BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

"So 93%, that sounds like a lot of unprotected intercourse going on to me, so it is safe to say that abortion is used for reliving the consequences."- So the mother's life plans and goals are considered "social reasons." That is crap. It is so important that a young, maybe foolish, girl's life isn't ruined by one mistake. Even if she did have unprotected sex, she is young! She is a kid! People make mistakes! They do not deserve to have they lives pushed way off track because of one stupid mistake. "Ok you say why do we keep not vegetables alive, because their not human. We have brains that function, and we eat those. It is worth keeping it alive, and when you kill it you will feel bad. And even If you don't want it, adoption is another option, at least it now has a chance for a good life."- You know I am talking about vegetables as in people in comas that won't wake up right? We eat brains? Lolz. "And even If you don't want it, adoption is another option, at least it now has a chance for a good life."- Still that is nine months of a mother's life which could be wasted. Pregnancy could stop her from taking her dream job, a life-changing opportunity, or hurt her financial situation. Not to mention that pregnancy is ten times more dangerous than abortion. Also, do you know what percentage of kids put up for adoption are adopted? A very small percentage. We already have a surplus of unwanted orphans, why add more to an already overpopulated earth? Also it is extremely emotionally difficult for a new mother to give up her baby. "Now the Complication thing. Did you know they may have liked Abortion to breast cancer! And possibly cervical cancer! Well to me that sounds a lot worse then and pregnancy complications."- The key word here being "may have." You would need to cite this anyway. Do you know all possible pregnancy complications? You can die from pregnancy complications. You can develop depression from pregnancy as well as many other diseases and disorders. "Most people don't know much about abortions when they do it, and rarely do they get told unless their educated like you and me."- That is their problem and does not warrant it being illegal. Most people do not know much about politics and they still vote. Should we outlaw voting? "Well and you said "mothers risk". Also like saying her choice am I wrong? Well think of it like this, can a woman chose to kill someone without consequences? NO!"- The fetus is not a person. It is a bunch of cells. It does not feel pain, nor is it sad when it is killed. It hasn't had time to become a person. The mother on the other hand has people that love and care about her. She gets priority. She should not have her life ruined for a bunch of cells that happen to be human that no one will miss.
Abortion

Ok, you have a great argument, but you make it sound like the girl was assault or something. This is untrue, here are some basic statistics: Only 7% of abortions are for hard cases. Mother's health 3%, baby problem 3%, incest/assault 1%, or social reasons/birth control 93%. These come to us from Alan Guttmacher Institute, a.k.a. a special part of planned parenthood. So 93%, that sounds like a lot of unprotected intercourse going on to me, so it is safe to say that abortion is used for reliving the consequences. Ok you say why do we keep not vegetables alive, because their not human. We have brains that function, and we eat those. It is worth keeping it alive, and when you kill it you will feel bad. And even If you don't want it, adoption is another option, at least it now has a chance for a good life. Now the Complication thing. Did you know they may have liked Abortion to breast cancer! And possibly cervical cancer! Well to me that sounds a lot worse then and pregnancy complications. Yes it is the mothers risk because she may not ever have kids again, but that's terrible. Most people don't know much about abortions when they do it, and rarely do they get told unless their educated like you and me. Well and you said "mothers risk". Also like saying her choice am I wrong? Well think of it like this, can a woman chose to kill someone without consequences? NO!
Abortion

" It justifies irresponsibility of the consequences that can come from unprotected sex."- This is a fallacy. Women who get abortions suffer because of the emotional and physical difficulties of getting rid of a child one is carrying. They also have to pay a great deal of money. Getting an abortion is a bad consequence of having unprotected sex, but it is better than them having the child because it keeps them from having all their plans and ambitions ruined because of a child and it keeps an unwanted child from being brought into the world. "It can harm the mother with many complications, one of them is placenta praevia."- This is true. But, the risks and harms that come from pregnancy are much higher and more serious. "Sometimes makes the mother unable to have kids again."- If that is a risk the mother is willing to take then it should be her choice whether or not to risk her fertility. "The baby is alive, it is not just a group of cells as some abortion doctors describe it has brain waves, finger prints, can wake and sleep make fists, and feels touch."- Just because something is alive does not make it inherently worth keeping alive. We don't like to keep vegetables alive, or murderers, or certain animals.
Abortion

1. It justifies irresponsibility of the consequences that can come from unprotected sex. 2. It can harm the mother with many complications, one of them is placenta praevia. 3. Sometimes makes the mother unable to have kids again. 4. The baby is alive, it is not just a group of cells as some abortion doctors describe it has brain waves, finger prints, can wake and sleep make fists, and feels touch. I am open to anyone in this challenge.
Abortion

Your right, but they made a law, so they broke the constitution themselves. So basically an use of power. I'm not arguing against the supreme court, I'm just saying they made a constitutional mistake. So it should have started in congress, then ended in the supreme court, then i might have different views. And you think a fetus isn't human, so when does being a human start? I have said my view you have none on this issue. When does it start? It might be newborn, or even adult. you say a fetus isn't because it is still changing. adults and newborns are hugely different, and humans are ever changing until death. so i think we need a starting point, why not at the beginning? I have never said abortion needs to be illegal i just think only for certain cases, aka rape or when her life is in danger. And sometimes I even am skeptical against abortion for the assault case. So stop putting, words in my mouth.And yes people could protected and still become pregnant, they took the risk still. So stop f$%^(*. I'm pro choice in certian cases. It isn't clear your right, but as I said above, it may lead to other cancers, and you only proved ond possibly wrong. And it has a lot of proof for breast cancer because people in Brazil did a survey, 30% of breast cancer women have had at least 1 abortion, and 40% of women who have had abortion will get breast cancer. So yo saying i didn't respond it looks like i did, and you have clearly not responded to the cervical cancer argument.
Buffalo Is A Drinking Town With A Hockey Problem

"The economy is currently struggling though because of all of the factories and businesses that have closed recently due to the economic struggle throughout the country making it so no one in buffalo can afford to go to hockey games now and the revenue will not help the roads and building that are falling apart throughout Buffalo and the tax on ticket sales will not make a small dent in the economy. " I was not referring to the tax, I meant the profits. While many businesses and factories have closed, many more would do so without hockey. Bars, HSBC Arena, and any business that sells Buffalo Sabres merchandise would experience a drop in revenue without the benefit of the hockey team. For these businesses, hockey is not a problem, it is important. "[1] Town: a thickly populated area, usually smaller than a city and larger than a village, having fixed boundaries and certain local powers of government. So a town can not exist without people and if the people of a town drink then the town is a drinking town. " Not everyone in a town drinks, though, especially when you take into account the under-21 subset of the population. Conclusion My opponent has failed to prove that Buffalo is a drinking town with a hockey problem.
Buffalo Is A Drinking Town With A Hockey Problem

"Home games at the HSBC Arena have sold out and the [2]HSBC Arena has a seating capacity of 18,690 for hockey games" "This is not a problem. The revenue from ticket sales will directly benefit the local economy." "Hockey is not a problem because the money from tickets sales, merchandise, and other hockey-related expenses benefits the economy." The economy is currently struggling though because of all of the factories and businesses that have closed recently due to the economic struggle throughout the country making it so no one in buffalo can afford to go to hockey games now and the revenue will not help the roads and building that are falling apart throughout Buffalo and the tax on ticket sales will not make a small dent in the economy. "Buffalo cannot be a drinking town because a town itself is incapable of drinking. While there may be people in the town who drink, people are not a town." [1] Town: a thickly populated area, usually smaller than a city and larger than a village, having fixed boundaries and certain local powers of government. So a town can not exist without people and if the people of a town drink then the town is a drinking town. [1http://dictionary.reference.com...
Buffalo Is A Drinking Town With A Hockey Problem

Rebuttal "Buffalo: [1] A drinking game popular in Iceland the rules are as follows: 1. Everybody must use their left hand while drinking (except if you are left handed). 2. If you see anyone drinking with the right hand, you begin shouting BUFFALO! BUFFALO! BUFFALO! and clap your hands or bang a table in the same rhythm. Now everybody notice and join in. 3. This means that the unfortunate drinker must finish his/her drink as fast as he/she can to make you stop. There are no exceptions from finishing the drink." This has nothing to do with the town itself, aside from sharing the same name. You also have not made any argument attempting to prove that this meets the definition of a problem. This is a definition without an argument. "Home games at the HSBC Arena have sold out and the [2]HSBC Arena has a seating capacity of 18,690 for hockey games" This is not a problem. The revenue from ticket sales will directly benefit the local economy. "[3]The Buffalo Sabers in there last season won 50 games and lost 45 games meeting your definition of a problem because it is difficult for the Buffalo Sabers a hockey team to win" They have a win ratio of 10:9 wins to losses. This proves that they are more likely to win than to lose. Arguments Buffalo cannot be a drinking town because a town itself is incapable of drinking. While there may be people in the town who drink, people are not a town. Hockey is not a problem because the money from tickets sales, merchandise, and other hockey-related expenses benefits the economy. It also creates jobs, as evidenced by the numerous employees working for both the Buffalo Sabres and HSBC Arena.
Buffalo Is A Drinking Town With A Hockey Problem

Buffalo: [1] A drinking game popular in Iceland the rules are as follows: 1. Everybody must use their left hand while drinking (except if you are left handed). 2. If you see anyone drinking with the right hand, you begin shouting BUFFALO! BUFFALO! BUFFALO! and clap your hands or bang a table in the same rhythm. Now everybody notice and join in. 3. This means that the unfortunate drinker must finish his/her drink as fast as he/she can to make you stop. There are no exceptions from finishing the drink. Home games at the HSBC Arena have sold out and the [2]HSBC Arena has a seating capacity of 18,690 for hockey games [3]The Buffalo Sabers in there last season won 50 games and lost 45 games meeting your definition of a problem because it is difficult for the Buffalo Sabers a hockey team to win [1]http://www.webtender.com... [2]http://www.hsbcarena.com... [3]http://sports.yahoo.com...
You Should Never Believe Anything With Insufficient Evidence

My opponent seems to say that accepting testimonial claims based on insufficient evidence is okay due to having faith in the testimony giver's education. Now when you base something on faith you are saying that you believe something without evidence. In the case of the doctor, my opponent could argue that the simple fact that the doctor is in the office is evidence enough. By that logic it can be said that any person in a doctors office with a lab coat on becomes a doctor due to the environment. "To know is one thing, and to know for certain that we know is another." by William James "The Will to Believe." In this quote by James I would like to point out that you may think you know the person treating you is a doctor, but you would not know for certain even if they have certificates and diplomas. I say this because all they are in base form is a print out that anyone can do. In this sense it would be wise to seek a second opinion or even a third to verify what the first doctor has said. Because it may be the case that the initial doctor was not truly certified. But by verifying his conclusions true based of evidence you can argue that it could be the case that if the second or even third doctor agrees with the initial diagnosis was indeed correct and it seems to be that the initial doctor was right and true, but this is done by gathering trace data for yourself and using it to connect the similarities with the different professionals to form your own conclusion. As you clearly see you have confirmed the diagnosis through what could be seen as an initial I.Q, is the original doctor a true doctor. But my opponent would like to say that you can simply have faith, and this is belief with no evidence. The correct route would be to take the argument Plato created, I only know that I know nothing, stating that you do not have all the knowledge in the world, and can't assume based on faith that others do have that knowledge. Also note that my opponent will also be using some evidence based arguments by using references from books read in class. If no evidence is needed, then why does he feel the need to provide some?
You Should Never Believe Anything With Insufficient Evidence

To directly address our opponents concerns with gathering sufficient data to indeed prove that they are ill by going to more than one doctor, we would simply say in order to go get a second or third opinion, one would need to believe, and not know for certain, that the first doctor's diagnosis was inaccurate. But we would like to raise a more important point. William K. Clifford, from his essay "The Ethics of Belief," claims that "In the supposed cases which have been considered, it has been judged wrong to believe on insufficient evidence, or to nourish belief by suppressing doubts and avoiding investigation. The reason of this judgement is not far to seek: it is that the belief held by one man was of great importance to other men." I will quickly summarize his example; A ship captain, who is in charge of the welfare of his crew, opts not to inspect the ship, and because of his neglect, the ship wrecks and his crew dies. Certainly this is a compelling enough argument for us to investigate all of our beliefs. But William James' argument from his essay "The Will to Believe" is a more compelling argument. He says that "Our reason is quite satisfied, in nine-hundred and ninety-nine cases out of every thousand of us, if it can find a few arguments that will do to recite in case our credulity is criticized by some one else. Our faith is faith in some one else's faith, and in the greatest matter this is most the case." What James is saying is that nearly all of what we know to be true, including the idea that there are molecules holding us all together, stems from a knowledge gained either second or third hand, and in having multiple people confirm that our beliefs are true, we claim them to be facts. Let us refer once more to our opponent's example of gaining a second or third opinion from multiple doctors; In their argument, they claim that by gaining the opinion of more than one doctor, they gain the true knowledge of their illness. Thus, they have already stated what James claims. So, we will propose the idea that since we cannot have the time to investigate all of our beliefs as Clifford claims we should, and accepting James' theory that most of what we know is gained through the collaboration of testimony, that you always hold some onto something that you claim to be true, without having done the sufficient research into that belief. Therefore, it is necessary to hold some beliefs on insufficient evidence.
Pokemon Go is Safe

Pokemon go isn't safe and it could put younger ages of people playing Pokemon go at risk. For example there's something called local lures in which it allows players to set them up at poke stops which lures Pokemon there. But the lure can be seen by other players this could be a bad thing as pedophiles are using this to lure in kids. not to mention a news report saying that teens and adults were using Pokemon go lures to rob people. People may think that this game is a friendly non app but there's more that meets the eye than just catching a pikachu.
The HPV vaccine should be mandatory.

My arguments are as follows. 1. The majority of people who contract HPV do so after their 20th birthday. At 20 years old you are considered an adult in most locations and are more then capable of weighing the pros and cons of getting a vaccination. Source: jama.jamanetwork.com/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=205774 2. HPV once contracted is unlikely to cause any serious harm. Most people who contract HPV never develop any symptoms and 90% of infections go away by themselves within 2 years. With the exception of cervical cancer the cancers caused by HPV ( several genital cancers and oropharyngeal cancer) are rare. It's just not worth it to vaccinate kids against something that is so unlikely to cause any serious harm. Source: m.cdc.gov/en/healthsafetytopics/diseasesconditions/stds/genitalhpv_fs 3. The most likely serious disease as a result oh HPV is cervical cancer. The median age of death for someone contracting Cervical cancer is 57. It's likely that your life will extend significantly past that with regular health screenings and proper diet also. The life expectancy in the united states is 77. So with proper health screenings and diet we can shrink that gap significantly. In all likelihood we are talking about a gap of just 5 to 10 years for extremely motivated and vigilant people. 25% of people die before reaching age 50. So of the people getting cervical cancer atleast 25% would have died before the cancer killed them anyway. We are talking about a very small percentage of people here who will not have their lifespan decreased significantly. If their lifespan is decreased significantly it's because they made a conscious decision as adults to avoid vaccination, regular screenings and proper diet. It seems like a big step to take to force people to extend their lifespan when they have decided ( through apathy or concious decision) that they could care less if they die a premature death. Sources: seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/HTML/cervix.html CDC.gov/nchs/faststats/lifexpec.htm 4. The vaccines have a high success rate. Since they are close to 100% effective it makes very little sense to vaccinate individuals who could care less if they get HPV. Source: m.cdc.gov/en/healthsafetytopics/diseaseconditions/stds/genitalhpv_fs
The HPV vaccine should be mandatory.

I will start off by defining the terms involved in this topic: HPV - Human papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted virus in the United States. Almost every sexually active person will acquire HPV at some point in their lives. Vaccine - I think this is relatively obvious, but to be specific, the two main vaccines are from Gardasil and Cervarix, and are meant to prevent this disease from infecting new patients. These vaccines would be made available at no cost to individuals. Mandatory: required or commanded by authority; obligatory. In other words, should someone be unwilling to comply, they would have to pay a fee. The proceeds of those fees will be used to supplement costs of purchasing vaccines. I am taking the position that requiring everyone in the U.S. to get vaccinations against HPV before the age of 18 is not only good health policy, but is morally correct. I do not mean to provide arguments in this first post, and whoever agrees to accept this must use their first post just to agree, and perhaps (as I have) give a sentence laying out their general position. Round 1: Acceptance and sentence summary Round 2: Arguments for/against Round 3: Refutation of arguments Round 4: Closing arguments This is the first debate I have created on this website, and as such, I am new to here. Be that as it may, I do have an extensive background in debate, and therefore I would like whomever accepts the Con side of this argument to be well-versed in debate themselves. Aside from that, I would appreciate debating someone who has more than a cursory knowledge of vaccines and health policy. I'm not asking that you be an expert, but I'm hopeful that we can both start from a position of some knowledge. I look forward to this debate!
When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over envir protect

Well, looks like you have forfeited your round. Anyway, your first argument did not have any substantial points to even allow a chance for rebuttal. You have just copied and pasted the motto of the U.N from the website and there are no solid reasons to strengthen your argument. Hence, with nothing to rebut about, I will try and end this debate quickly and allow for voting to decide the winner