BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Charity is a bad thing

Pro actually admits that charity is not a bad thing: "Charity does (temporarily) reduce inequality," Pro later says that it does not destroy injustice. Why is it charities job to eliminate injustice? Pro never *proves* all charity is evil. Only that he *thinks* Walmart charity is. Pro never says exactly how he knows this, only that he thinks Walmart uses charity instead of payment. So charity is still good. It's an argument that Walmart is bad. 1. Pro did nothing to prove that all charity is evil. Only that Walmart is. 2. Pro ignores the fact that charity of Walmart is not all charity. Let's say I think you're stupid. You're stupid. You're debating. Does this mean all debates/debaters are stupid? Well no, just maybe this one. I could concede to his point, and it still goes unproven that all charity is evil.. Bye.
Charity is a bad thing

Charity is a bad idea that hurts the poor protects the privileges of the powerful.Definitions: "Pain and suffering" is an acceptable definition of "Bad". My argument is that charity perpetuates what it purports to eliminate, which is consistent with saying that charity perpetuates pain and suffering.A'ight.Fact: Market economy creates inequality. Not quite a fact but more like my opinion: Inequality is not a bad thing as long as work and intelligence is rewarded. Also more like an opinion: When inequality becomes structural and it is no longer possible for someone at the bottom to work him/herself to the top, it becomes an injustice, i.e. causes pain and suffering, i.e. is bad. How does a society reduce inequality and prevent it from becoming an injustice? A free and open market, a level playing field with clear simple rules for all, minimum wage, affordable education, public transportation, affordable health care, protection from discrimination, protection of the right of labour to organize. Another way is charity, a process by which those with money reduce inequality by transferring some of it to those who do not. Charity does (temporarily) reduce inequality, but it cannot eliminate injustice. Charity is a patch job that prevents a broken, unsustainable system from collapsing by providing quick fixes to the unacceptable consequences of itself. Ivy league scholarships to a few poor kids hide the fact that elite higher education has created a cast system in America. Food Banks keep unsightly starving families of the street. Last november a Wal-mart in Ohio organized a food drive for it's own poor employees who wouldn't have enough to eat on the holidays. Now, Wal-Mart is a notorious oponent of minium wage--the most straightforward way it's employees could get enough money to buy food--and of organized labour--the most straighforward way their employees could get a fair wage. Yet Wal-mart has no problem with charity. Why? Because Wal-Mart knows charity will never ever ever eliminate the injustices that creates it's vast pool of customers and cheap labour: the poor.Hit me!
cats are better than dogs

Dogs Are Adorable Just look. If your heart does not just melt into pure happiness when you see this you are not human! Dogs are just absolutely adorable and cute and even when they aren’t all that attractive they still find a way to be adorable! It must be the way their tongues hang sloppily out of their mouth, with their tails wagging happily and them rolling onto their bellies with that huge smile on their face. Cats are EVIIIIILLLLL!!!! Now I’m not going to deny that cats aren’t also cute, but they can also be far more ugly than dogs. In addition, cats aren’t cute and happy. They’re cute and EVIL. They pull you in with their cuteness, only to either find your family murdered or you being single for the rest of your life with 30 of them having invaded your home taking over your life. Also, those things are f*ckin mean! I think we all have the memory of us trying to cute the adorable kitty only to lose an eyeball. The only time they’ll ever show affection is when you’re pulling a can of cat food off the shelf. Other than that they stare at you with a big “f*ck you if you get near me you will DIE.” Also, unlike dogs the only thing cats do is eat, sleep, and barf hairballs onto your floor and walk away allowing you to pick that suggesting thing up. Dogs are Mans’ Bestfriend And for good reason. You never heard cats are mans’ best friend and for good reason. The only thing cats do is ruin lives. Dogs on the other hand are always there for you to cheer you up and will always come running over of their own will to have some fun with you! Dogs are protectors Part of the awesome loyalty of dogs is that they are also protectors. You ever get in trouble and you’re dog will be right by your side to bite someone’s balls off. Dogs come in all shapes and sizes! Unlike cats, there is a dog for everyone! For the little five year old there is the trembling chiuah up to the big man’s Great Dane. There are dogs for hunting, playing, sleeping, chilling, being cute, being energetic, cuddling, EVERYTHING! Again, the only thing cats do is eat, sleep, cough up hairballs and kill people’s families, love life, scratch out their eyeballs. Anyway, I could probably take up 30,000 characters explaining why dogs are better. I think this is enough.
Assault weapon ban

You would rather still have some killed & ban an inanimate object than do something that would provide a way to stop an attack? That's GREATER GOOD? EVIL WILL ALWAYS EXIST so after the next tragic event a PERSON (not the weapon) commits your logic would be banning the next perceived most dangerous weapon after the next until we have no arms. You can't ban a black heart. I pray we never need to call upon the arms of private citizens because for the GREATER GOOD they will likely be long gone.
Assault weapon ban

I agree. There will always be evil. The most dangerous guns are those with magazines that hold 30 to 100 rounds. Revolvers you have to stop after 9, 10, or 15 shots? That would at least give a few seconds for the shooter to be stopped. The choice of weapon for the last 3 mass shootings was an assault rifle Ak-15. Ban them and ban the large magazines that are used for those. The National Rifle Association wants to have armed guards at our schools. That makes no sense. That is FEAR!
Assault weapon ban

The mass shooters in recent news haven't performed their acts spontaneously; they have involved a plan. Even if these weapons never existed, what would have stopped Lanza from loading a duffle bag full of revolvers? They fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. That is POTENTIAL. So I ask is that a reason to ban revolvers? I respect your view & rationale. It's your belief that it would not have happened, but you can't guarantee that. What I CAN guarantee you is that there will ALWAYS BE EVIL.
Assault weapon ban

Scary looking? 30 to 100 rounds shot out in less than 60 seconds is not scary looking, it is murderous. An Assault Weapon Ban is not an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. As far as type of guns the founding fathers would want the citizens to own, probably not ones that can only identify their posterity through DNA from tissue pieces of their great, great, great grandchildren. I believe freedom is responsibility to moderate ourselves for the overall good.
Assault weapon ban

The 2nd Ammendment reads "shall not be infringed." Yes our country was young & our founding fathers had British rule fresh on their minds. Britain had a military & we fought against them remember. One of those reasons was disarmament of its citizens. What types of arms would the founding fathers want citizens to have? Inferior or equal? The National Firearms Act of 1934 & expansion in 1986 took away true equality. Now legislation to ban scary looking semi-autos. What's next? When do they stop?
Assault weapon ban

I did not forfeit my round it simply did not post. I must have hit a wrong key. When the Bill of Rights was written our young nation had no standing military. We have a military now. My husband and both my sons own and collect guns. NONE of them own assault weapons. The freedom to own guns is the 2nd Amendment. The type of guns available to purchase is up to private enterprise, and both Houses in Washington ( they are the only ones who allow imports into our nation), RIGHT?
Assault weapon ban

Some say people progun individuals "hide behind the Second Ammendment" when in truth we are the only ones with enough sense to STAND UP FOR IT. If anything antigunners are hiding behind the First Ammendment. It's ok to say whatever you want weither there's any truth to it or not. You twist facts & figures to suit your NEEDS. The media doesn't report anymore; instead they tell you what you should think & many are abilged to go along with whatever they say. Look at FBI stats if you want PROOF.
Assault weapon ban

You don't think you or I NEED such weapons. The key word in your argument is NEED. When our country starts redefining a RIGHT with NEED then we are headed down a very dangerous slope. The Second Amendment wasn't written to allow us to bear arms based on needing it for personal protection or hunting. The Second Amendment was written solely to guarantee the security of a free State & ensure that you & I remain free from government tyranny. They work for us remember, not the other way around.
The USFG should reinstate and substantially fund the Constellation program.

3 Reasons: 1. Space development - The private sector is not willing to take the risk that the federal government is willing to take. Thus, the status quo hinders the further development of cost-effective launch vehicles and space exploration. We are utterly defenseless against many problems on our planet including warming, resource scarcity, and wars. Only by expanding to space can we continue to our existence. (For a good article on this search Collins and Autino 2010). Constellation allows the government to develop heavy launch vehicles and technologies for the private sector to then use. 2. Industrial Base Cancelling government contracts creates job losses in the Aerospace industry. Not only is this critical to our economy which is on the brink of another downturn, the aerospace industry independently bolsters United States hegemony, our deterrent capability, and our international leadership. U.S. hegemony, deterrence, and a unipolar system has kept the world generally free of conflict (at least the escaltion of conflict) for the last 50 years. 3. Space Leadership Cancelling Constellation signals loss of space leadership to the rest of the world. We no longer have the ability to send humans into space, and Obama's current plans are ineffective at bolstering continued leadership. United States space leadership bolsters cooperative frameworks and multi-lateral advancements in space (Rendleman and Friedman make this argument). Now is a critical time to combat space debris and the potential weaponization of space. The cascading effect of space debris has the potential to destroy all of our satellites that are critical GPS, communications, and precision warfare and space weaponization lowers the threshold for conflict (including nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare (Mitchell 2001). Independently, Constellation was a multi-lateral project between multiple countries and its cancellation signaled a unilateral action. AGAINST WHAT YOU WILL SAY: Anyone will be hard-pressed to find any qualified evidence that the technology of Constellation actually will fail. In fact, the reason it did not perform return results was because of lack of congressional funding. A policy that fully funded it would be successful. And let's be honest NASA's budget is about half of 1% of what the federal government spends - boosting funding for Constellation wouldn't even affect the current budget proceedings. Try to find NASA here: http://www.whitehouse.gov...
On balance, the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the United States

On balance, the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the United States. Public Forum Rules. NOT the Public Forum topic. Definitions: "rise:" the single, current rise of BRIC "BRIC:" Big Rabies-Infected Carnivores "United States:" the S.S. United States, not the United States of America. ... :-)
On balance, the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the United States

The cogency of your arguments has so affected me that my urge to praise you strives against the necessity for a rebuttal. Thank you for a fun debate. Rebuttals: Law of Conservation of Energy: The law is still incapable of explaining very important parts of our universe. .. such as its beginning and its possible end. The Universe's beginning would have created something from nothing. .. thus contradicting the Law. The "spontaneous disappearance" of the BRIC, by definition, resides in this realm of inexplicable phenomenon, and thus transcends the Law. Chaos theory: First, it was patently clear that by "SS USA", I meant "SS US". Second, the fact that the movement of a BRIC animal will positively impact the SS US can be proven beyond all doubt. All the wind-systems of the world are connected. The advance of a wind in one section causes, without fail, the retreat of a wind in another sector. This wind-chain is forever unbroken, and using it, we can link any 2 non-enclosed parts of the world. Such a wind-chain also exists between the BRIC animal and the SS US. Therefore, it is highly likely that at one time or the other, a BRIC animal causes a wind that dusts the deck of the SS US. Con criticized my use of the words "most likely". All things in the world, even those "proven" by the scientific community, exist only in probabilities. Nothing is 100% sure; even when we say something is "beyond doubt", we only mean it is highly likely. This is because all arguments rest on assumptions; attack the assumptions, and you cast doubt.
On balance, the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the United States

First of all, the spontaneous disappearance of a BRIC would not lead to the creation of something large and massive, like a black hole. due to The Law of Conservation of Matter, the only thing which could happen would be the appearance of something with the same number of quarks in it as the original BRIC itself. My opponent's first point from the previous round is false. Next, my opponent tries to use the Chaos Theory in order to prove that the movements of BRIC have had a positive impact on the SS USA. There are two things wrong with this piece of evidence. First, the SS USA does not exist. The non-existent SS USA is not the existent SS United States, so my opponent has not been arguing about the topic. Second, since the Chaos Theory cannot be proven, my opponent is using non-existent evidence which can prove no points. to quote my opponent, "AT LEAST one of the movements of a BRIC animal MUST have stirred such a wind current. .. " - the must which i capitalized is speculation. There is no proof. Continuing the quotation, ". .. there exists a BRIC animal that MOST LIKELY has had. .. " - most likely means not sure. My opponent is unsure of this movement of a BRIC animal which has had a positive impact on the SS United States. My opponent cannot prove the Chaos Theory the same way he cannot prove that a BRIC has had a positive impact on the SS United States. Therefore, my opponent's second argument is false. Now, since there is no evidence that a BRIC animal has had a positive impact on the SS United States, there is no way to prove the pro side of the topic. The ONLY evidence for the Con side is the above statement; since there is no evidence, there never was a positive impact. Since there never was a positive impact, the resolution is negated.
On balance, the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the United States

Admittedly, I didn't realize that you meant the STEAMSHIP, not the country. Nevertheless, I pity you, because this debate is significantly tilted towards my side. It is irrefutable that BRIC has had a positive impact on SS USA. If even a single BRIC animal ceased to exist, then there would be a black hole in the place where the BRIC animal had formerly been. This black hole would suck up the SS USA, along with the rest of the world, and destroy it (or do whatever black holes do with stuff). Thus, each BRIC that comes into existence, while it continues to exist, has a positive impact on SS USA, by keeping it intact. It is said that the flutterings of a butterfly in Zimbabwe can cause a hurricane in Washington. Likewise, AT LEAST one of the movements of a BRIC animal must have stirred such a wind current, which tracing its path across America's landscape, brushed some dust and harmful bacteria off the SS USA. Thus, there exists a BRIC animal that most likely has had *a positive impact on the SS USA. The resolution is affirmed. *Note: BRIC animals might also have many negative impacts on the SS USA, but that is irrelevant. To affirm the resolution, I need to demonstrate only a single positive impact.
On balance, the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the United States

I think I made this topic too one-sided. :-P My opponent has not been arguing about the resolution. The S.S. United States is not the United States of America. Furthermore, my opponent has not provided any evidence as to why the rise has had a positive impact on the United States. My opponent's contentions were: a) Biodiversity is crucial for sustaining ecosystems. Species depend on each other for nourishment and population control. The absence or reduction of one species can lessen the resilience of the ecosystem, destabilize it and lead to its elimination. For eg., the absence of tigers from a savannah ecosystem can lead to wildebeest, gazelle and zebra overpopulation, resulting in food depletion for these animals, which would result in mass death for them. I'm sure you can think of better examples. (b) Rabies-infected animals contribute to biodiversity. (c) Therefore, ravbies-infected animals contribute to preservation of ecosystems. (d) More ecosystems is a good thing because apart from offering aesthetic enjoyment, they offer us things to analyze and learn from. Certain antibodies taken from an animal species might, for example, help in fighting a human disease such as cancer. First, an ecosystem does not exist on the S.S. United States. Bacteria CANNOT infect each other. The humans who periodically tour and maintain the S.S. United States are not rabid. There are no rabid animals at sea. Therefore, there is no rabies on or near the S.S. United States. Fish, barnacles, and other sea creatures cannot become rabid. therefore, my opponent's first contention is not even related to the topic. Next, the global biodiversity has nothing to do with the biodiversity around the S.S. United States. Rabid animals and rabies do not exist around the S.S. United States. My opponent's second contention is not relevant to the topic. Third, the rabies-infected ecosystems have nothing to do with the S.S. United States. My opponent's third contention is not relevant either. Fourth, since there is no rabies around the S.S. United States, my opponent's fourth contention is completely irrelevant. And for my opponent's final statement "I assert that BRIC had had a positive impact on the USA:" The USA is not the S.S. United States. Therefore, my opponent is not arguing about the topic and I have won this round.
On balance, the rise of BRIC has had a positive impact on the United States

a) Biodiversity is crucial for sustaining ecosystems. Species depend on each other for nourishment and population control. The absence or reduction of one species can lessen the resilience of the ecosystem, destabilize it and lead to its elimination. For eg., the absence of tigers from a savannah ecosystem can lead to wildebeest, gazelle and zebra overpopulation, resulting in food depletion for these animals, which would result in mass death for them. I'm sure you can think of better examples. (b) Rabies-infected animals contribute to biodiversity. (c) Therefore, ravbies-infected animals contribute to preservation of ecosystems. (d) More ecosystems is a good thing because apart from offering aesthetic enjoyment, they offer us things to analyze and learn from. Certain antibodies taken from an animal species might, for example, help in fighting a human disease such as cancer. I assert that BRIC has had a positive impact on the USA.
Abortion and pregnancy

Most women do feel they can live with theirself at first. They normally wouldn't do something they knew would throw them into a depression. Let me compare abortion to a 15 year old boy commiting a crime. He shot a guy dead. He realized the consequences if he got caught, so why shouldn't he have to go to jail as well a a girl living with the baby? You gave me the condom breaks excuse, well he throws the gun into the Atlantic Ocean and dumps the body in a landfill, he shouldn't have to go to jail because he was SO CAREFUL, right? Wrong.
Abortion and pregnancy

Firstly, may I thank you for arguing your side so well. I have had to stop and think several times. But to business. Please excuse any errors - my keyboard is quite annoying and doesn't always type what i want it to. You are against abortion and therefore are debating that it would be a better place if abortion was banned. However, have you considered the consequences of such an action? In 2002, there were 53 pregnancies per 1000 15 - 19 year olds. In July 2007 the american population was over 300 million. At an estimate I would say that a third of that population were adults leaving 200 million minors. For the sake of easy maths we'll say that around 100 million are female. Therefore each year, there would be approximately 530,000 babies being born to teenage girls and 530,000 teenage girls taken out of there education. Imagine this happening to every generation of young women I'm sure you can continue on this method in your head as it could become an evil cycle. Also, would these babies be getting a good quality of life if there mother had to leave education earlier and end up working at Walmart or Asda for the rest of her life, rather than if she had continued on to get degrees in a job she loved. Not only would it leave the mother feeling unfulfilled, it would also cause the child to feel the same. You also noted in your argument that "She shouldn't be forced to live with the decision of killing a baby and living with the effects for the rest of her life". Abortion is optional, and therefore is choosen by the woman if she feels like she could live with herself. She isn't forced to live with anything. You also noted that depression may also occur after abortion, Post abortion syndrome, however, in 80% of cases, the women feel relief. Infact, they were probably more likely to suffer from post-natal depression, therefore leading to possible neglect of their child. Post-natal depression also lasts alot longer, carrying on for months or years whereas Post abortion syndrome last for a matter or weeks. It also would be easier to over come as they would not be caring for a new born child. You never note, sir, the part the father plays in the non-abortion. Would he leave education as well like the woman would have to? Or would he be given the chance to continue his studies? It would be unfair to strip the mother of her life while the father still has his - it takes 2 to tango. And also sir, if you got a girl pregnant what would be the likely hood of you giving up your education to help take care of you child? In conclusion, abortion is a good thing for both sides. It allows the woman to carry on with what she wanted to do, perhaps setting up a better life for future children. It has a high success rate and low depression rate - and a quick recovery rate in those who suffer from PAS. It also gives women free will to do what they feel is morally right for themselves.