BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
doctors who perform illegal abortions for trivial reason are essentially the same as serial muderers

Arguments & Questions-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi. First of all I'd like to introduce myself, my name is Marty. Personally, I am pro-choice however I don't let this get in the way of an objective opionion based on evidence.1) To start lets have a look at death, it is almost indisputable that life ends when brain activity ceases to exist. By this logic, it is very reasonable to say that life also starts when brain activity starts or when conciousness sets in from this. It is generally accepted that this occurs at around 8-14 weeks [1]. Before this period, it is simply a group of cells undergoing reproduction as they are coded to do and there is evidence most of the more advanced neural pathways (i.e. pain & memory) aren't formed until much later. In many occasions illegal abortions are done for the health of the mother if medically trained professionals decide it would be seriously detrimental to the mother's life and well being.2) I'd like to define what you mean by illegal abortions too, do you mean ones which need approval. Which country and state so I know relevant laws.3) Never the less, how is one to define trivial when it comes to the life of others and when abortions are involved, what reasons would be trivial. Is it viable to "ruin" ones possibly more lives when it can be prevented. I don't believe it is appropriate for judgment to be placed on the individuals nor the doctors based on choices they are making which will affect the rest of your life.4) What are your objections to these abortions if any?5) To address the actual topic, I believe they can be separated due to the legal term 'mens rea' which translates to guilty mind. In this case the intentions of the doctor would be for benefit of the mother (or child or family), another life (shouldn't one life be equal to another?). Where as serial murderers are psychologically damaged and their actions have no benefit. Looking forward to your response.
Roe v. Wade was a decision by the Supreme Court with no reasonable Constitutional basis

Roe v. Wade was the most egregious case of judicial activism in American history. The Supreme Court is supposed to INTERPRET the constitution, not MAKE UP RULES FROM THIN AIR, but regrettably the justices used their exalted position as to do just that in Roe v. Wade. I will be proving that Roe v. Wade was an egregious decision that had no constitutional basis. In other words, the decision was wrong. Please can I have someone debate this who is willing to actually examine the majority opinion. I have done so and it is not too much to expect. If you don't it will just be that much easier for me to win. Anyway, good luck. One last thing: This is not a debate about pro choice v. pro life. This a debate about Constitutional Law and should be treated accordingly.
Home Schooling is better than Public/Private schools.

I will give you the fact that those that are home-schooled, and take the standardized test, do fair better. Now let us take a look at those numbers. In 2011 it was estimated that there were 1.7 million home-schooled students. The largest study tested 40,000 home-schooled children (or just over 2%). That's an incredibly small number, and they were all volunteers. That's 2% of home-schooled students against 100% of public school children. Furthermore, estimates put SAT aged home-schooled students at 200,000 but only 5287 home-schooled students sat for the SAT's in 2011. Again, around 2%. I'm more concerned with the other 98% and how their numbers stack up. When you take 2% of a populace ( all volunteers ready and willing mind you) and compare it to 100% of another the numbers will always be skewed. To be clear, I'm not against home-schooling, I'm against it in its current form. I suggest better oversight to ensure quality across board, not just the 2% that they like to tout.
Home Schooling is better than Public/Private schools.

Children who are home schooled tend to do better in tests and exams than those who are public schooled. Parents can give their children individual attention in the subjects their students struggle or excel in. Parents can help their children mature through difficult times in their lives. The quality of education is better in home school than in private schools. There are no distractions in the class (Obviously) and parents can stop teaching whenever they feel the child is having a difficult time to cope. The atmosphere is much better than that of a public school.
Home Schooling is better than Public/Private schools.

I will touch on the arguments you raised in regards to bulling and time efficiency. Yes, if you home school your child you can guarantee no bullying but you're just as likely to cause social problems later on. Children that are home schooled tend to have a much harder time relating to others as they get older and life forces them into situations they haven't been prepared for. This includes college, work and dating. So while sheltering your child from the bad of the world you're also taking away the experience they will gain on how to coupe with difficult situations. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com... As for being time efficient, even the people that do home school say it's a very time consuming. http://school.familyeducation.com...
Home Schooling is better than Public/Private schools.

Parents can control what they want their children to learn and WHEN they learn it, if your child is not mature enough to learn a subject (i.e. Biology) the tutor will not teach biology until further instructions from the parents. In a class, there are lots of children (30-40 where I live) Since the child is not receiving individual attention, he/she will tend to get bored and lose interest in learning. In home-schooling, that does not happen, the child is given individual attention and it makes learning fun and interesting. Another advantage is taking vacations whenever you feel like it, and there's no catching up to do. In public schools, you can't take a vacation or you are going to miss so much in school.
Home Schooling is better than Public/Private schools.

My argument against home-schooling is mainly with the quality of the education. There is no real set of checks and balances in place (outside of taking the SAT's) to ensure the quality of what is being taught. I had a friend that was home-schooled, not because his family was religious (the most common reason) but because they knew that was the only way he would get a high school diploma. As a nation the US has fallen far behind other developed nations in the area of education. This is a time when we should be raising the bar for education, not letting people teach their kids that the world is 6000 years old and we rode around on dinosaurs at on time. Home-schooling also limits the colleges that a student may apply and attend. Most private colleges will not accept a HS diploma that was earned at home, and for very good reason. My argument remains that until one can guarantee the quality of the education received home-schooling shouldn't be allowed.
Social networking has a negative impact on communities.

Greetings to all! First of all, my english sucks. Second, my opinion on social networks is not that strong, so I am not seeking someone who will be cross firing super intense and long arguments with me. (I might want to do that another day but don't have the time now ) ------------------------------------------ \ (^o^) /------------------------------------------------------ Taking the comment by What50, I feel there are more positive impact than the negatives. The negatives can be simply avoided with a good mentality. Cyberbullying in my opinion is not as hurtful as someone you know cursing you out in front of your face or giving you a punch. I would not really care about someone I don't really know who is trying to make me feel bad. If I don't feel depressed, I would think there will be a need for suicide coming from social networking. And obesity from social networks? (Q?Q) Sure, being healthy is a style of living... Personally, social networks serve as a tool I use to make life easier. It can be very helpful in life in many situations. First of all, social networks provides a platform for communication. Communication is what makes us a community, and it is important to communicate with each other when situation does not allow a face to face talk. Without these communication, huge amounts of misconception and confusion could happen. Sometimes you run into a problem that needs other people's help or explanation, and a social network can make this happen much more efficient. don't tell me texting and calling is an option......i consider it as a social media that uses service instead of wifi. Also, have anyone ever had wifi in your house but no service? ever heard of a service company called ITalkBB? (ToT#) Well, the social network surely gives more options and convenience for communication, but it also helps when you want to find out what is happening. Finding out about some news today can be really convenient via a social network. Knowing whats going on or organizing an party with your friends or an community service event with others who have similar ideas are much more easier and efficient. Group communication are made much easier nowadays. There are also lots of fun stuff people can do with social networks: like what we are doing now on debate.org. (you can always have a meme battle with your friend whenever you want) I am not going to go into detail of the economic effect of social networking, which is huge. Social networking emerged because there was an excess capital (including human labor) out there in the market, and an increasing demand for either better communication or better advertisement. This industry emerged as a huge sector of our economy today to fit our needs, and taking it away......will cause problems. Social networking is not evil, so we should all accept this naturally occurring industry as part of our lives, and learn how to use it to improve out own utility (aka happiness). <(^_^)>
most important thing

I accept this challenge. I do not believe education to be the most important thing, though it is important. Health and well being are more important than education because without health, how can one be educated? If your very life is being threatened, then education will be not be the most important thing; the most important thing is to be in good health, safety, adequate food and hydration, shelter and biological homoeostasis. Without any sort of this equilibrium, education cannot be sought and is indeed useless to be sought. I await Pro's next argument so I can offer substantial rebuttals and solidify my argument further.
most important thing

My argument stands from before. I have used Maslow's hierarchy of needs to point out that education would fall under esteem; certainly not love/belonging, safety and physiological and so is not the most important thing. This is through an existential sense, an individual's perspective on importance. Pro has not given any further arguments, I am guessing this is because of the incredibly short time he set for the arguments, which I did not notice until I accepted the challenge. All judges should take this into consideration, we had only 15 minutes to post our arguments, hence my rushed responses and possibly explaining why Pro forfeited; though he was the one who set the time to be so short in the first place.
most important thing

Pro forfeited. I don't believe he has given enough time for anyone to argue. Anyway, Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests that physiological needs that I mentioned in my last argument such as food, shelter, safety, homoeostasis and water are at the foundation of a human's well being. [1] If we are using Maslow's hierarchy as a reference, education would fall under esteem needs. There are physiological needs that ought to be fulfilled; as mentioned earlier as well as safety needs and love/belonging needs before esteem needs make a difference to a person's well being. [2] Sources [1] http://psychclassics.yorku.ca... [2] http://www.simplypsychology.org...
Should we eat death row prisoners as meat

Well, what else are you going to do eith a dead prisoner? Cremation is very expensive, so they would have to bury the body. It's important because we can't just have dead bodies lying around, we are civilized. I,frankly, don't want to see dead bodies on the streets or outside of a prison. It is a ritual, but you could argue anything is "ritual. " It's failed logic to call it a ritual. I've proven that it isn't a ritual, vote con. "The embalming process is toxic" well, so is leaving the bodies out and so is cremation. Memorials park do use a lot of space, but many places don't need new ones, it will take years until it is full. Cremation is more expansive then funerals, which is what you will eventually have to do to the bodies. One in a hundred people is a lot. So if everyone was a criminal, 1% of the population would be wrongly executed. That is a ton of people. No one that is sane will eat a dead body, it is just human instinct to not eat others. Most people would not eat a dead body even it was the last thing that they had. Like I said,d you will eventually have to bury the bodies, you can't eat bones. Your animal logic is incomplete. A human is way more intelligent, we dominate the ecosystem, therefore we control what goes on. It's a fact man is the most superior species. Can other species develop an iPhone or do Heart Surgery? No. We gave ourselfs to eat animals. Pro is going way off topic and is getting in an animal debate. Vegetarians need to eat much more to gain the proper amount of protein. Therefore, they would eat more and gain weight which is certainly not healthy. Your point 3 doesn't make any sense. Meat eaters do not lack protein. Your fourth pain has already been explained. It's proven that eating human flesh is physiological, eating animals isn't. Meat has more protein than what you have mentioned. Pro is going way off topic once again, he is giving reasons why we should eat animals. Pro fails to understand that animals and humans are different. It isn't my fault that others are suffering. You make no sense. I can't control with North Korea's starvation. I guess it's everyone's fault that 9/11 happened. .. Your contradicting yourself. You said animals were smart and not superior to humans, so why is it ok for them to kill us but not for us to kill them? We contribute to environment to killing animals, if we didn't they would eventually run out of food in the wild! . http://www.livescience.com... . http://kblog.lunchboxbunch.com... The rest of your argument is way off topic and is basically saying why humans aren't superior to animals. My opponent has gone way off topic and have barely addressed the topic.
Should we eat death row prisoners as meat

I believe that eating other humans, regardless if they are on death row is simply disgusting. A human that has been killed after death row should not be eaten. How would you like it if your father was given a lethal injection, and then they ate him? You'd feel pretty horrible that you don't get to lay your father to rest because a bunch of people ate them. Humans are not wild animals, we know what we should and shouldn't do and eating a dead one is simply out of question. Even though someone was executed, they still have the rights afterwards like any of human being would have. Eating other humans is a mental illness. Letting people eating the executed would be promoting an actual mental illness. I can't believe you would even create such a horrible debate. "Hylen said cannibalism often begins as a fantasy, which the person plays out in his or her head. But when that person gets a taste for real, "the pleasure center of the brain becomes activated and large amounts of dopamine are released "- similar to what happens when someone ingests a drug like cocaine. " Once that happens, Hylen said, the burgeoning cannibal"s brain becomes conditioned to seek out the activity in order to obtain the feeling again, which leads to a cycle of cannibalism that can only be stopped through outside intervention. "
Should we eat death row prisoners as meat

I know it may sound bizarre but I really don't see any problem in eating the death row prisoners for meat. please don't judge me. I am a normal person, not a man eater, but to create a really out of the box topic, I have chosen this topic. I personally don't believe in this. But in debate I will use all my possibilities to win. I request you to keep this debate just a debate and nothing more than that.
Jeremy Renner is better than Michael Fassbender

ATTENTION: HarveyJason here is a troll. I am accepting this debate because it is a troll debate. I am here to clean up the site. I will accept any more debates he has or will have open. I will challenge HarveyJason to a debate regarding whether or not he is a troll. If he is convicted (I win the debate), allegations should be brought to the moderator and to DDO's president, airmax1227, in order so that he can be swiftly banned, so that this site can at least comfort in the fact that one troll is gone. I hope to see you at the trial, HarveyJason, because if you do not accept, I will bring allegations to the moderator and to airmax1227 anyway, and add that you declined to argue on your behalf. Enjoy the rest of your brief stay on DDO.
Hitler rose from the dead and ate everyone's brains for real

My opponent seems to be angry with the fact he is not winning the debate" I'll leave that to the judges, but from my judgement this debate is a clear Con ballot considering Danononian used arguments far from truth, logic, and often, impossible to have been the truth in the first place. He used 'proof' that only seems to prove that he made up all his resolutions. I called him on it. Danononian's remaining arguments fit into the category of based on no fact.
Hitler rose from the dead and ate everyone's brains for real

he got the uranium from the Russian Prime Minister of Canada" Russian Prime Minister of Canada? Even if my opponent put president of Russia, why on Earth would the President of Russia, or the Prime Minister of Canada give him a nuclear bomb? "Here is proof Hitler is eating brains." Eating brains, that wasn't even part of danononian's first argument. The 'proof' was a link to a fake picture of Hitler and superman morphed together. "This one is where Hitler got the pot demons to make a large army of crazed mutant little hitters" Once again not even remotely related to the original argument. The proof was a link to a picture which didn't even have Hitler in it.
Hitler rose from the dead and ate everyone's brains for real

Well SPF if u are going to judge me besides doing what is right like doing this debate then I suggest U get off because, u have no evidence hitler didn't do that because, he totally did, he got the uranium from the Russian Prime Minister of Canada and with that uranium he ate a burrito. Here is Proof hitler is eating brains http://media.comicvine.com... This one is where hitler got the pot demons to make a large army of crazed mutant little hitlers http://img210.imageshack.us...
Hitler rose from the dead and ate everyone's brains for real

As you know hitler came back from the dead" This assertion is one of the farthest things from the truth that I ever heard. Hitler did not rise from the dead, and danononian's link doesn't say anything that supports that as a fact. "in order to make a third reich out of radio active waste" Yet another assertion that came from my opponents imagination, unsupported by his own evidence. "and then made monsters out of that nuclear waste" The third time... but wait there's more. "which ressurected Mel Gibson from the dead" Not again. Yes again. "in order to make a film that would have about 1 billion people watching it." The existence of 'Passion of the Christ' is the only true thing, and it is the only fact that is supported by my opponents link. Yet even this assertion is false because he says 'in order to' which ties this assertions to the false assertions. There is one last rebuttal I left out that applies to all the assertions, and that is that they aren't only untrue, but impossible.
Existence/Reality and Knowledge.

You know what. .. I'm not even going to address my opponent's last round because there is nothing to address. The last two rounds have had nothing of merit from my opponent - just questions that he never acted upon. Atheists can know things, even if they are without God. I have given various examples of this, my opponent has not been able to refute these examples. All that my opponent did after I provided these examples was to ask questions that he never used to help meet his burden of proof.
Existence/Reality and Knowledge.

"Yes. What else would I say??" Speculation doesn't count. "Because he used evidence to back up his claim, thus proving it." What evidence? "Seriously? Because the little math leperchauns from magical Mathland came and showed us how to do math... What does this question have to do with anything?" It has to with my point. "Well since I'm arguing that atheists have knowledge then no, I do not believe that God is the absolute and only foundation of knowledge." Are you really a Christian? "All my opponent has done this round is ask me questions. My opponent has not attacked my arguments nor has he defended his own arguments. Extend my arguments." Which arguments?
Existence/Reality and Knowledge.

"Are you certain that he's (Lance Armstrong) certain? "Yes. What else would I say? ? "Why can he (waterskier) "prove" things? "Because he used evidence to back up his claim, thus proving it. "Why is math possible? "Seriously? Because the little math leperchauns from magical Mathland came and showed us how to do math. .. What does this question have to do with anything? "How do you know? (that atheists know math)"You know, since all my opponent is doing is asking these open-ended questions, I'll start asking them back - how do you KNOW that atheists don't know math? "I'm asking what needs to be true for everything else to be true. What are the foundations of knowledge? Do you believe that God is? "Well since I'm arguing that atheists have knowledge then no, I do not believe that God is the absolute and only foundation of knowledge. All my opponent has done this round is ask me questions. My opponent has not attacked my arguments nor has he defended his own arguments. Extend my arguments.
Existence/Reality and Knowledge.

"My opponent's argument is that atheists, or people without God, apparently do know things, but they don't know that they know things." They can't account for what they claim to know. "Well, he races competetively, and has won many times, so I would say yes he does?" Are you certain that he's certain? "Well waterskier beat you in a debate just like this one, so I think he and many voters are pretty certain that he can prove things." Why can he "prove" things? People don't need God to know that 1+1=2.... People know that 1+1=2 from the simple rules of addition. If you want complete in-depth proof of why 1+1=2, it stems from the Peano Postulates (http://mathforum.org......) Why is math possible? Atheists know that 1+1=2 because of the rules of math, not because of God. How do you know? "My opponent is saying that atheists know, but they don't know how they know. However, he has not yet given any significant support of his argument, and has failed to fulfill his burden of proof at this point of the debate." I'm asking what needs to be true for everything else to be true. What are the foundations of knowledge? Do you believe that God is?