BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion Is A Humane Mesaure

If the drugs are administered, and the birth of the dead fetus is given, it is humane to the baby because it is painless. But one thing we can do to deter abortion Is if we instill a new adoption system: If a parent does not want a baby, than she should be able to put up the fetus for pre-adoption, and once the woman gives birth then the baby then goes to parents who will love it and care for it. Chances are this will lower abortion rates significantly. And once the woman signs up, she cannot abort the baby. And the woman can choose to abort if it is a case of rape, incest, or if the fetus will have severe birth defects. But on the other hand, a fetus is in a woman's body, and is therfore part of a woman's body and she should have the right to to abort it. A detached baby is a son of that woman, not part of her body. Even if the show signs of life, they are not indipendent from the mother. Not everyone may agree with that, but you can't shove your beliefs into a woman's body (no rape pun intended). And a "painful" death can save a fetus from much more pain if it comes out into reality. It may have severe painful diseases or defects that could lead to a lifetime of pain, or maybe the parents are neglectful or abusive, which is terrible and degrading and can lead to severe injuries and lifetime psychological problems. and then think about being raised in an orphanage. Wouldn't it just be so depressing longing and longing for a parent? It does more good than bad. You can say it even saves lives, per se.
Abortion Is A Humane Mesaure

Since you didn't specify, I will assume I may post my argument- Babies can feel pain at 8 weeks at the latest-http://www.abortionfacts.com... In a direct quote from the site " Yes, every abortion kills an innocent human being. Even more alarming is the fact that beginning at the 8th week of development, an unborn baby that is aborted feels pain during the abortion. The baby feels both psychological and real physical, organic pain. Let that sink in. Of course, whether or not abortion is a painful experience to the unborn child being aborted, the child is left no less dead as a result. In talking about the question of fetal pain, we must remember that it ultimately has no bearing on the morality of abortion. Abortion kills babies. Wait, it actually gets worse. Abortion painfully kills babies." And worse it gets. There was a case of a baby who, while aborted, was clinging to the womb(http://www.lifenews.com...) This alone is proof that the baby has feelings. And no matter what the method of abortion, bith is still given, thus the "pain of birth" argument is irrelevant. And, as this seems to be the best way to end this round, Would you be prochoice if you yourself were aborted? And abortion denies the rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. So, to recap- 1- Abortion causes pain 2- Abortion is murder 3- The fetus can feel pain (of course, the word "fetus" is an attempt to dehumanize the baby through wording) 4-Abortion is unconstitutional.
privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system

privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.
God is real

There is also plenty of evidence supporting the Mahabharata, an Indian Epic , which states that their warriors that survived being hit with 100s of arrows and that were strong enough to rip a wheel of a chariot and wield it. Also it seems that ancient Indians had weapons that resembled nuclear bombs."The Earth shook, scorched by the terrible heat of this weapon. Elephants burst into flames and ran to and fro in a frenzy, seeking a protection from terror. Over a vast area other animals crumpled to the ground and died. The waters boiled, and the creatures residing therein also died. From all points of the compass the arrows of the flame rained continuously! Even though the Mahabharata is probably not true, it does have its roots in Indian history, it tells the story of the Kurukshetra War. This is likely what happened with the bible. It is based of real facts, but is not true. You could say that Jesus was born to a virgin, but can you prove it. How do you know that Mary was really a virgin, or Jesus was adopted. Also,what would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way: Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen. We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. Will anything happen? No. Of course not. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says: Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! Then how come cancer isn't cured? If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens. In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says: For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. If "nothing will be impossible to you", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should disappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying. If you want more proof, gather as many Christians as you want, and pray for cancer to be cured. Then watch it not happen.
Gun Bans

Alright, completely banning guns is not ludicrous. While I support gun rights, people still need to be given the option to decide whether they want deadly weapons in their community. If guns are allowed, criminals can get guns and use them as well. If there are no guns to get access to, the threat of being harmed by a criminal decrease dramatically. Also, petty criminals, the ones most effected by firearm regulation, would not go out of the nation to get weapons. If no guns are available for criminals as well as citizens, the world would be a safer place. I don't support complete regulation of firearms, but the choice for local communities needs to be there. Vote Con for YOUR choice, safety, freedom, and kittens. Kittens are being killed everyday, and we must stop the kitten deaths.
Gun Bans

I agree that some regulations are need but completely banning firearms from anyone is ludicrous. Their are laws like the "make my day law" that protect the person using self defence. If you and I have a fight and I have a gun and you don't I will win 99.9% if the time. Criminals will go to other countries that allow firearms. It will be like prohibition. like I have repeatedly said not allowing citizens firearms to protect themselves against one who does have one will produce much blood shed. The problem is police almost never are their when the crime is committed giving a criminal a huge advantage. The problem is that we always see in the news the bad things that happen to people when firearms are used, but when firearms are used safely by the thousands of people who shoot that's never heard of because there are too many of those stories. The use of fully automatic firearms should be more heavily regulated but not firearms that are useful.
Gun Bans

Alright, the Founding Fathers created the government, and the 2nd Amendment (as written by the Founding Fathers) was designed to allow state militias to use firearms. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to allow one to own weapons, but if you want to go by the Founding Fathers, then government regulation is needed. Even if used for self defense, many cases in local and state courts have stated that using the weapons to harm the would be criminal is unlawful. And if guns are banned in a community, that doesn't mean that knives, nun chucks, throwing stars, or any other non firearm weapon can't be used. Criminals would have a very hard time getting a gun to rob or hurt someone, and the people can defend themselves. Police can enforce such a law, for local governments still allows the police to have firearms. That's why it should be the GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S choice, not the CRAZY LUNATICS WHO USE WEAPONS TO DO CRIMES.
Gun Bans

My opponent said that local government should decide on gun rights but this issue would be much better by the people. When the government on any level tells the people that they can't have firearms this breaches the fundamental rights that our founding fathers gave us. In many towns the county government is located in a city not in the rural suburbs where guns are actually needed. what my opponent fails to see is that in the case of an armed robbery there are laws to use firearms in SELF DEFENCE so his attack is void because in the event where someone feels threatened in their home deadly force may be used. So they wouldn't "become a criminal to stop one. " The firearm can be used to hold the criminal until the police arrive on seen. Furthermore, if criminals know that a communities have firearms they are less likely to commit a crime. By banning firearms they are making another law they can't enforce. that's why it should be the INDVIDUALS choice not GOVERNMENT! !
Gun Bans

His arguments, then mine. Point 1: Under my contention, if there is a large wild animal problem in the area, the community can decide to allow firearms. Point 2: So you would be willing to become a criminal yourself to stop one? Anyway, if there is a big crime problem in the area, the community can decide to allow firearms. My opponent fails to realize that this is better than the current system. Instead of a federal or state mandated system, the local government decides what's best. Otherwise, Pro supports all communities have the right to own guns. This means that even if a commuity decides that the legalization of firearms is not in its best intrest, they still have to allow people to own them. This could be a dangerous, life threatening situation under Pro's solution. My plan solves, thus I win this debate. Those who want firearms can have them, and no one is forced to allow weapons in their community. Its a win/win situation. Con solves, Pro does not. Out of characters.
Gun Bans

I will defend my case then attack my opponents POINT ONE: We live in rural Colorado and I have had to shoot coyotes, mountain lions and stray dogs that attacked our livestock because they were hungry and killed our livestock. Firearms are a vital tool when you are protecting what keeps you alive. My opponent said "the biggest thing I've seen is a doe" but that's not the problem its the other animals that attack your animals. POINT TWO: My opponent must be living in a perfect world where there are police always ready to catch the criminal when the crime is committed, but in the real world this is not correct. Firearms are an equalizer to a criminal. When you don't have a firearm the criminal has the upper hand in almost violent crime. A firearm can be used to help police catch a criminal. Firearms are a deterrent to crime. more crime will be committed when criminals know the punishment will not be fatal. ATTACK: It should be the choice of the individual and not be government regulated.
Gun Bans

I look forward to this debate. Since no evidence is allowed in the rules, all of the following arguments will be analytical. I, debating as the Con, state that the banning of firearms should be legal. I will first address my opponent's arguments, then I will move on to my own. POINT ONE: Using firearms in a rural environment is vital. ^More often than not, rural communities aren't fighting off bears and mountain lions. I live in a rural community, and the biggest thing I've seen is a doe. Modern society has less need for guns than it did 100, even 50 years ago. POINT TWO: If we ban firearms, criminals will hold the upper hand. ^Banning guns isn't getting rid of the firearms of the police. It takes them away from citizens who don't need them. My points According to the resolution, in the case that I'm supporting, gun control should be legal. Local communities should decide for themselves. Under the resolution of Pro, all communities are forced to allow guns. No more figures
Gun Bans

Resolved: The banning of firearms, in rural towns, should be illegal. NO EVIDENCE WILL BE ALLOWED IN THIS DEBATE! It is just thoughts on banning guns. THE FOUTH ROUND IS ONLY FOR VOTING ISSUES. OPENING ARGUEMENT POINT ONE: Using firearms in a rural environment is vital. The right to bear arms is not only important, but vital to the life style of the people that live in rural environments. We depend on the use of firearms to help prevent our livelihood from being lost. Imagine trying to kill a bear or mountain lion with a pocket knife. It will never work. POINT TWO: If we ban firearms, criminals will hold the upper hand. The banning of firearms only apply to law abiding citizens. If a gun ban is put in place, criminals will know that the likelihood of them having a fatal punishment will diminish greatly. This will promote more violent crimes and will cause the law abiding citizens to resort to illegal means of self defence. Basically it will be like prohibition revised.
Christianity is a religion of peace

Outline round 4I. Involuntary reflexesII. Science and evolution vs religion and creationismIII. SummaryIV. SourcesI. Involuntary reflexes"How does involuntary reflexes lead to war? It's like your just sitting there and your "involuntary reflexes" kicks in and you just get a feeling that you should try and start a war. It's stupid. Jesus told us to turn the other cheek and so we will do." BoggleBrosBecause we have limited control over our own body. Did we choose when we get sick? Nay, just as we don't choose to stay calm when someone punches us. We literally cannot stay calm when we take enough physical blows. Let's say person A gets attacked by person B. Person B repeatedly performs assaults and battery on person A. Person A must react eventually. Crying, anger, falling over, etc. If anger is the involuntary reflex, person A may punch and kill person B. This could lead to a blood feud and a war. Think of the knee-jerk reaction. "Knee-jerk reflexThe knee-jerk reflex involves a sudden kicking movement of your lower leg after the tendon just below your kneecap has been tapped. Doctors often trigger this reflex to test the function of your nervous system. If the reaction is exaggerated or absent, it may indicate a damage to the central nervous system." [7]II. Science and evolution vs religion and creationism"How do you know, where you there to witness? The bible was written by people who actually met and witnessed jesus perform these miracles." BoggleBros There is fossil evidence all around the world. You can see pictures of these fossils. There are museums dedicated to these fossils. The evidence has been peer reviewed and gone through intensive criticism. You can learn almost exactly how a dinosaur's bone structure worked. The amount of detail is incredible. As for religion, you can't make these claims. How can you prove your religion is more likely than the Greek, Roman, Egyptians, middle eastern, far eastern, primitive tribes and Norse religions? Even, if you manage to somehow find evidence of God, then which God, and which faith? Religion creates more questions than answers.III. Summary Yet, again this discussion broke down into evolution versus creationism. I thank my opponent for having this discussion and wish you good luck.IV. Sources7. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Christianity is a religion of peace

I'm speechless at the stupidity being given to me by you. "If you have a garden, and you leave it unattended, eventually invasive weeds will take over. Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek and leave your enemies to God's wrath, eternal damnation comes to mind. Yet, I ask what if God does not exist? Then, what would happen? Simply your enemies would use you as a doormat. Walking all over you until, blam, You strike back! Since we are only human and have involuntary reflexes". How does involuntary reflexes lead to war? It's like your just sitting there and your "involuntary reflexes" kicks in and you just get a feeling that you should try and start a war. It's stupid. Jesus told us to turn the other cheek and so we will do."In brief, Christianity holds Christians to high standards in the name of a God that is extremely unlikely to exist. When bad events happen and God doesn't intervene, its not wonder Christians react in a violent fashion. Turning the other cheek leads to war". Christians react in a violent fashion? God gave us free will. The power to do whatever we want on this planet. When Jesus arrived he told us the way God wanted us to live. Jesus being the son of god, he was able to resurrect people, heal the sick, drive out demons and perform miracles. On the day of crucifixtion. Jesus was whipped several times on the back leaving red strips on blood. Jesus didn't react violently, instead he went along with everything. Even while he was being crucified, roman soldiers spat on his face, gave him a crown made from thorns, and insulted him in his face. Jesus didn't react violently. Instead Jesus forgave those roman soldiers because he knew they were only doing what they were told. Christians will follow Jesus until the end and if Jesus did this than we should be willing to do it too(as in forgave those who persecute us)."With evolution, the big bang theory, and many other scientific theories its becoming more and more difficult to believe the Bible is literally true. I contend that Jesus most likely did not literally heal the Roman soldier, and instead use a placebo or herbs to heal the soldier. "How do you know, where you there to witness? The bible was written by people who actually met and witnessed jesus perform these miracles. Please do research before to go against a religion. It sounds like you only got these information from quick google searches. :)
Christianity is a religion of peace

OutlineI. Intro to rebuttalII. The Bible teaches passiveness which leads to warIII. Extremely improbable that Jesus healed the Roman soldier.I. Intro to rebuttalThis is a rebuttal of my opponent's round two argument. I will not defend my argument again my opponent's rebuttal in this round. II. The Bible teaches passiveness and submissiveness which leads to warIf you have a garden, and you leave it unattended, eventually invasive weeds will take over. Jesus teaches to turn the other cheek and leave your enemies to God's wrath, eternal damnation comes to mind. Yet, I ask what if God does not exist? Then, what would happen? Simply your enemies would use you as a doormat. Walking all over you until, blam, You strike back! Since we are only human and have involuntary reflexes. This blow may lead to a small fight, which leads to a larger fight, and so forth until a war erupts. Yet, just like an invasive weed, conflict can often be nipped in the bud. Instead, if the first time somebody tries to walk all over you, you are assertive instead of submissive, a war can be prevented. In brief, Christianity holds Christians to high standards in the name of a God that is extremely unlikely to exist. When bad events happen and God doesn't intervene, its not wonder Christians react in a violent fashion. Turning the other cheek leads to war.III. Extremely improbable that Jesus healed the Roman soldier. With evolution, the big bang theory, and many other scientific theories its becoming more and more difficult to believe the Bible is literally true. I contend that Jesus most likely did not literally heal the Roman soldier, and instead use a placebo or herbs to heal the soldier.
Christianity is a religion of peace

I just wanna let you know that the definition of war is, a state of armed conflict between different countries/states or different groups within a country. I. War on SinSin is something you cannot touch or kill. Sin is something you have to deal with yourself like Depression. It's something you wanna try and fix so you won't do it anymore. When it says going to war with sin, it kinda means going to war with yourself and by that i mean fighting against the evil within you, fighting the temptation and all the evil thoughts and you think of inside your head. This is the war against sin. It's not something you kill to accomplish.II. Lucifer's/Satan's RebellionThis was hundreds and thousands of years before Christianity was even created.III. The end times battleIs something Christians won't start but i guess will be forced to deal with and by deal with i don't mean to join the war and fight against governments but it's something Christians will be there to witness and probably be killed in.IV. TotaltarianismThis is the effect of people going against god. They start wars and rebellions in seek of power or something else.Totaltariansim in the bible is mis-interpreted alot of times. In our world, Totaltarianism is not having freedom or the power to do what you think is right because Governments would come after you. But God, is a loving god because he gives us free will which is the right to do whatever we want in this world which is why almost everyone is sinning in this world.Will cover everything else in round 3, not enough time.[SOURCES]http://www.gotquestions.org...https://www.jw.org...