BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should abortion really be allowed in America

What do you suggest should be done with all the unwanted children that will be born as a result? Its the mothers life that will be affected as well if an unwanted child is born, in many cases the woman is not in a position to care for a child either due to financial reasons or personal reasons, like the terrifying prospect of raising a child alone. What do you suggest should be done in the cases that occur where in the mothers life is at risk? Or in the case of rape? Should women be punished for choosing abortion in these cases? The children are wrongfully murdered. The mother can always give the baby to another family member to take care of or put it in an orphanage. Being put in an orphanage is better than being wrongfully murdered at birth. While the child is the rapist's child it is also the mother's child too. The child should not be held responsible for the rapist's actions, it is not their fault that they were made. Women are punished for the rapist's actions but do you really want to inflict that on the child as well?
Should abortion really be allowed in America

What do you suggest should be done with all the unwanted children that will be born as a result? Its the mothers life that will be affected as well if an unwanted child is born, in many cases the woman is not in a position to care for a child either due to financial reasons or personal reasons, like the terrifying prospect of raising a child alone. What do you suggest should be done in the cases that occur where in the mothers life is at risk? Or in the case of rape? Should women be punished for choosing abortion in these cases?
Should abortion really be allowed in America

I don't think abortion should be allowed in America because it is not the mother's life. It's the baby's life. I understand that it doesn't have a heart yet or fundamental organs, but it is still a living breathing creature that is being murdered because of the mother. "Abortion is Murder. Unborn babies are protected from murder and violence by the federal act 'Unborn Victims of Violence'. The act considers an unborn baby to be a human being and imposes penalties on those who inflict harm on a fetus otherwise than through an abortion." in the wise words of www.listland.com/10-reasons-abortion-should-be-illegal/ I am looking forward to this debate
teens should not be allowed to date in high school.

You said dating should be stopped, but then said you didn't believe so. That negates the resolution, regardless of how unrealistic the resolution is. Now, I don't have to show you a statistic about how teenage dating helps finding a successful marriage because marriage is not the ultimate goal of dating for all people. It may seem obscure to conservatives, but it isn't. Secondly, you ask why do it in your younger years when you could push it back? Because humans do what they want to do and prioritize so that they are put first in their lives. Humans will do what they want to do, and depriving them of what they want affects their happiness and behavior.Exactly correct. However, these people aren't marrying, so it doesn't matter at that stage in time. People dating for marriage are only a portion of the people dating. Not everyone intends to marry, as there are different lifestyles. If someone intends to marry, they do need to know that person well enough, and that is why dating is good for that. Yes, they do know each other. It's just that after they began immersing in other things they changed as people. That doesn't mean they didn't know each other; it just means they don't anymore. Lots of things are known to impact the minds of children and parents. All of the things you listed could be an affect of school, besides HIV, though it could be contracted at a school. Again, emotional disorders like anorexia can't be caused by anything other than the mind, though certain occurences can spur it on. Also, the statistics for domestic abuse definitely wouldn't be shown as high because adults wouldn't be given a survey as a large group as it would be done at a school. So, since we have no real way of knowing the ratio from adult relationship abuse and teenage, the statistics are void.Again, abuse can spur things on but ultimately cannot be the major cause of it. Not all people are going to have later marriages, so it doesn't matter if it affects their later marriages.You are good as well, and I enjoyed debating with you.This debate is now concluded, and I urge voters to vote negative.
teens should not be allowed to date in high school.

"However, experience in high school relationships prepares one for future relationships outside of school in the working world. " I will like to share with you that as a country our divorce rate is extremely high. As you can see in this website . http://www.nationmaster.com... You will find that the U. S is on the top of the list. Aren't we supposed to be "experienced in dating? " after all, eight-nine percent of 13 to 19 year olds "practiced" dating before. Also, notice that countries that don't advocate dating as much are on the lower end of the list. I would also like to assert that dating does not require practice. You either meet the person that you are meant to be with, or you don't. There are too many people with varying personalities. The "practice" you get in high school will be almost useless considering that no one is able to practice for the millions of differing personalities in this world. Emotional trauma Why do you think the trauma that a teen does undergo is supposed to be taken the same way as a thirty year old would? Teen trauma can affect later marriages rendering the practice of dating useless. Teen traumas have caused suicides, depression, and fear. Adults are less prone to suicides, depression, and fear. Dating violence IS more likely to occur in high school. We are arguing from probability. Academic achievements You also classify dating as a distraction. We can avoid distraction by not taking part in a useless practices such as this. The distractions that you refer to are distractions that are unavoidable. You are completely right in that judgment is not completely developed in his/her twenties. I do believe that college students should not date either. They are technically grown adults, but they too run the risk of affecting their future if they give into dating given these reasons below (in the link). . http://www.ncvc.org... We are however arguing why high schoolers shouldn't date. Why do you suppose that dating will help a teenager grow as a person when it can very well hinder a person's growth in judgment. I agree in that high school is where you can develop judgment, but honestly, what does dating have anything to do with gaining judgment? When a person comes to realization that the adult world is so much more different than a teenage world, his/her past experience in high school dating will be of no use. How can one grow in judgment by dating when his/her boyfriend/girlfriend are also trying to grow in judgment in the same thing? How does prohibiting dating make sex less meaningful? Sex is sex, the consequences are consequences. The scars are not temporary. By prohibiting highschool dating, we can reduce physical violence and make it easier for students to attain their goals. We may not be able to completely annihilate all the issues, but it will surely help. This is truly for the good of the student. Given these reasons, I disagree with your point of view. Good luck
teens should not be allowed to date in high school.

For my case, I will argue against the points of my opponent. #1: My opponent states that most high school relationships do not end in marriage. However, experience in high school relationships prepares one for future relationships outside of school in the working world. This ensures that high school graduates will not be completely drowned in their own naivete in their first relationship after high school.#2: The same can happen after high school, so the argument is void.#3: In life, one has to learn to deal with their own distractions. The world is dog-eat-dog, and those who can't manage their own thoughts deserve the grades they get. It is not the fault of the relationship but the fault of the easily distracted person. They must learn to deal with distraction, and it best be early on in life. #4: Technically, the part of the brain for judgment is not completely developed until a person is well into their twenties. However, we still allow college students to make their own decisions. Also, conflict and experience helps with the development of judgment, which is best to grow at a younger age.#5: This happens between people who aren't dating as well. The only way to prevent all sexual and physical violence is to separate all human beings. The same goes for sex in general; not abuse, but sex. Many adults and highschoolers will have sex regardless of relationships, so prohibiting dating would just make the sex even less meaningful between people. Rather than having it be something that their relationship brought them to, it would be something their sexual frustration brought them to. For these reasons, I negate the resolution.
teens should not be allowed to date in high school.

I am going to post this debate again because my opponent did forfeit the previous debate that we had. To whoever accepts this debate, this thought has been in head for long time, I would like to see if anyone agrees with me. All my statements are general, exceptions do not necessarily counter my arguments. I am not arguing that it should be illegal to date, I am just trying to give reasons why parents should teach their children that high school is not the right time to date. Teen years are generally the hardest years that one can face. It is the period in which most teens feel insecure, are inexperienced with handling life challenges, and most importantly, these years are vital in determining the success of one’s future. Therefore, dating should not be allowed by parents because it can jeopardize their mental health, academic achievements, and even their physical health. The probability of High School students getting betrothed to their high school boyfriend/girlfriend is quite low. Only two percent maintain the relationships established in high school. The emotional trauma (from breakups) can affect one’s well being. It can plant fear within one’s heart in future relationships How can teenagers who are generally, mentally unstable excel in maintaining a relationship and in getting exceptional grades? Most students have the ability to achieve exceptional grades such as a gpa above 3.8; distraction is the culprit. Teenagers are not love gurus and are not intellectually experienced enough to handle serious relationships. Finally, a relationship in high school can have a higher probability in dating violence. It has been reported that one in four students experience some type of physical/sexual abuse, One in five felt emotional abuse, and nearly eighty- percent of the students who had been abused continued to date the person who abused them. I am going to start out with these facts and I will elaborate more as the debate progresses. Thanks to whoever accepts this debate. http://womensissues.about.com...
The death penalty is good

My opponent says that it costs a lot of money to keep a person in prison for life. However, as I I have previously pointed out in my Round 1 case, a death penalty case costs three times as much money as imprisoning someone in a high-security single person cell for forty years. [1] He then asks "How much does it cost just to give them a pill that kills in minutes and is painless? ". I would like to point out that it is not the lethal injection that costs a lot of money, but the death penalty case itself. Death penalty case law states that defendants facing a possible death sentence are entitled to two attorneys, and representation by relevant experts. These are all paid for by the state. They must also go through an appeal process, in order to try and avoid the execution of innocent, which cost even more. My opponent states that when people are sentenced for life, it fills the prison, and leads to the needing of a new prison. However, the number of executions in the United States has decreased dramatically since 1999, and in 2010, only 38 executions took place in the United States[1]. There are more than 2 million prisoners in U. S. prisons[2], and if we were to add 38 to that number, it would not make a substantial difference. Finally, my opponent states that "today's modern technology makes it very difficult for there to be mistakes in the evidence to be wrongly convicted". I would like to point out that even with "modern technology", there is still room for error, and there is still much we do not know about technology such as DNA testing. The FBI can only provide estimates on how rare DNA profiles are, and a person's genetic profile has been shown to not always be unique. Siblings can often share genetic markers, and sometimes unrelated people share them coincidentally[3]. This means that there is still a chance of a wrongful conviction, and for that reason, the death penalty is unjustified. [1] . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] . http://usgovinfo.about.com... [3] . http://www.denverpost.com...
The death penalty is good

Yes, the money to keep that is high. Yet when you keep someone for life in prison, you have to actually feed that person in jail. Also, his/her natural bodily functions would cost more to keep for life. What if the person convicted for life is 19, and they life to be 60-70? That costs a lot of money to keep. Also, why is the tax so high for death sentences? How much does it cost just to give them a pill that kills in minutes and is painless? Maybe the electric chair is the wrong way to execute. Another reason is that When you are sentenced for life, it does two things. One, it fills up room in the prison, and will lead to a new prison needed. Also, when all you have to do in life is to sit in a prison, that gives the convict a lot of time to think up an escape plan. Yet the chances of escape are low, some do manage to get out. I think that most people do not want a murderer who escaped jail out on the loose. It is easier just to execute when they are convicted. The last reason is that you stated was evidence isn't always accurate. Yet the cases that the evidence was wrong was way back before all of the advanced technology we have today. If those cases happened in today's modern society, the hair would be tested and easily used as accurate evidence. Today's modern technology makes it very difficult for there to be mistakes in the evidence to be wrongly convicted.
The death penalty is good

I accept the challenge, and look forward to a good debate. The death penalty is not an efficient use of our money, because death penalty cases, and the enforcement of the death penalty, are highly expensive. According to the Palm Beach Post, the enforcement of the death penalty in Florida costs $51 million more each year than it would to punish first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, amounting to an average cost of $24 million per execution. In Texas, the cost of a death penalty case is about $2.3 million, approximately three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a high-security single cell prison for forty years, according to the Dallas Morning News. In addition, according to the L.A. Times, California taxpayers pay $114 million each year in addition to the costs of keeping criminals imprisoned for life in order to support the death penalty system. Therefore, the death penalty is a highly inefficient use of our money. The death penalty creates the possibility of innocent people being executed, because evidence isn't always perfect at the time a crime is committed, and people could be executed based on false evidence. There have been situations in the past where this has happened. In 1991, Cameron Todd Willingham was sentenced to death after being convicted of murdering his three children in a fire. He was executed in 2004, and afterwards, the New York Times says that "arson experts found a flaw in the evidence against him". In another case, Claude Jones was accused of murdering a liquor store owner in 1989, and was executed on December 7, 2000. According to the Texas Observer, his conviction was based on a strand of hair that the prosecutors believed belonged to Jones. DNA tests done in November of 2010, requested by the Observer and the Innocence Project, show that the hair did not belong to Jones at all. The death penalty increases the suffering of people that were not involved in the crime, because the families of both the victim and the offender must suffer the loss of their loved ones. The death penalty gives forces more people to suffer by executing more people, people that have a chance of being rehabilitated. In the words of Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace laureate, "I know the pain of those who survive... death is not the answer."
Genetically Modified Foods do more good than harm.

First I feel a thank you is in order for my opponent for presenting an interesting and fascinating argument. Now I would like to move to the point of Safety and Health concerning GM foods. I will start by pointing the issue of food allergies. If the novel protein in a GM food comes from a source that is known to cause allergies in humans or a source of that has never been consumed as human food. the concern that the protein could elicit an immune response in humans increases. (http://enhs.umn.edu...). Another issue concerning food allergies is this, certain proteins cause more allergic reactions than others, people with severe allergies know what foods to avoid. If genes from those foods are introduced into others without appropriate labeling to warn those with allergies, allergic reactions could occur. The introduction of genetic material from Brazil nuts into soybeans was shelved for this reason. (http://www.livestrong.com...). Continuing on the subject of Health and safety I would like to take a look at antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance is attributed to HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer). Antibiotics are used in early stages of genetic modification from HGT to eliminate chances of bacterial mutation and antibiotic resistant. A study was done by Indiana State University and University of California San Diego found that hospitals observed decreased the effectiveness of antibiotic drugs Hug (2008) found antibiotic resistance could be due to the HGT of GM crops via the transformation of bacteria in the food chain. Being exposed to the production or consumption GM crops can decrease antibiotic efficiency. Antibiotic markers persist in the body and can make antibiotic medications less effective. The amount of DNA experiencing HGTs is between 0.1 and 1g per day. About 20% of GM crops create new viral strains with unknown properties (positive or negative). (http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu...). Now I would like to say that GM Foods are not 100% percent safe or healthy.
Genetically Modified Foods do more good than harm.

My opponent has mentioned that genetically modified foods are not 100% safe or healthy. While this may be true, are we sure that anything is completely safe and healthy? Many things, such as cars, cigarettes, or even the common lightbulb can have repercussions, sometimes even fatal (car accidents, lung cancer, fires). Like previously mentioned by me, GMOs and Genetically Modified Food are among the top in research, meaning that they are extremely safe, and much safer than many other things we have accepted into our life. Sure, we can't prove that GM Foods are 100% safe and healthy, but with a risk that small, it would be very much worth it if we can feed those in poverty, helping those in need and essentially making the world a better place.
vote stuff

I will gladly defeat this ridiculous argument, ok where should we start oh yea of course they should be allowed to. That is actually the only reason that voting exists, so people can have their voices heard on issues that directly affect them. So are you saying that if there is a referendum on a ballot for a pool proposal to build in your town that nobody who would use that pool is allowed to vote on it? This is just nonsense an honestly forfeit this debate and delete your account because this is garbage.
Abortion

You realize that we have far too many babies in orphanages as is, correct? Or were you oblivious to that? You do realize that it costs money to put a baby in an orphanage, correct? You did realize that by paying for a baby the mother did not want that takes away money from other babies, correct? Or did you not realize that? You do realize that forcing a mother to have a baby she doesn't want causes stress to the mother, correct? Or did you not think about that? What about the fact that unwanted kids usually turn out far worse than kids from stable homes and how determental it can be to a kid's psyche to know it wasn't wanted and that the mother was forced to have it. Ever consider that? The list goes on and on, but as I stated before, it's all irrelevant. It comes down to the simple fact that a woman can choose what she wants to do with her body. If she doesn't want a fetus to use it, that's her right. If she doesn't want human A to use her rotting kidneys, that's her right as well.
Abortion

Is there a wall nearby that I can crack my skull on? Did you not hear what I said? FACTS! SURVEYS! REFERENCES! BACKGROUND RESEARCH! Jeez, you just don't listen. Pros? Oh, okay let's see: 1. Doctors get money 2. Uhh...........it kills babies? WHAT ELSE AM I SUPPOSED TO SAY???? If you don't want a baby give it to an orphanage. Sure, people have rights, but you don't take life and rights from helpless beings. And you didn't address my ad hominem, or my call for forfeit or that. Did you even read my entire argument???
Abortion

Unfortunately, all of what you say is entirely misleading and untrue. You are only looking at the negatives of abortion and ignoring all of the positives. Moreover, some of your conclusions, e.g. abortions lead to divorce, are based on faulty logic. Just because people who have abortions get divorced more does NOT mean that abortions lead to divorce, it simply means that people with kids tend to stay in broken marriages for the sake of the kid. HOWEVER, NONE OF WHAT YOU SAY IS RELEVANT BECAUSE ABORTION COMES DOWN TO A BASIC PRINCIPAL. Abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.