BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The West should take action against Iran now before they get Nuclear Weapons

I would love for the british and the americans to be able to talk to the Iranians. we have tried this in the past and it has not worked. we have talked to the IRA over the past 20 years and yes this has made things better in northern ireland, however there are still many problems there as the IRA are now fighting back. Israel has attempted talks with Hamas and Palestine but this has not worked, Hamas rockets still fly into Israel. I agree that allied countries such as Syria and Lebanon and maybe even Russia will not like us going to war with Iran but we would have the french, americans and the Israelis and many more on side to assist us in disarming Iran. Also, considering we are next door in Iraq, we are already in a very good position to invade.
The West should take action against Iran now before they get Nuclear Weapons

This may be a big problem for the British, But why should we cause more war,pain and suffering. Storming the contry and disarming there WMDs would not be the best way to solving the probelm, it would only spark a retailation from allied countrys and then we would have a even bigger problem on our hands, No war has ever been won by fighting, they have all be resolved in the end by talking.......
The West should take action against Iran now before they get Nuclear Weapons

For the last 30 years since the Islamic revolution, the state of Iran has been a great threat to western countries such as the UK, France and the USA. Many events have taken place such as the kidnapping of british, american and french soldiers, the storming of terrorists on the Iranian Embassy in London, the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie and the supply of weapons to terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. There is no doubt as to Irans openness to its hatred of the west and its desire to 'wipe Israel off the map' as President Ahmedinijad put it. Since many other countries such as UK, USA, India and Russia have Nuclear weapons then Iran claims it too has the right to obtain Nuclear weapons. I however, am strongly in favour of invading the country with assistance from the amercians and the Israelis, and disarming their nuclear programme before it progresses any further.
The West should take action against Iran now before they get Nuclear Weapons

This argument has come to an end, I do understand my oppoents claim, but still do disagree, Invading Iran would cause more problems then it would solve, America should not invade Irand and cause the death of thousands or people just because of threats that may be furtile, Should Iran attack the U.S and kill a large amount of people then I would back the american govenment in Invading Iran, but why should we attack Iran and kill a large number of people when they may not decide to attack... What I am basically saying is that in attacking Iran there would be death and destruction Inevitable, By waiting there COULD be some inoccent people killed, but also there could not, therefore why attack and inevitably cause death and distruction when there is the chance no death will occur? This is a risk I would be willing to take.
The West should take action against Iran now before they get Nuclear Weapons

we got to the point in iraq where we had to take action due to the worlds ignorance of what sadam hussein was doing to his own people. because nobody took action soon enough he was allowed to go on abusing and murdering his own people. we should learn from history and intervene early enough to stop it getting to 'drastic' measures. as for iraq, the country is a much better place now and we are able to pull our troops out. you say there has been much death and pain caused by our troops in iraq, this death and pain is not half as bad as under sadam and the country is slowly becoming a democracy. It has just had its first democratic elections and the people of iraq are very grateful of what we have done for them. I don't know if you are aware, but Iran write 'death to america' on the side of their missiles. they are openly in favour of physically destroying the state of Israel. They are a liability in the middle easy and we must intervene now to prevent them ever obtaining a nuclear missile with which they could threaten us and bully us out of the middle east, as Russia have done when we have intervened in eastern Europe. there is no point in leaving it until they fire a weapon at us as this will cause uneccesary pain and death which would have been prevented much earlier. the governments of the west will regret not taking action sooner when Iran launch weapons at us
The West should take action against Iran now before they get Nuclear Weapons

This invasion though looking like the best option would be a terriable decision, This war in Iran has not esculated drastically, invading there country would casue this and that is the one thing we all wish to avoid. Take the war Iraq for example we have been in this war since 2003 and all it has cause is death and pain. Why invade a country when there is not extream need.
Abortion

This needs to be sourced. You claim that the baby only has a self-conscienceless at 3-4 months, I highly doubt your unknown sources are correct. " Fourth paragraph: . http://www.scientificamerican.com... Fifth paragraph: . http://thebrainbank.scienceblog.com... Four and Five: . http://civilliberty.about.com... "Within the first 8 weeks the nervous system of the baby is developed enough to feel pain. " . http://www.newscientist.com... . http://www.motherjones.com... Even people against abortion disagree with you. . http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com... "An organism cannot feel pain without being self-aware. " Since the <20 month old fetus doesn't feel pain, this statement doesn't do anything. "Regardless of the baby's own level of self-consciousness, self-consciousness is not and should not be a prerequisite to be considered "human". A fetus is fully living and is the offspring of two human beings. It's a stretch to argue that it is not human and current scientific thought does not agree with you. " Hmmm. I find it very suspicious that there are no links referenced here. How about we find a link or two? . http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... . http://scienceblogs.com... "It's better to be given a chance, whether that be difficult then to be killed. " 1. Please check your grammar. Not trying to be a Grammar Nazi here, but use "than" instead of "then" 2. Your comment on how within the first 8 weeks, the baby can feel pain? When the baby is born, it can definitely feel pain. Do we want to make this child feel pain for years? Or do we want this child to not feel this pain, and instead, not feel anything at all? One last thing. The irony of most Pro-Life people is simple. Most "believe" that human life starts at conception, and ends at birth. (note: this isn't really what they believe, but that's what most act like) What I mean is that most take away all protection of the baby when it's born. Health-care? Nope. Decent education? Nope. That's one reason why I'm Pro-Choice.
Abortion

"Why is this? Well, this "unborn child" doesn't have consciousness or pre-existing consciousness yet. This only happens when the nervous system is mature (3-4 months in). Therefore, you can't say it's human life."This needs to be sourced. You claim that the baby only has a self-conscienceless at 3-4 months, I highly doubt your unknown sources are correct. It's a bold and unlikely claim. At 4 months the baby is developing reflexes and is even sucking their thumb!(1) Within the first 8 weeks the nervous system of the baby is developed enough to feel pain(2). Than means babies are in pain during an abortion if conducted after 8 weeks! An organism cannot feel pain without being self-aware. Regardless of the baby's own level of self-consciousness, self-consciousness is not and should not be a prerequisite to be considered "human". A fetus is fully living and is the offspring of two human beings. It's a stretch to argue that it is not human and current scientific thought does not agree with you. Science does not distinguish whether an organism is human or not depending on it's level of self-consciousness. "As I've shown, the fetus isn't life until 3-4 months in, so abortion isn't murder."You have not shown this. You've attempted to argue that since the fetus has not yet fully developed his/her nervous system it isn't a human. Since I have shown that the baby does have a self-consciousness much earlier, abortion after 8 weeks by your own definition is indeed murder. I've also made the case that self-consciousness is not a prerequisite to being called "human"."Many more will say that abortion was good for them. http://www.1in3campaign.org...... Yes. 1 in 3 women have had an abortion. There are stories you can read about these abortions."This does not hurt my argument. The plain fact that it was good for these women to have an abortion does not mean it was torture for them not too. I wasn't arguing that having an abortion could be favourable to some women, I was making the point that to have a baby and to care for it, even in dire circumstances is not torture and is not worse then death. I will make the point that each of these women made a choice then regretted those choices, but there are other ways we can help those women. Killing a life to make it better is not okay."I believe you wrote those two sentences while ignoring my Abortion/Non-abortion timeline."I did not not ignore your timeline. I wanted to re-emphasize my original point that pro-life does not take away a women's right to choose but promotes responsibility for her choices."I would not like to be born in a family where my parents have to work very hard just to live, as there will most likely be bad food and bad shelter."I would rather be born into an affluent family too, but I'd also rather be born. It's better to be given a chance, whether that be difficult then to be killed.(1)http://www.babies.sutterhealth.org... (2)http://www.abortionfacts.com...
Abortion

From conception there's a human life inside the womb. This isn't disputed by either pro-lifers or pro-choices, modern science indicates that the beginning of life occurs sometime after the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell." Second part of the second sentence ("modern science indicates that the beginning of life occurs sometime after the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell"): True Other: False Why is this? Well, this "unborn child" doesn't have consciousness or pre-existing consciousness yet. This only happens when the nervous system is mature (3-4 months in). Therefore, you can't say it's human life. So you might say, "It's still killing life, so it's murder!" If we look in the dictionary, we see the definition of murder (http://dictionary.reference.com...) : 3. a group or flock of crows. I mean: 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder) Key snippet is "the killing of another human being." As I've shown, the fetus isn't life until 3-4 months in, so abortion isn't murder. "Many women who have unplanned pregnancies and become single parents will later say it was the hardest thing they did but also the best." Many more will say that abortion was good for them. http://www.1in3campaign.org... Yes. 1 in 3 women have had an abortion. There are stories you can read about these abortions. "Pro-life does not take away the choice of the mother, but promotes responsibility of her choices and protects the baby's future choices." "Once a mother has made the choice to have a baby, she then has the responsibility to care for it." I believe you wrote those two sentences while ignoring my Abortion/Non-abortion timeline. "In fact, your mother did the very same thing for you." I would not like to be born in a family where my parents have to work very hard just to live, as there will most likely be bad food and bad shelter. It may not be torture, but it's something that would be very hard to live through.
Abortion

From conception there's a human life inside the womb. This isn't disputed by either pro-lifers or pro-choices, modern science indicates that the beginning of life occurs sometime after the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell(1). This human should be protected and receive basic human rights. Abortion by deliberately killing the human is murder. A couple always has a choice whether they want a baby or not before conception. Pro-life does not take away this choice but promotes responsibility for the choices made. I understand your argument that during pregnancy unforeseen circumstances can arise that make having the baby more difficult then at first expected, but your argument is weak. Let me show you: You said: "A quick death of a baby is better than the torture of a mom and a baby (and the dad in some cases). Torture is actually worse than death, as it is times when you want to die, but you can't, that are the most painful. " & "Non-abortion timeline: T=7 months: Recovery is slow T=9 months: Baby born, Recovery comes to a halt T=9-33 months: Mom and Dad and Child all have to work extremely hard to keep themselves alive. " Since when did hard work equal torture? You have a very loose definition of torture if you think it's what hard work is. Killing another human so that you don't need to do hard work sounds like a very bad trade off for the deceased. It's true that some cases of torture are so awful that the individual would rather die, but to suggest that a mother and father would die rather then do hard work seems overly dramatic and simply out of touch with reality. A better wording for 'torture' would be that the mom and dad are greatly inconvenienced and made uncomfortable. Many women who have unplanned pregnancies and become single parents will later say it was the hardest thing they did but also the best. This is the case for two of my family who both had teen pregnancies and became single Moms. Pro-life does not take away the choice of the mother, but promotes responsibility of her choices and protects the baby's future choices. Once a mother has made the choice to have a baby, she then has the responsibility to care for it. In fact, your mother did the very same thing for you. The only time a baby is imposed on a women is when she has been rapped, which is exceptional circumstances and should be treated as such. Other times pro-life does not take away a women's choice but promotes taking responsibility for the choices she has already made. I would like to ask you some questions for your next round if you would be kind enough to answer them: Do you consider killing a human life for convenience or financial difficulty murder? If human life begins shortly after conception, which modern science agrees, why should this not also be considered murder? (1). http://bdfund.org...
Abortion

The basis behind Pro-Choice is very simple. A quick death of a baby is better than the torture of a mom and a baby (and the dad in some cases) Torture is actually worse than death, as it is times when you want to die, but you can't, that are the most painful. Now for some rebuttals. "the mother can choose whether she wants a baby before she gets pregnant" "but we all know that a women can choose to have or not have a baby " Here's the most common scenario. T=0: Woman decides to get pregnant, and feels like she and her husband can support a child. T=3-6 months: Incident puts wife or husband out of work. Now here is abortion vs non-abortion Abortion Timeline: T=7 months: Wife aborts. Recovery is slow T=9-18 months: Recovery finishes, wife and husband happy. Non-abortion timeline: T=7 months: Recovery is slow T=9 months: Baby born, Recovery comes to a halt T=9-33 months: Mom and Dad and Child all have to work extremely hard to keep themselves alive. Abortion, while killing one person, protects the torture of two or three. "Why can a mother harm her unborn baby for whichever reason she desires?" "why not legalise a women murdering her child at any age if she may not want her child for reasons unknown?" "If the mom doesn't have the choice to kill the baby once he/she is born, why should it be any different a few weeks before?" The now-born equivalent of abortion is called putting a kid in a Foster Home, not killing the baby. Death only happens in abortion because there is no other way. Death is not intentional in abortion. It is just a side effect.
Abortion

Pro-life doesn't take away a women's choice.You commented, "It's the mom who gets to decide. She may not want to have a baby, for reasons unknown." as to why you are for abortion. Why should the mom decide whether the baby will live or die? It's certainly not the mothers choice once the baby has been born. It sounds a little harsh, but the mother can choose whether she wants a baby before she gets pregnant. Of course people often have "unplanned pregnancies" but we all know that a women can choose to have or not have a baby by using contraception, not having sex or the timing she has sex. To say that a women has no choice suggests that she cannot control her own sexual behaviour, which is ridiculous. Even then, adoption is an option. If the mom doesn't have the choice to kill the baby once he/she is born, why should it be any different a few weeks before? By you're argument, why not legalise a women murdering her child at any age if she may not want her child for reasons unknown?Many countries have a child protection agency in place that will remove the child from the parent in serious case of neglect or abuse. When a child's life is in danger from his/her parents it obvious that there needs to be intervention to protect the child. It doesn't matter what the parents "choose" or why they chose it, they've "chosen" to cause harm to their child and now they've lost their choice to parent them. Why can a mother harm her unborn baby for whichever reason she desires?In more complicated situations, such as the mothers life is at risk if she gives birth I can understand why the mother would undergo an abortion, but this is a very small minority of women who get abortions.Nobody is taking away the choice of the women before conception, but once there's human life in the womb, the choice has already been made to have a baby. People can be responsible for their actions and choices you know, but what about the life of the baby who never gets to make a choice but gets killed for "reasons unknown"?
Whats the better nursery rhyme, Mary Had a Little Lam (con) or London Bridge is falling down (Pro)

Happiness leads to a good life. http://news.stanford.edu... Mary had a little lamb, Little lamb , little lamb , Mary had a little lamb, Its fleece was white as snow. Everywhere that Mary went, Mary went, Mary went, Everywhere that Mary went, The lamb was sure to go. It followed her to school one day, School one day, school one day, It followed her to school one day, Which was against the rules. It made the children laugh and play, Laugh and play, laugh and play, It made the children laugh and play, To see a lamb in school.
Whats the better nursery rhyme, Mary Had a Little Lam (con) or London Bridge is falling down (Pro)

If not for Mary had a Little Lamb, then they would not know how to be happy when they have a good bridge. Happiness is the key to all life. John Lennon quote: "When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down "happy". They told me I didn"t understand the assignment, and I told them they didn"t understand life." BOOM. http://www.goodreads.com...
Whats the better nursery rhyme, Mary Had a Little Lam (con) or London Bridge is falling down (Pro)

London Bridge is Falling Down is a traditional nursery rhyme and singing game, which is found in different versions all over the world. It deals with the depredations of London Bridge and attempts, realistic or fanciful, to repair it.London Bridge bridge is falling down, down. Here is the exact rhyme... London Bridge is falling down, Falling down down, falling down, London Bridge is falling down My fair lady. Take a key key and lock padlock her up, Lock her up, lock her up, Take a key and lock her up, My fair lady. How will we build it up, up Build it up, build it up? up How will we build it up, up My fair lady. Build it up up with silver and gold, Silver and gold , silver and gold, Build it up up with silver and gold, My fair lady. Gold and silver I have none, I have none, I have none, Gold and silver I have none, My fair lady. Build it up up with needles and pins, Needles and pins, needles and pins, Build it up up with needles and pins, My fair lady. Pins and needles bend and break, Bend and break, bend and break, Pins and needles bend and break, My fair lady. Build it up up with wood and clay, Wood and clay , wood and clay, Build it up up with wood and clay, My fair lady. Wood and clay will wash away, Wash away, wash away, Wood and clay will wash away, My fair lady. Build it up up with stone so strong, Stone so strong, stone so strong, Build it up up with stone so strong, My fair lady. Stone so strong will last so long, Last so long, last so long, Stone so strong will last so long, My fair lady. This nursery rhyme teaches children about the fundamentals of building bridges and the materials which you must use to build a sturdy one. What does Mary had a stupid lamb teach anyone? How to be happy? Having a working bridge makes people so much happier. And I would say that both of these rhymes when sung make the singer and audience the same level of happy.
Public schools should offer education in world religions both historically and in religious beliefs

I believe that religion has nothing of worth to share in the modern world. If we teach what we think is good of religion then we must also teach the failures' , and there are many. A balanced view or no view. Long past are the days where religion can occupy the moral high ground and take credit for morality. It has abused it's position to often to be taken seriously. The value of Religion should be debated in schools and young people allowed to think critically about faith.