BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is a benefit to the western world.

Well. Regardless of my grammar, i think i also still study about that. Thank you for reminding me. And right now, i have brought evidence from reliable web. From [ aborsi.org ] ,a web that use Indonesian, claim that there are 3 primary reason why abortion is conducted. 1. They do not want to have children, because they afraid if it will disturb their carrier, etc [75 %] 2. There is no any fund or the parent don't able to maintain their baby [66 %] 3. 'Accident' [50%] Then, this data is also supported by studies (research) from Aida Torres and Jacqueline Sarroch Forrest (1998) who claim that ONLY 1% abortion caused because of raping ,as you said before. Here, I just want to emphasize that SELFISH is the primary reason doing abortion. Oke now, abortion seems give solution at first. But, you have to look about effect on psychology or at emotional for who do abortion. For your information, there symptom associated on the abortion's psychology which is called "Post Abortion Syndrome". The symptoms were also recorded at i "Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion" in publishing The Post-Abortion Review (1994). What are the symptoms? 1. Lose self-confident (82%) 2. Cry hysterically (51%) 3. Nightmare about baby (63%) 4. Start using drug (41%) 5. etc You said the risk above will benefit? No, Those ruin productive mental human. The more doing abortion, the more girls' self-confident is ruined.
Abortion is a benefit to the western world.

I can say it is a benefit because I believe it benefits the western world ,by which I mean the EU and the USA and other fully developed countries, because it helps women who would not be able to provide for a child and it also helps women who have been raped. For example; in the U.S, 1.04 million abortions were conducted in 2012 according to a survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute in 2014. The amount of births recorded that year (2012) was 3.95 million. As you can see by these figures, women do exercise their right to abortion and do so with the intent of securing themselves with a better life until they are ready to become mothers. Are you able to provide substantial evidence and opinions as to how it is considered killing? The foetus which develops in a mother's womb does not develop a significantly functioning brain until the third trimester which means that its consciousness isn't developed until that time. If you consider abortion killing, I assume you think so because you think you're killing a human being with a conscience, but all legal practices do not perform the procedure after the third trimester which would mean that abortions do not kill conscious humans. I do not accept your third claim because of the fact that it was not formed in a grammatically correct way. I do not accept your fourth claim either because it is also not formulated correctly. Please use proper grammar in the future. Resources: http://www.lifematterstv.org... http://www.babycenter.com...
Abortion is a benefit to the western world.

In the majority of the western world abortion is considered a suitable operation for women who are not able or do not want to bear children. In these countries many people agree with abortion, and, as you can see in the opinion polls of this website more than half of the users also approve of abortion. I am here to argue for the subject of abortion because I also believe that it is a suitable method for unfortunate women who do not and do not deserve want a pregnancy.
Renewable Resource Energy

Nope, just trying to pass my university exams! Some points why using renewable sources of energy is not preferred: Every set of energy has its own drawbacks once introduced to the ecology. Some of these limitations include: 1) Difficult to produce the energy quantity that is equivalent to that produced by non-renewable fuels 2) Technology required to trap renewable energy is costly. Setting of dams requires high initial capital to construct and maintain 3) Most renewable sources of energy are affected by weather thus reducing their reliability. For example, hydro generators need constant rainfall that will overflow the dams, wind turbines only rotate if there is wind of a given speed. Some points why using non-renewable sources of energy is better and thus preferred: Some non-renewable sources of energy such as natural gas burns without any soot hence less environmental pollution. 1) Most non-renewable sources of energy are easy to transport from one area to another. For example petroleum oils which can be transported via pipes. 2) Cost of producing non-renewable energy is low since they are naturally available. Furthermore they are cheap to transform from one form of energy to another. 3) Most of this energy sources are abundantly available in different areas. Their availability is not affected by climatic condition. Therefore to disprove your opening argument in R1 (I only need to disprove one of your argument points): "It repays what you payed for it overtime because you don't have to keep going and buying oil and coal." - It (the use of renewable resources) doesn't necessarily repay itself over time due to its such high expensiveness of construction in the first place and it's massive maintenance costs which have to be incurred to maintain. Also the success of the energy source is not guaranteed due to uncontrollable external forces (sunlight for example) therefore casting doubt that it will indeed "repay what you payed for it overtime." Source: http://renewablegreen.net... No-one can deny that using renewable energy is more beneficial to the environment and I wish we did just use renewable energy for the sake of our beautiful planet, but for the sake of a debate I have to counter at least one of your arguments and I have put down that non-renewable energy is less costly and that renewable energy doesn't nessessarily repay you over time. It is rather unfortunate that we both forfeighted 3 rounds each, I would have looked forward to your response.
An Avocado is a Fruit

This is a heated discussion between me and my friends my value for this debate is fruitalicious my criterion is fruiting avocado refers to the fruit (technically a large berry) of the tree that contains a pit (hard seed casing) which may be egg-shaped or spherical. Avocados are a commercially valuable crop whose trees and fruit are cultivated in tropical climates throughout the world (and some temperate ones, such as southern California), producing a green-skinned, pear-shaped fruit that ripens after harvesting. Trees are partially self-pollinating and often are propagated through grafting to maintain a predictable quality and quantity of the fruit.
An Avocado is a Fruit

Ok my opponent says that the culinary point of view is the general view on an avocado, he says . Well let me show you. First if we look throughout his case at the places where he got his definitions then we must see that these sites must have taken a while o find. I did my own search on if an avocado is a vegetable in a culinary sense, it took me along time to find those exact sites. Now to a person who is just sitting at home looking for a definition of avocado he will probably go to dictionary.com or search it on google. DICTIONARY.COM IS A SITE USED BY PEOPLE, we must look to my definition because that is what a general person will look at. He may also go to a dictionary, well i will give 2 more online sources of the most used dictionarys in the world - webster's dictionary & american heritage. Avocado- a pulpy green- to purple-skinned nutty-flavored fruit of any of various tropical American trees (genus Persea especially P. americana) of the laurel family. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Avocado-A tropical American tree (Persea americana) having oval or pear-shaped fruit with leathery skin, yellowish-green flesh, and a large seed. b. The edible fruit of this tree.(American heritage dictionary online http://www.bartleby.com...) Now I have fulfilled his request of me having to say why the botanical reference is better than the culinary one. It should be used because the person on the street who looks for defintions of these will go to these sites and if they search avocado these are the defintions they will see and accept. I thank my opponent for debating me on this topic and i would like to put a link up that is a bit off topic but funny. http://www.youtube.com... Thank you please vote for me
An Avocado is a Fruit

Thanks again to my opponent for continuing this dialog despite the fact that one commenter considers it to be spam. I am not engaging in semantical debate. Instead, I am arguing on the grounds that classification of objects is not unique to one area of life and that the classification techniques employed by one group of people can have more meaning than another group of people. In this sense, it is a sociological debate. < > My intro was meant tongue-in-cheek. Oh well. < > My opponent must address my argument for this statement to be taken at full value. He says general society classifies fruit in the botanical sense. I argue that general society, i.e. lay people, use culinary classification. He has not addressed my argument or substantiated his claim with data. On the other hand, I showed that there are far fewer botanists in society, but everyone eats. It is more reasonable to accept that society primarily uses culinary classification. < > The botanical classification of avocado is not in dispute. Consider the following botanical fruits: tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, and green beans. They are all "developed from the ovary in the base of the flower, and contain the seeds of the plant." (http://www.fitsugar.com...). Yet general society overwhelmingly considers all of these to be vegetables. Botanists might cringe at such blasphemy, but they make up a small percentage of society. Imagine a botanist telling a child, whose zucchini has not been touched, to eat his fruit or there will be no dessert! My opponent even opened the debate by stating that this "is a heated discussion between [him] and [his] friends." This supports my argument that lay society relies on the culinary classification of the avocado. < > I too am arguing in general. In general, people use culinary classifications rather than botanic classifications. In general, people use avocados as vegetables. In general, the avocado--like the tomato, cucumber, etc.--is a vegetable. My opponent must show why botanical language should override culinary language in everyday life. < > Actually, I offered a complete four-point rebuttal that was merely dismissed instead of countered. Ergo, my arguments may be extended.
An Avocado is a Fruit

First off i would tell my opponent that the meaning of life is to continue human life. SO you may cut his opening, onto all his contentions. If we look at the resolution it says an avocado is a fruit, yet it doesn't specify in what sense, so we must look at it as what the general society thinks of it. Our general society believes that anything with a seed is a fruit, an avocado is a fruit therefore because it has a seed. Now we can use it as a vegetable just like the tomato but to the general society it is a fruit. We can also use definitions according to dictionary.com an avocado is - Also called alligator pear. a large, usually pear-shaped fruit having green to blackish skin, a single large seed, and soft, light-green pulp, borne by the tropical American tree Persea americana and its variety P. adrymifolia, often eaten raw, esp. in salads. Now we look at fruit from merriam webster online dictionary-- the usually edible reproductive body of a seed plant. The biggest thing i am trying to say is that the debate isnt about any specific area but in general Onto my case he hasn't touched it therefore my contention flows thru
The Christian God Does not Exist

Due to the structure of the debate even if I fail to address his arguments he will still lose if he fails to address mine. This is a three round debate, so my opponent has crippled himself. In addition I do not see how his additional definitions enhance understanding of the debate, and for fear of being trapped in some sort of semantic quandry I withold my acceptance of them. Now onto my opponent's arguments. Contention 1: The Existence of the Christian God is a possibility. This is known as an argument from ignorance, or a God of the gaps argument. In past ages people would explain many things by invoking God. Thunder, famine, death, the phases of the moon have all been accorded divine origin at some point. As science has progressed the realm over which God is claimed to have dominion has shrunk, and is continuing to shrink. The God of the Gaps approach is equally as valid as claiming that the stock market is secretly controlled by squirrels. Obviously that would be an absurd claim, but science is constantly learning new things. What if they were invisible pan dimensional squirrels? What if they could take human form? I don't know everything after all. Now such a God of the gaps could exist (just for the sake of argument) however this does not address my argument at all. I have shown a definition of God that is logically impossible (and the debate assumes God is subject to logic), advancing science will not re-write the laws of logic. Even if such a God of the Gaps exists he will not be the God that this debate is predicated upon. So this contention is irrelevant. (Arguments extended from R1)
The Christian God Does not Exist

I hope it will be a good, intriguing debate. I accept all of the definitions brought by my opponent. However I would like to offer a few of my own as well. Does: Third person singular present tense of do (Do: To perform or execute. ) Not: In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... So, essentially my opponent has to prove that in no way, in no degree can the Christian God exist. Now, I would like to begin by offering an overview of my contentions; then I will offer the contentions themselves. 1. The existence of the Christian God is a possibility. a. We do not completely understand the entirety of the universe. b. Logically a being of that power is possible. Now on to my contentions. Contention 1. The existence of the Christian God is a possibility. a. We do not completely understand the entirety of the universe. As human beings we in no way understand every thing that exists and can exist. Scientist are still today finding new species and new fact about the more obscure places on the planet Earth. As this is true, it is sad for one to think that we have complete knowledge of everything on Earth, much less the entire universe. We must keep in mind, when judging whether or not the Christian God exists, that our knowledge is incomplete. As logic is based on this knowledge, we must come to the conclusion that the existence of the Christian God is possible. b. Logically, a being of that power is possible. My opponent defines the Christian God as possessing the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenenvolence. While keeping my previous subpoint in mind, can we disprove the existence of such a being? It is entirely possible that the Christian God could exist and it would be going against logic to say otherwise. Let us, for a moment, assume we have a complete knowledge of what we can discover through experimentation and examination of even the farthest reaches of space. If such a being was to exist, possessing the aforementioned qualities then it is entirely possible that if such a being was to decide to remain hidden from these examinations, then it would be entirely in it's power. So even if we had a complete knowledge of all things then it would still be logically impossible to disprove the existence of the Christian god. In conclusion, When one looks at the resolution, the definitions, and the rules established by my opponent one sees that the task of the Pro side is to prove that the Christian God, in no way and to no degree exists. I however, simply have to prove that the existence of this God is a logical possibility. As I have shown with my previous arguments the existence of the Christian God is not only a possibility but if one is to argue otherwise, he or she is showing a lapse in logic. It is for this reason that I ask for a Con vote in this debate. Thank you. In order to avoid being abusive I will hold my attacks until the second round of the debate. I look forward to my opponent's reply.
Huckabee and Homosexuality

I will start by stating the topic of this debate which is: "The homophobia exhibited by Christian's is based on a misinterpretation of the bible" There are two parts of the Bible which are used to condemn homosexuality. -The first being Leviticus 20:13 which states "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." - And the second Corinthians 6:9-10 which states: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." These verses are not ambiguous. They clearly show that the god of the Bible (or at least his surrogates who wrote it) despises homosexuality, and using them to justify homophobia is perfectly acceptable in the context of the religion. Though the bible can be used to justify homophobia it isn't the root cause of it. The real root cause the basic human need to find something or someone to hate or fear. And it's usually that which is different. And today since racism is not longer acceptable to most people they've chosen the next best thing. You've stated that Huckabee linked homosexuality with sadomasochism, pedophilia and necrophilia. This doesn't come from the Bible it comes mainly from social stigma, stupidity and highly publicized things like the Catholic priest scandal where most of the victims were male…therefore as their logic goes the priest were male the victims were male therefore the priest were gay and all gays are evil. When in reality most of the priest were likely heterosexuals who had taken a vow of chastity and thought they'd found a way around it. This kind of thinking comes from irrational logic and not from anything in the Bible. Essentially the basis for homophobia comes from sexual insecurity, social views, irrational fear, and the need to have an enemy though which the "ills of the world" can be explained. The Bible is just the book which is used to justify it all not the source.
Huckabee and Homosexuality

Originally I put this as a challenge to a Huckabee supporter who commented I did not know the bible. Not surprisingly the debate was declined. In his book "Kids Who Kill," Huckabee linked homosexuality with sadomasochism, paedophilia and necrophilia. How does he justify this? "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk." Baptist conservative belief at its unenlightened finest. I claim that this "broad brush" hardline approach against homosexuality is out of context from the biblical sources it claims, and additionally, the view held by writers of the time was not from some divine directive but merely based upon the philosophical teachings of the era. I will leave it up to my opponent to make the first stab at proving the basis for the conservative Baptists.
Huckabee and Homosexuality

Let us suspend reality and assume that everything in the Bible is the absolute word of some divine spirit, to justify homophobia one would have to do nothing more than show a single instance in which the Bible's god or one of his anointed surrogates expresses condemnation for homosexuality. Back to reality: the idea of homosexuality is quite recent and the authors of the Bible would have had no way of explicitly expressing condemnation for homosexuality since they had no real concept of it. Assuming that the authors did have an understanding of homosexuality as it is understood today there view would be likely one of condemnation because they condemned everything that was foreign. For reasons stated before I will only address one verse (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13-14) You stated : -"These verses are found in the "Holiness Code" which emphasised to the Israelites that they were to be set apart for god. The context is prohibition of practices found in the nearby fertility cult of Molech. "Abomination" is a translation of the Hebrew word which specifically means idolatrous practices (not necessarily sexual). The condemnation here is a reference to the fertility worship which the Israelites were to shun. The seriousness of this idolatry in Hebrew eyes was compounded by the belief that "to lie with a man as with a woman" violated the dignity of the male sex. Women were property but men were the direct image of god. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thereby, to violate the image of god. The issue was idolatrous activity which failed to acknowledge God's creation " -The most important part of this is ""to lie with a man as with a woman" violated the dignity of the male sex. Women were property but men were the direct image of god. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thereby, to violate the image of god. The issue was idolatrous activity which failed to acknowledge God's creation" This statement shows that homosexuality (as it is related to men) was not acceptable because it would reduce a man to the position of a woman which as you've stated would be considered idolatrous, and therefore not inline with God's will. In essence Leviticus (the Bible) does denote homosexuality as being an act against God, either by using a completely literal reading of it, or by using the explanation provided by my opponent.
Xbox One's downsides outweigh its benefits

The resolution of this debate is simple - the downsides of Xbox One outweight its benefits. I will be arguing affirmative. The rules are:1. Burden of proof is shared. Each side must prove their case.2. Forfeiture of any round by either side results in a victory for the other side. 3. First round is for acceptance.4. Round 2 is for opening arguments only.5. Round 3 is a clash round. You can only rebut the arguments the opponent made in round 2, and you may not introduce new arguments.6. Round 4 is for closing arguments. You can rebut arguments made in round 3 and sum up your case.
Communism Doesn't Work

First I will say any type of government can fail, and any person in any nation always wants power. The only way the USA became a nation was by brainwashing the citizens to believe that monarchies are stupid because all they do is tax us. Also any government can be corrupt. So when can stop saying the same thing tell me and ill listen to you, but for now all you say is the same thing that is my argument. Thankyou for listening.
Communism Doesn't Work

I know your "sorry" but how did you end up using the same argument? Wouldn't that mean you would have had to copied and pasted it. If my theory is true your argument, wasn't even your argument. Even then though, for Communism to work, you would need an entire nation of "brainwashed" or compliant people. With rebellious people Communism will always fail. Someone is always looking for power, and corruption.
Communism Doesn't Work

Is it just me everyone, or did the contender use the exact same argument twice! If you would try to look it up,and find out, there has never been a national based entirely off of Communist society and government. China was the closest everyone but it still had its hierarchy with the citizens at the bottom and the government officials at the top. Communism can't work, and never has. Based off of human ignorance or not it has never worked. Also, what does how long the human race existed have to do with all this. Why would Communism being a blink in our time have to do with anything. You almost sucked me into a whole new argument with that.