BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Donald has given this election to Hillary

Pro: "Other than the unborn, tell me who's on her assassination list and back up your claim." That could take a while, so I'll give you a few links in regards to the cell phone assassin. http://www.freewebs.com... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.salon.com... * Pro: "Yes, and the media is infested with them, they'll get their revenge and not cover Trump fairly." Good. This year the people are finally showing they are done with the status quo establishment. * Why polls are meaningless- (link) http://www.sammcgowan.com...
The Donald has given this election to Hillary

"Not me or the moderates I know." This isn't just about you and your buddys' votes. There are many other people who are turned off by Trump's remarks/ It's also very likely none of the moderates you know disagree with Trump because as a Trump fan yourself, you surround yourself with Trump-supporters or you naturally attract other Trump-minded people as friends. "I couldn't care less about the Khan family, but having been raised in the cult of death I know its objectives and feel no mercy towards it because it has no mercy towards the West..." This isn't just about your personal opinions. To other voters, Trump's remarks are a big turn-off. "Everyone knows her assassination list is bigger than the Bible." Other than the unborn, tell me who's on her assassination list and back up your claim. "No one cares other than die hard liberals." Yes, and the media is infested with them- they'll get they're revenge and not cover Trump fairly. I'm glad to hear from a fellow Trump fan. Trump16
The Donald has given this election to Hillary

Con: "The decider? Moderates who have no allegiances." Yes, and Trump continues to push them away with remarks about the Khan family." Not me or the moderates I know. I couldn't care less about the Khan family, but having been raised in the cult of death I know its objectives and feel no mercy towards it because it has no mercy towards the West...otherwise it isn't especially Islamic. If the Khan family is truely "pro west" then they nedd to claim being secular rather than defying their own holy prophet(yeah right) Con: "and even implying that NRA folks could assassinate Hillary." Everyone knows her assassination list is bigger than the Bible. No one cares other than die hard liberals. * Con: "Hillary is making herself appear more moderate to appeal to these undecided voters." Moderates are the highest IQ people on Earth. We know she's a twat. http://isteve.blogspot.com... * Con: "But they can't make up numbers. Hillary is way ahead, and that's a fact." Ha! They have my whole life. The next generation didn't see the past. That's what they count on. Point? These bastards are always wrong. That's what they showed and declared during the Republican debates. They are shriveled pods.
The Donald has given this election to Hillary

"They poll people, but this year is an anomoly. Trump's supporters actually vote in real life because they aren't meth smoking idiots." This implies many Hillary supporters are meth smoking idiots who won't even go out to vote for her. While I agree a meth-head wouldn't vote, there's just not enough of them to make a significant difference. "The decider? Moderates who have no allegiances." Yes, and Trump continues to push them away with remarks about the Khan family, and even implying that NRA folks could assassinate Hillary. To make matters worse, Hillary is making herself appear more moderate to appeal to these undecided voters. "Media is Liberal. They make it fit their agenda and say what they need you to hear." Yes, that's why their approval rating is 6%. But they can't make up numbers. Hillary is way ahead, and that's a fact. Check out this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com... Trump2016
That we should change the Australian flag.

In conclusion, my hypothesis is that Australia is its own independent nation, but yet the flag still bears the flag of Great Britain. Australia and New Zealand are the only two nations that have gained independence, and kept the motherland flag as part of their own. To reiterate my point, Australia is its own nation and has its own unique history. The Austrailian flag should be changed to represent two things; Australia's independence, and it's own struggles in its history. My last comment or question rather, what price would you put on the Austrailian people's individuality?
That we should change the Australian flag.

In conclusion, the two important points that I have covered in this debate is that Australian flag is already known internationally as it used in all important events that Australia participating and it is not cheap to change the current Australian flag because we were tied to the Britain Empire. John Key, current New Zealand Prime Minister had said that it would cost at least $30 million to change a nations flag. The sheer cost alone should tell you that we should never change the Australian flag.
That we should change the Australian flag.

Dear opponent, why should we change our current flag to the USA one? We were a colony of England, but we were never American. My first point is that the Australian"s flag is already recognised internationally. The officials had used the current flag during important events such as the United Nation"s meeting. The Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic games resulted in the Australian National Flag being proudly and enthusiastically waved before an estimated television audience of 3 billion viewers. This international exposure has dramatically increased knowledge and recognition of Australia and its flag. Now that the Australian National Flag is over 100 years old and has been placed centre stage on the world arena, it is one of the most easily recognised and respected flags of the world. Over the last 100 years Australia's flag has travelled to many locations around the world in the custody of our soldiers during war and conflict. Every day French school children at towns and villages along the Western Front still raise the Australian flag as a tribute to the 'diggers' who died liberating their homes during WW1. Many national flags are tricolour or bicolour designs (stripes) which to many are indistinguishable from one another. After all it is not of vital importance that people from other countries continue to instantly recognise our flag, what really matters is that individual Australians can recognise and understand the importance and significance of their national flag of "Stars and Crosses". My second point for this debate is that it will be expensive to change the current Australian flag. Because of Australia is tied to the United Kingdom, if we want to change our flag, Australia will have to become a republic, which is not a cheap thing to do. John Key, current New Zealand Prime Minister had said that it would cost at least $30 million to change a nations flag. Australia is part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, a league of countries that recognize the British monarch as a secular ruler within their state government, which essentially means that although they are former territories of the British Empire, they still pay some sort of homage to the Crown; since the King/Queen has no actual clout within the civil governments of the British Commonwealth, the flags are used to represent their partial loyalty to the Crown by having the trademark Union flag in the top-left corner. This is why the British Virgin Islands, New Zealand, Bermuda, Fiji, and the Hawaii state flag have a Union Jack in their flag, because at some point they were subject to British influence. In the case of Australia, it was used as a prison island for British criminals when prisons became full. These prisoners, while deserted, were still British citizens, which is why Australia has and will continue to have a Union Jack on their flag. If Australia wanted to remove it from their flag, they would essentially have to leave the Commonwealth of Nations, which I highly doubt would be plausible since Great Britain and the United States are the two largest trading partners that Australia has.
That we should change the Australian flag.

Yes, it should be changed to the 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 USA USA
atheism

I just opened an account otherwise I wouldn't have accepted this. I believe the question is, "Why do atheists believe in free will?". I have two plates in front of me. One has an apple, the other an orange. I pick up the apple to eat it. I can then make the conscious decision to put the apple down and eat the orange. I don't believe there is a God who cares if I ate the apple or the orange, I used my free will to determine which to eat. Why would you believe there was divine intervention in this situation? John 7:17 "Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." The bible says you must choose to do the will of God, thus you have free will.
Objective Moral Values and Duties Show that God Exists

I start my second argument with a question. If you were to theoretically wake up tomorrow and somehow have the complete knowledge that there is no God, then would you murder your boss and steal from the bank because there are no punishments for immortality? If you answered yes to that question, you might want to consider going to a psychiatrist. But the majority of humanity would claim that this question is ridiculous. You can't kill people or steal things, that is still wrong, God or no God. Therefore, you can attribute morality with non-spiritual reasoning. Morals come from two main places: 1: Evolution 2: Society Imagine there are two primitive tribes with two, completely different sets of rules. One tribe has rules that are similar to the ones we have today. Don't kill or hurt other people. Don't steal from each other. These rules help everyone get along and work together to survive for generations, passing these same sets of rules to their children. The other tribe does not have any rules. If you are hungry, you can steal food from other people. If you are mad at someone, you can assault or kill them. Which tribe will survive the longest? Obviously the first tribe with a set of rules will survive. These rules are an analogy for the morals we use each day. By using these, you can survive long enough to reproduce and pass your knowledge to your children. This is an example of behavioral evolution and it establishes our moral instincts. A common rebuttal to this argument is if rape produces more children, then why isn't it moral to rape women? Humans are social creatures, and it is in our best interests to stick together with many other people. If we can't get along, then we will most likely not live long as individuals and as a species. It is also beneficial to have two parents raise the child together as oppose to the female doing all of the work and consensual relationships are the best way to achieve this. The second place morals come from is society and social norms. If you follow any religious text exactly the way it says to, you would be in jail. This is because of societal change. Many religious texts, including the Bible, have you stone people to death for being different. These differences include homosexuality and having different beliefs. However, in most countries, this behavior is unacceptable and you will be imprisoned for it. This is because, as I said before, religion doesn't stand the test of time. Because society changes, our moral code changes. Morals don't come from religion. They come from evolution and society. If they came from religion, they would be able to still apply hundreds of years from now. Evolution allowed us to have an instinctual moral code so our species can survive. Our morality varies based on what kind of society we live in, and is therefore subjective. Subjective morality, again, proves that God does not exist.
Objective Moral Values and Duties Show that God Exists

Morality is not a black and white subject. There are so many examples of this that I don't feel are necessary to list as they are all included on this site. One person might feel it is moral to persecute other groups while another does not. One person could say that killing animals for food is moral and another says it is not. No matter what side you take on this issue, you must admit that morality is an opinion and there are many sides to each subject, and no single side is correct. Everyone believes their morals are correct and that everyone else should follow their moral code. So I have established that morality is subjective because everyone has a different take on it. There is no right or wrong, because my right might be your wrong. Think of a utopian society. You might imagine a place where you have a family and never have to work a boring job. But you are not everyone. Another person might imagine living in a tent without material possessions dancing around a bonfire with friends. Therefore, a utopian society cannot exist because perfection is an opinion. Just like a utopian society cannot exist, a perfect "one size fits all" moral code cannot exist. Because morality is subjective, then for the same reasons my opponent has stated, a higher power does not have to exist. In addition to this, the morality systems put into place don't pass the test of time. By reading many sacred texts from almost all faiths, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic, you might find some of the rules to be quite strange. A perfect morality system would probably have rules such as "do not murder" or "do not steal", which still apply to today. But what about some of the other rules put into place? In Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, there are rules saying women are inferior and should serve men. These faiths also suggest to kill those of other faiths. These rules, if acted on today, would be illegal. If the morality system out into place by God was perfect, then shouldn't it be able to last forever? I ask that even if you do believe in a higher power to consider this. Is morality objective and is it possible for it to be objective?
Late Term Abortion

RefutationShe doesn't have to keep the baby, she can place it up for adoption. She chose to have sex know very well that she could have used controceptives to prevent pregnancy. A woman who does this and then goes through the pregnancy for 22 weeks is obviously not going to be hurt by delivering the baby, but the baby will be hurt obviously so by keeping it illegal both the baby and the mother are happy. A woman's property rights are no match to rights to life.Again, a woman who is able to keep a pregnancy for that long will not be hurt from going through the rest of the pregnancy. Afterwhich, she is free too put it up for adoption.All in all, a woman's property rights are not a sufficient reason to deny someone elses right to life.Defense1)ponent does not get my analogy so I will explain it for her. We will not suck the brains out of a person who has killed ten people, so why should it be allowed to suck the brains out of a fetus who has done nothing wrong.2)better question to ask is 'Why should the mother be allowed to kill something that does not hurt her in a horrible fashion?' The fetus is there because the mother let it get there and let it stay there for 22 weeks. The fetus has done nothing worthy of being killed, and it has intrinsic value. Therefore, she should not be allowed to kill it but rather give it away.3) The woman is a valuable member to society, and therefore it is the states job to make sure that society fuctions perfectly. A innocent life and the life of a valuable member of society is a perfect basis for not legalizing partial-birth abortion.
Late Term Abortion

Defense"My opponent's argument is based on the fact that the fetus is in the woman's body and the woman might not want the fetus there, and the woman has the right to remove it if she wants too."Yes, my case is based on property rights."This is not right for a number reasons including the fact that the woman took the chance of getting pregnant and the fetus is there because she made that decision to have sex."She made the decision to have sex, not to have a baby. Even if she did want a baby, and then changed her mind, her property rights still apply. This does nothing to refute my argument."Also, if she really did not want the baby she would have had a abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy when the fetus could not feel or was almost fully developed."In many cases, the woman did not know she was pregnant, was unable to arrange an abortion earlier in the pregnancy, was afraid to tell her partner or parents. [1] It's not as simple as you imply."since women wait till 20 weeks they should just be made to wait till the birth of the baby."If you wish to make the argument that property rights should be denied because of timing, then do so, but this assertion does nothing to refute my argument.Rebuttal1. "The procedure itself is too inhumane." "The procedure is no doubt barbaric."How do we draw lines about what is humane, and where is it drawn? What you may view as barbaric, another may view s perfectly acceptable, and vice versa. When making decisions about what is to be allowed and what isn't, subjective descriptions such as "barbaric" should not be a deciding factor."It's illegal for us to do this to our criminals on death row and it should be illegal for this to be done to a unborn human."It's not possible to do this to criminals on death row, they are already born. Even if it was, that is not a reason to make late term abortion illegal. Criminals on death row are completely unrelated to the topic.2. "If a woman can go through labor of most of the live fetus, and then fully deliver a dead baby then she might as well fully deliver it alive and let the baby live. Why should the baby needlessly die?"Why should she be forced to let it live? The fact that it's not necessary doesn't mean it should be illegal, there are many unnecessary things we do that are (and should be) legal. This debate itself is unnecessary.3. "There are many health problems that can occur from these procedures and making them illegal make sure none of the women get hurt."Provided the woman is the one being harmed (and not you), you have no basis on which to make this decision for her. It isn't you who would be harmed by her decision. Depending on her situation, the benefits may outweigh the health risks.Sources[1] Page 7 of http://www.chapter14.net...
Late Term Abortion

I accept the defitions, but I would like to expand on how these procedures are performed and how developed the fetus is. How the procedure is performed:This procedure is performed after the 20th week of gestation [1]. It begins by the abortionist grabbing the legs of the fetus with their forceps and pulling it into the birth canal, and then the abortionist delivers all of the fetus but its head. Next the abortionist jams a pair of scissors into the back of the fetus's head and opens them to expand the hole, and then the scissors are removed and the abortionist sucks the fetus's brains out and delivers the head [2]. RefutationMy opponent's argument is based on the fact that the fetus is in the woman's body and the woman might not want the fetus there, and the woman has the right to remove it if she wants too. This is not right for a number reasons including the fact that the woman took the chance of getting pregnant and the fetus is there because she made that decision to have sex. Also, if she really did not want the baby she would have had a abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy when the fetus could not feel or was almost fully developed. since women wait till 20 weeks they should just be made to wait till the birth of the baby. My argumentIn this debate I will be showing why Late-term abortions (also known as partial birth abortions) are bad and should be illegal. My argument will consist of 3 arguments in which I will prove this. Contention 1: The procedure itself is too inhumane. The procedure is no doubt barbaric. The abortionist forces all of the poor fetus's body out but it's head, and then rips a hole in the back of it's head and sucks it's brains out. It's illegal for us to do this to our criminals on death row and it should be illegal for this to be done to a unborn human. Contention 2: It is not necessary. If a woman can go through labor of most of the live fetus, and then fully deliver a dead baby then she might as well fully deliver it alive and let the baby live. Why should the baby needlessly die? Contention 3: Health risksA very big problem with late-term abortions is that they cause very serious health risks to the mother. It increases the risks of cervical incompetence in women, which would make it difficult for them to carry another pregnancy to term. There is also a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child’s skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death [3]. There are many health problems that can occur from these procedures and making them illegal make sure none of the women get hurt. Conclusion In conclusion, there is no need for late term abortions since if the women did not want to be pregnant then they would have used contraceptives or abstinence, and the fact that there are abortions available in the earlier terms of pregnancy. Vote Con! [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.pregnantpause.org...[3] . http://www.bdfund.org...
Late Term Abortion

DefinitionLate Term Abortion - Any abortion performed after the fetus would be viable if delivered to a non-specialized health center. [1]Fetus - The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. [2]ArgumentPeople own themselves. As a woman owns herself, she would also own any fetuses she may be carrying. The fetus resides in her body and uses resources (nutrients, oxygen, etc) that she provides. In some cases, the fetus is unwelcome in the mothers' body. She owns her body, so she has the right to do as she wishes with it. If she desires, she can, at ay time, remove something from it. In the case of late term abortion, it is a fetus that is being removed.Sources[1] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... term abortion[2] http://www.medterms.com...