BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pro-Choice is the only choice

Naturally the pro made a scenario geared towards justifying being pro choice. The argument over Pro choice isnt about whether or not it is economical though, its about morals. I will be focusing on Late term abortion as my reason for why pro-choice isnt the only choice. .................THOSE WHO ARE YOUNG AT HEART, STILL HAVE THEIR INNOCENCE, OR HATE SEEING DEAD BABIES SHOULD NOT CONTINUE..........Im serious.............Ok, here how late term abortions are performed. ..... Basically a fetus is aborted by tearing it to shreds with a pair of scissors and then pulled out of the Vagina. The worst part though for me is that the head is crushed and then yanked out..............Dead baby picture coming up, you may want to close your eyes and then scroll down to the next roundThose brave enough to look should still make sure they havent eaten anything recently............. Thats a dead baby :(Heres a dead baby's arm ................Pro choice is not the "only" choice. If the images above upset you then there is a good chance that a third trimester abortion would be very traumatic and unethical. I am against late term abortion because at that point the child is very much human, it has all the functioning organs, brainpower, and characteristics of any normal human, meaning it is indeed a human. Early first term abortion though, when you abort when the fetus isnt a fetus and just a glob of cells, then pro choice has a very legit argument and is a good stance. But when you are so late into the pregnancy that the child is human in any way you can imagine, then pro life is a choice. Because then it does become murder vs the woman's right to choose, and if the woman was really concerned about the economic conditions for raising the child then she would have aborted a long time ago, not when the baby was a week away from being born. Pro life is a choice, it does depend on the circumstances, but if the Pro is going to gear his scenario for pro choice then Ill do the same for pro-life. In late term scenarios the baby is human in nearly every way, making abortion very comparable to murder. If you dont think late term babies are human though then you wouldnt have been even mildly upset at the pictures above....Pro life is a choice
Pro-Choice is the only choice

First off, I would like to open with a bit of a scenario. Two people, a couple, over 21, in a relationship for more than 5 years have sex. Both however are in poor financial situations and only can support themselves, but just barely. The mother is already in loads of debt, and could not get any compensation from the government, and has no credit, the father is in a similar situation. Neither of them have health insurance either. The woman gets pregnant. Now she is faced with the choice, either get a abortion or have the child. If she has the child she would not be able to raise it. She would not be able to provide it with proper nutrition, and has no family that will help her take care of the child, the child would grow up either miserable, or die at a young age. If she does have the baby and puts it up for adoption "The estimated average cost of a delivery alone is $6,000 – $8,000 for a low risk pregnancy. And the cost can increase significantly for a high risk pregnancy."(http://www.americanpregnancy.org...) without insurance that would be impossible for the couple to even afford. At planned parenthood an abortion costs much less. They could try a natural birth on their own, but at a huge risk for both the mother and the child. In a case such as this without pro-choice this couple (or at least this woman) is trapped, she is forced into more debt, and the child will eventually inherit that debt as well. Right off the bat you still give the child no chance at lift. In Japan and non-western societies, babies are not even considered people before they are 3 years old. This is because the death rate of the children are so high, and common, and so little people can even afford a child without sacrificing themselves and the whole family. Abortion is most common their. and in some cases more common than an actual birth. And among Alaskan Eskimos abortions are done even after the child is born. Either the child suffers, or another child gets a chance when the family is ready.
Pro-Choice is the only choice

You ask for a ligament reason why a mother can chose to abort other than the fact that its the individual woman's right to chose what she does with her body. A good example of why Pro-choice is the best choice is not just for the woman but for the rest of the world is the overwhelming problem witch grows everyday, is but of course Overpopulation. http://www.overpopulation.org... Over population is Dangerously increasing in the US and worldwide. Speaking objectively a woman whom decides last minute to abort a fetus has the right to (1) if they come into a financial crisis, and (2) it would benefit the population in all if more fetus's would be aborted, and (3) if the child came down with a defect or a problematic disorder. Over population is a problem because it would bring out a large loss in human natural resources. More people mean more mouths to feed, more energy being used, more cars being driven and more money being used up. We have not had any global crisis's recently that have thinned out populations and with our increase in medicine and scientific knowledge the avg age of death is much higher than it was in past civilizations. Birth control is one way of preventing un-neccessary children, but in a late trimester if a mother decides they are not competent to be a parent, then the child being born would not be a burden on society rather than a child that was born and raised well, that they benefited their community and their family. Is there a moral question that goes into abortion? Of course, even by saying that it is wrong to abort a fetus that is 9 months along, is putting morals into the equation. However it should rely on the moral values of the individual. The right to chose from an objective standpoint relies on the individuals choice. Religion is the factor that makes the moral question come in to play. In animal kingdom, children born are used as food for the mother or father, or killed if their is not enough supply to go around. In Eskimo culture, a new born child may be killed for food or for necessity. To say that abortion in the final trimester is wrong is saying that every culture is wrong. When you focus on western culure view of the world you are blinded by the fact that to a majority of the world we in the west are the minority. You must understand a culture before you understand its views, as you must understand the individual person and their surroundings before making the choice for them. PRO-CHOICE is CHOICE. When you say pro-life is pro-choice you negate the meaning. Pro-life is not a choice its a force.
On Balance, Free Trade benefits the United States.

That's not how I see trade at all. Considering that you're for free trade and for a system that we've had in place before do you not see the flaws of it? Do you not see the billions of dollars we pwe to China? Do you not sed their devaluation of their currency? As a supreme power in the world the only way to show other countries we are the supreme power is to stand up for ourselves. When China, Japan etc manipulate their currency we need to do something about it. We need to issue a tariff on their goods or at least threaten to use a tariff. While this might raise prices for domestic goods, it shows countries like Japan and China that we won't take what their giving us. And what their giving us is debt and slow economic growth. Regarding your idea that we should keep jobs back in this country i agree. We need to remove regulation on small businesses while lowering the corporate tax. This doesn't mean letting China do whatever they want regarding their currency. We can't be a nation like the rest. We need to seperate our selves and prove to the world we are the leaders. Our GDP is the slowest it's ever been, because people like Obama don't know how to compete with other coumtries. Using your tactic of "let's keep getting ripped off by other countries" not only won't work, but it hasn't worked. Also yes, I am aware that an overwhelming use of tariffs can damage and even kill a country. If we issue a tarrif they issue one as well. It's a never ending circle. But implying a simple tariff's on a particular good in let's say china is beneficial. Putting a 20% tax on a company's goods if they leave the country will deter them from leaving. They will have no reason to leave if we have a lower corporate tax, less regulation and more spending in the government but lets just say they do. This tax or tariff would result in an immediate response from that company who would come flying back to the country it came from The United States of America. It's way past the time where we stick up for ourselves and let every other country know what were about. We're about small business and a growing economy. Not a restricted regulated small business with a broken economy. It's time we stand up to China, end corporate inversion and create a dynamic economy that works for everyone again.
On Balance, Free Trade benefits the United States.

Free Trade is the epitome of a capitalist globe. The United States is no longer alone in it's strides to make capitalism prevalent throughout the world. Free trade is beneficial for the following reasons. I. Spreads Capitalism throughout the world II. Keeps the United States economy up to date III. Provides better for the poor I.Free trade spreads Capitalism A prime example of how free trade has shaped countries today is china. China is the United State's most active trade partner, and over the last 30 years or so, we have seen China completely change regarding it's economic system. In 1976, China instituted "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics." Obviously judging by what happens in the coming years, it is apparent that these "Characteristics" were more a cover up for simple characteristics that would make China more accessible to other countries for trade, hence the explosion in economic growth that would follow. China converting from socialism to capitalism is the direct opposite direction that would be expected based off thinking such as Karl Marx's. How this is beneficial for the US, is that the United States benefits from an open market on the global scale. Communism is a synonym for isolationism, leaving the United States out of the scheme on the global scale. This would then put an end to American values at the global level which is a positive for US businesses. II. Keeps US economy up to date A free market economy is always changing to meet the demands of a consumer. "Fair Trade" is simply an idea put in place to protect these jobs that are simply out dated in the first place. The free market would not be able to support these outdated jobs anyway. So they don't go over seas because people in the US still would not purchase the goods. Therefore Free Trade does not take jobs away, rather it just keeps the economy current as the job market is always changing. III. Provides better for the poor Free Trade Benefits the poor man more than the rich man. To the poor man, raw goods need to be cheaper so this person can afford more. To the rich man however, a tariff would be OK because he could still afford the goods with a tariff in place. Tariffs shrink the middle class by making goods more expensive for the poor and by decreasing competition. The rich man thrives in this situation because he spends roughly the same on goods as he was before compared to his overall wealth, yet soars above everyone else because he has a much larger percentage of his wealth remaining than the poor man.
Android is Better Than Apple

Well, if the Appstore is better because it's more secure, that means Play Store users have more common sense. If a calculator app does steal info, they can first see it on the screen you get before installing. On the Appstore however, there is no screen showing this. Therefore, if an Apple user uses the Play Store, they will hate it because they have to go through multiple screens just to install an app. The next "evidence" is that Apple is more secure. While that is true, it costs you at least 150 dollars more than Android does. Plus, there are free firewall apps on Android that don't hack you. Basically, you're paying 150 dollars more for free firewalls. Since you included it, too, I will talk about the bloat ware situation. Yes, bloat ware is a problem. But it's a problem easily fixed. First, go into settings. Then, go into "Application Manager". There, you can turn off all the bloatware and clear their caches, clearing the space that bloatware uses. Finally, Intel is dropping in quality, so I think that Intel just reached Apple's level. Oh wait, there's a subsection dedicated to cost. Oh boy. Here we go. First off, the quality of Samsung phones are MUCH higher than Apple's. Second off, newer Apple updates actually slow the year-old phones, while Samsung phones don't have to update to the newer versions, making them faster than their Apple counterparts. I am currently writing this on a Samsung S5. If I asked you to try to write your next argument on an iPhone 5, you would says it's nearly impossible because of the updates slowing it down. Also, customer service in Apple just tells you to upgrade while Samsung actually tries to help. Just mentioning that.
Xander from GotG is of Alpha Centauri Solar Sytem

First of, I wold like to point out several flaws in my Pro's reasoning. First, there is no such thing as the Xandar Empire, only the planet Xandar, controlled by Nova Corps, and by Pro's first round, I can be voted off that alone. Pro's main topic is about how Xander, is in the Alpha Centauri system, but in fact, Xandar is actually located in the Andromeda Galaxy. It is just a similar solar system that contains three suns. (. http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com...) Also, Alpha Centuari's suns vary in size more than the suns of Xandar actually do. These images are shrunk down but the difference is incredible in real life, while the movie's suns seem to be similar in size. (Alpha Centuari- . http://en.wikipedia.org... vs Xandar- . http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com...) Finally, Pro's argument about how it converges into a single star which is visible from Earth makes no sense since this debate only pertains to the movies in which no scenes is it ever shown.
I believe eli manning has lived up to his draft status.

Sorry, I posted it in comments by mistake... The key part of you opener was "if he keeps playing the way he did in the playoffs". That is what would solidify him as a worthy first pick in the draft. Eli could very well have this one year were he leads his team to a Super Bowl and never reach a Championship Game again. Look at Steve McNair, the Baltimore Ravens, Rex Grossman to name a few. It is always a gamble as to how well Eli will play, skeptics and fans alike hold out hope that every time he heads out on the field he plays like he did in this past post season. To say that he has lived up to his draft status is nieve in the sense that it is too soon in his career to say such a thing. It is true that stats aren't everything, but a strong quarterback needs consitency and dependable numbers when it comes down to playing them or benching them. -4 Seconds Ago
I believe eli manning has lived up to his draft status.

I belive eli manning has lived up to his draft status. The essence of drafting a quarterback in the first or any round is for them to lead their teams to a championship or bring them to a championship level. Yes his stats are not the best but the term stats lie is true in his case, because alot of those incompeletions and interceptions are the wide recievers fault too. We tend to forget that eli manning is still a young quarterback who happens to play in the biggest media outlet in the country and for what he get put through week in and week out he has handled it pretty well. So i do believe eli manning has matured into the quarterback was billed out to be but he has a way to go in terms of development.If he keeps playing the way he played in the playoffs he could reach the some what of the status of his brother peyton.
DNA Databases/profiling

You say that people's privacy will be invaded but those who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about. If those who do not have a criminal background (whether serious or not) or are planning on doing something in the future then they have no reason to be worried. The DNA profile will also only be viewed by a government worker and won't even be viewed if the person's own health, safety, or criminal background comes into question. Their privacy can very easily be maintained by through high-end security and as long as they have nothing to hide then they have no reason to worry.
DNA Databases/profiling

Preventing innocence comes with a price. The labeling of people and the country will follow the introduction of the DNA databases. A computer would be uploaded with billions of DNA strands and nothing is perfect. The Idea behind the DNA database is strong yet, the country can be labeled because of its decisions. This can make the country seem invasive to privacy. Also, the costs of this database would cost billions of dollars and the databases would often be put to work because millions of people are born a day. that means there is an increased chance of the database misreading a strand. Also, being able to store this data will be a fragile system. what can happen if the area in which has a power outage. this would be to costly for the government and if that country is already in debt it would cause more harm than good.
DNA Databases/profiling

You have a good point but DNA databases and profiling will protect the innocent. DNA profiling will vastly eliminate the leading causes of misconvinctions which are eyewitness misidentification, inproper forensic science, and misinformants. Using direct crosses between the database and evidence from the crime scene can rule-out innocent people being convicted. This can take away from the estimate of 10,000 innocent people prosecuted each year. Not to mention the estimated over 1,000 people since 1976 who have been executed or may still be on death row. http://researchnews.osu.edu... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.brighthub.com...
DNA Databases/profiling

The argument that you present may be true. but, the police can misuse this DNA Database. If there is a case in which there is a corrupt officer can give information to someone whom isn't qualified. Also DNA databases can have a backfire as well, If someone is in the wrong place at the wrong time you can be pinned for a crime. In that a lawyer in a court can use this database to falsely convict someone of a crime.
DNA Databases/profiling

One major problem in crime is the miss-representation for ethnic minorities and young people. This creates an anti-police attitude. In fact, two in five black men already have their DNA on record compared to fewer than one in ten whites. Justice cannot properly be given to those in a majority gender or ethnicity that holds more protection compared to the minorities. DNA profiling can eliminate the bias in crime by giving solid evidence towards who the perpetrator is. A computer does not discriminate against those of different color, age, and gender than the majority. http://www.theweek.co.uk... http://www.yourgenome.org...
DNA Databases/profiling

Yes, but aside from innocent people being convicted, there are plenty of unsolved cases that effect the population. DNA found not previously linked to a perpetrator can be linked to a match in the database. This could bring closure and comfort to the person(s) effected by the perpetrator's crime and brings justice towards the crime. There are 6,000 killers that get away each year, 25% of sexual assault cases go unsolved each year, and there are 900,000 abduction cases a year. Most of these cases involve perpetrators that have never committed a crime before. To eliminate this problem a DNA databases is needed. http://www.8newsnow.com... http://www.yourgenome.org... http://www.brighthub.com... http://www.crimelibrary.com...
USA should have more restrictions on guns

as i basically said earlier. the process of making a car legal hinders people from driving illegally. it's so obvious it's almost goes without saying. do some people break the law? yes. does that mean we shoudn't have those laws? no. it goes along with the drug arguments, should we just get rid of the laws cause people can get them anyway? no, cause we want it illegal, and it makes a difference having the laws. would gun crackdowns be like the drug war, controversial about how much is spent to enforce it? it could get to be like that. i'd hope it just stays like the pot war, and it's illegal,and if you are say pulled over on the road and can't explain yourself, or are involved in a crime, etc, you get popped. or someone reports you. there's all kinds of ways it could only help. as i basically said earlier. it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. that stat that says crime and violence is more likely when you have a gun would not be as true as it could be, if there's no gun to begin with.