BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be illegal.

First of all I do not have an ebonics to english translator on hand so please forgive me if I do not completely understand all of your poorly written arguments. Now to begin destroying your case. If crime is happening in New York why wouldn't it be happening elsewhere? You gave no evidence as to your crime statistics. I agree with your argument though that people should have a choice, so if someone is making you mad you should have the choice to kill him, right? That is exactly what abortion is. I am pro-choice because I believe the baby should have a choice. Maybe teenagers should think about the consequences of sex before showing her junk all over town. Like I said in the previous argument abortion is used to fill the agendas of selfish people. Abortion is a selfish, cowardly act of killing to make the teens life easier. It was her decision to have sex and that's what she has to live with. When you say that we are infringing on people rights you are being irrational. Are laws against murder, smoking pot, stealing money, and rape infringing on peoples rights? No they are limitations to ensure freedom for everybody. Abortion doesn't give the baby freedom. Like Johnicle said below Babies are alive whether they are out of the womb or not. If you do not vote Pro you are encouraging murder. It is sickening that anyone could resort to abortion to make their lives easy.
Abortion should be illegal.

"Abortion is killing innocent life" Your not really alive if you haven't taken a breath. So abortion is NOT killing innocent lifes Well let me show you an example why it show be legalized. Say your a woman that live by yourself and in the mid of the you get rape and become preganet with the rapist baby. Then what do you do? Have this babty that was forced upon you. Not you get an abortion. DUH. The test wasn't done for the whole US it was done in New York. Also people should have the right to choice what they want to do with the baby. People can not force you to do what you don't want to. Its morailly work but what if you have a teenage pregance then what? What need need to look at is that abortion should be pro-chioce not completely making it illegal but to make people have a choice. Also what if you do make it illegal then you are infriging on the rights of people your taking away there personal freedom - the right to think and act without government control. If you make it illegal your going agaisnt the rights of people that don't want babies. Your going against there personal freedom. Make it pro-choice not completely illegal.
Abortion should be illegal.

While the data may seem to correlate, the legalization of abortion has very little effect on crime. Has it ever occurred to you that the government and police force are taking control of the crime situation? But since you obviously don't believe the preamble that all men are created equal we might as well kill all people who have ever thought about committing a crime because that is what you are saying when you state that abortion is helpful. This is America land of the free and taking away the choice of the unborn is unconstitutional. Everyone deserves a chance and these children are not given a chance. Even if parents are not ready for a kid is adoption not a viable option? You say that most kids that grow up in "adversity" become criminals, but has everyone that's grown up in "adversity" turned down the wrong path? No they can become doctors, scientists, astronauts, firemen, policemen, activists the possibilities are endless and yes they can also become criminals, but doesn't everyone ever born have the same choice no matter what conditions they grow up in? The answer is clearly yes, but for the numerous unborn that cannot speak for themselves they will never have that chance because they are dead to fill the agenda's of selfish people who don't care for anyone else. Also when you say the crime has decreased do you count the murders committed by doctor's in order to perform an abortion? That in itself is wrong. Keep trying to justify murder, but in the end it is wrong. In your argument you say "I believe that the numbers are in 1999 2,645 murders and in 2003 it was down to around 594" which is laughably incorrect. The following data is from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... The 5.? is the murders per 100,000 and the number on the right is the number of homicides. 1999 5.7 15,522 2000 5.5 15,586 2001 5.6 16,039 2002 5.6 16,229 2003 5.7 16,582 2004 5.5 16,137 2005 5.6 16,692 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 1950-2005 As you can see the only year the numbers went down was from 2003 to 2004. These stats completely kill the case you attempted. Funny how I said I killed your case when you're the one trying to advocate killing. Abortion is wrong. Please help make it illegal. Thank you.
Abortion should be illegal.

What we must look at is the Row v.s. Wade. Will legalized abortion we are having drops in crime let me explain. According to Freakonomics: As far as crime is concerned, it turns out that not all children are born equal. Not even close. Decades of studies show that a child born into a an adverse families are more likely to become criminals the other children. And the millions of women most likely to have an abortion in the wake of the Roe v. Wade- Poor, un-married , and teenage mothers for whom illegal abortion had been to expensive or too hard to get- were often models of adversity. They were the very women whose children, if born, would have been much more likely than average to become criminals. But because Roe v. Wade, these children weren't being born. This powerful cause would have a drastic effect : years later, just as these unborn children would have entered their criminal primes, the rate of crime began to plummet. So by legalizing abortion is good, it is in fact dropping the average crime rate.I believe that the numbers are in 1999 2,645 murders and in 2003 it was down to around 594. The numbers don't lie. The crime rate is dropping.
America is not a Christian nation

Just because a nation has non-Christian groups in it doesn't mean it's not a Christian Nation. Christian principles were still practiced by the people and by the Government, and the majority of the population was Christian. Even today, most Americans claim to be Christian. My opponent quoted Thomas Jefferson, who was one of the few Deist founding fathers, along with Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and presumably a few others. While this one guy cannot speak for an entire nation (which believes differently than he does, no less), I will address this anyway. This quote seems to be basically saying this: "America was founded on the Common Law of the Anglo-Saxons. But they weren't even Christian when they set up the Common Law, so American Law is therefore not Christian." Well, I beg to differ with Mr. Jefferson. American Law may have taken elements from the Common Law, but it wasn't based wholly on that. I mean, the Anglo-Saxons had a King. They didn't have a Republic. The Magna Carta didn't really give common citizens of England more rights; mostly it gave the English Nobility more power over the affairs of running the nation. American Law is unique, and it was founded on Christianity. For instance: 1. In Ancient Israel each tribe had a leader selected by the people. That leader had jurisdiction over his own tribe. But these leaders were under the control of a central figure, which consisted of whoever was judge of Israel at that time. Israel did not have a King until Israel took matters into their own hands. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Doesn't this sound a lot like a Federal Government? 2. Deuteronomy 17:15 warns Israel not to let a foreigner rule over them. http://biblehub.com... Today, only citizens born in the United States can run for president. Here's some suggested reading that I recommend my opponent takes a look at. http://www.nccs.net... With that, I finish arguments and end this debate.
America is not a Christian nation

First of all, this clearly proves that America wasn't founded on Christianity and in response to the link you gave, my sources say that Washington was tolerant of other religions (1). America despite having Christians, also allows Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other religions to serve in office (2). Thomas Jefferson writes to Thomas Cooper: "For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." ". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." With that in mind, America is not strictly a Christian nation. Sources: 1. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu... 2. http://www.voanews.com...
America is not a Christian nation

Ah, my opponent bases his entire argument on one argument from the Founding Fathers, the Treaty of Tripoli. Well, let's take a look at the context in which this treaty was formulated. In the late 18th century, Muslim pirates from the "Barbary Coast" we're preying upon American ships. The American ships had experienced a measure of protection from pirates while they were part of England, which had a powerful navy. But when they gained their independence, the pirates realized that America was: A. No longer under the protection of any nation B. Without a Navy, or at least without a strong navy So, the Barbary Pirates thought to themselves, these American infidels would make easy targets. So, they started attacking American ships in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Finally, the Americans had enough, and they built up a Navy. Then, they took the fight to the Barbary States and defeated them. The Treaty of Tripoli was the treaty that ended hostilities between the newly formed United States of America and the nations on the Barbary Coast. So why did this treaty say, "America is not in any sense a Christian Nation"? Well, a likely interpretation is that they're telling the Barbary Pirates that America is not a Christian Theocracy like the many nations of Europe were at the time. Therefore, America would not start a religious war against the Barbary States nor any other Muslim nation. However, that treaty should not be interpreted as saying that America is not a nation founded on Christian principles and by a Christian majority. In this sense America was a "Christian Nation". Now, let's look at some other quotations from the Founding Fathers. http://christianity.about.com... I have stated my case, and I await my opponent's response.
America is not a Christian nation

According to the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11 says America was not founded as a Christian nation (1). It reads as follows: "Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,"as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],"and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." It was thus not founded on Christian principles. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
America is not a Christian nation

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Ah yes. The weapon of choice for those who deny that America was never a Christian nation. This is perhaps the most common argument used against American Exceptionalism. First of all, allow me to say that this verse was meant to prevent a Theocracy. In a Theocracy, only one religion is tolerated and/or people of one religion have special status and/or rights. I will admit that this is not the case in early America. HOWEVER, America was founded on Christian principles and America's earliest population had a Christian majority. Let's take the Founding Fathers and their religion. Despite the common misconception that the Founding Fathers were Atheists, Agnostics, and Deists, the large majority of them were members of mainstream Christian denominations. Proof: http://www.adherents.com... Also, Christians consisted of the large majority of the population of early America (I'm fairly confident that this claim does not require proof). Thank you and good luck in your next round.
America is not a Christian nation

I will state that there is no proof America has ever been established as a Christian nation. I will give evidence to support the contrary. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " were added to the Constitution, further ensuring a fully secular state with a guarantee of religious freedom for all." This is meant to be taken literally and that includes Christianity. This is why we have the separation of church and state. Surely if America is a Christian nation, it wouldn't allow this to happen. With that in mind, we can safely say that America is a melting pot of many religions, not just one.
colin leslie deans erotic poetry 2nd rank on google-that is good

I'm sorry Dean, but Google doesn't work that way. see, Google is designed to show you information that it thinks might be what you are looking for. It measures how relevant search results are to your previous searches and interests, and lays priority on results that you've already visited or content that is related to content already visited and is thus likely to be more of your interest. While this works well on a person to person basis it means that unless something is specifically sought after by many it will not appear as first choice for everyone.For instance: I've taken a screenshot of the results that came when I searched for the term "erotic poetry", both with and without quotes. I've linked them below. http://i.imgur.com...;http://i.imgur.com...As you can see, the second ranked result is Pintrest with quotes and netpoets.com. Neither of those two websites are operated by Dean. In fact, Dean isn't even on the first page of the results when I search it.The reason it is appearing on your page to begin with is because you are posting a lot of stuff on Dean. You most likely spend a large portion of your time on the press and you're often on pages where you mention the words "Dean", "poetry", "erotic". This tells google that you're interested in said poetry and will alter the results to show you those pages you are interested in.I for instance spend a lot of time on Debate.com reading debates; and in particular I've debated with you about dean often. When I googled "Dean Erotic Poetry" the top result was this debate. the second result was "is dean's poetry put down on DDO", and then finally I got Scribd. If you for some reason would give up on Dean entirly and never search nor mention him. In due time he'll vanish from your search results as google notices that you're changing taste no longer includes Dean, and because he's not generating a lot of traffic from other people he'll not manage to float to the top of the results on his own.
Rap Battle!

Look, I was gonna go easy on you and not to hurt your feelings But I'm only going to get this one chance Something's wrong, I can feel it (Six minutes, Slim Shady, you're on) Just a feeling I've got, like something's about to happen, but I don't know what If that means, what I think it means, we're in trouble, big trouble, And if he is as bananas as you say, I'm not taking any chances You were just what the doctor ordered I'm beginning to feel like a Rap God, Rap God All my people from the front to the back nod, back nod Now who thinks their arms are long enough to slap box, slap box? They said I rap like a robot, so call me Rapbot But for me to rap like a computer must be in my genes I got a laptop in my back pocket My pen'll go off when I half-cock it Got a fat knot from that rap profit Made a living and a killing off it
Rap Battle!

Hello! My name is cheesedingo1, and I am ready to rap. So anyone who would like to throw down and rap. Here are some rules to clarify: 1. You will have to video record yourself doing a rap cover of a song. It can be any song, but it has to be a cover, and we have to see yo face and such. 2. You have to pick a different artist each time. Don't act like "I'm gonna pick Lil' Wayne all three times cause he's the best rapper ever!!!!!!111!!!! OMGMOMGOMGOMG". Yeah. Don't do that. None of that. 3. You don't have to have good recording equipment or anything. This battle isn't about the quality of the sound equipment, it's about the quality of the rapping. 4. Please don't be a noob to this site. You can be a noob rapper, I know I am. In fact, it's better if you are a noob rapper so there is some actual competition. Just don't be an unknown to the site that will quit before the rappin' even starts. First round's acceptance. To whoever accepts this, I want to say thank you, and good luck.
Cloning

In conclusion i think that cloning and stem cell reasearch should not be allowed. Even with new techonology and scientests I still do not feel that we are ready for this type of thing. Many babies would die or be born with deformaties or issues. As I said earlier, life is just too important to be risking death and deformaties on babies. With stem cell research, it is taking away human life. I know some people (like you) feel that life begins at conception, but many like me, dont. I truly hope you will think it over again and change your opinion.
Cloning

I believe that cloning and more importantly stem cell research should be conducted with the utmost importance. I feel it is very important that cloning research and more importantly stem cell research be put the front line instead of disavowed by people. It can save people"s lives and make even more, better. Think of a time where no matter what life threatening disease, or deformity that you have could be treated and brought back. Why would people not want this gift, I don"t know. But at least do not ruin it for others by making a law that bans this technological breakthrough in modern medicine.
Cloning

Even with the new technology we have today, we still do not know the results of cloning on humans. Life it too valuable to risk something of this magnitude. Since there is no way to test cloning to see if it will even work on humans, other than testing it on humans, this is simply too risky. Would you risk deformities, birth defects and death on humans? On a member of your own family? Stem cell research is an ethical issue because of how the stem cells are extracted. There are many who feel that when the embryonic cells are extracted it is taking away human life. I do not believe that the potential results of stem cell research are worth taking away life. I believe that life begins at conception.
Cloning

I don"t understand how you can argue against something that would help save or preserve another persons life. Stem cells are a great part of modern medicine, I don"t understand how anyone would want to take this away from other people. This I do not feel should be forced or And your point of Dolly the sheep and how long it took her to be born. That was 1999, when this type of technology was still extremely new. It is now 2014, we have advanced ten fold since then. You also argue that it would take to long to make this workable, then you are right it could take ten years and it could take one hundred years, but if we want this to ever work then we have to pass this as a law to be allowed. And once we have enough technology then we should be able to conduct human trials. I do not feel like we have enough types of medicine nowadays to try and conduct this on humans.
Cloning

I know that you dont beleive that life doesnt begin when the first cell divides but many people do. These people do not beleive what you beilive. Also you say that the benifits are much greater and more powerful than the risks of doing this type of medicine. The benifits may be great but do you know how many innocent babies would be killed or born with deformaties and issues? A lot. Like what i said earlier it took 277 tries for a sheep to be cloned. Many were born with issues. A human it could be the same, more or less. We dont know. We cant be risking babies lives just to clone people and have them be the same. In my opinion its just stupid.
Cloning

Cloning; both therapeutic and duplications have been a major breakthrough in modern day human technology. They allow to make copies of themselves or repair limbs and catastrophic brain damage. This technology could help thousands upon thousands of human beings, we just need more money to be put into this and we could do wonders for the world. Some of the risks could be birth defects or mess ups on the genetic scale. This things will just take more time to work out. Think about it, my phone has a processing core that is more than 200 times more powerful than the first computer ever built. Like all things important it takes time and hard work. And I"m sure if we add that to some dedication, human spirit, a bit of green that we will come out successful and possibly change the world. But there is still one thing we have to overcome, that is what people believe. And now we can"t change the beliefs of the people, we can show them that it may not actually so horrible after all. One of the major ethical issues that we have today is that stem cells come from aborted fetuses. People who are religious don"t think that we should have abortions. They believe that life starts as soon as the first cell divides, I do not believe this, I feel it is wrong to think such things. In my own opinion life starts for the baby when technically could survive on its own outside the womb. Otherwise it seems like it is still just part of the mother. Another ethical issue that once again traces back to religion is the fact that people don"t feel like that we have the right to be playing god so to speak. In other words some people don"t think that should be allowed to mess around with the DNA and cells of living beings. In conclusion, I believe that stem cell and cloning research should be continued and put through at full force. I believe that the benefits are much greater and more powerful than the risks of doing this type of medicine.
Cloning

Would you want to be cloned? Or be a clone? I wouldn't. Wouldn't you rather be your own person completly different from everyone else and be yourself. FIrst off cloning takes a lot of time. It took the scientests who created dolly the sheep 277 tries! Imagine that with a human. Some succesful sheep were born before dolly but they had abnormalities and deformed body parts. Imagine that with a human many babies would die and others would be born with abnormalities and deformed limbs and body parts if they tried cloning a human. It would take scientests many long years and a lot of deaths and deformed babies to finally figure out a safe way to clone humans.