BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

My opponent took very little time in constructing his argument. I hope that the relative depth of mine may teach him to take careful consideration when debating.He writes "The reason that I dont on abortion, is because abortion is mentioned in the constitution... The right to Life." Ignoring the poor grammar, my opponent argues that, because a fetus is "alive", it should not be aborted under any circumstance simply because the constitution says so. By making this argument, my opponent restrains himself under the following:1) The constitution is flawless and true, and thus it ought be obeyed,2) A fetus is necessarily a human as soon as a sperm cell and an egg cell form a zygote, and3) There is no circumstance in which abortions are justified.Before I proceed, we should note that the phrase my opponent cites regarding Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is actually not found in the Constitution- rather, it is in the Declaration of Independence. http://www.ushistory.org... My arguments will stem from these three statements.1) The "Constitution"If we obey the constitution's "Right to Life", we must obey the statement "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility..."If domestic tranquility in the case of some individual or some family requires the abortion of a fetus, it ought be respected.2) The Humanity of a fetusIt is a commonly debated issue whether or not a fetus is human. The instant a sperm cell and an egg cell begin the fertilization process, it is unlikely that this unicellular organism is a human. Humans are by definition, non-unicellular.3) CircumstantialityLet's take a scenario in which a mother's health is threatened by the fetus, and if this mother was to nurse the fetus to infancy, both the mother and the fetus would die. However, we know that an abortion would save the mother's life. Should the fetus be aborted?There is no debate here. The answer is yes.Back to my opponent.I thank the readers in advance for their time and effort in reading this debate.
Abortion

I agree that it should be banned. Look, the government is to protect our rights? Thats why all of my arguments and policies are supported by the constitution. Now alot of pro-abortionists say that the constitution should be a state issue, because the constitution says "any specific subject that is not specificely mentioned in the constitution should be left to the states" I agree with that. The reason that I dont on abortion, is because abortion is mentioned in the constitution. The constitution protects peoples right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness... what was that? The right to Life. Women have the right to choose, but people often forget about the baby's rights.. he has the right to life doesnt he? The constitution also states that no life shall be taken without due process and a trial... well, who is to speak for the child? The government can't take life without due process of law, and it protects peoples right to life. If you can prove to me that a fetus is not a human.... then my argument is invalid and you have won.
Speed of light proves Earth is older than 6000 years old. (Not disproving the Bible)

You are right. This debate is not about Genesis, but how the speed of light proves the age of Earth. Okay. If the Crab Nebula is 70,000,000 million light years away from us (I made up that number, because I don't know how far it is away), and light takes 70 million years to get to Earth, and Earth is 6000 years old, wouldn't that mean the light would that has traveled from 70 million years ago, would come to Earth has....blank? Isn't doesn't work! The speed of light does prove Earth's age. Bottom line. ____________________________________________________________________________________
Speed of light proves Earth is older than 6000 years old. (Not disproving the Bible)

The BIble talks about the rain falling for 40 days in the story of the ark, as well as people traveling 40 days and 40 nights. God's use of the word Day changes from story to story, if pro's logic is correct, which contradicts the God is Unchanging characteristic. No less, the debate is not about this. The debate is how the speed of light proves the earth is older than 6000 years.
Speed of light proves Earth is older than 6000 years old. (Not disproving the Bible)

Genesis is there to tell us the Earth WAS indeed created by God himself. However, it was not created, literally, in 7 days. It was created in the course of, let's say, billions of years. The Bible doesn't mean, literally, 7 days. To me, it's another way of saying how Earth was created in different words. The rest of Genesis is true, however. I'm still pretty religious, as well as a strong believer in science.
Speed of light proves Earth is older than 6000 years old. (Not disproving the Bible)

Because you have made the claim, you, by default, have the full burden of proof. I do not believe the speed of light proves the age of the earth is older than 6000 years. I also disagree with all claims made by Genesis that have been scientifically debunked, but that is not what this debate is about, and I will avoid those claims and counter claims as arguments.
Speed of light proves Earth is older than 6000 years old. (Not disproving the Bible)

Many people say and think evolution is false mainly because of what the Bible says in Genesis. And in Genesis it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.": this is true. There is much much more about how the Earth was created, and I cannot paste all of that in here with out cluttering this debate. SO, you may wonder how the speed of light proves Earth's age, and I shall explain once a person as accepted this debate. Any one of any age is allowed to debate with me. God did create the Earth in 7 days. However, was it really 7 days, as in 24 hour cycle? Or was it 7 days, put into words that in reality meant millions and millions of years? NOTE: When debating, keep the language clean like the air your breath, which I hope is clean as well. NO: -Swearing -Profane language -WRITING IN CAPS LETTERS TO MAKE YOUR POINT MORE OBVIOUS THAN IT ALREADY IS, BECAUSE WRITING IN CAPS IS SO ANNOYING. And most importantly, have fun and enjoy this civilized debate!
Speed of light proves Earth is older than 6000 years old. (Not disproving the Bible)

Well since my opponent is out of ideas, I have nothing to respond to. However, I can respond to our discussion of Genesis. Genesis' claims have been debunked by scientists on many occasions. Also, if God's definition of days did change, it still wouldn't make sense. If we use the Sun to determine time, and days are increments of time, then how did God create the Sun on the fourth day, if days could not be determined yet? Makes no sense. The story of God was supposed to prove His power to "snap his fingers" and make something happen, and if it does take millions or billions of years, it doesn't show much power. But apart of the debate but I felt like getting that is my chest. As much as I don't like to encourage voting in favor of one side, I want the voters to take in to consideration a forfeited round, and a failure to meet his burden of proof. Let it be known I do believe that the universe, and Earth, is older than 6000 years, but I do not accept the claim that we can prove this using the speed of light.
Cutting taxes and Cutting Spending

I have no more to say, I cannot spend the time con did. Good, thourough job Con. However, I still agree with the fact that cutting taxes and cutting spending is a negative thing, even when done together. If I would have changed anything, I would change my schedule, to make a powerful argument as con did. I have studied economics for 14 years, and I would explain myself better, but in this debate, I could not manaage. Forgive me for having to tend to my family and job, voters.
Cutting taxes and Cutting Spending

1) I have already shown how cutting spending does not necessarily contribute to a catastrophic fall in jobs and causes other economic woes and that through natural job creation on a monthly basis the economy itself can recover quite fast. But you claim that, "the cause of the stocks dropping was the US massive spending cuts, Britain returning to the gold standard, and other governments experiencing Recession" - Which is all completely wrongThe Stock market crashed due to: - 1 - Overzealous investment into dangerous stocks by investors who practiced "buying on margin" - 2 - Banks dangerously using people's money for loans and often investing into the stock market itself - 3 - An earlier mini crash also caused the stock market to be poised for an even bigger collapsehttp://history1900s.about.com...furthermore - 4 - Britain returned to the Gold standard in 1939, a full 10 years AFTER the Great Depression already started...http://en.wikipedia.org... - 5 - The Great Depression started in the US then expanded to the whole world, not the other way around.http://www.english.illinois.edu... - 6 - "This all happened in 1932 Then the U.S. economy began to recover"The US didnt even show signs of improvement until WWII broke out in the 1940's, by then America was still sagging in high unemployment and in levels of poverty...http://www.museum.siu.edu...2) What role did the tax cuts play? I have shown that the tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with it... In fact overzealous spending in the early 21st century caused the US debt to explode which reinforces my argument of why spending should be cut. 3) Allow me to clarify since a simple word misplacement has baffled the Pro. Cutting spending reduces the national debt, cutting taxes increases the deficit but that is only true if spending remains the same or increases. If taxes are cut but spending is cut even further than the deficit would actually decrease. 4) Germany is a very industrial country that exports tons of goods and keeps track of their spending habits, very friendly to businesses, etc. Germany is not the country they are only through taxes like you somehow try to claim. ====================================================================================================================================================================================================================================The Pro has completely dropped my arguments about 1) Why reducing spending for the sake of the national debt is a good thing, 2) How raising taxes could not simply offset spending, 3) How the government may not even use higher taxes to pay off the debt and may use that money on other programs, 4) That cutting taxes puts more money into the system since lower classes now have more money to spend.5) That tax hikes does not necessarily help a country heal (http://www.cato.org...)
Cutting taxes and Cutting Spending

Thank you for your opinion. Being my first debate, I did not grasp the stubborness of opponents, I joined four debates at once, thinking that a paragraph or two is enough. Well, I guess I was wrong. I used better strategies in my other debates, and I will try to shape up my unexplained, unstructured, and first debate. POINT 1- Politicians like to lobby, and Calvin did just that. He cut taxes for the rich 3 times (it affected the top 10 percent). Now, when you cut taxes, you increase the deficit. Calvin cut spending to close this increase (which he failed to do too.) However, he does not understand that The government expenditures are closely linked to peoples jobs. Cutting spending cuts jobs, which in turn, cuts the total GDP, whcih slashes tax collection, and then the deficit grows. Because of Calvin's massive spending cuts, companies could not have as many employees, months later the stocks dropped. The cause of the stocks dropping was the US massive spending cuts, Britain returning to the gold standard, and other governments experiencing Recession. Also many countries over printed money, thus causing inflation. Herbert Hoover raised taxes on the upper bracket, sent out what we would call bailouts, and then altered our gold standard. It was no longer $20/oz it was now $35/oz. This all happened in 1932 Then the U.S. economy began to recover, and it was in fact the first country to show signs of recovery. Britain and many other countries abolished the gold standard completely, and recovered as well. Then the Nazi's came to power in Germany and war started. Wikepedia.com/POINT 2- I did not mean that Bush Tax cuts was all that caused the current mess, but you know and I know that is played it's role. POINT 3- Pro does not seem to understand the term "deficit". Let me explain, the deficit is the difference between the tax revenues and the government expenditures. It is not the governments debt.POINT 4- GermanyWe can agree that Germany is a successful country. They have minimal debt, healthy exports and happy people. However, according to http://www.worldwide-tax.com... income tax is 42% on people making between 52,882-250,730 Euros. 1 euro=1.285 US Dollars. The minimum is 70,000 dollars a year. These people pay 42% on income tax and pay other taxes too. This explains Germany's excellent economic stance before the Euro crisis (which was not Germany's fault).Here is a website that further explains my point: http://www.laobserved.com...I am running out of time to post this argument, I have 5 minutes left. I did the best I could with 30 minutes.
Cutting taxes and Cutting Spending

Cutting Taxes and cutting fiscal spending has been proven dangerous throughout history. POINT 1- For example, Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) cut taxes 3 times and cut spending during his presidency. In 1929, the stock market crashed. Then the Great Depression followed. POINT 2- Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), on the other hand, took care of things by increasing the taxes to their original rate, and same with spending. In 1934 and 1935, the economic recovery began. Then, in 1939, there was a full economic recovery. In this example, cutting taxes and spending ended up in failure, and because of Herbert Hoover doing the opposite, the economy recovered. POINT 3- Another example is when George Bush cut taxes. These tax cuts are still in action and always were since Bush passed them. Ask yourself, are we better off now? The definite answer is no. POINT 4- Also, cutting taxes increases the deficit, or the difference between fiscal expenditures and total tax collection. Meanwhile, cutting fiscal spending cuts jobs, and therefore cuts the GDP, which in turn, lowers total tax revenue because there is less money floating around. Then, the deficit grows even more, but then, when you add inflation to our recipe, it becomes the recipe for disaster and the deficit explodes. So before you vote conservative in 2012, take this into account. To whomever accepts this challenge, good luck.
God exists

Since Pro hasn't made many contentions, I'll just make a quick argument. I can't attack Pro's arguments until next round as the rules say, so this is going to be a pretty simple round: Problem of Evil: 1. God is supposedly omnipotent, pure, and omniscient. 2. If god was pure, he would want to destroy all evil. 3. If god was omniscient, he could find evil. 4. If god was omnipotent, god could destroy all evil. 5. Evil exists 6. Therefor, god does not exist. It's a pretty simple argument. An omni-benevolent God that the bible speaks of can't possibly exist. Thanks...
God exists

Resolution: God exists In this debate, we will use the Christian God. Rounds: Con (1) Rules (2) Contentions (3) Contentions/rebuttals (4) Rebuttals/Closing Statements Pro (1) Contentions (2) Contentions/Rebuttals (3) Closing statements (4) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing else Rules (1) If my opponent fails to type "No round as agreed upon" in the last round will lead to a full 7 point FF. If my opponent types any other words besides "No round as agreed upon" in the last round, he or she will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss. (2) 10k character limits. (3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff. (4) Plagiarizing results in a FF. (5) The rules, structure, and definitions of the debate cannot be negotiated or changed once the debate has started. (6) It is accepted that the BOP in this debate is on Pro.
Conscription

My opponent has decided not to post any arguments in Round 1 since I didn't post any arguments either, as they want us to have an equal opportunity. Thank you, Pro. My opponent claims that the 13th Amendment was written to address slavery as opposed to being written to address conscription. However, the 13th Amendment states, and I quote, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. " This amendment draws a distinction between slavery and involuntary servitude, since it mentions both slavery and involuntary servitude, implying that they are 2 separate things. If they were one and the same, then mentioning both of them would have been redundant, so they must be different. Therefore, the 13th Amendment addresses not only slavery (that is, being forced to work permanently without pay), but all forms of involuntary servitude (unless it's used as a punishment for a crime). And now, for some points of my own. Conscription is bad for education, as it may interrupt the education of people who are currently in college. It's bad for the economy, because it costs a lot of money - according to the New York Times (nytimes. com/1988/05/15/us/cost-of-reviving-draft-put-at-1-billion-a-year. html), reviving the draft would cost $1 billion annually. And that article was published in 1988, so the cost would probably be even higher today, due to inflation. And thirdly, conscription is tantamount to slavery, as it involves forcing people to work in life-threatening conditions. Forcing people to work is unjust, as involuntary servitude of any kind (with the sole exception of it being used as punishment for a crime) violates the 13th Amendment.
Conscription

I won't post any arguments or rebuttals on this round, as I feel you didn't elaborate fully on your own arguments, and I would like us both to have an equal opportunity to debate and rebut. To frame my argument, I will take the stance that thirteen amendment was specifically addressing slavery (not the governments ability to create an army), and the constitution does give the government the right to conscript Americans into the army, well before the thirteenth amendment was ever made. I will further develop my argument in later rounds.
Conscription

In this debate, I will be arguing against conscription. Conscription is mandatory military service, AKA the draft. Conscription violates the 13th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. " Conscription, by definition, is "involuntary servitude" - that is, labour that is not done willfully. Therefore, conscription is unconstitutional.
Conscription

I"ve enjoyed debating with you Con! Best of luck to you too! For my concluding argument, I will summarize the arguments that were made throughout this debate, and attempt to convince voters why Pro should win: Arg 1 " The Thirteenth Amendment addresses slavery, not conscription in a time of war In round 2, I argue, using Supreme Court evidence, that the Thirteen Amendment was written specifically to prevent the enslavement and forced servitude of blacks. At the time the Thirteenth Amendment was written, conscription had been heavily used in the Civil War by both the Union and Confederacy, so if it had been part of the reason fueling the amendment, it would have been specifically addressed in one of the sections of the amendment, which it was not. Arg 2 " Conscription is bad for education/economy In Round 3, Con willingly forfeits these arguments Arg 3 " Conscription is required to protect the national security of a country I show Supreme Court evidence and constitutional evidence citing the government"s obligation to protect the nation and the government's right to build and fund an army and navy. Con"s argument is that a volunteer army would be sufficient, but as I stated, in a time of serious war, a bigger army may be needed to protect the national security of a country, and thus it is the government"s constitutional obligation to conscript. Arg 4 " Conscription is tantamount to slavery/involuntary servitude While this may be true in a literal way, it is a constitutional form of slavery/involuntary servitude. There are provisions in the Constitution that make it legal, as I have stated before. It is no different than taxation, which is also a form of slavery/involuntary servitude that is constitutional because it is required to protect the national security of the nation and to allow the government to operate. Both taxation and conscription are powers granted to the government by the Constitution. I feel that I have defended the constitutionality of conscription well!
Conscription

I agree with you that the supreme court making a ruling does not necessarily make it constitutional, but after reading their arguments as to why they made the ruling in the case of conscription, the arguments do follow the constitution. Historically there have been many times a supreme court ruling was poorly argued (out of racism or bigotry) and was overturned years later, but that is not the case here. The arguments refer specifically to segments of the Constitution, and illustrate the logical fallacy of conscription being unconstitutional, as in, how can a nation protect itself if it doesn't have the ability to raise an army to the size it needs? Secondly, they point out that there is no provision in the Constitution saying that this army must be solely comprised by volunteers. The fourteenth amendment was written over a completely different issue, and therefore cannot be used to refute or modify this clause of the Constitution. During a time of relative peace, such as now, a volunteer military is more than sufficient, and that is why conscription is not in effect. But if the homeland got attacked, such as when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the dynamic completely changes. It becomes the duty of the government to fulfill its Constitutional obligations of protecting the nation, which is explicitly stated in the Constitution: Article 4 Section 8: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." If conscription is required in order to do this, then it must be done or else the integrity of the entire nation is endangered.
Conscription

I don't believe that the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that conscription is constitutional means that conscription is constitutional. I believe that they ruled incorrectly. Just because the Supreme Court says that something is constitutional doesn't mean that it actually is constitutional. Taxation is constitutional because of the taxing and spending clause of the Constitution, as my opponent has correctly noted. But conscription is not a right given to the government. The government has the right to form a military, but it has no right to force the citizens of its country to join that military. I guarantee you that some people capable of fighting would join the military with or without conscription. Again, while the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of conscription numerous times, that doesn't mean that conscription is constitutional. The Supreme Court is capable of making errors, so just because they say something doesn't mean that we should believe it.