BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is morally permissible within 1st trimester

In the efforts of saving time & turns in this debate, I will assume, as you display, that you are Christian and your view is based as such. Therefore, instead of addressing what you know, I will address what you believe. You believe that abortion is bad for the reasons/concepts you gave (murder, unjust, etc). However, your own religiously-based script is full instances that mention, condone, and does little (or not) mention to state it's anti-abortion stance other than mentioning 'thou shalt not kill', while hypocritically condoning and even commanding it: -Hosea 9:11-16 "Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." -Numbers 31:17 (Moses) "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him." Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the "their women with child shall be ripped up". (etc) In terms of being 'unjust or unfair': I wont address these concept since they are relatively defined and explained, akin to morality. I could go on a tirade on how unfair God has been and is, both individually and otherwise, on micro and macro levels. Unfairness cannot be used in the context to justify morality. Hell being the result of those whom do not know Christ is just one big one. I am not sure how to interpret your second sentence, other than assuming that you misinterpreted my clarification on the ground of this argument. I (unlike you I think) believe that these are even greater issues to morally justify an abortion. Additionally, I am not sure how/why you would associate abortion with these 'extenuating circumstances', as they end up being only minority (combined!) of cases resulting in the need for abortion: "1% reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF). "2% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF)." "Less than 1% of all abortions take place because of rape and/or incest." http://www.guttmacher.org... Out of the 4,317,119 babies were born in the U.S. in 2007, statistically about half of all pregnancies are unintended (~2,158,560), 40% of them are aborted (~863,424), and about 89% of them took place in the first trimester (~768447). Now, women gave multiple reasons, but the top were; Inadequate finances, "unprepared", or "unwanted change". So, now to the root of my premise; Are they, we (US tax payers), and the soon-to-become child to bear the pain of an unintended result of an action that we (overwhelming majority) as humans are deeply hardwired to enjoy, pervert, and engage in. Does the individual's morality of a single life (?-able) trump the moral protection of countless others (liberty)?
Fat People Should Pay More to Fly on Airplanes and to Use Mass Transit

I will make an argument that fat people should be charged more for when flying on airplanes and using all public mass transit like buses and subways.Rules/StipulationsIn the first round Con will simply just accept the debate and then in the second round I will make my argument.There will be 3 debating rounds. 3 days to respond.When I say "fat" it will be defined as a person who has a BMI of over 27.5. Being overweight is usually defined as having a BMI of 25-30* so I picked 27.5 because it is right in the middle.Explantion of BMI:Body Mass Index (BMI) is calculated by dividing a person's weight in kilograms by the square of their height in meters. Example:I am 6 feet tall and 150 pounds. In meters my height is 1.8288 meters tall and in Kgs my weight is 68. So 1.8288 squared is 3.34450944. Therefore 68/3.34450944 equals a BMI of 20. So my BMI is 20, considered about average.So to qualify as "fat" under my definition, a 6 foot tall person would have to weigh 205 pounds (92.9) Kgs. (92.9/3.344 = BMI of 27.7)A 5 foot tall person would have to weigh 142 pounds to qualify as fat. Con will have to accept these rules and definitions of fat in round 1 and then I will present my argument in round 2. Source:Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO convention, Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999,
Modern Country music doesn't take nearly a fraction of talent to make as any other genre

Secondly, I'd like to point out that the country music artist Dr. Dipstick Mcdumbass should be respected, not only because he is a M. D. , but also because he is part of a country music dynasty. I mean where would music as a whole, much less country music, be without the transcendental works of Dr. Mcdumbass' father Colonel Cracker Mcdumbass. Who was not only a great musician, but also a great soldier. My tertiary point is as follows: Maybe you don't want to be calling for restrictions on how much of a douche one can look like in doing anything. Just a thought. Maybe make an argument as to why all other genres of music require more talent to make, than modern country music.
Modern Country music doesn't take nearly a fraction of talent to make as any other genre

All you have to do to write a country song is find a couple words that rhyme then put em on the end of sentences and make the subject about the dumbest thing possible and boom ur gonna be ripping instrumentals out of real music in no time. The composition level is dimwit retarded, featuring such quotations as "got the red Gatorade sittin by my bed" or "got 4 wheel drive , I'll take you for a ride" and don't forget a common favorite "it's 5 o'clock somewhere" (no $h!t dumba$$). I mean if you were a obliviously retarded then you could probably gain enjoyment from listening to some hick talk about his favorite bar full of people with filthy lifestyles or Dr. Dipstick Mcdumbass explain how the chain reaction of rain making corn then whiskey and then a bitch gets horny (yea, cuz we all now women just love to down whiskey...dumba$$). Pretty sure we should establish limits to how much of a douche you can look like in a video (and they should at least act like their playing the instruments)
Modern Country music doesn't take nearly a fraction of talent to make as any other genre

If there's any music that I could choose to get rid of, country music would take the cake. It is a genre that any poor fool with no talent can be apart of. It is an entire collaboration of simple minded lyrical structure, cliche personalities, and idiots...lots of idiots. I've been playing music for 4 years so I have more credibility than every listener of the genre. People say "oh it tells a story"... What a load. Every song written from 2003 and up have the most basic rhyme scheme. For example, that stupid song about riding on some creepy farm boys tractor, it probably took him a total of 5 mins to write, yes any grade school student can rhyme "tractor" "pasture" and "faster" it's not difficult. There's no story or meaning, just some idiot with a John Deere. I respect old country singers (god rest their souls... And influence). Poor Johnny cash was the last living country idol with more talent than all the others combined.
smoking

Thalidomide is legal and is recommended in some cases treat different conditions. We taught doctors about its harmful possibilities and tell women how are or may become pregnant that it should be avoided so it would seem educating women is what we did. The lead paint point is comparing apples to oranges, lead paint can effect people how do not even think the paint on there wall is different than any other paint. People might live in a house and have no clue that they are being exposed, they are not choosing to be exposed, but a person does not smoke with out making a choice, and if people can see or smell is someone is smoking they have the to choose weather to stay near the person or leave.Those peoples deaths all five million is a result of a choice they made. What gives us the right to take away there ability to choose if they want to smoke or not. You say it is one of the biggest public health concerns "the world has ever faced" but then why does it not come up as much as Zika or or the bird flu did. I will also call into cosederation that it kills so many more people that old pandemics like say the black death is because there are many more billions of people than there where in the dark ages. Besides that if your numbers you gave are acurite the fraction of smokers dieing yearly is minuscule.You said "Nearly 80% of the more than 1 billion smokers worldwide live in low- and middle-income countries, where the burden of tobacco-related illness and death is heaviest." I will point out a consequence that you might not have thought of bye making cigarettes illegal. If someone is addicted they will experience withdraws. That can lead to anger and deppreshon an very painful sometimes. How are these poor countries going to deal with this. They can't pay for quitting aids like patches, or therapy. People can feel like they are dieing and have symptoms that could prevent them from working for weeks. That could cripple a lot of family's living off of low incomes or that farm from themselves. You also said "Tobacco users who die prematurely deprive their families of income, raise the cost of health care and hinder economic development" three quarters of smokers live past 65 the average age of retirements, so how much income is really being lost. At that age the kids will be working and the spouse will be approaching death in the next couple of decades smoker or not. The children that pick leaves have a job that would lost hurting the poor family's that have to have there children work. The working conditions could be legally improved with out banning tobacco Drugs are not bad by nature even addictive ones that can kill. Meth is illegal yes but that does not mean that it should be. People should have the write to treat there body how they like. I will also bring up the job loss that will follow banning cigarettes, how will you do that? That will happen to the unsold/unused stock? What will become of the Farms?
smoking

Deadly is often defined something like "causing or able to cause death". A cigarette in of itself is not able to cause as nearly as much death as an atomic bomb, or a sword or a gun. Have cigarettes lead to the deaths of more people than anything else, maybe, but hard numbers supporting that would be hard to find, If they exist at all. Cigarettes also did not come on to the scene till 1865 when they started being commercially produced, the blade on the other hand has been killing for most of human history."Most of the richer countries of the globe, however, are making progress in reducing both smoking rates and overall consumption. Many different methods have been proposed to stepen this downward slope, including increased taxation, bans on advertising, promotion of cessation, and expansion of smoke-free spaces." This part of your argument gives plenty of ways to fight cigarettes without banning it, witch I am not ageist. A lot of the money lost comes from lost productivity, another deterrent is firing the unproductive, there you can kill two birds with one stone. Income from tax dollars is greater than the stated the medical cost. This next point I will Try to make very clear. Banning cigarettes will not completely remove them from the world. They will be sold illegally, acquiring them will become more danger for the people that do not want to give them up, the quality will likely go down making them even less healthy. and will lead to the incarceration of newly created non-violent offenders. Possible good people will go to jail over an addition. The people's suffering will change, not go away. You said "Smoking is not a recreational drug" witch is true, but smoking is not a drug in the first place, it is a way to absorb drugs. As someone who has spent some time in the colorful state of Colorado people proudly smoke and do it for recreation. Also it does not expand liberties, liberty is about freedom! It is taking away a freedom of choosing to try smoking or not. I will also quote Benjamin Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
smoking

The cigarette is the deadliest artefact in the history of human civilisation. Most of the richer countries of the globe, however, are making progress in reducing both smoking rates and overall consumption. Many different methods have been proposed to steepen this downward slope, including increased taxation, bans on advertising, promotion of cessation, and expansion of smoke-free spaces. One option that deserves more attention is the enactment of local or national bans on the sale of cigarettes. There are precedents: 15 US states enacted bans on the sale of cigarettes from 1890 to 1927, for instance, and such laws are still fully within the power of local communities and state governments. Apart from reducing human suffering, abolishing the sale of cigarettes would result in savings in the realm of healthcare costs, increased labour productivity, lessened harms from fires, reduced consumption of scarce physical resources, and a smaller global carbon footprint. Abolition would also put a halt to one of the principal sources of corruption in modern civilisation, and would effectively eliminate one of the historical forces behind global warming denial and environmental obfuscation. The primary reason for abolition, however, is that smokers themselves dislike the fact they smoke. Smoking is not a recreational drug, and abolishing cigarettes would therefore enlarge rather than restrict human liberties. Abolition would also help cigarette makers fulfil their repeated promises to "cease production" if cigarettes were ever found to be causing harm. Smoking puts a financial burden on society. According to the CDC, this burden continues to rise, with approximately $193 billion spent annually in the United States---$97 billion from lost productivity and $96 billion due to smoking-related health care costs, respectively. The Society of Actuaries reported in 2006, which is the latest data available, that secondhand smoke costs the U.S. around $10 billion a year: about $5 billion in medical costs associated with secondhand smoke and $4.6 billion in lost wages---youth exposure was not included in these costs. http://www.livestrong.com...
smoking

Salutations!First I would like to say I do not smoke and I think it is a gross habit.Second, I am wondering if you want to limit our discussion to cigarettes or if it can include other forms of smoking?I do hold a belief that it is a gross habit, and I still think making it illegal would be a bad move. I will now go thought your points one by one. For the first of your points, I might hypothetically believe that two males getting married is wrong (I do not actually have any problems with it), but that belief is not a reason to make it illegal in of itself.443,000 deaths is a lot, but 7,000 people die because of doctors sloppy handwriting, 33,800 from motor vehicles, and 41,100 people kill themselves. those numbers thought smaller but still take lives in the thousands. but that is not a reason to make cars for example illegal, because they have a place. So does smoking, thought admittedly smaller,but I will come back to this after you answer my first question. You also said smoking is a "substantial financial burden to society" I would like know how you got this conclusion and or a source. Cigarettes bring in millions of tax dollars so it seems to me to be making money for society. Also of those 443,000 deaths 41,000 where due to second hand smoke. That number could be made smaller, legislation could be made without outright banning smoking. This could also help with the issue of pets. A possible example could be making smokers smoke X meters from persons or animals that are not smart enough or old enough to understand the possible side effects. Also make smoking outside of smoking zones a bigger offence.Now for my arguments Grown adults should be able to to make their own choices, even if it is a bad one, as long as it does not harm another person who does not want to be involved. If they make choices that kill them, it may be sad, but they earned there Darwin award so why should society have stop them. If you look at the Alcohol Prohibition, it did not stop people from drinking. It just pushed it underground where it could not provide the tax benefit. The Prohibition ended up costing millions to be unsuccessfully enforced and lead to the loss of millions in tax dollars.http://www.cdc.gov...http://www.cdc.gov...http://www.cdc.gov...http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...http://www.pbs.org...
smoking

I feel that smoking is one hundred percent wrong, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC reports that 46 million Americans age 18 years and older smoke cigarettes, 443,000 smoking-related deaths occur annually in the U.S. Smoking affects the population, causes premature deaths and is a substantial financial burden to society. according to nosmoke.org In recent years, studies have concluded that tobacco and secondhand smoke are not only dangerous to people, but also to pets. Specifically, with respect to secondhand smoke, researchers have found that exposure to tobacco smoke has been associated with certain cancers in dogs and cats; allergies in dogs; and eye and skin diseases and respiratory problems in birds. second hand smoking is a big reason for cancer. I also believe that smoking will soon be the main cause for death, and when adults show kids its okay, then they tag onto it and it goes on and on. I feel It should be illegal for all those reasons. http://www.livestrong.com...;http://www.no-smoke.org...
Tonality is a natural Force Like Gravity

I admin a page on Facebook dedicated to the debate of evolution creation and ID. In my youth I had been a member of several audition choirs and had considered becoming a music teacher. I find your assertions to be some thing new as an argument for ID, but fail to see how tonality can not nor would not exists if this world was not designed. Given that humans are the only creatures known to make music (other animals "sing" but do not fit the definition of "music") what does unnatural really mean when we are talking about music? By what metric does Pro make the claim that atonal music is unnatural music? I myself with years of music experience can not think of a metric that is not arbitrary that would put any divide between tonal and atonal music mu"sic /ˈmyo͞ozik/ Noun 1 The art or science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion. 2 The vocal or instrumental sound produced in this way. The standard Dorian scale is based off of ratios as the video clip shows at time stamp 3:00 . http://www.youtube.com... Minor seconds, tritone, perfect fifth, forth etc are consonant because they are defined. It is like saying a square is constant. It is pointless. We can see standard tones in ratios thanks to the consistency of physics, but this does not make nonstandard tones unnatural. I think Pro's major flaw is lack of definitions for key terms. When ever something is asserted to be not natural then what is it? supernatural? In conclusion pressure waves that are in the audible frequencies as well as those that fall out side that range are all natural. Atonal music is as natural as tonal music.
Tonality is a natural Force Like Gravity

Tonality is not a learned understanding of how different tones sound/relate to one another. Tonality is basically part of the intelligent design of the universe. Minor seconds, the tritone are dissonant. Whereas the perfect fifth, forth etc are consonant. I am not arguing or strict western harmony but Atonal music is unnatural. Lets just agree a great composer like Stravinski or Mile Davis can stretch tonality but they never break it.
The show Supernatural is better than the movie Twilight

Three things I would like to say before i begin. One my source was included but instead of coming out as a link it came on as a video I do not know what happened. Second I am actually a girl not a guy, hopefully this will help when referring to me. Lastly I should mention that I have seen both Twilight and Supernatural and have read all the books for Twilight. Your first personal claim was that Twilight has more fans and sales than Supernatural. I would like to explain that number of fans of supernatural are impossible to count. Due to the world we live in today many fans watch the show online, myself included. Views are not counted and can not be accurately counted. Number of fans have no way to be accurately judged. Twilight has won many awards, but Supernatural has been nominated for a total of 114 awards and has won 18 (1). You also mentioned Spin offs. Twilight has one confirmed spin off that has not been released yet. Supernatural though has caused two already released spin offs and one about to come out with a few weeks. (2) Next there was the matter of cons. Yes, it is true that Twilight does have Twilight specific cons but I argue that Supernatural has more. In what you gave I only counted a total of two different Twilight conventions. Supernatural has 5 different ones in 2014 alone with a total of 16 conventions the cast members will be attending. Cast members of Supernatural has been to 116 different conventions since 2006 (3) Supernatural has been attending Comic Con longer as Supernatural first attended as a cast in 2007. With Twilight not coming into theaters until a year later. My final point is that Twilight has source material, the books. Supernatural gained all of its fans without a starting point by its own merit alone. Twilight had the merit of the books to help boost it. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.imdb.com... (2) http://insidetv.ew.com... (2) http://www.imdb.com... (3)http://supernaturalwiki.com...