BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In the UK, for those who abort for social - NOT LIFE-THREATENING - reasons should pay.

In the UK, abortion is of course free of charge due to the NHS. However figures obtained in 2011 show that 21% of pregnancies end in abortion and 60% (and rising) of abortions are for social reasons. These facts are highly disturbing for me as a Buddhist. We say life begins at conception to other non-Buddhists, but to a Buddhist, what we mean is that at the moment of conception a consciousness is formed or in other words, the karmic identity is delivered. This means that abortion at least for social reasons is unacceptable as you are harming the consciousness which has already become embodied. Thus I think we should charge a large amount of money to those who wish to abort for reasons other than medical. By doing this, less lives will be lost and we can change the mindset of people that women have the right to decide over the fate of their own child when in reality, no one has that kind of authority over anyone's life.
There is Contemporary, Derivative, and Comparative Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.

Again, I reiterate that I am willing to give examples of all three forms of evidence requested, but not on a unilateral basis where you are poised merely to give criticism and not provide anything to lend coherence to your position. That was my simple contention, and you were afraid to agree to a dialogue. Here you have yet proven it again. If you are afraid to wrestle with your own conclusions to seek for truth and veracity, truth shall e'er remain elusive to you. By all means, if you are satisfied with your conclusions, so be it and I shall wish you well in that which you have placed your confidence. But from experience, I know that you will have to remain in the frame of lying to yourself to deaden the curiosity that arises over the big questions pertaining to origin, identity, purpose, and destiny that a naturalistic framework of belief holds no answers for. Even Aristotle knew that a wise man can entertain an idea without endorsing it. My position as a Christian is not one of thinking I am certain of myself, rather it is because I am admittedly uncertain that I turned to faith in my God who gives me an identity to be certain of. Neither is it a statement of strength, for I know how feeble my frame is in and of myself. Neither is it a statement of wisdom, for I am not wise, but I believe in Him who alone is wise who leads me in His wisdom despite my foolishness and ignorance. The faith of the Christian admits weakness; it doesn't proclaim an illusory strength.
There is Contemporary, Derivative, and Comparative Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.

It is a simple case of having no Contemporary, Derivative and Comparative evidence for the resurrection. This wasn't a discussion it was debate, you are a Christian who claims grand things and cannot present good evidence for the resurrection. So next time just reject the debate instead of wasting peoples time. Again you cannot provide evidence, instead you insist on me giving an argument for a topic which has nothing to do with the debate. Simple evidence that you cannot provide, why believe if you cannot do this simple thing, simpleman?
There is Contemporary, Derivative, and Comparative Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.

As I thought, you are fearful of your bankruptcy in the context of dialogue as opposed to monologue. Sorry, but if you cannot offer the same courtesy you expect me to furnish you, this is a lost cause. I will post an argument if you do the same, but I will not post argument in return for your criticism. I figured you had no ground to stand on if equally challenged. The choice is yours how we shall proceed.
There is Contemporary, Derivative, and Comparative Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.

I'm sorry that is not how this works, you accepted a debate with the understanding that we would debate the topic which is to present: 1) Contemporary evidence: Evidence that dates to the time the person or event actually happened. 2) Derivative evidence: Evidence that is known to use contemporary record-evidence that has since been lost. 3) Comparative evidence: Evidence that gives details that can be checked against known factors of the time. .....for the resurrection of Jesus If you want to start a different debate choosing your topics then feel free, but for now you should have presented your argument, which is the 3 types evidences for the resurrection of Jesus noted above. If you cannot do it then forfeit, instead of wasting my time, you are the Pro make your argument. As for my challenge or responsibility, this will be to refute your evidence (that you did not post in your first argument as per the agreed rules of this debate. So we can either start over in the next round with your arguments for the evidence stated or we can discard this debate, you tell me, since you have wasted your first argument round with general conversation which could have been done in the comment section or after you presented your argument in your first round. Shall we try again, Simpleman please post an argument for the debate topics you accepted or just type in forfeit.
There is Contemporary, Derivative, and Comparative Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.

Gladly I shall accept the challenge presented. I do feel that it is fair to issue also an equal challenge to the challenger in this debate. I am a former skeptic and opponent of Christians, God, and the Bible, which is held to be the revelation God has given to man of Himself, His work in creation, His interaction with man throughout history, and the ultimate destiny He intends toward us, by His law and His sacrafice on our behalf regarding our sins as it were. My challenge to Projectid is to give me reason or evidence that can perhaps persuade me of this alleged falsity of the Christian claim. I wish to see what logical failing, or scientific evidence to the contrary can be shown so as to provide leverage to the claims of atheism. Please demonstrate where I have gone wrong in adopting the Christian faith to the abolishment of my former skepticism, which was based on both science and my own opinion of reality as I myself was determining it from experience and what I interpreted in scientific terms. I issue this counter challenge so as to alleviate the problem of this debate being unilateral in scope. Why should I doubt my faith and my God? That is my question. Thank you for your response.
Government needs to be abolished

I recognize your argument, and know that I agree with much of what you are saying. I am a Libertarian myself and frankly, I find all politicians to be lying pigs. I believe that most of government needs to be abolished, but for the sake of this argument, I will, once again, go along with the idea that government itself needs to be abolished. I will touch on the following aspects that government is used for: Crime, currency, and defense. CRIME: Without government, we will have rampant crime rates. What you state is very idealistic, and you cannot be idealistic. You have to be realistic. Without government, we have no law. We have no order. You cannot trust that every single person in the world will respect your life, liberty, and property. You cannot. That is why you must rely on a police force. You cannot trust that people will use their best moral judgement. You also have to realize that there are many, many laws that do very specific things that you cannot get rid of. There are certain things that you cannot make for profit, and that you have to have for the good of the people and the country. Currency: There can be private currencies, but currency is backed up by the government. They are the ones that control the gold which backs up monetary currencies, such as cash. A private currency can destabilize very quickly, and the problem with private currencies is that other governments will not trade with a private currency. Also, with private currencies, it will create even more division, as there can be multiple private currencies. This is no good for a country. If you have no currency at all, which is even worse, then you get into a resource based economy, which is all based on demand. This economy would marginalize the helpless, the weak, children, elderly, etc. Without a proper currency that everyone can fall under, we will live the same way savages do in Africa (I am not stating Africans are savages, I am merely stating that some tribes and factions in certain remote African locations are filled with savages). Defense: If you want to shut down government, you will also shut down the military. In your previous argument, you state how we need to stay out of wars. Without a military, it will be kind of hard to stay out of wars if we are the ones being attacked. If we were to shut down the military, we would be wiped out immediately. There would be no order! The second we lay down our arms, there will be no more Americans in this country. The bottom line is, even though government is filled with corrupt officials, lobbyists, and economically illiterate Democrats, there are still some things they do (although inefficiently) that we could not go without. Roads, public parks, fire department, police force, postal service, military, national guard, airport systems, public schools, etc.
Government needs to be abolished

Awesome! I'm new on debate.org so I want to thank you for being my first debate! I guess I will begin! I do not argue what would happen after government is abolished as I am not in the business of predicting future. People realized that slavery is wrong and needs to be abolished, regardless if it harms people by removing it. Same goes for someone with cancer. If a surgeon removes the cancer (government) the patient (people) may die, leave the cancer (government) and your guaranteed to die. With that opening statement said I must ask a question and then give my points. Question: is using force and corecion wrong for people to use on other people to get what they want? I will now give 3 points. 1. Government has a monopoly on everything we deem in a society as bad. Theft, murder, kidnapping, etc are things peaceful people find to be wrong. We are taught this in elementary. Government is a concept. It's not real. It really is a group of individuals who claim to be morally justified in doing what anyone else would find immoral. 2. "For the people by the people?" We claim we are a democracy. Where majority rules. Yet of the entire u.s. population, only around one third vote. So in reality the minority rules over the majority. 3. If the rulers are removed we still have rules. If I don't want to be killed, I shouldn't go kill someone. These are principles and rules everyone can understand (minus those in office). By abolishing government we allow the people to "vote" with their medium of exchange. We wouldn't have police. We would have peace keepers. We could still have fire fighters, roads being built, businesses thriving, poverty dropping, (no need for a poor person to spend hundreds of dollars for permits or licenses etc). On top of all that, your argument is that removing the government would be detrimental to humanity. Government itself is the largest (unnatural) killer of humanity! Therefore government IS detrimental to humanity itself. I hope I am doing this right. If I am playing this wrong please let me know.
Government needs to be abolished

Government is by definition the right to rule. We as a society understand its wrong to steal, murder, kidnap etc yet the government has a pass on this as well as a monopoly on all the things we as humans condemn. We need to remove government from our lives. 200+ years of more and more tyranny is not a "failed" experiment. It is intentional! Anything a government runs is driven into the ground. "We the people" no longer control how we live. Just about every aspect of our lives are affected by some "ABC" agency, (FCC, fda, Dec, FFA, IRS, dot, TSA, blm, etc etc). Government is the opposite of peaceful voluntary interactions. It is the gun in the room. It is the largest slave owner. It is immoral. It needs to be abolished.
Yo mama joke off 2!

1.Yo mama is so ugly that the last time I saw something that looked like her, I pinned a tail on it. 2.Yo mama is so ugly that we put her in the kennel when we go on vacation. 3.Yo mama is so ugly that her shadow ran away from her. 4. Yo mama is so fat that when she sat on an iphone, it turned into an ipad. 5. Yo mama is so fat that her cereal bowl came with a lifeguard.
Yo mama joke off 2!

1. Yo mama is so ugly that she looked out the window and got arrested for mooning. 2. Yo mama is so ugly she turned Medusa to stone. 3. Yo mama is so ugly that the government moved Halloween to her birthday. 4. Yo mama is so ugly that... well... look at you... 5. Yo mama is so ugly that she makes blind children cry. can't beat number 4, can you?
Yo mama joke off 2!

What about we do 5 jokes per stage. Here's mine: 1. Yo mama is so fat that her bellybutton gets home 15 minutes before she does. 2. Yo mama is so fat that when she was diagnosed with a flesh-eating disease, the doctor gave her ten years to live. 3. Yo mama is so fat that she left the house in high heels and came back wearing flip flops. 4. Yo mama is so fat that people jog around her for exercise. 5. Yo mama is so fat that that when she sits on the beach, Greenpeace shows up and tries to tow her back into the ocean. Your turn
The Philosophy of Relativism

Ok, let's get it on, then. Just by participating in this debate, you are being an absolutist, not a relativist. You are trying to prove that relativism is an absolute truth. This is actually impossible to do, and therefore it is impossible for you to win this debate. You will not be able to prove anything true, because according to relativism, there is no such thing as truth. In fact, I encourage voters to vote for me no matter what, because if I win, at least my opponent can win relative to their own standards of winning. Now, I know there are several categories of relativism: one that says everything in existence is relative, and then moral relativism. The radical relativism, in which everything is relative, defeats itself. It says that everything is true to one's own self, but is that statement true? If yes, than it disproves itself, and if no, than obviously it is wrong. Surely all things can not be relative. A relativist will then say: "The only real truth is that there is no truth, except for this one." Basically, relativists are making a exception that the only truth can be relativism. But, looking at this statement as a relativist, couldn't THAT statement be relative? How in fact do we know this truth of the one true exception? Relativists will sometimes admit that there is the possibility of other truths, making the one truth exception just a non-confirmed, relative opinion. And once again, everything can not be relative as stated in my second paragraph. Now, on to the usual moral relativism... Let me just focus on one subject that people believe is relative, murder. In some ancient cultures, such as the Mayans, Romans, and various native American tribes, murder was not nearly looked down upon as it is in today's world. In fact, it was celebrated as a way of offering sacrifices to the Gods or a pleasing spectacle in the Coliseum. So, people will say that murder is neither good nor bad... it's just relative to a culture's beliefs. This is an error in thinking. Just because a culture accepts something horrible, it doesn't make it alright. Although slavery back in the 1700s and 1800s was prominent and a normal practice, we now see it as detestable. It has always been detestable. To say that it was fine back then makes no sense, because it's the same slavery perceived by modern day people. A culture may accept the killing of Jews, as did Germany. Relative to them, it was good. But was is really good? My point is that just because other people may feel they are right, it doesn't mean they are. Now, granted there are some things that are relative. Canis's comment about shoe size is a good example. As an absolutist, I can be confirmed in saying this. As a relativist, I can't say that shoe size is relevant, because that statement itself might be relevant. I hope I haven't been to irrelevant in this debate. heh heh
The Philosophy of Relativism

I, Jimmy, will be arguing that Relativism, which is the belief that certain truths are true for me but not for you is in fact false. You, the Pro, will be arguing that the philosophy of Relativism is true, that your truth is not the same as MY truth. The structure of this debate will be Round 1, acceptance, Round 2, arguments, and Round 3, new arguments and rebuttals. A future thanks goes to my future opponent. And, unrelated to this debate, I'll be doing another rap battle sometime, but I'm not sure when it'll be... I got somethin' good comin' up...
Should the United States fought in the Spanish-American War of 1898

The main reason the US attacked Spain was The USS Maine, as most of you know, exploded in the Havana Harbor. After an official "investigation" the government said that the Maine was hit by a mine. They didn't call anyone out but everyone assumed it was Spain because they had control of Cuba at the time. So what happens? The US attacks Spain without actual proof. The best probable reason was the boiler exploded OR coal dust, which is combustible, built up and exploded. All it would take is a shovel hitting the floor and causing a spark. . http://www.americaslibrary.gov... I cannot give any other sources as I have gathered this information slowly over the years.
Should the United States fought in the Spanish-American War of 1898

Because of the uproar the sinking of the Maine caused in the United States, President McKinley demanded an immediate investigation into the cause of the explosions. A U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry arrived in Havana and began its investigation. Survivors and eyewitnesses testified for the court, and several navy divers explored the sunken ship, hoping to find clues as to what may have caused the disaster. All parties involved concluded without a doubt that the explosion of the forward six-inch ammunition magazines had caused the sinking. Why those magazines had exploded, no one could determine conclusively, and doubt remains as to the exact cause to this day. There have been four major investigations into the sinking since 1898. From the four inquiries, two hypotheses have emerged: The External mine hypothesis is that a mine in Havana Harbor had exploded underneath the battleship, causing the explosion of the magazines. The Coal bunker fire hypothesis is that spontaneous combustion of the coal in bunker A16 created a fire that detonated the nearby magazines. The 1898 Court of Inquiry headed by Captain William T. Sampson began its work on February 21. Survivors and eyewitnesses testified for the court, and several navy divers explored the sunken ship, hoping to find clues as to what may have caused the disaster. Though several volunteered, no experts outside the Navy were called upon for advice. The Sampson Board concluded that the Maine had been blown up by a mine, which in turn caused the explosion of her forward magazines. The official report from the board, which was presented to the Navy Department in Washington on March 25, specifically stated that, "The court has been unable to obtain evidence fixing the responsibility for the destruction of the Maine upon any person or persons." This, of course, did not stop the U.S. from pinning the destruction on the Spanish, and war was declared one month later.
Should the United States fought in the Spanish-American War of 1898

There are a few key aspects that sum up this entire period of United States domestic policy. Following the Mexican-American war in 1846, James Polk popularized the aspect of Imperialism. Within this ideology of Imperialism, the belief of Manifest Destiny led Americans to believe that it was their God-given right to expand in the continent and act as the hand of God to defend weaker countries and support those who are oppressed by colonizing European nations. To protect this belief, the Monroe Doctrine was established to protect the interest of the United States and other countries in North and South America. The Doctrine stated that any attempt to control, colonize or interfere with these countries would be seen as an act of aggression against the United States and would require military intervention. Spain, who had been in control of Guam, Cuba, the Philippians, and Puerto Rico (countries specifically involved during the Spanish-American War). Spain's interference with these countries violated the Monroe Doctrine and the US felt that they must take action against the oppression from Europe. The sinking of the Maine was the catalyst in the debate whether the United States would take action. Similarly to the sinking of the Lusitania, most of the United State wanted to take action, but they just needed the rationale to declare war on Spain http://www.ourdocuments.gov... http://www.pbs.org... http://www.history.com...
Dating at a young age prepares you for adulthood

I understand that kids go through puberty. None of what you said supported your argument. This isn't about what kids want. This is about if dating at a young age prepares you for adult hood. You also didn't refute my arguments at all. I also don't think that health class is a good source, as you can't show exactly where you got it from and I have nothing to confirm it. Like I said, I get that kids want to be together but trying to find characteristics or a future spouse is not really possible as kids don't know 1. How to correctly date at that age 2. What they want *Conclusion: Overall, I have shown how dating at a young age does not in fact prepare you for adult hood and can actually be detrimental. My opponent refuted none of my facts and did not use a reliable source.
Dating at a young age prepares you for adulthood

As early as age ten, both girls and guys experiance puberty. At this time hormonal changes accure and the testosterone and estrongen increases. Forming attraction between the sexes. This is a natural processe the body goes through and as I said find attraction. At this time the sexes will naturaly hang out more often then elementry school children and these friendships often become more than friends or "friendzoned". At this time teens will find intrest for the oppisite sex and will want together.Credits:Heath Class