BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's OK to have a fling while in a relationship and not tell your partner about it

My arguments: 1. Trust is the most important thing in a relationship. Therefore, Hiding magnificent things from your partner, such as having any kind of intimate relationships with someone else is disrespectful towards your partner, and has a bad influence on the relationships. 2. If one feels it has to have a fling aside from their relationship, it might mean that there is something wrong with the relationships. The right thing to do will be not to run away from it and try to satisfy your need someplace else, but try to work it out with your partner. 3. Say you have a great relationship, which you don't wont to give up, but still you feel an urge to go with someone else, hiding it from your partner is not the way to go. Talk to your partner about it before you do so, if your relationship is so great, your partner will understand you and will let you do what you feel you must do.
It's OK to have a fling while in a relationship and not tell your partner about it

As a girl, it's hard for me to think of my partner cheating on me, but since trust is much more important to me than exclusivity, I'd rather that if he feels that he must or really wants to go with some other girl that he will talk to me about it before he does. I probably won't be to happy about it, but it will be much harder for me to find it out myself after he had done it, than to know it's about to happen. Besides, if my partner feels that he has to have a fling with someone else, it might be because there's something wrong between me and him, and if we'll talk about it, we might figure it out and not only avoid this fling, but also make things better between us.
Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being

A human being begins life at conception. (1) (2) This means that both an embryo and a fetus are human beings. Abortion terminates a pregnancy by ending the life of the embryo or fetus. (2) I've established that both an embryo and fetus are human beings, so abortion is ending the life of a human being. This human being is far from any accepted age of responsibility, so it is innocent. That is why I contend abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. (1) Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981. (2) Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7. (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY FUTURE

Yes, I've noticed you've been putting your attention elsewhere. I wouldn't waste any breath on Chavez or the Saudis. Chavez has let power go to his head and seems now to be just another South American banana republic dictator (though with oil). The Saudis are much the same. With their trillions, they could have changed their country from a desert to a cacti-forest; but no, they though it better to own jets, yachts, and a merc for every day of the week. So their (immense) number of princes will inherit desert and dead vehicles instead. THE DEBATE... I can't see hydrogen playing a big part in powering cars. Yes we can have 110% efficient steam-based electrolysis, and then burn it in a car at perhaps 15% efficiency. Compare this to 100% electricity charging a capacitor at 95% efficiency and running the car at 85% efficiency. The compressing, transportation and infrastructure need for hydrogen all make it even less attractive. The transmission infrastructure for electricity is far more efficient, and we already have batteries that allow a sports-car to compete in the current market, and things are only going to get better: http://blog.wired.com... Our future energy needs are likely to be met via improvements and expansion in: * Nuclear power * Photovoltaics * Solar-powered water heating (saved us >1/3rd of our electricity last year) * Energy efficiency * Algae-based oil production * Wind power and others - those are some of the answers to our energy future.
HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY FUTURE

Sorry- not much of time as of lately you have caught on all you have to do is plug in an electrolyzer and make hydrogen and oxygen. you can fill a tank in your car and augment the gasoline mixture right now hythane is hydrogen-natural gas mixture, which can be at any ratio the only reall issue I see is the regulations about how to store the hydrogen on board a vehicle it really is THE revolution- SOLAR HYDROGEN what do you think of my clever idea? Right now I just sell solar - I am ready for hydrogen as well F*** the Saudis and Chavez the dictator hydrogen now! SOLARMAN
HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY FUTURE

I really haven't anything to add. Except: electrolysis of steam appears to be extremely efficient! According to Wikipedia, electrolysing steam produces > 100% energy return. :-) Read here:http://en.wikipedia.org... Imagine! One could absorb heat from steam, and reduce the need for cooling towers in nuclear (or coal) plants and generate hydrogen really efficiently at the same time. Fantastic!
HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY FUTURE

We have many things that use energy, and some of them could be powered by burning nice, clean hydrogen gas. However: computers, bicycles, toasters, sailing boats, hang gliders, jet fighters, weed-whackers, fan-heaters, and a vast number of other things are far better powered by other forms of energy. So in this regard, hydrogen (H2) is not the answer to our energy future. It is possible to produce H2 (and O2) from water at home via electrolysis. I've done it myself. However, this cannot solve the coming energy crisis. Electrolysis just changes the energy from electricity to gas. We still need to create the electricity in the first place.
HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY FUTURE

I want to have this debate over and over until all you laypeople get it and DEMAND THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT FOLLOW THIS AS THEIR ENERGY POLICY. They DONT WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO MAKE YOUR FUEL AT HOME WITH ELECTRICITY AND WATER - HEAR ME? THIS IS THE ANSWER THE ONLY ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY CRISIS THAT WILL SND THIS WORLD INTO WAR OVER AND OVER FOREVER.
Drug legalization

Thank you for your response. The main argument you have in your debate is that people have free will to do what they want. They do. Legalizing this can be dangerous to others to. We already have a problem with drinking and driving. Adding marijuana isn't going to help this. According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse: According to the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 10 million people aged 12 or older reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs during the year prior to being surveyed.4 NSDUH findings also show that men are more likely than women to drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And a higher percentage of young adults aged 18 to 25 drive after taking drugs or drinking than do adults 26 or older.4 We can't do anything about the smoking problem or drinking problem now because there are already too many people addicted and spending money on these things but we can stop the government from legalizing this drug. Marijuana is referred to as the gateway drug by legalizing marijuana we increase the risk of people then seeking other drugs. The government should not interfere with peoples business but they can stop people from ruining their life's. My opponent agrees that marijuana should not be legalized. I urge you to VOTE CON. Sources: https://www.drugabuse.gov...
Drug legalization

Evan though I agree with you I'm going to debate against this anyways because I'm bored. If we are to continue banning drugs we might as well ban alcohol and tobacco. People choose to do this to themselves and who are we to stop them? A person has the right to do what they want with there life so if they choose to do drugs let them do drugs. The government shouldn't be the people who divide how people live. Even if they are living it the wrong way. Its getting hard to continue the debate being that I don't agree with drug legalization at all but you need to argue against someone.
Universal Health Care

I will acknowledge my opponets deffinition for a Human right, but I will respectfully disagree. In my opinion, everyone should have access to medicine, and to a further degree, good health. I believe that everyone has the right to go to the doctors/hospital without fearing a bill. And the U.S. does remain the only Westeren Industialized nation that does not have universal health care for all of its' citizens. A couple of things that make this debate: *Cost Concerns *Socialism/Communism *Stripping Freedom of Choice *Wait Times for Medical Attention Cost Concern: My opponet breifly brought up the term free market solution. Remeber, this isn't a discussion about Price Chopper vs. Hanaford in the free market. This is not a free market issue. When someone in the middle to low ecconomic class gets hurt or ill, they are hesitant to go to the hospital because the "Free" market put a price on medical help. Now, how do we pay for Universal Health care, before I get carried away with the evils of HMOs. The fact is Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits. The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada's. Universal Health Coverage is achievable, espically with the war ending, we could ensure the entire country, and have cash left over. HMOs are the current way of Health care in this country. These are corporations out to make and save money by dening people of medical care. This is the Free Market solution. Yeah but isn't this the first step to Socialism? Well, I don't hear any complaining about our Police Departments, Fire Departments, Public Schools, and Libraies. All socialized fractions of our great and free society. So if public schools and police departments are ok, than I guess medicine should be too. Stripping the freedom to choose what kind of plan you want. The...Free Market system, or a government run system. I think Obamas plan makes the most sense here. People can choose (under his health care plan) either to stick to their HMO or buy into the Governmentas universal coverage. Wait Times for Medical Attention. Americans alrewady wait for emergancy service in America. The ERs are full!! Sorry but I left this up for a little bit to go eat, and now I must get off the computer so I know this was short a sweet but...yeah. Thanks.
Universal Health Care

While when examined immediately, it might seem like a very good idea to make health care free for all. It's a very important part of all of our lives, and it might seem immediately cruel to leave this for private enterprise. However, when carefully and logically examined there is no question that the only option is a free market solution. I will save most of my main arguments for round 2 after my opponent has posted the bulk of his arguments. I will however, do some initial refutation of my opponents arguments. Firstly, my opponent claims that health care is a human right. However, it is impossible for health care to be a human right, as human rights do not interfere with others. The right for you to speak harms nobody else. The right for you to live does not require anybody else to make you live, and the right to your property does not disadvantage anybody else. However, the right to 'free health' requires an infrastructure of people to support you. Meaning that some sector of the population, be it small or large must be slaves to the rest of society. Slavery is unjust, so health care being a 'right' in fact takes away, to some extent, the fundamental rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. Secondly, my opponent claims that we are the only industrial nation that does not have a system of socialization. This argument is empirically wrong, as it is logically fallacious. This is based on the logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. I await my opponents main reply.
Universal Health Care

America is the greatest nation in the World. As I am disappointed by the why our "leaders" have handle this country the past 8 years, and even beyond that, I can still say I love my country. That being said, why doesn't America provide free health care to all of it's citizens? My point here that will be debated is that Health Care is a human right, and America should not have profits leading our health system. We are the only westeren civilized nation that uses profits as the main motivation for health. America should provide health care to all citizens without a bill attached. Health care is a human right, and it is time Americans shouldn't feel scared to go to the doctor because they might not be able to afford it. No more HMOs, because like I said before, it is not only immoral, but it is ineffective to have a money making institution running our health coverage. Thank you, and good luck to my opponet.
The browns are better than the steelers

Your argument makes no sense. I already gave you my criteria for a good team which you did not try and refute. Thus, you have conceded all 4 points. <> Reasons the Steeler's play the regular season: 1) To win the division 2) To make it to the playoffs 3) To make money 4) To give fans a good time < > So then the Steelers are still better. < > Since when is making the playoffs bad? I think that your logic needs a little fixing. PRO, you have done nothing to refute my arguments or prove your own. I would like to ask that you elaborate on your points so that I can better understand your argument and refute it accordingly. Good luck.
The browns are better than the steelers

My opponent contends that the Browns are better than the Steelers. If a team is to be considered "good" it usually has to meet the following criteria: 1) Make it to the playoffs 2) Win their division 3) Have a record of 10-6 and above 4) Win the Super Bowl Now I assume that my opponent is talking about the Browns and Steelers in recent years. Well in the last ten years: 1) Steeler's have made 6 playoff appearances in the years of 2008, 2007, 2005, 2004, 2002, 2001 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com...). The Browns have only made it once in 2002. (http://www.pro-football-reference.com...) 2) In the last 8 seasons Pittsburgh has won their division in the years of 2008, 2007, 2004 (with 15-1 season), 2002, and 2001 (http://sports.espn.go.com...). The Browns have not won once in that timeframe. In fact, the Browns haven't won their division since 1989, and even then it was with a weak 9-6-1 record (http://www.pro-football-reference.com...). 3) A record of 10-6 and above is considered a good record in the NFL. The Steelers have reached this goal 6 of the last 10 years, each of these years making the playoffs (http://www.pro-football-reference.com...). The Browns have reached this goal once in 2007 and even then they didn't make it to the playoffs (http://www.pro-football-reference.com...). 4) The Steelers have gone to the Super Bowl 7 times and won it 6 times. Two of those wins came within the last 5 years. The Browns haven't even ever made it to a Super Bowl (http://en.wikipedia.org...) My opponent's only argument was that: < > By this I suppose he means that because the Browns can win OR lose it is more exciting to see what happens. However, my opponent fails to see that the Steelers also win and lose (http://www.pro-football-reference.com...). In the last ten years their records were: 12-4 2008 10-6 2007 8-8 2006 11-5 2005 15-1 2004 6-10 2003 10-5-1 2002 13-3 2001 9-7 2000 6-10 1999 It is quite clear that the Steelers are, recently have, and always have been better than the Browns. I await my opponent's response.
Resolved: In the U.S. school system the block schedule is educationally advantageous.

I will first address my opponent's position then move on to present my own. While it's true that we do have more class time with the block schedule, it is not true that this equates to a more effective education. On the contrary, students learn less effectively when more is crammed into the head at one time. Longer classes does not mean better education, just the opposite [ . http://www.jefflindsay.com... ]. And education is the bottom line. On to my position. .. There are several problems with the block schedule. And they are two fold. One, it is more expensive. Two, it means more class time (that one should sound familiar). I will show you how neither is conducive to learning. Point one, the block schedule is more expensive. In hard economic times this is the last thing that we need. An example that supports this is the Albuquerque Public Schools district in New Mexico. Due to economic pressures the school system is being forced to fire hundreds of teachers. This means that class sizes will average between 30 and 40 students. This is not conducive to learning. One side effect is that teachers returning form retirement will likely be the first to go. Teachers like AP Calculus teachers who are few and far between (and were asked to come back from retirement) will be fired. Many qualified teachers will be gone. This is also not conducive to learning. This damage to the educational experience of the students is evident in the tell tail drop in SAT and ACT test scores [ . http://www.jefflindsay.com... ]. Another study shows how block scheduling hurts academic achievement "studies that show academic achievement in several areas (math, biology, chemistry) may be hurt by block scheduling" [ . http://www.malaria.org... ] [ . http://www.sciences.drexel.edu... ]. Schools are motivated to adopt block scheduling because of the increased graduation requirements. However, the block schedule has been shown to have a negative impact on academic performance [ . http://www.jefflindsay.com... ]. Additionally, a 2006 report deals with another study of block scheduling's effect on science education. The report is by Robert H. Tai, Kristen M. Dexter and Philip Michael Sadler, showed that the block was not providing an advantage, but rather had a negative impact in science. Thus, in the end block scheduling is not educationally advantageous as it is expensive (thereby damaging the educational system), it equates to more time in class, larger class sizes and ultimately damaging academic success and accomplishment across that board. If the school system is to provide the best possible education to its constituents, then I have shown you how the block schedule it not the median for which this is to be achieved. Thus, be the resolution Resolved: In the U. S. school system the block schedule is educationally advantageous, negated. Thank you.
The atomic bomb has helped our society

Hello, Today I would like to debate the topic of nuclear weapons and their role in todays soceity. I will be taking the side of pro, supporting the statement that nuclear weapons have had a helpful role in our society. Round one - AcceptenceRound two - Opening statementsRound three - Rebuttals Round four - Closing arguments I wish my opponent the best of luck, and am looking forward to a fun debate! I hope to learn some more on this interesting issue, and share my beliefs!
Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

Just to quickly roadmap, I will be starting of course with my case, then rebutting my opponent's. I would first like to accept my opponent's definition for military conscription. My value for this debate is of course justice, as it is inherent in the resolution, through use of the word "just." It then follows that my criterion is Locke's social contract. This is the appropriate criterion, as Locke's contract is a litmus test for any government action, as a legitimate government must uphold the contract, and do its job by protecting the rights of the people. I will only present one contention: Military conscription will sometimes be necessary in order to uphold the social contract. To prove this, I will present a scenario. If the United States is faced with an enemy with a much stronger military that is posing a serious threat to the security of the American people, then we must do whatever we can in order to protect the American people. That means we need all the men and women on the field that we can get. This means that we will have to conscript. As military conscription in this scenario is necessary in order to uphold my criterion, it is just, and therefore, military conscription is NOT unjust, and Neg wins. Moving on to my opponent's case, I will begin with his value. My opponent has not given you any justification for his value at all, and because of this right from the get-go you reject it, and take my value. Furthermore, Kant's categorical imperative is self-contradictory, and impossible to uphold. Under this imperative, we cannot break a promise, but we also cannot kill. So if for whatever reason, we must kill in order to keep a promise, we are forced to be immoral. Also, the CI is unreasonable, since under it, all killing is bad, and therefore, all war is immoral, meaning that if the US had followed the CI during WWII, the Nazis would be ruling the world. Next, my opponent's criterion also lacks justification, meaning you reject it as well, end of story. For his first contention, all I have to say is that I have refuted his value, and discredited the CI, so it fails. For his second contention, I would like to point out that it is not linked back to his criterion, nor to his value, meaning it is irrelevant, and I have already shown that military conscription is not universally immoral, nor unjust. For his third contention, I'll point out that military conscription does not violate this. Everyone is equally picked (at least in most countries, in the US, only men are picked, but it is otherwise equal). Everyone who could join the military is enrolled in the draft, it does not break the parameter my opponent has set. In short, I have refuted my opponent's value and criterion, and rebutted his contentions, so clearly, you vote for me.
Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

Military Conscription is unjust. Military conscription my modern terms is synonymous with a draft. I will show through this debate that military conscription is unjust because it does not allow for basic deontological rights for the individuals that are forced to offer their service to their government. For my value in this debate I offer Kant's categorical imperative, which according to Kant is to "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." I will also establish that the criterion for use in this debate to uphold the categorical imperative as free will and equality. For argumentation in this debate, I offer the following contentions 1: Military conscription inhibits an individual's ability to perform the categorical imperative 2: Any action that is not in and of itself universally right or moral should not be allowed by action of law 3: A government's actions, in order to uphold justice, must value all members of their society at equal stature. For sake of time, I will conclude this round and await responses from my opponent.
Legalizing the Coca plant

Traditional medical uses ... a stimulant to overcome fatigue, hunger, and thirst. It is considered particularly effective against altitude sickness. also an anesthetic to alleviate the pain of headache, rheumatism, wounds and sores, etc." "http://en.wikipedia.org... Also it could be a prescription that a doctor gives out to treat small stuff, if the patient wants "organic" relief. Um I have some unused Vicodin which will make a person loopy. Be mature;"con wins, con wins" No SMS...