BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

I believe that life begins at conception. I do not understand how a single day defines when a child should be able to live or not. So the day before a child enters the second trimester, it is okay to kill him or her. But the first day of the second trimester, it is okay? That just does not make sense to me. It is a human life. Now I ask you, when do you believe life begins? Also, on your argument on quality of life for the child... why is that our decision to decide whether or not that child lives? No one should have the decision to decide whether or not someone dies. No doctor, no woman, no government. That child has right too. I understand woman's rights, but the place where you and i disagree is that it is no longer a woman's choice when another life's rights begin. That's just not fair that someone gets to decide whether a child gets to live or not.
Abortion

Again, my position on "pro-choice" is that it is not for me, nor a body of government, or a religious group to decide what a woman can or cannot do with her body or what goes on inside of it. It is the choice of the woman, and the woman alone. I also cannot do anything more than speculate on why a woman might say that they had no other choice than abortion, as I am not pregnant, nor a woman. Perhaps some women feel this way because they feel that even if the child is born, there is no chance that that child will live to have a good life; perhaps some women feel this way because their lives would be put in grave danger if they were to continue with their pregnancy; perhaps some women feel this way because their child would be born with a defect that would result in infant mortality. Whatever the reason may be for a woman to feel like there is no other choice, I still don't feel that anyone else should be able to make that choice for them. To clarify my earlier question, I was asking at what point do you consider it a human being? Is it a human being the exact moment of conception, when the sperm meets the egg? Or is it human being when it starts to develop human features? Or is it a human being the moment there is a heartbeat? In other words, at what point along the growth of a fetus, from conception to birth, would you consider it to be a human being?
Abortion

I believe that the killing of a child inside the womb is abortion during and stage of a pregnancy. I cannot understand your reasoning behind a baby being viable or not. As I said, heart is beating at 3 and 1/2 weeks. Science proves that this is in fact a separate entity from his or her mother. ALL abortion is horrific. I am not for any trimester- I believe that abortion is just as terrible in the first trimester than the third. And you still did not answer my question on how you justify that most women feel that they had no other choice than to abort their child.. can this be because organizations like Planned Parenthood are not giving these women all the choices possible? Maybe these organizations are persuading women a certain direction? Certainly.. it happens every day. Planned Parenthood employees have a script to avoid any kind of question a woman may have and to ensure that those women come in to receive an abortion. You discuss first trimester abortion, yet your stance on the pro choice is that a woman should be able to decide at any stage when she can abort her child. I ask you when you consider this "fetus" and child? When should the line be drawn? Can we kill children even outside the womb? I mean honestly, what you essentially are saying is that there is no difference between killing a baby in the womb or killing a baby outside the womb... I really do not understand this whole viable vs. unviable, baby vs. fetus argument. Does a single difference in a day decide when a life is a life?
more guns means more overall homicide

"Concealed carry laws do not make guns less bad as guns are not bad to begin with. Concealed carry laws only make guns better."the evidence i cite says more guns, more homicides. that means those laws at best can make the bad presence of guns not so bad. guns are causative, so they are not good to begin with. "Concealed carry laws only insure that it is only the good citizens who get access to the guns."the laws might deter criminals, but it doesn't ensure only good people get guns. "Even if they were not able to obtain a gun illegally if they wanted to kill someone they likely would do so anyway just with a different method"the evidence i cited shows that overall homicides go up with more guns. that means people aren't just killing with different weopons otherwise the rates would be the same.
more guns means more overall homicide

https://www.gunowners.org... Concealed carry laws do not make guns less bad as guns are not bad to begin with. Concealed carry laws only make guns better. It can be agreed that the majority of citizens are good law abiding people who do not wish to cause harm to others. Concealed carry laws only insure that it is only the good citizens who get access to the guns. However as the number of law abiding citizens surpasses that of the criminals allowing free access would still be a good course of action. Criminals are less likely to attack if they knew everyone was armed and when they do decide to attack the gun of the citizens can be used in defense. This means that more guns equals both lower crime attempts and a lower amount of crimes being successfully carried out. While a gun may make it easier to commit a homicide a homicide will not occur without the people wanting to commit a homicide. Most people you meet would not want to commit a homicide sometimes even in face of danger. This means that while it would be easier for people to commit homicide the rates should not increase People who do wish to kill are firstly less likely to worry about consequences for breaking gun control law than murder and will not have a problem obtaining guns illegally Even if they were not able to obtain a gun illegally if they wanted to kill someone they likely would do so anyway just with a different method In spur of the moment decisions where one will commit homicide it is likely that even without a gun it will be committed using another method. This would mean that removing guns should not decrease homicides.
more guns means more overall homicide

the debate is about more guns means more homicides or not. not about what concealed carry laws do or dont do. they might just make more guns less bad, but the bottom line is more guns means more bad, more murder. concealed carry might make so many guns less bad, i dont know. i do know ninety percent of gun researchers think more gun control is better than none when it comes to homicides. i dont know the magic gun control if we have lot of guns. but the point isnt about this or that gun control, it's about more guns mean more homicides or not.
more guns means more overall homicide

http://www.washingtontimes.com... After passing concealed carry law, Florida"s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below. In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages. http://www.theblaze.com... http://crimeresearch.org... http://www.theacru.org... I would also like to point out that some of your sources use data obtained based off of fire arm related crimes rather than crimes a a whole while crimes committed with a firearm may decrease because there are decreased firearms available the crimes and suicides could still being committed just without a gun and this debate was to argue whether or not more guns means more overall homicide not just firearm homicide
We should go to war with isis

Why should we go to war with Isis, Watch the news. They kill people, and for fun they cut off people"s heads. I mean for real, they even threatened to takeover Rome Georgia. Why do we just sit back and watch them kill our US citizens, come on people we have to do something about this. Every day people live in fear in the Middle East because of Isis, we should step in. Declaring war against them is the best solution so let"s do it makes no sense not to. I have said enough to get my point across how are you going to argue against this.
We should go to war with isis

Let me say this. I want to see America fight for a change. I am tired of my country getting bullied around. If we stop this damn isis then America could stop worrying about terroristic threat. I am say that we should send troops into isis and end this quickly, I say a year tops. And for those young kids in the army, they knew what they were getting into if they did not want to go to war they would not have joined the army. If we just tried to eliminate this isis threat I say we would destroy them quickly.
We should go to war with isis

The U.S. should not step in where it is not wanted. I watch the news, it is the worst of atrocities that is only paralleled to the rape of nanking, and now we should have nothing to do with it. declaring war would entail putting boots on the ground, putting our young soldiers at risk. Isis is not a country with professionals and strict uniforms, they are a guerrilla force that does no take prisoners. They are not motivated by nationalism, they are motivated by their religion where they honestly believe that they will go to heaven if they die, and will fight to the death much like the Japanese during the second world war. When soldiers of a country that is perpetrating atrocities, the populous of soldiers as a whole has a decreased morale and are at much higher affinity for desertion. The members of Isis do not believe that what they are doing is wrong, and we cannot win a war without surrender or truce, and there is no possibility of eliminating every extremist in the middle east. And we tried to step in in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Korea and Vietnam. The United States left those countries in an even worse condition than when they tried to intervene, and not to mention the death of countless soldiers. I believe in putting the lives of American soldiers first before that of other citizens. I plan on joining the Navy. I am no a liberal by any means, but if we have learned anything from recent history, it is a bad Idea to try and fight an enemy in a civilian population where it is uncertain who to kill. I would be ready and willing to take the life of any enemy of the United States, but not if there is a remote chance of them being a civilian. We would kill more than we would save. Why not let Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Iraq handle the situation that is happening in their back yard.
National Success

Debate: What causes countries to be successful? 8000 char limit on rounds 2-4. Citations don't have to count towards the word limit. Its cool with me if citations are listed on a separate page. First round is for intro and clarifications. In the last round, no new arguments or evidence may be used. It is simply a recap of the debate. Limited to 4000 characters. TAA has expressed that he might have to miss a round due to his schedule. Don't vote him down for it. I will remind you all during the debate if he does so. This may turn into an evidence intensive debate. To stop debaters from spamming each-other with links rather than arguments, debaters must actually say everything needed to support their argument, THEN give the citation. For example, "Cuba sucks [1]" ought to be ignored, whereas "Cubans exported over 9000 cigars last year [2]" is valid. I hope these measures prove a courtesy to readers. === Framework === Pro/con doesn't really have any meaning. Its just who has the best analysis. I'll be Pro. This debate will explore the causes of success in nations. Success is meant to indicate quality of life, economic health, etc of the nation. I'll leave it open to debaters to further clarify this term if necessary. [1] http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com... [2] http://www.truthdig.com...
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

It is not hard logic to understand why my analogies work. They involve people receiving things being forced to give the same thing away. It is a flawed moral system and is far too extreme to be a legally enforced policy. You say that if we required more people to be donor, more people would 'sign up'. This is actually false because if being a donor was mandatory, no one would sign up at all, they'd only 'sign off' if they had good reason to. You say that there being more organs for people is a good thing. This debate is not even about that, it's about violating someone's right to survive by profiting off of the people consenting to have their organs taken then being forced, tot give their own organs away at death without their consent. It is not fair at all and, as I earlier stated, it allows genetically weak people prone to organ failures to reproduce which is overall worse for the people of a nation. This would only double up that amount of people and make a larger proportion of people genetically defective over a period of time. You ask why someone isn't a donor should get dibs, the answer is simple. When someone agrees to be a donor, there is nowhere in the contract that states that the recipient must themselves be a donor. They sign their consent off knowing full well that his is the case. We are not in a system where we donate organs, we are in an economy where some people opt to donate organs. That is all. If you are contributing to the economy somehow, whether now or in the future, you have fulfilled your role in the system.
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

con continues with bad analogies and a hard to follow logic of genetically defective people. if we required people be donors, more people would sign up, and there'd be more organs for people. this would be overall better for that reason. plus it again is just fairer. i dont mean to make it sound like tit for tat or an eye for an eye... but when it comes down to who should get dibs, why should someone who wasn't a donor get dibs? someone who is a donor is suppose to die? how is that at all fair? cause it is free rider within the meaning of the situation. sure they pay taxes, but it doesn't have anything to do with organ donating. in a system where we donate organs, they aren't contributing at all. that is free rider.
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

No one is wanting anything free here. This is a member of society who gives to the society either be being educated for a job in the future or currently by filling their role in their profession. They give back to society by working within it.Aside from this, the person undergoing the transplant pays for it in USA and only gets it free if they are a resident or a taxpayer in nations where health care is subsidized. So there is absolutely no 'free' pass for the recipient.As for the donor, they are willing to give up their organ to allow a genetically defective individual who clearly is prone to heart disease or liver failure or whatever they got (even how prone one is to succumb to alcohol or cigarette addiction is considered genetic). So in actual fact they are cursing a nation by not allowing this genetically defective person to die who may live on to have children and overall reduce the genetic efficiency of the nation. They do it purely selfishly to feel 'morally superior' or more guilt free and usually are people who are psychologically prone to irrational angst and regret. They probably donate blood too just to feel better about themselves.Aside from that issue, is the problem with your basis of morality.If you only allow people who give to charity to receive from it, you'd be cursing all the poor people who probably would never be willing to give to charity. According to you, we should force all recipients of charity to sign a document of consent saying that when they die a certain percentage of their income must go to the government to give to charities as they please.This is completely unfair because that small percentage will completely ruin what little money they had left to give to their relatives and/or friends via their will.
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

all i got from con were a bunch of bad analogies and one word assertions at the end. for example, virginity is something that is designed to be lost. it has nothing to do with a reciprocal nature. if a person doesnt want to be a donor, why should they get organs when they need em? the better analogy is a free loader analogy. wanting something free without putting up anything in return. almost like a business transaaction. which also negates your idea of selling something without being a seller.
only organ donors should be allowed organ transplants

According to this reasoning, only non-virgins should be allowed to have sex (hence eventually no one would and our species would die out).Not only that, but only people who sell ice cream should be entitled to purchase ice cream.In actual fact only artists should be entitled to visit a gallery and only musicians should be able to hear the latest hits.This is an entirely impractical and unfeasible principle for a society to be based on and thus is negated on grounds of impossibility.
Rehabilitation should be valued over retribution in the criminal justice system.

First what is justice?Justice: http://oxforddictionaries.com... [mass noun] just behaviour or treatment:a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people the quality of being fair and reasonable:the justice of his case the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this:a tragic miscarriage of justice judge or magistrate, in particular a judge of the Supreme Court of a country or state. Really it is clear that the focus of it is on treating the criminal as they deserve.Now here is the key difference between retribution and rehabilitation.What is retribution? It is punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act. http://oxforddictionaries.com...What is rehabilitation? It is to restore (someone) to health or normal life by training and therapy after imprisonment, addiction, or illness. http://oxforddictionaries.com...Clearly the first concern is the punishment's nature. The nature of punishment in most civilised societies is imprisonment with the only variable to consider being the time for which it should last and this is often determined in the case whereby two barristers must advocate either for or in defence of the guilt of the accused. Here they primarily debate over whether or not the crime was committed. Then if the defence lawyer begins to accept it was committed they then debate over the exact nature of the committed crime to try and get their client as low a sentence as possible. Nowhere here is rehabilitation the issue.Rehabilitation is something that a non-criminal should be worried about BEFORE they do a crime. If this person has not been rehabilitated and then does a crime, a crime is a crime and justice will be served. That is all.
Abortion

1. But you are not treating woman like everyone else, you continue to discriminate against the wishes of the woman over your own, insist that women who go against your wishes are murderers and give little but feelings as a reason to think so. 2. If your mission here is to make liberalism even more absurd then open a debate on that subject. Injecting it into a debate on abortion smells of a derail. Curiously Harry thinks only liberals are in favour of abortion rights. 3. Fair enough, though why try to force the constitution to perform in ways it was never intended, it may have been more productive to discuss abortion in less general terms. 4 & 5. As a comparison to discredit the EUs stance on abortion it did nothing. It came across as childish and puerile. 6. Is not an answer. You stated in your first post that all abortion should be banned and then moved the goalposts to 40 days. Avoiding my question of why you are now comfortable at 40 days. 7. A boil doesn't have a brain or a soul. Newsflash Harry neither doe's a fetus. In summing up, this debate has been unsatisfactory. Harry's blustering did little to enlighten me to his position, which I found evasive and lacking any depth. His continued use of emotive language speaks volumes but ultimately has nothing to say. If Harry told me that he had tapped out his replies, spelling mistakes and all, while taking a dump I could understand the haste with which he seems to have posted his rebuttals.
Abortion

1). What? How are you discriminating? By enforcng equal protection under law and saying tht women must be treated like everone else, and for this reason, like everyone else, they should not be allowed to commit a murder?2). I exaduraed because it made liberalism sound even more absurd. 3). Becase I live in the US and the constitution only protects citizens of te US. 4&5). It was a comparson to discredit what the EU says, showing that they are all asurd. 6). Why would I say it begins at conxceptin, if killing a single celled organism is murder we should stop washing our hands. 7). A boil doesn't have a brain and a soul.
Abortion

Your position as I understand it and my response in order: 1. You don't think its discrimination to discriminate against a woman who seeks abortion. Denying a woman the right to self determination in this matter because of how you feel is discrimination. 2. You use hyperbolic language to elicit an emotional response therefor you argue from an emotional standpoint. If you do not use language clearly then I must deduce your meaning. Also when you use 'murder for pleasure' to exaggerate' your point I wonder why it is you need to exaggerate. 3. You are only interested in the rights of American women. I find it interesting that you focus specifically upon the US. Why? 4. You insert a view on Israel that has no relevance. Please let me know the significance of Solomon's temple to the debate. 5. You brand the EU and perhaps also its people as examples of idiocy. You dismissed the whole of the EU and its stance on abortion with distain. Perhaps too liberal for your tastes. I like it. 6. You don't claim life begins at conception. On your third post you have finally made clear your position that life begins at 40 days. Which makes your first post of 'abortion ought to be banned' slightly confusing. If you want to set your position at the 40 day mark please specify why 40 days is your comfort zone and not say 50 days. 7. You don't consider the foetus to be part of the woman. At the 40 day mark the foetus is considered to be in the embryonic period and is less than an inch long and still you don't think it is part of the woman. Perhaps you spoke philosophically. A final point. I have a boil on my bum about an inch wide and I cut it off in a night of drunken surgery, did I just kill a part of myself, are you going to lock me up?
Abortion

I didn't write any of that from an emotional standpoint, I only said "murder for pleasure" to exaggerate it and draw attention to how ridiculous it is to say that it would be discrimination to not allow women to commit a abortion. Really, I couldn't care less what the EU says, the EU also said that the place where Solomon's temple was built doesn't belong to the Jews somehow, come on- it's on The Nation of Israel! This is just another example of EU idiocy, a fetus is not part of the woman, they are two separate beings and one does not have any right to kill the other. And as a side note, I never said that life begins at conception, that's absurd, life begins 40 days after conception. And one last thing, even if the fetus was part of the mother, it doesn't matter, if I tried to kill a part of myself, say an arm or leg, I'd get locked up.