances were down to none...All of these show I'm going crazy and walking to the path the opposite of awesomeness.4. Fuzzy is smarter than meI have barely shown any smarts within debating. I have only won mostly due to oppoents' forfeits and noob-snipes. However, Fuzzy shows humongous versatility within his religious debates, his profile is full of them....and he even won them, which only further shows his awesomeness. [6][7][8]Onto you, Fuzzy.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://www.debate.org...[4] http://www.debate.org...[5] http://www.debate.org...[6] http://www.debate.org...[7] http://www.debate.org...[8] http://www.debate.org...
My Opponent is Moar Awesome than Me

I accept, on two conditions: First, that the argument that "My opponent is more awesome than me because they are going to win this debate", and similar arguments, is excluded due to its paradoxical nature. (Whoever would win would thus be more awesome, and therefore lose; having lost, they would be less awesome, and win; etc.) Second, that only rounds two to four (2-4) be counted in deciding awesomeness. Any awesomeness displayed in round one (1) must be disregarded in voting, as would any awesomeness in the acceptance of these conditions by my opponent.
is war ever justified

Reminder to audience/judges:This debate should be judged by how well the debaters argued their positions, not by the judges opinions on the topic. Therefore, please only consider the arguments present in the rounds. Also, my opponent still has the burden of proof, which my opponent failed to fulfill. Here is my opponent's argument:"no one will just declare war for the fun of it. war has a reason to it. "I will address each sentence separately:1. War isn't declared just "for the fun of it. " I agree with that statement. However, that does not mean war is justified. In this debate, I'm not trying to show that wars have no reason; I'm arguing that the reasons for war do not justify the millions of deaths that it causes.2. My opponent argues that "war has a reason to it. " However, just because war has a reason does not mean that the reason is a good reason that justifies the casualties that war causes. Furthermore, my opponent failed to actually state what these reasons are. This is an unwarranted assumption logical fallacy; although wars do have reasons, my opponent must state what those reasons are or have some other justification for that claim in order for it to be considered for this debate.
is war ever justified

My opponent is the instigator, so he or she has the burden of proof. I only need to refute my opponent's arguments in order to win the round. My opponent says, "war is a way to make a protest of some kind. " However, the definition of war provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations. " . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Under this definition, we will exclude examples like the Cold Wars. Also, the definition of "justify" is "to provide or be a good reason for (something). " . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Even if we were to use my opponent's definition of "war" as just "a way to make a protest of some kind," my opponent still admits that "it may not be the most effective way. " There is NO reason to protest in a way that results in violence and death when other, more effective, alternatives exist.
Healthcare and Education Should Be Free

I do not understand why you constantly believe that I believe that universities and four-year colleges should be free, because I don't. I only believe two-year colleges and community colleges should be free so some people who can't qualify for bigger colleges, are getting prepared for larger colleges, or can't afford four-year colleges or universities can still get a level of education beyond K-12 education, and since community colleges are already just a low-level of tertiary education, free community college would admittedly have worse quality than universities but would still provide some level of tertiary education. My idea is that most people who want higher levels of education can pay to go to universities or four-year colleges, but some people who can't go to these colleges could go to community colleges as a backup plan. I do not that the quality of education is being worsened by being free because K-12 education is pretty much free in America as of now, but the quality of teachers isn't bad at all but instead it is the content we're teaching is bad, but that has nothing to do with the fact that K-12 education is free but more to do with the fact that our way of teaching is bad. The current salary for a teacher isn't too bad right now as well (as many of the teachers I've had have had good lives financially), but it can be improved with better funding and smarter spending from our government. However, it is not the fact that it is free's fault. Public healthcare that is funded by the government and essentially free might have lower quality, but my idea is that we can still have high-quality PRIVATE healthcare that people would have to pay for. This way, we can still have plenty of high paid doctors, and if the standards for being a doctor in private health industries are high (as they should be), then we can still have a good amount of public healthcare doctors that can also be paid well through the government. The lower quality (but not too low of quality) public healthcare would just be a safety net in case people can't use private healthcare. Con stated that "there might only be the smart kids who have the money to spend these efforts to go into a university". Well, if you think about it, this is already the case right now, as many universities often cost over 200k, and many schools cost 250k to attend for four years, so having free community college and two-year colleges wouldn't really make a negative difference on the cost of universities overall. Finally, I believe that our government can afford free healthcare and community college. I believe it would be good for us to cut our military spending, as we can still maintain a great military if we spend smartly (after all, many countries with a smaller military budget have great militaries), and, with the large amount of wasteful spending in the government today, I believe that if our government cuts spending wisely to create less debt and a larger budget, then the government can afford free healthcare and community colleges/ two-year colleges.
Healthcare and Education Should Be Free

I have some answers to your rebuttals1. In Pro's first rebuttal which was that that we can cut the military spending. However North Korea uses tons of military spending and also they don't teach them any good stuff. Even if they give a those good things the government will start failing by not getting more taxes. The teachers will get poor. Also there might only be the smart kids who have the money to spend these efforts to go into a university. You won't give a university spot to a poor dumb dude then a smart a rich dude. 2. Pro's statement has a few errors. First they have worser quality of effort of anything if they don't work hard. If the government gives them money, they can't do anything else important. In Conclusion I think that healthcare and education should not be free.
Healthcare and Education Should Be Free

Alright, let's start. To begin, healthcare and education are fundamental rights that all humans should have, and we should not have to pay for our rights. No human should be uneducated, as education equals knowledge which equals power. Keep in mind that I do not believe that all colleges should be free, but I believe that some community colleges should be free in order to provide some level of education beyond K-12 education for people who cannot afford or qualify for other colleges. Therefore, public education and community colleges should be free so everyone gets to be well-educated without having to worry about about financial drama. Education is right and not a privilege. Secondly, no humans should have to worry about being sick or have to go into financial turmoil because of having to be treated of any serious illness they might get. In 2007, 62 percent of bankruptcies were due to medical bills (http://www.cnn.com...), and many of the people who went into bankruptcy were well-educated, middle-class citizens who could not control the fact that they got an illness for the most part. Nobody should have to worry about getting sick because of financial reasons, especially the uninsured. Therefore, healthcare is also, like education, a right and not a privilege. Sources: http://thelawdictionary.org... http://www.cnn.com... I also believe that our America can afford free healthcare and free education and community colleges. If North Korea can afford free healthcare and education, then we sure can. One way we can make our budget able to afford these things is to cut some military spending. America currently spends more than the next seven countries combined (https://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://pgpf.org...), so, while you can arguably say that our military is, in a way, declining, it is certainly not because of the fact that our budget is too "small", but it because we are spending our military budget wrongly. If countries with smaller military budgets than us can have great militaries, then we can cut our military budget and still have a great military as well. Anyways, as long as we cut our military budget and cut wasteful spending, I believe that we can afford and provide free healthcare and community college (sorry for the misleading title, as it said free education, which might lead some people to believe that I mean ALL colleges should be free, which I do not believe in). My idea is that America should have a free public healthcare system, and, if people want better healthcare, they can pay for better private healthcare. Community colleges should be free as well as to expand the concept of having free K-12 AND community college education.
Healthcare and Education Should Be Free

I accept.DefinitionsHealthcare: the prevention or treatment of illness by doctors, dentists, psychologists, etc.Education: the knowledge, skill, and understanding that you get from attending a school, college, or universityFree: not costing any moneySourceshttp://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I am a Homo sapien.

Firstly I will present counterarguments to his positive case, because I believe as instigator and Pro the resolution, he carries the substantial burden of proof in this debate. My opponent's positive caseArgument 1: He has the ability to use maths, the English language and engage in formal reasoning. Therefore, he is a human. However, this is a case of the affirming the consequent fallacy [1]. It takes the form:P1: Humans have the ability to use maths, the English Language and engage in formal reasoning. P2: I have the ability to use maths, the English Language and engage in formal reasoning. :. Therefore I am human. However, P1 is never asserted to be the only sufficient condition of being human. The capacity to have such attributes could be had by, for example:1. An intelligent alien. 2. A ghost.3. A computer simulated person. 4. An A. I. 5. An intelligent non-human animal. In order for this to be a valid argument, he has to demonstrate that the only humans can have the aforementioned abilities: and not, for example, computer simulated persons. Argument 2: He has a highly developed brain. Therefore, he is human. Not only does this argument commit the same fallacy as the first, he has provided no evidence that he has a brain. Merely asserting such will not do in a debate; otherwise, I could assert that my opponent does not have a human brain and my argument would be just as substantive. My opponent's response to my positive case1. The simulated future scenario is just a fiction; there is no good reason to suppose that it is true. Computing power has increased exponentially in recent decades; there is no reason to believe that it will stop increasing and there is good reason, based on current games and simulations and the interests people have, that humans would be interested in harnessing that computing power for the purpose of recreating their own past via fictional scenarios. It is not mere speculation, but a forecast based on evidence. 2. The simulated future scenario talks about future events, not current events. Now this is just semantical point. The argument clearly argues that we are in that future right now, and bases that on observational evidence. The fact that the argument starts out by supposing a future scenario is just the set up for the argument, to demonstrate that from commonly held beliefs and evidence about the apparent world we can come to the conclusion that the world is not as it seems. 3. I don't believe we are in a computer simulated scenario. Therefore, my argument is invalid. I'm not sure what fallacy Pro is committing - it's somewhere in the region of an ad hominem. It is, however, clearly fallacious to argue that because I might not be convinced of the argument it is invalid - the argument stands or falls based on its own merits, not my own personal beliefs which have nothing to do with its validity. [1] . http://www.fallacyfiles.org...