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

First, let's get the parameters straight here. NOBODY that I know argues that abortion should be illegal in ALL circumstances. For the purposes of this debate, let's assume that the con abortion should be illegal except in situations where the mother's life is on the line (just as it is permissible to kill another human being in self-defense) or where giving birth would place the mother in danger of grave physical harm. These are situations where killing even a live human being would be justifiable and excused in a court of law. The difficulty with this debate is that it all depends on when "Life" begins, which is a moral and philosophical question that doesn't really lend itself well to logical reasoning. If life begins at conception, any abortion after that point constitutes an unjustified killing of a human life, even in cases of rape or incest. A child born of rape (symbol or not) is no less of a human being than a child born under normal circumstances. If you got to know somebody who was born as a result of rape, would you really tell that person that their life was worthless, that they'd be better off dead? And the fact that rape is often difficult to prove (as you point out later) would, if anything, counsel AGAINST a rape exception, would it not? I'm not sure how broad the "health" exception you mention is meant to be so it's difficult to debate that. I do agree that no woman facing a serious, reasonable threat of severe physical harm should be forced to carry a baby to term. It's not that easy to "forge" this type of information, especially if sworn affidavits are required. No doctor wants to sacrifice his reputation or face potential jail time for either perjury or violation of whatever statute mandates that the health exception be legitimately serious. "D. Abortions will happen anyway." This argument is always amusing. All crimes continue to occur even after the conduct is made illegal. Should we decriminalize murder or larceny simply because making them illegal doesn't drive them away completely? "2. It's better for the country for abortions to be done legally and safely than in an ally with a cloth-hanger." That's only true if you believe that abortion itself is morally acceptable and worthy of society's endorsement. Some people might very well believe that it is far better for the country to lower the amount of abortions that occur overall even if the price for that involves some people resorting to unsafe procedures.
Abortion should be made legal.

I will start off by saying that abortion should be made legal. While I dislike it from a moral standpoint, my morals also convince me that abortion should be made legal. I reserve the right to add further benefits of making abortion legal (if you disagree, don't accept), however, I will deal with what I think is perhaps the single most important argument for now. There may be more after the response. A. Banning abortion in all cases is bad. 1. Banning abortion in all cases is ridiculous, there are several cases in which not allowing an abortion would be unethical and unhealthy. 2. Women whose health is put at risk by child birth should be allowed an abortion. 3. Women who have been raped should be allowed an abortion, it would be immoral to force her to keep a symbol of her rape for her whole life. B. Exceptions should be made at least in the cases above. C. If you are to accept this, pragmatism forces us to make abortion legal. 1. Any women can claim that childbirth will hurt her. This can all be easily forged with some doctor's writing, ultimately, that means that anyone can claim for an abortion. 2. Rape must be proven in court. It takes more than 9 months for someone to be proven guilty without a doubt, and thus, we are forced to grant an abortion before a conviction. Also, a women could claim to have been raped and not have proof, so ultimately, she must also be granted an abortion. Anyone could claim rape, and this means that we would be having people lie for the sake of having an abortion. Ultimately, this is another reason to legalize abortion. D. Abortions will happen anyway 1. Abortions will not be stopped, only driven underground. 2. It's better for the country for abortions to be done legally and safely than in an ally with a cloth-hanger. E. Vote AFF, it would be a wicked thing to deny abortion in all cases, and these exceptions force us to allow abortion in all cases.
Jewish Holocaust Survivors should be investigated and if needed put to death.

" First of all, A Kapo is a Nazi Concentration Camp, And the real victims were the Jews, Not the Nazis, It's not that the Nazis did nothing wrong, You are a Nazi apologist, Also, The Nuremburg Trials happened, The Nuremberg Trials is the general name for two sets of trials of Nazis involved in crimes committed during the Holocaust of World War II. The first, And most famous, Began on November 20, 1945. It was entitled the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Which tried the most important leaders of Nazi Germany. [1]"No, A Kapo is "Known as Kapos, These trustees carried out the will of the Nazi camp commandants and guards, And were often as brutal as their SScounterparts. Some of these Kapos were Jewish, And even they inflicted harsh treatment on their fellow prisoners. For many, Failure to perform their duties would have resulted in severe punishment and even death, But many historians view their actions as a form of complicity. After the war, The prosecution of Kapos as war criminals, Particularly those who were Jewish, Created an ethical dilemma which continues to this day. "[1] Your definition is wrong. As the definition states, They issued severe punishments, And even killed their own prisoners, In the name for the Nazi guards. I ask, Should they not be trialed? Should they be let go of their crimes? Should they go let their crimes unpunished. My opponenet than keeps calling me a Nazi Apologist, Which has nothing to do with the debate. "But, First off, Even the bad Jews were victims too, And victims do not deserved to be investigated, Because you did not provide a single source or a shred of evidence to prove that all of these Jews are to blame for The Holocaust. Also, The same spelling error again, Make sure you slow down when you type, Because you can make spelling mistakes easily. You said "if they are innocent, Than they have nothing to worry about" but then you imply that all Jews are to blame for The Holocaust. You are basically a Nazi Apologist. " We can also claims serial killers were victims too, But does that execuse them of their crimes? No, We still punish them like any other, And also investigate. I also never claimed the Jews were to blame of the holocaust. I never said that, You are putting words in my mouth. I have never imply that. Con in total has not refute my claims that with these investigation, Can help find Kapos, Or unearth crimes that they commited. He makes a claim saying that the bad Jews were victims too. However, We continue to investigate, And punish people, It doesn't matter if you were a victim, You still commited a crime, And a crime needs to be punished. Con still keeps calling me a Nazi Apologist, Which is an ad hominem attack. It also has nothing to do with the debate. He is trying to discredit me by calling out my charachter, And not the content of my debate. I urge the voters to give me a point of conduct. In conclusion Con hasn't touched upon the Kapos, Allows the ability to unearth crimes, And be able to provide justice. [1]-https://www. Jewishvirtuallibrary. Org/kapos
Jewish Holocaust Survivors should be investigated and if needed put to death.

Here, Let me debunk all that you said, Here is the first thing you said, "Hello, We like to think of Jewish survivors as good people and victims. However, Their are a bad a bunch, That could worm their way back into Society. One of these people are Kapos, And they had a very infamous reputation. Their job was to carry the will of their camp commanders and guards. They did so in a very violent, Brutal way. " First of all, A Kapo is a Nazi Concentration Camp, And the real victims were the Jews, Not the Nazis, It's not that the Nazis did nothing wrong, You are a Nazi apologist, Also, The Nuremburg Trials happened, The Nuremberg Trials is the general name for two sets of trials of Nazis involved in crimes committed during the Holocaust of World War II. The first, And most famous, Began on November 20, 1945. It was entitled the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Which tried the most important leaders of Nazi Germany. [1] "Another of these people are Nazi Collabrators, Who rat out their fellow Jews such as Ans van Diijk, Stella Kubler, Jakub Lejink, And so much more. We don't know how many people their are that collabrated with these people, And they need to be put to justice. " Although, It is true that there are bad Jews, But it is never an excuse to be a Nazi Apologist, Just because you don't like Jews in general Also, I noticed a spelling error, It is "collaborated". "By allowing invesitgations on them, We can see if they collbarated with Nazis, Or they were involved in any crime. If they are innocent, Than they have nothing to worry about. The Jews who are found with these crimes will get a fair trial, By a jury of their peers. " But, First off, Even the bad Jews were victims too, And victims do not deserved to be investigated, Because you did not provide a single source or a shred of evidence to prove that all of these Jews are to blame for The Holocaust. Also, The same spelling error again, Make sure you slow down when you type, Because you can make spelling mistakes easily. You said "if they are innocent, Than they have nothing to worry about" but then you imply that all Jews are to blame for The Holocaust. You are basically a Nazi Apologist. Sources: [1] https://www. U-s-history. Com/pages/h1685. Html
Jewish Holocaust Survivors should be investigated and if needed put to death.

Hello, We like to think of Jewish survivors as good people and victims. However, Their are a bad a bunch, That could worm their way back into Society. One of these people are Kapos, And they had a very infamous reputation. Their job was to carry the will of their camp commanders and guards. They did so in a very violent, Brutal way. Another of these people are Nazi Collabrators, Who rat out their fellow Jews such as Ans van Diijk, Stella Kubler, Jakub Lejink, And so much more. We don't know how many people their are that collabrated with these people, And they need to be put to justice. By allowing invesitgations on them, We can see if they collbarated with Nazis, Or they were involved in any crime. If they are innocent, Than they have nothing to worry about. The Jews who are found with these crimes will get a fair trial, By a jury of their peers.
Economically, literary skills are more effective than arithmetic skills.

Mathematics teaches patience, discipline, and step-by-step problem-solving skills. For those with a substantial background in mathematics, an unlimited number of career opportunities are available. According to Jobs Rated Almanac , a 1990 publication of World Almanac Books of New York, NY, careers that require a very strong background in mathematics were listed as the five "best" jobs. They were,software engineer actuary computer systems analyst computer programmer mathematician Almost all of the top fifty jobs in this "best" jobs list involved mathematical reasoning and knowledge. This list was the result of the comparison of two hundred fifty jobs classified according to : income future outlook physical demands job security stress work environmentAfter this rather long quote the meaning is simple. The highest tier jobs are almost all math related. You need very high tier math degree in order get these jobs. This is why they are more economicly sound.http://www.math.ucdavis.edu...
Economically, literary skills are more effective than arithmetic skills.

Definitions: Oxford dictionary (2010): Economy"noun"the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services. Careful management of available sources. Literacy"Noun"the ability to read and write: competence in a specified area. Arithmetic"noun"the branch of mathematics related to the properties and or manipulations of numerical values. The use of numbers in counting or calculation. Those aspects of a particular situation that can be expressed in numerical terms. I look forward to debating this topic with you, my opponent. My opening argument will come in round two"it is up to you, whether or not you decide to argue in round one, or not.
Are we living in a halographic universe.

Well my opponent FF every round.I'm really busy, so I will just offer a few thoughts.The holographic principle states:" the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. "Well the first problem is measurement. The cosmological horizon is always changing.The holographic principle solves the blackhole information paradox, but some answers to the EFE allow greater entropy than a blackhole. This conflicts with the holographic principle.The math doesn't work in this universe. There are 2 often cited papers to lend credibility to the idea(Hyakutake ). One even confirms the Madecen conjecture. This would be really cool, but the papers discuss a theoritical universe, very differen't from our own.The whole principle is derived from string theory, but string theory has a lot of problems.It requires ridiculous energy levels to produce anything meaningful.It makes a lot of predicitions.The calculations are bound to be inaccurate, because one has to select a background before hand. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.universetoday.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Are we living in a halographic universe.

I accept.In order to fulfill the BoP pro must show that we are indeed, or at the very least, most probably living in a holographic universe. I don't think he can do this because his argument hinges on string theory, which is probably the most speculative theory in modern physics. It has been criticized for not offering strong predictions. All I must do is negate pro's arguments but I will also provide arguments for the universe is not a holigraph.I look forward to your arguments
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

hey guys, im back, it is a real shame that my opponent forfeited last round, so i guess i just present conclusion and voter issues. in conclusion i feel that i have proven economic sanctions to be good thing i have shown that the point of sanctions is infact to help, not hurt people. voter issues, i have not but one voter issue and that is that my opponent didnt present enough of his case o really argue, however i am sure that he like me forfeited for a good reason. any way, please vote neg! thanks
Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives

hey, sorry about that forfeit, my computer broke, any how lets get on with the debate, i will attack my opponents case while building my own, thank you. in the cross examination i ask how the citizezens will suffer, my opponent says that he has previously clarified this point, however my opponent only says that the people will suffer , not how , so he shows no proof to the matter. next, my opponent says that economic sanctions are in humane but as you will see later in my argument the point of economic sanctions is to protect as many people possible or cause the least amount of harm. i do not understand how efficiency is in any way revelant to this case , but if it were i would say that it fit the negative side better than the affirmative , due to the fact that the reason for sanctions is to punish for a crime commited against another nation, and economic sanctions appear to be the most efficient way to handle such a situation. in order to achieve "happiness and prosperity " we must first ensure that justice is administered in the approprriate fashion, to help ensure that there is less crime in the world. using my opponents definition of economic sanctions i will now explain my case and continue to attack my opponents. my value premise is responsibility, and my criteria is that it is the responsibility of nations to keep others in check when it comes to matters such as terrorism and/or war. my opponent discusses seige and i asked him to clarify what he meant by seige in the cross ex, here is my question, and his answer: ""define the term siege in short:" Siege: a blockade, whether militaristic or economical, of a city or fortified place to compel. it to surrender. Though sanctions are not a literal "siege" with the accompaniment of catapults, they have much of the same and, may I add, desired, effect on the inhabitants of the targeted nation." however even using my opponents definition of sanctions, this definition describes only certain limitations on another country there for making his answer to my question invalid because seige would be unnessecary. my opponents contention two is also invalid because as i said above when only certain materials are being limited there is no reason for the people to suffer. my opponent says that any other action would be more effective than sanctions however he never proves that they have been ineffective in any way and never shows any alternate methods for the reasons listed above i ask you to vote neg . thank you
Electronics have a positive affect on our lives, mentally and physically

::Argument:: "tests show that thoughts of deppresion have occured when one is without electricity for 2 weeks" I need sources. Moreover, without the invention of electricity there wouldn't be the depression which comes from the absence. "a recent test on Oprah showed that you could not survive(exaggeration)without a phone" I haven't used my phone in years... ::Source:: The link does not work since it says "Page Not Found". ::Comment:: "btw this is my first debate" However you're not new to writing hence you should know that "btw" is not a word nor is "u" a word. Furthermore my opponent has forgotten about full stops.
Electronics have a positive affect on our lives, mentally and physically

did u know what our life would be like without electricity... tests show that thoughts of deppresion have occured when one is without electricity for 2 weeks a recent test on Oprah showed that you could not survive(exaggeration)without a phone www.articlesbase.com/.../the-effect-of-electronic-appliances-in-our-lives-730804.html is a website that clearly states the pro of this argument hahahahah beat that btw this is my first debate
Electronics have a positive affect on our lives, mentally and physically

::Introduction:: Good luck ! I'll be focusing on the computers physical effect in our lives. ::List of bad things computer does to a body:: Eyes: "Studies show that eye strain and other bothersome visual symptoms occur in 50 to 90 percent of computer workers." http://www.allaboutvision.com... Weight: "According to a two-year study conducted by researchers at the University at Buffalo, limiting television and computer use has a significant impact on helping children lose weight." http://www.realtruth.org... Back problems: "Millions of people are at risk of chronic nerve damage to their backs, necks and shoulders because of poor posture when using computers and laptops" http://www.suite101.com... Addiction: "Obsessively checking e-mail. Playing online games for 12 hours or more at a time. Placing more value on chat-room friends than real friends. Neglecting family, work and even personal health and hygiene. These are all symptoms of a new form of addiction that has surfaced only in recent years: computer addiction." http://computer.howstuffworks.com... Psychology: "Children who spend longer than two hours in front of a computer or television screen are more likely to suffer psychological difficulties, regardless of how physically active they are. " http://medicineworld.org...
Is it better to rule through fear than through love

"Because If you try to rule with fear, fear will turn on you."Please elaborate on this. Give examples and/or scenarios etc.. Better explain the statementAnyways, let me explain why I think fear is better than love. You can never ever get everyone to like you. Paticularly rulers of large or diverse countries who cannot possibly satisfy the needs of all the population, and yes this has to include extremists.Let's say a leader makes a decision or has an ideology strongly hated by a group of people. Even if the majority of people loved the leader, the group that hates him/her is still very much significant. They may do everything they can to remove the leader from power. Assassination in the extreme case, which leads to conspiracies and instability and whatnot. That's pretty much what happened to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr (ok, they are not national leaders but they are good examples of what I want to prove) , their actions to bring equality (to Muslims and African Americans respectively) led to them being killed even though almost everybody loved them and their actions.If such leaders were more fearsome, then perhaps the people who tried to kill them would not have done so because well.. they would be afraid to do it. Now another possible problem:There is a great chance that the people who killed a greatly loved leader will be feared and therefore, it is the feared assassins which will take the power by instilling fear in society and their agendas will be realized, not the loved leader. I'll finish off with a closing thoughtYou can make everyone fear you, but you cannot make everyone love you.
Is it better to rule through fear than through love

Challenge accepted,The resolution is unclear, it seems that Nadine1997 should have taken the Con side of the argument based on what she said. But either way, I think it is better to rule through fear than through love as Machiavelli said"Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved" I ask that Pro present her arguments for why she thinks Love is better than fear.
Is it better to rule through fear than through love

"Love can inspire much more fierce loyalty and confidence in the ruler."It can inspire loyalty to the ruler however not everybody can love that leader as I explained in round 2. A lot of people loved John F Kennedy yet he was assassinated.A lot of people fear Kim Jong un and his predecessors, they weren't assassinated.Of course, too much fear would cause a nation to become a Totalitarian Dictatorship (North Korea) but some level of fear is definetely required and it is more beneficial than recieving love.Pro's stance only makes sense in a utopian society where everbody loves the great leader.If only it were so easy to make everyone love you. And I mean EVERYONE. Including extremists from both sides of any issue taking place.Now let's talk about insurgents and terrorists whose sole purpose is to destabalize the country (for whatever reasons).There is a reason the US says they do not negotiate with terrorsists (if only that were true, but that's a story for another time)You cannot deal with extremists and terrorists using love and compassion (they do not care), you put a bullet to their heads.Or alternatively, make yourself so feared that such terrorists are too scared to do anything harmful to the country or the citizens.But you cannot make yourself so loved that such terrorists will worship you instead of fulfiling their agenda of destabilizing the nation, its realistically impossible. This is because, like I said they are always extremists and people who will inevitably hate the leader or his/her actions.In a utopian society, it would be better obviously to be loved but with the status quo, it is better to be feared.I rest my case