BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
As Long As Abortion Is Legal We Should Feed Aborted Fetuses to the World's Poor

"Whether or not they can afford it is irrelevant. We're talking about "charity". They don't have to pay a penny." In which case, there is still a cost that we must pay. And it is still cheaper to provide them with healthier food that will ultimately be better for them. "The same can be said of other animals that are processed for their meats. They are not all the same size either. For example, cows. Some cows are heavier or taller, but they are still able to build machinery for processing them. Considering that a fetus is quite smaller than a cow the machinery would likewise be smaller, and so would likely cost less to build than the machinery used to process cows." Cows and chickens are grown to be as similar as possible, to minimize the cost. Aborted babies to not have that same luxury. You are also making the fallacy that smaller = cheaper, which is not true. less complex = cheaper. The more complicated something is, the more it will cost. "Considering there are only 126,000 fetuses a day this only requires a small market of consumers. Some people get drawn into things by the allure of the forbidden. Even though this will be legal it will still have the allure of the forbidden, because its essentially "human meat" and that is considered taboo. Still some people will want to try it out of curiosity, and some of those people will like how it tastes. Only a very tiny portion of the world population has to actually be interested in eating fetus to be able to sell it." Another mistake, there are not 126,000 fetuses aborted, there are 126,000 pregnancies aborted, most of them happen to be embryos. And 88% happen in the first trimester. Meaning that most of the abortions, the baby is less then 1/2 oz. A single meal would require about 10 aborted pregnancies, and so the numbers would not add up to save world hunger. Considering a single cow could provide more meet then 10,000 abortions. The costs just make it meaningless. "Furthermore, when we already have enough stem cells in embryos sitting in IVF clinics throughout the country and can have adequate stem cell research this way why not use aborted fetuses to take care of another problem, World Hunger." Who is to say that we already have enough? When it comes to researching the cures to some of the most deadly diseases, every bit extra helps. 10 scientists working on it is great, but 20 is better, and 30 even better, and they will all need material. With so little meet on the fetus food, the difficulties of transporting to the hungry and overall cost never being fully addressed by my opponent, there is no reason to send them fetus food, since other food options are safer and cheaper. A better option might be feeding the dead, since they'll have more meet on them, but that would be a different discussion. Thank you all, vote CON. http://www.prochoice.org...
As Long As Abortion Is Legal We Should Feed Aborted Fetuses to the World's Poor

My opponent makes some interesting claims, 16,000 people that starve to death each day. While this fact it true, it is important to note that this fact is a global fact, and the vast majority of those that starve to death are from extremely poor nations, which are often war torn. While the majority of abortions are performed in developed nations, where we have the extensive medical capibilities to have safe abortions. We then must consider that there would be a massive cost to transporting the abortion food to the starving, which they likely can't afford, or they wouldn't be starving. Another issue that we find, is that abortions happen at different stages of pregnancy, and so the fetuses can come in a wide veriety of sizes. If they are not all the same size, then the machinery to process them has to have additional features, which can cost additional money. Adding more to the cost. Fetuses can hardly be classified the same as "meet" since they are not fully developed, they are more like a shelless egg. They have much more delicate bodies and a grow person (or grown animal) and so must be handled with additional care (which adds costs). My opponent suggests that the remaining fetus food can be sold to people to offset the costs of feeding the hungry. Unfortunately, I don't have any recent survey data, however I'll guess that most people will choose to pass over the fetus food for something else. And considering that they are off setting the costs of others, that only raises their costs, making it even easier to just say no. A far wiser use of aborted fetuses then fetus food, is for stem cell research. This research can help find cures for diseases that currently plague our lives, such as cancer and AIDS, along with spinal and brain damage. These benefits can provide their own income as medicine and procedures are done. That money, can then be used to off set the costs of sending REAL food to the starving, which would ultimately be cheaper, healthier, and more humane, then feeding them fetus food. Thank you . http://stemcells.nih.gov...
As Long As Abortion Is Legal We Should Feed Aborted Fetuses to the World's Poor

As long as abortion is allowed we should not let the dead fetuses go to waste. There are many starving, hungry people in the world. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute 126,000 abortions are performed daily. http://www.abortionno.org... 16,000 people die every day from starvation. Not only are 126,000 fetuses good enough to save everyone from world hunger, but also to keep people adequately fed. http://wiki.answers.com... Just like with other meats fetuses can be sent to factories, ground up, and inspected for quality control before being shipped out. Unlike other meats I do not propose turning this into a commercial enterprise, but instead having the government run this as a charity program to end world hunger. Although since there are only 16,000 people who die of starvation a day the extra fetuses can be sold in stores in order to pay off the program's expenses so taxes do not have to be raised for it, and may even give the government a profit, alleviating the national debt.
FDR did more harm than good

So my opponent has forfeited...I'll give my brief reasons why FDR was a great president. 1. He saved the American banking system FDR restored faith in the U.S. banking system with the Glass-Steagall Act and the subsequent creation of the FDIC. 2. He lifted the faith of the American people During the depression as you can imagine, the morale of the American people was quite low. However, FDR's programs, like the CCC or the PWA, gave people a job and therefore, able to provide food and a home for their family. This was a huge boost to the American morale, as houses were being foreclosed left and right and 25% of Americans seeking jobs were unemployed. 3. Corrected injustices FDR interfered in the private sector because he saw the abuses that were occurring. A prime example of this is in the Tennessee valley. One of the poorest parts of America, the people in this area were being charged exorbitant prices by the power companies. These people who were stuck in poverty were being charged by the power companies a ridiculous amount because the power companies knew the people had no other alternative. However, FDR created the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) which not only gave citizens jobs there building hydroelectric dams but also set the rate for electricity there at a very affordable rate. Source: The American Pageant, 14th Edition
FDR did more harm than good

I'm a little confused, is this about everything FDR did or just the New Deal and the subsequent effects?Opening Statement: Forced into a situation by his predecessor who reacted poorly to the worst economic disaster in the history of the U.S., FDR did what no other man could have possibly done and expanded government power to drag America out of the depression. Soothing the public and also renewing their faith in the government in banks, FDR made sure the U.S. didn't collapse into anarchy and chaos.
FDR did more harm than good

This debate will largely consist of his New Deal policies, but if you need to bring in additional evidence from other terms that is allowed as well.* Opening Statement: FDR is possibly one of the worst presidents we have ever had. My reasoning behind it is because of his poor economic policies often called the "New Deal". Also his enlarging of the public sector didn't help either as his actions led to the unnecessary growth of the federal government. (In case you didn't know round two is opening statements, then the actual arguments will be given during round )
FDR did more harm than good

This topic is based on FDR's New Deal It is a rather broad debate that you can talk about anything during his terms. Rule 1: Challenger will go first Rule 2: Do your Best (Any other rules that may need to be created during the course of this debate may be considered) Round 1: Introduction and Acceptance Round 2-4: Presenting of arguments, and rebuttals. Round 5:Final statements and Conclusion. I await an opposition (dun dun duuuunh)
God

My argument was , as I did in fact rebut you,, that your reasoning is incorrect. You used the watch-maker argument then entirely threw the argument out the window when recognizing that it's the fallacy of passing the buck. My argument is that there's no presentable evidence that can lead to the knowledge of god's existence. Only hypothesis, and such hypothesis can't hold up in an intellectual argument. My entire rebuttal was pointing out these flaws, such as the concept of the fallacy of passing the buck, and your ignoring your own argument when faced with this reality. The argument is that we simply don't know, where you're arguing for the probability. Why must I argue an extreme when you try so hard to appear reasonable? Neither extreme is reasonable as we cannot know. You bring up that there is no evidence against the existence of god. There is non for it either. There is no argument against, simply knowledge and lackthereof. Don't hold me to an extreme while you aren't?
God

I would like for you to rebuttal my point. I made the argument that it is more likely that there is a god than no god and i used the watch maker argument to explain why my argument to show why my scenario is more likely. I explained the law of causation to explain how it is possible for a god to exist. I would like a rebuttal instead of just saying the method of arguing that I am doing. I am not saying that a god is 100% exists with no doubts but it is highly probable.
God

So you're making the watch maker argument. The idea, to reiterate, that, if you find a watch in the middle of a beach, than you wouldn't assume the watch simply came into being. Something with such a complex design must have a designer. This is the concept behind the creation of humans. So, who created god? You're making the argument that, because something is complex, it must have a designer. The designer would have to be even more complex than the thing they're creating. So, who designed the designer? All I'm doing here is following your own logic. I've examined your logic and stuck to it. So, if something complex must have a designer, who designed god, god being even more complex than we are. Your explanation is that "god's existence is in his very nature," but now you've undermined your argument. Why are we any different? You haven't given proof of anything, simply shown the fallacy of passing the buck, posing an even more complex question.
Green MMPR ranger vs. The Magna Defender

To begin, I am going to state my Rangers' weapons and gear: Dragon Dagger Dragon Shield Sword of Darkness Sword of Power Power Sword Dragon Dagger: medium sized green dagger that can fire three types of laser blasts from the center. It enhances the green rangers powers. The dagger is also used as a flute to summon the Dragonzord. Dragon Shield: a golden armor piece that is worn on the chest that connects to the back. Two arm bands that wrap around the upper arms are also worn with it. It's abilities are as follows: * Protection from magical spells *Protection from all injury *Fuels the green rangers' power Sword of Darkness: a long, curved silver blade that enhances the green rangers powers to extraordinary heights. It holds tremendous power and can banish any person into "The Dark Dimension". The dark dimension is inescapable unless the trapped person possess any type of teleportation. Sword of Power: a normal sized broadsword that is primarily used to channel the rangers' powers and further increase them. Power Sword: a silver blade that has the ability to be charged and swung with great force. It's slashes are devastating. A unique ability of the green ranger is that he can shoot green orbs of energy from his hands at any moment. The green ranger is also a master of six types of martial arts. Another ability that was only used once is the green ranger being able to grow to the size of a Megazord. I ask my opponent to state his rangers' arsenal and abilities in his opening statement.
RE5: S.T.A.R.S. Wesker gives you the most advantages in versus

I would say that Master Chief has the most advantages. He is trained in EVERY WEAPON, human or covenant. He can hold up to 6 grenades in versus under certain circumstances. He has a recharge-able shield. He is compatible to be healed by health packs. He does not have falling damage. He can go invisible. He has the ability to activate eternal shields, shield drains, etc. Master Chief has the most advantages by far. Voters, you are awesome, and i am sure you would agree that Master Chief doesn't mess around.
RE5: S.T.A.R.S. Wesker gives you the most advantages in versus

The resolution is that S. T. A. R. S Wesker gives you the most advantages in versus. I've proven that he does indeed give the most advantages. You haven't refuted my arguments as of why he has the most advantages. I refuted your arguments. Even with the weapon drop tactic, S. T. AR. S. Wesker is still at advantage.
RE5: S.T.A.R.S. Wesker gives you the most advantages in versus

To use midnight, and never lose, you must drop all other guns and ammo other than the Smith and Wesson. From there everything is a one hit kill, and you can pick up much more ammo when you have everything else dropped. If you run out of ammo for the explosives, then you can merely kill anyone in no more than 3 shots. If you are good with your thumbs, Midnight cannot be stopped. With this said, i would say it ultimately comes down to the players ability to react quickly, and maintain a good aim. (which i have)
RE5: S.T.A.R.S. Wesker gives you the most advantages in versus

You claim that Wesker (midnight) gives the most advantages because it has: 5 hand grenades The Handcannon (S&W M500) I disagree completely because: 1. 5 grenades doesnt even help much at all at versus. Sure it does help in Mercenaries, but you're gonna get ksed (killstealed) ALOT because the timer of the grenade is too long. In the meantime, other weapons like shotgun or magnum does a better job. The grenade also tends to bounce back to the thrower. In Survivor mode, you will feel the pain of other players while you try your best to chuck your grenades at them. Everyone knows grenades that explodes near someone wont do any damage at all. (You have to literally stand right on top of a grenade to take damage.) 2. The S&W M500 is the strongest in power, no doubt about it. But it has the highest recoil of them all. Not to mention that it has a very slow firing rate and if you miss it even once, you will get hit. Also, too many power and small ammo clip is highly avoided by many players. (Slayer exclusive) Other reasons why Midnight wesker doesnt give you the most advantages: 1. He has one of the worst handguns ever. Seriously, his handgun sucks. (H&K P8) It has one of the lowest damage output. 2. The Proxi Mines. Everyone know that these landmines are near worthless at versus. You cant even use it at your advantage, people can shoot at it while you're planting it and everyone can see that theres a landmine on the ground. Why does STARS wesker gives you the most advantages? 1. The Samurai Edge. Its the strongest handgun in the game that is exclusive for Wesker. 1 shot from the Samurai Edge combined with the Cobra Strike will kill ANY normal majini. 2. The Lightning Hawk. It has a capacity of 12 instead of the 6 from the Handcannon. Its only 30% weaker then the Handcannon! Not to mention, its firing rate is high. 3. The Hydra shotgun. This thing fires 3x500 damage in 1 shot. Its overkills pretty much anything and especially on other players. (shame on you, killing at slayers) The firing rate is undeniable fast and strangely enough, it fires 3 shots but uses 1 ammo or it. 4. Medical supply. At least you're granted a First Aid at survivors. As midnight wesker, you're basically begging for mercy while your hp keeps getting pummeled without a chance of quick healing at early game. Ready to give up yet? :P
RE5: S.T.A.R.S. Wesker gives you the most advantages in versus

This debate is only for people that played RE5 versus. Also, by accepting, you agree not to vote for yourself. Definitions: RE5: Resident evil 5, a game. Wesker: a character of RE5 advantage: a beneficial factor My resolution is that STARS Wesker gives you the most advantages in versus. Con has to bring up arguments why he isnt.
Weren't these song stolen and dissected discreetly to insult me

Let me not confuse you,I and rap it's too true,To say I can rap,I ain't crap,Like a train I go choo-choo,I treat women like my boo-boos,I love them when they do kung fu moves,I hate when goes don't go moo-moo.I'm just gonna rap since you think lyrically,Stuff was stolen form your... "synapses",Perhaps this,Stuff makes makes me laugh hysterically,I'm rising up on you emprically,Winning this debate really sickly,My flow so sick, got HIV,Girls be rushin' over down to strip themselves,And then strip me,Shortly afterwards we really,Come be real striaght-up sexy no sillily,Yes so hot, not short of the heat of a real chilli,So jollily,And these hot chocks wanna get deep and real with me,They be like "Rational" I wanna hear your thoughts on this matter,Am I bound to get older, uglier, slower and fatter?Oh "Rational" Will win this debate? Serve Pro's head on a platter?PLEASE "Rational" be my bad-boy I need a hero and I'm sadder,Bursting at my tear-holding bladder,Need you to be my big man I have a plan, damn You got swagger like jagger,Damn you're so sharp, eyes like two daggers,So elegant Panthers and Jaguars would wish they could be you,I want to feel you,Inside me,I'm like WOAH! HOE! SLOW...Yo' FLOW HO...ly sh*t!We gotta just slow down a bit,You're underage, you're just a kid!,Are you drunk bad?Think I ain't mad,I'm not always "Rational" Mister sorry-to-make-you-sad,You sad I waint winning this debate? Well oh BOO HOO!Crybaby, maby, slim shady, would be a better rapper for you,This rational madman has tonsof better things he gotta do,Than worry, and be sorry, for the, quarry he created emotionally within you...boom boom powI AM A FLYING COW :D
Weren't these song stolen and dissected discreetly to insult me

Yeah some up the world if you ever think i applied on-line you were again mistake so how a toad like you may think that i were a poet you must of heard my mouth out at this oppressing and you certainly would not be coming to raid unless you use of mobile is still up and about and you friends spending his credit on a call too your stole bluetooth ear piece. The super rich are that because the chances given too them and hard work, lottery wins or learning and understanding unless you royal. Yet why i am i saying that a ninja raided my house? really why would stoop to such a level unless I had had stole songs from me titled and well written. Either i do and have a hate for alcohol so much it didn't make sense in the confines of a bar that day or walking into a pub is too weird with left written song notes many title other just a wonderous hook lines. Created to joke the slang and letter parasitic tongues of common man too join in the caper. Either this is true and will for ever be the fact of someone weird little guys imagination that you rescued the world from the greatness i am and that its blessed to now have him and mega rich lying arguing that their some how rightly credited for songs and infact its the pinocle of there careers the respect their have for them. It would doubt if their they spend half there time staring trying too prove a lying inept misrepresenting, obese contract on msn that it was a great idea to share them on-line and did everyone a favour and hope to prove him as a great soldier of society. When in fact this little hypocrite does nothing more than watch the film stars while staring at this laptop while his girl watches TV.
Weren't these song stolen and dissected discreetly to insult me

These songs are stole Drug Don't Work, The Fear, The Climb , Fight for this love, Love story and I hear voice in my head. All written in after breakdancing partying and sex with a child who had assuming when writing in other notes i assumed had a child.. I say stole yet shared and forgot would be better synapses. Help is defined in the dictionary as assisting some achieve their goals or helping yourself which is defined as stealing. Since the notes i have never seen since and were written in 2002. I feel like that lines of theses of what i can now obtain are being used to insult in ever day life. The fact i once meant and wrote them does not mean any use is the context i wrote them or willing console the use of therefore.
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

con seems to be going with what i said. he's taking it all holistically. that approach by its very nature is vague. he focuses on the bible. that is fair. but what it means to follow Jesus based on the bible is not clear, necessarily. nor the threshhold therein. surely it cannot be said that all who try to follow the bible will be saved. there's more to it than that. in fact, it could surely be said that not just those who proactively follow the bible will be saved, cause there's some christians who do not have bibles, or those who were christian before the bible became official. so again, it seems con is basically agreeing with me. does he see it that way that he agrees with me?
required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear

As a Christians, salvation is hinged based on the Bible. Not what one man says, not a personal interpretation. One can not simply take one verse and assume that is the requirement. One must read the entire Bible and understand the requirements as a whole, not a snap shot. Must one recognize that Christ is the only living God, Yes. But is that where you stop? Not according to the Bible. The bible also mentions that one must repent, be born of the water (i.e. baptism) and the Spirit (the holy ghost). In fact the bible says that unless you have been born of the water and the spirit you can't enter into the kingdom of God. In the book of Acts, chapter two, verse 38, Peter tells the crowd that they must repent, be baptized in Jesus name and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. A mans opinion on whether or not that seems like to much or not is irrelevant because that is what the Bible says and there fore should be followed. Just because human nature says "well that's to much of a sacrifice" that doesn't change what is in the word.