BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion up to the Second Trimester Should Be Legalized.

=====Counterarguments===== "Since he specifies that abortion up to the second trimester "SHOULD BE" legalized, we necessarily must be debating that abortion OUGHT to be legalized up to my opponent's only standard: the end of the second trimester. " ----> UNTRUE. Saying abortion of the 2nd trimester should be legalized does not mean any attempts at further legalizing abortion should be stopped. This is a faulty assumption that my opponent centers his entire argument around. If you just bring up other examples, it shows the fallacy in my opponent's thinking. For example, let's say that the homosexuals of America hypothetically can not MARRY or be in a CIVIL UNION. Do realize, that federally speaking, a civil union has 1000+ rights LESS than a marriage. So if you are in a civil union, you do get all the state rights but none of the federal rights. Of course, gay couples across America can engage in civil unions, but not in this example. If I were to argue that "gay couples should be allowed to engage in civil unions (assuming they can't in this example)", then does that mean I also argue that they OUGHT NOT MARRY? By my opponent's logic, if I argue for the rights of matrimony for gay couples in virtue of civil unions, then I am also saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry - which is preposterous. Nice try CP, but ultimately you have created a strawman. 1. Supreme Court Case Roe v. Wade (1973) My "proposed standard" MATCHES this ruling, so your argument is erroneous. The second trimester typically ends on the 28th week [1], which is the Court's definition of being "viable". 2. Abortion isn't murder Again, this portion of my opponent's argument rests on the false assumption that if I argued for abortion during the second trimester, then I am against abortion for the third trimester. This is simply not true nor accurately inducted. =====Conclusion===== I applaud my opponent for his interesting back-bending argument in his position, but ultimately it fails. While it seems apparent that the phrase "abortion up the second trimester should be legalized" means that abortion dealing with the third trimester should be barred, there is nothing that says so. It's safe to say that my opponent's entire argument is built upon and broken down by one point: his misunderstanding that arguing FOR 2nd-trimester-abortion does not necessarily mean it's arguing AGAINST 3rd-trimester-abortion.
Abortion up to the Second Trimester Should Be Legalized.

My opponent's resolution states: "Abortion up to the Second Trimester Should Be Legalized." As my opponent and I both reside in the United States, I must assume we are debating legality of abortion relative to this nation. Since he specifies that abortion up to the second trimester "SHOULD BE" legalized, we necessarily must be debating that abortion OUGHT to be legalized up to my opponent's only standard: the end of the second trimester. While ever so slight, this would certainly be a change to the current legal position on abortion in the U.S. If my opponent was merely attempting to defend the status quo, he would have stated something along the lines of "Abortion up to the Second Trimester is Legally Justifiable". Since he did not, I will be supporting the position of keeping the current laws intact. Based on the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade (1973), the court "held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.'" The Court defined viable as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1]" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) As the Supreme Court ruling has essentially already legalized abortions up to the point where the fetus can be deemed viable, which takes place around the end of the second trimester, I am curious to hear why he believes this ruling should be overturned in lieu of his proposed standard. I can only imagine he takes opposition to the Court's determination as to the relevance of viability. If this is the case, my opponent must argue why his seemingly indiscriminate time period of the second trimester is superior to the Court's standard of viability. My opponent states "I argue that a fetus is not a person, and thus it is not murder." This statement not only contradicts his case, but it makes it nearly impossible for him to affirm the resolution. If my opponent truly believes this, then there was no reason for him limit the debate to the second trimester. The individual in the womb remains a fetus until birth (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This clearly puts my opponent in a difficult situation to justify why the end of the second trimester should be the only standard for determining the legality of abortions. By my opponents own logic, abortions should be legalized up to the birth of the fetus. I will remind my opponent (and the audience) that he had the ability to set up this debate with a formulated resolution and a first round argument which supported that resolution. The fact that he contradicted his own resolution, while most certainly unintentional, does not relieve him of his obligation to affirm the resolution which he himself devised. If he would like to challenge me to a separate debate regarding legalizing abortions up until birth, I would be more than happy to do so.
Abortion up to the Second Trimester Should Be Legalized.

I argue that abortion should be legalized up to the second trimester. The second trimester ends around the 27th week[1]. Personally I'm not against the third trimester also, but to make this debate more specific I decided to just limit it to the 2nd trimester. I argue that a fetus is not a person, and thus it is not murder. Since it is not murder, the rights of the mother take precedence over the rights of the fetus (if it even has any to begin with). I will allow my opponent to go first. ---References--- 1. http://www.mayoclinic.com...
Gun Control

Allow me to start by thanking WilliamsP for this debate. I've been trying to have a fact based gun control debate and have been met with nothing but emotional arguments and name-calling thus far. Judging from your round 1 post, this one should be professional and mature for a change. My stance in this debate will not be that there should be zero restrictions on the right to own a firearm despite my belief that the Second Amendment is very straightforward and literal. So I apologize if you wanted someone on that far right of the political spectrum. Instead I will be contending a position that is in line with the Heller v. District of Columbia decision *1. That being that limited gun control is not unconstitutional. For your awareness in this debate, I will post below various gun control measures I am in favor of and those that I oppose. Pro- -Barring VIOLENT Felons from owning firearms -Restricting ownership of machine guns, destructive devices and "any other weapon" as outlined in the gun control act of 1968 (public law 90-618) *2 -Barring schizophrenics from owning firearms Con- -Barring NON-VIOLENT Felons from owning firearms. For example, Martha Stewart -Restricting ownership of Short Barreled Rifles/Shotguns and suppressors as outlined in the gun control act of 1968 -Having a blanket ban on anyone who has ever had a mental health issue -Magazine capacity restrictions -Microstamping -Smart gun technology (specifically in reference to a New Jersey law passed in 2002. *3) -Registration of firearms -Illinois requiring a FOID card -Prohibition of open carry while simultaneously being "may issue" in regard to concealed carry permits -Banning a firearm for purely cosmetic features -Banning the importation of historical military firearms which were previously exported (specifically the M1 Garand/M1 Carbine) I look forward to a debate based on fact and logic. *1 http://www.supremecourt.gov... *2 http://www.keepandbeararms.com... *3 http://www.cnn.com...
Gun Control

My StanceMy stance is that gun control should be mandatory and that the second amendment is not supposed to be interpreted in its literal form. Debate StructureRound One: Acceptance and stating your stanceRound Two: Main argumentsRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Further rebuttalRound Five: ConclusionDebate Rules1. Sources, if any, must be cited properly.2. Proper grammar and spelling will be used.3. Arguments must be as least biased as they can be. A little bias is acceptable.4. Arguments must be sophisticated and intelligent.5. Political affiliation will be put aside and we will focus on the facts.6. There will be no forfeiting.
Gun Control

Final RebuttalsI was unaware that 7.5 joules were such a small force. I appreciate you pointing out that fact. Now, I will admit that the number is a little radical, but the general idea is brilliant. Also, my opponent has not responded to the particular point I was trying to make: We should have a system similar to Germany's. In the United States, anyone can go into a gun store, present the money, and leave with an AK-47 and sometimes even a rocket launcher. This could be prevented by having licenses. Also, have you visited the link I sent you regarding the crime rate comparison of Germany and the United States? It seems you have chosen to ignore that fact. Germany's crime rate is much, much lower than ours. Therefore, you can see that Germany's gun laws are working. I will repost the link in order to ensure that you have seen it: http://www.nationmaster.com... I do not support all gun control measures, but I do support these three basic measures: background checks, limited ammunition, and gun production regulation. Also, I have made other points in previous rounds which my opponent has chosen to ignore. Therefore, he has the opportunity to address these issues now. Conclusion Gun Control as a whole is a very brilliant idea. Certain measures are beneficial, others are not. However, you cannot deny that there needs to be a change. You cannot ignore school shootings and violent murders. If there were no gun control, the crime rate would increase exponentially. Now, I recognize that firearm-related deaths are much less than heart disease, smoking, and drunk driving. These are issues that must be addressed. However, you cannot simply ignore gun violence. You cannot ignore the deaths of innocent, law-abiding citizens. I ask you: If gun control won't change the crime rate, what will? I understand that gun control is minimal in comparison to counselor programs, education, etc. However, gun control is - as I have stated before - a step in the right direction. If we take that one step and continue on that path, we shall land in utopia. I have quite enjoyed this debate. I look forward to my opponent's final rebuttals and his conclusion. I also await the start of the voting period. I am eager to see who has - in the voters' opinion - debated better.
Gun Control

There will always be a percentage of the population that does not abide by the rules of society. As demonstrated in my previous argument, 77% (or more) of criminals did not obtain their gun in a manner that any law could have prevented. Also shown in my previous argument was that while gun purchases increased, crime declined. Criminals most certainly fear armed resistance. It creates a hazardous work environment. I do not wish to seem callous regarding death. Particularly in the wake of high profile shootings such as Sandy Hook. However, if you were to compare the number of deaths from rifles (323), to the number of deaths from heart disease (600,000), smoking (480,000), drunk driving(~15,000) or even something simple such as crossing the street (~5,000); what you would see is that there are many other things which cause a whole lot more harm. And yet it's rifles that are the problem highlighted by the media. In regards to your contention that crime rates have been increasing and that Democrats have caused them to decline, I wish to site you to a link I already posted. I will put it right here this time to make sure you see it. http://www.forbes.com... "According to DOJ"s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent." I would absolutely disagree that gun control is the "first step" in the right direction. In consideration of the number of un-rehabilited career criminals who spend their entire lives in and out of jail, the clear takeaway is that prison is not a sufficient deterrent. Thus, I would contend that the first step in reducing violent crimes does not involve guns at all. I would have the entire prison system ran as Sheriff Joe Arpaio runs the prisons in Maricopa County, Arizona *1. There are probably many liberals who would argue that what he does is inhumane. As Sheriff Arpaio puts it- "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back." As a side note, I have no sympathy for inmate living conditions because throughout my 2 years deployed, mine were worse. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but 7.5 joules translates to 5.5 foot lbs of energy. Which is one third the amount of force which would be required to kill a rabbit with a headshot. So what you are saying is that a gun law which would require a firearm ownership license for EVERY single bb gun sold at walmart makes sense? The only purpose I can imagine for that level of restriction is to keep kids from ever getting an interest in firearms. A crime free nation would only be feasible in Antarctica. Where there is people, there will always be crime. *1 http://achievebalance.com...
First person shooters are better than RPG's

Thank you john First off i would like to offer the following definitions for the debate- From Merriam Websters online dictionary- Better- more attractive, favorable, or commendable R.P.G-abbreviation for Role Playing Game-Definition-A type of game, played either with pencil and paper, on a computer, or through another medium, in which the player(s) assume the role of a character. Gameplay is usually determined in part by statistics attached to each character and frequently influenced by a character class. First Person Shooter-A combat or video game genre characterized by a three-dimensional view from from the player's perspective, often holding a weapon in front Im now going to start off with my case: Contention 1- First person shooters give players more of a feel of being in the game as compared to RPG's First person shooters gives the gamer the 3 dimensional view through the character's eyes (in the game) on to the surrounding area, RPG's on the other hand give the gamer a 3rd person view, a view where the camera is situated behind the character, as we all know we don"t view ourselves from invisible cameras behind us but through our own eyes, therefore first person shooters give the gamer more of a feeling, and a lot of gamers today are hungry for a game that gives them a sense of being in the game. Contention 2- First person shooters have a higher popularity rate than RPG's My evidence taken from Gamespot* shows that the highest rated games are all First person shooters, each one with rating of 8.0 or higher, this shows that First person shooters attract Gamers more than RPG's therefore First person shooters are more preferred over RPG's *http://www.gamespot.com... Contention 3- Multiplayer experience in First Person Shooters is far greater than that of an RPG A lot of Gamers look at the multiplayer experience as the highest rating factor in a game, A lot of First person shooters offer this option, on the other hand RPG's which are Role Playing Games, do not have a multiplayer option, they are not MMORPGS which stand for Massive MULTIPLAYER Online Role Playing Game, therefore RPG's don't offer that electrifying experience of interacting with another human, and truly testing there skills that Gamers really look for. Thats my case i look forward to your response john
First person shooters are better than RPG's

ROADMAP: Respond to Cross- Ex, and finally make a rebuttal, which will first cover attacks made to my case, and then move on to his own. CROSS EX: For clarification, the questions asked by my opponents will appear in brackets. [In your subpoint A you state that all FPS have is just a story line and thats it, are you denying that FPS games dont have multiplayer options, or add ons? ] - Not at all. However, I was making the point that, in terms of dollars and cents, RPG's provide more value. In order to receive add-ons and the like for FPS, you must pay. With RPG's you get a long play time with out having to pay for add ons. I'm not saying that there is no addons for RPG's, I'm only saying that the stand alone RPG provides more value then the stand alone RPG. [You also state that the only thing you can customize in FPS is your weapon, isnt it true in FPS like Halo, have customizable armor, and statistic customization too. .. so called custom powerups? ] -Statistic customization (and indeed, customization in general) is one of the core elements of an RPG game. If these FPS do feature elements such as this, they are FPS-RPG's. [-Are you comparing a 2d boardgame to a million dollar 3d video game designed by a whole team of people? ] Yes, as a matter of fact I am. Why not? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents feeding their children fast food

My opponent stated the following: "People are always wondering why their is an increase of obesity in children. Well, maybe one of the reasons could be poor food choice. . . Fast food is indeed a huge factor in this problem. " I will have to say that fast food is not a huge factor in this problem, the main cause of increased obesity is high-fructose corn syrup (for this i will call it HFCS). Several studies have shown, when using mice, that feeding one mouse the recommended diet against another mouse with a diet with HFCS, giving them the same daily routine to do, the mouse with the HFCS in its diet gained a significant amount of fat. Given this study, I declare my opponent's statement as false. I expand by saying the huge factor in the problem with obesity is diets with high amounts of HFCS, or children who consume decently large amounts of soft drinks. Calories only start to matter when you begin to intake more than your recommended daily amount, so I say that fast food has no big part in the epidemic of obesity. My opponent also stated: "Parents always give the excuse that they do not have time to cook or they need something quick for dinner, but it only takes a few minutes to boil some pasta. To me, this excuse is just a cover up for being lazy. " This information is false, not all parents give that excuse. And even when they do, it's not always an act of laziness. a. e. You could be on a long trip and become hungry, you could pull over and stop somewhere and boil yourself some pasta, but are you going to? I would assume not, but is it an act of laziness to not do so? I would again disagree, fast food was designed as a stop and go restaurant, where you could get fast, cheap food. Given not all "fast food" restaurants are cheap. Some people find the taste of the food very pleasing, so they purchase and consume more than others. It goes the same way for all foods, for example your pasta. You may actually boil your pasta instead of stopping at Mcdonald's or any other fast food restaurant simply because you prefer the taste and find it to be more filling. But this may not be the case. Some parents may not have the time to cook a healthy meal, or maybe they prefer it. But this does not mean they are lazy. In short, fast food is not a huge cause of obesity and buying from the restaurants does not dictate whither a parent is lazy or not.
Parents feeding their children fast food

So in conclusion I will finishby saying that fast food restaurants are not responsible for childhood obesity, because the parents/kids who purchase and consume unhealthy foods are responsible for their own food choices. Fast food restaurants (Mcdonalds,burger king,wendy's,arby's) should not be held responsible for childhood obesity, even if their menu options encourage unhealthy eating. Parents need to take responsibility for the food choices that they make for their children. No restaurant picks you up at your door step and forces a family to eat their food or dictate what or how much is ordered off the menu. In simple thought it would be trying to hold liquor stores responsible for someone driving drunk or developing alcoholism. Unless parents take responsibility for their own decisions and influences the decision of their kids real change will not occur. A parent should teach a child to heed hunger cues and to not fill his stomach till he/she feels sick, try putting limits. Although eating should be enjoyable, at the end of the day, it is about properly nourishing the body with the right amount of calories and nurtitious food. The Children and their parents are at fault. Don't fault the company, don't point the finger.. when someone ends up doing something that is bad for their well being they are responsible for it, and so are their parents. So to end this debate I will have to conclude we are creating a perfect formula for childhood obesity with the media, advertising, and inactivity,video games, and computers. Parent's and society couldn't do a worse job at this time in history of keeping children overweight and unhealthy. Please parents in America do the right thing for your children and yourself!! Be a role model to your kids and do it today!!!! Thanks to my opponent for participating!!!
Parents feeding their children fast food

I would just like to say that my arguments against techno gadgets, games and the rest of the other points would be in fact pointless and void since this is about fast food. I feel that yes indeed fast food corporations can be a liable cause to obesity in America, but it does not quite seem so legitimate of a statement. Only 4.1 percent of American's make sufficient enough money to go out and eat fast food such as McDonald's on a regular basis. With that being said, increments of fat is a healthy addition to a daily diet. Thus it is safe to say that it is not that big of a factor. Besides that, it is in fact possible to get a healthy meal at a fast food restaurant. On a final note, I think also that you can just as easily go into a supermarket and buy equally unhealthy food choices. So if eliminating the chain of fast foods, why not just eliminate all unhealthy snacks and items that you can get at a supermarket? It would be the next best thing for these binge eaters. The two leading causes of obesity in America are people that eat when they are not hungry, and habitual junk food eaters. One or both of these, on average, can be found in most of the families throughout America. If you were to just never have junk food in your house and never let your children have them, then what's left for them to do? I think it's most likely going to cause them to want to go out and eat with friends or even sneak snacks while their parents are not watching.