BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortion

Sorry but I didn't read the comment section, anyhow round 2 wasn't a waste. 1 2) " 'The Declaration of Human Rights' and not 'The Declaration of People's Rights.' " o I am afraid this won't work unless people at that time this was written knew what a fetus is. o You've not addressed my points properly. You're arguing that it shouldn't be legal because some folks agree with you. May I remind you that I have the consensus on my side: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org... o How did your response changed what I said ? In other words you've not yet attacked my conclusion nor my premises. 3) " This type of abortion is the one when a doctor manipulates something that should be chosen by nature and not by the person." That is a flimsy rebuttal, no offence. The nature and the doctor do the exact same thing to the fetus. Nature does what it does for one purpose while the doctor for another purpose. To the fetus there's no difference. Either both are murderers or both are right. Unless you consider nature a God. Womans Life: Has not been addressed. Are you saying that abortion should be allowed under some circumstances ? Extra arguments: 1.Abortion is practiced even if its illegal.According to Planned Parenthood, "In 1972 there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions and 5,000 to 10,000 women died from them." When Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 (a year after the above-mentioned statistic), deaths from abortion drastically dropped. This is supported by the National Center for Health Statistics' own statistics. 2.Law doesn't make something right so if abortion is wrong then it still has to be legal because this is a democratic nation hence we have to follow the consensus. However I dont think that abortion is wrong (in some circumstances) 3.The government has no right to enforce an opinion on its people if most or even many people disagree. Even if it was a fact that abortion is murder, the government is not allowed to pass a law which contradicts the consensus or even in some cases the near majority.
abortion

I did clarify in comments if you read them I said it was about legalization of abortion. DEFINITIONS: MURDER: the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ABORTION: destruction of a fetus, also called feticide. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... FETICIDE: intentional destruction of a human fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... REBUTT: 1) "A fetus is not a rational or conscious agent and therefore does not hold a serious right to life. The fetus may be a human (in the biological sense), but it is not a person." -pro 2) "Given these criteria, it logically follows that a human fetus cannot possess the same right to life that a grown adult has since it does not qualify as a person." 3)"Abortion is thus something that is routinely practiced by natural biological processes in nature." Con: 1) In article 2 from the Declaration of Human Rights it says the EVERYONE is entitled to ALL the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration. In article 3 from the Declaration of Human Rights it says that EVERYONE has the right to life, security and liberty. http://www.un.org... 2) Isn't the name of the Declaration in which our rights are stated named "The Declaration of Human Rights" and not "The Declaration of People's Rights." 3)Abortion is something that is routinely practiced by natural biological processes in nature, but the kind of abortion in which the open your stomach and rip apart a human life is not a natural process. This type of abortion is the one when a doctor manipulates something that should be chosen by nature and not by the person.
abortion

Thank you again for the debate though you did forget to be more specific. Now I have to suppose that the resolution is: Abortion is murder. My reasons as to why it's not murder: A fetus: A fetus is not a rational or conscious agent and therefore does not hold a serious right to life. The fetus may be a human (in the biological sense), but it is not a person. In her book, On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren - an American writer and philosophy professor that taught at San Francisco State University - details five psychological criteria for personhood. According to Warren, these qualities include consciousness and in particular sentience; the capacity to reason; self-motivated activity; the capacity to communicate messages; and lastly, the presence of self-concepts.Since a fetus does not possess any of the above qualities, it can rightfully not be considered a person. Given these criteria, it logically follows that a human fetus cannot possess the same right to life that a grown adult has since it does not qualify as a person. Woman Body: A woman's body knows to dispel a fetus if it has any serious mutations that would prevent it from becoming a functional human being. This is why babies are never born without major organs, since the woman miscarries long before the fetus is carried to term. Abortion is thus something that is routinely practiced by natural biological processes in nature. Womans Life: There have been many cases where the child will infact endanger the mother, such as in this case: http://www.foxnews.com... Definitions: Murder: The crime of unlawfully killing or an immoral killing of a person usually with malice. Kill: Taking away ones life.
abortion

I am going to start with one of my favorite quotes from Mother Teresa "The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion because it's the direct killing of the innocent child by the mother herself; and if we can accept that a mother can murder even own child, how can we tell others not to kill one another." Abortion will always be an injustificable act of murder. No infant nor unborn child should be denied from her right of life. I totally agree with Mother Teresa that abortion is an act of murder by the mother. Why is it wrong to kill another person if they are allowing abortion. In 1973 the U.S. Court legalized abortion. In the next source you can see about how many women have had abortion. Thus would equal to the amount of murder since 1990, imagine how many innocent lives have been taken. Many people try to justify abortions. For example, rape victims believe their case is justified, but the truth is that by having an abortion you are punishing an innocent unborn child which you could of found a nice family for him to be adopted. By having the abortion you are taking the life of a little person that is growing inside you; when the one you should be punishing is the person who commited that horrible act of rape. Another reason in which they think is justificable is when they are under 18, but the truth is that most of this young girls brought that on them selves. They were having sex unprotected when they shouldn't been having sex. They are just taking the easy way out instead of taking responsability for their act I will end this par of my argument with stating the legal principal that says "innocent until proven guilty." Which is voilated in abortion when punishing an innocent life that didn't do anything wrong.
abortion

All good things come to an end so let me finish this. 1) "yes I'm agreeing with you that under some circumstances there should be an abortion." 2) Consensus was not my argument instead it was - one of my arguments against your refutation. " As you see not all children fit within the qualities a person needs" What child has no capacity to reason or has no consciousness ? 3) "The purpose why nature does it is because it has a reason." and "reasons are that she is too young and her life will be ruined" and " but she is just not accepting the consequences of her mistake" so my opponent secretly concludes that nature is also irresponsible. Two different reasons but the same method. 4) "criminals just the way they do with drug consumers, or murders." What will happen then ? The parent is imprisoned and the child starves to death wow great solution instead of one person suffering (now thats assuming abortion is murder) we have two ! Sources were provided and did you honestly think that abortion would stop if it were illegal ? 5) "but what you are supposed to do is to face the problem and deal with it the way you're supposed to." Lets forget what was just said and lets assume abortion is murder but is it murder for convenience ? In many cases yes but in many other cases, no. There are many cases and many instances where a child can ruin ones life or even the whole families life. In these cases the child may not reach adulthood, commit suicide or be menace to society until he gets imprisoned. Abortion ought to be permitted under these circumstances. EXTRA ARGUMENTS: 1 plus 2) No refutations have been made only irrelevant statistics.
Vegetarianism is a good idea.

I'm very happy to hear you think my arguments are good. Thank you. To address your arguments, you quote from the article, 'Limit the animal-fare and you'll be reducing your likelihood for heart disease.' The key word here is 'limit.' The meat itself doesn't cause these diseases - rather a large quantity of meat is the source of the problem. "Studies... Have shown that eating high quantities of these meats (e.g. a small steak every day) also increases the risk of death from cardiovascular disease." Once again, it's the high quantities of meat that cause the problem. "I wanted to say that people can reduce risk." Yes, people can reduce the risk by becoming vegetarians, but then they also open themselves up to a host of problems. In order to be a vegetarian, people must be very conscious about what they're eating in order to make sure they are getting a wide range of nutrients and often still needing to take additional supplements. For example, vitamin B12, which can only be found naturally in animal products, can lead to anemia and depression even with just a slight deficiency. People can also reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases (and others) simply by eating in moderation. It is not necessary to fully remove meat from your diet. Meat is high in iron, protein and vitamin D, all nutrients that are more difficult to come by in a vegetarian diet. You also address environmental issues, which I would like to thank you for because it was not something I had previously thought about. After some time researching farming effects on the environment, here's what I found. First of all, the 'cutting down trees', is done not just for animal pastures but also for farming. So the same land that has its trees cut down to produce beef, might also be there to produce carrots. But in a study by the World Agroforestry Centre (WAC), scientists have recently found that many farms are planting and protecting trees spontaneously. To quote from the article, "Based on data from satellite images, the report is the first global study of tree cover on farms. It found tree canopies made-up more than ten percent of farmland spread across ten million square kilometres. The researchers' calculations indicate this quantity represents 46 per cent of all agricultural land - an area the size of China." Dennis Garrity, the director of WAC, says that it is a realistic fallback. I don't speak Russian, so I'll take your word for it, but it's important to note that *farming* uses 70% of water, not specifically farming animals. So to do away with eating meat would not help the problem very much - we do need food. In such a case, we need to use better irrigation systems to make sure that all the water consumed is not being wasted and that the water can be reused. Also, thank you for this debate. I'm learning a lot. Resources: http://content.time.com... http://www.healthaliciousness.com... http://www.coolearth.org...
Vegetarianism is a good idea.

Thank you for your participation in this debate and also, that you gave such good arguments! In the beginning, I want to answer on your question "Are you talking from a health position or an ethical position?". I'm talking from a health position. When I wrote about disease, I based myself on this article: "Limit the animal-fare and you'll be reducing your likelihood for heart disease, the number-one killer of women. "Fatty red meats and many processed meats are high in saturated fat, which raises LDL (bad) cholesterol and increases risk of coronary heart disease," says Dr. Rachel K. Johnson, a spokesperson for the American Heart Association and professor of Nutrition and Medicine at the University of Vermont. Studies, including one of more than 500,000 people published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, have shown that eating high quantities of these meats (e.g. a small steak every day) also increases the risk of death from cardiovascular disease." of course, you are right when you wrote " It's like saying that someone who exercises is more likely to be healthy than someone who does not.". However, I wanted to say that people can reduce risk. Besides, I have this position because of environment. For instance, people cut trees down in order to create new pastures for animals. Everybody knows that trees are the planet's lungs, so when we lose it, carbon dioxide is released. Consequently, it leads to the global rise in temperature. Also, there is a problem of shortage of water in the world. According to VITA (it's russian site) farming uses 70% of all using water in the world. It means that everyday one farm uses water as one city which has approximately 10000 population. Reference: http://www.womenshealthmag.com... http://www.vita.org.ru...
Vegetarianism is a good idea.

However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - "All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy." I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians.
Obama is not a Socialist

I will start with a simple statement that Obama did not join a socialist party. In the United States, there are many lesser known political parties, including the Communist and Socialist party of America. One would wonder why he would join the much less radical Democrats, than to simply go on with his beliefs. Even if he was using the Democrats to achieve a shot to rise to power, fellow Democrats would soon realize when his policies cross the lane. One of the known Socialist policy is Nationalizing industries. In Socialist Countries, the government essentially "owns" many of the corporations/organizations. These include the bank, hospitals, and education system. All of these are paid by the government, using tax money. The general populace do not pay much, as their taxes is considered payment. Obama, has not nationalized anything or leaned towards nationalizing anything. His health care advocates for people to buy health care, which is not nationalizing health care, as the government does not pay for it. Another policy pushed by Socialists, that is less known is the abolition of classes. Although it is largely considered a communist ideal, we must remember Socialism did ultimately derive from Communism. As the Socialist Part of America would state: "we strive to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society" Although most of the sentence has universal appeal, and is quite general, the one part that sticks out is "classless". Obama himself has not even mentioned abolishing the class structure. In fact he is probably considered one of the higher class now, and would not want to bring his own wealth down. Socialism also believes in equal chance for all. It believes all are promised equal oppurtunites and life chances for all people to maximize their potential. This would essentially mean nationalizing the schools even more, making each one near identical to provide the same education regardless of area. Obama has not mentioned this. This basically states again, that Obama does not follow the major socialist policy of nationalizing the industries. In fact, he spent government money to bail out many large corporations that are privately owned. That will be it for me, just remember, this isn't whether Obama is a good or bad president, it is about whether he is a socialist or not.
Obama is not a Socialist

Welcome to DDO, young Padawan! One of the chief reasons I dislike Obama, Bush, Reagan, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, etc. . is due to their willingness to expand the power of the state. I think this is a valid reason, and I will expand greatly upion this idea in the subsequent rounds. "Hello, I am here to talk about how Obama is not a communist. " My opponent means "how he is not a Socialist. " I asked him to change the resolution to fit the more common critique of Obama. So exonerate him of this trivial error. Good luck to my opponent who will deliver the initial argument! :D
Franklin Roosevelt Had a Better Overall Presidency than George Bush Jr.

Extend all previous arguments. Here are some of my opponent's claims. "No FDR was a pink commie. George W. Bush was a real American. Merica'!" "I still believe that FDR was a socialist and Bush was a real American. That is all." There's no proof that FDR was a communist or a socialist. Even if he was, that doesn't negate the fact that he was a great president. Just because my opponent has a bias against socialism and communism, that doesn't mean that FDR was a bad president. Along the same lines, just because my opponent thinks that Bush is a real American, that doesn't mean that Bush was a good president. In fact, I have shown how FDR was a better president than Bush. I have upheld my side of the argument and my opponent hasn't. That is all that needs to be said.
Franklin Roosevelt Had a Better Overall Presidency than George Bush Jr.

I am arguing that Franklin Delano Roosevelt (32nd president of the United States, 1933 - 1945) had an overall better presidency than George Bush Jr. (43rd president of the United States, 2001-2009). My opponent, who will be con, must argue that Bush had a better overall presidency then Roosevelt. Rules: 1. First round is acceptance. 2. Second round is arguments only. 3. Last 3 rounds are freestyle. 4. There is no burden of proof, considering this is opinion based only. However, coherent arguments must be presented.
Should they make cigars illegal

Firstly, regarding passive smoking. This is why smoking in public places is already illegal, it is not a reason to completely make cigars illegal if smoked privately with other consenting smokers."If a smoker wanted to still smoke he could still move to a different country to live in." It is unfair to command a smoker to move countries simply because they want to smoke a cigar as opposed to a cigarette, it is also a violation of personal liberty and disrespecting that many living in USA may want their heritage respected and valued as part of society."If adults also smoke they make there[their] house more unpleasant making them anti-social." Smoking in front of children is already illegal and advised against. This is actually a form of child abuse (to smoke in their face). This is why most parents smoke outside in the back garden for house or balcony for apartment to avoid choking their children, this is also not a reason to make cigars illegal.
Should they make cigars illegal

By the way I was using a mobile device and it automactically copy and paste and plus this is my first debate I am only getting used to this debate website. Most chemicals in cigars also may pass on to others near the main smoker. This causes double the deaths because of carbon monoxide. They is only for the U.S.A so if a smoker wanted to still smoke he could still move to a different country to live in. Many kids are ding from there parents. If adults also smoke they make there house more unpleasant making them anti-social. Well this is it for my last debate on round three I am 13 so I am not great in spelling so I apologize for that but still, good job and good luck.
Should they make cigars illegal

The entire first paragraph of my opponent's round two speech has been copy and pasted from round two most evident by the same misspelling of the word 'waste' as 'waist'. I already rebutted this and shall not be doing so again since this would be quite pointless and trivial.The only new point raised by my opponent is this new idea of :If they could they should have laws to limit packs to one per week using a license. They could then limit deaths." Not only is it virtually impossible to limit someone to this as they can easily go from one shop to another buy two packs but having each shopkeeper thinking they only bought one (since a licence can be used at both locations) but it is also very unfair to demand someone who wants to host a party where there will be many of their friends who also want to smoke cigars but expect the host to buy it for them (perhaps subsidising him or her to do so).This shall sum up my round two.
Should they make cigars illegal

They should have by now but they haven't. Should they make cigars illegal? It kills many and makes them waist a lot of money. They also cause cancer and make it harder to breath. I don't think they should make it legal. True they cause cancer after a while but they also have nicotine. Once they start it is hard for them to stop. When they do try they might succeed but they still are damaged forever. Once they start they also start having like 1-3 packs a day. It might be for cultures but it still kills. If they could they should have laws to limit packs to one per week using a license. They could then limit deaths.
Should they make cigars illegal

I'm not sure if you are joking or not but if you aren't please propose a genuine case in round two.The argument that it's a waste of money fails because nearly every single luxury item is a waste of money if we don't believe in the benefits of emotional pleasure. You would have to disprove the entire performing arts and all pleasure-based being abolished to prove it to be a waste of money.Cigars do not cause cancer, over-using them does. this is the consumer's issue and there is therapy for those addicted to any form of nicotine (this opening up in demand for therapy jobs decreases unemployment by increasing demand for them).Cigars are also extremely important to many Caribbean cultures and are almost as sacred as the shisha is to the Arabs, beer is to the Germans and wine is to the french. Whilst it does harm health we have to respect different people's beliefs before outright declaring something illegal for no apparent reason.
Comedy battle II

A woman and her husband interrupted their vacation to go to the dentist. "I want a tooth pulled, And I don't want Novacaine because I'm in a big hurry, " the woman said. "Just extract the tooth as quickly as possible, And we'll be on our way. " The dentist was quite impressed. "You're certainly a courageous woman, " he said. "Which tooth is it? " The woman turned to her husband and said, "Show him your tooth, Dear. " A drunk was in front of a judge. The judge says "You've been brought here for drinking. " The drunk says, "Okay, Let's get started. " A man and his young wife were in divorce court, But the custody of their children posed a problem. The mother gets up and says to the judge that since she brought the children into this world, She should retain custody of them. The man also wanted custody of his children, So the judge asked for his justification. After a long silence, The man slowly rose from his chair and replied, "Your Honor, When I put a dollar in a vending machine and a Coke comes out, Does the Coke belong to me or the machine? "