BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ron Paul should be president

I will make a few points as to why he should not be president, but this is mostly just an intro into the argument that I will make next round. The president must be elected democratically (well, a weird representative democratic system, stupid EC). Ron Paul will not get the votes to win either the republican nomination, nor the general election. Without winning the election, Ron Paul should not be president. Ron Paul has a very poor racist history [1]. Now, Ron Paul and his blind supporters will say he never wrote those. Ron Paul even said in 2008 that he had never read these. Pretty hard to believe, since they were brought to his attention back in 1996 [2], when he defended them and never said that they weren't his (you'd think that'd be a big thing to point out, of course, that was when he was running in Texas and not on a national level, so it was okay to admit racism there). Paul, several years later, came back and said that they weren't his, "he claimed that his campaign aides thought it would be "too confusing" to tell the truth, so he had to lie and accept responsibility." The current excuse is an unknown ghostwriter for his newsletter. Is that "too confusing" or just another lie? It doesn't seem too confusing to me if it is the truth. What aid would suggest taking the hook for that rather than point out that truth? Unless, of course, this is just another lie thought up after the fact. [1] http://articles.cnn.com... [2] http://www.realchange.org...
Global warming

First id like to refute my opponets contentians of glacers and ocean ice melting she would like to say i have given no proof but nether has she she neglects to say that global warming is a theory and has not been proven scientifictly but on my side i have history not lose assumption. 1.) my apponets first point and only point is that ice is melting ice is melting off mountains , glaciers and of the north and south poles she didnot say how human beings are the cause 4 this nor did she say that this is not the cause of the planets naturale climate changes. so in away u could see this point of melting ice supporting my side of the debate. now i would like to go over my points First off i would like to reintroduce my point of the earths natural heating and cooling. we human beings have been on earth a very short time this world we live on changes wether we want it to or not and it will. over the last ten million years the world has been around 4 billion of those years have had living life on her contanents and with that said 67% of the time the world has hade living life on it the planet had little to no ice on it. 65 million years in the past a astroid hit the planet this set of the trend of heating and cooling that we are experancing 2 day. There has been 4 Major ice ages since then. along ith many other little ice ages. and off course with the end of a ice age u have a warming period.
Global warming

ok well i didnt know that that was my first speach i thought that was were the resolution was put.... but with no further delay iI am in strond negation that global warming is real i am going to base my case off of the worlds geological history and human growth. Deffinitions== Global warming= un natural heating of the ozone caused directly by human beings. 1.)First of all the world we live on is billions of years old and in this time period the earth has went threw many cooling and heating periods this is a fact curently we are coming off the last ice age and the world is gradualy heating back up. 2.) My next point is a point i have come up with my self and supports my first point. it is largley accepted that the resone dinosours grew so large is because a slitly more heated earth than we know now, and a excess of oxegen and carbon manoxide. over the last 400 years litterly not even a second in Geological time the average hight of human beings has grown a foot and a half. this is likly do to the increase in carbon monoxide and oxeygen in our ozone layer. because of these to points i have proven that the idia that global warming is caused by humans is real and i propose the current heating of the planet be given a different name since global warming is not whats happening.
Single vs Relationship

While being single may feel great at first, Being single your entire life is nothing but loneliness. Loneliness that cannot be filled by any void, No amount of food, No amount of sex and no amount of Possessions. After a while, You being to realize those things are pointless. They do not cuddle you at night, they do not ask you how was your day or are there to talk to you when you are stressed. In short, its just loneliness without having someone.
IVF Debate

On that note, not every egg removed is used to make a baby which leads to the disposal of eggs which could cause a lot of anger from pro-lifers. According to eurekalert.org, the risk of ectopic pregnancy due to both IVF and ICSI is about 2.23 times as likely. While IVF has a lot of pros, I feel as though the cons need to be recognized to make a safer and more efficient procedure.
IVF Debate

According to advancedfertility.com the rate of ectopic pregnancy risks are reduced due to the scientists being able to plant the embryo directly into the uterus lining when preforming IVF. The steps to the procedure include a woman being given an injection of FSH for about 10 days then several eggs being harvested surgically. After the man ejaculates into a container the eggs and sperm are mixed in a petri dish and scientists observe to find healthy embryos. Then usually 2-3 embryos are implanted into the woman's uterus. IVF is scary now but scientists are saying that, like everything else, after being around for awhile people won't be so hesitant about it.
IVF Debate

However, IVF can also have a lot of serious side effects such as ectopic pregnancy, where the pregnancy happens in an abnormal location rather than in the uterus. According to quora.com this can cause pain in the pelvis, abdomen, side of body, gastrointestinal bloating, nausea, and vomiting. And can bring about abnormal vaginal bleeding and cramping. On top of this, ectopic pregnancy is the highest cause of pregnancy related deaths according to obgyn.net, causing more then 40 deaths per year in the US and accounting for about 10% of all pregnancy-related deaths.
IVF Debate

Although, IVF is helpful because it reduces the amount of surgeries the woman would need to have depending on why she is infertile. Courtesy of Web MD I have found that procedures to stimulate fertility include fallopian tube procedures, laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis, myomectomy for uterine fibroids, and even ovarian drilling for polycystic ovary syndrome. These aren't even all of the procedures that can be tried by doctors to help a woman with her fertility issues, which all are painful and risky for the patient. By using IVF we can limit these procedures and make the couple happy.
IVF Debate

While IVF provides scientists with the opportunity to study and understand birth defects, IVF does not help to prevent them. While it does prevent inherited diseases such as Huntington's disease, a study done by UCLA and published on the TIME website (link here: http://healthland.time.com...) shows that children created by IVF have a 1.25X higher risk of birth defects than naturally conceived children. This study was performed in California, a state with the highest IVF birth rates in the country. Even after removing factors such as the mother's age and race, 9% of IVF babies had birth defects compared to 6.6% of naturally conceived children.
IVF Debate

Actually, according to an article in the American Experience, IVF is a way to prevent birth defects. By studying early embryonic development outside of the womb scientists are able to learn how to prevent birth defect, not only in that one embryo but they are able to gain knowledge of ways to help prevent them in other pregnancies as well. By using the process of IVF scientists are learning much more about pregnancy and ways to prevent diseases, defects, etc. which can be an overall benefit. Knowledge gained through IVF can help advance medicine in general helping with neonatal care and parental care as a whole.
IVF Debate

While there is the opportunity for doctors to identify and study diseases early, the procedure grants the mother abdominal pain, severe nausea, and OHSS, Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which has the potential to cause bloating of the waist, shortness of breath, pleural effusion, dark or ceased urine, calf and chest pains, as well as lower abdominal pains. Finally, IVF leaves the family with an increased chance of birth defects according to Mamashealth.com. As DNA co-discoverer James Watson said: ""You can only go ahead with your work if you accept the necessity of infanticide. There are going to be a lot of mistakes. What are we going to do with the mistakes?"
IVF Debate

According to the Southern California Reproductive Center, there are consults before the actual IVF procedure to speak about costs, so actually people would be prepared on how much money they would be spending. Also, for some people bringing a baby of their own, with their genes, is worth any dollar amount. This could also help the couples that want to have a baby of their own together but have a history of inherited diseases that may affect it. There was an article in Time magazine that showed the scientists are able to pick out these diseases when looking at the 2 parents genes and this can help to alleviate the stress and worries the couple may have when going through the process of trying to conceive. Overall, the couple being happy and the baby being healthy makes everyone happy and IVF could support both of these aspects.
IVF Debate

While IVF is a great way for infertile couples to conceive, it is far too unreliable and expensive. The American Pregnancy Association reports that it only has a 30-35% chance of working for women under the age of 35 and it only declines with age. This means that it may take several attempts, not mentioning that according to The American Society of Reproductive Medicine IVF has an average cost of $12,400, not including medicine for pain, swelling, nausea, and other possible side effects. This means that by the time they actually conceive, it could cost them a significant amount of money they were not prepared to dish out.
Hufflepuff should be disbanded

Rebuttals: My opponent started by talking about the people of Hufflepuff and how great they are. I am not against the people in the house, merely the house itself. Like I said in my second contention, these wonderful people could've done so much better. "Hufflepuffs is that they do not act morally good as a means to achieve an end. " This actually proves my point. Hufflepuffs just look at a situation and have been trained to blunder in it with no goal other than to do the immediate "right thing. " My opponent has said that houses "do not focus on what a student has the potentiality to do," but this is actually not true. Do you think the Sorting Hat decides which house to put someone in because of what they have done in the past? No, they're all 11. It decides on the basis of what a student's BEST house would be. True, Hermione was intelligent, but she said herself that the Sorting Hat seriously considered her for Ravenclaw. She was one of the three people to travel with Harry to find and destroy the Horcruxes, and stayed with Harry when even Ron left in Book 7. This shows considerable bravery. My opponent's other example was Sirius Black, but he was actually in Gryffindor. "If everyone acted as a Hufflepuff did: hard working, loyal, kind, patient, the world would be in a much greater place. " Not necessarily. If everyone acted as a Hufflepuff, then no advances would be made. Hufflepuffs can probably hold down fort, but not for very long. My opponent said that Hufflepuffs have been great friends to Harry, Ron and Hermione. I am confused on this. Could my opponent please provide a couple of examples, because there are minimal examples of this. He said that in the Second Wizarding War, "Ravenclaw, lacking loyalty but supporting the good, for the most part decided not to get involved at all. " This is blatantly wrong. Ravenclaws stood up to protect Harry in a major moment. He talked for a while about how the Hufflepuffs fought for goodness in and of itself. This is true, but not unlike the other houses. The Gryffindors and Ravenclaws fought for what if not for goodness? Is he accusing them of fighting for fame?
Hufflepuff should be disbanded

I will debate that Hufflepuff should be disbanded for the following reasons:1-Hufflepuff has no specific motive:In each of the houses in Hogwarts, the students belonging to it possess a certain trait. Gryffindor's bravery, Ravenclaw's intelligence and Slytherin's "cleverness" (evilness). Hufflepuff is the only house without any of these traits. It's really the students who aren't outstanding in anything. This can be proved by many things: (1) Hufflepuff's mascot, the badger is likewise blah, to say the least, the other houses have an actual mascot showing their trait. (2) Nothing major happens with Hufflepuff. Gryffindor has the sword, the house is where most of the protagonists come from, etc. Ravenclaw at least has the tiara, Luna Lovegood and the The Grey Lady (the ghost that helped Harry find the tiara in Book 7). Slytherin has the ring, VOLDEMORT, and most of the other antagonists. Hufflepuff has a cup. There is a very exciting bit where they break into Gringotts to find and destroy it, but that's not really related to the actual house, and the main reason they broke in was for Gryffindor's sword. (3) Its dormitory entrance is revealed by tapping on a barrel. J.K. Rowling obviously knew Hufflepuff was not very important, so she didn't put very much work into it.2-Being disbanded may work out better for the students:The students in Hufflepuff would actually be doing a lot better if they were given a little more recognition. Let's take three Hufflepuff students and see how easily they would've fit into another house: Cedric Diggory, Newt Scamander and Susan Bones. Susan was already a member of the DA, so she would fit well into Gryffindor just on that. Susan Bones was the daughter of a prominent Ministry of Magic figure, Amelia Bones, so she would fit in with Ravenclaw. Cedric Diggory showed incredible bravery in Book 4 during the Triwizard Tournament. Newt Scamander is the author of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and on top of that was the headmaster at one point. He would've been an excellent addition to Hufflepuff. In fact, if these students natural talents were discovered and honed, they may have had much different, positive results. Newt Scamander could've published more books, Susan Bones could've followed in her mother's footsteps and Diggory might not have died, or at least not so quickly.
Every one who believes in god delusional

My opponent did not even make an argument and only recited the definition of "delusional" from a dictionary and Wikipedia, which is to my knowledge an unreliable source. Not only did he not make a point or argue his position, but he broke his own rule of "No semantics". However, since it is more difficult to argue this topic without the use of semantics and my opponent has violated his own rule, I will continue with this debate assuming justification for disregarding that rule. (Because my opponent did not specify the religion of the god you're referencing, I will assume god means a general omnipotent and omniscient deity.) My burden is to prove that everyone who believes in god is delusional. I will have to show that the act in believing in a god is an act being delusional. In every religion that has a supreme deity, and they all emphasize on having faith. Faith is defined as such: "a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust" To have faith or to believe in god, is to believe for which there is no proof/evidence. To be delusional is to have strong believe despite superior evidence that prove otherwise. There is a fundamental problem with the characteristics of omnipotence. One proposition called the omnipotence paradox exposes this problem. Suppose this scenario: God creates a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it. This paradox is evidence and proof that being omnipotent intrinsically contradictory and paradoxical. There is another problem with god's traits. Being omniscient would suggest that god knows everything that is going to happen, thus free will is nonexistent. There is no logical reason for an omnipotent and omniscient god to create such a world in which organisms have no free will. Now, my opponent may list a number of reasons and conditions for why such a god would do something like this, but according to Occam's razor, making a large number of assumptions and conditions would render my opponent's hypothesis highly unlikely to be true. The most succinct and coherent reason would be that an omnipotent and omniscient deity (god) does not exist. In summary, these logical evidence suggests that there can be no deity that is omnipotent and/or omniscient, thus relegating such a deity from the term and conditions of being a "god". Because having faith in god is to believe with which there is no proof, evidence that god does not exist is superior to the evidence that god does exist. If you choose to continue in your belief in god, you would have to believe "despite superior evidence to the contrary." Anyone who has this belief is being delusional. Conclusion: Everyone who believes in god is delusional. Gibbs, Phil. "UCR Physics." What is Occam's Razor?. N.p., Web. 13 Dec 2012. [http://math.ucr.edu...] "Merriam-Webster." Definition of Faith. N.p. Web. 13 Dec 2012. [http://www.merriam-webster.com...].
Every one who believes in god delusional

Definitions:Adj.1.delusional - suffering from or characterized by delusionspsychoneurotic, neurotic - affected with emotional disorderBased on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. " 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.(1)A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.(2)(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com......(2) http://en.wikipedia.org......
Global Warming is Entirely Caused By Humans

"Technically, only half of the planet would be roasted without CO2, while the other half is frozen, so I think we could both be right about that. Only half of the planet would be facing the sun at any given time. The atmosphere isn't actually thickening, though, it's the composition of gases that changes. There is an increase in CO2 that causes the higher global temperatures. That would mean that the rise in CO2 does cause the global warming to happen." And where did the CO2 come from then? Sure it didnt suddenly appear out of nowhere. Its from the factories of course. The factories at this moment has the nr. 1 CO2 emission. "I apologize, I didn't realize that information was contained in the source instead of the argument itself. Your reasoning is sound until you get to the point where you say that this proves global warming is our fault. I mentioned the ice caps earlier in this debate, they were already melting before the Industrial Revolution took place. While I don't doubt that it drastically increased the rate and scale of warming, in order for this to prove that global warming was caused by industrialization, the warming would have to have began after or at the same time as the Industrial Revolution, which isn't the case." It is already proven. If you checked the statistics, you will notice how the warmth rate suddenly rised so fast at the year 1800. Heres the statistics again: http://en.wikipedia.org... "I disagree with your first sentence, because it is possible to attempt to solve a problem without knowing the cause of it, such as in the case of a leaking pipe. You can go shut the water off to stop the leak, and then locate the cause (the hole in the pipe) and repair it. We did not fix the global warming, we reduced its' impact. We reduce the effects of things we did not cause frequently, such is the case with providing aid after a hurricane or cleaning up a mess made by a puppy. Those problems were not created by humans, but they don't need to be for us to do something about it." This argument is based on IF we hadnt caused the global warming. The high CO2 emissions, the industralization, its all too obvious to be a coincidence. Like i said, factories shoots out CO2, the atmosphere suddenly thickens. We reduced the CO2 emission by lowering the factories, etc usage. The atmosphere thinned and the global warming effect is reduced. The factories are made by us humans, so it proves we are the cause. Note: I could also chose a different thing like a car, it shoots out CO2 too. Its proven that we caused the global warming, so vote Pro.
Global Warming is Entirely Caused By Humans

"The atmosphere has actually 2 effects on the warmth. The first one is that it reduces the warmth that gets inside earth, just as i said, we will be roasted if this didnt happen. The second one is that it keeps the warmth inside for a set period of time and then they will be released from the atmosphere. However the atmosphere thickness at the start doesnt cause the bad effects of global warming to happen as i said." Technically, only half of the planet would be roasted without CO2, while the other half is frozen, so I think we could both be right about that. Only half of the planet would be facing the sun at any given time. The atmosphere isn't actually thickening, though, it's the composition of gases that changes. There is an increase in CO2 that causes the higher global temperatures. That would mean that the rise in CO2 does cause the global warming to happen. "It seems you do ignore my sources, if u readed it, the warmth began to rise in the year 18's Thats around the same time when the Industralization began. The industralization is the start of the increased emissions of CO2 and other gasses. So it proves our fault." I apologize, I didn't realize that information was contained in the source instead of the argument itself. Your reasoning is sound until you get to the point where you say that this proves global warming is our fault. I mentioned the ice caps earlier in this debate, they were already melting before the Industrial Revolution took place. While I don't doubt that it drastically increased the rate and scale of warming, in order for this to prove that global warming was caused by industrialization, the warming would have to have began after or at the same time as the Industrial Revolution, which isn't the case. "Before you actually do something about, you must locate the cause of it. Many suspected that the gas emissions were the causes and so the emissions were lowered. The effects of global warmth has been lowered slightly. Now, you say that we can do something about it, but its not our fault. Then how do you explain that we fixed the global warming because we lowered the emissions? In short, we caused the global warmings bad side effect." I disagree with your first sentence, because it is possible to attempt to solve a problem without knowing the cause of it, such as in the case of a leaking pipe. You can go shut the water off to stop the leak, and then locate the cause (the hole in the pipe) and repair it. We did not fix the global warming, we reduced its' impact. We reduce the effects of things we did not cause frequently, such is the case with providing aid after a hurricane or cleaning up a mess made by a puppy. Those problems were not created by humans, but they don't need to be for us to do something about it.