BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

I'll be responding to my opponent's round one arguments. First, as established in my round one arguments, an unborn baby has no right to life, because its life is a potential future good, not something that can be taken away. Second, my opponent says that abortions are dangerous for the women. This is sometimes true, but he brings up the fact that it's because abortions are performed in poor sanitary conditions. Legal abortions are always performed in safe, clean conditions. Banning abortions would just lead to all those abortions being self-administered or performed in unsafe places by unregistered surgeons. The main safeguard against unsafe abortion is regulation. He also says abortions are very expensive. Again, this is only exacerbated by banning abortions. The free market will charge the maximum possible for abortions, health insurance won't pay for abortions, and safe abortions will only be available to the rich, who pay off illegal doctors. Third, he provides the alternative of putting the child up for adoption, but with orphanages already full, we don't need more unwanted children Since my opponent hasn't responded, my previous points are still true.
Abortion

I'll be refuting not only my opponents premise that he delivered in round one, which is all that I have to refute to win the debate, but the entire topic itself, along with the idea of personhood before birth. Starting with my opponent's premise: He posits that people who have been raped should not have the option to abort. This is an unacceptable concept. First, because we make the victim suffer not only the atrocity of rape, but be continually reminded every second of every day that she is pregnant with the seed of her rapist. This kind of psychological torture is not something that a government should force on its women after being raped. Secondly, whether you believe that rape is an expression of sexual urges or an exertion of power, forcing the victim to keep the fetus is a symbolic and real victory for the rapist. If the rapists motive is sexual desire, his motive is realized when the victim gives birth to his baby, because the root of sexual desire is reproduction. If his motive is exerting power over his victim, forcing the victim to keep his child literally inside of her is so emotionally scarring to the victim, and is thus an ultimate display of power. We can't prolong the suffering caused by a rape, and we can't let rapists realize their motives, so abortion must be allowed, at the very minimum in the case of rape. Keep in mind, refuting this is sufficient for a vote in the affirmative, because my opponent sets up his own burden of proof in round 1 to show ALL abortion is wrong. Moving on to affirming for abortion in any and all circumstances: My opponent's case rests on the idea that an unborn baby deserves the title of a person, and the rights and protections thereof. Thus, proving that an unborn baby does not qualify a reasonable definition of a person is sufficient to take down their entire case against abortion. In order to be a person, an entity must recognize their own existence and the implications thereof. Brain development is a very slow process, and the evidence shows that the human brain does not fully develop until late adolescence. Now, this doesn't mean it's ok to go around killing tweens because their brains aren't fully developed, but it is very unlikely that a fetus can recognize their own existence, far less the implications thereof. The fact that a fetus shares the genetic makeup with most people does not mean it is philosophically speaking a person. We kill animals for food, and animals are clearly more intelligent than a late term fetus, which can't experience fear, love, emotion, suffering, or survive outside of huge amounts of medical attention. My opponents answer to this would be that even if the fetus isn't a person, we take away its chance to become a person in the future, but the issue with this argumentation is that a non-person entity can't own a chance to become a person, can't have dreams of what it will do once it is a person, and, crucially, can't suffer because we take that chance away. I'll be rebutting my opponents round one arguments in the second round. Thank you for reading.
Abortion

I think most people are for abortion because they believe the woman should be able to exercise her right of choice but I believe abortion is taking the right to live from the unborn baby. Also, many women are endangered by abortions, not all abortions are handled in a manner that is both sanitary and done by a professional. Abortions can be very expensive, which causes some women to seek services wherever possible. There has been several cases of women dying, becoming sterile from a botched abortion, or ending up in the hospital with further complications. I don't understand why a women would want to abort her unborn child as well as put herself at risk when adoption can give her what she wants with less risk, by putting up her child for adoption she can abort the baby out of her life with less risk and without aborting the baby from life itself.
My solution to reduce obesity and overweight is the best.

Hello thank you for accepting. "Threadmills powering the gym? Depending on the size of the gym, you'd need at least 10 people running at a time to keep the lights on if it's as big as a school gym. It'll be a complex set up for sure, as you have to make the threadmills able to turn the gears or whatever with an average person's leg power, but if the gears are attached too tight, it can't be turned. If the gears are attached too lightly, there won't be any power. So how exactly would you go about connecting the threadmills to the lights? Don't forget about air conditioning; I certainly won't work out in the heat!" The thing is the treadmills will be connected to a device that converts calories to energy. The output will be 700 watts a minute or 7 good light bulbs each person. This way with 10 people we can have 70 good light bulbs be turned. The device will be connected on a generator connected to the lights. Thus we are powering up the gym with kinetic energy. How is kidnapping overweight people justified. Well kidnapping people is defined as carrying people to one location with force. We are not simply holding them at gunpoint. We are merely just peacefully take them at night when there are sleeping. Now the second part of it is that overweight people need a simple push to make them lose weight. There was a survey done in obese Dallas country. They found that 14% of African Americans want to lose weight. 11% of Hispanics want to lose weight. And only 2 percent of whites want to lose weight. In another survey 51% of adults wants to lose weight. But only 25% percent say they seriously wanna pursue that goal. We are not making overweight people "slaves". Slave means your the legal property of another and forced to obey the person. No we are not enslaving them. They are powering the gym while working out. Once they exercise properly and in the time frame. They go back to there homes. Than we repeat the process until they are at there healthy body mass index. Sources and cites: https://engineering.mit.edu... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.reuters.com... http://www.gallup.com... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
My solution to reduce obesity and overweight is the best.

Last time I checked, kidnapping is illegal. For your plan to work, you'd have to convince the government to allow you to steal overweight people. And I don't know is exercise and vegetables are that effective.Threadmills powering the gym? Depending on the size of the gym, you'd need at least 10 people running at a time to keep the lights on if it's as big as a school gym. It'll be a complex set up for sure, as you have to make the threadmills able to turn the gears or whatever with an average person's leg power, but if the gears are attached too tight, it can't be turned. If the gears are attached too lightly, there won't be any power. So how exactly would you go about connecting the threadmills to the lights? Don't forget about air conditioning; I certainly won't work out in the heat!Also, considering you're kidnapping, then enslaving people to work out just because they're overweight... that kind of reminds me of what they did way back then, which slavery is now illegal as it ignores our human rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.If you want your plan to be set in place, you need to show 1) How kidnapping of overweights if justified, 2) How the enslaving of overweights to power your gym is justified, 3) How the gym's power system is set up, and 4) How effective this plan would be.I'll do some research on the subject of weight loss. I normally go easy on new people, but I think you're oversimplifying the universe a bit.
My solution to reduce obesity and overweight is the best.

We construct a gym. There we will have treadmills,wheels,weights,etc. We find people who are obese or overweight by using the BMI (Body Mass Index). Than we use the dark of the night,and kidnap those peoples. Than we put them in the gym and force them to lose weight. We forcefully make them eat healthy foods. The treadmills and wheels will power the gym by using kinetic energy. Thus saving money. Than we sell the excess energy surplus to the country to make money to make the gym better. In conclusion we reduced obesity,and found a way to cover the cost and expenses of the gym.
America should divide(pro) or develop a method of cutting down on the bipartisanship(con).

I wish he had not have forfeited. I wanted to see his final points. Vote Pro, I have successfully given a way of reducing bipartisanship and bettering every region of the United States. My opponent has offered no ideas for dealing with bipartisanship other than waiting for another 9/11. My method: Everyone gets what they want. The nations all look the same throughout. Less social conflict with people a thousand miles away. His method: We wait to be attacked(which he basically called impossible due to our amazing national security). We wait for lives to be lost. And, until then, we suffer from increasing national debt, extreme bipartisanship, and many social issues that could be resolved with my plan.
America should divide(pro) or develop a method of cutting down on the bipartisanship(con).

I will start with a response to your thinking. For the most part, your issues are one particular point, not the thinking of an entire political party. Look at civil rights, all that appealed to was how the people thought black people should be treated. It did not affect a person's views on taxes at all. Again, your solution of waiting for an American disaster for nationality to come is temporary and risky. How long until one of the countries you are waiting on to threaten us comes out and starts to bomb us. I do not want to take this risk. In addition, your claim about a loss of nationality is not necessarily(I only say not necessarily because there is no evidence to support my claim because America has not done what I am proposing anytime recently) true. The people of country A would experience nationality out of pride of being in A. Your claim of how the split cannot happen peacefully is again, not necessarily true. A state or regions support of the military can be reflected in the number of volunteers for the military. My plan would give all of the countries military based on their support of it. In addition, places with more bases have more volunteers, this helps my point. Most of your argument against my plan is about the level of conflict. However, I have explained to you that this is not true. In addition, why would B want to pick a fight with A because A has more military. This just does not even seem right. I am aware that it would take about ten years for the nations get situated and start functioning efficiently. In this time, the governments can develop the military as they see fit, adopt national policies, and adopt systems of taxing. Now I will offer my views on my opinion. Your plan on national catastrophes may rebuild nationalism some and make more people fight for a particular cause, however, it does not affect the views of the entire political party. Views on starting a war with the middle east will not affect views on gays or guns. My method affects the party as a whole. My plan affects all nations politically and socially. My plan affects the entire parties. My plan is more permanent. My plan limits, if not ends, bipartisanship. At this point I will wait for a response.
America should divide(pro) or develop a method of cutting down on the bipartisanship(con).

I believe America should split as follows: A. GA, TN, AL, MS, FL, SC, NC, WV, VA, LA, KY, TX, OK, IN B. New England, IL, D.C., MN, WI, MI, C. KA, Nebraska, Iowa, ND, SD, MO, AK, Montana, Idaho, Utah D. CA, NV, AR, NM, OR, WA, Alaska and Hawaii will go to whoever will have them 1. The split is peaceful 2. If my opponent wishes for a state to change location, that state must be touching another state in the country you select for it...ie California can not be in nation B. 3. Moving to a different nation is an option for the first six months of enactment For the debate we will assume twenty to thirty percent move into a nation that would match that family's political affiliation 4. The debt is split up according to the percentage of the population in each location...Ex B has 50% of the population...It gets 50% of the debt 5.The military is split up based on where the most volunteers come from...Ex. A has 45%(just hypothetical) of the military volunteers, it gets 45% of the military. In other words, the soldiers return to their home states but A would get 45% of the planes and boats(based on monetary value). Note: Burden of proof is shared. I must prove that the split is good and con must provide a method of cutting down bipartisanship while keeping the nation together. Both should disagree with each other each round. Also, the plan given should provide solutions to both economic and political problems. Round 1 for my opponent will just be mentioning what his or her method is without any disagreement because I do not have the chance to disagree with them first round. All else is fair. I would also appreciate to know which state my opponent resides in along with the political party they agree most with. Also, just out of curiosity, I would like to know my opponent's and my commentor's opinions on which of the nations would be the most successful in general. Voters should vote on which method will cut down on bipartisanship and would make the American quality of life greater.
which one is the most important in the human life -> logic vs emotions

So i will be arguing my opinions on why i believe that logic is more important than emotions. With many of the topics we see these days, like abortion, we find that many of the most ignorant people (in this example pro choice people) use the emotion argument. "Oh! It's just a fetus it's not developed". Well then, what about birth defects, should we kill those? Whenever people put a chopping block somewhere after conception, we can use the same logic for adults. For example, some people think that 1 month is the cutoff where the heart has not been developed. But what about adults in a pacemaker? We even see ignorant issues in day to day life. People always make impulsive gestures based on their emotions, never their rationality. I don't say "**** you" to someone because it's logical to, i say it because it pisses me off. That is unethical, but with logic we can determine why it's unethical. Logic does not have to unethical. I am looking forward to this debate and your arguments. Thank you!
Resolved: Civilization 4 is Superior to Civilization 5

I accept. Thank you, Con, for the opportunity to debate this topic. Thank you, readers, for your interest. I've enjoyed both games very much, and look forward to defending the latest title in this epic series.As we set out on this endeavor, I'd like to note the ambition of Pro's resolution. He didn't claim that Civ 4 is at least as good as Civ 5, but rather that it is superior. If it could be demonstrated that they are tied, then the tie would have to go to Con.Please state your case, good sir.
Resolved: Civilization 4 is Superior to Civilization 5

Acceptance of the round 2. Acceptance or disagreement with definitions 3. If definitions are disputed the CON may propose counter definitions (not refutation). I define Civilization IV (hereafter referred to as CIV4) as: "A turn-based strategy computer game released in 2005 and developed by lead designer Soren Johnson under the direction of Sid Meier and Meier's studio Firaxis Games, Including any and all expansions such as Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword and Civilization IV: Warlords" This definition is based off of this website: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
nature is designed by chaos

REBUTTAL(S)Pro said in R2: "no nature has been created so far, is true". Answer: There is a universe inside which we live. Even if that is created or not is out of the scope of our debate topic. The question is if that is designed by chaos or not, to which Pro has failed to bring even a single argument. CONCLUSIONI proved that chaos cannot design, since chaos is an unintend cause where to design is to do something with intention. Pro has failed to bring even a single argument to prove that nature is designed by chaos. In order for debate to be fair, I wouldn't comment on Pro's statements in R3. I leave it to voters to decide on that. .I want to confess that despite Pro's "strong" conduct, I enjoyed the debate. Thanks Pro for this debate!
nature is designed by chaos

I don’t know what point that is though, but thinking the worst case (forfeiture) even posting a word is something. NOTE I really wanted to make a very serious debate on this very important topic, in which I am specifically interested. But, unfortunately, since Pro has made a very short and to the point argument, which is really hard to do, I too would to make a short and to the point argument, but (try my best to make) a better one (that is the challenge of this debate). CHAOS CANNOT DESIGN Here is my argument: Chaos cannot design something, therefore nature is not designed by chaos. ELABORATION To avoid misunderstandings, let me elaborate my argument a little. Just pay attention to words “design” and “chaos”. As I gave definitions in R1 (to which according to rules Pro automatically agreed) they have opposite meanings. Let’s repeat my definitions for design and Pro’s definition for chaos: Design (n): Purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object. Design (p):Do or plan (something) with a specific purpose or intention in mind. Chaos: "any non intended cause". It is, therefore, clear that chaos cannot design something, as their definitions require. Since nature is, at least, something, then chaos cannot design it. Case Closed! This is my only argument for R2 of this debate to make a comparable argument to that of Pro.
nature is designed by chaos

I hope this debate will be a fruitful one. In order to avoid any misunderstanding or misconception let me define some important words here. DEFINITIONS[1] Nature: The universe and everything in it. Design (n): Purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object. Design (v): Do or plan (something) with a specific purpose or intention in mind. Chaos: Complete disorder and confusion. Unintended: accidental, unintentional, something that is not planned. BOP BoP is shared. Pro will prove that nature is designed by chaos. Con will prove that nature is not designed by chaos. Since Pro has brought no arguments, to make the debate fair I will too not make any argument in this round. STRUCTURE Round 1: Acceptance and rules Round 2: Arguments only Round 3: Rebuttals and Closing Arguments with no new arguments Breaking any of the above rules or forfeiture by a debater is an automatic win for his opponent. We can discuss and change any condition Pro doesn’t agree with or suggests new rules under comments section. Pro can just post his arguments if he agrees with above conditions. I wish Pro best of luck! [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
make cools guns

. . . . . --------------------------__------__-----__--------------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|-------------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|----------------------------_____|***|__|***|__|***|____----------------(_____________________)--------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|----------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|-------------------------_____|***|__|***|__|***|____----------------(_____________________)--------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|---------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|------------------------_____|***|__|***|__|***|____----------------(______________________)--------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|-------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|-------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|-------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|-------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|-------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|-------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|-------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|-------------------------------|***|----|***|---|***|-----------------________|***|__|***|__|***|__-------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|-------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|-------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|--______|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|}|}|}|}|}|}|}}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|-|______|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|}|------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|--------------------------------------|-__|------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|--------------------------------------|-|------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|---------------------------------------|-|_------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|---------------------------------------|__|------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|-\\------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|\\--\\------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|-\\--\\------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|--\\--\\------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|---\\--\\------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|----\\--\\------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|-----\\_\\_____________________------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|----________________________|------------|@#@#@#@#@#@#@#@|------------|_____________________|-----------------------------|****|------------------__--------|****|----------------_|--|_____|****|---------------|--------------------|---------------|___________|