BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women have the right to get an abortion

Abortion's are things that women get when they are either not ready, no in the right place, or don't want to put their bodies through the toll of having a child. No one can tell a women if she wants to have a baby or not, and therefore should chose what she wants to do. A child is a big responsibility that not all people want to have, and giving birth to a child puts a huge toll on a woman's body that she may not want to go through. Deciding whether or not to have a child (which is based on many different factors) should one a woman's and only that woman's choice.
Exodus the Palestinians to the West Bank from Gaza. Kill Hamas Leader.

Look the Old Testament is theoretically true, speaking that is writings from popular ancestors in Jewish history. Very important events happened that needed to be recorded. So it was and these great prophets talked with God and Covenants were made. God told the Jews if the stayed true to him the earlier stated words of choice. The Jews for some time did not have a homeland really. Diaspora when the Romans conquered and ruled it became a slave nationality. The Jews had been slaves before. You cry humanitarian crisis but we let stuff go everyday. Russia can shoot plane down a soldier can take selfies showing he is 35 miles in the country of Ukraine. The Jews should be able to transfer the Palestinians to the West Bank on all sides of the tables. If you ask a Gazan if they would like to move they mostly likely say yes. The West Bank claims peace and stop the suffering, it does stop the suffering. These are facts that cannot be fought against because they're true. A Muslim Sister can also volunteer just like Turkey. Why did NATO give the Jews a homeland? Zionism, the western world counts the Old Testament and that's matters. There would not be another reason for it. The Jews one the 6 days war and has rights. If you let the IDF do their work they can dismantle the HAMAS and perform an Exodus. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Exodus the Palestinians to the West Bank from Gaza. Kill Hamas Leader.

My early rebuttal to why the Palestinians should be exodus to the West Bank and possible another Muslim Sister. Kill the leader of HAMAS. 1) The Old Testament is actual Israelite history, it is the only one they have and it supplies genealogies. People believe the Egyptian Pyramid writings were history of the Egyptians. Roman novels of historic events were copied by Romans why do we believe them? The argument anymakes can be used on almost all things, like Shakespeare. 2) You must of forgot many exoduses have happened through history. Now with todays technologies no one would die. The IDS can make a huge air base that could take all of them over to the West Bank. The Jews gave them that. 3) I understand the Palestinians need much more room but the reason is HAMAS. We must first take out it's leaders, let the Jews take the weapons and men. Its war please think about that it's war. 4) How many Jews died in the Holocaust give me a break, how many died in Egypt working with clay and brick. Or Babylonian. enslavement. 5 A) This will occur in about one year of harsh occupations and destruction of HAMAS and all weapons are take. 5 B) Read "5 )" Argument The Jews need to live in peace, in the Old Testament gives them land anyways. HAMAS is evil and permits nothing but death for Allah. The poor citizens are dying and it is horrible, yes. But in order to stop it you must take action. The Holocaust gave the Jews their homeland, why can't have it? In peace? A Muslim sister could take them like turkey did with Syrian refugees. Egypt is so friendly come on take 'em. Qatar they support HAMAS rebel army wing. Take 'em. Assassination of the high-elite of HAMAS would dismantle the military wing of HAMAS. You make sure everything is done correctly and the Jews will make the right choices at the right times. *I'm not Jewish.
Exodus the Palestinians to the West Bank from Gaza. Kill Hamas Leader.

Zi"on"ism G2;zīəG6;nizəm/ noun noun: Zionism a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann. https://www.google.com... God's promised land at one time in the Bible says to Abraham from the great sea in the west to far northern hills (Lebanon), to the descent west of Jordan. No the deserts to any south. When God told Ezekiel From the great Nile to the desserts of the far far west along to the mountains of Lebanon. Til the Ocean if reachable to the south-west (Modern day Saudi Arabia). To the great sea to the west witch is the Mediterranean. God's promise was large and David was like kind of close to reaching it. They need what they got. If the transported Gaza - Palestinians go to West Bank or why can't a fellow Muslim sister take them in. Lebanon, Syria, or ISIS. I say specifically West Bank with there own people. Solves problems, give Israel more land, rebuild have them rebuild it. Use C.I.A. or something secret intelligence agency to kill the Hamas Leader a filthy rich terrorist running around hotels and festivities in the gulf states mostly Qatar. See you Con.
Exodus the Palestinians to the West Bank from Gaza. Kill Hamas Leader.

This is a clear ballot for Con, and I'll guide you through it here. 1) Pro has completely dropped the vast majority of my rebuttals and arguments, meaning that they must flow to Con. 2) I have demonstrated that a forced evacuation is a security risk to all parties involved. 3) I have shown that the Old Testament is a historically inaccurate document, which should not be used to settle territorial disputes. 4) I have argued that a forced evacuation would be a massive humanitarian crisis, compounding the problems facing Palestinians today. 5) I have substantiated the claim that Israel is unable to conduct pinpoint operations effectively. 6) I have answered, without rebuttal, the question of how to forge a peaceful path forward; this must be done in a consensual way that respects both parties through a two-state solution. Due to this, there is no possible way Pro could have met his BOP. Pro claims his way is the way of peace. Unfortunately, Pro has given neither argument nor evidence to support this action. Thus, this is a Con ballot. Thank you very much.
Exodus the Palestinians to the West Bank from Gaza. Kill Hamas Leader.

Firstly, flow all of my arguments and rebuttals through. These are critical arguments that Pro is not responding to, and obliterates any chance of Pro meeting his BOP. To the question at hand:"How do you completely stop the carnage and violence coming from HAMAS and the IDS, to stop constant civilian deaths and to ensure permanent peace in the region."1) Firstly, there has been little recent damage to Israel. Before the invasion of Gaza, there was one (read: ONE!!) civilian death from Hamas rockets [see earlier sources]. Hardly an existential threat to Israel. 2) Hamas was weakening before Israel invaded, losing political capital among the Palestinian masses and losing key allies in Syria and Egypt. This invasion has only galvanized support for Hamas, increasing any risk they pose [1]. 3) The only way to prevent future conflict is a two-state solution that gives Palestinians a legitimate government and equal rights as Israelis, with a lifted embargo and economic growth [2]. Any attempts without these key steps will be doomed to fail, as the oppressed Palestinians will be forced to join the extremists. Either way, this is mostly irrelevant, as I simply had to show that Pro's proposal should not be done, which I have sufficiently demonstrated. I do not have to give a panacea to the conflict; that is not my BOP. Thank you. Sources: 1. http://news.nationalpost.com...2. http://www.slate.com...
A god exists

God: "One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: " www.thefreedictionary.com/god * -Michael was doing so much and so well, I found myself just wanting to stop and watch him -- and I was playing," said teammate John Paxson. -"I didn't think anyone was capable of doing what Michael has done to us," marveled Celtics ace Larry Bird. "He is the most exciting, awesome player in the game today. I think it's just God disguised as Michael Jordan." www.nba.com/history/jordan63_moments.html Reggie Miller referred to Michael Jordan as "Black Jesus". http://youtu.be... The commercials of the 1990's foccused on the slogan,"I wanna be like Mike." http://youtu.be... Here Michael Jordan receives a standing ovation in China. http://youtu.be... A god exists. * Con admits a god may exist by any "god" definition in round 1. Con: "Though there may be a chance there is a 'god'..." * Con: "I could say this pencil is a god, but does that make it a god?" Yes. * Con is going with this definition of a god: "the most common definition and is seen as most people as a supernatural being with power over nature." Here is an example of a supernatural being showing off this power- http://youtu.be...
A god exists

The definition of a god is 'a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.' I seriously doubt that the stars, planets and moons have have any supernatural force they may be worshiped but these are not real so called 'gods', if you wanted, you could call anything a god and therefore say this god exists. Eg. I could say this pencil is a god, but does that make it a god? Somewhat similar to the gods you have portrayed to me their, they may be seen as a 'god', but therefore anything could be seen as a god, which leads us to what is the actual definition of a god? As I stated before, the most common definition and is seen as most people as a supernatural being with power over nature. Even if people worship an animal or a 'god' it doesn't make it a god, and therefore a god does not exist.
A god exists

Astrolatry is the worship of stars and other heavenly bodies as deities, or the association of deities with heavenly bodies. The most common instances of this are sun gods and moon gods in polytheistic systems worldwide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Their gods are stars, planets, and moons. Their chosen god exists. * Animal worship (or zoolatry) refers to rituals involving animals, such as the glorification of animal deities or animal sacrifice. When a god is respected or worshipped by means of a representative animal, an animal cult is formed (Teeter et al., 2002, p. 355). https://en.m.wikipedia.org... They worship a chosen animal as a god. Their chosen god exists.
A god exists

Sorry to break it to you buddy, but no, no gods will ever, and have never existed. Though there may be a chance there is a 'god' (I'm an agnostic atheist), religion has only caused trouble for the rest of us. Religion has caused hatred and war, what was meant to be a love one another sign, has now changed, upsetting many. If god wanted us to believe in him, he would exist, there are many flaws and mistakes in every religion, and even if there was a god, I wouldn't want to be part of one that spreads a message of hatred. Why must you pray to a god to make a wrong right (eg. war) does this deity not know of the wrong already, if your god is so good, why is there so many wrongs in this world, or is it just he/she/other doesn't care at all? I'm not sure what religion you believe but I would like to point out Christianity is the most flawed and the worst, and I know that because I used to believe in god. Please research your religion before committing to it, because religion is brain-washing.
A god exists

First of all, siting all you opinions does not make them right. The definition of a god is very vague, but if you are going to start telling me anything that is "...worshipped, idealized or followed." is immediately a god, then your argument has no point. I may idealize a celebrity but does that mean I think they're my god, no, of course not, only an idiot would say/think that but to me, that's what you're saying right now. Secondly, you start giving sources for pointless information, I could hardly understand your argument from lack of opinions and information, and most importantly, sense. Your argument makes no sense and you don't go on to explain your quotes, to me it seemed as if you were saying Micheal Jordan was "Black Jesus" but if you think one quote from a person makes that Micheal Jordan a god, then you need to get your facts straight. Moreover, there is a clear difference between, idealizing a celebrity and then saying they are a god, it's pure rubbish, like your argument. Yes, I do say a go MIGHT exist, and emphasize on the might, may I say, and so what?! I'm an agnostic atheist, a stupid person keeps a closed mind, a clever one is open to new ideas, this does no mean I'm gonna start making Micheal Jordan my god. If your saying, anyone can give anything the great title of a god, like a pencil, then I'm finding it pointless reasoning with you. A god, if there is such a thing, (remember the IF may I say so you don't start using this against me), is a high status, not to be given to pointless things such as a pencil. I watched half of http://youtu.be...... and am seriously questioning if your actually joking. I'm just confused, please explain your points because if you think that fat guy in a Jesus suit is actually a supernatural being, then please go to your nearest hospital, because your going mad. You can SEE the planks under the water and it's obvious the guy in the wheelchair is an actor, and a very bad one too.
Obamacare, Good (pro), Bad (con)

I don't have Obamacare, but if we would get kicked off of our insurance and if we got Obamacare it would be affordable and my mom could get coverage on many things that we could not get before. Including coverage on a pre-existing condition. There are also many false stories that a certain news organization makes up nightly, no offense to Fox News but they are really bad at making this stuff up, I watch them to try to stay bipartisan, but I change the channel because of the false talking points they just pull from where the sun doesn't shine. http://www.salon.com.... I know that a lot of people don't like the president's health care plan because 1. They didn't read what it does. 2. They were told by CNN and Fox 3. They dismissed it because they don't like president Obama. I want those to know that there is many good things in there and we should keep it because our old Health Care system is really bad, we need to keep this, if we want to we can change and amend it. I just don't want it to go back to the old system.
Obamacare, Good (pro), Bad (con)

What people automatically think when you mention socialism is they think socialism is bad. But there are things in America that are extremely good because of socialism. 1. Welfare. 2. Food Stamps. 3. Social Security. 4. Medicare/Medicaid. 5. The US Postal Service. 6. and Community libraries and police and fire departments. 7. Unemployment. I have a source that explains why we need Obama care or something like it. Canada is one country that has a national healthcare system, it is one of the best in the world, why don't we give it a try. And from this source it shows that it is cheaper than what we had during the Bush administration, for families. The premiums are much, much better than ours were.And I will post a source at the bottom proving that socialism isn't as bad as people think it is, and what they also don't realize is that they love socialism if they like any of the seven items I listed. I would like to dispute the quote from Richard F. Davies with doctor and professor Richard Davis, again I will post my source from the dessert news at the bottom of this debate round. And also to dispute the financial part of this I will post a link to Wikipedia on it, which yes can be edited be edited by people is either approved or disapproved by a committee of professors and other scientists, if they are factual or not. I would like to say also that if giving and getting millions of Americans healthcare at an affordable rate then I don't really care about what doctors have to say, I'm sorry but my friend can't get into the doctor now with her plan because the doctor won't accept it, the doctors are greedy people who right know won't accept people if they don't get more money in their paycheck from blue cross, or keystone, so really just want people to get care and I am truly done with doctors, because of how they treat people, they only treat money. And children of America will still be doctors because I want to be either a chef or a politician, so I know that it doesn't matter how much we make as long as we do what we love to do, I could get payed minimum wage. I also would like to say because of a few bad apples, or a few bad hypochondriacs, shouldn't ruin the rest. I know that there are always people there to milk the system. This doesn't mean that we stop healthcare. For the 46 million that are uninsured, they need this, so I would not want to be the one to tell them, because of a few bad apples you cannot have access to health insurance. To what you said about an increase in deaths, I would like to contest that with saying that 26,000 Americans died in 2010 because they weren't even on the list to wait on, they didn't have insurance. And I would like to contest your disagreement (6) with the same article from the Huffington Post. And I thank you for your debate today, I have been debating with a lot of good debtors recently.
The feminism of Men

I disagree. I think you're bluffing. Today's men are cowards. If you don't want to be a coward then I challenge you. Today, go out and pick a fight with a bully who richly deserves it. That's right, pick the fight. If you get beat up, then you are a brave man,. especially if you get up and pick a fight with another bully next week. Finally, go out and approach fifty women this week and ask for their phone number. If you do these things then you're a man, otherwise you're just hiding out. Many men say the same things you say, but when danger lurks they usually slink back down to their apartments. Surprisingly, men are much more likely to fight another guy than they are to talk to a woman and get her phone number. If you can't fight the bullies in your life today, what makes you think you can stand up to ISIS, or Black Mamba, or KKK, or Communists?
The feminism of Men

Its hard to find a real man these day..Definition of one is: Masculine ( not physical structure but being the head of the house,.Provider and Protector of his family (Real Men take care of their family needs,they make sure most if not everything is provided for them). Courageous, Hardworker,Motivator,Brave etc Feminized Men are lazy, good for nothing gossipers who do not have courage to initiate just a simple conversation.Can that person head a house?? LIKE REALLY!!! That's why women are now proposing to men, do you blame them?? Nowadays.....Women has taken over the masculine prowess and its amazing how many men depend on women...WOMEN SIMPLE RUN THE WORLD IN SILENCE , HAVE TAKEN OVER,NOT THAT THEY WANT TO,BUT THE MEN HAVE BECOME FEMINIZED.Men wakey wakey,its time to smell the coffee!
FREEDO would make a bad DDO president

.. very clever. Before we begin, I'd like to clarify first and foremost that this is not an attack on the user known as FREEDO by any means, and that the Pro position advocates the idea that *none* of the presidential candidates (Cody, Freedo, Lwerd, Innomen and/or whomever else might be running) would make a good president. Freedo would therefore by extension make a bad president by Pro's standard, hence the debate. As I understand it, in Round 1 I should be presenting 5 questions essentially describing a framework for my case. I'll start by noting my opponent's decision to not include specific details or requirements about the DDO presidency. As such, the most appropriate thing to do would be recognize how a standard dictionary defines the term president. A president is an officer appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of persons [1]. To preside means to exercise authority or control [2]. I'd also like to note that my opponent has the burden of proof. The instigator of a debate has the burden of proof if they make a positive or negative (non-agnostic) assertion [3]. In this case, my opponent makes the assertion that the user known as FREEDO would not make a bad president, which is what he must prove in this debate. I doubt semantics will be an issue here; bad is defined as unqualified, inferior quality, inaccurate, inadequate, deficient, etc. My first five questions for Con are as follows: 1. What authority or power was Freedo given by the owner/moderator of the site (Phil)? 2. To what extent does Freedo know HTML, Java, C++ (etc. programs) and to what degree of access does he have to physically alter or supplement DDO's content? 3. What can Freedo in particular do as president that none of the other candidates (or members of the site, for that matter) can do, have done, are capable of doing, etc. ? 4. Why is it presumed that other members and/or new members will revere Freedo in any capacity? 5. Was Freedo appointed to this position? If so, by whom? If not, why is the democratic majority a fair way to determine a "leader" of any proportion? I believe those are the only questions I'm allowed to ask for now. I expect my opponent will answer these questions and make a case for Freedo in the next round, where I will refute his arguments and then make some final statements of my own. The final round will be a re-cap/rebuttal. I look forward to a fun exchange! Thanks again to my opponent and good luck :) [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] Michalos, Alex. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1969. p 370.
FREEDO would make a bad DDO president

To begin I would like to say that this debate was not started or endorsed by FREEDO, his campaign committe, or any other canadites campaign committe. This debate was put together for challenge by the... Rational Organization For Lobbying Mister FREEDO As Okay I challenge any of those campaigning against him to accept this debate and argue there cases specifically against FREEDO as DDO president and NOT FOR THEIR OWN CANADITE. The order of the debate will be as follows Round 1: my opponent can present up to 5 questions about FREEDO being a poor choice for DDO president, to wich in round 2 I defend him from those questions to show FREEDO at the very least Okay as a DDO president as well present a case of my own independent of you questions. Round 2: my opponent can rebutte my case and response to their first 5 questions, and if up for it, present a new case as well. Round 3 (final round): no new arguments, only rebuttal's. Good luck to whoever accepts this challenge!
Cosmetic Surgery

Only 1,000 characters. Keeping short. As CON, I am against cosmetic surgery (CS). That does not mean I need to argue for criminalizing it, or taking government action against it. Countering any of those arguments would be a strawman fallacy. I merely believe the people should NOT CHOOSE IT. 1) Dangerous. Any surgery is inherently dangerous, and as such should be avoided unless necessary. Since we are talking about "elective," they are not necessary. CS finds it's own dangers and risks [1]. One main factor is that people don't understand the dangers [2] and that is being stunted by the industry. 2) No GDP Benefit If people didn't spend the 500 million pounds on CS, that money wouldn't disappear. The people would still have it and would be able to spend it on other services. Out of space, next round, thanks. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [2] http://www.aboardcertifiedplasticsurgeonresource.com...