BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Abortion should not be banned.

Greetings, I will be affirming the resolution that Abortion should be available to all women on demand. I will be using three contentions. The first being that women have full self-ownership, and the other that the fetus is merely a perasite when it is in then the woman's womb without permission, and finally that a fetus is not even human.First off, we must define the terms:Abortion-Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo orfetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy[1].Fetus- the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo [2].Contention 1: Self-OwnershipWomen have the right to there own bodies. It doesn't mater if a fetus is human being or not it is woman's body. Politicians have no say in what a woman does with her body. It is a natural right for people to own there bodies and to say that a women can't do with it as she pleases is wrong.Contention 2: Self-DefenseWhen a woman has sex there is no guarantee of pregnancy, and not every woman wants to be pregnant at that time. If a fetus/embryo forms in the woman's body without her permission and causing her to get sick and stealing nutrients from her, then this is aggression. The fetus is vioating the host and causing harm. It may not be intentionally but it still is doing harm.Contention 3: Fetus/Embryos are not persons.While the nature of a fetus maybe that of a human it is not and should not be considered to be a person. Susan Sherwen once stated in an article for 'Perspectives for Canadians':"Persons . . . are members of a social community that shapes and values them, and personhood must be defined in terms of interactions and relationships with others."It is not a rational and conscious being. Therefore, it can't be granted the same rights that we would grant to a person. Also, a fetus is not capable of holding a conscious desire to even continue living. This means it is very much meaningless to speak about the "murder" of a fetus. Murder implies the unlawful killing of a person that has a conscious desire to continue living. Therefore, a woman's rights ultimately triumph over that of a fetus no matter what the case.ConclusionTo deny a woman an abortion is to deny then there basic rights. To violate a woman's right to the inner confines of her body is a injustice that should not be allowed. After all unless the woman actually lets the fetus use her body and clames it as her own, then the fetus is an aggressor to woman and to deny abortion then would not only deny self-ownership but also deny the right to self-defense. And finally a fetus should not be granted the same rights because it is not a person.~~Sources~~1.http://dictionary.reference.com......2.http://www.thefreedictionary.com......3.Susan Sherwin. 1999. Ethical Issues: Perspectives for Canadians. Ed. Soifer, Eldon. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, p. 267
Information Transferred over Older Mediums Is Always More Legitimate

P: Ultimately, face-to-face communication is more essential than texting C: We're back to Pro"s first example which we established was true in some contexts, less true in others. Yes, f2f communications would be more reliable than texting in the wake of an EMP. But f2f communication would be a distinct disadvantage in other contexts. I've already given a few but here"s another: sending out an AMBER alert after a child has been kidnapped. A law enforcement official who eschewed text alerts because f2f communication was deemed more legitimate would lose her job. The question Pro failed to answer was how the "time-tested" media theory overcomes such obvious exceptions to the rule. P: F2f communication is not as contingent on other people" C: Pro is raising the virtually axiomatic concern that increased complexity in any system introduces more points of failure, more possible outcomes, less predictability. But complexity is fundamental to modernity & we"re back to my unanswered question about why people don't return to grunts & gestures if that form of communication is patently more legitimate than any newer media. In my view, the comforts & potentials of modernity are unsustainable by old ways & methods. P: ultimate legitimacy C: As used in the sense of authenticity. Consider Trump. By Pro"s theory, Trump"s use of older media- speeches, meetings, press conferences ought to ultimately always prove more legitimate than Trump"s use of social media because those methods are more personal, less complex. But does anybody really doubt that Trump"s tweets aren't the more authentic, legitimate expression of Trump"s personality as opposed to when he reads prepared remarks? I think Pro"s theory has been disproved. Intuitive as it may seem there are many cases & contexts in which newer media are ultimately more legitimate than older media. If a painting of a murder scene was intrinsically more legitimate, detectIves would always sketch a crime rather than take a photo
Information Transferred over Older Mediums Is Always More Legitimate

Ultimately, face-to-face communication is more essential than texting is. If the electricity goes out for an extended period of time, there will be no power to text. If an electromagnetic pulse bomb goes off, or a geomagnetic storm disrupts life on Earth, texting may be impossible. Texting is done on the terms and conditions of the telephone company and the government. There are people that come between a sent text and a delivered text. Those people may include employees and shareholders of the telephone company, government legislators, and civilians with the ability to cause mischief by destroying the avenues through which the text would be transferred. All texts are transferred under the contingent will of all those people. There are people that constructed and allowed a smartphone to reach its owner's possession. All information sent and received by that smartphone is sent and received under the discretion of all those people. Materials to build a smartphone may sometimes be unavailable. Face-to-face communication is not as contingent on other people and on other intermediate factors such as weather and the telephone company's technology. Texts may be preferred over a face-to-face conversation for testimony in a court of law, but what was texted at some time in the past is not as meaningful as what is happening immediately before a person. For the sake of living life, the present time is more legitimate than the past. For all these reasons, face-to-face communication is ultimately more essential and more legitimate than texting is. Information transferred over newer mediums may be more trustworthy and more immediately useful than information transferred over older mediums is. That I do not deny. My main thesis regards the ultimate legitimacy of that information. There's the adverb "down to the wire" (https://en.wiktionary.org...), which means at the end of something, or ultimately. The "wire" is in opposition to "wireless."
Information Transferred over Older Mediums Is Always More Legitimate

P: I may be using [legitimate] [as] relates to being true, sincere, and genuine. C: Fine P: I'd like to give examples such as the following two, but I'm afraid they can be complex. C: Ok, but you've ignored my refutations in R1. I pointed out cases using your example, face-to-face vs. text when texting might be more legitimate (deafness, accents, permanent record, court). I went on to cite 3 more examples in which the older media (wind socks, smoke signals, postcards) was less useful, dependable, legitimate. P: touch-tone telephone vs. Skype C: It would seem that touch-tone shares most disadvantages with Skype but Skype confers some advantages of face-to-face: facial expressions, gestures. P: letter vs. touch-tone C: A touch-tone has some advantage: immediacy, the capacity to cross-examine without preparation. A letter might be a more legit medium for serving a subpoena but less legit for breaking up. P: An information transfer can only be as legitimate as the least legitimate part of the entire path of the transfer. C: Ok, but I don't think this ammendment to your theory disproves any of my counter evidence: wind socks, smoke signals, & postcards are not distorted by partial reliance on newer technologies. P: More legitimate people use less legitimate media & vice versa C: Even if you could prove this true, such a condition would make your main postulate harder to prove: personal integrity distorting the legitimacy of media. I can't see how this forwards your argument either way. If this was meant to resolve the question about what prevents people from returning to older technologies as they prove more legitimate, I don't think it does. If Pro's theory is always true, grunts and gestures (as the oldest forms of human media) ought to always prove most legitimate. I don't think Pro's theory is holding up under even this brief examination of cases. I hope Pro is prepared to explain in R3 why my contradicting cases don't break his theory.
Information Transferred over Older Mediums Is Always More Legitimate

When I use the word "legitimate," I may be using it in sense 2 of Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, located at https://www.merriam-webster.com.... This sense relates to being true, sincere, and genuine. It seems I'm not using the word "legitimate" in the "conforming to law" sense you've mentioned. I'd like to give examples such as the following two, but I'm afraid they can be complex. 1. Receiving information on a touch-tone telephone is more legitimate than receiving information on Skype. 2. Receiving information in handwriting on paper through the mail is more legitimate than receiving information on a touch-tone telephone. The reason I think those two examples can be complex is because it seems the entire path of transfer of information of an information transfer must be older than the entire path of transfer of information of a second information transfer in order for the first information transfer to be more legitimate than the second. If at least one part of the entire path of an information transfer involves brand new technology, such as a brand new type of telephone line, a brand new composition of paper or ink, or a brand new method used to produce the gasoline in a mail truck, that may affect the legitimacy of the information transfer. It seems an information transfer can only be as legitimate as the least legitimate part of the entire path of the transfer. It seemed to me that more legitimate people actually do use older, more legitimate communications more often than less legitimate people do. But as I think about it more, it seems that more legitimate people may actually use newer communications more often than less legitimate people do. Nevertheless, it may be possible that: those newer mediums of communication are less legitimate than older mediums of communication, and more legitimate people use newer, but less legitimate mediums of communication more often than less legitimate people do.
Information Transferred over Older Mediums Is Always More Legitimate

Thanks, holla- Pro's theory is interesting and may even contain a kernel of truth: as Pro states, the notion of "time-tested" satisfies a certain intuitive sense. As with many an intuition, however, the application of consideration quickly disproves the theory. I'm not sure that Pro's use of the adjective legitimate (conforming to law) is as constructive to the case as reliable (consistently good in performance), trustworthy (honest), and important (of great significance or value). So far, Pro has offered one example: face-to-face communication vs. texting. I think we can agree that talking is generally more reliable and trustworthy then texting. Texting depends on good network connections. It is probably easier to lie by text. But I can think of exceptions: if one person is deaf, for example, or heavy accents. I think I might understand a person with a provincial Scottish accent more effectively by text. I'm less convinced about importance. Texts can be saved and referred to later. This has a tremendous advantage in terms of correcting misunderstandings or poor memory. Which testimony would you prefer in a court of law? Two peoples recollections of a face-to-face conversation or a print out of their texted communications? Texting, in this context, would seem more dependable. Pro's principle, then, is highly reliant on context. Which medium would be more reliable for communicating the wind speed of a hurricane, the time-tested windsock or a satellite image? Which medium would be more trustworthy for warning of a terrorist attack, time-tested smoke signals or an emergency radio broadcast? Which medium would convey greater importance for a presidential speech, a time-tested post card or a new fangled television address? If Pro's proposition proved always true, what prevents people from reverting to more legitimate communications? If a telegraph is always more legitimate than a telephone, why haven't we returned to communication by cable?
Information Transferred over Older Mediums Is Always More Legitimate

The older the medium over which information is transferred, the more legitimate the information is. For example, information received face-to-face from another person is always more legitimate than information received through texting on a smartphone. My thesis for this debate is similar to a quoted claim I made on Twitter on December 28, 2016 (https://twitter.com...), "'The older the medium that information is transferred, the more legitimate the information or transfer is.'" My thesis for this debate seems to make intuitive sense. Mediums of communication that have been around for longer have withstood the test of time and thus seem to be more reliable, more trustworthy, and more important.
Unlimited campaign funding from super PACS

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to use the phrase "super PAC," let alone make one point as to why campaign donations from super PACs should be limited. The amount of money donated to to a candidate does not effect the outcome of the election. The proof of this is in history. The last two elections were won by the candidate who had less funding from super PACs. For these reasons super PACs should be allowed to donate to a campaign without limits set by the government.
Unlimited campaign funding from super PACS

you just contradicted your self you clam that the richer (more funded) candid will lose follow what you say each candid will be heavy funded there for leading to who the people want most through what advertisements,promises,and lower taxes. If this were to happen most people wouldn't vote for the right guy because of one mans influence. My argument means I believe let the campaigns be the same way they are. this helps the U.S. not focus on how much money they have (may not have seemed that way)
Unlimited campaign funding from super PACS

My argument is very very simple to understand. Donating to super PACs does not give the upper-class power, because it matters more so how you use the money you have, rather than how much money you have. The proof is in history. Over the last two elections, the candidate with the lesser support from super PACs won the election. This candidate, of course, being Barack Obama. Republicans raised four times the amount that the democratic party raised for the Obama campaign. Despite the huge disadvantage of campaign funding, Obama still won. How did he do it? Although I do not agree with him, he ran quality advertisements on television questioning Romney's record, campaigned in the right cities, and communicated his ideas more clearly than the Romney campaign had. My opponent states in his last argument, "if you do the math about 50% of the population get influenced through money, power, and greed." Does this mean that half of the people of America are corrupted, greedy, robber barons who care nothing for the rest of the country? My opponent also states that, "the upper class will get more power full because one they can choose people who wish to only make the rich richer." This is totally true. The upper class does have the power to vote for someone they feel will help them succeed more. However, the other 99% of the population still exists and has the right to vote. Take this scenario for an example, the top 1% of the population have created a super PAC and have allocated one trillion dollars to the campaign of candidate A, because he promised to abolish taxes for the top 1% and raise taxes on the rest of the country by 20%(I know this is ridiculous but it is strictly hypothetical). On the other hand, candidate B has about 300 million dollars in donations from super PACs created by the other 99%. Although candidate A has a trillion dollars in his campaign budget, the other 99% of the population supports candidate B because they favor his flat tax plan as opposed to candidate A's silly tax plan. As a result of the election, candidate B will win because of his political platform and the people's support. The upper class can raise as much money as they desire, but without the support of the other 99% of the country, a candidate has no chance of winning an election.
Unlimited campaign funding from super PACS

One thing America is a republic. second you also have to think how does the 1% of the American people become so rich they know what people want not what they need. Also not saying always bribery,fraud,advertising etc. have played in to the equation so if you do the math about 50% of the population get influenced through the money,power and greed. Plus workers unions how do union workers get played by who the rich and government and there owners (bosses) who get funded by usually the people who get money from the go. and personally the upper class will get more power full because one they can choose people who wish to only wish to make the rich richer. Plus if you think about it most people will get poorer the rich will be normal the normal will be poor and the poor will just disappear from the face of the Earth. Why is because they need money from the go. who get it through taxes the more taxes the angrier the people.
Unlimited campaign funding from super PACS

In the news recently, Washington D. C. has been stirring over one particular issue. This issue is unlimited funding of super PACS (Political Action committees) towards political campaigns. Many politicians believe that this allows businesses to directly influence elections. Others say that it gives more power to the upper-class who can typically afford to donate more toward their favored candidate. Their are some major flaws in these arguments. 1) Some citizens believe that allowing unlimited funding gives businesses an unfair advantage of directly influencing elections. This could not be further from the truth. Unless the money goes to tampering with the ballots, every American citizen has the right to vote regardless of how much a business donates to super PACS for a certain candidate. In the last two elections, the candidate from the two major parties with the least amount of super PAC funding won the election. Money can not directly buy a citizen's vote. The people, businesses, and labor unions of America all have the right to donate as much as they want to influence a political election. 2) The upper-class do not gain power with unlimited super PAC spending. About 1% of Americans are in the upper-class. The beauty of democracy, is that no matter how much money one person has, 99% of the country gets just as much say as them. That 1% could donate as much as they want to their candidate of choice. However, without the say of at least 50% of the rest of the population, the candidate receiving the money will lose. Also, labor unions donate to super-Pacs as well. In fact, labor unions donate more money to political elections than any other organization. Even if donating to super PACs gave a specific group more of a voice in government, the upper-class would not have the biggest voice. The 17.7 million blue-collar workers that make up labor unions would have the largest voice.
The Bible is Against Homosexuality

Sorry about that, I didn't forfeit, I simply went on vacation. :) Below are several scriptures against homosexuality. I hope you take it to heart. Homosexuality was invented by humans who had feelings that were NOT natural. There ae lots more, but these were the ones that came to me first. Thanks! Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." (NLT) Leviticus 20:13 "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT) 1 Kings 14:24 And there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel. (ESV) 1 Kings 15:12 He put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. (ESV) 2 Kings 23:7 He also tore down the living quarters of the male and female shrine prostitutes that were inside the Temple of the LORD, where the women wove coverings for the Asherah pole. (NLT) 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NLT) 1 Timothy 1:8-10 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ... (ESV) Jude 7 And don't forget Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and serve as a warning of the eternal fire of God's judgment. (NIV)
Dont get more then 1 kid

"we need to make it go down, our natural dependence on machines are destroying the planet, and we cant live without machines.." First off, machines are not destroying the planet. Secondly, even if they were, how would having just one kid fix the machine problem? "if no human gives birth in the next 120 years, the human species will be extinct, no need to kill anyone to depopulate to save ourselves and still keep living the sweet life we do" How does our species going extinct in 120 years help us in any way whatsoever? Where did you even get that number? I still don't get how having kids is going to mess up "the sweet life." Summary: Your argument is complete nonsense. If you are going to debate something, please make sure you can give a good argument with plenty of facts to back up such an absurd claim. After all, the burden of proof is on you.
Dont get more then 1 kid

The replacement rate is about 2.1 or 2.2 kids, depending on the source you use. (By replacement rate, I mean how many kids you need to keep a constant population and not make it go down.) You need to stay above the replacement rate, otherwise the diversity in the gene pool will suffer, and eventually, humans could go extinct because it is necessary to have two humans to reproduce. If you only have one kid, you will be way below the replacement rate.