BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Before I do make my arguments I will first define the words that I am using. Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, Accompanied by, Resulting in, Or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus (Merriam Webster)Ethical: involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval (Merriam Webster)Not a good definition so I will base it as a framework of what is right and wrong. Human being: a man, Woman, Or child of the species Homo sapiens, Distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, Power of articulate speech, And upright stance. (Google: Human being define)Merriam Webster don't even have a definition of human being they just direct you to human which doesn't help. Did not like your vague definition so I made it more specific. Life threateningFirst point is when the mother's life is threatened the mother should be allowed to terminate the fetus. Going by the first link below 7% would be what I consider life threatening ("Physical problem with my health", "Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus") which if you are against abortion (assuming you want to ban it) would allow 7% of women to die or face long lasting health problems. ChoiceSecond reason is you are pretty much saying the choice of the mother is less than the choice of fetus. Still going by the first link you ban abortion which forces single mothers to have children, Force people who are not ready to have children and stop a woman's careers opportunities due to the banning of abortion. This makes up 19% of the women which you are pretty much saying there choice does not matter and a mistake cannot be undone and she will have to live with that. RapeEven though rape rarely occurs. It still does happen. You are forcing the women to carry a child she did not consent to carrying. Going by the first link below the numbers are less then 0. 5 percent. Even though the number is really small it is still a problem. Small one but still a problem. I will leave it at that as my opening arguments and await your response. Source:https://www. Guttmacher. Org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005. Pdf(Table 3)
Abortion

I have done a number of debates on Abortion and usually have provided a lengthy opening statement for my opponent to challenge. However I shall take an unusual turn. My opponent will start their opening statement first in the first round on why Abortion is ethical or at least ethically justified. This is my main argument of the debate in which I will be defending and which my opponent will have to refute. 1. All human beings are persons 2. A fetus is a human being 3. A fetus is a person Since killing a person is unethical, And abortion kills a fetus, Therefore it would follow logically that abortion is unethical. If the fetus is not a person, Then destroying it is not unjustified and perfectly permissible. By accepting this debate you agree to finish the debate to the end, To be respectful and attack my arguments with logic and reason rather than insult and mockery, And most importantly, To have fun! :) Person: a being who is a part of our moral community Human being: A member of the species Homo Sapiens
should capitalism be in place instead of socialism

Let me start out my argument by saying this. There are many people in this world, some of which are naturally smarter than others, some of which have more of a natural desire to work than others, which is okay.Capitalism really gives people an incentive to work. What Capitalism does is it gives room for people to be high achievers. It gives the smart people a opportunity to have an excellent salary and really what Capitalism does is it gives these high achievers a chance to be really successful. Socialism takes away this opportunity. It takes all of the money that people earn and distributes it equally among everyone in the country. This can run into a couple of problems. One it is stealing. By taking money that does not belong to you from someone else that is stealing, even if it is being given to someone else, it's still stealing. Another problem with socialism is that it takes away the motivation for the really smart people to work. It gives them the mindset that no matter how hard they work they will make just as much as everyone else. It doesn't give them the desire to work. They can think that they can now not work at all now and still make the same amount of money. And these really smart people can be business owners without the desire to work. These can be people providing employment for other people but now have know desire to work and eventually decide to quit work. Then you have thousands of people without work because these high businesses and high achievers quit work. This is not just high achievers. This is everyone. They can know that they will make the same amount of money as anyone else without working causing the amount of total income of the whole country to go down. This makes the average income per person drop dramatically. And if the true geniuses quit their job amazing inventions will go down. The electronics companies would go down. To make all of this make more sense let me give you this example. If there was a town with one food pyramid in the center and everyone would work to get food in the pyramid and at the end of the week, the food would be equally distributed among everyone. What would happen is everyone would think that they don't have to work but they can still take food from the pyramid. Then, once everyone quits work, what happens is there is not enough food in the pyramid to provide for everyone thus causing the town to fall apart. If the US used socialism for a long time, this would eventually happen. Now I am not saying that providing for those who aren't as smart and talented and can't work as hard is a bad thing. We already have ways like charities, food banks, and service organizations that can do things that serve the poor. I think that we should always be helping out these people. But socialism is not the answer. Stealing is not the answer. We can support the poor without stealing. Taking away the opportunity for high achievers to accomplish what they want to do is just not right. For these reasons this is why capitalism should be in place instead of socialism.
drugs

In Round 2, this debate will start. My opponent will select one of the following definitions for "drug" and we will be debating "drugs should be banned completely and users should be punished severely". My opponent will present an affirmative case next round and the debate will begin. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... drug n. 1. a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication. b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction. I look forward to this debate.
Cal Ripken Jr. is not a top 50 all time MLB player

All right, then, time for our last debate for both of us. RBIs+Runs: Personally I feel that Ripken's greatest strength is his Rbis and his runs. Ripken has over 1600 Rbis and Runs. When we look at it in its raw form, Ripken has top 50 numbers. However, we cannot simply look at rbis and runs. First of all, it must be rbis+runs. This shows up how many runs the player put up on the scoreboard for his team. Then we subtract the amount of home runs from rbis and runs. So it would be (rbis+runs)-home runs. It is simple why we are subtracting home runs. It is because a solo home run gives the player one rbi and one run, but only put one run on the scoreboard. So every time a player hits a home run, his rbis+runs would gain one too much. So, we subtract the amount of home runs they hit. Lastly, we divide the whole thing by plate appearances in order to get the average. Ripken's (rbis+runs-home runs)/plate appearances is .226. There are a lot of players with higher numbers. For example, Dave Parker is at .238, Del Ennis .249, Dwight Evan .234, Jim Rice .256, Steve Garvey .230 and Paul O' Neill at .244. Granted, these players do not have vastly better (rbis+runs-home runs)/plate appearances, but these players are not legends. Only Jim Rice is currently in the Hall Of Fame. None of these players were listed among The Sporting New's Top 100 list. Yet, they beated Ripken. If players of this quality can beat Ripken, he is no where near the top 50 mark in MLB history. OPS+: OPS+ is an important advanced stat. I remember listing Ripken's On base percentage and his slugging percentage aganist the league slugging and on base percentage. Well, OPS+ is exactly that. It measures the player's on base and slugging percentage against the league and it also takes into account the ballpark the player plays in. Ripken's career OPS+ is just 112. The players I listed above ALL have HIGHER OPS+. Dave Parker: 121 Del Ennis: 117 Dwight Evans: 127 Jim Rice: 128 Steve Garvey: 117 Paul O' Neill: 120 So, these players are better than Ripken in both OPS+ and (rbis+runs-home runs)/plate appearances? None of them are considered a top 50 player, so neither should Ripken. Sources: 1) http://www.baseball-reference.com...'neipa01.shtml 2) http://www.baseball-reference.com... 3) http://www.baseball-reference.com... 4) http://www.baseball-reference.com... 5) http://www.baseball-reference.com... 6) http://www.baseball-reference.com... Anyway, thank you for reading my debate. I hope for a good last round b ymy opponent. May you vote for me.
Cal Ripken Jr. is not a top 50 all time MLB player

One of the greatest infielders to play the game? Defensively, not quite. Offensively, no where close. The best defensive shortstop ever is Ozzie Smith. Ripken is not even on the same level as Derek Jeter, who is a good defensive player but not the best. Other great defensive infielders include Bill Mazeroski, Brooks Robinson, Ryne Sandberg and Mike Schmidt. All of them are far better than Ripken. On offense, lots of players are ahead of Ripken. There is Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Honus Wagner, Yogi Berra, Ernie Banks, Johnny Bench and George Brett. So, tell me, how is Ripken one of the greatest infielders ever if he isn't the best offensive or defensive player? Remember, we are talking about all time. So, there are still many outfielders and pitchers. Ripken does not belong on this list. His .276 average is not good enough, his .340 on base percentage isn't good enough and his .447 slugging average cannot make up for the rest. Ripken is not top 50 material.
Cal Ripken Jr. is not a top 50 all time MLB player

Career Stats: .276/.340/.447, 3184 H, 431 HR, 1695 RBI Cal Ripken Jr. is one of the greatest infielders to ever play the game of baseball. He is most well known for the fact that he holds the record for consecutive games played with 2,632. Ripken is a Baltimore Orioles legend and spent all 21 years of his career with the team. The powerful shortstop and third baseman was an All-Star 19 times during his career and is also a member of the 3,000-hit club
Cal Ripken Jr. is not a top 50 all time MLB player

Award / Honor Time(s) Date(s) American League All-Star 19 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 American League Silver Slugger Award (SS) 8 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994 American League Most Valuable Player 2 1983, 1991 MLB All-Star Game Most Valuable Player 2 1991, 2001 American League Gold Glove Award (SS) 2 1991, 1992 American League Rookie of the Year 1 1982 Roberto Clemente Award 1 1992 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award 1 1992 Sports Illustrated magazine's "Sportsman of the Year" 1 1995 Associated Press "Athlete of the Year" 1 1995 The Sporting News' "Sportsman of the Year" 1 1995 Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award 1 2001 Records and honors [edit] 1999: Ranked Number 78 on The Sporting News' list of the 100 Greatest Baseball Players[45] 1999: Elected to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team. Beat Lou Gehrig's Consecutive Games Streak 2001: Ranked third greatest shortstop all-time in the The New Bill James Historical Abstract. 2001: Uniform number (8) retired by the Baltimore Orioles 2007: Elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame by 98.53 percent of voters. The highest percentage of votes ever for a position player, as well as third highest overall. 2007: Inducted to the Baseball Hall of Fame on July 29 with the San Diego Padres' great Tony Gwynn in front of a record crowd of 75,000 people Most consecutive games played at 2,632 Most consecutive innings played at 8,243 (World record until 2005, current MLB record) Most grounded into double plays at 350 Most home runs by a shortstop at 345 Most double plays by a shortstop, American League, at 1,682 All-time leader in MLB All-Star fan balloting (36,123,483)[46] Most American League, MLB All-Star team selections (19) " 1983"2001[47] Most MLB All-Star Game appearances at shortstop (15) " 1983"1996, 2001 Most consecutive MLB All-Star Game starts (17)[48] Most plate appearances by one player in one game at 15 (Triple-A game tied with Tom Eaton and Dallas Williams).[49] Baltimore Oriole records [edit] Games Played: 3,001 Consecutive games: 2,632 At bats: 11,551 Hits: 3,184 Runs: 1,647 RBI: 1,695 Extra Base Hits: 1,078 Doubles: 603 Home runs: 431 (Baltimore has had six members of the 500 home run club on its roster, but none have hit more with the Orioles than Ripken) Total Bases: 5,168 Walks: 1,129 Strikeouts: 1,305 Assists: 8,212 Double Plays: 1,682
Cal Ripken Jr. is not a top 50 all time MLB player

Cal Ripken Jr. is not a top 50 all time MLB player. I feel that Ripken is vastly over rated. Yes, he did play in 2,632 straight games and he did hit 431 home runs, but he is not a top 50 all time MLB player. In order to accept this debate, there must be a few requirements. 1) How do you define top 50? I want this debate to be mainly over stats and not over how vital a player is to his team. So, while being "more valuable" counts, make your main argument about stats. Also, the all time list does not include Negro League Players and other countires besides the USA. 2) Please be civil. No cursing please. 3) Actually know about this topic. I want my opponent to actually know about this topic, so if you do not know about Cal Ripken Jr. or about baseball, please don't accept. Thank You.
Gay Marriage

Marriage is an abomination at worst and an outdated religious rite at best. It encourages mutual parasitism and a sense of mutual obligation where there should be mutual affection. Half of all marriages fail. [1] Worse, marriage is a religious rite that has no place being supported by the federal government, or the states, and should be removed from the purview of both. Providing special rights to two married individuals and not for many or one individual potentially violates the establishment clause. [2] For centuries, religious moralists have used marriage as a tool of social oppression. [3] Why continue an outdated social institution? It would be like continuing ancient fertility rites ... which marriage arguably is. [1] http://www.cdc.gov... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://hnn.us...
The USFG should legalize prostitution.

First Contention: Poverty Many women become prostitutes due to poverty. If legalized, prostitution would seem an acceptable solution to poverty, making it much more popular, leading to a rise in STDs. It can't be guaranteed that the people hiring the prostitutes will use contraception, so pregnancies will increase, leading to abortions and unwanted births. With prostitution illegal, women in poverty are much more likely to turn to something else as a solution to their poverty. Second Contention: Costs As mentioned in the previous argument, legalizing prostitution would lead to an increase in STDs and births. Healthcare expenses would increase, cancelling out some of the economic benefits. I await your rebuttal.
The USFG should legalize prostitution.

DefinitionsUSFG- United States Federal GovernmentProstiitution- the act of engaging in sexual relations for money http://www.merriam-webster.com...Round StructureRound 1- Pro posts opening arguments.Round 2- Con posts opening arguments, Pro posts rebuttals.Round 3- Rebuttals and DefenseRound 4- Conclusions (no new arguments).RulesObey all rules.No trolling.
The USFG should legalize prostitution.

Rebutal #1 My opponent argues that rape occurs in the prostitution, while that may be true, prostitutes enter the field knowing that they could potentially be raped. You would think, if the Women really is traumatized by the experienced of being rape, she would find a way to get out of it. But yet, they generally continue on. Thus, if we were to legalize prostitution, prostitutes would have more access to health-care, and they would be able to talk to a therapist, or law enforcement- and actually get out of the field, if they really wish. If a Women gets raped, if she is a prostitute, she would not feel comfortable talking to somebody of authority, due to the fear of being arrested. So, if we were to legalize it: -Rape would not occur as often, because prostitutes would be able to go to law enforcement, and tell them what had happened, and the men would be less likely to rape, knowing the consequences if caught. By keeping prostitution illegal, we are simply putting them out there, to be harmed. Like stated many times before, if we make it legal, Women would be able to have access to basic health care, and would take the time to prepare for sex (safe sex). They would also be more comfortable going out, and reaching for help, if they really wanted it. Rebuttal #2-#3 My opponent then goes on to argue that prostitution is a harmful choice. Though it maybe for some Women, some Women who work in the file enjoy what they do, because it’s easy money. We should not be in control of what they decide to do, because of our moral ideologies. #3 My opponent then goes on to argue “So the total number of STD cases would stay about the same because of women who become prostitutes as a solution to poverty, but the percentage would go down, creating the illusion that STDs became less common. The apparent correlation can be explained away, and it proves nothing.” This is merely an opinion, and assumption, just like the rest of my opponent’s arguments. I have provided many arguments and sources as to why if we were to legalize prostitution, how and why the rates in STD’s would lower, and there would be less abuse, and harassment. But sinse you don’t seem to understand it, I will give a new source. A study was done in 2009 in R.I on sexual abuse, and harassment in prostitution. [1] “"The results suggest that decriminalization could have potentially large social benefits for the population at large–not just sex market participants," wrote economists Scott Cunningham and Manisha Shah in a working paper about their research. Between 2004 and 2009, they estimate that decriminalization led to a 31 to 39 percent per-capita decline in rapes and a 39 to 45 percent decline in cases of female gonorrhea in Rhode Island.” (http://reason.com...) There is simply no way to argue why legalizing wouldn’t work. You have not provided any valid, logical argument, but assumptions, claims, and opinions. My opponent claims that I disprove his claims, which I do, because he simply does not argue logically. He has YET provided any sources to prove his argument is right, unlike me.
The USFG should legalize prostitution.

I will use this round to rebutt my opponents arguments. Rebuttal #1 "Poverty" My opponent merely makes the statment that Women should not prosititute as a job, if they're poor, mainly because it is wrong. Yet, to make this statment true, he must prove that prostitution is wrong. But, that is impossible considering what is right, and what is wrong has a wide variance, depending on whom you ask. My opponent then makes the famous argument that by legalizing prostitution, there will be a rise in STD's, I have already disproven this myth in R1. But, I will use another source. Reshearchers in Australia did a reshearch project in 2011, and this was their conclusion reguarding STD's and prostitution. [1] "They found that infections could be reduced by 33 to 46 percent in those countries if prostitution were made legal, the Washington Post reported" So, exactly how, and why would STD's be lowerd if prostitution were to be legal? It's simple. Prostitutes, and their customers would take the time to preform the propper saftey precautions before sex. [1] "Because prostitutes fear getting caught by law enforcement, they rush the process along with clients and often don’t take the time to discuss protecting against STDs. Further compounding the problem is the fact that these sex workers are often stigmatized, and don’t get the care they need from health workers. " In conclusion, by legaizing prostitution, it will only lower the rate in STD's, not make the number increase. Rebuttal #2 "Costs" There really isn't a argument to be made here. I have already proven, twice, that by legalizing prostitution, it would only lower the risks of STD's. This argument alone, goes to prove that by legalizing prostitution, we could not be cancelling out economiv benefits. As stated in R1, legalizing it, would create a great profit due to tax revenue. infact, legalizing it would only benefit prostitutes, health wise. [2] "Women who work legally enjoy huge benefits: better access to health care, protection from violent customers and protection from exploitation. Antwerp has apparently one of the best bordellos in Europe, equipped with its own police station and high tech sensors." Sorry for keeping this so short, but theese rebuttals merely cover all of my opponents arguments. Sources: [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...
Resolved: "Sonic Boom" should have been Metal Overlord's theme, not "What I'm Made of..."

Open Your Heart was the opening theme of Adventure 1, but it also featured as the super theme. Endless Possibilities had a Crush 40 version for the credits and an orchestral one for the fight. Sonic Generations begins and ends with the Sonic theme. The theme has often been heard already, and its return is a reincorporation. of the theme. Crush 40 has made the Sonic themes since Adventure 1, but the song is specific to the game. You can't claim the robotic nature of the cover matches metal sonic when Metal's theme (Stardust Speedway) is largely an digital piano theme. The quotes you've used are so vague, I could relate them to the first Sonic game. Besides, the strength of teamwork is not from within, rather from without, from others. Metal fails to understand this, thinking he can simply use all three powers in one form. Sonic CD didn't feature Sonic Boom until the end credits, and it wasn't Crush 40 who did it. http://youtu.be... There. That was the original. Not exactly a fitting super fight theme, but Sonic CD was a much more methodical game, approaching obstacles cleverly to secure the Time Stones and the Good Futures. If you just ran through to a guitar riff, then you got a face full of electric spikes in Act 3. It seems you simply wanted a good song to rock to as you fought a giant metal monster. Don't fault What I'm Made Of for that, Crush 40 actually wrote that one for the game, whereas they just did a cover of Sonic Boom. And for the last time, stop using the lyrics in such a vague way. There is never impossible odds when Sonic is in super form and lots of stuff involves spinning. Almost every game ever involves saving the planet, I'll see you next round. Duncan.