BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I know I exist

Everything you just said does not pertain to my argument. For the first lines, we aren't debating whether it is possible we do exist, we are debating the possibility that we don't, so talking about possibilities is my job, not yours. For the second lines, I specifically put exist in quotations to represent the.fact that it might not be what we call existence. So the line of reasoning is still yet to have shown flaws. The question was I know I exist. So my job is to prove the possibility of nonexistentance, not the other way around. So please attempt to prove there is no possibility of us not existing. Or stop this argument and create a new one that has the question you want.
Women have the right to have an abortion.

Yes, human life is dear to everyone and hopefully cherished, but abortion is not killing an infant. The so called "baby" is called a fetus, which is just another part of a woman's body. A fetus is going to become a human being, it is not a human yet. And by law a fetus is not a baby until it is out of the mother's womb and has it's first breath(with help or not). Abortion, is just a women getting rid of a part of her body, like and appendix, but what people don't realize is that people who get abortions are setting the future to what is going to be, and people against abortions are living in the "what could have been" times. Also, abortion is not always about the unwanted child, but sometimes about the unwanted pregnancy. Some women were raped and got pregnant because of it and just wanted to get rid of the thought. Is that so wrong? Plus, some of the women who get abortions are mainly teens, drinkers, druggies, and abusive women. Would not it be better if the future child was not born if it's mother was to young to take care of it? Or if it is going to end up abused, raped, murdered, or traveling between foster homes. Wouldn't it be better if that kid wasn't born to have a terrible future? Although, women usually know what they are getting into before they get pregnant, it is their choice, and their choice alone it they wants to, or are going to have the baby.
Women have the right to have an abortion.

Well, to introduce my views, I will not be using anything quoted from religion or from the Bible, and I myself am not religious in any way. I hope we can have an exciting debate. My first point, is the universally accepted sanctity of life. I am sure we can all agree that life on this planet, humans more so than any, is protected and cherished. Murder, any kind of abrupt end to a life is universally frowned upon as a heinous crime. The biggest argument against acceptance of aborting births, is the fact the living, growing human embryo inside the woman's body is a human life. No matter whether or not it cannot voice it's own defense, and is spoken for by the mother, it is a protected human life. To show this, I will use a bit of science. I am sure we all know, humans have forty six chromosomes, sometimes forty seven. Now, the separate sperm and egg that come together to form the human embryo contain twenty three chromosomes. Now, any trained genetic scientist could look at these two entities and see they are clearly a sperm and embryo through the chromosome count. However, they could not differentiate between a full grown human being and an embryo. Clear proof that the life, whether it is a developing embryo or a grown individual, have the same rights as human beings. Surely it would be a crime to kill the grown individual? By inference, it would also be a crime to "abort" the developing child and end it's life, sadly before it even got to see the bright of the world. Now, to say that a woman has a right over her own body, I do not deny it. But when a human life is the subject of the question, it is still, a heinous act to condemn that child to a death before it was even properly born. It is comparable to a woman claiming rights over a born child and killing it because it is her's, and only that. Would anyone not object? That will be my opening statement. An embryo is essentially a human being, and to end that life is akin to murder of a full grown individual.
Women have the right to have an abortion.

The argument that a fetus is going to become a human being and is not actually a human yet is simply ludicrous. You compared a fetus to an appendix. This is an outlandish comparison, as an appendix is a useless part of the human anatomy, while a fetus is the development stage of a conscious being. My first point is one Reagan already, although unforuntely, pointed out. From the moment of it's conception, a fetus has certain traits that would define it as a person. Among these are the chromosome count, and genetic differentation from it's mother and father. It should be unquestionable whether it is a human being or not. And do back this up with a legal standpoint, I would like the point out the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. This decision effectively characterizes a fetus as a legal victim, and by this decision, it can be inferred that it has the rights of an individual. Also, if you look at this law, you can see another peculiar fact. Although the bill lacks this particularly important inference, if you can prosecute an external offender for killing the unborn child, should you not also be able to persecute the mother of the child for consciously ending the child's life? Also, the long standing position of the American Convention of Human Rights, upheld since 1978, states that: "Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception." Obviously, this points to the bare fact that a human fetus, does esentially deserve rights. On the topic of the state of the woman having the baby, surely it is a commonly known fact that there is no shortage of families looking to adopt a child. Yes, the psychological stress induced by this decision will hurt, but will it not be equal or greater stress if you kill the child? I can concede that we need to provide euthenasia for children that will be at a disadvantage or will endure a particularly stressful life, such as someone born with AIDS, a terminal disease, or born out of incest or rape. These certain cases are dealt with under the realm of euthenasia, merciful ending of life. However, this does not excuse the thousands of healthy woman who do not fall under this category. Instead of killing unneccessarily by instituting abortions, howabout we give alternate options and more guidance to these young women that are "mainly teens, drinkers, druggies, and abusive women." Why do these women have children in the first place? We need to provide more guidance as parents and as a society than let this happen. However, when it does happen, it happens consciously and these women are considered adults because they are presumed to be responsible with their bodies. If you think you have rights over your body, surely you have the responsbility to decide whether or not you have want to have a baby or not. The burden falls upon the mother, and abortion is unneccessary if you had that responsibility. However, there are many other options preferable to infancide if you STILL manage to make a mistake.
use of electronic devices

There might be a point in what you are saying and i wouldn't disagree with you on the fact that we would be called fools if we don't know how to use technology , but it shouldn't be like that it should be people who know how to do things without the help of technology that should be called smart. I mean look at young people that can't even solve a simple math equation without the help of a calculator or those who can't do an English assignment with out Google. These are the ones who should be called fools. ever since the birth of technology humans have stopped useing there brains and soon no one will even know what the answer of 2*2 without a calculator. I know that i wouldn't be able to debate on Debate.org without my laptop, and i didn't say that people should totally stop the use of technology , but i said that they should lessen it. You too have a nice day :D
use of electronic devices

I somewhat agree your Point of view. I also agree that it spoiled Social life somewhat.But our Technological Deed will not get over and some people like you hate this.If you speak about "How much technology is too much?" I will say it depends on you and how you use them.There is no such correct answer to this Question its like asking what is answer of 1/0 in Numbers.Tekno-Geeks have every second of tech in thier life. But we never need so much of tech. But we cant be Devloped without this technology.Today you can become more Curious with the Help of technology. Regarding your Ancestors view umm I think they might have adjust but today we call them fool because we are more devloped now tommrow will call us Fool becuase they will be more devloped. Technology has won the Human brain.Ahwithout technology or Electronic Device you cant even debate on Debate.org SO think about it. If you dont wanna use technology dont use and Enjoy your life because "YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE". If you wanna use Tech GUYS use it properly. its just superstion about AncestorsHave a Nice Day
use of electronic devices

TECHNOLOGY HURT US MORE THAN IT HELPED US. It might be true that technology made our lives bit easier but not so much that we'd give up our health and social life to it. Ages ago when there was no technology people had a very healthy life and did not suffer from diseases like cancer, sight shortage, obesity , and brain tumor. Not only has it causes deadly diseases but it also entered our houses and destroyed our social lives , ever since play stations and Xbox and things like that came out people rarely went out and would rather spent there time playing games from electronic devices which cause them to not talk a lot with their family members or friends and make them also spend long hours in font of these devices which sends a lot of negative waves and radiations to their bodies. Holding up the iPad forces wrist- and finger-extension, leading to repetitive strain injuries (RSIs),Laying the iPad flat forces you to lower your head, which strains the neck. Technology has also cause many mental illnesses for children who get neglected by techno-addict parents which makes their children grow up and have fear of connecting with other people because they spent their entire life in an environment which caused them to be like that. The largely ignored question of "How much technology is too much?" doesn"t seem to get a lot of attention these days, as we simply just don"t have time to think about it! For parents, being busy and plugged in 24/7, is now the norm. Plugging children in 24/7 has recently caught the eye of the technology giants, with creation of kiddie iPods, video games and infant and toddler TV. Gone are the days of families relaxing making meals, reading books, and playing card and board games. Now families have a TV in every room and in every car! What is most disturbing is not that people seem unaware of the detrimental effects of technology on child development, but that they don"t seem to care. We are just all so busy, we"ve forgotten what children need to be physically and mentally well. To put it simply i don't think that there is any one who out there who is ready to let go of their health, family, and friends just so that they could spend time playing games and watching films.
use of electronic devices

Technology has taken over our live people nowadays can not function with out having electronic devices with them. Technology has lead to the invention of numerous weapons that have lead to the deaths of nearly a billion people over our history (A-bomb, automatic rifle, sword and shield). Not only that but we humans have become way too independent on technology that we no longer can go to libraries and search on whatever we want instead we laze around and simply pick a computer and search up anything that we want. Also it can cause serious health problems as the automobile has slowly progressed so has its fuel. The formula for gasoline has changed several times, one of the most harmful was a gasoline mixture with beryllium in it with has been proven to cause cancer.
use of electronic devices

Oh well not every one is like you. some rely just too much on technology that they can no longer function buy there own brains. And i think that you were kinna mistaken when you said "people should misuse the Tech" cause that totally contradicts what you said earlier. My point from the whole thing is that if people would actually realize how bad the frequent use of technology is on their health and body they would definitely stop using it like it was a drug. and i never said that people should stop using technology, because technology is definitely very useful in many other ways. but if technology comes first before your health then be it i wouldn't try to stop anyone but i would just bring them into the light of how dangerous technology could get.
use of electronic devices

I know.... I should disagree you but as I said it depends upon the person. I am a heavy tekno-Geek.. but I can calculate heavy equations and also find Roots, Logs, Intergration without Calculator. I have done all my assingments without googling. Because I have knowlegde. If a person is curious he can do everthing. But this would be possible if there was no google. But you can also see me 12x7 online rest time sleeping.. I conclude that this thing depents upon person to person. But people should misuse the Tech..Thanks
You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans

Well, this turned into nothing. My basic argument was going to be that because bankruptcy is a risk that the company will not get their investment back, removing that risk reduces the overall risk. Lower risk equates to lower rates. Lower rates equate to more people being able to afford. When colleges can choose between more people, they can choose better people, and thus have better success and better help the future economy. Though, since my opponent never presented an argument to work from, I am not putting any effort into this. Voters can decide if I should get a win, or just keep this tied. Either way.
Death Penalty

In this debate, there was really no arguments. My opponent brought in events that have happened in her country Denmark, but has failed to provide reasons of why the Death Penalty shouldn't be used. While I brought in a few reasons of why the Death Penalty should be used, yet my opponent has failed to Rebuttal against them. This means my opponent "dropped" the debate. In the end, this was really not a great debate but more opinionated on my opponents side. I attempted to debate, but my opponent has failed to continue on the debate, instead; giving her opinion on situations.
Death Penalty

My opponent completely ignores my previous argument. I stted that if we tweak Death Row, things would be resolved. In this round, my opponent really did not argue why the Death Penalty should not be used, but instead talked about her policies within Denmark. My opponent also quotes this statement: "Maybe you should treat your prisoners better, so that they don't do crimes after released". That is why the Death Penalty is useful because it doesn't release prisoners, when they are already dead. My opponent brings up gun control, but that isn't the topic we are discussing. We are debating about the usage of the Death Penalty or not, and we are not getting anywhere really.Just because you state that it works in Denmark doesn't mean it will work for the U.S.
Death Penalty

I doubt that is true. In Denmark there is no death penalty. Studies show that in America two thirds of released prisoners return to prison again (source: http://www.crimeinamerica.net...) In Denmark one third of released prisoners return to prison (source: http://www.b.dk...) Why? Maybe we need to look at the difference between american and danish prisons. A prisoner in Denmark is given an education. They are forced to take some sort of educative courses that can help them make a better life once out. They receive therapy, and when they are out they are not treated like criminals anymore, they are INSURED a job. I believe this is a why there are so few returning to prison in Denmark compared to elsewhere. Maybe you should treat your prisoners better, so that they don't do crimes after released, that would probably lower the murders in your country. And you seemed to defend your gun law, I just want to say there are on average 17,000 murders committed every year in the states (source: http://www.disastercenter.com...) 9,000 of them are caused by gun. (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...) I doubt killing people is gonna end the mass murder that happens every day in America.
Death Penalty

To answer my opponents question, yes I am American; but that should not matter with this debate. My opponent brought up a statistic about the U.S being the highest prison population around the world. I will agree that the number needs to be reduced, but there are other ways to reduce that number besides the Death Penalty. The number of prisoners is mainly because of the amount of drug busts made for individuals having an ounce of marijuana. To support this claim, stated under "Almost Half Of Federal Prisoners Held For Drug Crimes" (1), it states: "Although the overall U.S. prison population declined slightly in 2011, the federal prison population continued to rise, with rates of drug and immigration offenders that eclipse those held for violent crimes. While only 8 percent of federal prisoners were sentenced for violent crimes in 2011, almost half of federal inmates – 48 percent – were in prison for drug crimes". I am for the Death Penalty for Murderers and Rapists, but not for simple drug usage.Focusing on the topic though, the reason why we need the Death Penalty is to gain a profit from it and deter crime. How my opponent may ask? The system known as "Death Row" needs to be tweaked to gain the benefits of the Death Penalty. Voters, Death Row is simply the inmates who wait in a certain cell until their execution take place. After the criminal is sentenced to Death Penalty, instead of a more instantaneous death; it is a long drawn process of trying to prove that the criminal isn't guilt even though most of the time, they are. With the tweaking of Death Row, by making it more instant, we will actually save money from paying taxes to waiting inmates about to come into death (2).Also it will deter crime because stated under "Do More Executions mean Fewer Murders" (3), it states: "What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the past half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument: whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer". They once more refer back to the issue of Death Row, and if it was fixed; the results would be more easily noticable.I wait for my opponents argument.Sources:1. http://thinkprogress.org...2. http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu...3. http://www.seattletimes.com...
Death Penalty

From your profile where you say you are more republican than you are a democrat, I'm gonna go ahead and assume you are American. The states have a lot of prisoners. For every 100,000 people there are over 700 prisoners (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk...) I am danish, and over here there are FOUR prisoners for every 100,000 (I'll give you sources if you wish, however they are in danish) I don't think the solution for your overpopulated prisons is to kill them, maybe you should reduce them by changing your attitude towards your lack of gun control, and other things.
Death Penalty

I accept the challenge for this debate. For this round, I wish to Rebuttal a statement that my opponent said which was "I don't feel like death is the optimal punishment for an unforgivable crime". First off, we are a country of being just within society. The term "just" being defined as: "Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair". In a government for delivering justice, we must be fair and morally right to the criminal and is best just to kill them instead of overpopulating our prisons, or paying more taxes for that individual to partake within society.However, the idea between which one is right or wrong is still up to debate.
Acquiring the Puritan Work Ethic

There is a 1,000 character limit--BOP = 100% Pro's. The main contention espoused by Pro is the Puritan work ethic was the driving force behind economic growth and innovation. This is false. Even though Pro decided not to provide a shred of evidence for claims made, Con will. It was not the Puritan work ethic that transformed America but the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution transformed everything and involved innovation, manipulation of natural resources, taking place roughly at the end of the nineteenth century. Because of the character limit I will simply try to make my point using pictures, I apologize to voters but there is not any more space to make other arguments. Finally, I would state that Con should receive points for conduct (Pro’s forfeiture), argument (undermined Pro and provided alternative explanation), and evidence (used to advance my own argument and refute Pro’s even though I could have dismissed it without evidence since Pro made it without evidence).
Acquiring the Puritan Work Ethic

Pro’s argument is that America is founded exclusively on the Puritan work ethic. This is a dubious claim First, it assumes on its face that this was universal. But the Puritan work ethic only applied to the northeast during the colonial period. The reason this is true is because once the country was actually founded, most immigrants came through the northeast since it was a more immigrant friendly region where upward mobility was meaningful. And most of the immigrants that came, came from diverse backgrounds, including the Irish who were Catholic and thus could not have be Puritans, therefore could not be said to subscribe to the idea of a Puritan work ethic. Moreover, the southern part of the United States was more Anglican (white population) at the time of the founding, thus were did not subscribe to the Puritan work ethic, since Puritans were Calvinists. Slaves, which came from every section of Africa were not Christian but continued to hold to their traditional religious beliefs.
Acquiring the Puritan Work Ethic

Over two hundred years ago, America was founded on principles that have changed over the course of these many years. The Puritans had a way of living that was based off of the bible, and that contained morally strong work ethics. However, after a long period of time and in insurmountable amount of changes done within our society, Americans have lost majority of these principles. This has lead to the suffering of the attitude the United States holds against hard work. This lack of hard work has caused a huge amount of dysfunction in America, and the best way to resolve it would be to install America with a strong sense of hard work based off of the Puritan work ethic.
MDMA is an acceptable substitute for PTSD sufferers.

You are correct in that the sample size of patients used for the data in my claim is small. The number is about 880 patients have undergone some type of MDMA-related psychotherapy. While this is a potential issue, the only way to find out the true long term affects is to increase the sample size, and test on more patients. As for your second point about SSRI's being an effective treatment for the symptoms of PTSD, I would agree that this is the case, and it is why we have continued to use SSRI's as a treatment. However, I would argue that the potential benefits outweigh the risks, and it is a necessary step in finding out how to cure PTSD. All in all a good debate for 3 rounds. Thank's very much for the discussion.