BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Dear Pro Thanks, and since you’re pro, USA it is. Roe v Wade was made on several different points. However, I believe you are making a bodily rights argument, that no one can live off another, and “I think there for I exist and have rights” arguments. Additionally you point out that it is the law, so it should be Legal. I will refute them in reverse as bodily right is the hardest. 1)Your argument (if I am reading you right), is that it was made legal so it should be legal. Slavery was legal, so is should be legal? What if it was illegal, so it should be legal? I may have gotten the claim your making, please clarify. 2)‘if it thinks it has right’. Does that mean that you agree that at the 18 month and before you would say yes but after no, as a brain starts to develop? (assuming your down with euthanasia or right to dignified death) 3)Bodily rights. . . As for bodily rights argument, which I fully understand, how do you know that is a legitimate argument? It is an argument, but can you show its valid? My point will be thus, unless you can define life and define why we have rights, or what is human, and apply it so it’s true in all circumstances, how can you go around saying this form of life or stage of development does or does not have a right . Since you have not defined why your argument is legitimate, or how its true, its best not to perform an act without reason to do so. As such, abortion should be illegal until a valid argument shown to be true is formed. Nathan. . .
Abortion

I am a newbie at this so bear with me. I accept this debate and look forward to an interesting challenge. Even though we both live in Canada I will be referencing case law from the US. Obviously the main one being Roe V Wade. The main issue at hand here is not abortion itself but the definition of what it means to be a person in the eyes of the law. This issue is what determines whether abortions should be legal or not. I am not debating this on moral or religious grounds but base purely on science and law. What gives something or someone a right? They must have an interest in the outcome of what happens to them. For this to be possible they must be sentient(must be conscious of sense impressions). A fetus does not gain sentience until somewhere between the second and third trimester. so if here is not sentience then it doesn't have an interest and therefore does not have a right. Due to this then a woman will have a right then to abort the fetus on the grounds that the fetus has no right to use her body so she can abort up until the point of sentience. Also in Griswold v Connecticut "that people enjoyed a constitutional right to private decision-making in certain personal matters that no legislation could rescind" based on the Fourteenth Amendment, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Since the fetus is not considered a person based on science and law then this also applies to this case and therefore again the rights of the woman prevail over an entity that has no rights
abortion

Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life 2. No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different. 3. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. 4. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. 5. In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished. 6. Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception. 7. For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence. 8. Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion. 9. Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards. 10. Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress. You made some good points that a fetus is not truly a person I would disagree though. Although it is not fully grown it is a spark of life a life in the making. To destroy the fetuses opportunity to live is murder. As you were saying about how we kill animals all the time the only reason we do this is because that is the natural order. Humans are on the top of the food chain. We kill animals below us for food ( in less it is in the case of hunting for game which I am against), we eat animals to survive. But to kill one of our own species is not the natural order. Killing a fetus which is a life of our own species is morally wrong. information found on about.com
kids looking up porn should be illegal

You keep on saying that christans say that sex is bad. That is not true because God created sex formarriaged cuples.I think that if you read this webpage tha it will help you understand http://www.jesusisthelight.net...Kids on porn is horrible because they will think sex in public is goo which is not. Sex in public is bad because it will hurt your relationship and you will get introuble witt he police. http://youtu.be...
kids looking up porn should be illegal

By the way I said i am black because you where being races and saying africans have the bible and we have condoms. And I do not want to start a new argument, I want talk about this which you are get off task. First I assume that you did not read my full round 3 post, so I will say it again When kids learn on their own like from porno it teaches them in the wrong way. When my mom told my about sex, she did not touch me. She told sex is okay but she told me the bad thing that can happen like Aids or Std, she told me TO USE A CONDOM. That is the right way to teach kids not by making them watch random people have sex. Also yo are wrong when you say that all religions teach sex is bad. I am a christian and god say to have sex but with your wife or husband. There are better ways to teach kids about sex Like simply talking to a parent and/or a teacher or some that the kids trusts If we ban porn it will not make kids think sex is bad. It will make kids think that have sex in public is bad.
kids looking up porn should be illegal

Yes I am 14. If kids are watching porn, they think that it not bad to have sex with a video camera recording them. Also they is better way to learn about sex, in 6th grade my science teacher educated us about sex. Sex is not bad, but is horrible when you do it in public and not private. also when you said If they can have access to pornography, they will talk about sex, which will protect them from STD, knowing that sex is NOT bad, develops children in a healthy way. In porno they do not talk about sex, all they do is have sex. Porno does not teach kids the right way about sex. Also porn mostly have hardcore porno which teaches kids noting about sex. also when you said I don't think we should go that far, mainly because children can feel raped by their own parents, but I think we should let them to find what is sex on their own. When kids learn on their own like from porno it teaches them in the wrong way. When my mom told my about sex, she did not touch me. She told sex is okay but she told me the bad thing that can happen like Aids or Std, she told me TO USE A CONDOM. That is the right way to teach kids not by making them watch random people have sex. Also yo are wrong when you say that all religions teach sex is bad. I am a christian and god say to have sex but with your wife or husband. CAN YOU PLEASE STOP BEING RACES WHEN YOU SAID because I'm black African people have the bible, we have condoms, we all now what works better to prevent STD. That is not true everyone uses condom and I ASSUME you mean whit when you said WE HAVE CONDOMS, YOU MEAN WHITE!
kids looking up porn should be illegal

http://www.youtube.com...Are you really 14? I'm asking because I can't see your face, and this debate looks like a bad joke, like a man how masturbate himself for a first time and suddenly start feeling like if God is going to take revenge on him for it, this is too funny to be true (You don't have to answer this question, I though it will amuse the audience). Let's simplify the debate and focus on children which didn't rich the sexual maturity or they just reach the sexual maturity so they are capable of reproduction. (you can challenge me to another debate about performers, producers) I don't think watching pornography is a violation of anything, because customers watch porn on using they own free well. I hope you didn't really though that I was really suggesting the people can spend their own time in a better way than watching porn, because it was a joke. We live in free countries and every one is free to waste their own free time as they like. In this debate the word bad means pernicious, you odd to explain from which point of view it is bad. I'm here to argue that not letting children access to pornography is bad for the following reasons: It transmit the delusion that sex is bad, and shameful. If children think sex is shameful, they are less likely to report sex abuses to themselves. If they think sex is bad, it is likely they will destroy future sexual life as adults. If they can have access to pornography, they will talk about sex, which will protect them from STD, knowing that sex is NOT bad, develops children in a healthy way. They become more vulnerable to religion, all religions teach sex is bad, you can't enjoy life, and as you are going to have sex anyway because you are a human, they tell you that you are a miserable. African people have the bible, we have condoms, we all now what works better to prevent STD. If I remember well 6 years ago I read the kamasutra wrote by Vātsyāyana (4 centurty BC), he goes a bit further and recommends to teach your own children who to have sex for the sake of the children. Bonobos (our closet specie) do that, parents teach how to have sex to their children (without touching them) I don't think we should go that far, mainly because children can feel raped by their own parents, but I think we should let them to find what is sex on their own. I imagine that you didn't like when you said you are a christian, so I imagine you are wondering what atheist do during the weekends, so I will left here a youtube video from Atheist Ireland about why religion made sex a sin (in spite God create sex in the first place). http://www.youtube.com... Dear audience, for the physical and mental health of our children and the whole humanity I beg you to oppose this ludicrous motion.
kids looking up porn should be illegal

1. I believe that porno is bad because it is a violation of privacy. 2. I think that it is bad for performers because it can cause STD and AIDS. 3. And yes it is bad because for the people who watch can be doing other stuff like work and yes real sex 4. The thing that I am trying to say is that it is bad for kids watching it because they are too early for think about having sex 5. Also it makes them think that having privacy while having sex is not important 6. When I mean kids i mean like 13 and less
kids looking up porn should be illegal

Dear... whoever you are. First of all, explain what you believe, and then we will debate. I understand that you believe that porn is bad, please can you specified, porn is wrong for who? For the consumers? For the producers? For the female performers,? For the male performers?. And how bad is for them? Is bad because it take some times they could spend doing other stuff, like extra hours of work or having real sex? I assume that you mean is bad for the consumers, so we can forget about anyone else. Can you explain why is it bad for them, does it produce lung cancer?
Legodude123 doesn't have super powers.

My opponent gives example of how Batman is a human yet he still has powers. Unless Con can prove that he too is Batman, this arguments doesn't support his position. Con must prove that he has stealth, super intelligence, and quick reaction. My arguments: There has never been a realistic example of a person who has stealth, super intelligence, and quick reactions. There have been examples of ninjas and samurai training for years upon years to master these three things but this is still human.
Legodude123 doesn't have super powers.

How would you know of course I do not understand like I already stated it in my other debates. It is possible for human life forms to have powers. You cant claim people have no powers when you don't define it correctly. Examples Batman is a human Powers: Stealth Super intelligence Quick reactions. This basically shows humans can have powers your also not giving any burden of the proof and you must provide info to get me to persuade me.
Samsung is better than Apple

I think that Apple is better because the phones that they have don't over heat. You also have a longer lasting battery than you do with samsung. Apple were the first to have the original idea of a touch screen phone, and called it the iPhone. After copyrighting it, they were soon to be copied by Samsung. If I was head of Apple, I'd sue Samsung. Also, Apple's technology is sleeker and more efficient than that of Samsung. The Macbook Air is trendy and smart, and Samsung can't compete with that! Apple is better as Samsung has been copying it all the time. You can clearly see how Samsung has completely based it's products on Apple's iPhone, iPad, and even iPod. Apple products don't glitch and they work much faster than Samsung's Products. Has anyone noticed how Samsung even copied Siri after the iPhone 4S was announced? Apple has a much better screen and build and a better looking phone. Samsung is just too wide. They should just stop trying. Go back to making fridges and T.V.S! Apple has way more apps and on samsung tablets, they just make the phone apple bigger! Besides, apple has an easier-to-use interface. Samsung is just confusing. This is why i think that apple is better.
Samsung is better than Apple

Samsung is obviously much better than Apple. It has better widgets (Apple copied Samsung on the widgets, and they are extremely limited), multitasking benefits, and lots of other customisable things. It's design is also better since it's screen is raised. Lots of people prefer Apple because it is not South Korean. To which I say rubbish. (my friend said this out loud to another one of my friends, who is South Korean.) Wake up. Do not make decisions based on race, base it on common sense and quality. The recent iPhone 7 is criticized be to think because it is virtually the same as iPhone 6 but with a few tweaks.
Should Taiwan Declare Independence

Alright so I'm going to start out this debate by first saying that I'm new to debate.org, but I have participated in competitive debate before. As for the ground rules of this debate, no ad hominem fallacies. In support of your arguments, please use evidence and/or valid logical claims to support your position. Please no logical fallacies! I really want this debate to be as educational and beneficial as possible. With that said, I'll go ahead and present my arguments on why Taiwan (Republic of China) should not declare independence from China (People's Republic of China). In reality China has neither grip nor influence on Taiwan. When dealing with Taiwan's status, it is imperative to distinguish independence in word and independence in deed. In all respects but name, Taiwan is an independent country: it has its own government, economy, military, and constitution. But in word it is not independent merely because no country recognizes it as such. Since Taiwan acts as an independent country in the status quo, what benefit would be gained from declaring independence. This would be nothing but a symbolic move, one that has no benefit but would upset the delicate status quo by unnecessarily provoking China. A declaration of independence would not change how Taiwan operates; it would merely endanger Taiwan by incurring a threat from China. Declaring independence simply is not a sensical policy nor is it a policy that has any real-world benefit for Taiwan.
Should Taiwan Declare Independence

I would agree, China certainly doesn't have an ideal track record concerning human rights. And I actually agree with most of what you said, except for the first sentence. First, there was no evidence to support the claim that China has even the least bit of control over Taiwan. Secondly, I know from personal experience since I am half Taiwanese and have been to Taiwan several times (more importantly a quick google search for a credible news source, not including Wikipedia or Quora, will verify this) that China has zero control over China in deed. Taiwan OPERATES completely independently already in the status quo, so as mentioned earlier there would be no benefit to declaring independence from China.
Should Taiwan Declare Independence

As you stated already, China has nearly no influence on Taiwan, but they control them. I am sure that the us and many other countries would help Taiwan if china were to start a war. at this point China is nearly a military dictatorship. although People in Taiwan are unlikely to see this if anyone can see this in Taiwan it is a good idea to declare independence. china stops freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, the right to peacefully protest and many other rights that they deserve. China used to be a country under control of the soviet union and as they were used to this being acceptable behavior in politics but that still gives them many reasons to declare independance
The Holohoax was a great idea

I obviously DO know who you are. A cocky idiot who doesn't believe in facts. I know all about the holocaust. Hitler wasn't bribed. He hired others to kill Jews. My ancestor, Zydia Lebetkin was one of the main leaders in the holocaust. I should know all about that because she was my grandmother's cousin and my Bubbie told me ALL about her, and ALL about how she was in the holocaust. Plus why is it acceptable for you to be an idiot but not for me to point it out? Get your head out of the clouds
The Holohoax was a great idea

Well I DO want to EXTEND my lengthy member into your arsehole, retard. "Obviously I have no experience in debate?" Hahaha, you clearly have no clue WHO I am, do you child? If it weren't for Masterdrave you wouldn't even be on this weak pretext for a website, "arguing" about a subject on which you know less than cunt. How do you know the Holohoax didn't happen? Because a couple of books and some on-the-dole teachers told you so? Hitler was BRIBED. Just use your tiny caveman head and think, cunt.
The Holohoax was a great idea

That's not the debate we're doing. Obviously you have no experience in debate. second, I'm 13. you're 68. my movie preferences fit. yours don't. The holocaust DID happen and the outcomes were terrible. You didn't respond to the other points I made and I'm simply saying the jews did nothing wrong. If you don't know how to debate, may I suggest you learn? As much as I would like to show you REAL debate, You gave me nothing to respond to so I don't want to extend my argument.
The Holohoax was a great idea

Okay, THIS IS NOT A TROLL. When will you dumb virgins realise I'm doing this FOR YOUR benefit. And yes, what you said was harsh. What have my movie preferences got to do with anything? You moronic sapien. So, seeing as though you blatantly attacked me like a small-minded bully, allow me to retort. Let's have a perusal here, mmm, what are your movie preferences, bitch cunt? "Alexander and the terrible horrible no good very bad day." Well, I believe I've cracked this one. Good night folks!
The Holohoax was a great idea

First off I just want to say this is probably a troll profile. And even if it wasn't, it's sad that a 68 year old man [I'm guessing] who went to Harvard but his favorite movie is Human Centipede and he doesn't believe in the holocaust has nothing better to do with his life but debate online with a 13 year old. Does that sound harsh? Sorry. I was just stating the obvious. Anyway: You gave me no room. all I have to say for now: jews are humans. Would you like to get killed? no. this is a troll.
The Holohoax was a great idea

We all know the Holocaust was a lie. Fake. Fabricated. Some lost parable off an old German spy's tongue one evening. It DID NOT HAPPEN. But the real question is, SHOULD it have? Of course! The Holohoax is an amazing idea. Fascinating, truly. I mean, by god, give whoever it was a medal. Hitler was a mere pawn on the board that was the Axis Power. The real mastermind behind this ingenious thought must be congratulated though. If only it really happened. May any Jew coward prove me wrong!
Freedom of speech should be practiced in all instances without exception

According to it's definition, as we've already covered, freedom of speech dictates that I reserve the right to express myself in speech.Thus, I have the right to change the resolution of this debate on this website, (but not without repercussions which follow) unless it states otherwise. Either way, this is to show you how the right to free speech is practiced beyond the simple realm of theory.However, it would be insane and unfair to change the title of this debate at this juncture as my voters would agree.Therefore, I would change the title of this debate to only something remarkably similar, to reduce the insanity created.However, even the slightest forms of insanity should be invariably met with (a penalty) a point of conduct being awarded to con.Owing to my high moral standards and respect for my adversary due to my religion, I will not make new arguments in this round to make this fair. (Chu-Chink.)(In my defense, I created the resolution in a drunken stupor which should be penalized regardless, with a point)The new resolution of this debate is: "Hate speech should be a part of free speech."Also, it is imporant to notice that you haven't made any points to counter this, thus I am the hitherto default winner.I do not break any rules of this website by doing this since I am still arguing for my case, but due to time constraints, haven't been able to do so in this round. [1][2][3]However, I must say, you've made absolutely remarkable points in the last round. Shame, they don't count. [1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://www.debate.org...
Should gay people be left alone

My proof that people were born gay, is that I was born gay, my best friend, my uncle, my mom, and so many other people who will say so as well . I have been attracted to the same sex my while life. No one has influenced me, no one has forced me. I don't believe that George Washington was the first president, nor that Slavery was a thing. And you are right that I don't have proof that our history books are all true, but we do have documents and papers to prove some of it. I'm not sure how you believe in something that you have so little proof on. I thank you for your time to debate this topic with me. I enjoyed it!