BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Birth with drugs(Pro) or without drugs (Con)

All drugs have some effect on us, whether it"s serious or not. "In an epidural, a local anesthetic " still derived from cocaine " is injected into the epidural space (the space around the tough coverings that protect the spinal cord). Epidurals block nerve signals from both the sensory and motor nerves, which provides effective pain relief but immobilizes the lower part of the recipient"s body." (1) While this does numb the pain that a women is going through it also blocks the nerves in the lower part of the body. Essentially she can"t move, which is why if you have one you need help to push your baby out because you can"t feel anything from the waist down. Most of births where an epidural is used require some form of forceps to help deliver the baby, which can be harmful to both mother and baby. Epidurals also lengthen labor. I know I would not want to go through labor any longer than I have to no matter the circumstance. Any type of drug that you put into your body will hit your baby with almost twice the amount that was given to you. It also takes them longer to get rid of the medicine than it would for the mother by almost 4 times the amount of time. "Pitocin-induced contractions will be longer, more forceful and much closer together than a woman"s natural contractions. This can cause significant stress to the baby, because there"s not enough time to recover from the reduced blood flow that happens when the placenta is compressed with each contraction. The net effect of this is to deprive the baby of necessary supplies of blood and oxygen, which can in turn lead to abnormal fetal heart rate patterns and fetal distress." (1) Using all of these drugs put serious stress on the mother and the baby which is not what the baby needs right before they are born. This particular drug listed above can deprive the baby of vital blood and oxygen which can lead to distress for the baby. When this happens sometimes there is a need for emergency surgery which has longer lasting effects than a natural childbirth. Babies are three times more likely to suffocate when this drug is used. This drug can also have bad effects on the mother including; hemorrhage. This type of drug should only be used when it is absolutely necessary and I believe that the mother should be made aware of the side effects that can and will probably occur if this is needed for delivery. I know all women are entitled to drugs when they are in labor I am simply saying that they can have long lasting effects on both parties involved. (1)http://chriskresser.com...
Birth with drugs(Pro) or without drugs (Con)

Women should be entitled to a medication during birth. We literally have to push a baby out of a little tiny canal out of your vagina. Birth pain is the worst kind of pain. Women endure (though many times it is purposefully) nine months of pain and discomfort. They create life inside their abdomens. They know what is going to happen to their body, emotions, and self image and still do it. Women are entitled to epidurals to relieve a fraction of the pain during child birth.
George Bush should be charged with Genocide

Pro says that Bush Jr. does not support rape. I say that if that is so, Abu Gharab would have been punished more severely. Prisoners were sexually assaulted, forced to pose in sexual positions for pictures and such. If that is not rape, what it? Pro says that Bush Jr. does not hate Muslims. I say: Yeah right, because extortion (Oil For Food Program), Murder (killing when it is not justified, Iraq did not attack us), torture (the intelligence that was the catylist for the Iraq War was gained from a questionable witness through torture), questionable intelligence, propaganda, the Patriot Act and detaining Muslims without legal recourse are SO loving. If that is love, I would rather be hated. Pro says that daddy issues is a baseless assertion. I say: bullspit. When Bush Sr. was in the Middle East, Saddam tried to kill him. That provides motive. Pro says: WWMDs exist. I say: more bullspit. You prove that they existed right now from a nonrightwing source or stop that accusation now. I say: By torture i do not mean abuse. Abuse is acceptable to gain intelligence. Torture is not. Torture is locking a person phobic of small spaces in a closet, hooking some dude's nuts up to some electrical thing, using mind altering drugs that cause undue distress, and so on. The Abu Gharab war crimes are good examples of what constitutes torture. Pro says: The Patriot Act is not relevent to this debate. I say: more bullspit. It goes to credibility and pattern of conduct, two things admissible in a court of law. If you like, we can have a whole separate debate re the relevance of the Patriot Act in regards to Bush Jr. alleged war crimes. As always, thank you for making me think, helping me learn, and making me wise. God bless and until next time, question everything.
George Bush should be charged with Genocide

"George Bush has made it clear that he hates Muslims, or he would not kill, indefinately detain, torture, rape, or other wise persecute them." President George W. Bush has never stated or implied a hatred for Islam or it's followers. The rape comment is unsubstantiated, and my opponent cites no source. Killing and Detention are both legitimate during a war. Torture is a term of broad possible meaning, and without specification I cannot respond to it. "I maybe understand the Afghan war, but the Iraq war was gained based on Daddy issues, bad intelligence, and torture. Le daddy issues: Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr. so Bush Jr. sought revenge. A natural desire, but it has no place in politics. Le intelligence malo (bad): the so called intelligence gained to support the Iraq War was gained based on torture." The "daddy issues" argument is another baseless assertion. The intelligence on WMD's was not gained through torture, and was later corroborated by an Iraqi General who defected, and told us he played a personal role in moving Iraq's chemical weapons into Syria, where the entire world has now seen them used."Le tortura: torture is a war crime and not acceptable. Note that I am talking about actual torture and not slappping a criminal around. Le Abu Gharab: unacceptable." Torture is subjective. What precisely constitutes torture, and when is it okay to use? Although this has no bearing on genocide and is therefore irrelevent to the debate at hand. Abu Ghraib was indeed unacceptable and the people involved were in fact prosecuted."Le Patriot Act" is Le Irrelevent to this debate.
George Bush should be charged with Genocide

Le definition de genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, such as people grouped by religion, political ideology, ethnicity, biological sex, and so on. George Bush has made it clear that he hates Muslims, or he would not kill, indefinately detain, torture, rape, or other wise persecute them. I maybe understand the Afghan war, but the Iraq war was gained based on Daddy issues, bad intelligence, and torture. Le daddy issues: Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr. so Bush Jr. sought revenge. A natural desire, but it has no place in politics. Le intelligence malo (bad): the so called intelligence gained to support the Iraq War was gained based on torture. Torture rarely produces accurate intelligence. Le tortura: torture is a war crime and not acceptable. Note that I am talking about actual torture and not slappping a criminal around. Le Abu Gharab: unacceptable. Le Oil For Food Program: extortion of innocent people, a human rights violation, and unacceptable. How would you like to be extorted for your very survival? No? Me neither. Le Patriot Act: many Arabs and Muslims were and are persecuted under this so called protection of freedom. I know an Arab Muslim who was unjustly detained for at least 5 hours without legal counsel just for being an Arab Muslim. And this is just a symptom of a growing problem of increasing civil rights violations by governments that are supposed to support freedom. Granted liberals have done some shady things including Obama, but I am tired of no one criticizing Bush Jr. and his GOP conservative minions. As always, it is an honor to debate a mind such as yours. Muah!
North korea vs south korea

Can you tell me how many trops the south korean reserves. North Korea has 1,000,000 soldiers under it's belt as I stated before this, and also you need to specify howth korea can block the nukes from the north, plus you need to alsosow how they will protect themselfs from artiltrikes from the north. So that being said, all of that means that south korea will be a waste land withour americas help, and sadley for you this is a 1 vs 1 debate. Also you need to tell me how you will win the airforce fight. You will win the naval fight, but that wont matter when the south is ground zero and Your airforce is defeated. So you need to rebut that also. It will be hard for you to do this because my airforce is almost twice your size. Plus sam missles and other things will force a victory vs air strikes that sneak behind my planes.Plus I still have the moral advantage over you, and this wasn't taken down either, so that still stands.I have also proven just as good as yours. So since your capital would be destroyed by artillary, icheon woukilled by artillary, and everg else becomes nonexistent because of the nuclear missles and bombs then your whole case is destroyed. So once ou can rove against my nukes, air force, and allary, and defense plus 's size, then you haven't won the debate. (the nukes and artillary will be hard to refte)I wish luck to you on this topicP.S. If this really happened I would root south (but they wouldnt win without american help)
North korea vs south korea

According to wikipedia.org, South Korea has the 2nd largest reserve troops, and the fourth largest active soldiers than North Korea. North Korea may have the 4th largest soldiers but South Korea has 2nd largest reserve troops. I will expand more if necessary.My opponent has allowed me to use sources for 2 of my arguements because he has accidently used sources. If I find that he uses sources in his next arguement, I automatically win. If he can not rebut to me, I win.I thank my opponent for letting me use sources for 2 of my arguements. REMINDER TO MY OPPONENT: YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE SOURCES. IF I FIND THAT YOU DID I AUTOMATICALLY WIN.Lets see if my opponent can rebut this. Will he?
North korea vs south korea

South Korea does have a good defense, in a case of a war like this (no alliances) I would hope for the south. But they would not win. They recently have tested Missiles the size of the Hiroshima bomb, in missile form. It is hard to intersect a missile, especially when you enemy is so close it could come without warning. Let's take the benefit of the doubt, they intercepted the missile (which wouldn't happen without American support) the north Koreans still have artillery in range of Seoul, the south Korean capital. So even though the missiles have been blocked they just lost a city. Here's my info for the nuke missiles: http://www.guardian.co.uk... And may I add the north Koreans have attacked a south Korean island, so that's 2 areas destroyed, and Inchon would be shot at also. 3 areas destroyed even without a nuke. Here's a site describing the north Korean army as a whole: http://www.globalsecurity.org... Here's a site of north Korean assault of he island I was talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://iamkoream.com... This picture is a visual area. Yeonpyeong is the island bombed, and the north Korean long ranged artillery is on that peninsula, shown on the Wikipedia site. And Seoul is on the border, Inchon is next to it (not shown on the map). And as you see Seoul is near the , and their in range of it. Here's another map: http://www.world-guides.com... Icheon is even closer to the border, so that will be hit sightly more accurately. North Korean defenses. The North Koreans are going to be the ones to attack first most likely anyway, and the best defense is a good offense. And as the site above (global security) states, their along the border in trenches overlooking the order, plus have multiple bunkers. So a land attack is futile, especially with 1,000,000 man army on the north Korean side. North Korean air force: 110,000 personnel 1,600-1,700 aircraft South Korean: 65,000people: 750 air craft. North Korean win the air fight. Not to mention the units on the ground, A-A units. North Korea has an extensive interlocking, redundant nationwide air defense system that includes interceptor aircraft, early warning and ground controlled intercept radars, SAMs, a large number of air defense artillery weapons, and barrage balloons. And since alliances don't come into play in this debate, without an American military how can the south block a nuke? Please clarify. Thanks...
North korea vs south korea

As you know it is a 1 vs one, no alliances. First off don't even bother saying that the south Korea's economy or amount of people will win the day. Once North Korea launches its nukes down south the Koreans are basically ^&%$#. Once that happens their numbers and economy will sh to a halt, and possibly hit 0. So that doesn't work. Their technology won't help either. Once again once nukes are launched south Korea is dead. So the nukes are a huge advantage. Also the Morale is a huge factor. Their society on both sides is about honor, hence high morale. Well the north Koreans still have edge here. They believe their leader Kim Jung Il is a god, and if he says go kill they will go kill until killed themselves. So since South Korea would pull out once a certain percentage is killed (tactical thinking) the North Koreans would just go kill and then kill enough to cause a South Korean retreat. Morale another advantage for me. A third advantage is military overall. They have the 4th largest military on earth, 1,000,000 people are enlisted in it. And I know numbers aren't much but that is the only functional thing they have in North Korea. The south doesn't have the numbers in their army to face North Korea anyway, well not immediately. So army to s off with point for me. I wish you good luck and have fun, I am already enjoying this topic.
North korea vs south korea

South Korea has 5,000,000 reserve troops according to g2mil. com/korea/htm. Also South Korea would win too when North Korea strikes, it can stall for few days and South Korea could be in a position that can overrun the North Korean (remember without any alliances im talking about). That was also according to g2mil. com/korea/htm. The chance of the Korean War to last with victory is very mysterious. It is hard to find out. Voters, I have rebut my opponent and I was allowed to use sources because he had use them when he said not to. I was allowed to use sources for 2 of my arguements and therefor I have won.
The environmental impact of industrialization is the primary cause of earth's current warming trend.

"In August of this year, NASA scientists admitted they had been reporting erroneous temperature data since 2000. The warmest year on record in the U.S. suddenly became 1934, note 1998. As Dr. David Wojick recently noted, "The real significance is that such a small correction can make such a big difference. The reason is that the much-touted warming of the last three decades is merely a return to earlier warm times, after an equally long period of cooling. ... There is no way this pattern constitutes a warming trend. ... In short, there is no evidence for human-induced global warming in the U.S. temperature record." (http://www.heartland.org...) This statement proves that scientists are not always right and CAN make mistakes and do so often. "Global warming is not real just like Y2K was not real. Mankind is not going to blow them selves up with a massive nuclear war nor is Bird flu going to wipe out the human species. All these things had been perpetuated and now it looks like Chicken Little is on steroids, but do we have to clone our poultry and use the same tactics over and over again to control the people? Global warming is not real and it should be obvious to anyone looking at the total picture." (http://ezinearticles.com...) I truly believe that global warming is a HOAX! I think that Al Gore just wanted some publicity from "An Inconvienient Truth". What do people think? I mean honestly, do they really think that the Earth is going to melt? Do they think we are all going to die? If Global Warming IS actually real, and the Earth is really going to melt or whatever people think it is going to do, why doesn't the government do something about it? You know why? Because it is not going to happen! Car Emissions, factory emissions and everything else in our once "perfect little world" are not doing this. Back in the Industrial Revolution, and when the Indians and every other human being on the planet made fires, was humanity contributing then? What about steam boats? Tee-pees? Trains? Is the way we live killing our planet? If so, why did no one, not a single soul notice any type of climate change so long ago? Has humanity suddenly awaken and Oh! our Earth is going to die? NO! If scientists are correct in that humans are the PRIMARY cause of global warming, then humanity has just been digging themselves deeper and deeper in a hole. No! We are not causing this warming cycle. You know why? Because that is just what it is. A cycle. The Earth is going to warm up. Then it will cool down. Then, it's gonna warm up again. Whether we want it to or not. As soon as humanity as a whole realizes that, i believe society will be way better off. Thank you for a great debate collegebro! :] I enjoyed it!
The environmental impact of industrialization is the primary cause of earth's current warming trend.

"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets." (http://www.canadafreepress.com...) I agree with this speaker's theory. The only reasons that are credible for the current rise in Earth's CO2 Levels are that global warming and the ice ages are natural phases of the Earth. Humans are not causing it. They didn't a long time ago and they aren't now.
The environmental impact of industrialization is the primary cause of earth's current warming trend.

The theory that humanity and industrialization is CAUSING the current warming trend is false. Although I do agree with you that the Earth goes through warm and cold climate trends...I do not agree with YOUR theory.. The ice back in the Ice Age was not melted down because the cavemen were driving cars or emitting harmful toxins into the air.. The Ice Age ended because it is a NATURAL trend of the Earth. Of course I am not saying we are doing nothing wrong, but we are deinitely not causing it.
The environmental impact of industrialization is the primary cause of earth's current warming trend.

Many opponents of Global Warming Theory will point to the cyclical nature of earth's climate system and suggest that the current trend is simply a natural rise in temperature due to this cycle. This theory is false. Although Earth cycles through warm and cold climate periods, the environmental impact of human industrialization is the primary cause of the current warming trend. In order to understand the role that Carbon Dioxide plays in earth's natural climate cycles, several factors must be considered: The amount of vegetation on earth, The current level of volcanic activity, and the greenhouse effect. In a natural environment free of modern human industry, volcanic activity was the primary source of Carbon Dioxide. This carbon dioxide contributed to the greenhouse effect in the same way that it does today. The greenhouse effect causes the earth's atmosphere to reflect infrared light at a greater rate during periods of high Carbon Dioxide content. This in turn causes earth's climate to warm up. Plant life is nature's way of balancing the greenhouse effect. Plants are able to convert Carbon Dioxide (C-O2) into glucose (C6-H12-O6) through the process of photosynthesis. For each molecule of glucose that a plant produces, it takes 6 molecules of Carbon Dioxide out of the atmosphere. Plants are nature's highly effective CO2 cleanup mechanism (this is why saving the Rainforest is so important). Put the elements together and you get basic global warming theory: When large amounts of CO2 enter the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect causes warming. This allows plant habitats to expand towards the poles. With more plants carrying out the process of photosynthesis, the rate of Carbon Dioxide removal increases. Eventually the rate of removal passes the rate of emission, and the net carbon dioxide levels start to decrease. The cycle now happens in reverse. The greenhouse effect slows down, plants recede towards the equator, and the earth's climate begins to cool. The most recent spike in global temperature started with the release of large amounts of Carbon Dioxide just like all the others. When humanity started burning fossil fuels during the industrial revolution we inadvertently influenced the global climate cycle, and threw off the balance that previously existed. Although global warming is the result of the same global climate cycle that has controlled earth's climate for hundreds of thousands of years, the current warming trend has little to do with previous cycles of warming and cooling, because each peak in the cycle corresponds to a major release of CO2.
Guns save lives

I would like to argue against the motion today that "Guns save lives". I believe this to be impossible. Guns don't save lives. People save lives. A gun on its own is just a gun. Without its human owner it serves no purpose or function. The human came before the gun not the gun before the human. Without a person with the will to shoot someone in self defense, a gun, saves no lives. This is why I urge you to vote against the motion "Guns save lives"
Could My Ultimatum and Recolonization Plan Help Stop Ebola

As you stated in your opening argument "The basis of whether I win or not is not based on whether we should adopt this proposal just whether it would stop Ebola." You are now making the argument that your plan can or cannot "help stop Ebola" which is an entirely new position in and of itself. Rather than sticking with your original statement which was based on the idea that your plan can or will "Stop Ebola" all together you have slipped in this passive "help stop" as what I can only assume is a slip up, because it proves your original point invalid as your argument has changed without completing or finishing your original point. You also have not provided any sources proving that your techniques and ideas are even feasible at this point in time. Until you back up your claims of "this will help" with evidence, no logical person has any need to believe them. You have yet to provide the necessary burden of proof and therefore your plans and notions are based off hearsay. Until you can prove that your plans will, as you have said in your original statement, "stop Ebola."