BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mankind is slowly working its way toward Utopia

Some of the information you give I can agree with and accept as true, though I have never been married, I have found that the only time I feel happy and content, is when I listen to Music or being around animals, trees and plants, and no other time, meaning no form of automation in sight, no artificial intelligence, nothing but the Open wilderness, Nature at its finest. And believe me, everything that man suffers from can be cured by the Plants that surround us in every forested area on this planet. If you can read this Link to root ginger alone. this will give you an idea how much we truly DO NOT NEED technology to improve our life's:- https://r.search.yahoo.com...- What we now need is a lot of sense, wisdom, and knowledge of the plant life that surrounds us, you will find that what I have described, is a clear case of what MUST be done! Root Ginger on its own is an amazing herb, which is just 1 of many herbs which can cure any ailment, even Cancer, like everything else, herbal remedies have limitations on what they can cure. but, when you look at the benefits of this kind of research, compared to technology, you will find that the natural resources can be constantly grown, and this is what man should really be doing, Nurturing that which will help us. Hopefully, this will show you that Nature has all the answers, and that technology is only needed to help create natural cures, not synthetic ones.
I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life.

The last round of debates are normally for closing statements ,since bring up new meterial/info can not be countered or discussed. I find it strange you made the debate 5 round when you had the power to do 4 since you started the debate ... Since you failed to adress my round 3 arguments and points I'll wait for you to do so ... Even tho it will be done in the last round
I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life.

I never said fetus I said baby Definitionof baby-a very young child, especially one newly or recently born. "his wife's just had a baby" synonyms:infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; informalrug rat; bairn; literarybabe, babe in arms, suckling; papoose.; technicalneonate "a newborn baby" Source Dictionary. Agin you said indvidules then refrenced abortion this is a debate called "I'm neither pro choice or pro life" wit a title like that then a stament why wouldn't I think you wanted to kill the newborns and since you failed to clearfy your self when making such a broad stament fault lies with you. Moving on.. You said weapons and drugs the states deem illegal would still be illegal , and rapist that use said objects would be criminalized .. That's all fine and dandy but that doesn't stop people from using the legal weapons and drugs, I personally have a pistol and 2 rifles and 3 pellet guns and a butterfly sword a samurai sword and a whole kitchen door full of very sharp and quite big knifes for various foods I also have a cabnet full of various types of alcohol, all of which is legal and could allow me or someone like me a socially awkward individual to rape someone and pass down our genetics all by our selfs you have failed to show how being pro rape is beneficial while I have clear logic on why it's detrimental to passing better genetics. I have a scenario imagin you are a busy attractive adult women and every minute of the day/night there is a chance of roughly 50% of the population trying to force them selfs on you and there's no recourse for you to take becuse it's all legal.. You have had over 10 kids your body is worn out your nerves are shot you didn't choice to have any kids and you don't realy care for kids all that much, you don't have a job becuse you don't have the time with 10 kids and if you did have a job thay would just rape you at said job giving you more kids. You have no male partner helping you raise the kids becuse can second consensual sexual activates are illegal and most males don't see the point of helping if there not obligated to and there getting nothing out the deal. So the only help your getting is from government employees who don't realy care about ur kids and just helping becuse it's there job and half the time there not in such a helpful mood becuse thay just got raped coming to work ..this scenario is not unrealistic in pro rape world your describing and ur telling me you don't see how this would negetvly effect child raising .. The resentment and daily fear that would come from being in that situation would defnatly have negative effects on kids.. The logic you tryed using in round 3 was like this since pro never lived in a world where everything was on fire. pro has no idea if more people would get burned, than that are normally burned on average ... This is flawed logic I don't have to have lived in a world on fire to know more people would get burned than if said world wasn't on fire this is called a logical conclusion .. You will need a stronger logical aregument than your round 3 rebuttal if you want to dismiss my points in round one and two
I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life.

Alright I'm not sure if Con is confused or pretending to be but I'll make something clear. No law could ever apply to a fetus as a fetus is not conscious of its decisions whatsoever. In many countries it's not even considered an individual human until the third trimester. I was clearly referring to adult humans, specifically prospective parents, in Round 1. I know that you can be raped without being assaulted. I said assault would remain illegal. Weapons and drugs that the states deems illegal would still remain totally outlawed. Any rapes assisted with these would result in the the rapist being criminalized for possession and use of contraband.I'm not sure what exactly Con is saying about bad parenting from rape victims in a society where rape is the only form of sex going on but what I can say is that since there never has been a society like this, there's no way for Con to conclusively state that they know this would happen.
I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life.

I'd like to point out my opponet pro in round one said individuals and since he said individuals in refrence to abortion I assumed he was talking about baby's and since pro failed to clarify he was talking about adults only I'd like to point out to the voters how the fault lies with Pro for failing to distinguish is thoghts when using a broad word. This is the definition of Rape-unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim. Assault-Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states. Source-Dictionary My opponet is arguing pro for rape but is confusing rape with assault. There two different things! Altho assault happens quite often with rape. You can be raped without being assaulted thru use of drugs alcohol ect.. Pro has failed to rebuttal my points based on this knowledge from round 1. I will re-arrange some of my points I maded in round one since pro belives be socially strong is more important than physically. As pointed out in round one a singal weak individual could rape countless people with a wepon or drugs and thay could do it all by them selfs so not only are the socially awkward and physicaly weak thriving with lawful rape the socially adapt and physicaly stong are being raped in there bums and being hindered. Becuse more social people will come in contact with more people hence increasing there own chances of being raped , and physicaly stronger people are more attractive overall adding to the chance of being raped. As for pros attempt to refute that raped mothers would do a worst job raising children than mothers who chose to become a parent . Saying you'll fund government programs for them and it will be normal if everone is doing it. Dosnt stop the fact a major responsibility was forced on an women who didn't want it. Wich will cause anger resentment and result in a worst upbringing than if she chose to have said baby.
I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life.

One of the issues I see with your staments on mandatory abortion , is you failed to define disfigurement a birth mark or a lump on the head could be considered disfigurement. . In which case you would be killing most baby's . I also find your stament on killing the mentally challenged disturbing since I find all baby's are mentally challenged. .. Thay can't walk or talk or write of feed them selfs or bath them selfs ect ect once agin you are killing everyone basicly ever born. . Issue two with your arguments is your legalization of rape dosnt allow the strongest to pass down there gens at a greater rate it actuly dose the opposite. With consensual sex enforced the females get to chose her partners and will more likely pick a faster stronger smarter male over one who lacks said attributes. Wile with rape enforced females have little choice and can be forced apon by weaker men in groups or with wepons , not only will this result in weaker genetics most the time but it will also result in a weaker upbringing of said child. seeing how the mother may have increased feelings of neglec and disgust with said child. Issue three I see with outlawing consensual sex is that Its an easy thing to say until your being butt raped by a group of stronger individuals rape can happen to men and women alike. . Legal rape dosnt sound so appealing with a ripped rectum now dose it? I hope I have given you enough logic to support my case and appolgize for any errors I made in spelling or punctuation/grammar. ..
Existence of Santa

Some of this is true, though I have never heard of a child getting stuck in a chimney. However, you still have not addressed the question, which is whether or not Santa exists today, here and now. I don't have anything to add to my previous argument, as you have still not refuted a single one of my points. (Incidentally, this is America. People don't need Santa to overeat.) Just a mildly personal question, are you Catholic or Orthodox? I find that people from these denominations are generally more opposed to the secular side of Christmas.
Existence of Santa

I believe Santa, as a concept, has corrupted society. There was in fact a man who founded the idea of Santa, St. Nicholas, who gave gold from his own pocket to those who needed it. He also donated countless amounts of silver an gold to his church, which he later became the priest in. I believe Santa does contribute to the Christmas spirit of giving to those who need it, but the idea of him has also amplified the complete rush for toys, which has gone from a few menial gifts to show appreciation, to a full on war for the best toys. Different people believe in different things, but the Idea of a fat man in a big red suit, landing his flying reindeer on roofs, squeezing down chimneys, and giving toys to people from his never ending sack of toys, while eating cookies, is just ridiculous. Though it does contribute to holiday fun, it also contributes to overeating, and Christmas-related accidents, such as children getting stuck in their chimneys, men in Santa suits getting drunk and thinking they are actually Santa, thefts and burglaries, and angry mall-Santas turning down children with mental issues.
Existence of Santa

I respect and, at least to an extent, agree with your argument. I am also a Christian. However, your argument has no bearing at all on the question, which is whether or not Santa exists. I believe that Santa exists. Not as a physical being, but as a concept. Historical records show that there most likely was a man who did what is attributed to Santa, bringing gifts to children. This has no bearing on his continued existence. I believe he exists because the concept of Santa Claus still shaped the actions of people. It lets parents have some holiday fun with their children, and also supplies them with a method to get children to behave.
Existence of Santa

My view on Santa Claus When I was younger, I believed in Santa, but now, I know better. Santa Claus is simply a ruse to get kids to be good, because if they are bad they will get "nothing but coal" from Santa. This is not only a lie but it has transformed Christmas from the celebration of Jesus' birth to the obsessive rush for presents. Children are spoiled, and bad parents give them everything they want. Self centered children find presents more important then the birth of Jesus. This is wrong.
prove to me god is NOT real

You have some serious problems if you wish someone to suffer forever then thank God for that. I don't hope you burn in hell for not believing in the 63,000 other religions there have been in the world. there has been no proof of god and if there is no way to prove that there is a god then everyone can say that no god exists. This debate is a waste of time and i hope nobody else wasted their time reading such a terrible debate.
prove to me god is NOT real

I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god I'm not the one making the claim. I don't have to prove anything you have to prove to me that there is a god You don't believe in invisible unicorns, and you don't need proof to tell you that.
Communism

In conclusion, The best things in life are free But you can keep 'em for the birds and bees Now give me money (that's what I want) That's what I want (that's what I want) That's what I want (that's what I want) yeah That's what I want Your loving give me a thrill, But your loving don't pay my bills Now give me money (that's what I want) That's what I want (that's what I want) That's what I want (that's what I want) yeah That's what I want Money don't get everything it's true What it don't get I can't use Now give me money (that's what I want) That's what I want (that's what I want) That's what I want (that's what I want) yeah That's what I want Well, now give me money (that's what I want) Whole lot of money (that's what I want) Whoah yeah, I wanna be free (that's what I want) Oh, money (that's what I want) That's what I want, yeah (that's what I want) That's what I want Well, now give me money (that's what I want) Whole lot of money (that's what I want, whoo) Whoah, yeah, you know I need money (that's what I want) Now give me money (that's what I want, whoo) That's what I want, yeah (that's what I want) That's what I want
Health Insurance Should Be Abolished & Health Care Covered For Only Those Who Need It

My opponent is confusing health care and health insurance. The proposal is to ban ALL health insurance, and to cover health care(notice that these are not the same things, if you have enough money you can buy health care WITHOUT health insurance) by the government for only those who need it(can't afford to foot the bill from their own money), effectively guaranteeing that all people have access to health care when they need it WITHOUT using any kind of insurance system. The proposal is NOT to provide health insurance to the select few or in fact to anybody at all. The government paying for health care is not the same thing as insurance. I propose the government NOT use an insurance model for any of the health care needs it is covering, instead using a tax-and-spend model where revenue is simply allocated to health care expenditures. Rebuttals 1. I never suggested any deliberate taking advantage of. Personal biases are active whether we acknowledge them or not. Just because the conscious intent is to "perform there best" does not mean there will be no biases involved. Currently there is documented evidence of medical overtreatment causing health problems. (http://www.cbsnews.com...) 1/5 to 1/3 of tests and treatments we get are estimated to be unnecessary, and not only that can have dangerous side effects. For example, too many CT scans increases the risk of cancer, thousands who get stents for blocked arteries should have gotten medications first, and antibiotics are often prescribed for infections they can't help. The overprescription of anti-biotics is also particularly disconcerting because it can breed superbugs. 2. "With out defining the word "need" we can then assume that my opponent was talking about anyone who feels the necessity to have a health care insurance." This is majorly removed from context. The resolution states "Health INSURANCE should be abolished & Health CARE covered For Only Those Who NEED It"(capitalization for emphasis). So it is health CARE being covered NOT health INSURANCE that is at issue here with "need". The definition is self-explanatory. A person needs their health care covered by the government if they can not afford to pay for it with their own money. 3. This is far less expensive than any kind of "insurance" scheme. Having "insurance" as the middlemen between the patient and the doctors requires a whole administration or bureaucracy to run that "insurance". It is much better for people to either pay for health care the way they normally pay for goods and services OR if they can not afford to do that then the government should pay for them directly just like they would for welfare services or highways and not through the medium of any kind of unnecessary insurance mechanism.
Health Insurance Should Be Abolished & Health Care Covered For Only Those Who Need It

Insurance is effectively gambling. Imagine if there was a casino on every street corner. The effects on society would be disastrous. Health insurance is even worse because they are betting on people's health. It is pure exploitation. The "service" of "health insurance" is only necessary, because the industry exists and puts people into a social scenario where health care prices are too high to afford services without it. 1. The system of health insurance drives up health care prices. When more people have health insurance people are more likely to turn to their doctor about anything, even when there is no real problem. This has lead to problems such as over-prescription of antibiotics. It is also easier for hospitals to charge higher prices for services when big insurance companies rather than individuals are paying the bill. The effect is to drive up prices for health care services as a whole higher than what there would be with no health insurance. 2. Some people argue we should have all health care covered by national health insurance or paid for directly by the government. However, this would stifle innovation. What good is served by having the government pay for a billoinaire's kidney dialysis. If someone can afford to pay for their own expenses they should pay for their own expenses. The government should provide a social safety net for when people can not afford to pay their own health care expenses. Compassion demands that people not have to declare bankruptcy or worse yet just die simply because they do not have the money to afford health care services. With health insurance illegal and the government covering health care services only when a person can not afford to pay out of their own money the general costs of health care services would go down.
Americans are ruled by the "Tyranny of Popular Opinion".

First I will post a few definitions I will use throughout the round. All from www.m-w.com rule-to exercise control over especially by curbing or restraining tyranny- oppressive power especially oppressive power exerted by government Although many people's opinions are swayed by the popular opinion, that opinion is neither tyrannical, nor oppressive. The opinion does not rule, restrain, or curb, and the only power that these opinions have is the power to influence. You have yet to prove that opinions rule Americans, in fact you have shown evidence otherwise. Your argument with the christian girl shows that you were not swayed by her christian views, nor her by your views. If popular opinion were truly ruling we would all be exactly the same, or as close as possible.
Americans are ruled by the "Tyranny of Popular Opinion".

Americans are ruled by popular opinion. We talk a lot and understand little. For Example: Music Some people think rap is bad, others think rap is good. Ask a person why they think rap is bad or good and they will find it difficult to explain themselves, or, at best, they will give vague and superficial explanations. Granted that opinion has existed for ages, we Americans have taken it to a new level. We live for our opinions and love our bias. We have taken it so far that we are afraid of truth. Why is this? It is very simple, we care more about what other people think of us then ourselves. I recently got into a debate with a so-called devout Christian. At the end I proclaimed that Christianity is the worst religion to see her reaction. She said you don't know that. I then said God is fake. She screamed that's not true. I asked why. She yelled you have to have faith. I could have kept going but I would have received more of these "quick-exit" answers. Her screaming and yelling, along with her answers, told me all I needed to know. She dedicated her life to Christianity without knowing why. These are our times. This is America. Dedication without Explanation.
if both healthy baby and endangerd mother can be saved... baby should not be allowed to be aborted

But what reason is there for this contention that the mother must deliver the baby? Perhaps the mother does not realize that she is pregnant until late in the pregnancy? Must she carry out this pregnancy even if she will be forced to stop working because of her pregnancy? There is no moral reason why she should carry out the pregnancy if it would cause her inconvenience. A baby is not a human being until birth.
if both healthy baby and endangerd mother can be saved... baby should not be allowed to be aborted

if we're talking about a later term baby, as i said in my hypothetical, then the mother had plenty of time to abort back when the issue was more morally and legally debatable. stress the morally part. also, just because you, and me, agree that women should be able to abort when it's a rape (only for me, i think it has to be earlier), that doesn't mean it's illogical for someone else to disagree. they simply have different values.
if both healthy baby and endangerd mother can be saved... baby should not be allowed to be aborted

Your argument fails to acknowledge the fact that carrying a pregnancy to full term after a traumatic event such as a rape can have further traumatic psychological impact on the mother. Why should the mother be forced to suffer through this time, then have to deal with the parting of a child after that. Pregnancy is tough for a mother who is looking forward to raising her child, it is illogical to force the mother to suffer through this pain knowing that she is carrying the product of a terrible experience and will then have to see this child.