BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should remain legal in the United States

Thank You for a great debate topic to debate on. 1st of all I would like for you to change some of the rule. Your resolution is not fair for the Con. Here is why, you said abortion should be illegal IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCE AND THAT THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANCE THAT JUSTIFIES AN ABORTION, and there are always circumstances for something. There are things that are illegal but it is legal at some time, for example, it is the law that human should not kill another human, but during wars, people are allowed to kill other people. As you can see, I will argue that abortion should be allowed that some circumstances. Also, even though there are some circumstances that justify something, it does not make something legal. For example, like I said before, killing the enemy during a war is a circumstance that justifies killing another person, which is not legal in the U.S.A. Therefore I would argue that abortion should not be allowed except for certain circumstances. So to go against your point, I would like to start off with why someone would have an abortion. Here is the reason why: " 21% Inadequate finances " 21% Not ready for responsibility " 16% Woman"s life would be changed too much " 12% Problems with relationships, unmarried " 11% Too young and/or immature " 8% Children are grown; she has all she wants " 3% Baby has possible health problems " <1% Pregnancy caused by rape/incest " 4% Other As you can see, most of the reasons are because of their own mistakes or they just don't want to deal with it. The only ones that is actually not their fault are because of rape/incest(<1%) or Baby has possible health problems (3%). Which is only 4% out of 100%. So is it worth taking the life of a baby. And murder is illegal in the U.S right now and if baby is a living thing and we are killing it, then why isn't it illegal? Now you might be saying that a fetus is not alive, I am here to prove that a fetus is alive. First I have the definition of Life according to dictionary.com: The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. When there is a fetus inside a mother's womb, their heart is thumping, the baby is being manifested by growth through metabolism. But it cannot reproduce, but as you can see, a 1 or 2 year girl would not be able to reproduce and they are clearly living which clearly means they are still at growth stage, same with fetus. A fetus is still at its growth stage which is really hard to adapt into a new environment just like how hard it is for a 1 or 2 year old child to adapt to an environment. So a fetus is a living thing. It matches the definition. Finally, there is only 1 exception that I can think of and the only one is when the baby and his/her mother is in danger. This can happen when there is a problem with the baby and if the mother don't have an abortion, the baby's life AND the mother's life will die. So in this case, and only in this case, abortion should be allowed. http://www.operationrescue.org...
According to Christianity, babies will burn in hell.

You"After I saw that I didn't have a conclusion to my syllogism I smacked my head. Premiss 7 should have been my conclusion."Everyone makes mistakes. "No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation."---Deuteronomy 23:2This does not mean God blames these decendance; This verse is also an inaccurate account of God's plan. Jesus died so everyone might enter heaven, He advocated the ideas put forth in the verse I gave and made it the law. "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."---Exodus 20:5Any person can choose to worship (insert deity here). This is blamed on the father, as they taught the children the wicked ways. They would be punished for choosing to worship the wrong figure. And Jesus made forgiveness the standard model. Even if your idea is right, it has been different since Jesus died.This verse is directly talking about children. This debate is about infants. What is the difference? If the answer is "kid's can ask for salvation", is a 2-year-old considered a child? You dropped my argument about judgement.
According to Christianity, babies will burn in hell.

After I saw that I didn't have a conclusion to my syllogism I smacked my head. Premiss 7 should have been my conclusion. "The one who sins is the one who will be put to death. A son will not be punished for his father’s sins, and a father will not be punished for his son’s sins. A good man’s goodness belongs to him alone, and a bad man’s evil belongs to him alone."---Ezekiel 18:20. This verse is in direct contradiction to several other verses. "No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation."---Deuteronomy 23:2 "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."---Exodus 20:5You also offered Matthew 10:13-15."13 And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”"---Matthew 10:13-15 This verse is directly talking about children. This debate is about infants.
According to Christianity, babies will burn in hell.

Thank you.The Relation of Sin to Babies"The one who sins is the one who will be put to death. A son will not be punished for his father’s sins, and a father will not be punished for his son’s sins. A good man’s goodness belongs to him alone, and a bad man’s evil belongs to him alone."---Ezekiel 18:20.This is very important. It shows that we aren't held accountable for Adam's and Eve's sin. We are judged independently of others. Babies do not sin.Judgement"For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."--Matthew 7:2What measure of judgement do babies use? They do not judge. So this means that God, at the very least, does not judge babies."13 And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”"---Matthew 10:13-15I have shown that, because babies don't sin and don't judge, they will not be thrown in Hell.
According to Christianity, babies will burn in hell.

Thank you! I'm very new here and I want to learn from some real pros! xD My Arguement My argument is fairly simple. It's based off several biblical texts. Let's look at some guidelines for how to be accepted into heaven, according to the bible. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. -John 3:18 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. -John 14:16If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. -Romans 10:9From these verses I'll use a syllagism. Premiss 1: All christians go to heaven.Premiss 2: Anyone who is not a christian goes to hell.Premiss 3: Premiss 1 and 2 relate to all human beings. Premiss 4: Babies are human beings. Premiss 5: Babies are incapable of declaring with their mouth, "Jesus is Lord". Premiss 6: Babies are not christians.Premiss: 7: Babies will burn in hell. I will presuppose that my opponent will object primarily to premiss 3. My reason for saying all human beings are subject to the tests described in the verses above are words like: whoever and no one. The verses do not describe beings who are above a certain age or who have reasonable intellectual function. It describes all humans unless con can prove otherwise.
voting 4 trump is irresponsible

Again common sense is very subjective. The congressional budget office may say that "if we don't get our budget in order bad things will happen". This I can agree to but when it comes to how the budget problem is solved there is no right way and stating that Trump's reduction of taxes is going to make it worse has no validity, except your perception of it simply being common sense. To me, common sense, means reducing tax and cutting unnecessary social programs that our government pours millions into everywhere. With that perspective, what makes your common sense more valid and true than mine? If you had provided sound and solid evidence with credible sources, I would have been able to reevaluate my stance. However, with out the evidence, to me it is just an opinion. The same goes for the rest of your examples you provided no substantial evidence to base your opinions on. It is also important to recognize that you state how Obamacare is benefits the citizens as if its the only correct way to provide health care. How can we know that Trump doesn't have a plan that can work equally as well? Finally, asking me if I "care about the poor and disabled people" is irrelevant to the argument. We are arguing whether Trump supporters are irresponsible, not my stance on social issues. In conclusion, I believe that those who vote for Trump are not irresponsible. Those who vote for him simply believe that he would be the best fit in office. For those who do agree with his political stance, have different opinions than those who oppose him and his views. Those opinions in no way reflect their character. I believe that it would be better to state: " I don't agree with those supporting Trump for reasons A, B and C. Here is the evidence supporting my claim that these reasons may have negative effects on the United States in the following year." But attacking someones character based on the fact that it doesn't align with your personal opinions does not provide a sound argument in justifying Trump voters as irresponsible.
voting 4 trump is irresponsible

That is faulty correlation. Saying that Trump is irresponsibility is projected onto the voters does not make any logical sense. 3 mere examples of Trumps political views doe not prove him to be irresponsible. You simply state some plausible outcomes of what would happen if he was president as if they were facts set into stone. However it is highly disagreeable. For example, I say that removing Obamacare will actually be beneficial to the health care system and the cost would drop. Show me the proof that each of your arguments against Trump with credible sources.
voting 4 trump is irresponsible

To start off, may I ask where you are getting your information from? Second I see no argument. You simply state some opinions about Trump's political views, however, you fail to mention how his political views makes the voter the irresponsible one. I am also curious to know what your definition of irresponsibility is? Are you simply stating that those who agree with Trump's political views are irresponsible, or those who are specifically for Trump. Because if you consider all those who simply side with Trump's political views are you including the broader spectrum of people who tend to align themselves with the republican party? I am just trying to get better clarity of what is actually being debated at hand.
voting 4 trump is irresponsible

voting for trump is irresponsible trump wants to cut taxes and add another trillion a year to the deficit. our debt is becoming a national security issue. he wants to repeal obamacare with no real alternative to replace it. people with medicaid expansion would no longer have healthcare, millions won't have subsidies to make care affordable, and insurance companies won't be able to afford covering people with preexisting conditions. (they can't afford them to a large extent with the subsidies and mandate, but apparently trump wants neither of these things so that'd make the problem worse) trump's views of immigration are okay but with his flip flop on amnesty, he's not far away from clinton. he's okay on trade but at least rhetoric wise he's the same as clinton. those are the major things. clinton is a status quo candidate. the only real difference is taxes and healthcare, and on those trump is irresponsible. thus anyone who would vote for him is being irresponsible.
Abortion

My opponents response to my question in round one: "I'm going to be agents abortion, as terminating a poignancy without the mother having a high risk of death." I won't even begin to touch upon the horrendous spelling, or the fact that my opponent chose to debate his second round in the comments, but rather that what we were debating about wasn't resolved until round two, leaving very little room for debating and rebuttals. It is the responsibility of the "instigator" to explain everything in the first round. This, at the very least, should be a loss of a conduct point. This also makes things very things very abusive to the "contender," or me. My opponent wants me to debate "why abortion is good, when the mother doesn't have a high risk of death." This takes away one of my main arguments, and designed to make Con's win easy. Con wanted to take away a major argument factor, in order to win. Nevertheless, I intend to include this in my argument, as this was not included in the first round, not even in this debate AT ALL, mind you. Arguments: 1. The fetus could have an abnormality, and would be easier for the mother to have an abortion than to go through all that pain and the baby be stillborn, and also leading to attachment issues. 2. If a woman is sick with a disease, then she would have a procedure to help her recover from something tragic. Abortion is the same. If it helps it save a woman's life and help her get over whatever harmful things led her to the pregnancy, than it is good. A woman is more than a fetus: a fetus cannot make decisions for itself, a woman can, so therefore, a woman needs to make that decision. 3. Think about this: there is a reason that abortion is legal, and you can argue the other way all you want, but because it is legal means something. 4. If abortion wasn't legal, then women would be getting abortions illegally, like they were before Roe vs. Wade (The Supreme Court case that made abortions legal). This is highly dangerous. 5. Furthermore, everyone should have the right to choose, because most of the time, they know what's best for themselves, versus other people. They should not be legally forced to carry a baby. Sources: http://www.feministe.us... http://civilliberty.about.com... http://socialistworker.org... *My opponent has never said that I have to argue that abortion is good in every circumstance.*
Abortion

As much as I'd like to start debating now, my opponent needs to clear the air here. For instance: What side will I be debating and what side will my opponent be debating? What definition of "abortion" does my opponent wish to set this debate on? As my opponent is fairly new to this, I'll say this: The first round is used to clarify your stance on the topic, and to clarify the topic itself. "a debate I think just needs to get out of the way so we can talk about more important morel problems" does not help either of those. I shall assume that I am debating for abortion, the definition being: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. However, I cannot be sure, and I would appreciate very much if my opponent would clarify this. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Should Canada become part of the USA? (Con is against unification)

No unification is easy when it comes to creating/annexing a new territory, but when the US did it we did it just fine, there are several things we'd need to address, like should the new provinces be states, what power will they have if so, and extras like that when it comes to government. There is no easy answer to this, but of course it wouldn't be overnight and we'd have plenty of time to figure it out. I can't really answer these questions because I'm not a person of government. Though finding an arrangement that works for everyone and becoming the undisputed greatest power in all areas would easily be found within a matter of years, but until we found something like that Canada would obviously still be the country we know it as today. Besides, Most Canadians in the West want to be part of the US, especially Saskatchewan. They feel that all of the wealth and power is controlled by the West, but a strong point of American politics is making sure that everyone governs themselves as states until it comes to federal law or elections, which they have a say in to.
Should Canada become part of the USA? (Con is against unification)

I would like for Pro to address these main concerns in the next round. How will the US Federal Government accurately present the will of the American people when a new set of people have been added? How will power be distributed if Canada is brought to the fold? Will we have 200 senators thanks to the amount of land we have adopted? How will you answer the complaints of rural Americans that feel unrepresented by Washington DC?
Should Canada become part of the USA? (Con is against unification)

I think the USA and Canada should become one country, other than bagged milk, there is no difference between us, except when it comes to a slightly different political system, which most argue in Canada is outdated and/or against common sense in a lot of ways, or think that Canada could easily become a dictatorship. (Video from an actual Canadian. ) Not to mention, that all of the other things most Canadians argue against like the fact that they have free healthcare, comparatively strict gun laws, and, funnily enough I've heard this a lot, "A different accent so we're completely different people!" But, all of those things you could still have, or reinstate if you became part of the USA, as your statehood would allow you to have those things under the 13th amendment. There are probably other things that my opponent will try to debunk, but these are all the things that most Canadians argue, and so that'll be my closing. Thank you for joining this debate.
why I am ignorant to this debate

Firstly, Your argument that Donald Trump is a "fascist" is preposterous. I am assuming you're playing devil's advocate by saying this and truly don't believe that. Nonetheless, If you do, Please state your claims that reason Donald Trump to be a "fascist. " Secondly, I see that on your account it says you are 15 years old. I can infer that you're not even mentally able to understand politics as the majority of teenagers don't, The exact reason not until eighteen you can't vote. So with that being said, I am fully prepared for ignorant claims to be made by you.
Greece should exit the Euro

"First I think its important that we define the resolution: Greece - a republic in SE Europe, occupying the S part of the Balkan Peninsula and many islands in the Ionian and Aegean Seas.[1] Should -must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): [2] Exit - to go out; leave.[3] Euro - in reference to the EU[4] I would also like to clarify: The country of Greece is not leaving Europe, that is both physically and realistically improbable. Here are my following contentions: 1) Moral Obligation: Now its important to realize that 'Should' refers to a moral obligation or duty, thus we are evaluating whether or not they have a moral obligation to withdraw from the EU. So as a criterion to evaluate their obligation I will use Kants Theory of Good will: "We begin with the concept of that which can be conceived to be good without qualification, a good will. Other good features of human nature and the benefits of a good life, Kant pointed out, have value only under appropriate conditions, since they may be used either for good or for evil. But a good will is intrinsically good; its value is wholly self-contained and utterly independent of its external relations. Since our practical reason is better suited to the development and guidance of a good will than to the achievement of happiness, it follows that the value of a good will does not depend even on the results it manages to produce as the consequences of human action. Kant's moral theory is, therefore, deontological: actions are morally right in virtue of their motives, which must derive more from duty than from inclination. The clearest examples of morally right action are precisely those in which an individual agent's determination to act in accordance with duty overcomes her evident self-interest and obvious desire to do otherwise. But in such a case, Kant argues, the moral value of the action can only reside in a formal principle or "maxim," the general commitment to act in this way because it is one's duty. So he concludes that "Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law.""[5] Ultimately what we have to look at is the impact of them Greece leaving the EU on everyone else in the EU, Because the Euro's value is determined based off of the collective properties of all participating nations we see that all other nations are collectively harmed by Greeces continued Participation. Thus because we are morally obligated to act in favor of good will, they are thus morally obligated to withdraw to benefit the rest of the EU. So in essence they should Exit the EU. Response to Disadvantage 1) You provide no reason that this is a disadvantage, people will still trade and commerce benefits capitalist societies when they attempt to recover. Response to Disadvantage 2) This again doesn't seem to even tie into any moral obligation thus it falls. Response to Counter Plan) This again would mean that Greece is acting in self interest and this violates their moral obligation to act in the interests of the EU." Nevermind! Skip this debate.
Greece should exit the Euro

Hello everyone, today, I'm going to supporting the Negative case on this debate. So it comes to my attention that right now, Greece wants to leave Europe. I think not. Disadvantage 1 The food that Greece makes is not enough for Greece because 90% of all the food they have is imported out to other countries. Leaving just makes it worse. Disadvantage 2 Greece is known for its corrupt society and they cannot go away from the Eurozone because of how much debt they owe and the way they can survive. Counterplan My counterplan is for Greece to stay in the Eurozone because with all the other countries' support, they can repair their economy and help get Greece back into normal.