BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The USA government should take over Canada

It sounds like a preposterous idea. Why would the peace-fostering, freedom-loving USA invade such a similar country as Canada? I'll tell you why: it makes sense. Canada has a weak military, lots of land, and abundant natural resources. With our hyper-advanced armed forces, we could topple the insignificant Canadian troops and claim the endless bounty that lies to the north. Very few lives would be lost, if any. Canada is the second-largest country in the world, bigger than the USA itself. We would have ample land to exponentially increase food production and farming research, eliminating the deaths of millions of malnourished kids in third-world countries. Canada's energy-producing abilities are largely untapped, and could end Western dependency on foreign oil. The amounts of renewable energy sources there are staggering, from wave power to geothermal to biofuels. We could free ourselves of costly Middle East turf wars, and save money on everything from food to cars to televisions, all because transportation would cost less. The diplomatic cost of such an takeover would be minimal, as minimal Canadian lives would be lost, less than one hundred, and the country would effectively be taken over by a more efficient and progressive government. Approval by European countries who may be concerned about the well being of citizens would be easily won, as the USA would let the Canadians run their lives normally, just with more prosperity and efficiency. The takeover of Canada could be a jumping-off point for the fixing of Mexico as well; a more powerful and stable US could more easily topple the drug lords in control of the Mexican streets. We could restore peace for the Mexican people, and solve our country's drug problems as well. Lets review our impacts. -The USA would gain food production abilities ,possibly saving the lives of millions of hungry third world families. -The lives lost would be minimal, as Canada would quickly surrender when faced with the USA military might. -The USA could eliminate dependence on foreign oil, allowing us to save yet more lives and money by not engaging in Middle Eastern wars, also cleaning up the environment by using renewable energy. -The international community would be in full agreement, as the USA would not change Canadians' way of life, culture, or religion, only make their country more prosperous and efficient. -The more-powerful USA could possibly fix Mexican and Central American drug wars, eliminating lives lost and removing the USA drug problems.
time travel does not change the course of history or the present. the butterfly effect is false.

just because time travel may not be possible for the human race to attain does not change the concept i am trying to convey. time travel is still possible even if we may not have any idea how to do so as of right now. time is but a measure of change. from the very moment of the big bang, the one unified force split into the four fundamental forces we know now and these forces are solely responsible for the state of the universe at the present. therefore if there existed technology capable of recording the position of every atom down to its quarks in the universe and the path, they follow through time due to the fundamental forces acting upon each atom. then the data provided from this experiment could be used to backtrack and predict the positions of each atom in the past, the changes that occurred in the universe all the way to the big bang its self. if so then you could ( i kid you not ) predict the future as well. but this knowledge doesn't mean we have control of time its self. since the beginning, all matter has interacted with its self based on the properties of elements, fundamental forces and the acceleration due to the bang its self to produce life on earth. even the atoms that make up the neurons that which are transmitting the data from your eyes around your brain allowing you to read this text are slaves to causality governed by the laws of the universe. therefore the fact that such technology could be developed is already an event engraved in stone to happen in the future. the big bounce theory also supports this way of thinking in that it states that the universe is in a constant birth and death cycle going from the big bang then to the big crunch and similar to the parallel universes theory, each cycle is slightly different from the last meaning not only is the technology required to predict the past, present and future bound to happen, it has already happened before as the universe continuously moves from one cycle to the other the probability of any even occurring always increases to 100% after each cycle, reaching 100 then moving back down and up again. the fact that we dont have any concrete evidence of any future time-travelers like a man who literally has a newspaper from 2066 may be because we exist in a cycle where time travel isn't possible in the races timeline of existence.
time travel does not change the course of history or the present. the butterfly effect is false.

No butterfly effect would be observed because time travel does not exist. If time travel did exist, wouldn't we see many people from the future in our time? There is absolutely no way that time travel will ever exist based on that fact. If time travel was real, people from the future would have brought it back to many different time periods and time travel would be available to every person in every time period. Since that is not the case, time travel is not real and would clearly not change the course of history.
time travel does not change the course of history or the present. the butterfly effect is false.

the butterfly effect states that any alteration to any events in the past, creates a ripple effect of changes that affects the course of time and destroys the present that once was and creates a new present based on the changes that occurred from the droplet (initial change to the course of history) hitting the stagnant pool of time. however, this is false because if a person were to temporally relocate to the past, their existence in the past is part of the events that lead to the persons present in the first place and so any changes that they make to the time line are not in fact changes but the events that lead to the existence of the present the time traveler came from in the first place.
Abortion is generally wrong.

I am from a standpoint that which respects the life of all beings, whether they be born or unborn, but I am pro-choice. I am unhappy however that the pro-life standpoint is taking away the ability for women to get abortions. Whether this is from a religious standpoint or a moral standpoint I am not sure. But as for the abortion of the unborn fetus itself I am for the option for women to have the choice to abort it or not. Of course it is not an excuse such as, "oh who cares if I get pregnant, I can just get an abortion", That is not right. Getting an abortion in my eyes is for a female to decide she is not ready to make the commitment to the baby and will not be able to take care of it. And of course there is the circumstance of rape or the possible disfigurement and/or retardation of the baby. In those cases it does make sense to abort the fetus to spare them the sort of empty life they will lead, putting the weight of themselves on the backs of those who need to take care of them. I am sorry if this seems cruel but we cannot allow that to happen. If a person is to live there life as a hollow shell, being spoon fed and carted around, I'd say that isn't much of a life.
Abortion is generally wrong.

In my recent thought (yes people, I actually do think), I discovered a very simple, yet interesting vein of thought. I ended up following that train of thought and arrived at a conclusion that contradicted my previously held beliefs at every angle: abortion is wrong in most situations. While I used to be a pro-choice advocate, I feel now that this isn't necessarily correct in most cases. What I want to do here is to have an informal debate, more of a limited discussion. Sources will be generally frowned upon. No overly ornate arguments. If you're putting more than half an hour into writing and thinking of rebuttals, you're spending too much time on this debate. I mainly just want to have a one-on-one discussion with someone who either a) believes in the pro-choice stance, or b) is up to playing devil's advocate. Please keep an open mind in this debate. Let's set out a few ground rules for a second. 1. For those worried about their win/loss record, I urge voters to let this debate end in a tie. If someone votes, make sure the points even out between myself and my opponent. 2. In the event of two or all rounds forfeited, the non-forfeiting debater holds the right to nullify rule number one, in which case all seven points will go to the non-forfeiting debater. 3. Upon request, rule number two can be voided. First round will be for acceptance. Definitions: Abortion: the voluntary termination of pregnancy (a.k.a. Killing the fetus) Wrong: Impermissible, incorrect.
Abortion is generally wrong.

Since I only have nine minutes before I have to go to class, I'll get straight to thing. I think the main problem with my opponent's mother analogy is that independent of how gross the mother views giving birth to a baby she didn't consent to receiving, it doesn't change the fact that, if the situations were reversed and we were the baby, we still wouldn't want our mother to abort us. So, reciprocally, we still shouldn't abort the baby. While there have been plenty of cases that health issues were diagnosed correctly and accurately in the pre-natal stages, 9 times out of 10, it still won't give us a reason to abort the baby. Other complications, at least most serious complications with the pregnancy itself, aren't really detectable until labor begins, and the ones that we can detect, we have the capability of fixing before labor begins. So I can't find this to be an accurate reason for it, past the fact that we would be saving a baby with a seriously painful condition a whole lot of pain with an abortion. As a small aside, I find it mildly humorous that my opponent came to, more or less, the same conclusion I did three rounds back. Heavy restriction would solve a whole lot of problems. But since that's basically it, I'll end here.
Abortion is generally wrong.

To clarify what I was trying to say about the two mothers; what I was trying to say was that the abortion of the baby is decided by the mother and only the mother. And is normally determined by the mother's personal beliefs and influenced by her family and friends. So say Mother A is a very religious woman, which chooses not to abort the baby because of her personal beliefs. While Mother B is not a religious person but does still have a strong moral basis. And Mother B chooses to get an abortion because she thinks that the act of having the baby (that was not made by love) somewhat disgusts or saddens her extremely. Which I think is a misconception with some people. Some people think that the act of birthing the baby is the "disgusting" action. While others think the baby itself is "disgusting". Recognizing the medical issues in an unborn fetus has been successfully accurate in some cases. However, like my opponent said, there are cases in which unborn babies have been diagnosed with a disease and come out completely healthy. So the information is not always 100% accurate. So to summarize, tests have been recorded positive and negative in about equal status. I have come to a conclusion that my opponent has made some very remarkable answers and has put an Idea in my mind. The idea is that, as he said, not to make abortion completely illegal, and to make more restrictions and laws on the subject, to prevent more arbitrary abortions. But to make it more of a necessity rather than a luxury in some cases, but to still make it for the immediate public, just with more restrictions, red tape, and fees. Just to make the public a little more… scared ill say to get an abortion. Because that's one thing the government's got right. When you want to scare the citizens, raise the price.
Abortion is generally wrong.

To save us all some time, I'll just get right to it. The first point my opponent brings up is a. .. confusing analogy with two mothers. I say confusing because it doesn't make much sense for me, and I would love it if my opponent were to clarify it. But from what I can gleam from it, the objections to the second mother's right to get an abortion, I believe, I already answered. If she doesn't feel like raising the child, she can simply give it up for adoption to a host family or the foster system. We still have to consider how we would feel in the baby's situation if our mother were considering an abortion just because she had been raped and her repist got her pregnant. As we wouldn't want to get aborted because of that, we shouldn't abort the baby. When my opponent asks the question of what about complications during pregnancy, I think I have to ask a second question to respond to his first: do we even have the capabilities to determine if complications will happen ahead of time? There are some that we can tell, such as if the umbilical cord has wrapped around the baby's neck, but these can be solved without the use of aborting the baby. Of course other complications exist, but these are beyond our ability to detect before they happen (I could be wrong on this, if I am simply let me know). My opponent raises a valid concern when he says that outlawing abortion would be forcing one's views onto others, which wouldn't exactly be a good thing. It's also a bad idea for a host of other reasons, but that's besides the point. That's why I would suggest that we don't entirely outlaw it, but rather restrict access to it to the point that those who are only truly in need of it (such as for a serious disease that would only subject the baby to more due suffering than necessary) can actually access it. It would prevent arbitrary abortions (I got preggers, but I no wanna be preggers, so I abort teh baby! ) while still allowing it to be there in extreme cases.
Abortion is generally wrong.

I apologize for my use of the blog I am a first time user and I thank you for the understanding. Now, first to your concern about the case of forced sex and rape. In the case of rape, the mother's will to have the child is probably the main reason for abortion. Consider two mothers, both have been raped and are a few weeks pregnant. One woman because of religious reasons will not take the life an unborn fetus because of the way she was raised, or the ways she is taught through the church, synagogue, or mosque (or whichever religion you may choose). On the other hand we have a woman that is more of personal beliefs then of faith. She has decided to get an abortion, not because of her willingness to get rid of a human life, but because she believes she cannot raise the child nor have the bastard child of a man she does not know. The child that is born out of pure lust is no less of a human I agree but this woman's personal beliefs is what is ending or continuing the lives of the fetuses. Secondly, in your argument about the diseased or handicapped infants that grow up to be very well formed members of society does make sense to me and I do now realize that my argument was invalid about the abortion of a fetus if it is to be born full of disease or disorder. There is a case however I would like to inquire about, what if the mother was going to have complications during the birth of the baby which would result in the death of the mother, baby, or both? Would it not be more logical to save one life then risk the life of both? (Again please bear with me if my arguments are not as "colorful" as you wish them to be or bad reasoning, it is my first time debating) I would also like to address something I have been swirling around in my mind for a while. The concept of getting rid of the option to get an abortion seems to pushing your own wishes and influences into other people's faces. Which almost seems to come to the extreme sometimes. Such as the rallies and meetings that are to try to force the option of getting an abortion out the window. I'm not saying that abortions are "right" but I do say that if you do not want to get an abortion, don't get an abortion. Taking the option to abort an unwanted or unexpected child away seems to take someone else's beliefs away and replace them with the people who took them away. I understand that certain groups want to remove the right to get an abortion because of the belief that it is murder or basically "legal' murder of a person before they are born. With that I turn the floor back over to opponent.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

It's crazy how you took my saying "I do realize innocent people are going to get killed sometimes" and interpreted it as 'it's ok for innocent people to be killed'. It is never ok for innocent people to get killed. No matter what the punishment for any crime is, Innocent people are STILL going to get convicted. It's terrible, But a small price to pay for the 1, 000, 000+ violent crimes that happen every year. I heard a story a few weeks ago about a child being murdered, And the father felt so much better knowing the terrible person who did that was dead. It gave him a sense of closure. I started looking in to it, And founds many other stories like his. The victim's family/friends always feel better when the killer is killed. I don't believe everyone deserves empathy. You can't try to empathize with a mass murderer, It's just not going to happen. Someone as despicable as a murderer doesn't deserve empathy, Happiness, Respect, Or life.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

The first point of yours I would like to address is what crimes should get the death penalty. I believe everyone has the right to live, But I also believe you can be stripped of that right if you take another person's life. Some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties The punishment should fit the crime. Second, If you take a very dangerous criminal's life, Then there is no possible way for them to commit more crimes. If they have a life sentence, There is still a chance that they could escape, Kill/rape another inmate, Or harm guards/anyone who works at the prison. Third, Regarding innocent men being executed, They should know that a unanimous jury of 12 citizens must render the death verdict after an exhaustive trial where the accused murderer is represented by two highly competent attorneys and overseen by an independent judge who ensures a fair trial. I do realize innocent people are going to get killed sometimes, But the changes of that happening are very slim, And the very small chance of executing the wrong person is balanced by the benefits to society of putting off other murderers. Even if you take away the death penalty, Innocent people will still get life sentences, Which you said is a worse punishment. In regard to "giving them a second chance", I think the likelihood of them being found innocent after the first rigorous trial is very slim to none.
The Death Penalty Should be Abolished

I'd like to begin by thanking Evan for taking this debate on a fairly controversial topic. I'll begin by breaking down your comment in order as you wrote it. First, The reasoning for the death penalty would of course be crimes that are against humanity. We must ask ourselves first if committing a crime means they deserve to die. Who get to, Or has the right to decide that someone no longer gets to live? The death penalty is really the same thing as life in prison, The punishment is just shortened. What would be the real punishment? Second, A common misconception is that it costs the government less to execute inmates than keep them for life without parole. But like I said, That's a misconception. There are a lot of unavoidable costs that make a death sentence far more expensive than a sentence of life without parole. Most of these costs result from the unique status of the death penalty within the US justice system. Because it"s the only truly irreversible form of punishment, The Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases, Including several levels of mandatory review after a death sentence is issued. The appeals process takes decades to complete. Studies of the California death penalty system, The largest in the US, Have revealed that a death sentence costs at least 18 times as much as a sentence of life without parole would cost. Third, It is highly debatable if it deters crime. With no real studies performed it's almost impossible to know for sure, But I find it unlikely someone committing a crime finds the death penalty more terrifying than spending the rest of their life behind bars with other criminals. Now my strongest reason behind abolishing the death penalty is the fact that many have been falsely accused, And convicted of crimes that resulted in them getting the death penalty. Like the reasons I've stated above, I believe that life without parole is actually a worse punishment for those who are guilty of the crime but it gives the wrongfully convicted a second chance at life through appeals of the courts. By abolishing the death penalty it could prevent a guilty person of being executed, But it could also save an innocent man's life. One person being wrongfully accused, Convicted and executed is one too many.
My argument for a god will be more convincing than my opponents.

Let's each stick to one main argument for a god/gods and related arguments that we can argue apply in support. Con will open with a single argument and post a null round at round 4. Let me know if you object to my God definition. I'm fine with standard dictionary definitions: God noun 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. synonyms:the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. "a moon god" synonyms:deity, goddess, divine being, celestial being, divinity, immortal, avatar "sacrifices to appease the gods"