BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Abortion be Illegal? (My Computer broke so I wasn't able to finish)

Firstly, Where is your source? You cannot just say a statement and provide evidence without citing your source. also, just because its your body doesn't mean you have the right to do what ever you want. You cant masturbate at a playground even though your doing something with your own body. Also they is enough people to take in unwanted children. There are 323.1 million people in the U.S. and there is approximate 100,000 children waiting to be adopted according to https://showhope.org.... So there is definitely enough people to adopt children.
Should Abortion be Illegal? (My Computer broke so I wasn't able to finish)

life does not begin at fertilization after the sperm and egg meet it takes 12-14 days for it to travel into a womans uterus and implant to begin life this btw is when most miscarriages happen aside from this the fetus doesn't even become viable til 24 weeks gestation and it's iffy at that. Most experts agree that they really don't know when a fetus becomes viable and when they can feel pain i agree at that past a certain point abortion should be illegal but to tell a womans what she can and cant do with her body is tyrannical and seeing how full orphanages and foster care is should change anyones mind as to why abortion is needed. There simply arent enough people to take the many children produced every year that arent wanted and adoption is an expensive and lengthy process.
Should Abortion be Illegal? (My Computer broke so I wasn't able to finish)

Abortion should be outlawed except in cases when the Mom or the child are sick and will die due to birth. I have this position because it is quite obvious to see that abortion involves the murder of a human being. According to http://www.nrlc.org... life begins at fertilization, so after that the fetus is technically considered a human. And it is illegal to kill a innocent human being in america. So dosen't it make sense for abortion to be illegal?
There is a life after death

I have three things to say: Firstly i will quote the wiki of the Biocentric Universe theory: "Lanza has claimed that future experiments, such as scaled-up quantum superposition, will either support or contradict the theory.", This theory is, as of yet, completely unproven. If these 'future experiments' are actually carried out, there is a chance that the theory is actually correct, but at the moment there is no piece of supporting evidence that makes the Biocentric Universe theory an explanation for a life after death. Secondly, the double slit experiment is a demonstration of Wave Particle Duality, and in no way supports the Biocentric Universe theory. So what you are trying to tell me is that a loose theory that has absolutely no evidence supporting it is the reason why there DEFINITELY is an afterlife? There is nothing definitive about it at all. If you can find me one piece of scientific evidence that completely proves that there is an afterlife, not that there might be, not that 'its the only other explanation', that there genuinely is, then i will forfeit this debate.
There is a life after death

"Our souls" What souls? Do you mean our consciousness'? Our thoughts and feelings? But consciousness is just a product of our neural pathways being arranged in a specific way, resulting in the abundance of senses that occupy our minds. Do you have a citation for the story about the boy appearing in the white room? because it sounds completely false, after all, witness testimonies are almost always completely unreliable, simple psychology proves that. Also any 'out of body' experiences and images of heaven and such are most likely a byproduct of the massive release of DMT in your brain when you are dying which causes hallucinations. What makes you think that i can't shoot lasers from my eyes? You would ask for proof, evidence that i can do so, but ill say that i don't have any. Does this mean that i can shoot lasers out of my eyes? No, the idea is ludicrous, because there is no evidence, thus making it extremely unlikely that i can shoot lasers from my eyes. The same principle applies to life after death, can you prove that there is a life after death? No. Can i prove that i cannot shoot lasers from my eyes? No. So there is no reason to believe that there is a life after death, therefore i conclude that there isn't one, as there is no evidence.
There is a life after death

I would like to testify your answer, What makes you think that there Is no life after death? Where do you think we go once we die, our souls stays on earth for eternity, you can't just do nothing for the rest of eternity? There has been many proof, a kid died and appeared in this white room with an old guy who gave him a toy and said that it wasn't his time then the kid said that he just appeared in the operation room, can you please try to prove that for me please. I state my response
There is a life after death

It is controversial and unsettling to propose that there is no life after death. Unfortunately, however comforting it would be to think that there is a life after death, there is absolutely no solid evidence to support the claim. In all likelihood there is absolutely nothing after death, no heaven or reincarnation, just oblivion, nothingness. Many religions, particularly mainstream ones, use this concept of a life after death as a means by which to comfort people, although this cannot be used as evidence that there is a life after death.
Bernie Sanders Would Hurt America If Elected

My argument: Bernie Sanders would severly hurt America if elected in 2016.DISCLAIMER: My viewpoint in no way implies any support for any of the alternative/opposing candidates, or any support for a Democratic or Republican nomination. This debate strictly adheres to the policies of Sanders; at no point should this [debate] turn into one regarding any other candidates' policies. Economic and social issues will be discussed. Definitions: "Hurt" = be economically and socially detrimental to."America" = The United States (strictly speaking states, excluding territories)One more thing: Unconventially I used this round as an introduction in order to emphasize my main point. To compensate for this, I made this debate four rounds; the actual debating will have a maximum of three rounds. The opponent's first response can simply be an acceptance or whatever they so desire. Now that that's out of the way, anyone up for a debate?
Manspreading isn't a real problem

Manspreading refers to spreading your legs so wide you take up more than your fair share of seats and it is only applicable to busy forms of public transport. The following image would be considered manspreading https://goo.gl... Why is this guy ignorantly taking up more than his fair share of room on the subway? If my opponent is correct, it would mean that guys balls are the size of a watermelon. It would be considered a deformity, he should probably have looked at by a doctor. The truth is more likely that, that man is just an ignorant piece of shitt who is inconsiderate of those around him. Look at this next picture. This guy is taking up 3 seats, WTF? https://images.google.com... There are acceptable ways for men to sit that don"t involve crushing their balls. I sit with my legs slightly spread apart and my balls are quite large. (1) here is a picture of one man with really big balls sitting next to a guy with small balls. You"ll notice that the guy with small balls has his legs spread wider, while the guy with big balls has legs that don"t spread past the edges of his chair. https://goo.gl... So this is how you can sit in a comfortable position while having extremely large balls. If my opponent did have large balls, he would realize men can sit quite comfortably without taking up the seat next to them. As far women using purses for the next seat, they are being ignorant as well. We need to stop the spread regardless of who is ignorantly doing it. Just to close things up, here is another guy with big balls who doesn"t manspread but keeps his legs slightly apart in a comfortable way my opponent claims is impossible. https://images.google.com... Sources 1. Your mother
Manspreading isn't a real problem

in my personal experience, i have sat down and my balls have been smashed by closing my legs! The ballsweats are another thing. Also, PATRIARCHY! XD doesnt exist. Why do women who take up entire seats with their purses go unnoticed? grow some bigger balls (or thicker legs) TELL ME WHAT HAPPENS!!! im very sorry to hear ur parents castrated u as a boy :(
Immigrants saves an American boy

Although the man you mentioned had saved the lives of two Americans, it does not negate the fact that the man was still in illegal alien who had violated the customary laws of the United States. The man had knowingly broken the law and crossed into the US without official consent. It would appear that had any person been in the same situation, they would have reacted in kind and provide any assistance possible to rescue the man. Furthermore, dancer 4 admits that the man is glad to be back in his country after being deported. What "rights," for that matter, what entitlements should be given when a person knowingly breaks the law to sneak into a country that has not provided him an offer? Does a mugger who robbed a woman that day who catches another thief breaking into the same jewelry store get the reward for stopping a robbery? In addition, the possible implications that a man or a woman of illegal status should gain the rights to stay in the states if they help or rescue an American would cause a rippling effect of unimaginable porportion of illegals hanging around areas deemed hazardous or around American citizens for that matter waiting for an accident to happen to somehow "miraculously" save them from a disaster. It would also create a likelihood of false claims or staged claims of rescue that might endanger more lives rather than save them. Thus the possibility of fraud "rescue" cases would add greater strain to America's already stretched police, and quick rescue and response teams. Such scenarios would add greater financial strain to American tax payers as they are the people to pay for emergency responses. It would also result in situations where emergency response crews cannot react to real emergency situations. In summation, the man's deed was certainly meritous but possessing skills of humanity to which anyone would react to facing similar situations does not equate with gaining citizenship into a country.
Immigrants saves an American boy

Is it right to send an immigrant back to his country when he came to the U.S for a better life when he saved an american from harms way? Cordova, saved the life of nine year old Christopher- when he and his mom ran off a cliff in Arizona while camping just a while back and he was an illegal immigrant but he had gotten deported, as much as he says he is glad he is back home, he should of have had the right to stay. I mean if an American saves a little Mexican kid in Mexico he gets praised and gets to stay for his heroism and he doesnt have to leave the country so why is it so different with an illegal immigrant in America.
Size Matters

Many people do believe that size matters in today"s society. As a non-believer of the claim I still understand why today"s society is all talk about how tall, skinny, fat, short, or funny looking somebody is. Girls freak out when the "hottest" guy talks to them in school, when in reality people that act the coolest have the most going on. Nobody ever sees themselves as perfect, it is human nature to find ever the littlest flaw that nobody even sees or cares about, but today"s biggest insecurity is their weight. I think girls struggle with this topic the most, as always being judged and looked at by guys. If a girl is skinny or fat, her personality will always be the same. Why should looks determine your love life or friends? I believe both girls are boys should be able to eat, or do whatever they want. According to the common catch phrase, you only live once so why not enjoy life by eating and doing the activities that you WANT,instead of starving yourself or only eating gross foods that make you lose weight.
Should gay marriage be legal in the U.S.

First, my opponent claims that this is an issue of human rights, but this is not true. Society can choose to endorse certain types of sexual arrangements and give support in the form of benefits to these arrangements. Marriage was created to allow society to support heterosexual couples in procreation and society can choose not to give the same benefits to same-sex couples [1]. My opponent has yet to prove it is a human right. Second, my opponent claims that because of the phrase in the declaration of independence it means Homosexual marriage should be recognized because it pursues happiness, and was consensual. The is a perplexing comment because that phrase also mentions these rights were endowed by their creator, God, and religion often opposes not only Homosexual marriage, but homosexuality as well. Further, your rights end when they harm someone else, such as the case of Murder. You may be happier they are dead, but you violated the other person's right to life. Homosexual marriage has harms too. My opponent also mentions tax breaks, this is part of the first harm on society that taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships. Second, Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. We have seen this happen already in many states that decided to recognize such marriages, such as photographers in New Mexico, or catholic adoption agencies. Also, Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father. Many sociological studies show that a married mother an father are the best environment for children [2][3]. The biggest losers here are children. I hope that my opponent will respond to all criticism previous and current in the next round. Sources[1] . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...[2] . http://www.familystructurestudies.com...[3] . http://www.lifesitenews.com...
Should gay marriage be legal in the U.S.

First of all I would like to thank my opponent for making a well thought out response, also I apologize if my posts are short I just think that it is simply matter of human rights and should be black and white. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." this famous quote from The Declaration of Independence shows that as Americans if our happiness is to marry someone and it is a mutual consensual relationship then they should be able to do that. Also married people get tax breaks that should be available to all people, not just straight people. Once again I'm sorry that this is so short, but hopefully it makes enough sense to get my point across.
My opponent will win receive the most votes.

< > Regardless of the votes, I have just won the debate, as he is agreeing that the "constant" condition plays a role in the outcome of this debate. < > By saying this, my opponent is also saying that I will CONSTANTLY have more votes than he does, which simply is not true because at the end of this debate we will be tied AND I will cast the first vote for "Con", thus making him completely wrong. < > Untrue. My point is as misleading as saying that most Americans are obese. You do not exclude any citizens of the USA with this assessment. You include all of the "members" of the country. Therefore I cannot "receive the most votes", as it is doubtful that this debate will receive enough voters to fulfill the indicated meaning of "most". Then there is the matter in which the majority of the members of Debate.org do not gravitate towards debates of such a frivalous matter -- they prefer to deliberate on debates with substance. <> Those members could just as easily vote "Pro", which makes them very relevant. That is like saying that an American's vote in U.S. Politics is irrelevant, which simply is not true. < http://www.samruby.com...; Actually, Spider-Man and I are good friends and he agrees with me: Superman can easily defeat Darth Vader any day of the week. HA! <> As I know you to be an excellent debater, I don't feel that your spelling should be factored into the voting decision, as I can quite easily discern what your meaning. Interesting debate, L-M! Thank you! I look forward to the outcome, as even I cannot guess how the voters will respond.
My opponent will win receive the most votes.

My opponent's asssssssumption is corrects as I do mean to imply for this outcome to be constant. In other words, I am saying that I won't CONSTANTLY have more votes than he does. My opponent says that most (by definition) won't vote for him, but his argument is rather misleading. In the context the resolution, it is clearly suggest that "most" refers to the ones who are interested enough in this debate to vote. Any membersssssss who hasn't viewed this page is irrelevant since they will be unable to be the cause of my opponent receiving more votes. My opponent is also wrong because of this web page: http://www.samruby.com... And noticeeeeeeee how I have yet again faaaailed to check for spelling/grammar. This is extremely disrespectful of me. My opponent will surely win receive the most votes.
My opponent will win receive the most votes.

I disagree with my opponent, as at the completion of this debate, we will be tied. By not indicating a time frame for a voting period, I can only assume that my opponent means for this outcome to be a constant. If you view some of the other debates on this site, you will see that only a fraction of the voters have voted on some debates, so though "some" may vote for me, "most" (by my definition being an overwhelming majority of the voters that are registered as members for this site) will not vote on this debate one way or the other.
My opponent will win receive the most votes.

My opponent will win since, tehrefore he will. Here, I have committed the fallacy of begging the question. Surely you would not vote for me because of this. I have also presented no evidence to prove that my opponent will win, so you have to vote for him/her. I havee also not bothered to spell check or check for grammatical errors in this post. In short, I am being nonsensical.
ps4 is better than xbox one

For me the main reason that I bought the Sony PS4 instead of the Microsoft Xbox One, remains simply the fact that I dont like Microsoft. I still see it as a money grubbing company that squeezes its consumers. Think back about all ideas about the Xbox Ones at launch (permanent online requirement, no second hand games etc). It was only the fact that Sony chose otherwise that Microsoft was forces to change its ridiculous policies. Even Xbox one owners have to thank Sony for that. I also prefer the PS4 controller above the Xbox controller, altough that is something personal. The higher resolution is an extra bonus for me. But not a game changer. A 900p upscale looks nearly as good as native 1080p. When it came to exclusives Xbox One held the lead for some time. But since the launch of Bloodborne (and the update improvements in Driveclub) I think the PS4 is catching up right now. Bloodborne is a very strong title. And Driveclub is after all updates not yet as good as Forza, but coming close to it. I do agree that their are still to less real next gen titles. And that even now, the real nextgen age hasnt even started. What is thanks to dull game developers. I hope Witcher 3 will deliver its promises and will really show nextgen capabilities. I was always a PC gamer by the way. But unfortunately the optimalisations of PC games by game developers became so bad, that it isnt really worth the extra investment anymore. Many PC games are full of bugs and framedrops. And requirements are ridiculous. Some games still run on Xbox 360 prehistoric hardware, but require state of the art PC's. Really ridiculous. So I choose to go for the PS4 instead of a new PC rig. I still own a gaming notebook for citybuilders, strategy games and shooters (I prefer mouse and keyboard for shooters). But for racing games and RPGs I now go for PS4 titles. But of course my experiences as PC gamer also created my negative opinion about Microsoft thanks to Windows policies etc.
Legalize Prostitution

Thank you for accepting and I'll jump right into my points.1)Legalized prostitution can be monitored for safe sex. Condoms would be mandatory and prostitutes would be regularly tested for Sexually transmitted diseases. If they are shown to be positive, they would be treated and not be in service.2)It creates jobs which stimulates the economy. The government can implement a tax on this which also provides more money to pay off United States debts.3)Illegal prostitution use would decrease, lowering the amount of STD's contracted, crimes committed and unplanned pregnancies occuring. One of the requirements to be a prostitute could be for women to get tubectomies and men to get vasectomies. 4)Legal prostitution refers to the act being sponsored by the government, any prostitution occuring while governmental standards are not met would be illegal prostitution. This can create a rating system similar to that of restaurant ratings (indicating which prostitutes are safe and which aren't).5)The prostitutes can be protected by body guards, creating more openings for security as well as ensuring the possible harm to the prostitute is minimized.I await my opponents reply :)