BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortion should be illegal including the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

I'm sorry that I confused you. My point was that your main topic of the debate doesn't make sense because laws with no punishment will not be followed as strictly as laws that do have punishment. You are arguing the Pro side, which means that you support the initial claim, I, as Con, am pointing out that even if I agreed with your ideas on the morality of abortion (I don't) , putting a non-punitive law in effect is useless. Deliberately creating loopholes in a law is not a good idea. Your principle is good, but the entire population of any place will not be moral and follow laws "because its the right thing to do". Banning abortion won't change it in society? If a law making abortion illegal is passed, abortion will change in society. More people will seek illegal or at-home abortions, and perhaps some will see the baby to birth. If something is illegal, the government cannot have standards and laws regulating abortion doctors, making abortion less safe, and providing less therapy opportunities for those who must have an abortion. Many people don't have enough money or time to care for children. It is an incorrect assumption to assume that everyone who wants an abortion will be able to afford a baby. And government orphanages and child support groups help the "can't afford a child situtation" but it is still overly expensive for many people to have a baby. And I would prefer to have an abortion than to have a child raised in poor, possibly abusive, circumstances. A fetus isn't a child. In the US, the only people that really have rights are people with citizenship, a green card, or some form of legal residency. Those aren't given to fetuses, implying that they aren't a full member of society. Also, age is only counted from after birth. (BIRTH-day). Lastly, the fetus is entirely dependant on the mother, and while it is physically attached to the mother, I would consider it to be part of her and therefore her decision. I raised those points to argue some of my own points. I thought it was an important statistic to know that childbirth is 14x more risky than an abortion. Mothers should have a choice to take the risks of an abortion. If the fetus can't feel pain, regardless of whether painkillers are needed or not, then I would say that its humane. Not to rant, but millions of people die in wars in pain. Millions of people slowly, agonizingly, starve to death in pain. I don't think its that bad to be given a painkiller and then die free of pain. I refuted those arguments above in in my first argument. And I have another point, if abortion is legal in rape etc., then I bet a lot of women would claim to be raped by someone in order to get an abortion. http://www.theguardian.com...http://abortion.procon.org...http://abortion.procon.org...I didn't repeat them, but I rechecked the sources listed in my first argument.
abortion should be illegal including the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

con's argument is a little confusing because she points out that abortion would not effecitvely be hindered if there are no punishments. then she goes on to argue in favor of abortion. at first glance, it might seem con is arguing that if we want abortion to be hindered we have to have teeth to the laws. she must just be pointing out that an ineffective law can be argued to be pointless. i don't think it's pointless, though, for all the reasons i gave above, as a matter of principle. and it's not truly ineffective, as when things like that are stated as a matter of principle, it does affect their thinking. most of con's points are in regards to why abortion is good for society. in fact, with my approach, abortion won't effectively change if we kept my approach, as even con admits. so, all the good to society can still come. ............. but there's more than that, if we argue te principles involved. we have the means of caring for children, if we want to, when they are born. financially and as a matter of scientific possibility. would you rather die or be born? most would rather be born. does con have a point, that as a society, we can value reduced poverty over putative life? yes, con does have a point. but the factors in favor of it being a true person, as i stated above, are too overwhelming to overlook. we should defer to human life. will that effectively cause more poverty? yes. should it? no. and again, im sure if you ask any of those in those poverty situations if they would have rather been aborted, almost none of htem would say yes. con really had no point in bringing up that abortion is safe. it has no bearing on whether we in principle ban abortinon or not. at least, it has no bearing given i didn't contest or say otherwise. con really had no point in bring up that babies feel no pain, as i didn't contest or says othewise. but given she does bring it up, i would argue we should defer to when the infants feel pain. it is usually estimated they start to feel pain at twenty weeks. some push it back to eighteen. if we have to use pain killers to cause abortions without pain, which i admit are possible, that should tell us something about the morality of what they are doing. con has some points about finances of the mother. it is just a noteworthy reason the mother would have to wait to abort. all that does is lessen her culpability for not aborting sooner. it doesn't diminish her culpability for aborting at all. again, for all the reasons i said, she and the father are responsible for her situation. that said, the fact that i was willing to say 'no punishments' is testament to the fact that if they choose to abort, they can, without punishment. that doesn't mean we condone it, and it even doesn't mean that we keep it legal or 'permissible'. we still are against it, even if we understand and effectively allow it to happen.
Peyton Manning is a better quarterback than Brett Farve.

http://www.washingtonpost.com... In this article Brett Farve even said that he wasn't surprised that Manning was going to break his record. It also shows Manning and Farve's careers. Manning has had the better career. Which also, brings me back to your comment about not having a better team. It also states that Brett Farve had better defenses the two times he went to the Super Bowl. Manning has also topped Farve on MVP awards as well. Manning having five while Farve only having three.
violent video game lead to real life

Hello. I'd like to refrain from personal comments or insults, but I would recommend the spell checker because you sound like like a caveman. Now, I'll start off with some backup on my side of the debate; http://dailycaller.com... Now, you may think that violence in games may numb the minds of children to actual violence, but that is not true. You see, we know that video games are not real, and so we detach ourselves from some degree of empathy while playing. But you confuse this shutdown of empathy with actual psychopaths who simply lack empathy. We regain our empathy upon leaving the game, but psychopaths, the people listed in massacres and shootings who blame games, they lack empathy already. Video games are a scapegoat for many people, and the concerns of children playing adult games should be met the same way as adult movies; parental control. I'll see you next round.
The gay Gestapo is preventing rational arguments against homosexuals.

I stated "Homosexuality is actually quite common in the animal kingdom." citing Wikipedia.My opponenet stated "their[sic] is no concrete proof" citing Conservapedia.Please read both articles before reaching a decision on this point.**************My opponent states that "evolution denotes that if the practice of sodomy was 'natural' would have died out." This is an inferrence, not a fact.**************"Former Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd's (2007-2009) sister used the term the gay gestapo to describe the backlash toward anyone who expresses anti gay views."The first and second google result for "sister Kevin Rudd gay" state that Kevin Rudd did not approve of her actions[1] and she is involved in a "crusade against gays[2]"My opponent cites an odd person to support his view.And there is no proof of a correlation between the Secret Police in Nazzi Germany to the current gay community. This is a strong point that still stands.**************My opponent cited the "Chick-fill-a[sic] controversy" as the prime example of his position. This was a fued over money, not a debate over the issues on the merits.My opponent claims that there is no forum for rational discourse on the topic of gay rights.Fox News is generally conservative, and would tend to be against gay rights.CNN is generally liberal, and would tend to be for gay rights.After reading my opponenet's position three times, the spread of information about both sides is his main concern. There are avenues in the press, in the colleges, think tanks, and others, that allow both sides of the issue to be revealed.[1] http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au...[2] http://www.theaustralian.com.au...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The gay Gestapo is preventing rational arguments against homosexuals.

Firstly 'the gay gestapo', is a collaborative term to describe the individuals and groups, which use emotion and abuse to prevent rational debate. The Chick-fill-a controversy is a prime example of an attack against a business for a comment of one of its executives which was anti gay. Former Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd's (2007-2009) sister used the term the gay gestapo to describe the backlash toward anyone who expresses anti gay views. In future, do not attack the credibility of a supporting article without addressing its arguments. In the same way, to attack the credibility of the Ancient Greeks thought that women were a curse and many believed the earth was flat. However to directly contradict their argument of it being a higher form of love is that love and lust are to separate entities, that are often misleadingly used interchangeably. Please in future do not describe the interactions of gay males. If you wish to discuss such activities remember that there is medical evidence http://www.personal.psu.edu... which demonstrates the negative impacts of its practice. This debate was meant to be about whether or not the gay gestapo was sty-filing debate, not the cons of homo behavior. Geography, is the home of evolution, and they realize that humanity appeared in an already advanced state. You can't have it both ways, evolution denotes that if the practice of sodomy was 'natural' would have died out. Freashly colled magma, if taken to a scientist may be incorrectly dates as millions or billions of years old. http://www.answersingenesis.org... Check this out, for your 13.75 billion years. Explosions create chaos not order, and fossilisation can happen in a matter of years.
The gay Gestapo is preventing rational arguments against homosexuals.

Despite what you may believe in regards to its prevalence in the animal kingdom, there is isolate incidences of such events occurring, but their is no concrete proof. http://www.conservapedia.com... This provides you with a compelling contradiction to your view that animals can be gay. Being gay is a choice, your race, skin color and background are aspects which an individual has no control over. Plenty of people who one identified as being gay have since changed their position and choose not to be gay http://en.wikipedia.org... Your sexual orientation, is the making of your 'programing' as a child not that this makes a person gay, just as a person who grew up as the son of a Hamas leader renounced murder and choose peace http://en.wikipedia.org... . Controlling desires, whatever their construct is part of controlling oneself. If someone tried to have such as a discussion in public, the Gestapo and 'Water Melons' (green political movement) would abuse and heckle the speaker.
The gay Gestapo is preventing rational arguments against homosexuals.

I do not think that gay behavior is unnatural or wrong. I agree with the ancient Greeks to some extent. A man on the receiving end of the penis tends to be more submissive than the normal man, and receives the respect due to a woman. This is actually the case in gay couples. I mean no disrespect to women, this is more historical than current. Hopefully gay rights will go the same way as woman's suffrage. My opponent is weary of being called a bigot. This is the time and the place for intelligent discourse on the matter of homosexuality. Religion is against homosexuality. Evolution is not. Homosexuality is actually quite common in the animal kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org... Sex is a form of grooming. I could get erotic with the details depending on my opponent's response. I would like to address the point that it is not possible to "hate the sin and not the sinner." Try hating facial birthmarks. Everyone with a facial birthmark can tell that you treat them differently. Creepy.
The gay Gestapo is preventing rational arguments against homosexuals.

Whether or not you are from a religious background or one which believes in Evolution, you have several things in common, you believe gay behaviour to be unnatural and wrong. Yet whenever anyone points this out the gay Gestapo and their emotional backers barrage you into the ground calling you a bigot, how can we as a people prove them wrong if they just call us bigots without debate. Both evolution and religion are anti homo. As the bible is black and white on the issue hate the sin but no the sinner, and according to the theory of evolution is it is not a learned behavior then it should die out.
The questions game

1. If you had to live in a different country, what would you pick? France. 2. If you were stranded on an island and a genie gave you 3 wishes, what would you wish? ( anything except wishing yourself off the island or unlimited wishes) 1. A medical kit 2. Books. (I can read them, plus it helps to make a fire :-) ) 3. A tool kit 3. Favorite celebrity? Russel Crowe or Johnny depp My Questions: 1. How many digits of pi do you know? 2. Dream Job (or if you have a job, what is it?) 3. Any pets? 4. Answer this riddle: Pronounced as one letter but written with three, only two different letters are used to make me. I'm double, I'm single I'm black, blue, and grey. I'm read from both ends and the same either way.
The questions game

1. Ben Franklin. 2. 1900's Americas economy was way better. 3. Tiger 4. We go to heaven. My questions: 1. If you had to live in a different country, what would you pick? 2. If you were stranded on an island and a genie gave you 3 wishes, what would you wish? ( anything except wishing yourself off the island or unlimited wishes) 3. Favorite celebrity?
The questions game

1. love, happiness, health, money, fame 2. A goat/to travel the world 3. technology 4. I wouldn't. Though I've made many mistakes, I wouldn't change who I am. :-) My questions: 1. What's your favourite weather? 2. If you were trapped in a cave with your pet, would you rather sacrifice your pet so you can eat or sacrifice parts of your body so you both can eat? 3. What do you think are the three most important things in life?
The questions game

1. Depends. 2. Lebron James 3. It could be bad because if we eat them no one knows what will happen in the long run because there isn't enough research on it yet. My questions: 1. In order of importance how would you rank: happiness, money, love, health, fame? 2. What is something you have always wanted since you were a kid? 3. What could society do without? 4. If you could go back in time and tell a younger version of yourself one thing, what would you tell?
The questions game

1: 1. See the real Titanic in person 2. Travel around the world (ya I know I only have 6 months, but still...) 3. Visit all the places I've been in my life 4. Visit family (tell them not to worry about me) 5. Try to live life like normal 6. Write a letter and hide it 7. Make a box for people in the future to find 8. Read a book (not very exciting but, you know, I'm a book person :-) ) 9. Say goodbye. 10. Die peacefully on a sunny day, with a slight breeze, in the wild. Maybe near a lake... 2: 1. Queen Elizabeth II 2. Francis Drake 3. Captain J. Smith 4. King Henry 5. Someone from the 1500's. 3. I don't need to be remembered. As long as I do my part in the world I'm fine. If I'm not remembered for doing it, then it's okay. Being remembered for doing something is a bonus, whether it be good or bad. I believe that every living thing is a gear, and there are no extra pieces. Everything helps to make the world work. But, if I had to be remembered for something, it would be oiling those gears. To keep them turning. My questions: 1. Would you die for someone you loved (a lot)? 2. Who did you most admire growing up and why? 3. What do you think on genetically modifying animals?
Soviet Russia was better than Imperial Russia

You are being hypocritical. If a new government is inevitable then Tsar Nicholas would have been replaced anyway. the Russians could have had many different types of goverments but they choose communism. Communism was even worse than Nazism. Many people in Ukraine joined the SS even though that had been under Soviet propaganda for decades. Recently Russia gave the Tsar Ivan the terrible ruler was even given a statue. People in Russia are taking down Lenin statues the amount of executions in Soviet Russia was much more and freedoms have been shown to be signifigantly less.
Soviet Russia was better than Imperial Russia

the Soviet Union did make it better for the average Russian, and you even said it your self "A new government was inevitable" and Stalin made people go in gulags because they did not like his rule, and yes Russia was going to collapse, the government was close to bankrupt and had little amounts of money and if the Soviet Union did not over through Russia's Monarchy than after WW2 Russia would be gone and the allies might have even lost the war.
better to not treat sick people

"i am saying altering nature un naturally will result in un natural events"Ok then your point being...."it is extremtly simple to understand.. if treating sick people causes genes that are not suppose to exist to spread then treating people is the wrong thing"So you are saying that since those people live through whatever disease they braved then they spread something that is not supposed to exist. Therefore it is then wrong. Why? What is wrong with genes that could not exist without human intervention? Plastics could not exist without human intervention and they are one of the most helpful things we have invented.Pro still has not attacked my arguements from round 2.
better to not treat sick people

"read my argument again."ok, i will."the shape of my body changes according to the environment"still no citation"if we treat people that get sick, we interfere with nature"you are arguing that it is bad to interfere with nature, that is appeal to nature"it is natural to die from a deadly disease, so that person not dying and getting kids spread genes that are not supposed to exist in nature,"You are saying the kids genes are unnatural and thus bad. Appeal to nature."now these kids need treatment for eksample.. might not be like that maybe on a larger scale.. but its there, because nature was interfered with"You are arguing that something bad happened because quote, "nature has been interfered with." That is still appeal to nature, which is still a fallacy. As for my points.... Well you didn't attack them so i wont bother defending them. But they still are there, and they still go unchallenged.
better to not treat sick people

1."the shape of my body changes according to the environment" Citation please 2.The rest of my opponents argument is a fallacy called appeal to nature https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... Time for my own points 1. Medication increases life expectancy. notice how life expectancy goes up as technology progresses. http://ourworldindata.org... less death is good. 2.A study of 2 colleges. One thought modern medicine was good. The other was religious, and was taught "Christian science healing" "William F. Simpson, an assistant professor of mathematics and computer science at Emporia State University conducted an exploratory study into the effectiveness of Christian Science healing. He compared alumni records from a Christian Science school (Principia College in Elsah, IL) with those from the secular University of Kansas in Lawrence, KS. One would expect that if Christian Science healing is as effective as conventional medicine, then the graduates of Principia College would live longer than those from Kansas. This is because the Church forbids the use of alcohol and tobacco. But the results were in the opposite direction. The death rates among Principia graduates from 1934 to 1948 were significantly higher than those of the University of Kansas graduates. (26.2 vs. 20.9% for men; 11.3 vs. 9.9% for women)." http://www.religioustolerance.org... (note "Christian Science healing is NOT medicine, it is prayer http://christianscience.com...) what is interesting is that despite the fact that Principia College taught their students not to drink or do drugs, they STILL had a higher death rate then the College that practiced medicine. This helps prove that Medication saves lives, a reason we should use it instead of letting people DIE.
Avatar the last airbender is the best anime

water, earth, fire, air. Long ago the four nations lived together in harmony, then everything changed when the fire nation attacked. Only the avatar, master of all four elements could stop them but when the world needed him most, he vanished... 100 years past and my brother and i discovered the new avatar, an airbender named Aang and although his airbending skills are great he has a lot to learn before he's ready to save anyone. But i believe Aang can save the world. *INTENSE MUSIC*
Richer people should be more dominant over hard working people

Well I don't see how celebrities force other people to work that hard. We live in a free country (in my case Ireland) and your boss can't force you to work more than what the government regulates, and if he try and you refuse then you get fired and the government gives you a lot of money to life while you are searching for a job. This creates a quite bad culture because many many people earn more money by staying at home without a job than by working in with a low salary job, and this hurts the economy. Rich people should not permit such behavior. In other hand we need rich people, because they are the niche market for all new technologies: electricity, TV, mobile phones... without them those technologies wouldn't emerge in the first place.
Richer people should be more dominant over hard working people

Yes but hard working people work hard to live but they stay celebrities throughout their lives, but hard working people have to work to eat unless on benefits, but they may have hidden talents that if they want can be found by the big timers, so they can live up but down at the same time if you get my precise meaning. Celebrities don't have to hog the spot light all the time so give the hard working class a chance! Can you list 10 things that Celebrities have done for you apart from amusement needs? Go on then!