BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DDOlympic: Abortion should be illegal

PrefaceI thank Bob in advance for selecting this topic with me. He desired to debate this, when I didn't, but this was the only topic we could do. This is for the DDOlympic single debate's tourney, and it is round 1. The topic is abortion. My opponent needs to say that abortion is illegal, and should be banned, when I have to say abortion should not be banned, and it should be legal.Full Resolution: Abortion should be illegal, and banned when the Abortion is under 28 weeksRules1. No forfeiting, if you forfeit, then you automatically lose the debate2. BoP is on Pro. I can, or cannot provide offense3. No trolling4. No kritiks, and no semantics5. 8000 characters6. Not follwing rules means loss.StructureR1. Con makes rules/ Pro makes argumentsR2. Con can make arguments, and makes rebuttals/ Pro can make rebuttals if Con makes arguments, and defenseR3. Con makes Defense if made arguments, and rebuttals of defense/ Pro makes rebuttals of defense if Con makes arguments, and makes conclusionR4. Con makes his conclusion/ Pro waivesDefinitions Abortion: a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus [1]. (It has to be under 28 weeks)Banned: to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done [2].With that, now it's time to start the debate. Good luck to Bob for the debate, and thanks for bsh to host the Olympics.Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Abortion is generally immoral.

Rebbutal"The court case states that in the first trimester (first three months) of the pregnancy that aborting the baby is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States of America. The states can't prohibit an abortion. You have the right of privacy to do what you want to your body." This debate is about whether it is moral, not if it should be banned. Furthermore, you took this from wikipedia, which is unreliable. Also, technically, it is not your body, it is someone else's body, but not yet developped."In one to two weeks, your body is preparing for ovulation. Ovulation, usually, takes eleven to twelve days for most women. Anywhere within six to twleve days, the female body is now entering the embryonic stage. In week three, the embryo is beginning to develop the spinal cord, brain and heart, but within that time peroid, the embryo's spinal cord, brain and heart aren't fully developed which means it isn't really alive. " First of all, your source has little relation to your argument. Secondly, it is alive, just underdevelopped. During ovulation, it still contains the 7 requirements to be living, thus living and human. Since it is innocent, and alive, it is immoral to kill it."With all of that said, I conclude that within the first trimester or the first three weeks of pregancy; the embryo isn't really fully alive which doesn't (in that time period) make it human. So, abortion within that timeframe, is moral and legal. " Let us assume that in that period, it is unalive (even though it is proven it is alive). This is only 1 time frame, out of the 9 months, so for the rest of the time, it is immoral. The debate is whether or not it is GENERALLY immoral, meaning most of the time. So most of the time is it immoral. Closing statements My argument dropped my argument regarding adoption. Instead of killing an innocent human, you could put it up for adoption. Also, abortion is dangerous. "• One death per every 530,000 abortions if you are at eight weeks or less• One death per 17,000 abortions for pregnancies at 16–20 weeks• One death per 6,000 abortions at 21 weeks and more." [1] So as you can see, you are giving the risk to harm yourself while killing an innocent child. There are various other safe, appropriate alternatives such as adoption. This allows the child to at least live in a loving family, and keeps the mother safer. In conclusion, in most cases abortion is killing an innocent child. Furthermore, it is also dangerous for the mother. There are safer, appropriate ways to save both the mother and the child. Since the mother ignores these alternatives, and kills an innocent child for her own personal needs, it is immoral. My opponent only explained how it should be legal. Furthermore, he ignores how he conceded in round 1. I would like to remind him he can no longer debate as agreed upon in the rules. If he does, he shall experiance the 7 point forfeit. Thank you for the debate. Source:1.http://www.midlandlifecenter.org...
Abortion is generally immoral.

Roe V. Wade SummaryThe court case states that in the first trimester (first three months) of the pregnancy that aborting the baby is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States of America. The states can't prohibit an abortion. You have the right of privacy to do what you want to your body. SOURCE: (http://en.wikipedia.org...)Fetal DevelopmentIn one to two weeks, your body is preparing for ovulation. Ovulation, usually, takes eleven to twelve days for most women. Anywhere within six to twleve days, the female body is now entering the embryonic stage. In week three, the embryo is beginning to develop the spinal cord, brain and heart, but within that time peroid, the embryo's spinal cord, brain and heart aren't fully developed which means it isn't really alive. SOURCE:(http://americanpregnancy.org...)ConclusionWith all of that said, I conclude that within the first trimester or the first three weeks of pregancy; the embryo isn't really fully alive which doesn't (in that time period) make it human. So, abortion within that timeframe, is moral and legal.
Abortion is generally immoral.

Now to begin. Rebuttals"Even though That abortion is generally immoral. " This is a clear cut concession. Thank you for the nice, respectful forfeit. For the rest of the arguments, just because the baby may not have great health does not give you the right to kill it. Arguments A fetus is a human because it has the 7 things required to be a living human. To be living, it needs homostatis, orginization, metabolism, growth, adaption, response to stimuli and reproduction. [1] A fetus contains all of these, thus being a human. This human is also innocent, since it is not yet born. Since the child didn't do anything wrong, and it is living, it is unjust to kill it, and thus immoral. There are various reasons why people abort. The main ones are usually unwanted pregnancy and rape. For unwanted, it is their fault for having unsafe sex. Furthermore they can put it up for adoption. For rape, either way the person will recieve trauma, regardless if they give birth to the child or not. So it is unjust to kill it, and better to put it up for adoption or raise it. There is no valid reason to which why you should kill a innocent being. Because of such, abortion is immoral in most cases. SOURCE:1. . http://silentholocaust.tumblr.com...;
Abortion is generally immoral.

Immorality of Abortion a Persuasive Thesis Statement on, "Abortion is generally immoral": Even though That abortion is generally immoral. , I believe it should be legal if the mother is mentally unable to cope with the idea of having a child and can't deal with the responsibilities of the baby OR she can't go through the pregnancy (Whether it is psychological or biological). However at the same time, I don't think you should be able to abort a child every time you have unprotected sex. because Pregnancy always has some form of risk of problems. The causes could be something you currently have or have developed. High blood pressure, kidney problems and autoimmune disorders can risk the probability of loss when it comes to delivery of the baby. and "The findings are of concern because attention problems and anxiety and depression have been shown to affect peer relationships, academic performance, and future well-being of children," says Frederica Perera, DrPH, PhD, director of the Columbia Center. This means that the mother who is psychologically unable to care for the baby will have issues and problems raising the baby..
Abortion is generally immoral.

In this debate, I will prove abortion is generally immoral. Generally meaning in most cases. Rules:1. In the first round, state you opening case, in the last write nothing more than "thanks for the debate", this gives us an equal amount of rounds to debate. (only applies to opponent.2. no plagiarism3. no personal attacks4. no profanity.5. No complaining in the comment section If any of the rules are broken, the culprit shall recieve a 7 point deduction.
Nicean Trinity against Socinus' Trinity

As my opponent used round 1 to set up the debate, I will only make a brief opening statement for fairness. Also, I believe we have an equal amount of the burden of proof.Opening Statement:As Mark 12:28-29 states: One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all? ”Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord". As Jesus himself declared one God, and shares being in subjection to God with every other human by proclaiming "our God", I believe this to be my founding statement for the proof that the Nicene Trinity is the incorrect view of God. I look forward to an engaging and thought-provoking discussion towards the nature of God and His Christ.
Nicean Trinity against Socinus' Trinity

Trinity simply means " three" per se. The Bible talks about these three: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nicean teaching about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is that they are the one God. Socinus' teaching about the three is that the Father and the Holy Spirit are one( the spirit being his impersonal presence and power)and the Son is only a human in nature with no preexistence that was given authority after resurrection to function as God albeit not deity in nature. ( Modern day adherents are Socinian Unitarians, Biblical Unitarians, Christadelphians etc.). Let's have meaningful discussion and debate about theology esp. in the field of christology.
There Is A Small Chance of Being Murdered in Most Large Cities

Argument Number One: As I have stated, I must show that there is a small percent chance that in most large cities, you will be murdered. In my first argument, I will show the statistics of murder for a few of the largest cities in the US. New York, NY http://www.city-data.com... In 2011, 6.3 out of every 100,000 people were involved in a murder in New York City. That means that only .0063% of people in New York City were murdered/murdered someone else. Los Angeles, CA http://www.city-data.com... In 2011, 7.7 out of every 100,000 people were involved in a murder in Los Angeles. That means that only .0077% of people in Los Angeles were murdered/murdered someone else. Chicago, IL http://www.city-data.com... In 2011, 15.9 out of every 100,000 people were involved in a murder in Chicago. That means that only .0159% of people in Chicago were murdered/murdered someone else. Houston, TX http://www.city-data.com... In 2011, 9.2 out of every 100,000 people were involved in a murder in Houston. That means that only .0092% of people in Houston were murdered/murdered someone else. Average Percentage of All Above Murder Percentages: .009775% Argument Number Two: In argument number one, I showed that even the biggest and most dangerous cities in the US still have only .009775% of people who are involved in murder. However, the cities that I have given data for above are the biggest and most dangerous cities in the US. There are many other smaller and less dangerous cities that have lower murder rates. That means that the murder rate of all large cities combined is even smaller than the rate that I have provided. Argument Number Three: I have been/lived in large cities/ghettos in the past. I can tell you from personal experience that most murders can be avoided quite easily by nout upsetting people on a consistant basis. For example: http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com... "Jesse sets up six categories: murder for gain, revenge, elimination, jealousy, lust of killing, and from conviction. The last category covers homicide by the state - capital punishment." While some murders can"t be avoided and have no cause, most murders occur for the reasons above. Four of the reasons in particular are revenge, elimination, and jealousy. Half of the main reasons for murder are caused by the victim doing something to upset the murderer. Therefore, half of all murders in large cities can be avoided by not upsetting or disturbing people left and right. In doing so, your likeliness of being murdered is slimmer. Summary: My first argument established that the murder rates for the largest and most dangerous cities are very small. In my second, I explained that the murder rate for all large cities combined is likely to be even smaller. My third argument showed that the chances of an individual person being murdered can be lowered. Overall, I showed that the chances of being murdered in a large city/ghetto is slim to none. In the 2nd round, my opponent must show that people have a large chance of being murdered in large cities/ghettos.
There Is A Small Chance of Being Murdered in Most Large Cities

Debate Title: There Is A Small Chance of Being Murdered in Most Large Cities Purpose: To give data, personal experience, and reasoning to show that living/being in large cities/ghettos doesn't necessarily mean you will be murdered. Rules: The burden of proof is on both pro and con. First round is acceptance. Second round is arguments. Third round is rebuttals, re-arguments, and conclusions.
That dinosaurs became extinct by a meteorite is by far the likeliest theory

The Giant Meteor Impact theory meets many of the criteria for a successful extinction theory, and its incredible popularity among the scientific community attests to its success. A predicted consequence of a giant meteor impact is that immense quantities of dust and aerosols would be thrown up into the atmosphere, darkening the sky for many months. A protracted period of darkness would halt new production of plant growth, leading to the starvation of large herbivores and the carnivores that fed on them. Smaller animals such as the early mammals could probably hibernate through the dark period. Land plants, however, could regenerate from roots and/or seeds after the dust had cleared and normal daylight was restored. Why 750 Characters?
That dinosaurs became extinct by a meteorite is by far the likeliest theory

There are quite a few theories on how the dinosaurs became extinct, some with just as much evidence yet this theory seems to be almost accepted as fact. There is just as much evidence of a meteorite hitting the earth, lifting dust up, blocking the sun and killing dinosaurs as a super volcano which were active around the time of the dinosaurs and could create the same effect. Some other theories include the cooling of the planet which the dinosaurs couldn't cope with and new plants evolved which the plant eaters couldn't eat so therefore the dinosaurs that ate the plant eaters died too.
The is no such thing as nothing, it is a mathematical value that has no ontology or reality.

If nothing was "no thing" then you would not be able to say it and therefore this argument could not exist in this reality. so there has to be something as "no thing" and then there's the movie where the nothingness is coming in there nothingness is such a thing perhaps a creature of some sort. If you would like to argue nothing is "no thing" then perhaps you would like to argue that infinite is everything, anything, or anyone. http://www.dictionary.com... on this dictionary it says "something that is nonexistent." but in that sentence it says that it is SOMETHING that is nonexistent therefore it is still something but it just does exist in this realm or universe.
The existance of God

Due to some disagreements between me and Con under comments, we waived round 2 to re-establish definitions, structure etc. Now I will do so without introducing any argument (due to structure I will waive this round). I suggested the following changes to Con, but they didn't reply and the time is ending for me to post (less than 30 minutes is left). Therefore, I assume that they agree. The following changes should be made to what I provided in round 1, the rest is the same:Resolution: Does God, as defined, exist? God: The Personal Intelligent Creator and Ruler of everything who is not bound to laws of nature. Note that the debate is about God as defined, not about God according to some scripture etc. BOPCon argues that God (as defined) doesn't exist. Pro argues that God (as defined) exists. The structure of the debate is as follows:STRUCTURE Round 1 Acceptance, rules, definitions etc. Round 2 Edition of definitions, structure etc. Both Con and Pro waive this round. Round 3 Opening Arguments. No rebuttals. Round 4 Rebuttals to opponent’s opening arguments in R2. No new arguments are provided. Round 5 Defense of opening arguments against opponent’s rebuttals in R3. May provide further explanations for their opening arguments in R2. Conclusion and Closing Statements. No new arguments or rebuttals. Let me recall the rules: RULES The definitions and debate structure MUST be followed. We can discuss and reconsider the definitions under comments, if Con has any objection, before they post their arguments in R2. They can directly post their Opening Arguments if they agree with all rules and definitions defined here. Anything posted that violates the rules must be ignored by voters. CONCLUSIONI look forward to Con's opening arguments. Round 3 is the only round that we can introduce our arguments, therefore if we fail to do so, then we automatically loose points for arguments since BOP is shared!
The existance of God

NOTE 1: “Rn” denotes nth round I think this is one of the most important topics to be discussed with attention and seriousness. I will not be arguing for God according to Bible in particular. Rather I will argue that there exists a Personal Intelligent Being who is the Creator and the Ruler of, at least, everything we know. Since the Instigator hasn’t set the rules, structure of the debate and hasn’t provided any definition in R1, I will do instead before starting the debate. DEFINITIONS God: “the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. ”[1] Argument: “a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point”. [2] Argue (v): “to present reasons for or against a thing” OR “to show; prove; imply; indicate”. [3] Exist (v): “to have actual being; be”. [4] Existence: “the state or fact of existing; being. ”[5] STRUCTURE Round 1 Acceptance, rules, definitions etc. Round 2 Opening Arguments. No rebuttals. Round 3 Con: Rebuttals to Pro’s opening arguments in R2. No new arguments are provided. Pro: Rebuttals to Con’s opening arguments in R2. No new arguments are provided. Round 4 Con: Defense of their arguments against Pro’s rebuttals in R3. May provide further explanations for their opening arguments in R2, but no new arguments. Pro: Defense of their arguments against Con’s rebuttals in R3. May provide further explanations for their opening arguments in R2, but no new arguments. Round 5 Closing Arguments (summary). No new arguments or rebuttals. Debaters may readdress their arguments in R2 and/or rebuttals in R3 to show that their arguments and/or rebuttals are still valid, but no new rebuttals and/or arguments. They may also provide (only) clarifications for their arguments, rebuttals and/or defense of their rebuttals if they think there is something that was/can be misunderstood. BOP Con: “… I will argue against the existence of god… Opponent will argue for the existence of god. ” From this we understand that Con suggests that BoP should be shared. Fair enough! Con has to provide arguments that God doesn’t exist. Pro has to provide arguments that God exists. RULES The definitions and debate structure MUST be followed. We can discuss and reconsider the definitions under comments, if Con has any objection, before they post their arguments in R2. They can directly post their Opening Arguments if they agree with all rules and definitions defined here. Anything posted that violates the rules must be ignored by voters. CONCLUSION I hope this debate will be fruitful and wish Con best of luck. SOURCES [1] Def. 1 in . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] Def. 4 in . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] Def. 1 & 6 in . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] Def. 1 in . http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] Def. 1 in . http://dictionary.reference.com...
The existance of God

I know this a very VERY touchy subject (So please BE AWARE), but I'm going to use this as a way to understand the views of Christianity better. I have always though that the existence of god seemed kind of like a fairy tale. So even now I still believe that god may or may not exist, but I will argue against the existence of god. Again, THIS IS HIGHLY RELIGOUS. I AM NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE WAY YOU THINK. Opponent will argue for the existence of god. Please use outside sources, and not only direct excerpts from the bible. Stories are welcomed, but have some information to go with it.
First 3 weeks of Donald's Trump Precidency

Pro will be arguing that, after the first 3 weeks, Trump has been a "good" president. I/Con will be arguing that Trump has proved to be a "bad" president after the first 3 weeks. Some things that determine whether or not he is a good president include his cabinet picks, his executive order, his tweets, etc. Rules1. ) Keep it civil; no insults2. ) Follow the structure of the debate3. ) No spamming, trolling, etc.4. ) Use sources/evidence to back up your claims5. ) Use RELIABLE sources, I will call you out if I think they are not reliable6. ) Keep it on topic7. ) No "K's"8. ) No new information in the last roundThese are simple rules, so any violation of these rules will result in the automatic loss of my opponent. StructureRound 1: Acceptance only, you may present definitions if you wish Round 2: Each side presents their individual claims; Do not respond to opponent's claimsRound 3: Rebuttal round, make sure you respond to opponent's CLAIMS. Do not do a rebuttal on opponent's rebuttalRound 4: Closing arguments.
self-defense laws and hate crimes in Ohio

In Ohio, self-defense laws have already been established such as "stand your ground". There is no reason to vote for an increase in self defense laws when people can already defend their home. It will only allow the risk for further harm to individuals who may or may not have done anything wrong.http://www.cleveland.com...Killing someone is already murder, with various degrees. Hate crime violations for premeditated or meditated murderer of a gay person would be almost poinless in sentence length and hard to prove. "Did the person kill the person because they wanted money, or because he was gay, or because they got in a fist fight". It does not promote human rights to increase already strong enough self defense laws and add more charges on top of a murder charge, of which would be hard to prove.