BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion (Give me the best of the best)

Actually abortion has never been seriously advocated as a means for population control except in China. There are better ways to achieve such a goal. These include things like sexuality education and better access to contraceptives. Of course anti abortionists also oppose contraceptives because they can't tell the difference between them and abortions. As for opposing sexuality education the motivation is to control women's lives by keeping them ignorant about sex. By this reasoning women won't know what their vagina are for and as a result won't have sex. Which means fewer abortions. It is only after women are married are they allowed to know about sex not because it is good, at least not for the woman, but that it is necessary for producing babies and propagating the species. Historically before there were mass immunizations available and the discovery of antibiotics women (who had to be married) were expected to bear multiple children often a dozen or more with the implicit understanding most wouldn't survive past the first few years of childhood. High birth rates are still true in poor countries where infant mortality rates are high We know what reduces birth rates and the need for as many babies as possible. Economic development and improvement education as well as the dismantling of certain traditions which enforce the sexual ignorance, exploitation, coercion, and control of women Speaking or economic development the primary impetus for banning most abortions in the 19th and early 20th century was to force women out of the reproductive health field with the exception of nursing. This included not only abortions which were mostly performed by women but services given to a woman for the birth itself. Theses were done by both male and female providers but the men wanted the field to themselves and since they didn't do abortions getting rid of the women who did them was all to the better. In this discussion we have been focusing on having babies within a marriage.. In my next argument I will discuss ways women are made to stay within unhealthy marriages and how abortion bans/restrictions are part of a broad range of insidiously coercive ways to punish women for having sex outside to the narrow marital exception and this includes non-consensual sex which the male perpetrates
Abortion (Give me the best of the best)

I do very much appreciate your civility. It's a complicated issue and the controversy tends to cloud the actual issues. Now, you do have me greatly misunderstood. By no means is making abortion illegal any legislation on female sexuality. I myself believe that a woman can have as much responsible or irresponsible sex as she wants, its neither my place nor that of anyone else to decide when a woman has sex, or who it is with. But it is absolutely wrong and unethical to make a defenseless child responsible for the actions of those who conceived it. Have as much sex as you want, but if you get pregnant, you don't get to kill the child. That is legislation on killing a defenseless child, no one is stopping women from having sex. And by the way, if less women are having irresponsible sex because they can't conveniently abort it, by no means is that a bad thing. In regards to your argument saying that the only thing that matters is the number of babies, which I assume means reference to overpopulation, the only way you fix that is legislating sexuality, which you accused me of, as well as killing people who are presently living, abortions in the United Sates certainly aren't nearly enough to fix population. Abortion as a justification for population control is only a stepping stone to killing those who already living, and that is indefensible.
Abortion (Give me the best of the best)

You state as an important and compelling part of your argument the fact you are the child of a teenage mother and are glad you were born. And you are glad the woman who gave birth to you was willing to give you up for adoption. So the experience has worked out for you and we'll assume it has for your biological mother. Now lets go back to before the time your teenage mother decided not to have an abortion and instead to place you for adoption. Back to the time when she choose to open her legs. I will assume she did so without the intent of becoming pregnant. But she did and while it may not have been her intent she became pregnant and as a result conceived you. That was a choice she made. So did your biological father make a choice-- a choice which resulted in you. But it is a choice that didn't have to be made by either of them. Had it not been made there would be no you. Now lets take a look at the history of sexual intercourse and child bearing. What stands out are two things. The culture didn't think much of sex and it needed lots of babies. Of course you can't have the babies without the sex. So to solve this dilemma the institution of marriage was created. Sex outside of marriage was strictly forbidden. In the past your teenage mother after she gave birth to you would have been taken to the town square, stripped to the waist, and publicly flogged for her moral indiscretions. But within a marriage women were expected to open their legs as earlier and often as could be done. The purpose every time had to be to have a baby. The problem wasn't babies being killed off by abortion-- no one really cared about abortion. It was babies being killed by bugs by disease. Even in developed countries prior to the discovery of vaccines most children didn't survive the first 5 years and many dies in infancy. So the purpose of a woman in marriage was to have lots of children And as for abortion itself it is highly ironic considering all the other history that abortion itself wasn't specifically banned until the mid to late 19th century and the reasons for it had almost nothing to do with the fetus other than it was affected. The reason was men specifically medical doctors trying to eliminate competition in the care of pregnant women from competing disciplines which were dominated by female practitioners. It was these female practitioners who performed most the abortions. While abortion itself was not specifically banned it was a crime punishable by death for a woman to conceal a pregnancy The main point of this is to convey it is all about regulating female sexuality and the only concern about babies is having an adequate supply of them
Abortion (Give me the best of the best)

Look, before I get into my argument I'd like to start by prefacing it with some terms. I want the best single spokesperson the topic of abortion has to offer to come forward and debate with me. I'm all for free expression of ideas and would love some verbal sparring. Let's begin. The argument for abortion is simple. If a woman becomes pregnant accidentally, she shouldn't be forced to become a mother at a young age, and the easiest and most painless solution (at least for the mother) is to go to Planned Parenthood and have that child's head cut open and its brains sucked into a sink. However, it really doesn't take the words of Pope Francis to label killing a child for your own convenience as the absolute nature of evil. It's an emotional argument to say those who want abortion to be made illegal are those who want to force women to become teenage mothers. I can promise you, as a child born to a teen mother, I'm glad she wasn't forced to keep me, I'm glad I was put up for adoption, and I certainly don't feel I was better served to be killed. If I ever do want to end my life however, the decision will come down to me and my own sovereign mind, not that of anyone else. I myself do not want irresponsible 16 year old mothers raising the next generation of children, nowhere in that is infanticide the solution. At the close of my beginning argument, I just want to talk about the myth of women's body being infringed upon. It's not about what gets done to a women's vagina, as many people use that as a common euphemism. The child will come out of there eventually, whether dead or alive. The woman's body is rather unchanged in birth versus abortion, because the woman is not deciding the fate of her own body, she is deciding on the life or death of a sovereign entity that was brought into the world on no fault of its own. I'd love to see where we go with this, good luck!
There is an omnibenevolent god/God

First off, this will be my first debate, although I have followed others! Please bear with me if I don't use proper form :)BoP: SharedDefinitions:God/god- an entity that is omniscient and omnipotentOmnibenevolent- the agent has acted/acts/will act as morally as possible in every situationGratuitous- the event lacks a consequence that, in its goodness, surpasses the evil of the event and thereby lends purpose to the eventThe definition of omnibenevolence is subject to change if Pro wants to revise it, however I will make my opening argument using this definition.Opening Statements:I will argue that there is gratuitous evil, and that this fact negates the possibility of the existence of an entity that is both a god and omnibenevolent. There may be a god, and there may be an omnibenevolent entity, but not an omnibenevolent god.Examples of gratuitous evil are natural disasters. For example, the Yellow River flood in China in 1931 killed somewhere between 3.7 and 4 million people. Natural disasters like these kill innocent people without warning and destroy families. A recent film in 2012 called "The Impossible" recounts some of the horrors and suffering brought about by the tsunami in Thailand.If we accept that suffering is an evil, and is only justified if it is in response to equal or greater suffering (that is, the attempt to assassinate Hitler was justified on account of his abominable actions), then suffering caused by natural disasters is gratuitous. There is no higher good that they bring about; it is merely the suffering of people who are mostly innocent.Lastly, an entity that posesses the qualities of a god, that is, omniscience and omnipotence, and is also omnibenevolent, would prevent gratuitous evil. Since they are omniscient, they would know about the event. Omnipotence would allow them to interfere in whatever way they chose. Omnibenevolence would have them intervene to stop the evil, in the same way that a bystander to a murder who has the power to stop it is immoral if they ignore the murder.I look forward to a good debate, my first one! Thanks
There is an omnibenevolent god/God

You make the argument with my quote on how that is a situation were people are fixing problems. This is true, however in its context as you use it, is not correct. A man can commit a crime on another such as robbery, and this would be evil by you, if I am to be presuming your views correctly? Well, isn't that someone causing a problem? And not evil? If someone were to rape someone, scarring their mind, (also leading to the possibility of mental illness arising once again), arent they just causing problems? I still view this as evil. Along with all the good of people fixing problems. And why this system exists is to allow us to have free will. The ability for us to make choices, no matter how small they may be. When something has free will, it can do both good and evil, but some of these choices can be neutral. For an example, you like choosing what you eat for breakfast? What you wear? What you say? These choices need to be balanced. It may not be just, but in the end, the universe stays balanced, so we as people can make choices. And wanting a good world, is not having a God be omnibenevolent. Because a good world is a choiceless world. No decisions are made. Everything is just good. When the second a decision is made we become corrupt. And for your example withe the bioweapon, the bioweapon led to research in subatomics, which allowed new ways of producing power to be developed, which removed gasoline usage, thus making a much greener planet. Everything happens for a reason... Thank you for having me here. You made a really good debate. This has been fun! Cya 'round.. (P.S. make your argument times longer.. i really crammed to get this in)
There is an omnibenevolent god/God

It appears that you responded to my first point, but not really my second. In response to what you said: I still fail to see where the supposed equal good is that arose out of things like the Holocaust and rape in the modern day, for instance. Also, you said: "The mentally ill lead to the charity that helped the individual and his/her family and also started research to discover a cure. And along the way, we also learned a few things about the brain to change the world. The starving, led to the inspired individual to open a homeless shelter to help people who have nowhere to go." These are examples of people with problems fixing the same problems. A good world wouldn't have mental illnesses in the first place. The fact that their existence leads to us preventing them in the future is not sufficient good- the point is, we shouldn't have had to worry about mental illnesses in the first place. People starving being inspired to help other people starving, again, does not justify the very fact that there even were starving people. If I invent a bioweapon and use it to destroy a large portion of humanity, I don't say that the good of people being prepared for that bioweapon being used in the future in any way equalled the evil that the weapon itself wrought. I think this situation also contains an amount of irony: I could say "See what I've done for you guys? I've killed you with a bioweapon so you won't be killed by a bioweapon!" Sure, they may be inspired to prevent another such attack, but the attack shouldn't even have happened in the first place!Lastly, I don't think you really addressed my second point of why it's OK that goodness and evilness are not even remotely distributed equally. You said: "That is a perfect example of universal karma. It can either help you or not. It may not seem just, but it is balanced."I think an argument still needs to be provided as to why the unjustness of the system apparently has nothing to do with the overall success of the system. We are taught as children to share with those who don't have the same things that we have; in fact, there is research that shows that children have an innate sense of fairness that develops, even independently of prompting or teaching. I simply cannot accept that an omnibenevolent deity would allow such cruelties to happen to some while others are happy and successful.Thanks for the debate! I look forward to your final comments.
There is an omnibenevolent god/God

Hello, my rebuttal. If you believe and are going to theorize an universal karma, you must also count evil and good happening beyond humans. We are not the only source of good and evil in the entire universe. Thus, you can not use the world as the universe. For they are two completely separate and different beings. No, im not going to go on a rant about how aliens exist. That is a different debate. And trust me, there are balances to even hurricanes, or tsunamis (check my grammar and spelling on the plural form, sorry too lazy at this time of night to look it up :P ). In an example, a charity. Sometimes, they are huge benefits to millions, sometimes billions of people. The good is there. You just have to look for it. There is a same amount of good and evil. You;re argument actually gives some evidence, if I may quote, "some people are lucky enough to be intelligent and successful, and lead happy lives, while other people starve to death or are born with crippling disorders and disabilities." That is a perfect example of universal karma. It can either help you or not. It may not seem just, but it is balanced. And that is what makes it good. The fact that it keeps everything in check. So we can learn as humans. I shall use examples from your argument. The mentally ill lead to the charity that helped the individual and his/her family and also started research to discover a cure. And along the way, we also learned a few things about the brain to change the world. The starving, led to the inspired individual to open a homeless shelter to help people who have nowhere to go. The evil inspires good. Just as good can inspire evil. The husband that sacrificed her life to save her daughter inspired him to leave her. Thank you for having me. Ill cya in round 3.
There is an omnibenevolent god/God

As my rebuttal, I will point out two flaws I see with that argument.1) It seems highly unlikely that the good and evil in the world will ultimately equal each other, as your argument would imply. For the balance to be maintained, there would have to be an equal quantity of goodness in events and badness in events, but I see no reason to think that this is the case. I doubt that the learning and strengthening that results in the people who are lucky enough to survive faults of nature even comes close to making up for the badness of the events. I don't claim that this invalidates universal karma, but it seems highly unlikely nonetheless.2) Secondly: is this universal karma just? Even if we suppose that sum quantity of good and evil do ultimately equal each other in the universe, do the good and evil evenly distribute themselves among humans? The answer is clearly no: some people are lucky enough to be intelligent and successful, and lead happy lives, while other people starve to death or are born with crippling disorders and disabilities. While good and evil may equal each other cosmologically, it seems ridiculous to claim that they are given equally to all people. If they are not given equally, then it is just as much a problem, an evil in itself that it would not be characteristic of an omnibenevolent deity to allow. In short, life isn't fair to different people, and this is unjust and evil.
There is an omnibenevolent god/God

Greetings! Since this is a three rounder, Im gonna say you want me to start immediately yea? If so, then lets begin. A god will not prevent evil. He will not also produce good. This would cause an unbalance amongst the universe. And yes, there is a balance. It is all around you. This would be something a wise and very moral God would do. We can not learn from anything if everything is handed to us. If he made our lives perfect in every way, would be the point of our existence? What would be the point behind all the free will we have (supposed free will, but thats another debate for another time)? Yes, natural disasters are bad and they kill people. But the people that are left rise above it. They become better people that way... Sure the genocide from the storm is bad. Its what people do with it that helps us become morally better. Now, about the balance that exists.. I believe that they are a product of my personal definition of true universal karma. A universal balance that keeps it balanced as a whole. Bad things that come from bad luck are karma. Sometimes, people murder, and never get caught. Sometimes people molest and rape, unscathed. And they lead good lives.. this is why the balance is universal. Because it all must be balanced in one way or another.
Best Super Power

1. Lost car keys? No problem!Don't you just hate it when you lose your car keys? Well, if I had a car then I would too. Anyways, if you have the ability to find anything you wish, you can easily find your keys without any trouble at all. You can also find your remote, book, toy, sock, clothes, glasses, contact lenses, and more. These household items will no longer bother you by suddenly disappearing, since you will always know where they are. 2. Criminals on the loose!If you have the ability to find anything you wish, then you can always know where criminals (or their hideouts) are. Not only would people consider you an extremely good detective, but the police would also pay you a large sum of money for finding criminals and the people they work for. 3. Serve your country.The military has been having difficulties in foreign countries with problems such as landmines [1]. While these mines are intended for military vehicles, there are still 5,000 causalities as a cause of these mines. With your special abilities, you would be able to locate all the mines in a certain area, and the military can proceed to safely disarm them. Not only will you be saving a plethora of lives, but many people will also regard you as a hero. 4. Don't fail that test!The power that I am arguing for will let you have the ability to memorize anything you want. See, since you have the ability to find anything you want, you can "find" all those memories that you could not remember; thus, it is unlikely that you will fail a test or quiz ever again, since you will be able to memorize everything you have seen before. Conclusion-At first glance, the power I am arguing for may not seem like much; however, it is evident that by having this super power, you can do a plethora of things. Heck, you could even "find" a nice girl to date you! The examples I have provided in this round are just a small glimpse of what you can accomplish with this power. Thank you. [1] http://www.strategypage.com...
Best Super Power

We have both reached an agreement on what super powers we will be arguing for and what the rules will be. BOP-I, Pro, must prove that the ability to find anything you wish is a better power than invisibility. My opponent, Con, must prove that the power to turn in invisible is better than the ability to find anything you wish. Rules-1. Although this should not be necessary, there will be no abuse of semantics, loopholes, and/or word play. 2. We can not exploit our powers to make them God-like nor can we use them to attain other powers. For the purposes of this debate, "better" will be defined as "more useful".
Best Super Power

Well, this is kinda akward... It is clear that I will lose so I will just post my ConclusionConclusion In conclusion, I believe that the ability to turn something invisible is better than having the ability to find things because of many reasons. You wont be able to be found, you could stage and easy assasination, and you can go behind enemy lines or sneak in an enemies base to obtain information. That is why I think that the power of invisibility is better than the power to find anything you wish.