BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Rebuttals: "since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life" lets look at the first sentence. you say life begins at conception. lets go down the most agreed on definition of life. "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." so, the list: growth: yes reproduction: no, as it is not fully developed functional activity: no, as it must grow within the womb, and does not even move for a while continual changes after death: yes. so we can conclude that babies are about 50% the way to being "life". so technically, life does not begin at conception. "No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different." abortion is different, as this being inside the woman is still not conscious, and the brain is not able to function properly, and understand what it even is, or if it is even alive. "Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child." yes. adoption is. but then you have to account the risks. pedophiles. kidnappers. the risks are there. and while most adopters are great, people wont want to take the risk. "An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases." in rare cases, yes, it can affect you. here, two websites to explain. 1:http://www.nhs.uk... 2:http://www.babycenter.com... as you can see, problems can occur. if you have a bad doctor, or if(rarely) the doctor makes a mistake, you can have have complications. but that leads into my opening arguments. Arguments: 1: When abortion was once illegal in America, illegal abortions were more common than today's legal abortions. here: http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org... when abortion is illegal, abortion wont stop. it will just be more dangerous, and sometimes even more common. 2: The abortion is the woman's choice. not the governments. If you were going to say: "well its not the woman's choice, it the child's. it deserves to live." why would you say that, then say once it's born it must listen to its parents. if you believe it is the child's choice, then do you believe children deserve to be independent, and not listen to their mothers?
Abortion

I will start with a couple of statements and facts. - Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life. - No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different. - Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. - An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases.
The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values

First off, you say that because you went to nationals as a freshman, you win. No, you don't, I wasn't trying to be racist, you posted a arguement saying , mexicans are discouraged because there are not enough translaters, that is what you said. Don't cheat in this round. The quote is cheating is trying, I am not trying in this debate, all of my arguements stand, he has not rebutted the caucus system, super delegates, supreme court. I embody all democratic values wioth the supreme court, the supreme court rules, the system is not contrary, then it isn't. Come up with something original. Your dad was turned down, you said it was because of translaters, you said that. Two, post your real case, I will tear it to pieces. YOU are a arrogant debater, I'VE BEEN TO NATIONALS, yea ha. So, what jsut because you have went, doesn't make you god of debate. Did you win Nationals, no, so how can you call yourself a expert. Post your real case, do it, because even a good debater can win rounds, even if the opponent already knows about his case. NEG wins, vote now.
The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values

THE NEG SHOULD LOST FOR ONE REASON I'M MEXICAN AND MY DAD CAN SPEAK ENGLISH AND WE WAS TURN DOWN WHEN WE WENT TO VOTE AND THE NEG IS BEING RACIST TOWARDS ME. I am note cheating and besides BESIDES HE NOTES THAT HE IS CHEATING IN TODAY'S DEBATE AND CHEATING IS UNEXPETABLE. Let me post my really case and you would get worked. I've been to nationals as a freshman
The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values

"Second he brought up how Mexicans can't vote, because of language issues, but he has provided no evidence to back up his claim and he does not need a translator, if he has a ballot that is in spanish." , this is common sense, have you provided evidence, proving your point, it is common sense, that there are spanish ballots. How am I racist, you posted this,"Mexicans are being turned down because there arent enough translaters and therefore this is taking away from there rights Politically.", their are not enough translaters, you are telling me, they can speak just fine and yet they need translaters. moving on They will never go against the party, besides, you can never guarantee an abuse will never happen, but that is why we have a checks and balances system. The last check is the people. Federalism is the main idea of are government of the U.S. , not every state has the same laws as everyone else, it's common sense, it is relevant, because that is are government structure. Con.4, has nothing to do with Mexicans not voting, it goes into depths with why, candidates have a equal chance. "THis whole argument is off topic. The tag for the contention gives it away. BEFORE PRIMARIES . Sense the resolution states :The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values. We are not talking about the before we are talking about during. So this must be disregard", This arguement proves, back then, it was democratic and now it is even more democratic "1) The Primaries will turn into "American Idol - The President" - A larger portion of Americans care less about the important issues we all face. Further more many people like I, feel the responsibility to participate by voting, but are sick of the campaign already, and are not taking a close look at what is going on. As a result both parties may end up with nominees that may in fact be un-electable. There may be empty suits or have a closet full of skeletons, but it is quite possible that enough delegates will be assigned early enough that no one gets property examined.", That is what a democracy is a popularity contest, for one. "2) The Campaign will drag on F O R E V E R - It has already gone on far too long, and we are likely to see a huge flurry of activity early in the year, followed by the front runners taking pot shots at each other for months and months.", This is rebutted, because the reason it goes on forever is to give the people a meaningful choice, this rebuts his first point, saying it is a presidency, then he says, it should be quick. His points 1 nd 2 contradict each other. I am note cheating and besides, you concede to the supreme court arguement, so Neg, wins, two, he drops my caucus arguement, so I win on that point as well. Vote Neg, look and read everything, I have won, this debate is over, he needs to stop losing. He agrees, with virtually, my whole case.
The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values

" I'm talking about the GOP and goes for both parties." "So if I can provide that Presidential Primaries go against a few democratic values I will win today's debate see that the Con having talked about superdelegates.", if that is true, then why did you bring up the Mondale issue, that was in the democratic party, not the GOP. You can't concede to a win, if you don't rebut any of my contentions. "The Pursuit of Happiness: As long as you don't interfere with others you have the right to seek happiness in your own way.", to clarify, we are talking about the presidential primary system, not the Caucus system. Caucus and primaries are totally different systems. Plus it only strengthens the fact that we are not going to talk about super delegates as you said. The primary system is not the caucus system, you have to see, everyone out there, he is trying to narrow the debate down to caucus, because it is the opnly way, he thinks he can win, however, his arguements are not topical, so disregrad them from the round. Second he brought up how Mexicans can't vote, because of language issues, but he has provided no evidence to back up his claim and he does not need a translater, if he has a ballot that is in spanish. The primary system does not impend on any values. Also he has dropped my supreme court arguement as well, here is why it stands in the round, the supreme court makes decisions encompassing all democratic values of the U.S., so if they rule a political party has a first amendment right to hold a nomination process it feels will produce the best candidate, then it is not contrary as thee have been no cases against primaries that have proven, to not go against democratic values. Two federalism is still in the round as well. I will drop my super delegate arguement and move on to his RNC arguement, I do not get his arguement, because I already went over, why they will never go against the people. If they do, they will never win the next election for them and the candidate for their party. Even if it is about power, the affirmitive, is basing his arguements on what if's, also known as a slippery slope fallacy. Which is not a concrete example, so it must not stand in the round. You must always look to the negatives democratic values, because it encompases all the democratic values.e.g. the constitution is like a jellyfish, the top part is the constitution and the tentacles are the values. vote neg, and remenber, we are talking about the presidential primary system, not the caucus system, or the unpledged RNC, which is what I think he is talking about, though he is confusing. Vote Neg
The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values

Point of clarifaction I'm not talking about superdelegates I'm talking about the GOP and goes for both parties. So if I can provide that Presidential Primaries go against a few democratic values I will win today's debate see that the Con having talked about superdelegates. This has nothing to do with todays rounds. I will list a number of democratic values for you: The Pursuit of Happiness: As long as you don't interfere with others you have the right to seek happiness in your own way. In caucus I'm not sure which one I can give you the website. A company forced workers to vote for Obama or they would switch there work hours and make it so that they would miss the voting altoghter and/or not be paid for the work they had done that week. This goes agaisnt one democratic value that I have just posted. Everyone has the right to Political, Legal, Social and Economic Equality. Everyone has the right to the same treatment regardless of race, sex, religion, heritage, or economic status Mexicans are being turned down because there arent enough translaters and therefore this is taking away from there rights Politically.
The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values

Resolved:The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values 1)Delegates are free to switch there moves after the primary When you vote in a presidential primary or caucus, you are usually voting for a specific candidate, but for another person, called a delegate, who you hope will later support your candidate at the Republican and Democratic National Convention. You can only hope, because many states do not bind delegates to to follow voter intent, especially in the case of a content convention. If no single candidates gets a majority of the delegates on the first vote , then the horse- trading can begin. After the second ballot, most delegates are free to nominate Jared, Yes thetas right the Subway guy for the commercials, if they so choose. The last contest convention occurred in 1984, when Democratic candidate Gary Hart and Jesse JAckson initially refused to yield to Walter Mondale. This is only my first debate on the website I can provide alot better case time give
building a wall

My opponent argues that America should construct a wall along the United States-Mexican border, claiming that "the United States has reached an all-time high of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants." Firstly, my opponent fails to provide any links or specific citations to any source to support his claim. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2014, there were around 11.7 million immigrants from Mexico living in the U.S. Only around half of them were in the country illegally, which would be an approximate 5.85 million (S1). And since then, the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has been declining. Additionally, while many political leaders such as Donald Trump have argued that we're facing an "unprecedented immigration crisis," there are actually more Mexican immigrants leaving America than coming to America. From 2009 to 2014, there was a net loss of 140,000 Mexican immigrants in America. This situation is overblown; there is no need to use taxpayer money to resolve a nonexistent crisis.Sources:S1) http://www.pewresearch.org...S2) http://www.pewhispanic.org...
building a wall

The border wall, or as President Donald Trump refers to as "The Great Wall" has been repeatedly promised to be constructed throughout his election. President Trump desires to build the wall to not only prevent illegal immigration, but to provide security and protection for the United States. Since 1980 to 2010 the number of immigrants crossing into the United States has raised approximately 10 million, and the United States has reached an all-time high of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants. We believe the wall should be built. Building a wall will strengthen our economy by bringing jobs to border protection and construction. Not only will it strengthen the economy, but it will also decrease the number of undocumented citizens crossing into the U.S. "The desire to establish clear sovereign authority over the states territory is the first factor that underlies the construction of a border barrier." (Reece Jones "Why Build a Border Wall?" nacla.org) The wall will clearly identify which land is rightfully ours. It"d be in the United States best interest to construct the wall.
Harry Potter: is J. K. Rowling liberal scum who is swayed by the public too easily

J. K. Rowling is a good author but has some major flaws. She is easily swayed by what the public wants and not by what would be good in the book. Dumbledore, for instance, showed no signs of being gay throughout the book series, but somehow, as soon as the movies started to come out, J.K. Rowling has to please every group.
People Need a License to Live

In the common sense test, here is a sample of the questions: Multiple Choice: Who formulated the periodic table of the elements? A) Einstein B) Newton C) Mendeleev D) Edison Free Response: What is the most common surname in Vietnam? Fill in the blank: Force equals mass times ____________. Okay, so that is an example of my test. I'm glad you think $400 is sort of reasonable. Due to overpopulation and global warming, we have to make life not be a right; instead, it should be a privilege. Yes, we should kill the mute people. I hope I answered your question. I await your final argument.
People Need a License to Live

400 dollars sounds sort of reasonable. I don't think we're going to renew those things every three years, though. A person's right to live should not be based on their income and net worth, that's a direct violation of the Constitution, which clearly states that all people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights do not cost anything, they are allowed to everyone regardless of money. I suggest you specify what's in this "common sense" test. I don't think people should be killed if they're stupid, I believe that anybody can be educated. I think that most people can speak their primary language fluently, unless they're mute, in which case they should not be killed. I also think that we should not kill people because they have any mental or physical defects. Many people are handicapped and would not be able to pass the fitness test. Stephen Hawking is a genius. You are sick to think that we should kill people if they have a disability. That is one philosophy you share with the Fuhrer- he strongly supported a euthanasia plan and dumped handicapped people from rooftops, not worrying about their screams. Also, kids are not going to work in mines for 100 hours every year. You are batty.
People Need a License to Live

Okay, fine. Their parents get them a license. However, it costs $400 USD to renew the living license; all people must renew their living license once every 3 years. They have to prove themselves worthy enough to live by passing a common sense test, a proficiency test of their primary language (speaking, reading, listening, speaking), and passing a basic physical fitness test. This will weed out the retarded people and the weak or physically handicapped people. For kids aged 6 to 18, one major additional requirement to renew their living license is to have to work 100 hours in the mines EVERY year.
People Need a License to Live

Should people require a license in order to live? The answer, to me, is yes. You see, h ere we are at debate #23 this year. I believe that all human beings need a license in order to live so they can prove themselves to be responsible stewards of creation and competent human beings with good morals. However, if a person doesn't have a living license or the ability to acquire a living license, he or she would be given 150 days to get a license. If he/she still doesn't have a license by the end of the 150 days, they will be put to death. Let's go!
National Smoking Ban to be forced accross the US

My opponent has forefitted the previous round, so I don't have much to argue against. I would just like to point out that a smoking bans (The type of smoking ban was not specified by my opponent) oftentimes ban smoking altogether, whether in public or private. Since this distinction was not made by my opponent, I have demonstrated why bans like this (as in the case of the Smoke-Free Arizona Act) are harmful to personal liberty, and the economy.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
National Smoking Ban to be forced accross the US

I accept your debate; though I am still unclear as to the details of your smoking ban, but I will outline a few reasons to oppose a smoking ban in the United States, in the limited space I am given. (Why the minuscule character limit?)Individual LibertyPerhaps the most obvious reason to oppose a ban on smoking is the fact that it deprives people of their individual freedoms. Though it is harmful to the user, the choice of whether to smoke or not should be an individual's choice, and not the government's. This kind of handing power to the government leads to what is known as a "nanny state" in which the state decides what is good and bad for individuals and makes decisions on behalf of them, destroying their liberty.While smoking is indeed bad for your health, many people enjoy it and seeing as it harms no-one but the user primarily (Besides in cases of second-hand smoking, in which case restrictions are already in place, and the ban would ban smoking in public and private.), the ban cannot be construed as anything but an infringement of individual liberty.Cigarette TaxesTaxes on cigarettes are a major source of income for both the federal government and state governments. By banning cigarettes, a significant amount of money will be taken from state and federal budgets covering everything from veteran's benefits to education. To compensate for this, much will have to be cut, or taxes will have to be raised; both of which are unfavorable and harm people.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...IncarcerationBecause of the war on drugs, the United State's incarceration rate has risen to the highest in the world. This is evident due to the rapid increase in incarceration that began in the 1970's, when the war on drugs kicked into full swing.Due to the massive demand for cigarettes that is unlikely to go away (addiction), there will inevitably be a huge amount of people incarcerated for both using and distributing cigarettes. To mandate the ban, incarceration of many people will be required. This will lead to an even bigger jump in the incarceration rate, and will cause the debt (already growing from removed cigarette tax) increasing enormously due both to money needed to pay for the prisoners (25,000 per prisoner per year) and an even further loss as prisoners are unproductive, and don't earn taxable incomes, which will lead to yet more economic woes. Productivity bolsters our economy, and a cigarette ban will detract significantly from that.Source (Current Incarceration Rate): http://en.wikipedia.org...Source (Graph): http://en.wikipedia.org...Source (Cost for prisoner): http://en.wikipedia.org...
National Smoking Ban to be forced accross the US

Hello, I'm not going to fully put accross my argument in this post, simply outline the terms and topic. I believe there should be a forced nationwide smoking ban all over the USA, to cut smoking for both health and pleasure reasons. During this debate, I will not be placing huge emphasis on sources, as it is much opinion more than fact. Please do participate in the comments, it would be nice if we could have some resident experts sit in and watch. I've made the time to argue short (24 Hours), so that we can have quite fast paced debating. I'm new to DDO but I'm looking for a challenge so I can truly become a full community member!
war in Iraq

i know parties have nothing to do it but that the fact that you are a republican makes perfect sense and yes i am a democrat and i am darn proud of it but answer ME this: 1.ever heard of a draft? 2.ever heard of the soldiers that fought hard and when they cam back got no help 3.and even more so after some of them fought their hearts out had to go back yeah think of this i don't know what you think of this but this is not what the United States of America is about and yes this is not about republicans either but to republicans its WAR! WAR! WAR!
war in Iraq

Yes, I am a Republican, and I'm proud of it. Answer me this: are you a democrat?? Personally, I think that parties are stupid and I think you're just bringing it up just so you can distract from the topic. And to answer your argument: those who join the army or the air force or whatever form of military KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO. They know that when they go to Iraq, they could die. They joined the military so that they can defend their country. If they don't wanna die for their country, then don't join the army. And I almost had a love one die in the war. So you can't say that I don't know what that would feel like. Yes, I'd be sad and obviously upset that they would be gone, but I would also be proud that they were willing to die for freedom for others and FOR YOU. THEY ARE OVER THERE DYING FOR YOU AND THEY ARE PROUD TO SERVE THEIR COUNTRY. End of story.