BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The fetus is not part of a woman's bpdy.

Thank you to my opponant for the kind words. I believe that human life begins at fertilization when the organism has it's own genetic code. The zygote is formed when the male and female pronuclei fuse to form a new life. If the fetus is part of the mother's body, that means that the mother has two genetic codes, two hearts, and sometimes, a penis is the fetus is a male.
Wrestling better than basketball

Before I begin I will refute my opponents arguments "Anyone can learn to wrestle and be semi decent at it" Basketball can be viewed in a similar aspect as to wrestling because majority of first world countries have access to watch Basketball games. This familiarizes the viewer with basic rules such as shooting the ball into the basket. Therefore it is possible to state that anyone who can learn to play basketball can be semi decent at it. "Blind and disabled people can't play basketball too well." Although blind people can't play basketball, their is a basketball event in the handicapped Olympics. (1) This involves using one hand to move their wheelchair and the other hand to shoot (2) (1) http://o.onionstatic.com... (2) http://www.disability.illinois.edu... Basketball is a trending sport that is played in first world countries and unlike traditional wrestling (which involves a 1v1) promotes good sportsmanship through teamwork with other players. These involve practicing defense formations and offensive positions. Basketball is also a more renowned sport publicly because if we compare the salaries of a wrestler. "Triple H topped the list with a salary of over $2 million a year." (see http://voices.yahoo.com...) With the salary of Koby Bryant's salary which consists of $30,453,805. The difference is startling with Koby Bryant earning 15 times more the amount that Triple H is earning (see http://espn.go.com...) Wrestling is also regarded as a contact physical sport where many injuries have incurred from bruises leading up to broken necks and spinal chords (see http://www.complex.com...) These injuries will discourage many parents from allowing their children to participate in wrestling schools and tournaments. What is even more concerning is when children practice wrestling moves they saw on TV unsupervised which will most likely result in serious injury. Whereas basketball condones and penalizes any physical attacks towards players due to basketball regulations and rules. Therefore, basketball is a family friendly sport that everyone can play regardless of athletic ability or age. Wrestling is also considered and condoned as fake by majority of the public. (see http://prowrestling.about.com...) This imply that wrestling is only a mere image of muscled men performing impressive theatrics to please the audience. Basketball is drastically different from wrestling as all the basketball games are live and legitimate as anyone with enough practice can imitate certain manoeuvres if they practice that technique continuously and achieve the same result as the professional basketball players. To sum up my arguments for Round 2, Basketball is better than wrestling because it encourages teamwork, it is more internationally renowned than wrestling, a more family friendly sport and is undeniably legitimate. Wishing all the best for my opponent in Round 3
Islamic Scripture is from God

I wish to thank my honourable opponent for giving me this opportiunity, and I admire him for the courage to touch such an interesting but hard topic.Secondly, I need my rival to know that the Koran is a book for every kind of human being, of all places, of all times. This means that if it contained only one type of evidence, it could only proof its supernatural origin to a few people.But the Koran has plenty of types of evidence...From the time it was revealed (about 1400 years ago) until somehow the 18th century, the thing that man admired most was literature. This most commenly because quite only monks had learnt to read and write, so if one could, and could beautifully, he was pretty admired.Imagine then, that from that day to this, no man, Muslim nor non-Muslim, has ever succeeded to bring a better and more beautiful piece of Arabic poetry than the Koran. No expert on Arabic poetry worthy of the name has ever denied this.It is mentioned in the glorious Koran:"And if thou art in doubt of what we sent down to you and to our Servant (Mohammed), bring then a similar chapter from yourselves, and call upon your witnesses apart from Allah, if thou art truthful" (Koran, 2:25)This means that God (who is by the way not 'tri-omni' in the sight of Muslims, as my opponent mistaked himself) gives this challenge to all men to produce a chapter somehow like it. Impossible, no-one has ever done it or will ever do.But now, it is not very common anymore that people would describe devinity to a sublime work of literature. Today is the age of science.My opponent has read my debate on the compatibility between the Koran and modern science (http://www.debate.org...) This indication of scientific facts should be enough to please a scientific mind. If my opponent wants more, he may ask. But if he watches the entire video of dr. Zakir Naik, he will find out soon enough...Now, another thing a book of divinity should be is free from contradictions. Every religious book on earth has contradictions with COMPLETELY PROOFED scientific FACTS or with its own sayings, except the Koran. My rival is completely permitted to say one if he can.I am now waiting for my rival's respond, which I exspect to arrive soon, and I thank him again for his effort...
Islamic Scripture is from God

Resolution: Islamic Scripture is from God (the typical tri-omni God of the 3 Abrahamic religions and Islamic Scripture is Qur'an+Hadith.)I will be taking the Con side.The burden of proof is shared.Rules:No Insults.No Forfeits.No Semantics.No Fallacies.8000 Characters max.4 Rounds.72 Hours to post.1 Week voting perioid.Start arguments for the resolution in first round.I will now pass to Pro for his arguments.
Resolved: Ron Paul could have been a good President.

Good luck, Username. As a note, this debate is a Conservative vs. Libertarian clash, so if you are Liberal, or Progressive, keep that in mind when voting. Or turn your head. 1. Economic PolicyRon Paul's economic policy can be explained in six words; lower taxes, lower spending, and smaller government. In order to restrict the federal government to what he believes are its Constitutionally authorized functions, he regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes[1], making him a minority of Congressmen to do so. His 2012 "Plan to Restore America"[2] would cut five federal agencies, decreasing federal involvement. Finally, his promises to audit the Federal Reserve, would bring responsibility back to Federal Economics. 2. Foreign PolicyPaul's views are generally attributed to those of non-interventionism, which is the belief that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. Paul is quoted as stating "America [should] not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations", while advocating "open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations." This extremely close to what our founders wanted when they said: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." We can see, once again, a stable policy, one based off of our foundation, rather than personal vendetta. Thank you, and... [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[2] http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com...
Eating Meat is Unethical!

I will be addressing his responses to my arguments. I will also add another argument. First. C1: Humans capabilities justify actions, due to similar animal behavior. My opponent provided a very valid point in refuting this argument. He said that humans, as sentient beings, and with the ability to be omnivorous, should avoid eating animals, so as not to cause them suffering. However, I bring up the example of the bear. The bear has the ability to eat both plants AND meat. Do we claim the bear is unethical when it eats a fish? No. This is because it is accepted in society. This brings me to the crucial argument of the round, argument 2. C2: Eating meat is ethical because it is accepted. My opponent tried to deflect this argument by using a moral standard. It is morally wrong and unethical in our society to marry off children at a young age. However, this proves my point. The definition of ethical, which was not disputed by the Pro, is this, "Conforming to accepted standards of conduct". In sharia law, child marriages ARE ethical. Are they moral? In my opinion, no. But that is not the resolution, and therefore, not the debate. We must look at the ethics of whether or not should eat meat. Seeing as the consumption of meat is widely accepted in our society, it should be deemed ethical. C3: Eating animals does not cause them to suffer. Lastly, I would like to propose this fina argument. There are many painless ways of ending animal's lives. In fact, humans as creatures are FAR more sensitive to animal pain whilst hunting them. We are the most humane hunters, far exceeding those of the animal kingdom. Now, whichever way this argument flows should not affect the round. However, it is worth pointing out that humans are probably the most legitimate and humane carnivores out there. Next round my opponent will present closing statements, I presume. I will not bring up any new arguments after that, seeing as how he will not be able to respond to them. However, I will address any arguments or refutations he provides in his next speech. A pleasure, as always. Looking forward to hearing your arguments.
Eating Meat is Unethical!

I also enjoy debating political points but this issue of ethics also interest me very much. In reference to your points: You said: "Animals eat as they are designed to do". I disagree. It's not the design so much that forces them to eat the food they eat. It's their lack of choices. Animals cannot grow vegetables and farm crops such as corn and soy. Animals eat what they must. The beauty of human anatomy is that humans can cook and eat vegetarian food and prevent animal suffering. As you agreed, capabilities alone do not justify actions. This was my whole point. We can make ethical and rational choices and cause less suffering on this planet. As to your second point: "Eating meat is ethical because it is accepted in society. " Child marriages are accepted in Sharia law in Pakistan. They were once accepted in mormon societies also. A girl aged 13 can be married off in Pakistan if she is past her initial puberty period in her life. Child labor practices are common in Nepal, India and parts of Africa. Slavery is accepted in parts of the world although it's not called slavery. Many societies perfectly accept second class status of women yet we frown upon them. USA has had slavery, women once upon a time could not vote, yet we threw out all those "unethical and irrational" belief systems long ago to treat others with dignity and respect. Thus my argument that we can change and live a compassionate life. Capabilities does not justify actions, as seen in the case of violence and sexual offenses. We restrain ourselves to prevent harm to other humans. Why can't we do the same to prevent suffering of animals?
Eating Meat is Unethical!

It is a nice break from most of the government-related (or theological) arguments that seem to be predominant. Don't get me wrong, those debates are great. But every once in a while, we must have a break from the monotony of repetitive resolutions. I will be representing Con in this argument. I stand resolved that: Eating meat is NOT unethical. First I believe we should establish an imperative definition in this debate round. This is the definition of the word "ethical". Ethical, as defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary, is: 1- of or relating to ethics <ethical theories> 2- involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval<ethical judgments> 3- conforming to accepted standards of conduct <ethicalbehavior> 4- of a drug : restricted to sale only on a doctor's prescriptionI propose we use defintion 3. "Conforming to accepted standards of conduct" If the Pro would like to use a different definition, I encourage him to provide it and a reason why it is more accurate to this round than mine. I will be running three different main arguments. C1: Animals eat as they are designed to do. Humans should, too. First, other creatures perform and diet as they are created to do. Our physical build implies that we, as humans, should consume meat. True, just because we have capabilities to do things, we shouldn't necessarily do them. However, as far as diets are concerned, there is not a single mammal that is not designed to eat what it doe, in fact, eat. C2: Eating meat is ethical because it is accepted in society. Society defines what is "ethical" and what is not. If we are to be looking at whether or not meat eating is truly ethical, then we have to follow the definition. I truly hope for a great debate round, and eagerly await your response.
Eating Meat is Unethical!

Eating Meat is Unethical!I will stick to only one argument in this debate and focus on one angle. I will present many more arguments in the future to describe why humans don't need to eat animal flesh to survive. I am a perfect example of it. Meat eaters argue: We have canine teeth, thus we were desgined to eat meat. This argument makes no sense. We need canine teeth to eat apples, bread, peaches, or just about any other hard-to-eat-and-chew food. OK may not be for rice, but certainly for many other food types, we need such teeth. Also, physiology and natural capabilities does not mean we should use them for meat eating. The whole argument that "We have such capabilities, therefore we were designed to eat meat" is laughable on its face. Adults have capabilities to molest children and to make IEDs and nuclear bombs. Would you argue therefore that we should molest kids and also build bombs and kill other humans? Most rational human beings would not. So why do meat eaters use the argument that "capabilities imply justification"? Reminder: Please do not sidetrack this argument by bringing in the issue of proteins and B12 and hunger and taste and other irrelevant arguments. My argument is strictly focused on the issue of misguided justification of eating meat because we have capabilities to do so. Please focus on human physiology and capabilities to justify why you feel we were "designed" to eat meat. Also, designed by who? God? Did God say it would be nice to create animals that could suffer unbearable pain to satisfy human needs? Is that it? You may focus on this issue also since it deals with human physiology and capabilities to justify meat eating.
The Bible is true because it can be explained by science. We just aren't that advanced at the moment

Okay, I am going to assume that you have watched the video. It's fair to assume that the people + technology back then would have 'primitive' when compared to the technology we have today. Their walking about the walls of Jericho was seen as a miracle but any scientist would know that the phenomenon was resonance. Accompanied by the stamping of feet, the sound waves created by the instruments and vocal chords caused the very atoms in the wall to vibrate, gaining more energy. This increase in oscillations would cause the material of the wall to become unstable and eventually fall down like the story goes. What happened is much like what is taking place in the video a wine glass breaking with sound. http://www.youtube.com... A more famous example would be Tacoma Narrows bridge that collapsed in 1940, Nov 7. http://en.wikipedia.org... What made them walk about the great walls? It seemed so irrational. The logical thing would have been to at least try and damage the walls or shoot for the enemy. What gave them that insight? If resonance was only found out a few decades ago, there's no way people thousands of years old could have known about it. This story in particular would have seemed ludicrous before the discovery of resonance. Using science, I can conclude that the story did take because it has something in it that has been explained and observed. The story must be true because I'm sure it would be pretty difficult to fabricate a story and then put in a phenomenon that you weren't even aware existed. So if that is true, how many more things are there in the Bible that simple omit simple because we cannot explain yet?
The Bible is true because it can be explained by science. We just aren't that advanced at the moment

I do believe that the texts within the covers of The Holy Bible (KJV) are true. The people and the places did once exist and I do believe that the events in The Holy Bible did really happen. I also believe that it's of man's ignorance and pride, we have pushed God aside. We appear to advancing so well with technology that we feel as though we no longer need a 'Creator' or a 'God' to tell us what to do and how to live. This is understandable. Being made in God's image and all, I do not think that humans are stupid. I do think that if people were to put their minds together, they can achieve... but I think the knowledge is then limited... So I will be arguing that the Bible is true by using the 'supernatural' happenings and the things that Bible said that have only been recently discovered. I might touch on a bit of history; our civilization- it's past and future but I will not be arguing about morals, good/evil, sin or anything of that sort. My first point: If this story is found as being true, would that not qualify the others as being more likely to be, if not completely? Consider the story of 'The walls of Jericho' in Joshua 6. (Ai) I have found a video if you are unable to read the story. It's not the best but it will do. If you don't want to watch the whole video, please just watch from 4:00. (Aii) (Ai) http://www.biblegateway.com... (Aii) http://www(dot)youtube.com/watch?v=zfqaMsaDF20. So let's establish first whether it's true or not.
Canadian Bacon Is Bacon, NOT Just Sliced Ham

Thanks for taking on this challenge, con! Now, let's get to this debate...I'm American, so for the sake of time I'll start saying our bacon in place of American bacon from here on out.Canadian bacon looks like sliced ham to Americans because American bacon is a different type of bacon that comes from a different part of the pig. Canadian bacon is back bacon, while our bacon is the odd man out from their perspective, as it is "pork belly bacon." British bacon has a combination of both, but is lean like Canada's bacon. Again, that makes American bacon the true odd man out to them, though both are still bacon. [1] One bacon that is a little similar to American bacon is pancetta, Italian bacon, which is made from the pork belly but is often spiced with pepper and rolled up.It's usually just an ethnocentric idea to call it "Canadian bacon." Usually what people are referring to when they say this is peameal bacon. Furthermore, Bacon varies drastically around the world. In Hungary, they have szalonna, which looks more like and is made more similarly to peameal bacon. In America, bacon is typically fried, while in places like Britain (and Hungary) it is typically smoked. [2]To wrap things up, bacon is different everywhere. In Canada, Canadian bacon is just...well...bacon, or it is back bacon or peameal/cornmeal bacon. In places other than America, our bacon is referred to as American style bacon, as well as streaky or fatty bacon. Bacon is simply defined by what parts of the pig it is made from, and, by this definition, Canadian bacon is in fact bacon - not just sliced ham.[1] http://www.englishbreakfastsociety.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Will we never be contact/contact Aliens.

Side Pro's whole statements today was based on two things.1. How Aliens Can Not Biologically Exist. For this argument, side pro fully believed that for aliens to exist, there must be a planet out there that can cope with "them". Side pro then followed it up by saying that there needs to be biological evidence that shows that an alien can survive in a foreign, "unsupported" planet. What side pro is clearly failing to understand is the fact that both of us do not care what or who these aliens are, as long as these aliens exist and can be classified as life. Therefore, it is very flawed to say that they must be suited to humans and must posses the right needs of a human. If an alien is built in such a way that it can withstand enourmous heat, then it does. It's still an alien. It does not matter whether these aliens need to be biologically supported, the debate is about meeting aliens , not what these aliens are.2. How There are restrictions concerning space. "WE and the ALIENS cannot and do not have the technology and resources to reach each other. We have accomplished many things but...The greatest achievement ever executed in the cosmos is when Humans traveled to the moon. - Francesco Tredinari" Side pro made several one liners in this statement. Firstly, he acknowledged that we have accomplished many things but that provided a boundary saying we will not progress to space even more.Unfortunately, there were various missing links in this statement, side pro has not even mentioned how history which is a clear evidence (and is my first argument) can be flawed.This is due to the fact that history itself has proven to us that we can explore this boundaries, that we do have the ability to oneday, explore even further in space and meet aliens. Conclusion : Ultimately, side pro failed to provide any tangible core principles that go against the meeting of aliens. Most of pro's arguments were based upon arbitrary restrictions that only exist in pro's minds. These boundaries and limits cannot be limited and must be expanded.For all those who do think that restrictions and boundaries cannot be arbitrarily decided, vote for side opp.
Will we never be contact/contact Aliens.

Rebuttals: Unless you can show me a biological path to intelligence that can live without water, fertile soil and atmosphere my point trumps. The reason is if we are to find life or right now we are only looking for life on earthlike planets. We should not even assume intelligent life can prosper on Neptune like it can on earth. It must be a rock planet with a similar rock layer make-up. Also a common core, gravity pressure, weather cycles and atmosphere to even start to think that non-intelligent can hold. Kepler 22-b had a chance but no one assumes anymore life is on it. For the history part and our expansion watch this very creditable video. Conclusion: We can travel to our nearest star in about 1,100 years from today, that is just our nearest star and if we don't go extinct or go back in to a dark age. WE and the ALIENS cannot and do not have the technology and resources to reach each other. We have accomplished many things but... The greatest achievement ever executed in the cosmos is when Humans traveled to the moon. - Francesco Tredinari