BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

But you aren't fighting for human rights. You are fighting for the "rights" of cells. You continually say those cells with son become humans. But they are not humans the time of abortion so you have to admit it cannot be murder because there IS NO HUMAN TO MURDER YET. There are types of abortion when a woman can decide to terminate her pregnancy when there is a child. In that case, she needs to sign a form saying if the child is born alive, it will be put up for adoption and she will have nothing to do with that. I do have something against that type of abortion because there is a chance that child will still live and if it does live, there will be mental disabilities. At the time of the normal abortion, the one the debate is about, THERE IS NO HUMAN TO KILL. Do you have any other points besides "But it'll become a human"? You say you will have something to say when a woman is responsible for another human life. Imagine you are a woman. Imagine you live in a very dangerous place, you have no money, no stability, you are scared, your boyfriend has left, you are on your own. You are pregnant. Do you really think that a wealthy white guy sitting in Congress of wherever has the right to tell you that you need to have that baby? They don't have to live where you live. They don't rxperience what you experience. They don't have a right. My points: There is no baby to kill at the time of abortion. A woman's body is a woman's body and no man has the right to tell her what to do with it especially if she is pregnant. Men may have an opinion about abortion, but you DO NOT have a right.
Abortion

Point One: This is where we disagree. You are trying to compare average everyday cells to that of fertilized human cells. One is going to become a human and one is urine. Also again when a women has her period the cells she is releasing aren"t fertilized and they are also just waist. You are comparing waist cells to that of fertile human ones. Point Two: I wont tell a women what to do with her body until that women is responsible for another persons life. That is when she gains responsibility of the person inside them. Part three: This is where we disagree. After a women gets an abortion they are going to feel a lot more than weird. Here are just some emotional outcomes form abortion http://americanpregnancy.org... Also life begins at conception because when the cell becomes fertile it will become a human. Please tell me what is the fertile cell going to become? Is it fertile just because? There for by getting an abortion all you are doing is terminating the first step of human growth, there for killing that human. Finally store bought eggs will not become chickens because they are store bought eggs. Final Point: Again I do have the right to fight for other people"s rights, which is what I am doing specifically those who are defenseless. You are right everyday cells do not have rights but fertile human cells do.
Abortion

You are wrong. You are just wrong. It is not murder to remove a few cells. Every time you urinate you get rid of cells. Every time a woman gets a period, she loses eggs. You could go further and say "well if an egg gets fertilized it will eventually become a baby." It's just not true. It's not murder to remove a few cells. I don't know where you get your information. A man does not have the right to tell a woman she can't do something concerning her own body. You don't. It's not your body so you don't get a say. It's not the same as telling a historian that they can't have an opinion on the time period they study. You are stretching what I say. Men do not deserve to have an opinion on a woman's own personal medical business as it does not occur in their own bodies. Yes a woman probably would feel... Weird after getting an abortion, like wondering. But definitely not like a part of her life is missing because she wouldn't not have carried another life inside her for 9 months and given birth to it. She would not have had life in her body at all as at the time, there is no baby. Only cells. I cannot stress this enough: it is no Abby at the time of abortion. That's like saying we shouldn't eat eggs because they may turn into a chicken one day. You have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. You do not automatically deserve it. It is a woman's personal right. A cell doesn't have rights. Abortion is not murder. *also, you may want to check your spelling. You have a lot of misspelled words. It doesn't really help your argument.
Abortion

First Point: Me not being a female does not mean I cannot have an opinion on the subject of abortion. You are basically saying that just because historians didn't grow up in their perspective times that they teach in means they can't have opinions or ideas of the time. I have a penis and no I have never had a baby in my abdomen for 9 months nor have I had to go through a change of self image and etc. All this doesn't mean I don't get to have a opinion on the subject matter. Second Point: You stated this "If a woman has a baby and gives it up for adoption there will always feel like a part of her is missing." lets say a women gets pregnant from a one night fling or accidentally with a boyfriend/ husband. You are saying that this woman wouldn't feel like a piece of her is missing if she got an abortion? She would feel more pain by giving it up for adoption and letting her child live and enjoy life? Also women don't "create life" men are a huge part in the life making process. Third Point: "You are wrong when you say it is a baby when the abortion is performed. An abortion is performed within the first trimester. This is a period when there is no baby yet." This is the mane point of the whole abortion argument so I don't expect to change your mind but let me say this. The first trimester means nothing. Just because the human hasn't fully developed doesn't mean it won't eventually develop into a human. For example before a tree grows and is a seed in the ground is the seed not an important part of the trees growing cycle and only when the seed starts growing out of the grown is when we should care? The answer is no. The beginning stages even though they are very early on are still significant and aborting during this time is murder. The early stages are when humans are at their most vulnerable and don't have the ability to defend themselves. So finally just because its the first trimester doesn't matter it IS still going to become a human at this point of pregnancy and there for it is a human no matter how early. Forth Point: You say "No one has the right to say what a woman does with her own body [while pregnant]." You are wrong about this because once a woman is pregnant there is another life inside her and this life should have the same rights as her. The only difference is that the life inside her is in a development stages and just because it is developing doesn't mean it shouldn't have any less rights than you and me. Fifth Point: I am not using religion as my reason against abortion. Final Point: You act like "these cells" are not important and have no meaning. You are wrong this is a significant part in the development a human. "These cells" even though small and minuscule are still important and are still a developing human.
Abortion

Who are you to say it is wrong? Are you a female? Do you have a vagina? Do you have to carry a baby in your abdomen for 9 months straight and then push it out of your vagina? Do you have to go through months of discomfort? Do you have something weighing on your bladder so you have to pee every 5 minutes? Do you have something inside you that will do damage to your body, wreck havoc on your emotions, and change your self image? Do you have the possibility of death when a baby is born? No. You don't. Men should never have any say whatsoever in abortion. You do not have to experience any of this. Men can leave if they do not want the child. If a woman has a baby and gives it up for adoption there will always feel like a part of her is missing. Women create life. Who are men to say they don't have a choice? You are wrong. You are wrong when you say it is a baby when the abortion is performed. An abortion is performed within the first trimester. This is a period when there is no baby yet. There is only a sperm and an egg that have joined together. There is only a cluster of cells. That's it. Nothing else. There is no baby to kill at that point. Abortions are a WOMAN'S personal, private medical decision. It is VERY personal. No one has the right to say what a woman does with her own body. Do not come back at me and say it is against your religion. That is wrong. If someone says, "You can't get an abortion because it's against my religion," that's like saying "I'm a vegetarian so you can't eat meat." People, especially men, have NO RIGHT to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. An abortion is not killing a baby. It is the removal of a few cells. End of story.
Hitler Probably Didn't Die In 1945

Rebuttals"I. Hitler's Death"My opponent makes an interesting point, but it still does not make up for the lack of forensic evidence. As I have stated, the bones that the soviets have claimed to be the body of Hitler have since been proven to be the bones of a young woman. This pokes a big hole in my opponents point, as this represents a distinct lack of hard forensic evidence that places Hitler in the Fuhrer bunker as my opponent claims. Furthermore, how can the testimonies of Hitlers subordinates be trusted? Obviously, if Hitler was going to make an escape, he would order his loyal underlings to claim that he was dead, so that no one would go looking for him to kill him. "II. Hitler the Narcissist"I do agree that Adolf Hitler was a narcissist. It is because of that reason that he would seek to preserve his own life! He was so full of himself, he was willing to put his subordinates in danger in order to better cover-up his escape. Furthermore, he became an art dealer in South America! If that isn't a self-absorbed, eccentric, narcissitic, and pompous job, then I don't know what is! "III. Definitions"I have proved that A) Hitler didn't die in the bunker, and B) Hitler's "spirit" didn't "die" ever. Therefore, Hitler exists in a sense, and therefore cannot be dead.
Hitler Probably Didn't Die In 1945

Pros Case1. Life and Death(A) The Lack of Proper Forensics.Many would claim that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that Adolf Hitler did in fact die in the Fuhrerbunker in 1945. In fact, that is the case my opponent is supposed to be making. But what evidence is there for this? Historians claim that the idea that he died is scientific fact, but what is this other than a senseless appeal to authority? The only evidence that has ever been presented to say definitively that Hitler died in the bunker, is the skull that was found in the bunker.But recent DNA test have shown that that particular skull belonged to a very young woman. (1) There is an overwhelming lack of evidence to prove that Adolf Hitler died in that bunker!(B) New Evidence.Nowadays, more and more documents and files are being declassified regarding WWII, and experts are finally accepting that Hitler didn't die in 1945. Books such as The Grey Wolf: Hitlers Escape and Hitler's Exile have recently brought new evidence to light that shows that it is actually quite likely that Adolf Hitler fled Germany before the fall of Berlin, and escaped to South America. (2) (3) There are many reportings of Nazi boats and submarines landing in South America, and there are even CIA records that indicate that leaders such as FDR actually knew that Hitler had fled. Refuge wasn't sought by Hitler alone. Escaping was actually a trend amongst upper-level Nazis.(C) Other escapees.Many other Nazi celebrities escaped to South America following the collapse of the Third Reich. Josef Mengele and Otto Adolf Eichmann were both known escapees who went on to live in South America. Many Nazi leaders were taken to South America to seek refuge, is it so far fetched to assume that the evacuation of the Fuhrer wasn't at least attempted?2. Living on.... in our hearts.(A) The Ripples of Hitler.If I can prove that Hitler probably "existed" after 1945, then I have won this debate (as per the definitions set out in round 1). As the definition of existing was not provided in Round 1, I will argue that because Hitler affected many modern peoples, he did, in a sense, "exist."Considering the number of movies made about Hitler, the number of books written, and his influence has been palpable amongst groups such as the skin heads. Because Hitler continues to affect and change society today, he "exists."(B) Christianity and the Immortal Spirit.In Christianity, it is argued that every person is born with an immortal spirit that never truly dies. Many other religions include this as well, sometimes in the form of reincarnation. Even if my oppont can somehow by some miracle sufficiently convince you that Hitler may have died in the physical sense, my previous point and this one still are enough to warrant an affirmative vote. Hitler's soul would exist, even after his death. If Hitler's soul existed, then he fits the definiton of "life" and therefore is not "dead."SummaryVOTE PRO! (4)Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. http://beforeitsnews.com...3. http://www.dnaindia.com...4. Common sense
Hitler Probably Didn't Die In 1945

My Standard BoilerplateRulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.Round 3- Free choice.Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared.DefinitionsHitler - Adolf Hitler. Leader of Nazi Germany during WWII.Death - the result of dying: the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism.Life - the existence of an individual human being or animal. Probably - What is probable is the more likely of two outcomes. If the Pro proves that is more likely that Hitler didn't die (rather than die) in 1945, then Pro has won the argument.
ban islam

You've made no legitimate argument for why we should ban Islam. First off, you're obviously referring to the Islam that that the extremists practice. These extremists have their own interpretation of the Quran, a violent one at that. But what about peaceful Muslims? Peaceful Muslims may have their own peaceful interpretation. Should their version of Islam be banned? Also, not even the extreme version of Islam should be banned. Everyone should have the ability to practice whatever religion they want without censorship. As long as they don't harm anyone, they should be okay.
Sci-fi: People should be arrested for crimes they will commit in the future

Context: During an era of rapid innovation and invention, a brilliant scientist discovers a way to connect past and future times to the present. After a few years of invention and development, time travel has become a reality. Along with it comes moral, ethical and practical questions: Who should be allowed to use it? What should we do with it? Should we even use it at all? ETC. The consequences of altering the past are too great and is prohibited by the government. Although, they have decided no one I allowed to enter another time, they allow people to look through time windows to the past and reserve the use of time windows to the future for police and investigators. 1) Arrested: Apprehended and charged with a criminal breach of law. 2) Will commit: The time window shows the crime being committed by the person who is to be arrested. 3) Future: The immediate, near or distant time relative to the present. This will be a semi-serious debate (no trolling or semantics) but pretty casual for the most part. I figure there will be argumentation on topics like ethics, practicality and justice. General outline of the debate: 1: Acceptance 2: Argument, Evidence, and Links (if necessary) 3: Rebuttals 4: Summary Debate parameters: 8k character limit. 72 hours for submitting each round. 2 week open voting period. Comment if you think the debate category, sci-fi tag, number of rounds or something else should be changed before accepting the challenge.
Illegal Immigrants are at the base of almost every major problem in America.

First off, thanks for sending me this challenge. This will be interesting... Ok, so your contention is that illegals cause every major problem in America. In order to win, you must do two things: 1) outline every major problem in America and 2) prove how immigrants are responsible. If you don't do that, you don't have a debate. Period. Now, I think I will make a bold statement: It is the legals that cause problems for illegals. It is true that many immigrants have problems with gangs or drugs. But have you ever thought why they are in those kinds of situations? I think that it is the ones already here that force them to live in these conditions. For example, in Arizona, a law was just passed that put up very harsh punishments for hiring illegal immigrants. As a result, thousands, maybe millions, of immigrants have been fired from their jobs. They have no way to support themselves or their families. They now have two choices: move to another state, or resort to crime. I think that we have a moral obligation to create laws that encourage prosperity among immigrants. That way, they get what they want (work/good home) and we get what we want (labor). Yes, at the extremely superficial level, it is the immigrants that commit crimes or join gangs. But it our (for lack of a better term) "fault" that they have to live like that. In other words, if we would be more accepting and more immigrant-friendly, than they would not be forced to join in illicit activity in order to feed their families. Again, I'm not saying that we should just let all the borders open and let anyone who comes in become a citizen. But our laws should encourage immigration, not prohibit it. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With the current legislation, we are denying immigrants their inherent rights.
Illegal Immigrants are at the base of almost every major problem in America.

I will keep my opening statement brief. Illegal immigrants are a cancer on our nation. They can be linked back to almost any problem in America. Supporters of illegal immigrants throw out the same lame defenses, that our economy depends on them, that the work jobs Americans don't want to work, they are innocent people looking for a better life. I say they are criminals the second they cross our border and should be treated as such. Crime, gangs, drugs, health care, our economy, they affect all these things negatively. I will elaborate more in the later rounds.
Is God Real

God, Jehovah, the Messiah or Jesus Christ. Following the Christian teaching God created everything, the heavens and the earth. He loves his creation and sent his son to save the lost after the world fell into sin. Christ came, die for the sins of the world, and was resurrected on the third day. Views on slavery - "The idea that God or Christianity encourages or approves of slavery is shown to be false. In fact, anybody who was caught selling another person into slavery was to be executed. However, since voluntary slavery was widely practiced during biblical times, the Bible proscribes laws to protect the lives and health of slaves. Paul, the author of many of the New Testament writings, virtually ordered the Christian Philemon to release his Christian slave from his service to "do what is proper". In addition, numerous verses from the New Testament show that God values slaves as much as any free person and is not partial to anyone's standing before other people."
Should we allow euthanasia

Aside from totally ignoring my arguments, thus implicitly either agreeing or not knowing how to ague against them, the sources cited for the 1991 Dutch report on euthanasia, 2005 study by the New England Journal of Medicine and CNN of all sources are either outdated or unreliable. Surely CNN is not an academic authority. Surely, studies from the 1990's are superseded by the article I cited from 2011. Finally, deliberately appealing to emotion doesn't insulate medical professionals from ethical and legal responsibility. Healthcare is remarkably expensive and I fully agree more should be done to make healthcare more affordable or at least accessible to the population. But healthcare accessibility has absolutely nothing to do with legal and ethical ramifications for euthanasia, especially when we see some countries that permit these laws to be guilty of killing innocent people without their consent. I find such a stance to obfuscate the issue at hand and morally reprehensible. Obviously, enacting euthanasia is against the healthcare professional's duty of care to their patient and regulating it is impossible. Not only has the theoretical regulation been logically unmanageable, it has been practically unmanageable resulting in thousands of deaths without consent. I full agree that dying should be in the context of family support and dignity but I also agree this isn't reality for all persons. Assisting a patient in death results in obvious harm to the patient which is against a clinician's duty of care and thus unethical. It's difficult for me to see my opponent's arguments as logical when so many of the points presented are emotionally charged assertions. Suffering exists. Irremediable suffering exists. But law and ethics also exists and we cannot bridge the legal or ethical gap with arguments built on clouds. We must stay firmly rooted in reason, ethics and legislation. If we desire the best for all people, we must avoid legal decisions that can spiral out of control with supreme ease like euthanasia has had the track record of doing. Let's learn from the past to design a more ethical future. Thank you.