BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mercy is a weakness

I would love to debate this topic. The first round is for acceptance of debate and defintions. I wish luck to whoever accepts this debate, your going to need it. Mercy: compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender. [1] weakness: A personal defect or failing [2] [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Abortion should be illegal

Since this is the 3rd argument I don't want to assert a new one but I have never said that we do not like having sex I said that homosexuals have no affect on having or not having a child unless they go and adopt one or fertilize a woman to have a baby. I have not said that we should force anyone to have an abortion I said that it is a form some people use as birth control nothing else. The reason it is not murder is because if you were to take the baby out of the womb it would not be able to breathe or function in any way it has to form within the womb. The way fertilization starts is your brain starts to form first then your head around that it is everything but living. I certainly think abortion should be legal but definitely regulated like it is now doctors have said that a fetus can feel pain at week 16 and they start to move around 13-25 weeks I would call this a living organism but when a fetus has not even formed into what we would recognize as a human body yes I think you should be able to abort. So your argument about murder has no merit here. I was not going to mention rape because I assumed you would categorize this as affecting the mother but I do take offense on how you refer to rape as just something normal to THROW around. I have no problem with religious beliefs benefiting families I completely support that by the way. Now you may know in your school multiple girls that have had babies and been able to. http://www.pregnantteenhelp.org... This website completely made your argument invalid about how they can simply go back to school easily. On the site it sites studies saying 70 % of the teens that get pregnant drop out. I think they should be aloud to have an abortion so that hey can be a functioning member of society instead of a high school dropout that could of had a better life.
Abortion should be illegal

You can have as many children as you want yes but is that a good thing really? Overpopulation is a global issue not a continent issue not really sure why you compared America to Africa and Asia because Africa and Asia are continents with multiple countries. Masturbation is definitely fantasy sex and your point is? Homosexuals have sex and it feels good this has nothing to do with making a baby at all. When you refer to couples asking to adopt a child before it is born it is usually when they ask the woman to have a baby for them before she is pregnant not during her pregnancy. There is over 300 million people in this country the drop out rate is 7,000 people per day in high school so no not everyone should know to use a condom because they have not been to sex education. To say that just because you have the freedom to have as many kids as you want my argument is "illegitimate" then I turn it on you abortion is legal and woman can have as many as they want therefore your argument is "illegitimate".
Abortion should be illegal

Nice misspelling of throw. Anyways, masturbation is a form of fantasy sex. That means that they're doing it to pretend to have sex. And homosexuals are still technically having sex(gays at least. Not really lesbians) even if it is anal. It is still a close enough sensation ( I'm assuming) that it'll feel like intercourse. I'm saying that humans instinctively enjoy sex because we need to have sex to survive. If sex wasn't fun, then people wouldn't do it. It's as simple as that. So we find it fun so that we'll do it thus stopping our species from going extinct. And there are plenty of families that will ask to adopt your kid before they're born so no they won't have a horrible life. And at least they'd have a life. And the parents can go and check out the potential foster parent's home to see if it's ok(and do a background check). Also, if they are not financially able to take care of the baby, adoption, again, is also a choice. And if they're under 18 they should still know to use protection. Believe me, health class really emphasizes it in high school and middle school. And since when was overpopulation an issue in America? In places such as Asia and Africa it is an issue but not in America where we are debating it's legal status. And this leads me back to the point of using protection and just plain not having sex. And last time I checked, we have the freedom to have as many kids as we want in America. So you're arguments are illegitimate.
Abortion should be illegal

Really? "DON"T HAVE SEX." For you to say that sex is only fun because that way we'll make more babies would through out homosexuals and people that masturbate. Sex is not solely for reproduction i.e. homosexuals and masturbation. Now onto the adoption issue sending a child to adoption means it will have a horrible life maybe or maybe not get picked by another family now even if they are in a family is it a family that can support them with love, food, clothes, and continuous shelter? When someone has an abortion it is not because they have fun doing it, it is an experience that most women describe as traumatic and definitely not the ideal situation. Now there will be people that will abuse an abortion as birth control but they are not common with most women. When someone is below 18 and makes the mistake of not using a condom is that a situation where they just accept that they will not be able to go to college or they can ask there parents to raise it or my bad give it up for adoption where it is continuously getting defunded not being able to support as many children that are up for adoption. Also but not least what if they can't afford a child at the time and since welfare is being cut they would not be able to provide for the child? Last but not least there is definitely a population problem with a couple most people have 2 children which would mean the population would sustain but when some have 3 or more it grows. Couples need to have 1 child for the population to go down.
Abortion should be illegal

Abortion should be illegal. Why you might ask? Because it is murder! We have salamanders that are protected but we can't even protect a human fetus? As soon as an egg is fertilized, it is alive. Why? Because as soon as it is fertilized it starts to grow and develop. If you don't want a baby, then DON'T HAVE SEX. People might try to argue against this but sex is solely for reproduction. The reason why it's fun is because that way we'll make more babies. People should not be mindlessly murdering babies every time they get pregnant. If they don't want the kid, they can give it up for adoption. The only time I'd say it's ok to have an abortion is if it could hurt the well being of the mother.
bullying is good for kids

No, bullying victims are not exaggerating at all - at least most of them. Sometimes bullying is too cruel a thing to do. Indeed, I did agree that there are little advantages of bullying, but these do not make it good. As I mentioned before, there are way more disadvantages than advantages concerning bullying. Damage infliction (which can sometimes be permanent), control over others merely because of one's physical strength and psychological traumas are the main consequences of bullying, which I asked you to excuse. Bullying can be an ordeal to some, and it's inexcusable to say that if they are weak enough to cannot stand it, they should die. Being weak does not mean that you do not have other privileges, nor that you cannot overcome it. And being weak is not a reason for being a bullying victim. Bullying cannot be justified, no matter how much you struggle. It is a result of animal instincts and an obstacle to a civilisation. People who are not to blame suffer because of it and, for the sake of the progress of humanity, it has to be stopped. I expect you to understand that, since you claim to have been a victim. I was one too, although it was not on a large scale. But one thing is for sure; it was one of the most unpleasant experiences of mine and has hardly benefitted me at all, not quite as you mentioned. One could be courageous, brave or wise without having to be bullied. The development of better war conditions does not account as adequate supporting proof to your claim that the weak bullying victims should suicide, for war is too a problem to humanity.
bullying is good for kids

[side note] ive been bullied myself. Ha you just agreed bullying has its benefits.What im trying to say is bullys are only an obstacle and that bully victms are a exaggerating when they talk about their suffrage and kill themselvs in an attempt to look edgy, or something like that. yes bullying is unethical, so are humans seriously were the worse sometimes, we go out to war to kill other humans, we think were better than other humans, we spend so much on weapons to kill other humans more comfortably,also genocides n stuff. Not that we should revert back to animals there just isnt anything wrong with putting people down for being weak, most times they come back to be one of the most courages, brave, wise people or kill them selves which is good thing because its like a mini genocide of weak people imagine that, that would be luxurious then we could take over other humans territory's in war better.
bullying is good for kids

Your point of view is single-sided and definitely not objective. You are only examining the few advantages that the situation known as bullying offers, while the disadvantages are numerous. First of all, forcing one's control over others is completely immoral. There are ethical standards that govern a human society, in order to stabilise it. By his nature, a human, although he cannot survive individually, is an enemy of civilisation, for he desperately tries to yield in his personal wishes and temptations. Bullying is a result of that, as it is an effort of gathering attention or, as you said, violently enforcing control. It is a burden and a disturbance to humanity. Concerning your claim that bullying is good to kids because it exercises masculinity; exercise is the last thing you should take into account about bullying. Not only bullying hardly exercises either of the two sides, contrary to your statement, but it is only one of the various ways one can work out. Not to mention that most of the other ways promise more satisfying results and do not inflict damage on other individuals. And if you are to make a woman happy, you will have to consider more factors than masculinity. But, if you wish to continue promoting bullying - probably physical bullying, judging from your arguments - explain me first how is it proper to use violence against innocent victims, belittle them and control over them just because you have more physical strength and are idiotic enough to do so. And provide logical and objective arguments this time.
Ron Paul for president

You operate under the assumption that vetoing bills is a bad thing. I would be very happy if he vetoed tons of bills because government is getting way to large. He would veto the federal reserve bill, repeal Obamacare, repeal the patriot act, repeal Roe Vs. Wade, etc. I find it funny how you diss my straw polls of real people because they are "innaccurate," but then go on to tell me that because the gallup poll says one thing, thats what all Americans thinks. You cant pick and choose the polls you like or don't like. All polls are polls. All i'm saying is that he does have support, people have voted for him in straw polls. I give you props for agreeing with Ron Paul on foreign policy. Thank you. Your final argument on "what is Pro's point" would not apply to just Ron Paul but to any candidate. It would apply to ANYONE in office. Dont you want to vote for someone who you support? Thats why we vote! Because we like their ideas! And it sounds like you like his ideas but you dont want to vote for him because none of his ideas would pass through congress. Whats your argument? That we shouldn't elect presidents because they can't do anything? Please. Why elect a president if they can't do anything? The debate was on why Ron Paul shouldn't be president. Your argument isn't against that, your argument is a dfferent topic that talks about how his ideas wouldn't pass through congress. If you would like, we could start another debate. But please stay on topic.
Ron Paul for president

One of your arguments is that he is too ideaological. Ideological means "realating to, or concerned with ideas" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Since when is it a bad thing to have ideas? Id rather elect someone with ideas then someone without ideas. You also said most americans do not support Ron Paul. Then tell me why has won 2 official straw polls essentially tied for another straw poll, and wins literally every debate poll. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com... http://srnnews.townhall.com... http://articles.cnn.com... The people love him, the media doesn't because the media is filled with lies and propaganda and Ron Paul would show everyone the truth. One of your last arguments was that every politician would change our foreign policy. Change means nothing. Did you know that Osama Ben Laden sent letters to the U.S. on why 9/11 happened? He attacked us because we had foreign military bases on his holy land. He said he would keep attacking until we change our foreign policy. http://www.guardian.co.uk... Many people believe that they attacked us because we were free. People also believe that just because we're American, it makes it right to have 930 foreign bases in the world in 150 different countries and to continue to bomb people. http://www.youtube.com...
Ron Paul for president

Thank you. Ron Paul is a Christian candidate who has served in the air force, he is a doctor, and has been reelected to congress around 10 times. He would change our foreign policy. Audit the fed. He predicted the housing bubble. Has never flip flopped on any issue in the last 25 years. Wants limited government, abides his policies by the constitution and would protect peoples rights as citizens of the United States of America. Has a budget plan that would cut 1 trillion dollar spending and would give us a balanced budget by the 3rd year. Cares about liberty for US citizens. Would increase our national defense. And keeps his personal believes away from his believes of the governments role. I rest my case
Adoption

I'm sorry my opponent forfeited. Hopefully she posts her refutations in the next round. Extend my case for now. In the meantime, these arguments occurred to me right after I posted my previous round: 6) Disincentive to marry According to the Daily Mail, married couples are now in the minority in England because more are deciding to be co-habiting partners rather than marrying (due to disincentives to marriage): "The ONS report yesterday said: 'The number of people available to marry has been increasing but the number choosing to marry has been declining.' The minority status of married couples follows years of falling numbers of weddings. *It comes after the removal of tax advantages once extended to married couples and the slanting of the benefit system so that single people get higher state handouts than couples.* Millions of young people now choose to live together as cohabiting partners rather than to marry." [1] This evidence empirically proves that when England creates financial disincentives to marry, fewer people choose to do so. My opponent's plan creates a huge disincentive to marry, so even more couples will simply choose to refrain from marriage in order to avoid compulsory adoption and the associated high costs ($14,000 per year). 7) Unfair and costly to parents who have other kids This is self-explanatory. However, if you factor in the lower marriage rate because of this disincentive to marry and the additional cost of raising another child ($14,000 per year), people in England will choose to have fewer children as a result of compulsory adoption. However, this would be a serious problem because England's birth rate is already extremely low: 1.3 births per female, which is WELL below the replacement level of 2.1. If these trends continue, Europe's population is slated to decline by nearly 50% by mid-century. England needs to encourage its citizens to have more kids, not fewer. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
The Iran Nuclear Deal

Okay the Iran nuclear deal is a bad idea for many reasons. First off, the framework would provide monitors unfettered access to "declared" nuclear sites, but affords Iran 24 days to push back on a request to inspect "undeclared," or military, sites. So, Iran will be able to hide any nuclear progress they make from the US with ease. NEXT: Under this deal, Iran will begin to receive over $150 billion in sanctions relief. Assumptions that this money will go to support domestic programs are naive. While struggling under stiff international sanctions, Iran still diverted over $32 billion per year to support the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its terrorist proxies. One of these terrorist proxies are Hezbollah, who is a large threat towards the US. NEXT: The deal removes the arms embargo on conventional weapons within five years, and annuls the embargo on ballistic missiles within eight. This move challenges what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, said just days before the deal was finalized: "under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities." With these arms embargoes lifted, Iran"s conventional military will strengthen, making any future military action higher risk for U.S. and allied forces. We can be sure that the Revolutionary Guard will exploit sanctions relief to fund a new generation of terrorism through its proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah. This means that within a few years, Iran will have access to very powerful weapons, which will increase tensions in the Middle East. LASTLY: The president"s promise that sanctions will "snap back into place" if there is a violation is patently false. Reinstating international sanctions would require a coordinated effort from multiple nations, including China and Russia, an unlikely scenario. This is a disastrous foreign policy mistake. If ratified, U.S. security will be jeopardized, Israeli existence will be seriously threatened and the already volatile Middle East will devolve into an arms race. These are all the reasons why the Iran Nuclear Deal is a terrible idea.
War memorials do more harm than good

My opponent as the pro side carries the burden of proof. He has given some points out, but has not given any proofs for these ideas nor has he given and sources for his information. However, I will look past these for now but ask my opponent to state sources when statistics are given. One more thing though, this "speech" of yours seems copied from somewhere and thus seems highly strange. My opponent claims that war memorials would cause post traumatic stress disorder and that it is the war memorial and not the war that causes this. According to [1], the disorder is often caused by overwhelming life experiences. War can cause these experiences but I doubt that simply looking at a war memorial would cause these experiences. I believe that one way of treating this disorder is to explore these memories and instead accept the truth instead of trying to forget it. Secondly, my opponent claims that we have focused on how war memorials glorify war. (?????) I must ask my opponent where he got this tidbit of information because acceding to [2], most modern war memorials commemorate those who died or were injured; regardless of what side they were on. Thus I disagree that war memorials glorify war. I agree with my opponent that post traumatic stress is bad for the child. However, until my opponent manages to prove that war memorials CAUSE this post traumatic stress then I do not have to refute this point. Again my opponent makes it false claim that memories caused by war memorials causes the veteran to have a harder time recovering. He has yet to claim a source for this. Also in [2], it mentions that after WW1 pacifist war memorials and the anger that the veterans expressed when they saw them. Most war memorials are not pacifist This completely refutes the point that war memorials are detrimental to a veteran's mental health. Finally, my opponent claims that war memorials cause cultural conflicts. According to [2], modern war memorials are erected to commemorate those who died in a war. I do not see how commemorating those who died in a conflict would cause a cultural conflict since it does not even say who won or lost, nor does it glorify the war. My opponent has failed to provide any real points that have been supported on why war memorials cause more good than harm. He makes many assumptions such as the fact that war memorials cause post traumatic stress, that war memorials glorify war (modern ones), all of which have been refuted. I will make my points in round 2, because the character limit is preventing me from making points that I want to fully develop. [1] http://helpguide.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... -Thank you
War memorials do more harm than good

War memorials do more harm than good AFFRIMATIVE Good morning adjudicator, fellow debaters, ladies and gentlemen. As you have already heard, the motion before us today is ‘War memorials do more harm than good.' We, as the proposition, strongly agree with this motion. We hold the case and viewpoint that war memorials are more harmful to those around them than they are good. Before I begin my speech, I would like to start by rebutting some of the opposition's points. The opposition has focused their arguments around ____ main points. They are: 1. 2. 3. So far throughout this debate we have gone into depth about how war memorials can cause cultural conflict to arise between the countries that participated in the war being memorialized once again. We have also focused on how war memorials wrongly glorify war. What I will be focusing on throughout my speech is the effects that war memorials have on veterans who fought in the wars they memorialise. War zone exposure is one of the main causes for posttraumatic stress. It is estimated that today, 35% of war veterans suffer from this mental disorder. One of the most common symptoms that war veterans experience is flash back to the war zone of consistent memories of their fighting. War memorials will only cause these flashbacks and memories to occur more frequently and stronger. Not only will war memorials cause significant harm to the mental health of war veterans, but the children of these war veterans will also be affected. Having a father or mother suffering from posttraumatic stress can increase a child's chance of also being effected by the same mental disorder. War memorials make it harder for war veterans to recover from posttraumatic stress and also have a damaging effect on those around them. So what have we as a team told you today? We have explained how war memorials glorify war and how this action is unjust. We have clearly outlined and explained how war memorials do more harm than good by causing cultural conflicts and effecting war veterans and their mental stability. As you can see ladies, and gentlemen, war memorials do more harm than good. Thank you.