BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be legal.

My argument can actually have a lot to do with "what ifs". For example, what if your mother had aborted you? You and I would not be having this argument. What if your mother and father had a daughter after you were born (keep in mind that I have no idea what kind of siblings you have) and your parents had decided to have her aborted? I would be willing to bet your opinion on abortion would be a little different. Now to assess the scenarios you provided in your previous argument. Number 1: There is a reason that it is not considered legal to have sex until you are 18 or older. People under 18 don't have a fully developed brain and can not make fully rational decisions. For example, paying a man money to punch you in the gut because you are scared to host a child. Other options would be to give the child to an adoption center or to keep the child and learn a life lesson to teach said child about when they are old enough to understand it. Number 2: Rape is a touchy subject. There are morons out there who believe that a woman can reject sperm if she doesn't want to host a child, such as in a rape situation.. Unfortunately that doesn't happen. Other options would be to (again) give the child up for adoption or give it to a hospital. You mention how abortion is humane in your previous argument. Well, please explain to me what is humane about killing an unborn human before they even have a chance to become anything.
Abortion should be legal.

What if the child was a murderer or the next Hitler? You can't base whether abortion is wrong on what ifs. Scenario: A pregnant 17-year-old who lived without electricity or running water in rural Utah, who was knocked up by an older man and who certainly had no way to get to a doctor or pay for an abortion, paid a man $150 to beat her in the stomach. Making abortion illegal will not prevent abortion. It will only bring about young women going to dangerous alternatives for abortion, as Temperance does not work in any case. Scenario: A homeless women gets raped. Unable to get an abortion because they have been outlawed, she does not want to break the law and decided to have the baby anyway. The baby is born under a bridge during winter and later dies a slow painful death because the single homeless mother could not provide food and health care. That is much less humane than an early abortion before the third trimester where pain is not felt and a conscious has not yet been developed. Abortion is not wrong which is why it is currently legal in all 50 states.
Abortion should be legal.

Abortion is the taking away of human life. Ever heard the saying "You will miss every single shot you don't take"? That can be applied here. If you kill your child (which is exactly what you are doing), that child will never grow up to be anything. What if that child was going to be the next Albert Einstein? What if they were going to cure cancer? There is no way of knowing unless you allow your child to be born and allow life to take its course. On top of taking away a human's life, you are just being selfish. What right do you have to claim that a human life is more important than you? Even in rape cases, that child is a blessing. Have the child and give it to an adoption clinic or to a family that wants a child but can't have one. Just about every option is better than aborting. Abortion is wrong. I understand that this is probably shorter than what people are used to seeing, but there really isn't much more that needs to be said. Abortion should not be legal.
Death Penalty

The death penalty is an outdated, barbaric, and, frankly, hypocritical form of punishment carried out by many third-world countries across the globe. It is also, sadly, carried out by the United States in numbers that rival those of China and several Middle-Eastern countries. It is more costly than holding the person in prison for life, it is extremely hypocritical, it does absolutely no good for the rest of society, and the methods by which we do it are inhumane and unright.
Death Penalty

Hello, In this argument my opinion is that the death penalty, murder whose sole purpose is revenge, is wrong. Revenge is not in self defense, nor will it make right what has been done wrong. The federal and state governments are hypocritical because they murder those who have murdered, because they murdered someone. Yes, I do use the word "hypocritical" a lot because, frankly, it is. Yes, the government has fallen short of its noble and righteous tendencies; that does not, however, justify the killing of anyone who is not in the process of harming or attempting to harm someone. Just something isn't like it once was, does not mean we need to forget everything it was built for; justice is not about the killing of a person in retribution; it is, for lack of a better term, "unprofessional." I'm going to start this paragraph off by apologizing for misunderstanding what you previously stated. I took what you said to mean that if we don't kill the bad people, the offender population in prisons would swell. But even so, why did you bring it up? Are you suggesting we kill everyone who kills someone else? Moving on, I will state once again that this argument is not about the environment or living conditions of prison, but about life and death. In today's society, death is considered to be the ultimate punishment; if you die, there's no going back. If they're alive, they have the option to live and enjoy life. Once again, I apologize for misunderstanding you. So you're saying that we should base the punishment on how the family feels about it? That's not how the Justice system works, or should work. Many states have already chosen to abolish the death penalty, and from what I can see, there have been no mass protests about it. I will state my point once again that revenge killing by an organized, civilized, modern government, paid for by you and me, the taxpayers, is (and yes I will use this word again) barbaric. It used to be that people would travel by carriage into town to watch the hangings of suspected murderers, thieves, and rapists. People in that time period, in addition to thinking that Capital Punishment was great, believed that gays were bad, that black people were bad, and that women should stay at home and raise children. We've reversed three of those four things in the past few decades; why has the death penalty stuck around? Why are people willing to pay an additional $300,000 to have someone be killed out of spite, when that money could be put towards so many other (useful) things? And yes, the murderer most likely did not care about how cruel he was to his victim(s). Does that mean we should stoop to his level? Are we children, saying that because he gets to do it, we should too? I do not think that corruption is running rampant in our Justice system; all I said was that we are a first-world country who ranks with third-world countries in terms of Government-Sponsored revenge killing. I don't know about you, but I don't see Canada, France, Germany, Britian, Belgium, etc. killing all of these people. Why do we have to? Until next time, boxbeat19
Death penalty is preferable over life in prison without parole

According to an annual census the cost of life in prison without parole is $47,102 while the death penalty costs roughly around a million dollars. So yes, in some cases the death penalty is more expensive and in some cases not. If one is convicted of such a heavy crime they deserve the worst punishment. If a murderer decides to maliciously end someone's life the prosecution deserves to have the option to try for the death penalty.
Death penalty is preferable over life in prison without parole

If the death penalty isn't "sometimes" the appropriate method, then why have it at all? By giving someone the death penalty, you are not teaching them anything. Why would people choose to kill the killers? Executing the criminal will not help the offender to reflect back on what wrong thing he or she has done. If the person is given life in prison, they are given a chance to think about what they have done rather just killing them too and forgetting about it. Executing the offender does not bring the victim back to life.
Death penalty is preferable over life in prison without parole

The question isn't when is the death penalty acceptable and when it is not, it is if the death penalty is preferable over life without parole. There is no chance that a prisoner can rehabilitate him or her self and be freed. They are put in jail for the rest of their lives with opportunity to better themselves in jail, but what is the purpose of that? That is our tax paying money to fund someone who has committed malicious crimes. Sometimes the death penalty isn't always the appropriate method, but if the suspect is of relative young age and the two options are ether the death penalty or life without parole the death penalty would be the better option fro society.
Death penalty is preferable over life in prison without parole

If a person in prison ended someones life, it is not in all cases intentional. There are many different reasons people murder other people. For example, they could be in the heat of the moment, have violent impulses, be frustrated or angry, they could be mentally crazy , or they may not be able to control their actions and those people don't deserve the death penalty. They deserve a chance of rehabilitation and if they are looking for that, why punish them with ending their life.
Death Penalty

CaseI will be affirming the resolution that the death penalty is justified and that it should be kept as a punishment. My next contentions will show why it is a good form of punishment. Contention 1: Just must be served. My first point will be that justice must be served. The death penalty is only reserved for those who commit a act of murder. It is crucial that in a just society, the punishment must fit the crime. If a person violates another person's right to life, then justice demands that the violator's right to life be violated. Contention 2: The death penalty works as deterent. People who love their lives will not do anything to put it in jeperdy. So, sense murder ia a crime that is punishable by death, people will not murder. A great example would be Japan. They have the death penalty, and also have the lowest murder rate of anyother advanced country in the world [1]. Contention 3: The death penalty saves the lives of innocent people. The death penalty can and has saved tons of innocent lives. Studies have shown that in the U. S. 1.2% of offenders who committed murder were arrested within 3 years of being realeased because they murdered another person [2]. The number must become a zero. How do we do this? The death penalty, because it is the only way to make sure that the killers wont kill again. ConclusionDue to the fact that if a person kills a person then they themselves must also be killed, and that puting the murderer to death is the only way to make sure they do not murder anymore, it is just too make it a punishment whereever it is not. Vote Pro! [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
Using a time machine to go back to the past and kill halter is a bad idea

. . . ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///-- The Classic Paradox --: It seems that the only way to solve this contradiction is to conclude that the traveller could never have travelled in the first place. /// This point is moot. The resolution of the debate is set up as a hypothetical that assumes that time-travel is already possible. Forcing us to decide whether or not to use it. ~ ///-- It could have been a lot worse --/// I'll take a page out of Hollywood's book for this one. In the movie Terminator the Terminator is sent back in time to a point BEFORE John Connors is born in order to prevent him from existing. If I, or someone else, were to go back in time to kill Hitler we wouldn't try and kill leader of the Third Reich Hitler. We would try and kill a version of Hitler that existed before anyone knew who he was. This contention also mentions that events could have been worse without Hitler. I contend that they could have been better. That's the beauty of speculation. It is my opponent's responsibility in this debate to provide evidence that shows that events would have been worse had Hitler never came to power. His evidence for things being worse only applies to a situation where Hitler is killed while actually in power. ~ ///-- Hitler with a time machine --/// This contention also relies on the assumption that we're attempting to kill Hitler at a time when he's in power. It neglects that there is no reason for us to land in Germany with our time machine. I will now propose a set of safeguards that more than compensate for our time machine existing in the past. 1. ) We land in a remote area, say near the top of a mountain or in a jungle/forest/desert. These places are typically avoided by humans and it is unlikely that our time machine will be found. 2. ) The place we land does not need to be in Germany, we could land almost anywhere in the world and travel to Germany, ensuring that Germans never get their hands on the machine. 3. ) After we've effectively hidden our time machine we will remove a small but important part of the time machine and hide it in a different place, therefore ensuring that even if the machine is found it will not be functional. ~ I await my opponent's response.
Using a time machine to go back to the past and kill halter is a bad idea

My opponent may not argue from semantics, as it is clear what the resolution states, although an exception may be made if he/she comes up with a particularly interesting objection to the resolution. Firstly, an argument against the viability of time travel itself; -- The Classic Paradox -- First, imagine time travel were made possible, and somebody travels back in time in order to meet their grandfather, whom they never knew. Now, say that due to an unfortunate series of circumstances, he ended up killing his grandfather before he got the chance to meet his grandmother. In this case, the time traveller would never come to exist in the first place. But this is logically contradictory, because if he didn't exist, he could not have killed his own grandfather and thus prevent his own existence. It seems that the only way to solve this contradiction is to conclude that the traveller could never have travelled in the first place. -- It could have been a lot worse -- It is true that many, many lives could potentially be saved if Hitler were killed before he embarked on his mad, genocide conquest. However, it is also true that the war could have turned out much, much worse. For instance, Hitler made many errors in his strategies, and also made prideful decisions at the cost of the war effort. He was, by many measures, an incompetent leader. [1], [2] If he were killed, a more intelligent, war seasoned and equally evil person could rise to power instead, and either drag the war on longer, or win it, which would suck. -- Hitler with a time machine -- Okay, so our time machine appears in a flash of light (or using an unconvincing fade in effect), and our assassin steps out. .. to be shot/captured by a passing German patrol. Hitler seizes control of powerful time control technology, and, well. .. it doesn't take much imagination to see that horrible consequences would ensue. This is, of course, only a possibility, and perhaps our traveller has safeguards against it-but there is no guarantee this is the case, and given the disastrous consequences should it happen, the safe bet is to just leave history well enough alone. [1] . http://worldwar2history.info...... [2] . http://www.2worldwar2.com......
homeschool

" "Field trips" " you don"t have to "book" museums, and going to other countries to check out the factories isn"t really a good point. If we go to another country, it is to learn the heritage and culture, language, etc. Not factories. " Firstly, my opponent made a few grammar mistakes. Secondly, yes, you can just buy a ticket to go into the museum, but you cannot hire a guide to lead you through the exhibits and explain more to you, telling you more background information and details than the exhibits do. Yes, going to a country does not necessarily require going to a factory, but when you go there to learn the culture sometimes you need to. For example, an important part of China"s culture is the making of china and silk. To learn more, you"d have to visit a factory. "Again I blame public school for not teaching me great grammar techniques. " This is not true. I study in a public school too. Plenty of students who enter the tops universities each year are from public schools. Your case is probably exceptional, or that you are not really paying attention to your grammar. "Yes its true, school sports is one more option, but that is not what school is about. There is more to school then sports, in fact a lot more. Not everybody plays sports, therefore it would have no effect on them. " School is indeed not all about sports. However, we still have sports lessons as they help train our body to be fit, develop leadership skills in group sports, as well as communication between players. Sports that are not played in teams cannot achieve good leadership and communication skills.
homeschool

1."Child spilling lunch" " a parent could do the same. When a child spills lunch at his house, there is nothing he can run away to. Either way, school isn"t about learning how to pick up your lunch. 2."Field trips" " you don"t have to "book" museums, and going to other countries to check out the factories isn"t really a good point. If we go to another country, it is to learn the heritage and culture, language, etc. Not factories. 3.Again I blame public school for not teaching me great grammar techniques. Yes its true, school sports is one more option, but that is not what school is about. There is more to school then sports, in fact a lot more. Not everybody plays sports, therefore it would have no effect on them. 4.Again, as explained before, home schooling can make up that day. Public school cannot. Again I blame public school for not teaching me proper grammar. lol
homeschool

"If a child spills their lunch, sometimes they run away ( I have witnessed this), the janitor picks it up, or the janitor/teacher tells them to pick it up. I'm also pretty sure a kid home schooled could pick up his lunch without his mom telling him to." True, I cannot deny this could have happened, but then the child would gain experience and know what to do. There are rules at school, which mean you should pick up what you dropped, which is in this case your lunch. The child would know how to get a broom or mop to clean up the mess. A parent helping the child to do so is more likely than a teacher/janitor helping the child to do so, because of the rules at school. "These are only certain situations. There are also plenty where it would be easier to bring one child. For example another country." Yes, it is indeed easier to bring just one child to another country, but when you go to that other country, to make the trip educational, don"t you have to visit museums or factories? It is easier to book museums or factory visits as a large group. "At least where I live, you can't get cut from town teams, therefore it is easier to be on that.The amount of "cuts" depends on the sport and the school." Whether or not you get cut is not the concern. Everyone living in the area has that privilege. But students studying at schools have one more: being on the school team. My opponent has made a grammar mistake in this sentence. "At least where I live, you can't get cut from town teams, therefore it is easier to be on that.The amount of "cuts" depends on the sport and the school." Sure, home schooling could make up for that. But these cases are not as common as the cases of parents getting sick. When parents are sick they cannot teach, but when teachers are sick substitutes come in and students do not miss the lesson. My opponent has made a grammar mistake in this sentence. I look forward to hearing my opponent's rebuttals!
homeschool

1.) That was a joke lol. 2.) If a child spills their lunch, sometimes they run away ( I have witnessed this), the janitor picks it up, or the janitor/teacher tells them to pick it up. I'm also pretty sure a kid home schooled could pick up his lunch without his mom telling him to. 3.) In this scenario, the home schooled child could learn independence and learn how to deal with things himself. 4.) If a member of the family died, I think the kid would go to school that day anyways. Again, homeschooling can make up that day, while public school cannot. 5.) These are only certain situations. There are also plenty where it would be easier to bring one child. For example another country. 6.) At least where I live, you can't get cut from town teams, therefore it is easier to be on that.The amount of "cuts" depends on the sport and the school.
homeschool

"I go to public school so whatever spelling mistake I made only proves home schooling is better :p" This argument is not valid as homeschooled children make spelling mistakes as well. "Public school doesn't necessarily teach you how to be independent. Just because your parents are also your teacher doesn't mean they do everything for you." Yes, parents do not do everything for their children but they do help. For example, if the child spilled his/her lunch, they would tell him/her to get a cloth to clean it up, and perhaps cook something for him/her. At school, no one would be there to remind you what to do. "There might be more group projects at school, but that doesn't mean anything. There could be that one group that has one person working and the others not doing anything." True, this is a possible scenario, however that would teach a student how to cope with such things. In the future, when the child is working, something similar might happen too, because people have working relationships. He/she will have to learn how to deal with it if the other side is uncooperative. "Also dealing with a death in the family, or a friend, etc. I would think have an affect on your school attendance going to public school or not. Again home schooling could make up that day while public school can't." I was talking about the parent. The child can still go to school if the parent"s friend died, or a member of the family passed away. "How is it easier to book field trips for groups then one person? Please explain." For example, if a school and a parent tried to book a visit to a fire station at the same time, the school would most likely be accepted, because of the number of people. If a parent and his/her child booked a visit all to themselves, it would classify as a private visit, which would not be allowed, since the money used was public, government money. Also, a fire station needs to operate even if there is a visit. Two people or one school, they both require one guide. Would you use one person to benefit two or one person to benefit a class? The manager would definitely choose the latter. "Group sports all depend on where you live. My middle school had no sport teams, but had many "town" teams. Also in high school, you could get cut and never be on the team in the first place." True, you might not be in a sports team, but you could still participate in group sports during Physical Education lessons. You could get cut from a team, but at least there is a higher chance of being in a team. If you studied in a school, you could choose from being in the school team or being in the "town team", but if you were homeschooled, you only have one choice, therefore making it harder to enter a team. I look forward to hearing my opponent's rebuttals.