BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

[This Round is for Rebuttals to the statements made in Round 2] "A woman has certain rights to her own body just like any other human" -A woman's body does not have two different types of DNA. Nor does a woman's body have 2 heads, 4 arms, or 4 legs. "A fetus is not fairly developed to say it is cognitive to a 'human' level." -Scientific facts agree with me in saying that a fetus is human. Remember, a human is a member of the homo sapien race. -There are severe cases of disabilities and mental disorders in which the person cannot communicate in anyway or show signs of understanding anything or thinking for themselves. According to a Pro-Abortionist logic, you are saying it is ok for me to kill that disabled human. "You should ask yourself if it's okay to impose such a burden upon living, cognitive, developed people." -It is okay because they put the burden on themselves. They chose to have sexual intercourse. They know that it can get them pregnant but they go ahead anyway. -A fetus is living. "Things such as rape and unplanned parenthood should be taken into consideration." -I must have forgotten to mention that in cases of rape or a threat to the mother's life I think it's okay for abortion. -Just because someone had sex and didn't expect to become a parent doesn't give them the right to kill a living human. "Fetus's are quite a different story since not only do they not impose a threat, but they do not impose much at all." -According to Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was agreed upon by the General Assembly of the United Nations, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." "Everyone," refers to members of the human race. That means since a fetus is scientifically human it has the right to life. You might ask why some people get away with killing in self defense, the answer to that would also be found in the Declaration where it talks about punishments for trying to violate others' rights. -Not only do I believe it is morally wrong for abortion, but, all morals aside, the Constitution of the United States protects citizens, (Which the fetus is due to it's mother being a citizen), this includes protecting the citizens' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. -Again, I say that the severely disabled do not impose much at all either, but it is illegal for me to go and kill one of them.
Sabah and Sarwak should secede from Malaysia and become independent nations

You mentioned that working together might not be possible under Hudud, which is undoubtedly true. However, if there's even a possibility of this occuring then I believe it should be given a wholehearted attempt, as a liberal Malaysia is definately a better outcome than just a liberal Sabah and Sarawak. This would mean that cooperation would have to be at least tried, even if proven impossible, in which case secession may prove the only way forward. To expand upon this point, secession is an absolute last resort, as there is no going back. It would also cause further difficulties to arise; many living in Sabah or Sarawak may have relatives on the mainland, visiting whom would become a lot more difficult, for example. Because of this, it should be treated as a last resort, especially when there is a possibility of a better outcome being achieved through other means (Malaysia remaining as one country, but the populations of Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak working to abolish Hudud entirely), and so the possibility of secession should remain if co-operation fails, but at this stage, it definately shouldn't be treated as the only option when others, especially those with a potentially-better outcome, haven't even been given an attempt. Thanks for the debate :)
Sabah and Sarwak should secede from Malaysia and become independent nations

Thank you so much for a great debate my friend and the nice compliment :). I will now post my arguments.The Hudud laws are very harsh, and could impact Malaysia greatly. The Muslims of Malaysia even could be affected by this very badly. Their freedoms would be severeley limited, and they would face harsher penalties for even very small crimes. The Christians of Malaysia will be persecuted worse, and endure murch less freedoms and harsher penalties for their views. They would face very severe repricussions if they tried to oppse the Hudud law. Working together may not be an option under these harsher laws. Therefore, Sabah and Sarwak should seceed from Malaysia and become seperate nations.Thanks for the debate :).
Sabah and Sarwak should secede from Malaysia and become independent nations

You have a lot of good points - this'll be quite hard! I definately agree that these laws shall impose harsh penalties, restricting Christian activities, as it would likely restrict Buddhist activities in mainland Malaysia, but I believe that independence is not the answer. If Sabah and Sarawak secede, that will only solve the problem in these two areas. As I've already said, these laws will still be imposed with or without Sabah and Sarawak existing under the Malaysian government, although if these two states remain as part of the country then they will be able to oppose Hudud and the strict penalties it carries. Without Sabah or Sarawak, the non-Islamic minority on the mainland will not be able to, as they don't provide a strong enough base of opposition. So, to continue this point, I believe that seperation will mean that the repressive law exists, (though it shall not repress the population of Sabah or Sarawak, it shall repress Buddhist minority, and the smaller non-Muslim minorities in mainland Malaysia), only now it is strengthened by the fact that fewer people can oppose it. I believe that, since this law contradicts religious freedom (a basic human right) and thus should be opposed, it shouldn't become law in Sabah or Sarawak, but neither should it be implemented in mainland Malaysia, so seperation only solves half the problem. Given the situation, I'd say that the only practical way of ensuring change for all religious groups across the nation is to work within the existing union to create it.
Sabah and Sarwak should secede from Malaysia and become independent nations

Thank you so much for this debate, and you have very fine arguments :).Permit me to continue.Sabah and Sarwak are yes, predominatley Christian states of Malaysia, whereas most of Malaysia is Sunni Islamic and a sliver of Buddhist. However, Hudud could be a disaster for these 2 states. It would greatly restrict Christian activities and evangelism there. It also limits the rights we cherish: freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Hudud would also impose very harsh penalties on the different people living in those two states. These harsh new laws would opress Christianity in Malaysia, and specifically in Sabah and Sarwak. These 2 states should have the right to decide whether they will live under this harsh new system of justice in Malaysia or not.I say the best option, given the circumstances, is for these states to conduct refredndums on indepednence and then break free of Malaysia if a majority favor secession. Thank you so much for this debate :)...it has been a good one so far, and I can't wait to see your arguments
Sabah and Sarwak should secede from Malaysia and become independent nations

Hello everyone, I have a really good debate challenge oppurtunity for you :). I have been reading that the predominatly Christian Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarwak have warned they might secede if Malaysia implements Hudud (Malaysian version of Shariah law) across it's states. In other words, if a harsh new set of laws is implemented, these 2 states will leave Malaysia and become 2 seperate independent nations. They have their own flag, governemnt, and generally, a set of laws. I would like to debate whether their secession is a good idea. Rules: 1. Be courteous 2. Enjoy the debate 3.
Citizens should help needy people in the society or otherwise should be held guilty

Well, as the first half was forfeited, I'll still lay out my reasons for seeing this issue as I do. In the American economy today, the top 1% of the nation don't have a wide gap between themselves and the poor. The gap is so overwhelmingly large, that if it doesn't upset the rest of us, you don't know enough about it. Because of this overwhelming gap in financial redistribution, those at the top tier of the fiscal ladder dwell on this attitude- that they got themselves to where they are, and those down below are simply "trying to burn down their house to collect the insurance." (Mark Thoma, The Fiscal Times.) The following article gives a better argument than I ever could: http://www.theguardian.com... However, let me lay out some knowledge for you outside this argument. 1: Welfare is used by a substantial amount of homeless Veterans. Some 12% of the homeless in America are Veterans, and about 10% of those are on welfare. This does not account for those veterans NOT homeless that count on welfare for food. Now, we pay basketball players and talk show hosts millions of dollars to sit around and entertain us, but we complain about putting food on the table of those that serve our country? Who cares if you have to pay for it. Or if I do. They have given us everything and they deserve everything in return. 2: A majority of the homeless who are NOT veterans that have addictions or mental problems are unable to take advantage of the system. Why? Almost every county has a fund which distributes welfare checks. These funds are thin, especially after the program was reformed in the years during and since Bill Clinton's presidency. When congress reformed welfare in the 90's, and since then, the number of people receiving it has been cut by two thirds, due to various reasons and regulations. For instance, many counties imposed mandatory drug screening, and "how to get a job" classes that people were just unwilling to do or take. Link: http://money.cnn.com... 3: It's not up to us, as a people, to decide who is needy and who is not. There are GOING to be people who take advantage of every system. When a corporation takes advantage of a tax break that saves them millions of dollars, we refer to that as a "savvy business". But when someone sinks their teeth into a loophole in something like welfare, suddenly their a terrible moocher, and everyone who uses the program is as well. This will lead to infringements on other rights, simply for the sake of "make sure my money goes where I want." Finally, trying to force a term of logic which states "I must agree with everything I spend taxes on" is just ludicrous. If that were the case, give me my 800 billion a year back for the Iraq war, and Welfare is on the house. I believe that concludes my argument (This round, assuming there isn't another?) and I leave it to the voters.
Resolved: A just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

self-preservation. These people who form these societies due so to better preserve themselves. Within extreme circumstances (murder), the death penalty is a way of self-preservation that allows those citizens to further better their lives, Putting these murderers to death is preserving the lives of not only these parental citizens but children as well. Who will stand up and state that even though this injustice could have been prevented with this form of punishment this criminal was released on parole and destroyed yet another family? No the affirmative will state that the death penalty is not moral and it may not be considered however that view of morality is under stooped in that it is for the good of the society as a whole. Contention 1: Tyrannical leaders must be put to death First of all this contention links back to my criterion of self-preservation due to that it is for the good of society and to prevent further harm to come of the innocent citizens in that society these rulers must be put to death. If these leaders who act murderously are not put to death then we are undermining justice which is the very thing we are trying to uphold and is my value for this round, I will give you an example, Saddam Hussein, who is viewed as one of the most tyrannical rulers in history, was hanged for his crimes against the citizens of his country. These citizens in themselves were not unjust but their imposing ruler who was destroying justice was. Therefore the only way for the society to remain just was putting to death that of their leader. Contention 2: The Death Penalty prevents lifetime imprisonments Lifetime imprisonments fill our prisons with murderers and mass murderers who can harm those who have committed lesser crimes than that of murder. Further the cost of life imprisonment for society is unnecessary due to the fact that they remain alive, and they still pose a threat to society i.e. breakouts. However they are uncommon they do happen and these murderers instead of have receiving what they were due they are now able to plague society yet again. Life imprisonments do not uphold justice due to the fact that they, as I just stated, do not give what these murderers are due and further put society at risk which goes against the value of justice that we are striving to maintain and my criterion of self-preservation. Due to the proceeding arguments and evidence I have provided you with you must now negate because I have shown that the only way for a society to remain just is by use of the death penalty as a form of punishment. Also I have shown you that the affirmative is not upholding justice which I will state again is the primary objective we are trying to maintain,
Resolved: A just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

A just society is one in which the very basic principle of justice is upheld and promoted within a society, that principle is of giving each their due. Every society believes they are just, I do not support the Nazis regime but I will use them as an example: their leader and their followers all believed they were just, others obviously may not have viewed them as so, but justice is subjective. The so called communists believed democracy was oppressive likewise the democratic countries believed the communists were oppressive. However every theory of justice links back to its basic principle. So a general sense of justice is upheld within each society. We can debate over what a just society is, but each individual has their own interpretation, so instead we will be debating whether or not the death penalty is just. Correct? OK. Rather this is a severe punishment that will be used on criminals that of which wish to destroy society i.e. murderers, who purposefully harm the innocent. Thus put society at a danger of becoming then unjust and the only way to reinstate that justice in society is reciprocal justice to those murderers. Those who take the lives of others then give up their right to live. The affirmative will state that the death penalty has no respect for human life and that we must respect their born right to live….why would a society whose main priority is to remain just respect the lives of murderers who in turn have no respect for human life or the society? That would be injustice to the just citizens of the society and further putting them at risk.
Resolved: A just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

Killing people is wrong. It is wrong if I do it. It is wrong if you do it. It is wrong if doctors in a prison do it. It is wrong in all and every case. Killing a person as a punishment for a crime is not justice it is barbarism. Don't get me wrong. There are a number of arguments against the death penalty worth noting. First, it costs more than locking a person up for the rest of their lives. The appeals and sub cases, delays and hearings, court and associated costs all add up to a cost significantly more. Further, it bogs down this needed "efficient justice system" you waxed poetic about. Secondly, it doesn't prevent additional murders. Murder is committed for reasons of passion, greed, and insanity. Passion isn't well thought out and crimes of passion do not have the foresight to look at consequences. Greed killers don't think they are going to get caught. Insane people are a lost cause. You aren't going to stop people from killing people through what boils down to a rational argument. Murders aren't known for being rational. Thirdly, many people have been released from death row because they are innocent. People a few appeals from death who did not commit the crime they were accused of committing. Murdering innocent people or attempting to for a number of years (stopped only by endless appeals) is not a sign of a just society. It costs more, it doesn't aide society, it isn't justice and the system might just end up killing innocent people. These are all great arguments. However the only argument I really need is that we should not murder people. We do not have the right to take the life of other human beings. I do not approve. Government is founded upon the consent of the governed to be governed. When it comes to my life... I do not consent to allow the government to deprive me of it. This is all I have and it is more precious than any government. I cannot hold the right of the government to deprive other people of their rights to life. I don't really need all the statistics and arguments and counterarguments and emotional appeals. Killing people is wrong. Period. Killing people is wrong.
Resolved: A just society ought not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment.

If I can prove to you that use of the death penalty is just then you must vote negative. So justice is the superior value we are trying to achieve in this debate. In order to achieve justice, a society must have an efficient justice system. It must give each their due and nothing else. If a criminal who killed a number of individuals is not given the death penalty, but rather some other failed form of punishment, society then fails to practice justice because it failed to give that criminal what he was rightfully due.
Abortion should be heavily regulated

I'm heavily pro choice. The Supreme Court ruled abortion to be a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. On January 22nd, 1973, during the Roe V. Wade case, the Supreme Court ruled that Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." A peer-reviewed study published by Obstetrics & Gynecology in Jan. 2015 reported that less than one quarter of one percent of abortions lead to major health complications. A 2012 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology found a woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The study also found that "pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion." The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated "Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States." According to a 2010 review by Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, "most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception." The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus' development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, [1] which stated that that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain." A 2005 University of California at San Francisco study said fetuses probably can't feel pain until the 29th or 30th week of gestation. According to Stuart W. G. Derbyshire, PhD, Senior Lecturer at the University of Birmingham (England), "...fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet occurred to support pain experience, but the environment after birth, so necessary to the development of pain experience, is also yet to occur." [10] The "flinching" and other reactions seen in fetuses when they detect pain stimuli are mere reflexes, not an indication that the fetus is perceiving or "feeling" anything.
Abortion should be heavily regulated

I'm heavily pro-life. Unless it's a medical necessity, such as there is a small chance for you to live, or the child will live with a birth defect, retardation etc. I think you are a disgusting human being for having an abortion, "I can't afford it." Or something of that nature is no reason for an abortion. There are several government programs, as well as private charities that will help with the cost of the baby, and according to the CDC rape, incest, and what I said above about it being a medical necessity, account for less than 1% of abortions. That's right, 99%+ Are because they are stupid and didn't wear a condom. Not to mention that after 8 weeks, their nervous system is completely functional, and they can feel their head being crushed, their arms and legs being torn off, and are having a rush like no other. They actively are trying to escape that villain with the vacuum. Try to run away from a guy with a knife and you'll know how it feels. Should I also mention that after 8 weeks is when 92% of abortions in the US happen? Again according to the CDC. And no, it's not your body. That baby living in your womb is a separate being, living INSIDE your body. Your body doesn't have it's own blood type, it doesn't have it's own organs, and it doesn't have different thoughts. And don't give me this garbage "What if it has a bad life!" Well, that's not our problem, and I can name 50 celebrities off the top of my head that were almost aborted, and it does get better. e
The Catholic Church is the one true church of the Christian faith

So, my opening argument will mostly be the fact that the Catholic Church is the original faith. Let's take a look at the Gospel of Matthew. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew 16: 13-19 13: When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14: They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15: "But what about you?" Jesus asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16: Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17: Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 18: And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, this is when Catholics say the Catholic Church was founded, with St. Peter as our first Pope. So now, let's go back through time from the present day. Please open this site before looking at the next part of my argument. http://www.religioustolerance.org... So, if we take a look at this chart, we can see most of the major denominations listed by date founded. If you look at the very top of the chart, you will see both Catholicism and Orthodox, who we do not consider Protestant. Catholicism is the only denomination that has not "split" from any other denomination, it is the original faith. It is the same faith as the Apostles and the Church Fathers.