BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The courts should be allowed to grant retrospective abortion orders

I would like to start off by saying that reading that conversation the pro listed above has got to be the funniest darn thing ive ever found on this website and even now I cant stop laughing at it when I read it. But in all seriousness the Pro is resting his case on 2 arguments. 1 is that it would bring peace to the world, the 2nd is that it would only be used on children of extreme naughtiness. As much as I despise Hitler for many reasons, Hitler only became involved in what would be the Nazi party in 1919. He was born in 1889 and his first career choice was actually to be an artist. http://en.wikipedia.org... Growing up we could assume that Hitler may have had a fascination with art and would spend his childhood time finger-painting and what not, not plotting to kill over 40 million people. This could show how even if retrospective abortion were legal, it would not have prevented Hitler from being killed and preventing a world war. Also the definition of "exceptional naughtiness" is not defined so how would it be defined and how many people could it implicate? my brother likes to use zipties to tie my foot to my a** when im asleep and when I get out of it the first thing I do is beat the cr*p out of him for doing it. Is that defined as exceptional naughtiness or is it just brotherly love? Many of the people that the Pro listed (all of whom i despise) probably did not show off their warped and devastating views of society until they had reached adulthood, so at what age limit would retrospective abortion orders be set at? Many kids who are very mischievous brats could grow up and become normal people, childhood behaviors do not guarantee grown up behavior of the same person. Ill stop here and elaborate further on later if I must, but here are some points of why retrospective abortion should not be allowed - It might not protect the world from future tyrannical people who act like normal children in their early years - This process could put to death thousands of children whose lives would not have caused the misery of millions - Childhood behavior does not foretell how they will act in the future - Many of the people who are infamous in history did not develop into who they became until adulthood - The age limit of such a law could allow people who do act evil to escape the system - Parents may try to exploit the system to have their children aborted because they could not get an abortion before. - If the children witness the parents commit a terrible crime the parents could try to use this law to silence them - Such a law could easily be considered unconstitutional, unlawful, morally unjust, etc. - If such a law were to be implemented millions of people would protest it and call for its removal - Exceptional naughtiness is not clearly defined so how could we justify the killing of children over it - Such a law could easily be considered legalized murder
The courts should be allowed to grant retrospective abortion orders

Austria, 1901. A customs official returns home to his wife.Mr Alois Hitler (for it is he): Good evening, dear.Mrs Klara Hitler (for it is she): Good evening, Alois. Nice day at work?Mr Hitler: Not really, Klara, where’s young Adolf? I can’t hear him goose-stepping around the house, barking orders at people. Is he ill?Mrs Hitler: No, I sent him to bed with no supper for being naughty.Mr Hitler: Goodness me! Now what’s the little rascal been up to?Mrs Hitler: Well, this morning he smashed down the next door neighbours’ fence and annexed their back garden. He said they are Bolshevist sympathisers and that their land rightfully belongs to our family.Mr Hitler: Oh, heavens!Mrs Hitler: And that’s not all, this afternoon I went to put the dinner in the oven and found three little Jewish boys in there. Adolf had locked them inside and turned on the gas.Mr Hitler: May the angels and ministers of grace preserve us! What on earth possessed him to do that?Mrs Hitler: Apparently, Adolf thinks all Jews are sub-human, but don’t worry, they all survived.Mr Hitler: Luckily. Even so, Adolf’s behaviour really becoming intolerable – if only you had had an abortion like I suggested.Mrs Hitler: Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, I think an abortion would have been for the best, but it’s too late to do anything about it now.Mr Hitler: Unfortunately, you are right. Even though the best thing for society would be to retrospectively terminate your pregnancy, the law would see it as infanticide and we could be prosecuted for murder.Mrs Hitler: Oh well, never mind. Perhaps his anti-social behaviour is just a phase he’s going through and that when he grows up he’ll be a kind, gentle and caring man who puts the best interests of others before his own personal ambitions.Mr Hitler: We can only hope. Although the above conversation may never have taken place, we now know that laws preventing Adolf Hitler’s parents retrospectively aborting their son ultimately cost the lives of tens of millions of innocent people during the Second World War.If the parents of Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Robert Mugabe, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and countless other evil despots, tyrants, terrorists and dictators had had the legal right to retrospectively abort their offspring, the world would be a better place.That’s why, in cases of exceptional naughtiness, parents should be able to apply for court orders to retrospectively abort their children.Thank you.
Abortion stay a legal option in the US.

The late-term abortion technique is horrific. People say abortionists crack a full-term baby's skull and remove their stuff. Abortions kill babies. Those countries are right in banning abortions. You forgot Poland as well. Also, abortion facilities transport women to hospital every now and then. FPA sent 4 patients to hospital in 5 weeks. Sources http://liveaction.org...
Abortion stay a legal option in the US.

Great. Also sorry for forgetting to add should in the title. Let's begin. What is abortion? First we must understand how abortions happen. Usually we see that abortions happen via pills or surgery, but it depends on which trimester they are in. The pills contain mifepristone which prevents progesterone from being created which makes the uterus relax, thus expelling the embryo from the body. A vacuum aspiration is used 16 weeks after birth, and it empties the contents of the uterus via a vacuum. A dilation and curettage is similar, but instead is uses a metal ring like device. These usually happen between Week 1 - 16. Dilation and Evacuation is the third and rarest option as it usually happens during the 21st week. What would happen if it was banned? Long story short, people would still do it. As many people would want one, they would still do it but by themselves with unsafe procedures. Because of this every single year 68,000 women die and over 6 million get disabilities. The WHO calls this a "preventable epidemic." Now of course this must be ignorant people, right? No. Let's take a field trip, shall we? Where are we going? Mexico, Ireland and Brazil. What they have in common is that abortions are illegal. And yet they have the same amount of abortions but they're all dangerous. Of course with everything there are exceptions such as Texas, but most just go to a place where they're legal (for the trimester they're in). How do we fix this then? [1] Better sex education Better sex education helps teens and other people how to not get pregnant (if that wasn't obvious enough). Between 1990 and 2014, sex education has improved and with it abortions. [2] Make our orphanages and foster houses safer and better. They're a mess. Many orphanages result in the child becoming poor, homeless or they commit crimes. [3] Support foster homes and encourage adoption [4] Easier access to contraceptives By doing this we can keep abortion legal, we can improve our foster homes, we can bring up our adoption rates and at the same time lower abortion rates. Sources: [1] https://www.fosterclub.com... [2] https://youtu.be...
Abortion stay a legal option in the US.

I will be arguing that abortion stay a legal option in the US nationwide. Con will be arguing that it shouldn't. As this is a fairly controversial topic, I have added 4 rounds instead of my usual 3. If you need more rounds or wish to continue the debate, please message me afterwards. If you need more room for text, you can put your argument on a Google document and have the link as your argument. I would highly suggest you use the check your spelling button before submitting your arguments. Format: Round 1 - Opening statements Round 2 - Opening arguments and rebuttals Round 3 - Rebuttals Round 4 - Rebuttals and closing statements/arguments Rules: [1] Don't troll [2] Post your sources [3] Don't use religion as justification [4] Try not to use logical fallacies [5] Stay civil Good luck con. I hope this debate will be interesting.
Abortion stay a legal option in the US.

Phoenix objects! Wrong. What happens in a 2nd trimester abortion is a D and E. That is Dilation and Evacuation. They use a weighted speculum, and then use a catheter to take the fluid out, and then crack that out. You're right, but forgot the parts BEFORE that. Late term is more horrific. They inject a killing drug, then the baby gets shot out of the woman's bum into the toilet. Wrong. Only 88 percent of abortions happen during the first trimester. At that time they do a suction aspiration D and C. They open the cervix with a speculum and use dilators to open the vagina even more. Then they use a suction vacuum to suck the baby out of the vagina and then scrape with a curette to get more parts out. Sources (1) (2) (3)
Abortion stay a legal option in the US.

You are wrong. You claim that they occur by breaking open the head. That occurs during the second trimester. 80 - 92 percent occur during the first trimester. During this time, most are aborted via medicine. So why vote pro? Con has shown little attempt at refuting my claims but instead makes more claims on why abortion is wrong. Furthermore he has shown little knowledge on how abortions actually occur, but instead uses biased sources that get stories and interviews instead of using cold hard facts. For all of the "facts" he did present, I either refuted them or the links didn't work, once again from a biased source. Please vote pro. Source: [1] https://www.cdc.gov...
Abortion stay a legal option in the US.

First I should point out that your source seems to have 404'd. Now you claim that people say abortionists crack a full term baby's head open. This, in most cases doesn't happen. Also to say "people claim" is honestly bad for your argument. People are wrong a lot of times and regarding abortion, many people don't know what really happens. In the rare case they are sent to the hospital, the abortionist failed a test or examination (ie an incident at the Annaland Planned Parenthood facility.) You also claim that abortions kill babies. I realize that. The thing is banning it doesn't work in most cases and legalizing it (and also providing better sex education) is a far better solution to stopping abortions then banning it (the same thing that happens when people try to ban drugs.)
women should obviously be allowed to wear lipstick in the workplace

I would really like to debate a Jordan Peterson fan on the classic lipstick argument put forward in an interview with vice. I can't believe this is something that even needs to be argued but I see people bring up this point again and again and never seen it adequately debunked. I argue that: 1) women should have the right to wear whatever they want in the workplace without being sexually objectified, Or harassed. 2) that lipstick is not inherently sexual - and that the desire to wear lipstick does not solely come from some subconscious desire to mimic the female sexual response or some bollocks like that.
Flag burning should be illegal on public property on U.S. soil without being sanctioned by gov't.

"To burn an American flag in protest is to burn the heritage and history of America, and is an insult to all Americans in America, which most likely includes the flag burner in question." I don't see where an insult to the government or the citizens of America warrants an arrest and amendment to the constitution. People who protest the government are thrown in jail in countries like China, or hitting more at home with America's plights, Iraq or Afghanistan. As a nation that supports and protects our free speech, our right to petition the government, the United States should surely let us exercise our ability to think for ourselves (we don't need to hold the government's hand to make decisions), we should allow our citizens to burn the flag. We should be a strong enough country to accept criticism; especially from our own citizens. My opponent brings up that burning the flag is an insult to the citizens (including the flag burner them self), heritage, and history of America. What my opponent doesn't realize is that banning the ability of an American citizen to burn a flag openly on US soil is a much greater insult. This would be a slap in the face to America's image as a free country that embraces criticism from its citizen with an open mind for change in order to fix the problems such a drastic act as burning a flag might have sparked. This would be a much bigger insult to America's first amendment. If such an amendment as making illegal flag burning were to occur, it would be the first time in American history that a citizen could purchase an item he could never legally destroy. Say a citizen has a sun-faded American flag bumper sticker, or a senator gets his American flag cake cut for his guests - what an amendment against desecrating an American flag would bring is legislation against people who desecrate the flag in "anti-American" fashions. So, the law is punishing thoughts, not acts, and this makes it a much more dreadful piece of legislation. The flag stands for the freedom each American has, including the right to burn that very symbol. What a law prohibiting its desecration would do is mandate respect for a flag. America shouldn't be a land of mandated respect. This respect would only come through the threat of imprisonment and is neither earned nor deserved. I await my opponent's defense of his only argument.
Flag burning should be illegal on public property on U.S. soil without being sanctioned by gov't.

By "flag burning," I mean the action of burning (setting fire to) an American flag. http://www.thegio.net... By "illegal," I mean "against the law." By "public property," I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org... By "U.S. soil," I mean any location within the boundaries of any of the fifty States. By "sanctioned by gov't," I mean with approval of the U.S. Federal Government for any reason. My first argument for this round: To burn an American flag in protest is to burn the heritage and history of America, and is an insult to all Americans in America, which most likely includes the flag burner in question.
Hunger Games (Pro) vs Harry Potter (Con)

For one thing, Harry Potter does not have many real world application in regards to its story because it is completely fantasy. There is no magic, no evil ruler, and no Hogwarts. Hunger Games could actually happens and serve as a way to teach people what could happen in the near future. It teaches about proper rebellion to better others' lives. It teaches that love is a struggle especially in Katniss's situation between macho and loving Gale and loyal Peeta and all that Katnis and Peeta have been through. Harry Potter does not teach those kinds of lessons but rather just tells an interesting story with none to few real world applications where as the Hunger Games can teach about love, sacrifice, a struggle to help people, and even a real possible evil future just to name a few.
Hunger Games (Pro) vs Harry Potter (Con)

No real world applications? You do realize no matter what setting or world all stories can connect to our own world through their characters and problems. We see our protagonist thrown into this world he doesn't know with all this pressure and he is unaware of what the future holds. I'm sure no one will be defeating three headed dogs and dragons any time soon but that's isn't the point it is that we connect with the characters and see ourselves in them. Take Hermione this young female character connected with so many other young girls as a smart and motivated character who's independent and became a great role model for other young girls. Hunger Games is in no way ground breaking and the characters are just so one dimensional with the bad guys just being bad guys unlike Harry potter where it gives it's bad characters deep back stories and even some humanity as well (Snape and Draco). This even goes with the good characters giving them all unique pasts and not being so perfect without a single flaw (Katniss).
Ron Swanson is better than Leslie Knope

Ron Swanson wants to support large corporates that may put smaller business out of business. Is that what you want? People out of jobs? He also supports Paunch Burger, which was one of the causes the of the high rate of obesity in Pawnee. Leslie wants the best for her people because she supports healthy decisions. Also Leslie is has alway been there for Ron because she cares about him. She helped him get over Tammy 1 and Tammy 2. I think you should state your sources because I don't trust your information.
Ron Swanson is better than Leslie Knope

What true purpose do color coded binders even serve? Organization can be good, but eventually they will just litter the Earth. Do you want to destroy this planet? ? Do you? And the public recreational spaces, as you stated, were unnecessary. He is saving taxpayer dollars and they can do what they want on their own time and not steal money from other citizens. On another note, without Ron, you wouldn't be able to criticize the other characters. The whole office is pointless without Ron, who knows them enough to keep them orderly, and unproductive enough that the rest of the government doesn't care. He helps people keep a job and not hate their work at the same time. Do you want to work hard? Didn't think so. Ron Swanson is a man of his word. As he mentioned when he was going to advertise for Snake Juice, he wouldn't never promote something he doesn't believe in. This man is just. Ron Swanson has far more notable qualities than his colleague, Leslie Knope, who is inferior to him.
Ron Swanson is better than Leslie Knope

Leslie Knope is better than Ron Swanson because she is the actual backbone of the department. She does the work Ron Swanson doesn't do because he hates the government. Also Leslie has prevented Ron from making mistakes he would regret. , like getting back together with Tammy 1 and 2 multiple times. "He has closed many unnecessary recreational spaces during his tenure, including the Portola Skate Park, the Grice Dog Run, the Morris-Easton Observatory, the Mohanga Native American Heritage Center, and most public drinking fountains. " Leslie has made Pawnee more enjoyable and would have kept the Grice Dog Run open if it wasn't for Ron. Do you hate dogs? Is that why you support Ron in being able to take down Dog runs? Ron may be able to fight bears but Leslie Knope could befriend bears with her color coded binders. Source: . http://parksandrecreation.wikia.com...
Ron Swanson is better than Leslie Knope

As this is the last round, I will say this: Leslie Knope only wants the best for her friends, which include Ron, and her town. She is willing to fight through anything to do what is right and to help her friends. Ron gets his emotions (the ones he claims not to have) in a bundle and can't think rational. Yes, Ron is number one survival guy but Leslie improves those around her for the better and isn't afraid to show emotions because it's not a weakness. Leslie does follow the rules but some are meant to be broken. For example, in season 5 episode 4 (http://parksandrecreation.wikia.com...) when the law stated that only abstinences could be taught by any public server, Leslie still taught prevention. Do you support abstinence only education? Leslie believes in the rights of the consumers but sometimes they don't understand what they are doing to themselves. Paunch burger is literally the number one way to get diabetes.
Ron Swanson is better than Leslie Knope

Ron Swanson clearly stated in the pilot, episode one, season one, "Pilot," that he believes doing things for the community and such would be a waste of taxpayer money (Source: http://www.imdb.com...) . As well as Ron Swanson wanting the taxpayers to save their money and not give it to the government, he keeps things in order. Leslie does not follow commands, and is unorderly as shown. "Ron Swanson: If you're gonna stay here, there are three rules you need to follow: One, no talk about Tammy One. Two, no talk about Ben. Three, no talk. Leslie Knope: I didn't even ask you last night: What is going on with Tammy One? Ron Swanson: You just violated rules number one and three. You lose your coffee privileges." (Dialogue found: http://www.imdb.com...) Ron Swanson believes in the rights of the consumer. As mentioned in episode 2, season two, "Soda Tax," Ron says the buyers know, or decide not to know on their own, what they are consuming and putting in their bodies. Do you want to rule other people's body? Ron has also always been there for Leslie, even when he tried to fire her. Everything he does is out of care, and a well thought out process as well as the feeling of free will. Ron Swanson knows he lives in America, and he knows he can do what he want. He is just trying to keep that value.
Technology is destroying children's education.

First of all , you're taking the word "destroy" too literal. Second you said" And you need to prove kids=education." People don't even have to pay attention to see how most of the technology these days is hurting kids education. It is AS PLAIN AS DAY to notice this. It hurts them from the way they spell to the way they speak to the way they approach different situations. Another thing you said " Nothing has proven this." Well I experience this EVERYDAY in my own classroom. How these teachers don't even know how to use these things. They go to training for it and they still don't know. So why would they(the administrators) have a person(meaning the teacher) TRY to teach us kids how to use these items and they can't even use them their selves? Also while the teacher is explaining how to use these items such as the IPad, the student are using different items and apps such as IMessage to talk to other students and the teacher doesn't even notice it. And computers may help SOME of the time, but not all of the time because most students only use the computers in school, while the teacher is watching but outside of school the students are only using the computers for entertainment. What about during the summer? Children are not using the computers during the summer for education. During the summer most kids don't learn anything NEW. VOTE PRO. Social Media is not helping us kids educationally . Not at all.
Technology is destroying children's education.

"In my opinion being. .. " Exactly. It's your opinion, not a matter-of-fact. " So yes technology is hurting us kids in the world. " And you need to prove kids=education. You have failed. " teachers barely know how to operate them to teach us. " Nothing has proven this. "So how is technology helping us in school? " One word: computers. My opponent has failed to show how technology destroys education. I have shown fire destroys education, not technology. He has failed.