BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Life begins when the baby has brainwaves.

Brainwaves equal life for humans and animals. The fertilized eggis not a sentient person, nor is even the fetus. Your statements are not doing you any credit. Life begins when the baby has brainwaves about 20 weeks after implantation, give or take. Pregnancy also begins at implantation, so contraception does not cause abortion. Let science be the whole of the law on life and choice issues, not psuedo-religious fantasy.
Life begins when the baby has brainwaves.

The ability to feel doesn't determine life. I will be addressing this as to the debate title before jumping into what you really want to discuss. This part is primarily important to potential voters.Let me dissassemble your agument, "The fertilized egg or embryo is an organism, but not a sentient persion with the right to live." Using the term organism contradicts the title; Life begins when the baby has brain waves. The reason for this is because,"In biology, an organism is any individual entity that exhibits the properties of life. It is a synonym for "life form"." -https://en.wikipedia.org..."From a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran." -http://www.dictionary.com...If the unborn human is an orgamism, it is life and alive. By definition.Now onto what I think you really want to discuss.If you are correct and a person isn't truly a person until the development of brain waves, then not much changes. If you are incorrect than it could be the death of millions of small children. That danger is huge.By the time an embryo implants, the course is set for its entire development. It is preparing for much more than it's first brain waves. It is hard to say for sure if an unborn embryo can think in some fashion (You cannot ask, and sinace doesn't know everything), but I am of the belief that it is a state like dreaming. You cannot kill someone in their sleep. I would still appreciate a response on the section of my last argument: And what of the implications of brain waves for brain development determining humanity?If we chose to mesure the rights someone should have on stage of development at all, what stops us from becoming like countries that still throw away newborn girls and disabled children?Allowing abortion at all makes way as always, for the selective killing of the unborn that are disabled and female.Babies get adopted close to immediately in the united states, and baring abortion at all stages doesn't change that. Adoption brings happiness, regardless of whom is right between us. Abortion brings nothing.I'm going to stop there, until I can see if this is the direction you meant to take this. If not I will switch strategy.
Life begins when the baby has brainwaves.

Thanks for taking my debate. I believe my view is more scientific because aa fetilized egg or implantanted embryo is not sentient. It does not have sensory perception or self awareness however limited until 20 weeks after implantation when the fetus has lmitited sentience, brainwaves, and the right to live. I suffered for years of suicidal depression due to fertilizationist propaganda because I prevented an egg from implanting. The fertilized egg or embryo is an organism, but not a sentient persion with the right to live. It's just not a complete package or persion. Let me know what evidence you need. I need you to prove a fetilized egg or embryo is a person with the right to live.
Life begins when the baby has brainwaves.

Life begins either at conception or implantation.Why do I say this? Because at conception one becomes unique, with their own dna and their development planned out. At implantation, the child is developing already. It's course is already set.For life, something is developing. For dealth nothing is. Before brainwaves, the child is developing.And what of the implications of brain waves for brain development determining humanity? The brain doesn't stop developing well into the twenties. By that logic, is a seven year old less human than someone in their thirties?Not to mention brain abnormalities like Holoprosencephaly, in which the brain hemispheres do not seprate or do not fully seperate? Or Anencephaly where some or a lot of the brain is missing? Are they any less human?I think not.Brain function doesn't mean life or humanity. Development does.
Advertising at christmas should be illegal.

The Canadian advertising industry continues to thrive even as the industry continues to evolve and change, according to the latest annual report compiled by Statistics Canada.Did you know that in a 2008 survey from Consumer Reports, about 12 million people are still paying off credit card debt for purchases made last holiday season! Why are we paying for gifts instead of paying of our debt. Hello judges, timekeeper, audience, and our most honoured opponents. We are here today to discuss a topic of the utmost importance today. This house would limit all advertising around all major holidays. Why people, are we not paying off our debt but instead are buying gifts for people. As our first speaker I will present to you our first 2 pillars. Our first pillar is that advertising is a way that companies use to convince you to buy their product. Now advertising is one thing that promotes the sale of a good or service. Different companies will use advertising to convince you that their product is the best and that you should only buy their product. Most advertising is usually around the holidays for a sale on a good. But the companies are smart, they will put a better sale after the holidays and advertise that. I mean, who wants to watch this much TV during the holidays when you"re supposed to be spending time with their families. our second pillar is that advertising promotes the unnecessary need to buy products. You should be saving and spending very little instead of blowing money away on presents. Christmas, for children used to be about the spirit but now its all about presents. I rest my case.
Being wrong is not always bad

Rebuttals Firstly because the con has mixed their arguements and rebuttals, I cannot tell the difference and also believe they have no arguments unless stated otherwise. Thus now i am going to rebut their rebuttals. - The example of jimmy the politician and a maths failer actually supports my sad as even after failing his maths he becomes a politician. In the eyes of the public failing in the maths test would not be considered bad as it lead to a good outcomes. Lets make something very clear - The act of being bad and the million possible outcomes are releated -- This is a 2 stage process --- First stage you are wrong ----Second stage if you learn something, or achieve something the orginal act of badness is redempted and it is considered good ----second stage second scenario if you donot gain profits out of the act of wrong that means in only that scenario that being bad is always right Opponent has forgotten that if you are always right that doesnot mean you already have everything you need. If that was true than the saying "no man is perfect" will be incorrect. I never said seek out for failure i am merely stating that if you find yourself in failure donot always assume it is bad before actually going through the second stage (the process i have mentioned above). You always have a second chance to make wrong things right. The first chance should be considered a fluke as you never know what is going to happen. Sir Richard Branson had a childhood of failures but still he is one of the richest person in the world does that mean his failures are bad Being bad does not give anyone the right to make the presumption that its is bad All arguments stand I urge all votes for pro for follwing reasons - I have a valid debeatable case unlike con whose case is a 2 sentence long - I have better conduct and very convincing arguements which in pro's prespective does not contradict pro's case Thanks for reading
Being wrong is not always bad

Pros resolution should actually be: Being wrong can sometimes lead to being good. I agree being wrong can lead to being good, a bad thing often leads to good things. The holocaust led to more tolerance and an abhorance of racism. That doesn't mean the holocaust still wasn't bad. Being wrong is always bad. It is never preferable to being right. The "badness" of being wrong can be redeemed by good that comes out of it, but the act of wrongfullness is always bad. For example, if Jimmy fails his math test but ends up becoming a politician because of it, the act of failing his math test is still intrinsically bad, this is because the act of being bad (the failed test) is compltetly divorced from any of the millions of possible outcomes or effects (Jimmy becoming a politician.) Pro has made outlandish statements like "Being wrong at least teaches you something. What does being right teaches you? Nothing" Here's the thing: If you are wrong in a situation you have the oppurtunity to learn, to become right. If you are right in a situation you don't need that oppurtunity, you already have everything you need. Pro has literally pounded out one argument this entire debate, and it is completely irrelevant. It is that being wrong leads to self improvment, but it is through that bad act, the horror of ones wrongness that the self improvment comes. I agree that there is a possibility of redemption from being wrong if you realize it, but being wrong is always intrinsically bad because it means you have failed to attain the truth, failed to attain correctness, morality and righteousness. One should always want to be "right". Being wrong offers someone absolutely nothing. It is simply the lack of "rightness" such as darkness is the lack of light. It offers nothing in itself and is inherently bad. All of Pros arguments come from eventually being right.Oops I haven't quite been coherent.... but Ive shown why Pro has not held his BOP
Being wrong is not always bad

Hello ladies and gentleman Lets make very simple before I start my case Flaws - My opponent firstly is assuming that being wrong is bad and as there are no arguments to support this claim; This argument can be dropped. Thus the opponent does not have a single valid arguments with evidence which can be taken into consideration by the voters. Because of all this I urge a vote for pro Contentions - Being wrong at least teaches you something. What does being right teaches you? Nothing - Being wrong gives your lethargic lives an excuse to explore, to correct your mistakes as no can be perfect. Does being right makes you think differently like a mad genius? I don't think so unless proven otherwise. - If a person was always right than they will get bored and wouldn't be learning a thing. This is a very sad story :( - People who are always right are coincidentally victims to excellence and risk-taking. This is obvious as the content which student is apparently excelling would be too easy for them. This also means that the student is not mentally or physically challenged which is very bad for them. - If being right was the key to success than why would people like Sir Richard Branson and Albert Einstein be successful. These people I have mentioned had very sad childhood as they had difficulty getting things right. It should be obvious that if you have never failed before that either you are a prodigy or a person who goes to school where everything is too easy for them, are a coward and have not learned a thing. So sometimes failing can teach a person a lot of things. So it should be obvious that being wrong is not always bad as one mistake can teach you a lot of things or maybe change your life. Thus I urge a vote for pro. Interesting fact (not part of my arguments) -: Being wrong, learn from your mistakes and avoiding future errors quick footed is the key to learning Kungfu and other martial arts
Being wrong is not always bad

Holy crap It's hard being coherent...this is confusing, but i need to point out how Pros entire case is a circular argument "Being wrong, failing in something is necessary for students to learn."No it's not. Being right is necessary for students to learn. If a kid gets 50% on his math quiz, as opposed to getting a 100%, it isn't a good thing just because he now knows he needs to study. The only good would be if he had gotten an 100%."There is no denying the fact that being wrong is part of successful learning"Yes there is....the only successful learning happens when you are right. Your argument is that being wrong helps you become right, that an evil can lead to something good...I say that one can be right in the first place, and despite the fact that wrongness can help you realize you need to work harder or whatever it is still inherently bad. I agree with my opponents entire speech, being wrong can help you eventually become right, but that wrongness is still bad. Even if the problem is part of the solution it's still a problem. My case in short, it is always bad to be wrong because the only alternative is being right. Just because being wrong can help you eventually become right doesn't mean being wrong isn't bad. Pro needs to prove to us why someone should seek out to be wrong, why being wrong is ever a desirable thing. He has not. He suggests being wrong leads to successful learning. It doesn't. We could eliminate "being wrong" from the equation and we would have successful learning. If we eliminated "being right" we would not have any learning.
Being wrong is not always bad

Welcome to round 2 of this debate For this debateDefinition of wrong are all definition mentioned on dictionary.com Contentions - Being wrong, failing in something is necessary for students to learn. If students never fail they will never explore. If you got everything right in the first attempt than you would not be learning anything. Students who have failed know - -Possibilities of mistakes that can be made at things -These students have been through a downfall and If they strive to succeed than they would succeed as they have learned from the mistakes and know how to not repeat it. - This students are brave, If they succeed after their failure that means they are creative and know how to explore and learn the right thing There is no denying the fact that being wrong is part of successful learning and being wrong is most certainly not always bad.I urge a pro vote for this serious debate as being wrong is not always bad Side note - Please no forfeiting Travniki otherwise I urge for all 7 votes
The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies

"And with that the soviets sent natural resources to Germany(like oil and coal), which helped the German war effort against the West."The Soviets didn't really send supplies to the Germans. I would agree that they helped Germany by signing the non-agression pact instead of declaring war, however if you want voters to believe that the Soviets sent supplies to Germany then you will need to find sources for support. Germany would have won in the west without any supplies sent by a foreign power. "The first countries to enter the war against Germany were Britain and France, while the USSR collaborated with the Germans to dominate Poland!" I agree, the first countries to enter the war were Britain, France, and Poland. One of the last countries to enter the war was the United States, also part of the Western Alliance. Poland fought alongside the Soviet army more than it fought with the Western Allies so I would consider them to be part of the eastern front in 1944, before that, Poland was basically fighting alone. By Western Allies I mean countries that actually fought WITH Britain and France. Such examples would be Norway and Greece. You claim that since the Soviets signed a non-agression pact with Germany, the Western Allies played a more important role. You could not be more incorrect. Britain and France appeased Germany from 1933-1939. They allowed Germany to invade Chzecoslovakia, Austria, and the Rhinelands. In addition, Britain and France did nothing when Germany broke the treaty of Versailles. The Western Allies did not fight Germany until they were not attacked. As did the Soviet Union and the United States."After 1941, when the Germans already invaded the Soviet Union, Germany lost it's soviet oil source and had only Romania. Romania's oil wasn't enough, so the other option was to invade the Middle East. England stood against the Nazi's in Africa so they could not get to the Middle Eats and drill it's oil. By this way Germany had less oil and more need of it only because the West actions." In the summer of 1942, Germany launched Case Blue[1] with the purpose of capturing Stalingrad and the OIL FIELDS of the Caucuses. From there, Germany could invade the Middle East and Capture the oil fields which were lightely defended by British troops. Germany would have had unlimited oil had they captured Baku, however the Soviets stopped them. Stalingrad is Volgograd on the map. Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies

I'll be your opponent! I admit that the role of the Soviet Union was important on defeating Germany, but not greater than of the Western Allies. The first countries to enter the war against Germany were Britain and France, while the USSR collaborated with the Germans to dominate Poland! And with that the soviets sent natural resources to Germany(like oil and coal), which helped the German war effort against the West. Second, while Germany was helping Italy by invading the countries in the Balkans the UK sent troops to protect those countries, while the Soviet Union did nothing, just helping the Germans by sending them resources. After 1941, when the Germans already invaded the Soviet Union, Germany lost it's soviet oil source and had only Romania. Romania's oil wasn't enough, so the other option was to invade the Middle East. England stood against the Nazi's in Africa so they could not get to the Middle Eats and drill it's oil. By this way Germany had less oil and more need of it only because the West actions.
The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies

To end this debate, let's compare what I accomplished:- I proved that Soviets helped Germany to establish itself as a power on round 2- I proved that the Soviets needed the Western Allies help by: Showing that Stalin asked for the West's help on round 3 Showing that Soviet roads where impossible to transport soldiers without American trucks on round 4 Showing that the United States lent money for the Soviets to build their industries by the Lend Lease - I proved that the Allies produced more war equipment than the Soviets on rounds 3 and 4. - I proved that Britain did make an effort to stop the Nazi's before the war and during the war period when it was all alone- I proved that the West won their battles by their merits and weren't helped by natural factors like the SovietsI would like to refute Pro's argument that because of the capture of Berlin, Germany lost. The Soviets only captured Berlin first because it was closer to the Eastern Front than the Western Front. If the German capital was Hamburg, for example, which is closest to the West, the Western Allies would have captured it first, but it is still would not be a good argument. Pro's main argument on this whole debate was that the Soviets killed more Germans than the West. That is not a good argument because during the war the Soviets where the ones who most lost men and mainly because of the Nazi army(. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Even thou the Nazis lost. Pro's logic is totally wrong. So, concluding:Pro's only argument on this debate was that the Soviets destroyed most of the German military. He stated it was in a higher level than it actually was. I stated that during the whole debate that the Allies tried to stop the Germans from expanding their military and the Soviets would not win without their help. I gave the military production of both Western Allies and USSR and proved the West produced more. I also showed why the Lend-Lease was essential to the Soviets, and without it they would certainly lose. I don't think the Soviet's role on the war was unnecessary. I state that the Soviet role was only as big as Pro states because of Western aid. Without the West, the Soviet Union would certainly be lost and the Nazi's would probably win the war. Any credits for any Soviet accomplishment during the war goes to the West.
The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies

org. And I would also like to apologize, I'll no longer use books as sources. When I showed all that number I tried to say that the Western allies produced more for the war than the Soviet Union. His means that the Soviets did not have all the strength you state they had and therefore they would not win the war without the West's help. I here you can see the resources mobilization of each major power in WW2 . http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...You can see how the Western Allies production to the war was much bigger than the Soviet's. I remember Pro saying something about Land Lease on round 1. Yes, the Lend Lease saved the Soviet Union from the Nazi's. While the Soviets had many rural areas under German control during most part of the war, they needed help to feed it's population. Then there is the situation of Russian roads. During the invasion the Nazi complained a lot about the roads in the Soviet Union. They were in a terrible situation With the Land Lease, America sent trucks to the Soviets, which could transport the men through the territory with less difficulty. Without those trucks, the Soviets would have never been able to mobilize as much men as they did and win the battles. Therefore, the Soviet success is mostly because of Western Allies help. 1Pro complains about me trying to diminish the Soviet army importance on the Battle of Moscow and compares it with the invasion on Normandy. Well, while the Soviets were helped by the winter(a natural factor) and by Nazi's stupidity, the Allies in Normandy tricked the Germans. Pro forgot to mention Operation Fortitude, executed by the West with the intention of diverting the Axis away attention from Normandy. When did the Soviets ever made such thing like that? And answering his question, yes, because that was the Allies intention. They tricked Hitler to think the invasion was somewhere else. Then British and American soldiers successfully liberated France, exactly how it was expected. 2 Pro said I tried to diminish the battle of Kursk. I did not said that. I only said that the Soviets won the battle of Kursk because Hitler moved it's troops from Kursk to Sicily, where the Allies were invading. Therefore, they fought an weaker enemy and because of it they won. The soviets where lucky again. My own sources proves that before the Allies invasion of Sicily, the first hours of the battle of Kursk where a tactical defeat for the Red Army. 3I would like Pro to think if the Soviets would win if Germany had took the Syrian oil fields after the battle of France. If Britain hadn't stopped them, I think the Soviets would have lost. Pro still did not prove that 80% of German military machine was destroyed in the Eastern Front. For the last argument stated by Pro: SERIOUSLY? You REALLY think that 60% of the German forces were in the East in 1944 only because of their heavy losses. Doesn't the invasion of SICILY or the NORMANDY had nothing to do with that? Sources:1. http://www.historynet.com...2http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...