BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion ought to be permissible in the case of rape

To begin with, I think there needs to be a few things outlined before we begin:First of all, the point of this debate isn't on whether or not abortion is murder or it's immoral or something like that. For this reason, arguments like "abortion is murder, so it's never permissible" don't really apply to the situation the resolution is questioning. I suppose if my opponent wanted he could really argue for that, but that just defeats the entire purpose of the specificty of the resolution. My case is fairly simple: there are plenty of harms to both mother and child upon forcing a mother who was raped to give birth, and abortion solves for these harms, thus it should be permissible. Harm One: Harms to the Child:Whenever a baby born from rape is brought into the world, society tends to have a downward outlook on that child simply because it's a product of an immoral action. For example, communities in Rwanda call them "devil's children", "children of shame" in Timor-Leste, "monster babies" in Nicaragua, "dust of life" in Vietnam, among others(1). The World Health Organization (WHO) report that children born from rape are at risk of neglection, stigmatization, becoming ostrasized, and abandonment(1). Children born from rape are also at risk of infanticide(1). Moreover, the relationship between mother and child suffers when the child is born from rape. Clinical studies report a high rate of ambivelent and abusive parent-child relationships(1) as well as a high rate of discrimination within the society(1). These stigmatizations have serious psychological harms to the child's well-being, such as attachment disorders, disturbances in psychosocial development, and identity issues(1). All of these harms are avoidable by abortion.Harm Two: Harms to the Mother:Ignoring the obvious physical and emotional difficulties of bringing a child through pregnancy to birth, there are many harms placed upon the mother who has to give birth to a child conceived through rape. Women who give birth from rape generally have to share custody of the child with the rapist(2). The constant interaction with the attacker acts like a tethering effect, forcing the mother to pretend to like her attacker in order to keep her primary custody. This tethering effects creates a cycle of experiencing and re-experiencing the feelings from the rape over and over again, causing psychological harms such as depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation(2).Moreover, the majority of rape victims develope a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as well as nearly one-third of rape victims developing rape-related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (RR-PTSD)(2). Having PTSD AND RR-PTSD negatively affects the ability of the mother to parent, fearing any sort of contact with the event of the rape in order to avoid a flash-back, which could lead to things such as child negligence. Both harms are able to be solved by solely abortion. Thus, it ought to be permissible. Sources: (1) - http://www.thelancet.com...(2) - http://georgetownlawjournal.org...;
Abortion ought to be permissible in the case of rape

Ths debate spins off of a comment made in the following forum (http://www.debate.org...)Resolved: Abortion ought to be permissible in the case of rapeDefinitons are fairly straght-forward. I don't expect a semantics approach on this topic, given the fervor of my opponent's opinion. Standard debate etiquete applies. First round acceptance. No new arguments final rounds. Restrict yourself to the character limit (idk if people still go over it now but who knows). The burden of proof for the debate will be split. I must prove why it ought to be permissble, while my opponent must prove why it ought not. I await my opponent's acceptance.
Abortion ought to be permissible in the case of rape

At this point, sadly, my opponent cannot win. He has yet to provide a single argument as to why abortion ought not be permissible in the case of rape. Since it's the last round, and the rules state that no new arguments may be made in the final round, he has no arguments in favor of his side. And since he did not address mine, you may extend them all out and vote affirmative.Just so I may address everything in the round, my opponent makes this claim instead of actually arguing:"My opponent clearly doesn't want a real debate if he says that the murder debate is irrelevant, which was the basis of my argument."To begin with, let's take a look at the full context of things. This is the full paragraph that he botched to quote in partial:"First of all, the point of this debate isn't on whether or not abortion is murder or it's immoral or something like that. For this reason, arguments like "abortion is murder, so it's never permissible" don't really apply to the situation the resolution is questioning. I suppose if my opponent wanted he could really argue for that, but that just defeats the entire purpose of the specificty of the resolution. "The bolded basically invalidates his entire complaint. And I'm also a little skeptical that murder was the "basis of his argument" as we can specifically see from the thread where this debate originates from, this was the reasoning he initially stated:"In the case of rape, the mother should not be selfish and not have the baby because she will have "bad memories."I may not have the greatest grade in English right now, but I'm pretty sure I don't see a mention of the word "murder" anywhere in there.Methinks I may have a semi-compelling rebuttal to the "derp bad memories aren't good enough derp" argument. Anyway, I thank con for at least not forfeiting the second round as well as the first and thank the readers for voting.
Atheist VS. theism

Ok, I understand that as a Jew you do not believe in a hell, but im Messianic Jewish, so i do. Do you think G-d appreciates you saying that Atheists are better for the world he created? Hell or no Hell, I know G-d wouldnt want people not believing in him Theism is better for the world because it provides more morals than Atheism does, without religion,there is no faith, without faith, there are no morals, without morals, there is no law, without law, people get killed, when people get killed, their relatives get depressed, with depression, comes suicide, and the chain goes on and on and on leading to a very painful world, worse than the way it is now.
Atheist VS. theism

I don't see why you should take high offense by me calling you a girl. .. Are you saying that girls are worse than boys? First off, I don't know what God likes and doesn't like. But I do see a flaw in your argument. God is thought to be the highest being, meaning he does not believe in anything higher than himself. Therefore, God is an atheist. By your logic, God is self-centered, ignorant, and moral-less. Your argument has many flaws. Atheists have morals because they are born with them, like any human. Buddhists have morals, and they don't believe in God. It is not just atheists. Second, we don't all follow our own morals because we are taught what is right and wrong early on in the childhood. I will minimize this argument since it is the third round.
Atheist VS. theism

I am highly offended by your taking that i am a girl. What my opponent has failed to do is explain if God would like it if there were more atheists walking around. Now I am going to ask some things: If atheists have morals, where do they come from? If they are personal, then why not we all follow our own morals? Then what would happen? chaos? Suffering? All of the above? Atheism: The rejection of a God or higher being. Well, If you reject a higher being, then you are self-centered, if you are self centered, you tend to be ignorant, which is why I think atheists are generally ignorant. My meaning of ignorant: Having the ability to listen, but not wanting to because you keep insisting that you are correct.
Atheist VS. theism

My opponent has failed to provide rebuttals for my arguments. Please consider this in both the conduct section (ignoring the opposition's arguments) and the argument section (dropping the points. ) Thank you. However, I will provide rebuttals for hers. They will be short, as her arguments are short. --Rebuttals--I will be refuting each one of my opponent's points in the last paragraph:Yes, there actually would be faith. The definition of faithful is technically "loyal, constant. " One does not have to believe in God to achieve this. One can be faithful in another to do an action, faithful in a doctor to save a life, or even faithful in their own dog to fetch the mail for them. Faith comes in many different forms, and religion is only one of them. Yes, there would be morals. Atheists have morals, and they don't believe in God. They know their own guidelines and what they can and can't do in society. To say that one would not have morals just because they do not believe in God is simply outrageous. Plus, you have no evidence for this. .. at all. A law can be enforced by the government. While people will ALWAYS disobey this law, no matter what their beliefs, God does not have to exist to tell you what laws you can and can't do. That is what the government is for. If the U. S. A didn't have laws, but everyone believed in God. .. would they believe in God but have no morals? According to you, yes and no. People are getting killed by the second. People are being cast into depression by the second. Therefore, by your flawed logic, no one believes, has morals, or laws. How can this be? There are about 1,000,000 suicide (successful) attempts a year. .. does this mean no one believes in God? Again, your argument is flawed and just contradicted itself.
Your skin tone defines your side of the coin.

Clarication: IF pro which is defending the resolution doesn't provide anything that defends it then the win autimaticuly goes to con since pro automaticly forfeited. But since all I need is sentence to argue this anyway I will. I assume he is calling people who look at themselves and consider them selves a race a devil, and I belive he is wrong I belive we are just labled as black or white just because of how we appear and since Martin Luther King and new amendments we respect each other white or black so we are not Satanist.
Drawing challenge

Ok, this is a drawing challenge. I am looking for a good opponent.Me and my opponent must present their own art piece within 1 day.The materials can only be pencil (non colour) and graphite related.The art piece therefore cannot be digital. The art piece may be only of our my opponent's and my creation.1st round is not acceptance, my opponent must present his own art piece first in the 1st round. I shall then present my art piece in the 2nd round. My opponent must then say "pass" or "no round as agreed" in the 2nd round. I have decided to make this harder.There will be a theme. This theme is "celebrities/ famous people".Good day and good luck.
(Mig Tournament) Writer's Debate

This debate won't be an orthodox argumentative debate. In it, Pro and Con will take turns writing a story and drawing on the other's writing, to make a coherent whole. The one who presents the most compelling or entertaining writing will be the winner.Round 1: Acceptance, rules, clarificationsRounds 2-4: Actual writing===Framework/Rules===1. At the end of each passage of text, each debater will present a twist, or a major problem for his opponent to both overcome and solve. This problem/twist will be stated clearly at the end of each round. It will then be the job of the opponent to fix that problem during their next text, and provide a new problem for their opponent, and so on, etc.2. A forfeit will conduct in the loss of this debate. This is a tournament debate, so it would serve both of us to finish our challenge on time appropriately.3. The person who holds the readers interest best, or who attracts the best attention to you as a reader, should be deemed the winner of this debate. You may take in any aspects of a reader when voting, IE: Writing style, S/G, Entertainment levels, etc.
(Mig Tournament) Writer's Debate

2:17 a.m. November 13th, 2018. Svoboda, Novoya Rossiya (formerly Arlington, Virginia)."Please don't do this comrade! I plea for you to reconsider, to be merciful and to show me a kind eye! I have never been anything but loyal to the revolution and many can attest to this I assure you! It's just I- my children and wife, I was thinking of them. We have nothing to eat! Surely you can empathize with that? I never meant any harm I swear to God!" You're a kind and generous man, I can see it in your eyes! I know that you'll----." In an instant his body was transformed. What was a second ago a lively creature, willing to do anything for the continuation of its measley existence, was now simply one among many hundreds of thousands who had shared a similar fate. A queer thought though flickered in the back of his mind as he and his confederates left the scene. After seeing face after face, plea after plea, excuse after excuse and how tiring it was to sit through these useless performances, Walter wondered why he continued to allow for such excercises in futility. "You're quiet tonight Walter. What could you be thinking about so deeply on a night such as this?" His comrade Demyan had noticed an unusual silence. Walter replied, "Just thinking we should get some breakfast. I'm starving."3:39 p.m. January 21st, 2015. New York City, New York. United States.He was only injured slightly, his hearing was just a bit off but he was pretty sure he had a fractured rib. "Come on Walter drive! Just get us the hell out of here!" Daymen tried to keep Walter focused on the road even as Alex lie bleeding in the back. "Sergey, you're the doctor now how's he doing, will he live?", asked Daymen. The diagnosis looked grim. Alex had been too close to the initial detonation of the blast. "He's basically dead already, there-- there's nothing we can do for him." Sergey's face was white. His comrade lay dying as he sat beside him helpless. "Daymen, call Emil. Check their status. And Sergey keep on look-out", barked Walter. Daymen: Are you all ready over there?Emil: Of course, just waiting on you.Daymen: We ran into a minor problem over here. Alex got preoccupied with some police and was injured in the detonation. We don't think he's going to make it.Emil: It's all necessary my friend. He's proud to die for the revolution. Just make sure the rest of you get here in one piece.Daymen: Will do. We'll be there in about fifteen minutes.Emil: And remember, this begins our revolution. Khleb mir zemle.Daymen: Khleb mir zemle.
It is impossible for a Human Being NOT to communicate.

It is impossible for a Human Being NOT to communicate. Communication is defined as: 1. the act or process of communicating; fact of being communicated 2. the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs 3. something imparted, interchanged, or transmitted 4. a document or message imparting news, views, information, etc. 5. passage, or an opportunity or means of passage, between places Communication MUST involve two or more people. They do not have to be voiced either. Being silent, having a blank stare, and sitting in a single spot, not visibly moving, is communicating. It shows boredom to another person. It shows disinterest to another person. It is impossible to NOT communicate to another person. My opponent would have to have the statement "NOT communicating is possible".
Law of attraction is not fake

Re: Einstien: Argument from authorrity falllacy. Also Einstein never said anything supporting the law of attraction. Word vibrations are too vague to describe. We are not telepathic which is different than nonlocality. Our thoughts do not give off photons to the universe. Re: Many Masters. .. wtf are you talking about? Just becuase you think of something, doesn't mean it exists in reality. Are brains do not create reality. Ranjit only answered 1 out of the 3 points(poorly).
Law of attraction is not fake

Many masters who walk in these planet said life is abundant, ex Gotham Buddha said "mind is everything ,we become what we think ". Placebo is very different from spirituality. In spiritual world peoples focus on right mind which allow us think beyond. But leftmind is logic which create limits in one life, ex placebo,science,psychology use left mind more than right. Our subconscious mind send our vibs to universe for manifestion, mostly we receive result from universe at unconscious sleep.
Law of attraction is not fake

Problem #1: "The Secret" is plagiarized off the scientific term that we now know as "Placebo Effect" I.E. If you believe something will make you better, it will. The secret is simply the placebo effect plagiarized with spirituality and pseudoscience in the mixProblem#2: Good things do not happen by simply wishing for them I.E. African children shouldn't get food because they didn't want it enoughProblem#3: Positive events from Negative ThoughtsI.E. Learning from your mistakes
Law of attraction is not fake

Law of attraction is not fake, because we send our vibration to universe in forms of signals and our vibration get manifested. When we focus on something,we are growing thoughts or image vibrations in conscious mind which subconscious mind broadcast our vibs to universe for vibration. According to legendary PEOPLES like Einsten,Gotham Buddha,William Walker Atkinson we create our own universe from law of attraction. Many quantam scientist also accept law of attraction. Watch "The Secret Movie".
humans are meant to eat meat

I apologize for the forfeit. Something came up, and I am cancelling all debates for the next week, but I will issue a challenge to my opponent to debate the same subject one week from now."I expect more from a biologist"I will say this in reply. You are presenting classic arguments put forth by pseudo-scientists. These ideas are well known in the scientific community, and the science behind them is full of Swiss cheese holes. I will demonstrate this in our next debate.You profile shows that you are 15 years old, and so I deduce that you are still in highschool. This means that you have yet to study this field in enough depth to accurately understand the science, and I would recommend showing a little respect when discussing the issue with someone more advanced than you in the field.
humans are meant to eat meat

1. Omnivore Omnivores are animals whose diet is primarily composed of a mixture of plant and animal matter. [1] 2. Carnivore A carnivore is an organism whose diet is primarily composed of meat. [2] 3. Herbivore Herbivores are animals whose diet is primarily composed of plant matter. [3]" many debate about this classification system giant pandas are classified as a carnivore because there digestive track is just like an carnivore. reference 4 -------------------------------> however the diet of the giant panda is almost 100% herbivores.[1] the teeth argument. as teeth are used for more purposes than just eating, herbivores can and do have canines and incisor's. "In truth, with the exception of rodents, rabbits, and pikas, nearly all mammals have canine teeth." [2] horses are a grate example of this [5] "This is the digestive enzyme Amylase. It is found only in the saliva of omnivores and herbivores [6]." note that this does not exclude humans from the herbivores classification. "But only Omnivores couple this enzyme with a medium length digestive tract [7]." humans do not have a medium sized digestive track we have a large one. note that when measuring the human body you must measure from tailbone to top of head, not from feet. [4] humans have no adaptations in favor of hunting ie claws. [3] [4] humans have no omnivorous/carnivores instincts. Dan Piraro "put a 2 year old in a play pen with an apple and a rabbit, if it eats the rabbit and plays with the apple your got yourself a carnivore" humans do not have the capability to detoxify meat, this is why we are the only animal to cook the meat we eat. Yes it is true that we eat some raw meat this is normally in small quantities. humans are repelled by rotting flesh, a true omnivore/carnivore would dig in. (it is true that many carnivores will only eat it if they killed it. This is untrue for humans) humans nor any other animal have a nutritional requirement for meat rather they have a nutritional requirement for what it found in meat. Everything found in meat is also found in a vegan source accessible to people in first world country's, including bacteria in the mouth. 1. http://nationalzoo.si.edu... 2. http://freefromharm.org... 3. http://smmcroberts.net... 5. http://www.horsedentist.com... http://www.youtube.com...
humans are meant to eat meat

I will begin by providing the definitions of three key terms in this debate.1. OmnivoreOmnivores are animals whose diet is primarily composed of a mixture of plant and animal matter. [1]2. CarnivoreA carnivore is an organism whose diet is primarily composed of meat. [2]3. HerbivoreHerbivores are animals whose diet is primarily composed of plant matter. [3]Now, I will clarify my opponents basic contention, around which he is basing all arguments."Humans have no evolutionary adaptations suggesting the consumption of meat. "I will now illustrate the evolutionary characteristics that classify Humans as Omnivores.1. Teeth. [4]This graphic compares omnivore teeth to herbivore teeth. Note that only omnivores all types of teeth. [5]Here is a graphic of the Human tooth structure. Please note that Humans possess all types of teeth, classifying them as omnivores.2. Digestive enzymes This is the digestive enzyme Amylase. It is found only in the saliva of omnivores and herbivores [6]. Humans have this enzyme, excluding them from the carnivore class. But only Omnivores couple this enzyme with a medium length digestive tract [7]. Digestive tract classification of any given species is measured by dividing actual length of the digestive system by the length of the organism. Using this method, the Human digestive tract is of medium length[8], excluding them from the herbivore class and including them in the Omnivore class. Sources:1, 2, 3: Amateur Entomologists Societyhttp://www.amentsoc.org...4.http://fl1504041.edublogs.org...5. http://www.pitlochry.pkc.sch.uk...6, 7, 8: http://www.lhasa-apso.org...I could expand this argument to well over 8,000 characters, but I am limited to 3,000 and I will have to suffice with this for now.
humans are meant to eat meat

Humans have no evolutionary adaptations suggesting the consumption of meat. Human's share 99% of our DNA with apes. Apes diets consist of mainly fruit and vegetation. If you can provide me with evidence of adaptation's in support of eating meat, that I cannot debunk, than I will happily place the victory of this debate in your hands. Human feature in support of eating a plant biased diet: 1. A carnivore or omnivore's saliva does not contain digestive enzymes. humans however contain carbohydrate digestive enzymes. 2. Humans unlike carnivores have week stomach acid, for herbivores and humans the pH of there stomach acid is between 4 and 5. carnivores stomach acid is much closer to a pH of 1. 3. Carnivores and omnivores have a large intestine that is short and simple relative to there body size. I look forward to receiving your argument confident I can rebuttal it.