BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is morally wrong.

Thank you for allowing me the chance to clarify. Also, good luck to you as well. Moral: 1.concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. 2.holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct. (https://www.google.com...) I would like to limit this in the worldviews of evolution and christianity. However, if you want to argue for a different philosophy/religion you may. In accordance to evolution, any action that helps you "survive and thrive" is considered moral. By thrival I mean creating offspring to carry on your genetic information through the passing on of your DNA. This would mean that any action that prevents this would be by default immoral. So to any person who accepts a philosophy based on Darwinian evolution, such as Nietzsche, abortion would be morally wrong due to the fact that it is going against the natrual instinct to "thrive". In accordance to a biblical worldview, any action that is in direct contrary to the orders/commandments of God is sin. Sin is considered to be immoral. God commands that we not murder another human. The Bilbe makes it clear that human life begins at conception. Therefor, abortion is considered murder which is morally wrong. This is a short first round but I wish to hear your response before continuing my arguement. Thank you for accepting and especially for behaving in a civilized manner.
Abortion is morally wrong.

"However, this child would be less likely to pass on his genetic disease due to natural selection."What about genetic diseases that don't show their affects until after reproduction occurs? If a parent has Huntington's Disease, there is a 50% chance that their child will get the gene for it. Huntington's disease doesn't show up in some people until as late their 70s. But it can also show up earlier if their adult life. (http://en.hdyo.org...). I argue that ensuring the gene is stopped is more moral (evolutionary perspective) than being the reason that your son died at 35, your two grand kids died at 40/44, and only three of your five great grand kids lived past 50. Can you imagine how much pain that would inflict on the remaining great grand kids? There would be so much survivor's guilt. Now, because you did not kill one child, you have ruined the life of three, and killed five. Luckily, because of the way the gene works, the people that were fortunate enough to not get the disease cannot pass it on. Even though there is a 50% chance that your son will not get the disease in the first place, is it really worth the bet? "I don't find that as reason enough to abort it." You must explain to me why though. You have the Burden of Proof to show it would be morally wrong to kill the group of cells that will one day become a child. Then an adult. Then a murderer."While it is true that God will forgive all the sins of saved people through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that does mean that we should sin anyway just because we know he will forgive us."I'm glad you agree with me."But again this does mean that it is ok (moral) to do so. I can't tell if this is a typo or if Pro honestly agree with me. Since this is the second time, I think I'll assume it is the latter. "While rape is immoral and should no happen, why should the child have to suffer because of the sin of it's father?"Let me turn this around. Why should a young girl have to suffer because of the sin of the man? The child barely exists at this point. All it is is a group of cells. Unrecognizable from an elephant, or an otter. Would it be moral to stop the creation of this life in order to save an existing life? The girl is not ready to raise a child, and the child will have a terrible life. No father, mother had to drop out of school at 16 to take care of him/her. I argue that it's more moral to protect the existing life (the young girl) than it is to save the non-existing life (the clump of cells). It's time to crack open the old testament. Genesis 2:7 states that God made Adam's body out of the dust of the Earth. Later, the "man became a living soul" only after God '"breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.""This passage seems to state clearly that Adam's personhood started when he took his first breath. Following this reasoning, a newborn would become human after it starts breathing. If a fetus is only [on it's way to becoming] human, then an abortion would not terminate the life of a human person.I await Pro's response. I hope he finds a better computer.
Abortion is morally wrong.

You bring up some very good arguements. As for the first question I would say that the child with a genetic disease would still be immoral to kill under the "thrive" clause. If it is a genetic disease then the parents are still passing their genetic information on to the offspring. however, this child would be less likely to pass on his genetic disease due to natural selection. So it would not continue to, for lack of a better word, pollute the gene pool. Under an evolutionist standpoint I would be willing to submit to the idea that the child has less value but I don't find that as reason enough to abort it. In response to the death of the mother scenario: In nature you will often see mothers willing to give their lives for their child. This would make it apperent that thrival is valued more so than survival. This is simply my own view of things though so I do not want to claim it as fact. Other than that I will admit it to be a good and solid arguement that I can not, at this time, refute. While it is true that God will forgive all the sins of saved people through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, that does mean that we should sin anyway just because we know he will forgive us. Paul wrote "Should we sin more so that grace may abound? Persih the thought!". So even though sin will be forgiven it does not change the fact that all sin is immoral. God can and probably will forgive christians who have abortions. But again this does mean that it is ok (moral) to do so. Christian are supposed to obey God's moral laws out of love for him and appreciation of what he did for them. In response to the rape victim scenario: While rape is immoral and should not happen, why should the child have to suffer because of the sin of it's father? In a just world the father would have to take care of the girl and the child but unfortunately this does not always happen. The child does not deserve to have its oppritunity at life be denied because a man decided to take an immoral action. Rape is wrong and murder is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. I will post Bible refrences when I can get to a better computer (mine keeps crashing and it is very slow). As for my evolution assertions, I will admit that this is simply what I observe. I will see if I can find something to back up these ideas. Thank you for being well mannered. It really is appreciated.
Abortion is morally wrong.

"In accordance to evolution, any action that helps you 'survive and thrive' is considered moral. By thrival I mean creating offspring to carry on your genetic information through the passing on of your DNA. This would mean that any action that prevents this would be by default immoral." While Pro makes a good point, it is only good in theory. Pro asserts that "any actions that prevents this would be by default immoral." I'd like Pro to think about this question: Which is more immoral? Having a child that you know will be born with a horrible genetic disease, or not making a child suffer their whole life while working to get that disease out of the gene pool.From an evolutionary standpoint, helping to rid a life form that is not fit to survive is much more moral than letting the weak link continue to ensure that the human race is imperfect.I would also like to point out that many women face the risk of death if they have to give birth to a baby. The life of the mother should fall under the "survive" clause of what Pro claims is moral in evolution. "God commands that we not murder another human. Therefor, abortion is considered murder which is morally wrong." This sounds great and all, but again this is not how it works.Let me read a quote from the bible: Jesus is reported to have once said "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" (http://lavistachurchofchrist.org...)What this quote means is that the lord will forgive the sin of murder. The only sin that the lord will not forgive is " blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." (http://rcg.org...). Surely, if the abortion is necessary to the health of the woman or the child, the lord and savior shall give pardon to mere mortals who can't know better. I'd like to follow this up by asking another question: Which is more immoral? Forcing an 11 year old girl to become a mother after being raped, or giving her a chance to life her life. Think of all of the great scientific and literary minds that have been lost because somebody became a mother too early on. For evolution: I argue that protecting humans as a species is more important than protecting one child.For Christianity: I argue that the lord will forgive us for the sin of murder, so whether it is a sin or not is irrelevant. Also, I'd like some sources for the claims that pro made such as "the Bilbe makes it clear that human life begins at conception" and "In accordance to evolution, any action that helps you 'survive and thrive' is considered moral."
Total War: USA (pro) v (con) China.

I extend my Arguments.Argument IV: Geologic AdvantageThe US has a geological advantage against China... China can only reasonably get to the US through the Pacific Ocean... Guarded by South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines (the Orange Lines). As the map below shows, China has no entrance into the ocean. They are entirely blocked by US allies. Japan alone has more Carriers than China, and with the US navy guarding the shore with their allies, China can't leave the mainland. China can't head through the mainland, as there are nations there. If they did try, they would find India and a number of US bases (the Green Line). And Russia won't let an army move through their lands. Even if they did, the Russian shoreline they could use is even smaller to patrol. The other shorelines would lead them through European oceans.Conclusion:The US has an economic, military, geological advantage over China. The US would win in a war.
Total War: USA (pro) v (con) China.

Resolution: The United States of America v The People's Republic of China.Rules:- Sources may be external.- No Semantics or Shotgunning.- No Conduct or Spelling/Grammar points.Summary:Since the rise of Communism, a number of debates over who could win in a war between the US and a number of communist/socialist nations, from the USSR to China, have taken place. While Russia is far from a capable nation today, China is a worthy candidate for a war.The People's republic of China, form in 1929, is the largest nation in the world, and has the second largest economy. The US is the third largest nation, with the largest GDP in the world.The parameters of the debate are loose and allow for any variable that may affect the outcome of war to be played.This is a debate of the likely outcome of a war, and not a game of chess (like AOW).I accept Lannan's challenge.
Homosexual convicts should serve their time in solitary confinement.

"while homosexual prisoners can have all the gay sex they want (therefore making their stay in prison more enjoyable)." Not actually true, any sexual relations between prisoners is forbidden. It's prison not an 18 too 30's holiday! I therefore affirm that, in order to prevent homosexuals from enjoying their period of enforced incarceration, they should serve their sentences in solitary confinement. "2 – Homophobic assaults will be eradicated, as gay-bashing prisoners will not have access to the homosexuals." That may be a valid point however your original argument was " in order to prevent homosexuals from enjoying their period of enforced incarceration, they should serve their sentences in solitary confinement." You didn't state the purpose being for there own protection, you just wanted too stop them shagging around and having too much fun :P "3 – Heterosexual inmates will no longer have to worry about being fondled by a nonce, or any other such malarkey, as any prisoner who sexually molests another man would be immediately identified as being gay and be put into solitary confinement." But as prison rules go too report a sexual assault (or grassing) would just provoke more violence, Inmates generally don't report such things too the prison authorities because of the risk of being labelled "a grass" and also because of the shame involved. Such "Malarkey" as you put it is often done in secret, so the "gays" are not identified and would therefore not be removed from general population. In short your beginning argument was - put gays in solitary to stop them having fun, Stating really that gay men have a great time in prison because off all the sex available, but how appealing would these men actually be to a gay man anyway? Just because he is gay doesn't mean he is gonna want too have lots of sex with people like Crusher Carl and Bashing Bill and the bald dude who likes too smear his cell walls with crap! Also lots of straight men who are incarcerated for a long time begin sexual relationships with other straight men, So does that mean they are then gay?..If so move them too solitary?..if you did that then over half the prison would be in solitary making the whole reason for putting them there pointless!
Homosexual convicts should serve their time in solitary confinement.

2 – Homophobic assaults will be eradicated, as gay-bashing prisoners will not have access to the homosexuals. 3 – Heterosexual inmates will no longer have to worry about being fondled by a nonce, or any other such malarkey, as any prisoner who sexually molests another man would be immediately identified as being gay and be put into solitary confinement. As regards my opponent's comment regarding prison food, I have never been to jail so I don't know for sure, but I bet the grub inside is better than the muck they dish up at my local boozer – the food there is so bad that the mice in the kitchen bring their own sandwiches! I offer the voters many thanks in anticipation of their generous support.
Homosexual convicts should serve their time in solitary confinement.

What a stupid idea. A homosexual person is NOT more likely too enjoy prison than a heterosexual just because there are more people of the same sex. If anything a gay man will find prison harder than a straight man. Either the other convicts will want too have sex with him and will probably do so regardless whether he wants too or not, or they will want to harm him in some kind of homophobic attack. He will be an easy target, Too say he should be in solitary to stop him enjoying himself is ridiculous, if anything he would want too be in there for protection! Prison for gay people doesn't become some kind of holiday just because of there sexual preference. They still lose there freedom and are locked up with all manner of undesirables. Also the food will still taste like shlt lol
Homosexual convicts should serve their time in solitary confinement.

Who amongst us can honestly hold their hands up and say that they've never broken the law? Not many, I bet. Now, let's say you had an all-day session down the pub and, after drinking your age in pints, you drove home and on the way you ploughed through a group of orphans who were on a charity fun run raising money for baby bunny rabbits with AIDS. Then, when your case came to court, the judge sentenced you to a month in prison for every orphan's life you'd snuffed out and, consequently, you were looking at a two-year stretch in the slammer. However, say you are a straight man and the judge offered you a choice of jails. You could either go to a jail for men, or a jail for women. It would be your choice, but if you chose the latter option, you'd have to share a cell and the showers with a load of sex-starved women. I believe that most heterosexual men would choose the latter option whereas most homosexual men would choose the former. For a gay man, or a lesbian for that matter, a prison sentence must be more like a free vacation than a punishment. I therefore affirm that, in order to prevent homosexuals from enjoying their period of enforced incarceration, they should serve their sentences in solitary confinement.
My opponent has just lost The Game within the past ten minutes.

:) What the heck, I'll do this just to poke fun. You say "just" lost the game. just via merriam webster - very recently http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] Well, as a matter of fact, for you to win I have to think of the The Game as recently as 10 minutes prior to someone observing this debate. Oh, and if I was thinking of the game before that 10 minutes and stopped, the resolution is false, and I win. Wait a minute.... How can you even know or prove that I was thinking about the game within the past 10 minutes? Also, this isn't true as an absolute. The past ten minutes now will be different from the past ten minutes in the future. The resolution may be true at the very instant I post, but it won't necessarily be true lets say a year from now when we forget about this debate. Or even tonight when I go to sleep. Or this week when I take exams. Or what if I were to die? My mind won't be on this 24/7 and even though the resolution may sometimes be true, it's not an absolute statement. On top of that, you have the burden of proof, and have absolutely no way to empirically prove I was thinking about "The Game" at any given time. Or better yet, EVERY given time. I've lost the game. But not necessarily within ten minutes prior to someone viewing this debate. You thought you had an easy win, and you would've had you not added the "last ten minutes" part. The resolution is negated Thank you :) P.S.: Mongeese, please do not copy my smiley face. You know that's how people know me.
My opponent has just lost The Game within the past ten minutes.

All arguments extended. This was to be the round in which I counter whatever defense my opponent could use to defend his primary argument. The loss of this round is more detrimental to me than to my opponent. It is quite clear that my opponent lost the game up to ten minutes prior to his posting his argument. Thus, the resolution is affirmed, and I ask that you vote PRO. And please, no vote bombing.
My opponent has just lost The Game within the past ten minutes.

'Well, as a matter of fact, for you to win I have to think of the The Game as recently as 10 minutes prior to someone observing this debate. Oh, and if I was thinking of the game before that 10 minutes and stopped, the resolution is false, and I win." Not really. You just have to have thought of The Game up to ten minutes prior to the start of our debate. "Wait a minute.... How can you even know or prove that I was thinking about the game within the past 10 minutes?" Ah-hah. To know that to lose The Game, you had to think about The Game. Therefore, you thought about The Game, through logic. Think - to have in the mind or call to mind a thought (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Obviously, The Game had to be in your mind before it could be typed, because you use your mind to type. Therefore, you were thinking of the The Game right before you typed that statement. "Also, this isn't true as an absolute..." Actually, it is. A debate on this site does not officially start until the Contender posts his first argument. On your profile, 4 minutes after you posted your argument: "deity is debating mongeese: My opponent has just lost The Game within the past ten minutes. 4 minutes ago" That was the time when the resolution took effect. Therefore, you had to have lost the game within 10 minutes before then. Which you did. "[You] have absolutely no way to empirically prove I was thinking about 'The Game' at any given time." Empirical - originating in or based on observation or experience (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I observe that you claimed to have lost The Game. Therefore, you must have thought about The Game to lose The Game, so you thought about The Game. I have proven that you thought about the game based on observation. "I've lost the game." My opponent pretty much conceded everything I needed. "But not necessarily within ten minutes prior to someone viewing this debate." But it is necessarily within ten minutes prior to you posting your argument at the time in which the debate starts, and the resolution takes effect. "The resolution is negated" Nope. In order for my opponent to post anything about The Game, he would have to think about The Game. When my opponent submitted his argument to start the debate and put the resolution into effect, he thought about The Game. Therefore, he lost The Game during the time specified by the resolution when it went into effect. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed. ":)" ... "P.S.: Mongeese, please do not copy my smiley face. You know that's how people know me." But it's apparent that you know me by copying your smiley face... :(
Individual Ought To Believe In an External Moral Force.

Inspired by Sargon's debate in Challenge Period.Resolution:We as individuals should put faith in the existence ofsome supernatural force that exists outside(Or Transcends) the Physical Universein which can not be tested. This Force, Essence, Being, ETC is a force capableof moral judgement and intervention in the human world.BOP is sharedFirst Round is For AcceptanceNo new evidence in Round 5No Quitters Have Fun!