BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why Abortion should be banned

Most women that are raped are out by themselves late at night walking around or doing something crazy that they most likely shouldn't be. If they aren't wanting men to take advantage of them then why be out so late partying where it could possibly happen. The world isn't a safe place but we can control something's that happen. If they are willing to go out then they should take the responsibility of taking care of the child that was produced. Whether it is rape or not God put that child on this earth because he thought she would make a good mother no one what happened to her.
Why Abortion should be banned

What about the women who choose to get an abortion? Should they be forced to have a baby they don't want? Take rape for example. Women who are impregnated by rape do not have a say in becoming pregnant. They should at least have a say in what to do with their baby. It is their baby, after all. By denying abortion to a rape victim, she must live with the fact that she has a baby she never wanted. She must be constantly reminded of her burden and go through the pain of childbirth. Having a child takes commitment. It isn't right to make a woman have a child if she is not willing.
Why Abortion should be banned

When you go and get an abortion you are giving up a life that God gave you no matter if its an mistake. God wanted you to have that baby and you are killing it. If someone would have done that to you then you wouldn't be here at this very moment talking about how it should be done. Its good that now in some states you cant get an Abortion if you are over 12 weeks because by then the baby is starting to develop its organs and arms. Your killing a human being but you as a person don't realize that.
THBT religion has a detrimental effect on the modern world.

Ladies and gentlemen, today I seek to show that religion has a detrimental effect to the modern world, that it has an overall negative impact, and the world would be better off with it disappearing today. I will argue that "detrimental" refers jut to a negative overall effect. While I accept the contributions of religion to the formation of early society, I argue the place for religion is gone. Additionally, I make a claim that the religions today cannot separate themselves from their roots in scripture, and are still held accountable to them as that scripture inspires groups that, while on the fringe, are still caused by them and their influence. 1.Religion opposes progress, social and scientific. Today, in the modern world, there are a number of rights and concepts we find to be indisputable. Religion opposes black emancipation, women's rights, and enforces a series of assertions on the world and the law within their scripture. Let's look at the religious text with arguably the most influence on the world. The Torah, the foundation of all the Abrahamic religions. Slavery: Leviticus 25:44-Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Women's Rights: Exodus 21:7 (Sell your daughters as slaves) -And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 1 Timothy 2:12 (Also they can't talk)-But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. So clearly, the old testament of the major religions of the world opposed such concepts that we today see as fundamental. While much of the world ignores these parts, groups like the Islamic State show it is still taken seriously and is a serious threat. The social pressures levied against gay people shows this. On the scientific side, religion denies Evolution simply based on their scripture. Religion has, historically, opposed scientific advancements. Galileo Galilel, as a noted example. That has not ended. We have reached a point where religion is actually harming the health of people. Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions, and there is a myriad of deaths caused by parents attempting to heal their children with prayer[1]. 2. Religion inspires fanaticism. The Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, the Lord's Resistance Army, from the bombing of the WTC on 9/11, to the attacks on abortion clinics, religion incites violence. In a day and age when religion does not bind people together, when peoples do not form under the banner of the Holy Roman Empire or a Caliphate, religion merely serves to further divide people. Violence due to religion has been a hallmark of the Middle East in the modern world, and it exists nearly everywhere, albeit at varying levels. Religion has led to conflict and separation in places with diversity, simply due to religions not accepting others of their kind. Religion today causes more separatism than it does unity. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Good luck for the next round.
THBT religion has a detrimental effect on the modern world.

I accept. Never done a debate on religion but I think I can do this Just to be clear I want to provide a definition before he debate begins just so we agree on the definition of detrimental: causing damage or injury. [1] My opponent can provide a counter definition if he wants in his opening round, but that's a key word, so I wanted to provide that. Now, let the debate begin, and good luck to my opponent.
THBT religion has a detrimental effect on the modern world.

Religion covers all organized religions. Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam etc. The Modern world I will define as beginning in the late modern period, after the Industrial and French Revolutions. If you want to start the debate, you may present your arguments in your round and forfeit the last round. If not, just accept. Last speech in the debate will be for rebuttals only. Good luck.
America gives a illusion of security

My opponent states that "there are only a few occasions that we were attacked on our soil", which just helps prove my case. He has argued that "things have cooled down since [9/11]", which again backs my case up- the reason that things have cooled down is that we have these 9/11 security measures in effect, and are the only superpower. He has failed to attack anything that I have said, and failed to defend his own statements. Essentially, he is agreeing with both of my contentions.
America gives a illusion of security

First, I will establish my own case and then refute my opponent’s. America does not give an ILLUSION of security, because we are truly secure. It is not a false idea or belief; we truly are safe from threats. I. Terrorism is not a threat. Since 9/11, we have greatly increased our security measures. At 9/11, many Americans thought that security from terrorism was merely an illusion; however, now we are truly safe due to our security measures. According to McNeill in 2010, 30 terrorist plots have been stopped as a result of our new security measures. That is just counting attempted terrorist plots; every time a would-be terrorist attempts to plan an attack, but ultimately decides against it because of security measures, that is a stopped terrorist attack. Since September of 2001, there has not been a successful terrorist attack. Terrorism wasn’t even a threat to security anyways; according to Jenkins in 2011, each person between 1997 and 2006 had a 1 in 1 million chance of dying in a terrorist attack. II. Other countries are not a threat anymore. There are not any examples of America being attacked by another country after WW2. We must look at what is happening currently, not at what has happened; currently, the United Statesis the world’s only superpower. According to the green peace international organization,America has 9,962 nuclear weapons; each having about 30 times the explosive force of theHiroshimaexplosion. Because of this, no country wants to lead an invasion on American soil; no matter how many nukes the other country has, attacking Americais risky due to the fact that 9,962 nuclear weapons can easily destroy a country. There is no point attacking a country that has the ability to destroy you with the push of a button, which is why nobody has done it. Even before World War 2,Americawas still one of the most powerful countries. Now I will refute my opponent’s case. My opponent is essentially agreeing with me when saying that “there are only a few occasions that we were attacked on our soil.” If there have only been a few occasions, and none of those within the past 60 years, where Americahas been attacked on our soil, then we are essentially safe. Also, the attack on New Mexicois proving my case; it was Americainvading Mexico, as at the time of the Mexican War (which, contrary to my opponent’s 1916 date, took place from 1846-1847) New Mexico belonged to Mexico.America is a very powerful country that not many people mess with, as stated in my second contention. My opponent’s case also agrees with my first contention; my opponent states that “things have cooled down since” 9/11. This is agreeing with the fact that terrorism is not a threat.In conclusion, America is a safe country; there is no "illusion" about it. Terrorism is no longer a threat, and other countries are no longer a threat. My opponent has essentially agreed with this in his case. Thank you.
America gives a illusion of security

In this context, pro is agreeing that "America gives a illusion of security" whilst con disagrees that "America gives a illusion of security". First, let me elaborate my belief. I believe that The United States brings a large sense of protection that isn't there. Attempting not to confuse causality and causation, there are only a few occasions that we were attacked on our soil. Knowing that I could be wrong about the count, I count the 1775 british invasion, another british invasion in 1812 (where they burned our capital), The mexico invasion on 1916-- attack on New Mexico, Perl Harbor on 1941, The world trade center attack on 2001. These are only few occurrences and scattered throughout time. I believe that citizens of the United States therefore, believe they are "safe". The attack on the world trade center brought a sense of reality to americans that they could indeed be harmed by external forces. Things have cooled down since, allowing the illusion of security to be fully filled.
Saitama vs Kid Buu

First lets start with Buu's Instantanous Movement, unlike what my opponent said its not teleportation, it's Buu simply moving so fast that he gets from one point to the next instantly. Saitama has already fought and beaten and instant movement technique. When Saitama Fought Garou in his 2nd form, Garou used an attack called "Monster Calamity God Slaying Instant Attack", when he did this he moved instantly, he attempted to barrage Saitama with countess attacks, so fast that rubble stopped falling, the dust on the ground didn't stir, an after image wasn't even left because he wasn't there long enough to leave one. as the name suggest the attack was instantanous, Saitama was able to fight him pace for pace when he was doing it, and Saitama didn't even break a sweat. Furthermore when Garou entered his final form and was so much faster he made his previous form look like a sloth, Saitama not only kept up but was faster. So even if Buu can move Instantly, instantly is not fast enough to outmatch Saitama. So moving instantly won't outmatch Saitama or get Buu to the other side of the planet to blow it up before Saitama gets there, won't be able to charge up a planet buster before Saitama has time to counter (which as my opponent says does take him a few seconds), won't be able to get out of Saitama's vision since he cant move fast enough to do so, because, by all means Saitama can move instantly, and more then likely faster then it. Next Saitama's humanity. Firsty as previously stated Saitama is a hero, what type of hero would let his planet get blown up because he's hungry. .. .. . and in terms of going to the bathroom, you don't need a bathroom to go. Yes Saitama but referring to all previous points i've brought up, he will end the fight before his humanity takes its toll, he's both strong enough and fast enough to do it, and has dealt with Buu level regeneration before. Saitama wins.
Saitama vs Kid Buu

My opponent gave me a very good argument, and even gave me another reason of why Kid Buu would eventually win this. Kid Buu's unlimited stamina and ki. Kid Buu could fight forever if he wanted. Kid Buu doesn't really need to eat, drink, or sleep. He mostly just eats because he likes the taste of candy. And though Saitama is incredibly powerful...he's still human. He needs to eat, sleep, and everything else that a human needs to do. And it's not like Kid Buu would just let him go off on a lunch break. The moment Saitama would leave would give Kid Buu plenty of time to blow up the planet. Another factor is Kid Buu's teleportation. Kid Buu instantly copied Supreme Kai's instantaneous movement ability. He can appear anywhere he wants in an instant. So he could just teleport to the other side of the planet and blow it up from there if he wanted to. And it's not like Saitama can sense ki. If Saitama loses sight of Kid Buu, then it could be all over for him. We've seen how fast Kid Buu can charge up a planet busting attack. When he first turned into his Kid Buu form he charged up an attack that could destroy the Earth 10 times over in mere seconds. Though it's hard to say if Kid Buu would actually do that. Kid Buu is...well...a savage. When a powerful opponent is placed in front of him, he's gonna try to kill him. Saitama's durability may be able to take Kid Buu's hits, but Saitama has no way of killing Kid Buu in return. And while Saitama has no way of killing Kid Buu, Buu has a couple different ways to win this fight. He can either outlast Saitama, because of his infinite, ever regeneration stamina and ki. He can turn him into chocolate and absorb him. Or he could destroy the planet. There are other ways too, I'm sure, but there's no real point in bringing them up now. The point is, Saitama can't kill Kid Buu, and Kid Buu can't do much damage to Saitama in return. But Kid Buu's regeneration outclasses Satiama's durability. And the fact that Kid Buu doesn't really need sustenance to survive doesn't help Saitama at all, since HE does. This battle may take a VERY long time. Hell, it could take weeks. But Saitama can't fight an endless battle. As I stated before, he needs sleep, and he needs to eat. Kid Buu doesn't and eventually Saitama will tire out, even if it takes days, weeks, maybe even months. Kid Buu wins.
Ectopic Pregnancy Abortions

The case in question is Ectopic Pregnancy, a deadly condition in which a fertilized egg implants outside of a woman's uterus and can cause life threatening situation for her. In the rare cases where it is quite literally the child's life or the mother's, who should make the choice of life: the mother or the government? I will argue that the government should not force a woman to sacrifice her life for her unborn child and that therefor abortions in this case should be legal Con will attempt to argue that the government should force a woman to sacrifice her life for her unborn child by making Ectopic Pregnancy abortions specifically illegal Round 1 will be acceptance only Round 2 will be opening arguments Round 3 will be rebuttals Round 4 will be closing statements Legal arguments only Use of an Ad Hominem will be considered a forfeit This debate is limited to discourse on Ectopic Pregnancy Abortion only
Torture should be allowed by the United States government

Why I believe torture should be allowedAt first glance, we need to realize that the people the government torture are not some regular people, but are terrorists who's goal is to kill innocent people. The government needs to have every tool possible to extract information, as long as it doesn't kill him. I believe it is justified. Torture methods such as Water-boarding are only used in time ticking situations. We also need to remember what the role of government. in this limited government, it's job is to protect the people. Once we start to regulate and make it harder to for them to do their job, it makes it easier for terrorists.
There is no way to lie all your life

My opponent says "NO WAY". That means that my opponent must prove there is no scenario--ZERO scenarios in which you can lie all your life. My opponent claims that the average life was 66 years, but that's the improved rate since a long time ago. A long time ago, certainly it would be possible to lie "all your life" since the average life was too dang short. My opponent's definition is unfair mainly because he never stated in the resolution "NOWADAYS there is no way a person can lie all your life", no, simply, the resolution is "there is no way to lie all your life". Therefore I can make the scenario ANY scenario, because my opponent says there is NO way. So I can make the scenario be a baby because HIS average life is only a few seconds long, therefore I found a way that people can lie all their lives.
There is no way to lie all your life

Here's how you lie your "whole life":Baby is born.Baby is convinced world is new and dangerous.Baby lied to himself because he become comfortable in a few moments, but is still confused over what the world is. Before he can reach clarity a murderer rushes in and kills him.The baby lied to himself his whole life (which lasted a few seconds, but hey, it's a sad whole life for you!)Therefore at least one person can lie his whole life.
There is no way to lie all your life

Hello 9spaceking... We meet again. I would like to first point out that I will be defining "life" and "lie" as an average and in the context of the debate. More simply: life = full human life - birth to death - and average of 66 years lie = An intentional untruth. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) As we all know, it is possible to lie and get away with it. But, is it possible to lie all the time? In order for me to win this debate, I need to produce only one situation in life in which you cannot lie. My first scenario: ME: "Are you alive?" Liar: "Yes" = truth so: "No" ME: "Did you lie?" Liar: "Yes" = truth so: "No" That would mean the liar is not alive. I know the real truth by logic (he must be alive) so his "untruth" was simply a "piece of the puzzle" for me to prove he was lying. He indirectly told me the truth. This may seem vague so I will provide another example to clarify: Scenario 2: ME: *straps liar to polygraph and pain meter/functioning brain scans* ME: *pokes liar with sharp stick* ME: "Do you feel pain?" Liar: "Yes" = truth so: "No" but the brain scan tells the opposite story. He may have lied through his mouth... but his body told the truth. Kinda like sign language... Thank You. Over to you Con.
There is no way to lie all your life

"Also, my opponent uses a personal pronoun [your life]...That guy doesn't have to be the average person"Yes he does. I defined life as an average. And since it is "that guy's" (average) life, he himself must therefore be average. "Well your average person certainly does not deserve torture"You are right. However my second scenario is not torture, a sharp stick causes pain as does a papercut, or even a small punch. My scenario works as long as the brain scan picks up anything at all! A average person does get punched at least once in his life. Also, my first scenario still stands just as strong. "my opponent's 2 scenarios do not apply to my baby"Yes they do. If the baby was to live 66 more years (like already defined), either of my scenarios kick into place and he would have been forced to tell the truth.Again, There is no way to lie all your life. And logically, there are "many obstacles preventing the people above from lying forever" (your words) so think about it and vote me.Thank You.
There is no way to lie all your life

My opponent only uses a source to help me, in modern day life expectancy is 66 while in Bronze and Iron age life expectancy was 26. Why don't we go all the way back to the beginning of the human race, where people were certain to die of disease or lack of knowing of other animals? They would certainly get slaughtered as a baby. Also, my opponent uses a personal pronoun, "YOUR" in the resolution, meaning that only ONE person has to lie all his or her life. It's not like the resolution requires me to support that EVERYONE can lie their whole life, no, I just have to provide merely ONE instance--one OUTLIER, that manages to negate the resolution. That guy doesn't have to be the average person. He can be special. I will support this further with this instance: For example, what if the resolution was that "No one should be tortured". Well your average person certainly does not deserve torture, but "no one" includes EVERYBODY, and that means I can choose ONE PERSON so bad, so terrible, that he somehow deserves to be tortured. Similarly, we aren't talking about the general population. I'm not saying that the average man on earth can lie all his or her life. However, "the average man" is only one of many man--one of many methods I may try to defeat the resolution. I could choose a sly woman. I could choose Barack Obama. I could choose that hobo on the street. Even though are are many obstacles preventing the people above from lying forever, my opponent's 2 scenarios do not apply to my baby (since he cannot even speak, only lie to himself consciously and subconsciously). Thus I win. Vote me.
There is no way to lie all your life

"My opponent's definition is unfair mainly because he never stated in the resolution"My definition is completely fair. If you wanted to clarify you should have said so in the comments. This is your own fault. "My opponent claims that the average life was 66 years, but that's the improved rate since a long time ago."http://en.wikipedia.org...:"In the Bronze and Iron Age life expectancy was 26."26 is still not considered a baby. And before you start complaining that my source is wikipedia... read these:http://www.livescience.com...http://isites.harvard.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org...Not only that,"Before he can reach clarity"is more of a question, not a lie.Your "baby" scenario does not work. And you still haven't rebutted my other two scenarios even after two rounds.
Improved Medicare for All (USA)

)*To counter net contender advantage, Con shall only be allowed to respond with 7,000 characters in R4. *Each side must present one witty quote per round regarding the debate topic (starting R2). Improved Medicare for All:A health care system in which one payer (the government) funds all medically necessary procedures with a single insurance pool. Financed through a combination of payroll taxes and income taxes, or other methods. Equal access to coverage and patients have free choice of doctor. And with that, I await Con's acceptance.