BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A true member of the Democratic Party, at this time, cannot be anti-abortion

Here are the issues with this argument. 1) CON states that liberals can be prolife, but the term "liberal" has no standing within this debate and the source CON presented does not mention "liberals". 2) The source that CON provides makes no mention of Roe v. Wade, which was accepted as the "litmus test" for the meaning of anti-abortion, at least in regards to this debate. As discussed before, the term prolife alone is too general. Two individuals that agree that abortion should be legal but rare could say that they are prochoice or say that they are prolife. Since this source doesn't mention Roe v. Wade, it cannot be used to determine if anyone is anti-abortion concerning this debate. 3) This source pertains to, conceivably, registered Democrats. We've established, earlier, that this debate pertains to those with unwavering Democratic ideals; ie members that follow the Democrat platform ver batum. This source even admits that they do not, in-fact. On the opening page it states, "Strategies to revive the Democratic party", thereby admiring that while they believe in what can be considered the "core beliefs" that their beliefs, specifically in pro-life legislation, differs from the official party platform. Furthermore, they admit that "Democrats For Life" include differing views on abortion, including those that believe that abortion should be legal. They state that they "refuse to use a single issue as a 'litmus test' to exclude those who would otherwise seek common ground." [5] They also state that they "believe in the legal protection of unborn life and a comprehensive approach to reducing the number of abortions in America and around the world." [5] This certainly doesn't match the debates definition for anti-abortion or pro-life. Does it even match CON's definition for pro-life? FINAL WORDS The purpose of this debate was to outline the meaninglessness of a debate that maintains that one can be a Democrat and prolife. First, anyone can be a "Democrat", if all that is required is to be registered. As I stated earlier, a Democrat could be in opposition of every core value or platform measure adopted by the Democratic Party. You could, conceivably, have a Regan loving, gun toting, rebel flag wearing, Obamacare hating Democrat. Secondly, it's meaningless is multiplied by several magnitudes when you consider the generality of the term "prolife". If someone believes that abortion should be legal up until 39 weeks and 6 days, but illegal on the final day prior to full term, can that be considered prolife? If I believe that abortion should be the choice of the mother in cases of rape or incest, does that make me prochoice? If we are to have a meaningful debate, let's talk in absolutes. The Democratic party believes that abortion should be legal, that is a fact. If you do not agree with the party on this term, you are not a Democrat in regard to this belief. [5] http://democratsforlife.org...
A true member of the Democratic Party, at this time, cannot be anti-abortion

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy uses rhetoric in an attempt to make an unreasoned assertion. [4] My arguments, however, are very reasonable. Here's an example (from [4]): Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge." Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." The fallacy worked by ignoring the original claim and refuting the generalization that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Unlike this fallacy, my argument is quantifiable. It is not a generalization. A member that believes, verbatim, the platform of the Democratic Party cannot be in opposition to Roe v. Wade. CON's assertion would be true only if there wasn't an official Democratic Party platform available. Likewise, this example would not be a "no true Scotsman" fallacy if there was an official platform of Scotsman that stated clearly that sugar shall not be put on porridge. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
A true member of the Democratic Party, at this time, cannot be anti-abortion

Round 2: Presentation of arguments by Pro and Con Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Final rebuttal & closing statements. There shall be no new arguments presented in Round 4 by either PRO or CON. If this rule is violated, the arguments shall be ignored by the judges and the responsible party shall loose conduct points. The burden of proof falls on PRO, however, any arguments or rebuttal provided by CON shall have adequate evidence or sourcing or shall be ignored. DEFINITIONS: True: In accordance with, exact, without variation. Democratic Party: The official Democratic Party, a political party of the United States. "At this time": Pertaining to the time at which Round 1 began. "Anti-abortion": Opposing the decision in Roe v. Wade. Thanks CON and good luck!
England Should Not Remain A Monarchy

I hate rigid round structures. It would be way better if I could just do my arguments and rebuttals together, but I'll go ahead and conform to the rules. Here's a short constructive case: - C1) Symbolic Value The British Monarchy serves as an essential symbol for the country's political unity and rich history. Having played an integral role in running the country for almost a millennium, the monarchy provides the British government with a sense of continuity which is very important for public perception of its legitimacy. "As England's oldest secular institution, it is intertwined with the nation's identity and political culture. When functioning properly, the monarchy embodies the best of English society. If abolished or radically changed, the nation would lose an essential element that solidifies its political system" [1]. The monarchy's immense symbolic significance to Great Britain is more than enough reason to justify keeping it around. C2) Economic Benefit People are crazy about the members of the British royal family -- they are more or less the most popular celebrities in the world, and like all celebrities, they tend to bring about massive amounts of consumer spending. The British Tourism Agency has calculated that Monarchy-related tourism generates an average of $767 million for the British economy every year. Compare that to even the most liberal estimates of the monarchy's public costs, which come out to $307 million per annum. Basic math reveals that the monarchy is an enormous economic boon to the UK, creating an annual surplus of $460 million. - The UK should remain a monarchy in order to (1) retain an essential piece of its history, culture, and political identity, and (2) reap hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. The resolution is negated. - 1. http://ashbrook.org... 2. http://www.express.co.uk...
England Should Not Remain A Monarchy

No trolling. Monarchy: 1. form of government with a monarch at the headMonarch: 1 sovereign head of state, esp. a king, queen, or emperor. (New Oxford American Dictionary)Current reigning monarch of England: Elizabeth II Current Prime Minister of England: David Cameron This is NOT a general debate on English politics, we will primarily address the monarchy. Additional politicians/political positions may be used as part of an argument, but try not to deviate too much from the main topic.
There's more aggro up in Heaven* than at a pikey's wedding.

What my well-spoken opponent has failed to consider is the fact that God is obviously a communist, and not a capitalist. This is evidenced by the fact that there is only one Heaven for everyone, and not a selection of "Luxury," "Standard," or "Economy" Heavens for different classes of people. And since Heaven is obviously a communist enclave, and has existed for a very long time, we can safely conclude that by now any semblance of industry has failed and there are now no stores, shops, or venues of any kind. Thus, there is nothing to buy or steal in Heaven. Also, my opponent has overlooked the fact that barbarians are barbarians by circumstance: they live in harsh societies in harsh climates that require strength and ruthlessness to survive. But since everyone in Heaven is dead, such qualities will no longer be required. In fact, history has shown "barbarian" cultures to be quite civilized when they could afford to be. Scandinavia, for example, produced the world-shaking Vikings, but at home the Scandinavians valued hospitality and law above all else. And logically, since everyone will be "at home" in Heaven (as I don't believe you are allowed out of this particular gated community, even during the day), then the barbarians won't ever have an opportunity to go all "smashy-smashy" on us. Lastly, God has proven in previous encounters to prefer the maintenance order (See: Cherubs with flaming swords protecting the Tree of Life, The Expulsion of Renegade Angels, and The Great "Scrubbing" That Only Noah Survived). So while God may indeed forgive transgressors, it is highly likely that troublesome folks may find themselves confined to the Purgatorial Penalty Box if they get too rowdy. Sources close to the Son of God report that the Purgatorial Penalty Box is "not nearly as bad as Hell, but still you wouldn't really want to be there if you had the choice, I mean, they have chairs there but the chairs are really uncomfortable. .. " Thus, Heaven cannot be as violent as my opponent claims.
There's more aggro up in Heaven* than at a pikey's wedding.

Hmmm, on the face of it, my opponent's argument would seem to be quite logical. If you don't like the barbarians, just move to another equally perfect part of Heaven, after all, the place is big enough for everybody to avoid anybody they don't like. Now the trouble is with that is that the barbarians will not generally conform to modern moral ethics (remember God only let them into Heaven because they lived before the Bible was written and therefore didn't know any better). Furthermore, the Lord is all forgiving. This means you could walk out of a celestial shopping mall and be confronted by a mob of barbarians who will deprive you of your freshly-baked Manna from Heaven, just out of pure spite. They could nick your bread, then wait for you by Halo-Mart, Harps "R" Us and the afterlife ATM and rob time and again, just for a laugh, and it'd be no good complaining to Jesus, because he would just turn round to the leader of the barbarian and say: "I forgive you my child" and let him off! Therefore, it will be necessary to take matters into our own hands and organise the modern human souls into groups of vigilantes to protect the righteous from ecumenical outlaws like the barbarians. Now, the barbarian thugs will be armed with stone clubs so it will be important to get tooled-up ourselves. I don't suppose there will be any gun shops in Heaven so we will have put the window of a liturgical liquor store through and make off with a few crates of communion wine. Once this has been drunk, we could smash the ends off the bottles and use them to glass those pre-Biblical b^stards. Now, when that all kicks off it'll make a pikey's wedding look like a Sunday school outing!
There's more aggro up in Heaven* than at a pikey's wedding.

What an excellent topic Brian! Very well, I will *prove* that Heaven is less violent than a non-Romany gypsy wedding. First, since Heaven is the only zip code for an ever-increasing population of "good" people, and has existing forever and will exist forever as my opponent has posited, then we must conclude that Heaven is of considerable size. Scientists have yet to prove whether Heaven is in fact flat or round, but regardless of its shape, it must have either a great deal of horizontal real estate (for people unfamiliar with big buildings) or a great deal of pre-fabricated vertical real estate (Holy Skyscrapers). Either way, there must be a ridiculous amount of square footage, or an ever-increasing square footage. This would easily allow people to spread out all over Heaven and get as far away from everyone that they don't like. Now, I would expect a lot of lazy people or new arrivals may be found camped out just inside the Pearly Gates. But after a century or two, it is reasonable to think people would get bored, or their friends and relatives would show up, and they would start to wander around and see the sights. After a lifetime of hardship, would you really want to bother putting up a fight with a Spartan or a Hun when you could just keep walking? After all, it's Heaven. All parts are equally perfect. If there is a smelly barbarian near you, you can just go somewhere else that's perfect. Not even the most bellicose barbarian would deliberately run all over Heaven in search of conflict. Why bother? His needs are met. He has Heavenly food and shelter and company. So while there may be some minor tussles in the suburbs of the Gates, it is unlikely that there would be significant human conflict throughout Paradise. Second, scientists to date have not successfully quantified the levels of violence present at the average non-Romany gypsy wedding. Tragically, all field researchers have been killed before reporting their findings. Thus we must estimate the levels of violence as "Very High Indeed," which would be significantly higher than Heaven's "Not So Bad on Most Days" rating.
There's more aggro up in Heaven* than at a pikey's wedding.

Okay, I realise that the words "aggro" and "pikey" are not universally understood in the English-speaking world so just to clarify, "aggro" means violence and a "pikey" is a non-Romany gypsy with a propensity to start fights. Now, please allow me to make a few observations: Heaven* has existed since the dawn of time. Heaven* will exist until the end of time. God* will not discriminate against babies, or pre-Christian era people, or people living in tree-houses in Borneo, or anybody else that never got a chance to "know Him" and will let them into Heaven* even though they weren't practicing Christians on Earth. Right, okay, now let's cut to the chase. Imagine, if you will, that I turned over a new leaf, gave up drinking, smoking and womanising and became instead a devout and pious Christian. Now when I died, I'd rightly expect to St. Peter* to be waiting at the Pearly Gates* with a welcome glass of Champagne, a selection of canapï¿½s, a Cuban cigar and a couple of topless angels* ready to show me to my quarters and give me a full massage (with "extras" thrown in, compliments of the house). Quite right too, given the sacrifices I made down on Earth and it all sound s very agreeable, doesn't it? But wait, all is not sweetness and light. No, because Heaven* has existed for all time, there will be a lot of deceased cavemen souls wondering about, dragging women around by the hair, clobbering people with stone clubs and generally behaving in an anti-social manner. They cannot be blamed for their distinctly un-Christian behaviour however, because they lived at a time before Christianity was invented. That said, deceased Christians would not tolerate such barbarism and would wade into the cavemen with fists flying – it would be like a pikey's wedding up there. Not only that, but, in times to come, the souls of more refined and sophisticated future-humans will arrive and regard our own generation's behaviour as barbaric and it would all kick off with them as well. Perhaps we'd have to settle our differences with the cavemen and form an alliance to defeat those snobby future-human souls, who knows, but one thing is for sure, there is going to be a hell of lot of aggro in the afterlife. * Supposing such an entity exists.
Procrastination is not generally benefical

I too would be interested in debating another topic. Here are my last rebuttals. Breathing Argument My opponent claims that the difference between eating carrots and procrastinating is "that eating carrots actually has a few benefits. " However, I showed that procrastination also has not only a few, but many benefits. Benefits specifically in the realm of breathing are breathing exercises that require one to hold one's breath as part of the process. There are many such breathing exercises, but the one I used in my argument is Pranayama Breathing. [15] Pro did not understand that Pranayama Breathing requires one to hold their breath but it does. Pranayama Breathing takes voluntary breath control; "The practice of voluntary breath control and refers to inhalation, retention and exhalation. "[15] Therefore his breathing argument is invalid. Types of Procrastination My opponent says that escapism is not a suiting definition for mindless escape but I'll let you, the audience be the judge of that. Escapism: The tendency to escape from daily reality or routine by indulging in daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment. [16] Furthermore, as far as percentages of the population, my opponent has given no grounds as to why the types of procrastination would be divided evenly as 1/6th throughout the population. Also, say that it was, I have proven how all six types of procrastination that my opponent brought up can be beneficial. Pro also claims that avoidance and rest are not similar in nature because one could avoide rest. But this logic is flawed because one could also avoid avoiding something and yet they are the same word. . Therefore his Types of Procrastination argument is invalid. The Prophet Shia LaBeouf I'm surprised that my opponent has still tried to prove this whole argument about getting of your bum and just doing it, when I made it perfectly clear in my first rebuttal that I totally agree with what Shia says and that it really has nothing to do with procrastination. In fact it actually helps my argument. I'll pull a quote from my previous rebuttal. "I agree with Shia; Just Do It! But before you just do it, make sure you procrastinate enough; avoid doing it enough to know what it is you want to do and the best way to do it. Again I say, chase your dreams! But before you do, wait long enough to find out if it's a dream worth chasing. Once you find that out, then just do it! " Therefore The Shia LaBeouf argument is invalid. Time Does not Exist Argument I still stand by my argument that if time does not exist and procrastination does not exist, then procrastination has no attributes; it can neither be beneficial nor non beneficial. And because my job is to prove the resolution, that procrastination is generally not beneficial, false and not to prove that procrastination is generally beneficial, his argument is invalid. All my arguments still stand. Thank you all for reading this debate. I had a great time and I'm sure my opponent did as well. Please vote con. Sources [15] . https://www.unm.edu... [16] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Procrastination is not generally benefical

This debate is for a friend. Good luck! You're the best!First round is acceptance only. Definitions:Procrastination - the avoidance of doing a task which needs to be accomplished.[1]Beneficial - favorable or advantageous; resulting in good.[2]Generally - in most cases; usually.[3]Sources:[1]https://www.google.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]https://www.google.com...
There should be a ban on television advertisements aimed at children.

You have stated that a child is some one who is between birth and puberty. I would like this to be a child is some one between the ages of 2 and 16 years of age. This is because whilst birth is a defined parameter, puberty is not and various in every person. Also a child under 2 will not process an advertisment in the same manner as an older child, the effects an advertisment will have, will be different. Further I assume advertisment in this context refers to one advertising a product aimed at children or a brand, and not an upcoming tv program for kids, or a movie.
gun owning

Unfortunately for vast majority of people, who obey all laws to the best of their abilities, bad people don't obey laws. Making gun ownership illegal would ensure that only bad people, law enforcement and military would have guns. The police can not be everywhere all the time so this would give clever criminals the ability to "out force" their victims by choosing wisely. Guns are the great equalizer of force. Without guns, the strongest men in society would naturally win any conflict that ended with the use of force. This would put women at a great disadvantage. Women who are naturally weaker than men would be easy targets for a criminal, even if the criminal wasn't using a "hypothetically illegal gun". But sadly, even if we made civilian gun ownership illegal, criminals would likely still possess and use guns for crime. The "War on drugs" has proved that we can't keep contraband from entering our country. So there is no reasonable expectation that we could eliminate guns all together. I respect your desire to protect your fellow citizens from violence, but unfortunately guns are forever a part of the equation. I would rather the "good guys" legally be able to bring the same equipment to defend themselves as the "bad guys" will surely employ to harm their victims.
gun owning

Guns may protect good people but they wont need guns if bad people don't have them because nobody was permission to have guns. Of course if they become illegal and only allowed to be owned my marines, army, navy, air force, and police. People can still get beat up and killed but at least it wont be gun involved. If you think about it guns do more damage than they do good. If nobody owns guns their will be less danger out in the world even though their will still be danger but again the danger will not be coming from guns.
The Death Penalty

Killing the person as a punishment makes us just as bad as them. Sometimes (4.1%) we get the WRONG GUY! So, let's assume we killed someone for murder charges. We found out they were innocent, and now we unjustifiably killed a person, an irreversible deed. That makes us, the taxpayers who fund this,the criminals by your own logic as we murdered an innocent person. Less harsh sentences are OK- we need them because it is seriously screwing people up. Capital punishment is in no way fair. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
The Death Penalty

alright here goes so you say that all the death penalty does is basically go and murder more people and just cause more and more death. Well I really hope that your view isn't that someone who did some sort of heinous crime should get to have the chance of life, you may also say that they can probably change. that's great if they change. but it will not change the fact that, that person still murdered someone's father, mother, son or daughter. whatever they did they screwed up someone's family and could cause a whole world of problems for the victims family. that can and will not ever be cleared up.
The Death Penalty

If murder is (usually) the crime, why should murder be the penalty? The fact is, your just killing more people. Besides, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... says more than 1000 people have been falsely accused and killed due to the death penalty (since 1976) You may bring up how the same thing applies to regular prison. To be fair, it does. Maybe there are even more. But there is a difference in killing a person and punishing them with jail. Now, couple no death penalty with less harsh sentences, and you"ve got something great. In 2013, 14000 murders took place but only 35 executions did. Some small chance of execution won"t matter to these people. Nothing has ever shown that it reduces crime.
Seperation Of Church and State

As i have commented on earlier threads government especially in the united states is supposedly written by the people for the people and therefore having church and state unified takes away this Right granted by the united states Constitution as the majority maybe Christian but what about the other religions who will suffer persecution as a result. look at england (my previous home land) where there is no separation. in secular school students are forced to pray in ways that contradict their ideals and beliefs and they cannot speak up to stop this (but that is digressing from the topic) i feel that in order to make a government based truly on the people it needs equal representation and no interference from Christianity or any other religion!