BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will win this debate.

Where is the evidence that shows you will win? There is no evidence. I will win this debate because I feel as if I could win. One reason why I feel I will win is because I have high testosterone, which will help motivate me to winning. Secondly, motivation from other things including posters and videos will help me win this debate, and make you lose it. As for you, you will either get a participation trophy or get a "Good Job!" sticker.
Abortion

The resolution for this debate, is that every woman has the right to have an abortion if they so desire to have one. In my eyes it should not become illegal and no is saying that it will. And for someone to say that it is wrong and it should be illegal in any case, is obviously mislead and in poor judgement. In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim. Often a woman is too afraid to speak up or is unaware she is pregnant, thus the morning after pill is ineffective in these situations. (woman issues, #5b). The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization? (woman issues #7b) . I agree with this statement because, if you take away a woman's right to her own body, what could the government make you do. it is not murder if the child can't even live outside of the mothers body and as long as its done within the first four months then I don't see why people care so much. Its none of their business if a woman decides to get an abortion. I don't see why people who are pro-life feel the need to gather outside of clinics that do abortion. it's none of their business so why are they there. they have no idea what the situation is but they are foolish for that. And everyone is entitled to do as they please but seriously they have no right to do that. (all facts are from this website http://womensissues.about.com.... I suck at citing things and I know it has arguments for both sides.)
Abortion

My first debate is on abortion. Now why is it that some people think that abortion is so wrong? As one can see I'm pro-choice. I believe that it is a woman's choice wither or not to keep the child. No one should be forced to have a child that they didn't want. And just because someone has an abortion it does not mean that they are any different. There are facts that abortion isn't the worse thing in the world. for starters, Abortion is not used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. Only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and that is due more to individual carelessness than to the availability of abortion. (womenissues.about.com #6). even with proper use of condoms and birth control it is still possible to get pregnant. condoms and birth control do not eliminate the risk of a pregnancy, they can only reduce the risk. Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced. (women issues #9). (all facts are from this website. http://womensissues.about.com... i'm not to good at citeing sorces)
Abortion

As I have stated before, it is a woman's choice on weather or not to have the child. If she decides to have an abortion it is her choice, after all it is her body. No one can or should tell someone what to do with their body. you cannot compare someone who had an abortion to a murderer. It is not right to say that a woman who has an abortion is wrong, it was what she thought best. And if she was raped well then she should be forced to have a child, she shouldn't be forced to remember everyday of her life she was raped, do you have any idea what psychological problems that would cause. She would always be traumatized. In closing of this debate, pro-choice is just easier because its no-ones choice but the woman's and whomever she is with.
Abortion

Ahh, so one of those people. i love america i do, but what pro-life protesters do is wrong. yes i know they are passionate i understand that. and they have every right to protest. But they have no right to call those who get abortion whores or sluts. they dont know what happened or what the is situation. I think the resloution is completely fair. This is going to be a short post on my end and i am highly sorry, i do apologize in adavance. I honestly belive that the government should not make abortion illegal. this post and the next one is going to be opion based on my end to be honest. I know that people get upset and all but stilll. it doesn't affect them, it doesn't change thiere lives in anyway. i do not belive that abortion is a problem. let the people do as they please. its thier lives
Abortion

To deny someone of life is cruel and unjust. To deny a baby of life to deny someone a living being who hasn't even experienced life is beyond cold-blooded. When a women is bearing a child she has the I believe ultimate responsibility. The women must abandon everything and focus on her responsibility. When a woman kills a child she skills an opportunity someone that can have an idea the benefits outweigh the negatives. In case of rape doctors can administer pills and make sure she isn't pregnant and give her pharmaceuticals to ensure she won't get pregnant. It was decided on roe vs. wade that the mother had the choice whether or not she had the power over one's life a bit like Russian roulette except the baby has a 50% chance of being killed and 50% chance of staying alive. "if you take away a woman's right to her own body, what could the government make you do. it is not murder if the child can't even live outside of the mothers body and as long as its done within the first four months then I don't see why people care so much"- opponent R1- what about the babies rights? what about giving the baby rights? and not leaving it to a bovine/asinine teen who gives it away every time she feels like it. Most abortions are teens. How is it none of their business it's like saying why do people want to stop racism? it's like asking why do people even care about the columbine high school shooting I mean it was none of their business so what's the big deal? well Murder is a big deal it's a huge deal. When a baby has a mind the baby is a human being. You obviously have no idea what the "situation" is. killing is a very big deal in America people care, they're passionate, and they have the 1st amendment right to protest. Also the government is made for the people and by the people. -aside- the resolution is unfair and limits the arguments that one can make against it
Hands on learning should be mandated in every school

"In the beginning, schools should start small. Incorporate hands-on learning while still covering topics for the tests. Gather data regarding the effectiveness of hands-on learning then when enough data is gathered, a bigger change can be made. Deciding not to try applying hands-on learning at all just because it is difficult when the benefits are very clear is insane." While, obviously, it would be outrageous to attempt to make this massive transition in a mere several years I would like to ask is it truly necessary? Tampering with an education system, especially K-12, is risky because you are suggesting putting their future at risk to educational failure. With the failure of the educational system you now have a domino effect that flows into every aspect of our society when these people move into the workforce with their practically failed education. While our current system does need upgrading, is your method really the correct choice? Making a drastic transition to test-based learning to project-based learning, even over a long period of time, could potentially be disastrous. The current system, while flawed, is designed well for the general populace and could be improved along those same lines rather than making a major transition to a whole new project-based system. I would like to thank Jovison for an enjoyable debate. I would also like to remind everyone that I actually agree with much of what pro brought forth and that I was playing devil's advocate for most of this debate.
Hands on learning should be mandated in every school

"There is evidence that standardized tests fail to meet all of the desired affects. However, the standardized tests are also important in how schools get their accreditation and endowments. The government requires test scores to work with to make these judgments in performance. The idea of eliminating tests is in its infancy and would be extremely and unnecessarily risky to make the leap to eliminate standardized tests from our education system." Yes, and this indeed is the problem with the current system. It is so inefficient, yet people are reluctant to change it. Of course, a complete change in system will takes years if not decades, doing it in a matter of days or months is outrageous; nevertheless I am sure that it is necessary. In the beginning, schools should start small. Incorporate hands-on learning while still covering topics for the tests. Gather data regarding the effectiveness of hands-on learning then when enough data is gathered, a bigger change can be made. Deciding not to try applying hands-on learning at all just because it is difficult when the benefits are very clear is insane. "here are many reasons that could explain why students are not learning important critical thinking and "higher-order" thinking skills. While the method in which it is being taught be a part of it, I believe the larger part of the issue is our relaxed culture that many (if not most) students take part in." It is true that there are several reasons, which includes lack of reading and too much messing around, but keep in mind that often, students mess around too much because they think they are not learning anything from class or can get away with skipping classes because they can still do tests easily. I've had friends and classmates that skip classes and still get As. Study also shows that part of the reasons why students are not taking part in classes because they find the class boring or that they can learn it better without participating in class. http://www.browndailyherald.com... "There are issues with applying hands-on learning at the college level. Many students can find many activities to be trivial and quickly lose interest (I experienced that a few times), focusing on making the activities fun can actually hamper learning, failing to reflect on activities academically (usually in a lecture) ultimately makes the whole activity educationally pointless, and many abstract topics simply does not invite the idea of activities." I can say the same with lecture based classes. Many students find them dull and students who are non visual and auditory learners will suffer in classes like those. I am not saying to treat learning as a game. While it can still be fun, it should be emphasized that the activities are part of the learning process and should not be taken as a joke.
A debater on Debate.org should not be allowed to vote for themselves after a debate

You as a debater should not have a single say in the outcome of your debates. Real debates are not done in this way, at least not the competitive ones. It is unfair for the person you are going against if they do not have the ability to vote as well. Debates winners should be decided by judges or in this case the general public of the site to decide who truly had the better argument. Voting for yourself is again unsportsmanlike, unfair to people who do not have cell phones or live in foreign areas, and gives a unrealistic voting experience. Winning by 1 point because you voted for yourself, giving yourself 7 points should be seen as a cheap win and does not give any real sense of achievement or fulfillment knowing that you basically had to cheat to win.
A debater on Debate.org should not be allowed to vote for themselves after a debate

The members on Debate.org that start debates, at the end of the debate should not be allowed to vote for themselves. Voting for yourself is just unsportsmanlike. If the other person cannot vote for themselves or refuses to vote out of principle, out of sportsmanship the other debater should let the people decide who won and not their biased opinions. A lot of the debates on this site are won by a person voting for themselves which is wrong. Some people cannot vote at all, so when going up against someone who does not have access to a cell phone or lives in a foreign country and does not have the ability to get the verification code sent to them, it gives the other person with these items and advantages of living in America the luxury of getting a free 7 points. A person who votes for themselves have a biased opinion on their debates and will vote for themselves even if they know they don't deserve to win. Like a person who votes all 7 points for themselves when they have forfeited every round. Forfeiting a round means a supposed loss in conduct and spelling and grammar. The ability to vote for yourself is also unrealistic. In a actual debate a person would not be able to vote for themselves or their teams or even be judges for that matter in the debate. Being able to vote for yourself just makes Debate.org unrealistic compared to actual debating experience.
Prison conditions in Arizona"s "Tent City" violate the 8th amendment.

Sheriff Arpaio might have a slight reputation for being a tough guy, but below his surface is a man who cares for others. On August 3, 2014 "Tent City" celebrated it's 21st birthday and Arpaio celebrated by sharing cake and Gatorade with the inmates. Being understanding of the heat, during the summer months, according to ABC15 Sheriff Arpaio had ice cream and ice water soaked towels distributed to the inmates. No inmate has ever suffered a life-threatening illness due to weather while in "tent city." Some might argue that soldiers volunteer to live in these conditions and therefore it is not fair to compare soldiers conditions to criminals conditions. But wouldn't it be fair to assume that these criminals volunteer to commit their crimes and it's understood that when a person commits a crime they spend time in jail? In the end, it's clear to me that "Tent City" is the perfect alternative to typical prisons. It's saves lots of taxpayers money, it helps solve the problem of overcrowding prisons, and it's an effective measure for punishing criminals and helping prevent repeat offenders. While many of the conditions may seem unfavorable to the typical American, they are by no means cruel and unusual, and therefore they do not violate the 8th amendment.
Prison conditions in Arizona"s "Tent City" violate the 8th amendment.

The "Tent City" Jail in Maricopa County, Texas forces overflow inmates to live outside for years in tents, never escaping grueling temperatures and spending far too much time in the sweltering Texas sun. Sheriff Arpaio, mastermind behind the jail"s creation, still forces inmates to perform tasks and jobs that were long ruled unconstitutional for any other jail in this nation. Some may argue that "Tent City" does not violate the 8th amendment because soldiers overseas live in similar conditions. But there"s a huge difference, soldiers choose to live in these conditions and they get paid for it. One could also put forth the argument that the soldiers are living in conditions that also violate the 8th amendment which still makes Tent City unconstitutional no matter what. By looking at the facts presented before, it is easy to see that the inmates at Tent City are dehumanized and punished very cruelly and unusually. Keep in mind that the residents of Tent City are only awaiting trial, they are not yet considered guilty for their low-level crimes. They are beaten and chained together while performing difficult physical tasks in the hot sun. They live outside on a daily basis and in all weather conditions. Tent City has already been voted unconstitutional by a federal judge based on its medical treatment or lack there of. There is no reason why this judge"s statements should be revoked or reconsidered. The facts are there and Tent City very, very clearly violates the 8th amendment.
Prison conditions in Arizona"s "Tent City" violate the 8th amendment.

To the privileged people in our country, this place may seem horrible. These people have been privileged because of their hard work in life, or their families hard work. How happy are you when the government takes a portion of your hard earned pay for taxes? It's almost as if you've worked hours for nothing. And this money is going straight to prisoners, people who cause harm. By inventing these tent prisons, people save hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. For example, $20,000 is saved by excluding salt and pepper, $150,000 is saved by eliminating coffee, $100,000 is saved by providing a vegetarian menu, and over half a million dollars have been saved by switching to bologna sandwiches. Additionally, setting up tents and beds is much more cost and time efficient than building a new prison from the ground. As said before, not giving heat and air-conditioning does not violate the 8th amendment as there wasn't such a thing as air conditioning or electric heating when the constitution was written. Also, soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan experience temperatures of 115 degrees and maybe even more too. Our soldiers don't have air conditioning in their tents and they also need to wear uniforms and carry heavy equipment. Is this to say prisoners are more deserving of air conditioning than our own soldiers? People in these tents are all sentenced to one year or less. As for the disliked prison uniform, well at least they have some clothes on their back to wear. After all, this is jail and inmates by no means should expect to wear something of the latest fashion. This tent city is such a positive alternative to solve overcrowding prisons and also save on the cost of prisons and this is probably why Arpaio has an 85% approval rating. If there was any clear violation to the eight amendment, this prison would have already been closed. In perspective of all other real world situations, tent city does not violate the 8th amendment.
Prison conditions in Arizona"s "Tent City" violate the 8th amendment.

Besides living in tents that were built as an overflow extension of the "Tent City" Maricopa County Jail in Phoenix, this jail was purely created to save money and dehumanize criminals that may or may not be guilty. Sheriff Joe Arpaio created this extension purely to fulfill his own desires to be cruel. Inmates now live in hundreds of army surplus tents from the Korean War era. It's home to 2,000 residents, a;; awaiting trial. Not only are we committing unconstitutional acts within the walls of this jail, we are commit tin theses acts on people who may or may not even be guilty. You can't get more wrong than that. These tents are unheated in the winter and uncooled in the summer where temperatures inside them have been clocked as high as 145 degrees. Sheriff Arpaio himself calls "Tent City" a "Concentration camp," a concept this country long ago denounced and fought a war over. Male inmates are forced by Arpaio to wear pink underwear under their old-school chain-gang striped convict suits in attempts to break down their masculinity. During the day, in temperatures well exceeding 100 degrees, the men, women, and teens of "Tent City" are sent out to work in "chain-gangs," (prisoners are chained together and forced to perform menacing physical tasks. They are then served 2 meals a day that were recently found the cheapest among the nation's jails. Arpaio argues that he saved taxpayers $20,000 just by cutting salt and pepper out of their meals. Back within the tent walls, inmates face daily beatings, not only by gangbangers but by guards as well. This is then followed by medical care so dismal it was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court. In 2008, a U.S. district court judge ruled the inadequate conditions at the Maricopia County Jail, overlooked by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, unconstitutional. With the facts I have presented, it is easy to see just how horrible the Maricopia County Jail really is. Of course criminals are criminals and they must be punished for their crimes, they are also human. Tent City is full of men, women, and teens awaiting trial who may or may not be guilty. Why dehumanize an innocent man? There is no reason to do so, proving, with a substantial amount of evidence, that Tent City clearly violates the 8th amendment. By performing cruel and unusual punishments on its inmates, as mentioned, it violates the 8th amendment.
Prison conditions in Arizona"s "Tent City" violate the 8th amendment.

"Tent City" may not be a trip to paradise, but by no means is it a violation of the 8th Amendment. The conditions of these prisons are perfectly fine. Prisoners have a roof over their head and food to eat. Those with work release can earn up to $40 a day and can use this money to buy other necessities they might want. It may not be heated or air conditioned, but back when the constitution was written, neither air conditioning nor electric heating existed. In addition to this, prisoners have more personal space than they would if this prison didn't exist. Overcrowding prisons has been a nation wide country and tent city helps with this problem. Also, in some prisons, there isn't enough beds and prisoners are forced to sleep on mats on the floor. In "tent city" every inmate has a bed. Lastly, American soldiers overseas live in practically the same conditions. Is this to say we should treat criminals better then the men and woman who protect our country? "Tent city" is the perfect way to handle the situation of overcrowding prisons while saving hundreds and thousands of dollars every year.
Prison conditions in Arizona"s "Tent City" violate the 8th amendment.

Prison conditions in Arizona's "Tent City" violate the 8th amendment. The 8th amendment prohibits the government from imposing cruel and unusual punishments. Forcing inmates to live in tents should be considered a cruel and unusual punishment. Not only should living in tents be considered unconstitutional, so should the rest of the inmates living conditions. Inmates are beaten and given poor medical treatment, so poor that it has been ruled unconstitutional in the past. Tent City was ranked as one of the worst prisons in the world in 2012 and has been voted unconstitutional for a number of reasons. Clearly, it is a violation of the 8th amendment.