BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Despite all of the above that you state an abortion should legally be a womans right, why should you determine what a woman gets to do with her body. Its her ultimate decision and how does her decision to get an abortion affect you in anyway? Even if only 1% of abortions result from rape, that dosent mean the other reasons women have abortions are wrong. In response to having the child adopted; havent you ever thought about the fact that many children dont end up being adopted into loving homes,and thus suffer in orphanages or in other ways. Its not right to just assume a child is going to get adopted; if the child is not adopted into a good home you just entered another child into the world who may have an unstable life. A womens right to an abortion should be her own right; weather a women has an abortion has no effect on you as a person. It is simply your ignorancy which has developed your opinon.
Building a border wall

A border wall would not keep immigrants out, would be comically expensive to build, and would be a big middle finger to one of our largest trading partners, Mexico. Many smaller border walls already exist on the border, and these have proven a failure to keeping both illegal immigrants and drugs out. The fact remains that it would be impossible to patrol the hundreds of miles of empty desert while keeping costs low and actually keeping the immigrants out. Tons of immigrants never even cross the southern border, they just come in on expired visas, and overstay. So even if we could afford the cost of the wall, it would be ineffective. Building the walls itself would take probably longer than Trump is in office and would be very, VERY expensive. In the billions, if not tens of billions, just to acquire the materials. Building a wall across our Southern border would greatly incense and offend the Mexican people and government, whose relationship the United States treasures. Mexico buys more US products than any other nation except for Canada* *https://www.wilsoncenter.org...
The Affirmative Side Will Win This Debate.

My opponent insists that Spelling and Grammar do not account for one point merely because they are defined separately. However, as you will see in the voting box, they are a combined voting category worth one point. My opponent insists that interjections are still not grammatically correct. They clearly are able to stand alone: . http://grammar.about.com... My opponent claims that his life experiences are a source. However, they are not a RELIABLE source, as anyone could simply make up life experiences or personal qualities. Therefore, I have beaten him in the sources category, as my sources have been more reliable than his. "If we are operating under LD format" We clearly were not, as you neither started with a speech based on values nor posted an argument containing organized contentions. Currently, the voting should read: Spelling and Grammar: CON (1 point) Better Conduct: TIED (1 point) Convincing Arguments: CON (3 points) Sources: CON (2 points) Even if PRO wins the arguments category, then the debate will be a tie; therefore, he cannot win this debate. My opponent has claimed that I have not destroyed every one of his arguments. However, I clearly have.
The Affirmative Side Will Win This Debate.

You said, "First, Grammar and Spelling combine for one point." That is incorrect. SPELLING-forming words with letters according to the principles underlying accepted usage. GRAMMER-The rules under which sentences are formed. Grammer and spelling are not the same thing and therefore count for different points, so my argument still stands. In your dictionary, it does not state that an interjection is a sentence, therefore my argument still stands that it is a fragment. While I am the instigator, I do have the burdon of proof and I have presented my proof in the beginning. I did not launch a defensive because, at the time, there was no one to contend with. You said, "Souces- CON ('Yourself' is not a source.)* Arguments- CON (You do not have a standing argument)**" For *, I do believe that my own life's personal experiences are a source. When it is wrong to base facts on personal experience, let me know. For ***, I do have a standing argument, because you have not destroyed my previous arguments that still withstand. You also said, "Even under your system, you are not winning any voting category. Therefore, I will win this debate. So, the resolution is negated." Yes I am, I have defended myself so...yes I have... So, moving on, If we are operating under LD format, the goal of the first round is to present your speech. The purpose of the second round is to clash, and the purpose of the third is to conclude. (I think it's kind of cynical to judge of what we have been. Idk, it just reminds me of House. )
The Affirmative Side Will Win This Debate.

"Your fragment, "Why?" and "The resolution is negated. Vote CON." So while you may have one point on me in spelling, I have one point on you in grammer." First, Grammar and Spelling combine for one point. Second, "Why?" is a question and an interjection (any other word or expression so used, as Good grief! Indeed! http://dictionary.reference.com...), and can stand alone. Third, "Vote CON." is an imperative statement and is grammatically correct. http://grammar.about.com... So, I am winning the spelling and grammar category. "I do not have the obligation to offense. However, it was required that you do both, which you failed to do." You are the instigator. You have burden of proof. My opponent has made another spelling mistake ("Arguements") Spelling and Grammar- CON Souces- CON ('Yourself' is not a source.)* Arguments- CON (You do not have a standing argument)** Conduct- TIED*** "I do believe that current tally is in favor of me." It clearly is not. *In the same manner, 'myself' is no source. **Even under your system, you are not winning any voting category. Therefore, I will win this debate. So, the resolution is negated. "Defense/Offense-AFF" That is not a voting category. ***"In rebutall, the point is to make sure that your opponent does not get away with false remarks or to prove them wrong. This speech would have been great in the next round. Round three is supposed to have us state our conclusion." I did not agree to any such format. Because I will actually win voting categories and my opponent will not, the affirmative will not win this debate.
The Affirmative Side Will Win This Debate.

You have clearly stated my one error in spelling. Mispelling is almost always understood by the person reading it to mean the word that was intended. However, grammer, which I have presented flawlessly, can confuse people much more easier. Your fragment, "Why?" and "The resolution is negated. Vote CON." So while you may have one point on me in spelling, I have one point on you in grammer. So, the tally is as follows: Spelling- CON Sources- TIED (I too have a source, myself, and since this is a debate of personal relations, I do not have the obligation to cite a source other than myself.) Arguements- TIED (We both have a standing arguement that the AFF/CON will win.) Grammer- AFF However, let us not forget defense/offense. Since I had prepared this debate before I had an actual opponent, I do not have the obligation to offense. However, it was required that you do both, which you failed to do. In other words, you failed to say why that you deserve to win. You have only stated why I deserve to lose. So, we will add an addition clause: Defense/Offense-AFF I do believe that current tally is in favor of me. In rebutall, the point is to make sure that your opponent does not get away with false remarks or to prove them wrong. This speech would have been great in the next round. Round three is supposed to have us state our conclusion. For these reasons, I do believe that I won.
The Affirmative Side Will Win This Debate.

Actually, you will not win this debate. Why? This is because you have already lost the spelling vote. "I have self confidance" Confidence is spelled "confidence". . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Also, you will have fewer sources than me. I already have a head start. Further, in the last round, I will have the opportunity to know how many sources you will use, and will easily be able to surpass that. Finally, I will win the arguments category because my arguments pertain more to the aspect of one's winning a debate. I have, therefore, had a more logical approach to this debate: "Spelling" is one point. "Sources" is two points. "Arguments" is three. Even though conduct will probably be a tied voting category, I am probably going to win the other categories. This alone is enough for me to win. The resolution reads, "The Affirmative Side Will Win This Debate. " However, my opponent, the affirmative, will not win this debate. He is destined to lose this debate and has already been condemned. My opponent has claimed such superior personality qualities over me. However, when one is voting, they do not vote for the person, but the better debater. The resolution is negated.
The Affirmative Side Will Win This Debate.

(Haha, there is no proof!) I believe that I will win this debate, because I have the favor of the people, as that is the whole point in voting on the winner. The will favor me because I am on the positive side, which not as people are pessimistic as there are optimists, and arguing is not very peaceful, it just puts the person down, which I do not think is very polite of you to do with me, given that you have no proof as to why I will fail. You actually want me to fail, and I do not think that is very polite of you either. Since I am posting this while there is no one, I do not want anyone to fail, because I am by myself right now. My topic and I stand for winning, but being respectful to the people who do not win (I don't want to say 'losers' because that puts people down). This is a quality deemed to be good by society. I have self confidance, also deemed good, but I am respectful enough not to be cocky.
From minister to atheist and continuing the journey

Because you have reference means nothing outside its context. Your heady assertion of knowing all about anything is laughable. Enjoy your victory, I know how important this is to you. Then said his woman unto him, Do you still retain your integrity? bless ELOHIYM, and die. But he said unto her, You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. What? shall we את eth-receive good at the hand of ELOHIYM, and shall we not את eth-receive evil? In all this did not Iyov sin with his lips. JOB 2:9-10 Silly people expect only good from "our" Maker and are uninterested in learning from life. Your like a big baby saying "WAAA, THERES NO GOD BECAUSE THERES EVIL IN THE WORLD!" Grow up silly man.
From minister to atheist and continuing the journey

In the second paragraph of RD1 you said "Our Creator", thus that is in no possible way "my reaction to the author is what I gave." So would you like to try again? No not really I'm tired. My silliness? OK then you consider your god silly. He's the one that came up with your 10 commandments that ARE silly. Yeah. That's the death penalty if you don't follow them. So clearly, you do not believe in your god. Then why did you accept this debate? Summary 1. You went completely bonkers into hooplah land with RD1 and did not relate to what he had to say, so who really knows what adventurous trip you were trying to be a quarterback for? 2. And since only you knew, I did identify with your neanderthal christ religion because I do more than know allllllllllllll about your religion, and gave you the 10 commandments and showed you of what your god would do if you break the codes in not worshiping them. And you consider them "silly". Conclusion You must consider your completely immoral god "silly".
From minister to atheist and continuing the journey

Why the silliness? Obviously, as stated, my reaction to the author is what I gave. And now silly man wishes to use what he is unfamiliar with, written for other men of a different time, as justification for his own silliness. You say, "Who cares about what YOU say? This is about what the author of the article had to say and how you related to what he has to say." Am I to take this oxymoron seriously? What I said is my reaction. Let me react to the rest of your silliness. * Do you think you should be put to death just because you blaspheme? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Everyone dies sooner or latter, no escape. If a man agrees to live by a statute, yes, he should be held accountable to its constitution. * Do you think you should die if you work on the sabbath? Y____? N____? Again, did I agree to be bound by this constitution? "Do you think you should die foe merely cursing at your parents? Y____? N____? I don't know, would the world be a better place if Stalin's mother would of drowned him? Most parents won't, seen again and again in scripture. Job was intent on securing his children's favor, from his Creator, as they seemed to care less. The sons of Ely where priests who's father knew they where up to no good. A prophet no less, who could not. But then he agreed to be bound by this constitution. * Do you think you should die if you commit adultery? Y____? N____? Adultery? People insisting on sticking to their word, for life and agreeing to its constitution is a bad thing? Of course it is in this Burger King existence. "Have it your way". It's really a lot of fun answering questions, of someone who doesn't care what you have to say. It's all about narcissism with you and your intent, some how, to build yourself up from my defeat. Enjoy.
From minister to atheist and continuing the journey

I have seen את eth-the travail, which ELOHIYM has given to the sons of men to be exercised in it. He את eth-has made everything beautiful in his time: also he has set את eth-the world in their heart, so that no man can find out את eth-the work that ELOHIYM makes from the beginning to the end. I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of ELOHIYM. I know that, whatsoever ELOHIYM does, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it: and ELOHIYM does it, that men should fear before him. That which has been is now; and that which is to be has already been; and ELOHIYM requires את eth-that which is past. ECCLESIASTES 3:10-15 Our Creator doesn't give us anything our ancestors didn't get. It is the same today as yesterday was till the end of time. Christo-pagans insist on turning the Word into fable, failing to realize they have created fable from parable. The atheist no different, creating fable from peer reviewed theory, with love of the world installed within.
I will not contradict myself THIS TIME!

To comply with the request of the pro, I will now ask 15 true/false questions about his life. (These are not factual statements, but I am leaving it open for the pro to say "true" or "false" in response) 1. You believe in a god or gods. 2. You live in the United States. 3. You support abortion. 4. You voted or would vote for Barack Obama. 5. You are Christian. 6. You support euthanasia. 7. You support a "quality of life" policy over "sanctity of life" 8. You enjoy music in the rap genre. 9. Your favorite delicacy is chocolate. 10. You have a job. 11. Your favorite color is orange. 12. You are familiar with the Constitution of the United States. 13. You like long walks on the beach. 14. You like Pina Colatas. 15. You enjoy visiting www.debate.org In round 1, the pro said that he will not contradict himself, then proceeds to say that in round 4 I will point out where he contradicted himself. He already is saying that he will not be contradicted, and then will be, so is contradicting himself in round 1. My opponent also failed to respond to my initial argument, so I will extend it and assume he has no response. Thank you and good luck, pro.
I will not contradict myself THIS TIME!

The pro contradicted himself in round 1. He stated that he would not contradict himself, and then proceeds to say that I will point out where he did, in fact, contradict himself. To summarize, the pro says he will not contradict, then says he will, thus contradicting himself. The pro also never responded to my initial true/false question (round one), so forfeited that rebuttal and accepted that he could not respond without contradicting himself. Good luck pro, and thank you for the debate.
Wage labor is a form of slavery that helps to maintain and perpetuate classism

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning what I hope will be an interesting and insightful debate! One reason I'm excited to debate this topic is because I generally (metaphorically) favor the Pro position. I identify as a pro-labor leftist, and I empathize with the arguments I assume my opponent might suggest. However, I am accepting this challenge for the sake of playing devil's advocate, and presenting an alternative perspective - one I think deserves both thorough criticism and a fair defense. Indeed even my bleeding heart support for the labor class is aware of capitalist forces that quell the cries of communists, socialists and the like. In this debate, I will be arguing that wage labor (even if mostly referring to low-skill labor) is not remotely the same thing as slavery. I don't plan on arguing semantics; I believe there is a legitimate and substantial difference. Wage labor is the socioeconomic relationship between a worker and an employer, where the worker sells their labour under a formal or informal employment contract. These transactions usually occur in a labour market where wages are market determined [1]. On the other hand, slavery is a legal or economic system under which people are treated as property. Slaves may be bought and sold, can be held indefinitely from birth, deprived of the right to leave, forced to work and often do not receive compensation [2]. In addition to the technical differences between these two groups, I believe they have different lifestyles and (more importantly to the resolution) opportunities. Sources [1] Deakin, Simon; Wilkinson, Frank (2005). The Law of the Labour Market: Industrialization, Employment, and Legal Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.[2] Laura Brace (2004). The Politics of Property: Labour, Freedom and Belonging. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 162
Wage labor is a form of slavery that helps to maintain and perpetuate classism

I assert that wage labor, especially when involving menial positions, is merely slavery by another name. Wage labor serves to foster class consciousness in a society and prejudice in the form of classism. Wage labor gives credence to the system of capitalism which places more value on materials than humanity. Wage labor also undermines the principles of self determination and cajoles masses into spending a large portion of their lives working to support the dreams of others rather than following their own. Working for wages also distracts attention away from the actuality that general access to the land and resources of the society is being curtailed and hindered. Shared BoF Opponent will have to show that wage labor is not analogous to slavery. Opponent must also prove that wage labor does not foster and promote classism.
sports and other activities should not be a part of school curriculum

I would say that sports and other activities are very important to have in schools. First of all, they help make well rounded people out of the student's. When a student experiences not only academics, but also music, art, theater, and sports they will be much more experienced individuals, and will be much more knowledgable as a result. This, in turn, will make them better able to succeed in all areas of their lives. In addition, it is just a good experience. Second, participating in sports will foster teamship and leadership skills. These skills aply very well to all aspects of the business world and will certainly help you when applying for a job. Finally, sports will keep students fit. Obesity, especially childhood obesity, is a huge problem in America, and sports can help curb it. In general, without these activities being offered in schools most students would bnever get exposed to them. Perhaps a student will be so inspired by his art class that he goes on to be a painter. Maybe a young musician will eventually become a famous pianist. PErhaps a football player will go on to play in the NFL. Maybe a young actor will become a star. There is no reason to limit what people can do. The more oppurtunities they have, the more they can achieve. (I would ver much reccomend that you get involved in some sort of spot or other activity. It really can be a great experience)
Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels)

Okay, first, I will start off by stating my arguments, and introduce my topic. I believe renewable energy is the ideal source of energy for the future for many reasons 1. Renewable energy will never run out As fossil fuels do run out, as they are non-renewable, renewable energy will not. They come in natural forms such as sun and wind which are things that will never run out. 2. Fossil fuels pollute earth and melt polar ice caps As shown in numerous studies, the use of fossil fuels has melted the polar caps greatly and have raised ocean levels several inches. 3. Easy to get As for fossil fuels, you have to go drilling deep down into earth, for renewable energy, it's as simple as getting sunlight.
Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels)

I think that fossil fuels are better than clean energy. 1.It cost to much many to get solar panels to get sunlight. Using fossils fuels you don't have to spend much money and you don't have to buy it one by one. 2.Renewable energy takes up all the energy below the earth. Using renewable energy you have to find energy beneath the earth which takes up our energy source. 3.Renewable energy is harder to link to make it work. For renewable energy, you have to go underground and get energy, then connect it to where it's suppose to be.
Say something controversial

"Should the US use military force against Iran if they do not discontinue their uranium enrichment program?" Even more vague, particularly in the last argument of the debate. There is a LOT more to it than that. 1. Who determines if they've stopped or not? 2. Do we know how far along they are? 3. Are they an actual threat to our allies in the region? There are about 50 more questions I'd need answered before tackling that question, as well. It's not nearly as simple as "do you support it".
Say something controversial

Well stated. But I still disagree. Well stated. But I still disagree.Well stated. But I still disagree.Well stated. But I still disagree.Well stated. But I still disagree.Well stated. But I still disagree.Well stated. But I still disagree.Well stated. But I still disagree.Well stated. But I still disagree.Well stated. But I still disagree.Well stated. But I still disagree.Well stated. But I still disagree.Well stated. But I still disagree.