BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War on Women

I would first like to apologize to my opponent for having to put so much time, energy and effort into an argument that I did not present. Because what my opponent failed to realize is that I am also against abortion, with that said, I still believe it is the choice of the woman not the government and /or legislation. Clearly my opponent has prescribed and bought into the conservative platform. The fact that you spend so much time arguing about abortion and/or the rights of a "fetus" (an argument that is still ongoing in supreme court to determine at which point is a fetus considered "a life"), I would like to point out some laws that have already been passed in the United States about abortion rights. In 1973, U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion during the Roe vs. Wade case, affirming the legality of a woman"s right to have an abortion under the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. Having said all that, I would like to go back to my initial argument. The argument I was making was that if the government fails to fund for family planning services to the low-income and minority group in an outpatient clinic (which is less costly), it can lead to more financial burden on the government funded health care system such as the Medicaid program because these services will then have to be provided in the hospital, possibly in an emergency situation thus costing more to the tax payers. To ignore the statistics of abortion and say that if abortion is open and available then the frequency of abortion will increase is a naive misconception and a gross rejection of reality. According to the CDC, in 2011 there were 730, 322 legal induced abortions reported as compared to 2010, where the total number and rate of reported abortions for 2011 decreased by 5% and the abortion ratio decreased by 4%. Also, from 2002 to 2011 the number, rate, and ratio decreased by 13%, 14% and 12%. Has these numbers decreased due to (Uncle sugar failing to fund programs such as planned parenthood or women learning to control their libido "comments made by Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on Jan 23, 2015") or the exact reason is unknown. But what is known and a fact is that not only is it a financial burden, it"s unconstitutional if the woman does not receive services that have already been established as her constitutional right to have an abortion under Roe vs. Wade. As my opponent so elegantly quoted, the UDHR, 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person', I would like to remind him that the woman also has that right to her life with liberty and security. Once again, my argument is to provide funding to ALL services provided by programs such as planned parenthood and not only the abortion procedure. I am not trying to argue for pro-abortion or against anti-abortion. Hopefully, my argument is more clear. http://www.cnn.com... http://www.plannedparenthood.org... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.redstate.com...
War on Women

The republican party wants to end government payments to Planned Parenthood for family planning services such as abortion, contraception, STD screening and treatment and cancer screening along with other vital health services provided to low-income women. The Becky Bell case is about a 17yr old young girl who died of complications from septic abortion which is likely a consequence of an illegal abortion. Which is why this organization provides its services to prevent such cases. If the current statistics shows that there is 1 abortion every 30 seconds that means abortions are occurring very frequently. Now whether abortion is ethical or not is another debate, but removing these services from the low income women who seek help from Planned Parenthood is not only going to increase hospital visits but also increase unnecessary hospital costs as well as increase the risk of illegal abortions and complications even resulting in death.
The US economy is in good shape

And you have a good point. With minimum wage, you can't win for losing. Both ends of the spectrum seem to have a bad result. But as stated earlier, raising it will take many people's jobs as they may be fired or the business may be shut down. I think it is better for someone to make a fair amount of money compared to having no job and making no money. America has made a lot of jobs. According to CNN, America has made over 1,000,000 jobs in 2015 alone. And 280,000 jobs in May 2015 (http://money.cnn.com...).Yes, I do not agree with most of what our current administration does and usually look at opposite ends of what our President does, but I must say that this job growth is impressive. I am glad I accepted this debate! You too had very excellent points. Thank you for giving me a good debate!
The US economy is in good shape

You may be right that a higher minimum wage won't help, but it still doesn't refute my assertion that our economy isn't doing well. Just because raising the minimum wage isn't good, doesn't mean that low wages are good. Its kind of like saying since a particular solution isn't good, the problem that the solution was trying to solve is good. The coast guard's reasons might be accurate for some, but I think the number one reason why people don't have jobs is because jobs are not available. Many people have the lost their jobs and can not get trained for a new one. I appreciate that you accepted this debate. Thank you! You also made some good points.
The US economy is in good shape

There are several disagreements on our administration, our past administrations, and our economic policies. Although our past administrations may not have been the best, I can say that the economy in the United States is on a great track. The U.S. economy is on a stable track and thriving because we have a fairly low unemployment rate, we have room for noninflationary growth, and we are an economic leader in the world. First, the U.S. has a great unemployment rate. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the current unemployment rate, 5.5%, is the lowest it has been since 2008 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015)! That is great for economy, as unemployment and commerce greatly effects economy. We need a low unemployment rate for a strong American workforce and a strong American economy! (Website: http://data.bls.gov...) Also, we should not worry about future inflation. Michael Ivanovitch, a writer for NBC, says,"At the moment, there are no reasons to worry about rising inflation expectations. Unit labor costs in the fourth quarter declined 1.6 percent from the year earlier as a result of strong productivity gains and weak wage increases. For last year as a whole, unit labor costs rose only 0.8 percent" (NBC 2014). Inflation can be devastating for economies. Those are great numbers for the U.S., taking the burden of future inflation off of our shoulders. (Website: http://www.cnbc.com...) Finally, the U.S. is a leader in economy. We are in the Great 7 (G7), which is the 7 leading countries in economy and industry. According to the Telegraph, the U.S. is the world's most powerful economy, and expected to stay the most powerful for the coming decade (The Telegraph). This proves that our economy is strong within the international community. (Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) As I may not agree with things our current administration does, the U.S. has a great economy, which is thriving and will continue to. America is a great country with a great economy. America continues to thrive, and will for many years.
PS3 is better than XBOX

so in conclusion we see that I have won this debate for two reasons, one I have refuted all of my opponents point to which my opponent argued one point (the hardware), and second the painfully obvious one is that my opponent has forfeited their closing argument. looking at the first point, we see that my opponent have effectively argued one point but that point was on a website that was left up to the voters and I to read with not impacting their argument so that point does not and should not hold any weight in this debate. secondly looking at the my second point is that my opponent had a total of 48 hours to make an argument and on a weekend they have had the opportunity to establish their argument, but as we see the instigator (my opponent) has neglected the opportunity to do so. so we can only assume that my opponent agrees with my points and therefore I win this debate.
PS3 is better than XBOX

so when we look to the rebuttal's that my opponent has provided we see that out of the three arguments that they only have defended one and that is the hardware of the PS3 and therefore has dropped their other two arguments that being the games/game play and the online play. first the games and game play of the Xbox to answer a concern of my opponent " just because XBOX gets map deals BEFORE the PS3 does doesn't mean in any way that it's better..." we see that the for the hardcore gamers and the gamers that like to to get the full gaming experience having game content for a game two months in advance we see that it is logically a better choice for the Xbox. and second we see that the exclusive game that have made more money than titanic, we need to take a step back and look who the overall judge is, the consumer, and with revenue we clearly see that despite the lesser hardware the consumer clearly chooses the Xbox over the PS3 second when attacking my second point my opponent couldn't make sense of my point " I don't see how Microsoft making more money off of Live could in any way help your case. Microsoft is a massive company." let me try to clear the air, with the extra money that Microsoft makes from live they turn that around to employ people to increase security of live and what ever security that PSN has or did have we see that it was not enough. although a cyber attack can happen to anyone we see that PSN has a tarnished reputation and in the eyes of the overall judge the consumer, we see that Xbox still has its dignity and has left PSN to pick up whatever remains. and finally though I cannot argue that the PS3 has better hardware my argument that I have made before still stands as I have stated that the overall consumer is the judge. and we see that the judge has stated that they like the games more than the PS3 and with the price tags both the same for the cheapest console the Xbox has twice the memory than the PS3,and interchangeable to boot! all of these come together to create the perfect balance of cost, hardware, and customizable abilities that the consumer loves and sending the Xbox to the top of the list. so in conclusion my opponent will hide behind one argument and that is the hardware with over the last 3000 characters we see that the Xbox has been able to appeal to the most amount of consumer demands and which clearly shows that you must vote negative in this debate
PS3 is better than XBOX

Firstly, I'd like to ask all voters to please look at the following website: http://www.ign.com... It is a very trusted gaming website, and, the verdict in the end is the PS3. I'm going to let that do the most of the talking for my argument here, since, in terms of hardware and technical building, the PS3 is superior. Now, as far as games go, I'd like to bring up the following statement, posted by the con... "where as Halo, with the release of Halo 3 made more money in the first day than titanic did we see that it is an Xbox exslucive and not to mention that Xbox gets map pack deals two months before Ps3 therefore making Xbox better than Ps3" It matters not the revenue made from games. The amount of money drawn in by the games means nothing, compared to the superiority of the PS3, in terms of hardware. Plus, just because XBOX gets map deals BEFORE the PS3 does doesn't mean in any way that it's better... Moving on to another topic.. "second when we look at online game play where that the fist the fact that PSN is free is its most major flaw that there is no security (and we all know what happened last year) with security it means that your information (any and all types) will be protected. Furthermore we see that due to the increase in income from live users Microsoft will be able to use the money to make the gaming exasperate more enjoyable and well as employ people which as the economy is that is way better." I would like to challenge your statement "there is no security".... Wrong - there is security. What happened last year can happen to any company and just because it happened to Sony doesn't mean that their PSN has major flaws. Also, I'd like to pull up your last sentence. I don't see how Microsoft making more money off of Live could in any way help your case. Microsoft is a massive company, making more than 3x the amount of money every year off of all their other products than their Xbox sales and XBOX live sales combined. Also, Sony is a well-prospering company also. I don't at all see where you were trying to go with that.... In the end, as you can see from IGN's rating, the PS3 is BETTER with it's hardware, graphics, and processing capabilities, and it is JUST AS GOOD with its games... THEREFORE, PS3 IS BETTER.
PS3 is better than XBOX

First I would like to say thanks to my opponent for the challenge and good luck. second as I share your views on the subject and personally do not have live, but I will do my best to argue my side as I do own both systems I am knowledgeable in both subject matter. so with out further delay I will argue my points. when we look at my opponents arguments they have three different subject and to keep it all fair I will use the same three subjects that being 1. games and game play 2. online game play 3. features of the systems. so first is the games we can see that yes one of the best racing games Grand Tarismo 5 is a PS3 exclusive but we see that Call of Duty one of the best selling FPS franchises is available on PS3, Xbox, and PC where as Halo, with the release of Halo 3 made more money in the first day than titanic did we see that it is an Xbox exslucive and not to mention that Xbox gets map pack deals two months before Ps3 therefore making Xbox better than Ps3 second when we look at online game play where that the fist the fact that PSN is free is its most major flaw that there is no security (and we all know what happened last year) with security it means that your information (any and all types) will be protected. Furthermore we see that due to the increase in income from live users Microsoft will be able to use the money to make the gaming exasperate more enjoyable and well as employ people which as the economy is that is way better. and finally when we look at features of the console itself we see that the only thing that the Xbox doesn't have is Wi-Fi or Blu-Ray, but still the advantage is that with the Ps3 you are stuck with what Internet receiver you got with the console but with Xbox we see that depending on how much you want to spend you can get different speeds and increasing the consumer choice and second with the Blu-Ray we can see that with the digital movie business and the equivalent graphic quality of the Xbox you can watch movies with great quality. and hooked up to the Kenect system (with the Ps3 has a wii consept on steroids) the user does not need a controller to search,play ,or pause their movie. so in conclusion we see that the Xbox is a better system than the Ps3 for three reasons 1. the exslucive games are far superior 2. the online play is giving the consumer choice and creating jobs 3. the features are the same if not better that the Ps3.
PS3 is better than XBOX

First off, let me just say thank you to whoever is up against me for this debate. Also, I hope to have this debate go: Round 1 - Opening Statements Round 2 - Rebuttals Round 3 - Closing Arguments... Here we go: The PS3 is by far better than the XBOX in many ways. Firstly, a PS3 can show BluRay discs, without any downloads or expansions. Also, the PS3 comes with WiFi connectivity included, so no need to buy an adapter or anything like that. Also, a PS3 includes multiple decent games, that are exclusive to PS3, such as Gran Turismo 5. Now, a common misconception is that the PS3's Playstation Network is lackluster compared to the XBOX Live Network. That is not true. PSN includes friends, voice chat rooms, and typing chat rooms. Most importantly, PSN is completely free, allowing anyone to sign up instantly, and play all of those good online games like Call of Duty. Another misconception with the PS3 is that not as many people play it as the XBOX. Again, this is not true. When I played Call of Duty: Black Ops online, I was able to instantly achieve a group for some Team Deathmatch (a FULL team) very quickly. Also, 99% of the time, none of the people playing are "high-pitched 11-year-olds that spam the voice comms". Finally, sure, the PS3 does not have Halo, but who cares? PS3 has everything else the XBOX does, except PS3's network is free, it contains the same capabilities, and has high-definition, incredible graphic quality, with a Blu-Ray reader. What more could you want? VOTE PS3!
War is not good for the United States.

Thank you. What I meant from stating that we never decided to go to war is because I wanted to stress the fact that we were forced. Yes, forced. The War on Terror began after the events of September 11th. We as a nation were attacked, and many lives were lost. Are we expected to sit here idly and do nothing? Negotiation was not possible after these events; it is either us or them. My opponent states that we should be defending our country from inside its demarcation because it's not effective to travel elsewhere to fight. Honestly, let me ask you this. Are we supposed to just wait for the next terrorist attack and then find it in ourselves to defend our country? Are we simply supposed to stand there and let another 9/11 happen because we are trying nothing to stop these groups that reside outside our nation's walls? No. That is not ideal. We cannot beat them here. We have ample security here that is doing everything in its power to stop terrorist attacks (and it has.) The fact that army men and women are out there defending us from the outside is not ineffective or weak, rather it's admirable and VITAL to our survival. We are not weak because we're treading on other terroritory. They're hiding and we'll find them; it's not like the army does not plan where it will go and what procedures it will do. War is actually necessary; in this case anyways. We were attacked, not only physically but EMOTIONALLY on NUMEROUS occassions of terrorist attacks. We as a nation should NOT and ARE NOT going to stand by idly and watch terrorist groups grow stornger because we're too afraid to chase them down. Thank you, and I await my opponent's response.
War is not good for the United States.

I never said that we just suddenly decided to go to war, and yes, even the war on terrorism was handled wrong. I think that if we kept our people in our country that we would have no problem. I don't see how blowing up other countries helps us, especially not when we are going to places like Iraq, blowing them up and then paying to rebuild their country so that they can get mad again and make sure to do more damage next time. That was if you remember correctly when the economy in the United States first began to drop really bad. Also, if we stayed here in our country on our turf, and just defended our country rather than taking time to go to another place that is unfamiliar to us, that we don't know I feel it would be more effective, so no I don't think that it really helps us, if you don't know the area your in and your fighting there, you are the weaker one, because you don't know what to expect. Having said this, to make it a bit more clear. I feel that having our men and women who are fighting stay here I think we would actually strengthen ourselves as well as become more secure, and save money all at once. If we can beat them there, we can do it here too. Thank you, D3uC3s I look forward to receiving your response.
War is not good for the United States.

Hello! I commend Pro on making this debate. There is a pretty big flaw with what you're saying: we don't just suddenly decide we want to war. Since the most current war is the War on Terrorism, I'll assert you're talking about it as well. First off, the United States would not be in peace if we stopped war. We would be stepped on by other nations and groups, and our own nation would be attacking itself due to its own criminal activity. Summary: The United States would not achieve peace by ceasing war; we're fighting for a cause and if we recanted that cause, what would become of us? I await my opponent's response; good luck!
War is not good for the United States.

I firmly believe that war is NOT the answer to all of the United States problems. In fact, I feel that if war were to cease and never happen again the United States would be more powerful than ever, as well as have more money than we ever have had. The reason I feel this way is because A. money would help our economy, people would begin to live a lot better, go without food less, have more money to pay bills, and the quality of life would just rocket. And B. Peace. If we didn't have war we would have peace in the United States, there would be less fighting and things like this, and the world overall in my opinion would just be a better place in general.
Dishonest people hide their phone number.

Sir, I shall not post my private number. This is not of the debate. No man should have to answer a PRIVATE NUMBER there is great reason to why. If I did want to talk to strangers and telemarketers I most certainly would not have a private number. Now I do say it is rude, and I am rude enough, but I ask you why I should hand out my number? An elderly women, is she a coward every time she picks up the phone and hears a telemarketer and there hanging up? I think not for it is her choice to speak
Dishonest people hide their phone number.

I do not believe that a person who does not answer their telephone or landline, people that have it blocked, are cowards. They are merely preventing the case of a stranger, or in many cases, preventing telemarketers from getting through to them. Now I do understand where you are coming from. It is quite rude to shrug off a telemarketer or stranger rather than answering the phone. But there are many people that do not need the things telemarketers sell and are too old to understand the product
It's time to rid England's countryside of Neolithic gay porn

Unsuspecting families visiting Cerne Abbas in Dorset, England, will be sickened to the pits of their stomachs if they happen to glance upwards and see the 180ft figure of a sexually-aroused man that was cut into a nearby hillside by stone age gays. (1,2) These filthy prehistoric pornographers obviously didn't care about offending decent, law-abiding tourists in the future by subjecting them to the sight of an obscene giant gay with a 30ft erection and, disgracefully, the authorities today have refused to remove the figure from public view, presumably because the homosexuals in the village like to leer at it and they would get all upset if someone threatened to cover it over. However, I maintain that ordinary people have the right to live in an environment free from huge sexually-explicit hillside chalk engravings and that it's time to rid England's countryside of this Neolithic gay porn. Thank you. (1) http://maps.google.com... (2) http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk...
The Holocaust Really Happened

It could've easily been done in the amount of time that it took. There were about 1,571,428 Jews killed a year during the holocaust. This number looks deceptively large, and is exploited by Holocaust deniers. However, the capacities were: Crematorium I (abandoned as too small) - about 340 people Crematoria II and III - up to 2,500 people in one session Crematoria IV and V - up to 1,500 People could be loaded in and killed every 4 hours. There were 6 extermination camps and these camps themselves sometimes had multiple gas chambers. Also, not everyone killed in the Holocaust was killed in the gas chambers the first executions were done with carbon monoxide into the back of vans.