BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Same here, its my first debate on this site too. **I would just like to clarify that I am talking about first trimester abortion, as my views regarding post -fetal abortion are yet to be determined** Firstly, the fact that a placenta and the umbilical cord attach the fetus shows that the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. We cannot consider the fetus as an individual entity because it cannot live outside the mother"s womb. Additionally, adoption is not an alternative to abortion, and if so, a rather poor one at that. Statistics show that less than three percent of all women who refuse abortion choose to give their child up for adoption. Even if I concede that adoption is an alternative, what kind of life is that for a child? Adoption generally comes with a negative connotation and with good reason. There is no guarantee that the child will have a family, and the child might get tied up in the foster system. Next, you mentioned the child (fetus"s) right to a choice and having a voice in what happens to them. By prohibiting and dismissing abortion you are in turn taking away the mothers choice and her civil right to control her own body. What is next? Forcing women to use contraceptives or undergo sterilization? Not to mention, in cases of teenage pregnancies, without the option of abortion you are taking away the young woman"s future. Furthermore, you say that being put up for adoption and bounced around the system is better than being dead, but the child was never alive to begin with. Statistics that were found on abortion.us show that pregnant women will resort to illegal and unsafe abortions if a legal option is not available. In many cases abortion is the best option, especially in cases of rape and incest where the child is unwanted and having the child can cause severe psychological problems for both the mother and the child. Children born as a result of incest are at risk of being deformed. We are talking about quality of life, and since a mother has the responsibility of bringing a life into the world, she should in turn have the right or option of an abortion. Finally, all women should have the right to choose to have an abortion, and the government or any religious authority should not limit them.
Abortion

Actually, life becomes life after conception, its not as simple as a seed, the seed has already been sown, forming a living, breathing being. In your point of view, the baby isn't alive yet, so if it isn't alive yet then why does it need food, and nutrients, why is the umbilical chord even there if the baby is yet a seed? So now, since I have established my view on when the life takes place, I will like to rebuttal your argument about abortion protecting life. .. With your views "destroying the seed" is protecting human life. I see where you're going though, but let me ask you, would you rather NOT have a voice/choice in life and that being chose for you, or would you like to give life a chance? If the mother cannot provide for the child then put him/her up for adoption, even though the chances of him/her being adopted are slim, its still better that being dead, don't you agree? Babies grow up, they make choices (in the future), they live their life, when they die, we grieve the death. .. Whats the point of grieving human death if the idea of another life beings' life in general is a CHOICE by the mother?
Abortion

This has been repeated a million times but I'm going to say it again because it must act as the foundation of this debate. Abortion is not murder, especially when it is performed before the fetus has developed into a human being. When an abortion is performed, no baby is killed or murdered. Think of it as destroying the seed before it becomes a plant. Performing an abortion is by definition not committing murder. With this fact as a base or foundation, throughout the next few rounds I will argue that abortion does not demean the value of human life, but protects it -- using facts and rational arguments. I will also argue that mother"s, being the carrier of the fetus, have the right and responsibility to decide and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of bringing a human being into the world. Let me ask you. How is it better to have the child and allow it to lead a poor and neglected life, rather than never existing in the first place? If you value life, and the sanctity of living, then you will accept abortion. You don"t have to practice it, advocate for it, understand it, or even respect it. But if you respect life, then you will accept abortion and allow other women to have abortions. Thank you, I look forward to your response.
WHY electronics should be alloud in school

"electronics let kids have more hands on experince." My opponent has argued that electronics provide more hands on experience for children. This is undoubtedly true if one means hand-on experience with electronics. As I have argued above, the average student does not require more hands-on experience with their mobile phone, DS or Vita. Hands-on experience with computers should be provided by the education system and should not rely on children bringing their own computers to the classroom. In almost all other cases, computers decrease hand-on experience by replacing it with the virtual. A combination of poor pedagogy mixed with school boards' desires to keep costs low commonly results in the misuse of computers to simulate more costly learning tools. While virtual learning environments can open up opportunities for students that might otherwise be prohibitively costly or impossible, their misuse can lead to students with no fundamental hands-on experience [12]. In the absence of any further debate from my opponent I fear that this is all the rebuttal that I can make at this time. Sources [12] http://www.owenkelly.net...
Democrat supporters are trying to overthrow the election

I have a feeling that you may have choosen the wrong wording for the resolution, or the wrong side. From what I gather, your argument is that people should not attempt to overthrow the election. The Resolution is whether or nto Democrat supporters are trying to overthrow the election. Your argument actually affirms my side, stating that these people are rioting, recounting, etc., doing what is nessesary to attempt to overthrow the election. I completely agree with your argument because it affirms my case completely. I feel no need for rebuttal, as I don't want to tear down an argument that benifits me.
Democrat supporters are trying to overthrow the election

I absolutely agree with your statements and just to be clear bc ( 1) I do not identify with either party and (2) when I post democrats I certainly do not mean to encapsulate the entire party and thus should have simply said "some/many democrats". I apologize for that. However for anyone reading this I'm am going to post a video from infowars.com, with that being said as well I'm not a huge fan of Alex Jones but anyone who is truly interested in a non-partial view or attempting to do their best in that category, I should say because its obvious that we all have influences in our lives from birth that cause to have opinions not plain observations and that's another part of the human condition but I digress, the reason I post this video is because I could not find the original video of the meeting in this video and however you may feel about Alex Jones this WAS news and I hope you too can ignore the commentary portion if possible. https://youtu.be... Also I would like to say one more thing, if anyone truly believes that once inaugurated the world is going to flip one way or another I truly feel for you. The real issue is that the established exploiters that we call our government have a pecking order and the true reason for the borderline hatred and widely published anxiety is elect trump invaded their money making scheme and pecking order to which they find as a terrible insult/occurrence. Now that the trump family is elected, the revenue streams of our government will be redirected in many ways to that family and now should be looking to be absorbed into one of the handful of family bloodlines that govern. That will be the true task of the Donald. So in conclusion, trump wont eat your family or nuke Mexico, he will continue to help the "government" funnel your working $ from your pockets to theirs. That's the true bottom line folks. With help from the sheep of America the media will continue to shove stories in the faces of us public telling us all what to believe is the important issues and then watch from atop laughing as they continue un-hindered bc behind the scenes the same families will continue to do the exact same things they have done which again monetary based and control based. Just imagine these families as a large board of directors and the American pubic as the workforce. That's what we truly are people. In a nutshell, we are the batteries that keep the dream machine called capitalism running. "Greed is Good, Greed Works"- Wall Street 1987- M. Douglas (Actor) Thx- B
Democrat supporters are trying to overthrow the election

I will uphold the statement as follows:Democrat supporters are attempting to overthrow the election.This in mind, I must show some evidence that at least some Democrat supporters want the election result changed, and thus, are attempting to overthrow said election. My burden is not to prove that every Democrat is trying to overthrow the election, only that some of them are.On to arguments:1) Vote RecountsJill Stein, the Green Party nominee, after losing the election for good, was incredibly dissatified with the results. She then claimed that the votes were "succeptible to hacking" and demanded a recount in Wisconson, Michigan, Nevada, and Pensylvania (1). These states have the combined electoral votes of 52, enough to deny Donald Trump the Presidency. It's clear that Jill Stein at least attempted to overthrow the election by recounting the votes in these states.2) Riots on Election NightDuring Election Night, many riots broke out as a result of the electoral count being in favor of Donald Trump. There are many videos of said riots, flag burnings, and fights here (2). 3) Facebook postsI, myself, being a supporter of Trump over Hillary, was attacked over Facebook by my own family members. To quote: "A special note to all the evangelical Trump-voting "values voters": I always knew you were full of s**t, and now everyone else does too." I hope that Con accepts this as it is, as I would rather not disclose who wrote this post.It's clear that many Democrats are angry with the results of the eleciton, with America's choice for their next president, and have attempted to overthrow this election. Just look at these two angry electors that actually want the elecoral college to revolt against Donald Trump (3).I await Con's response.Sources:(1) http://fortune.com...(2) https://www.thesun.co.uk...(3) http://www.theatlantic.com...
Democrat supporters are trying to overthrow the election

As the electoral votes are tallied a meeting made up of democrat/Hillary supporters have this conference in New Hampshire projecting an image of mainly older women shaking there finger at trump and his supporters then trying to change the previously established system to the now popular vote being more important than the electoral. Funny thing is this is the same party that said pre election that even if trump won the popular vote the electoral voting process is our system and we should honor it. I have no problem with changing the system but I will and do not support its change just because they lost. For better or worse the system chose our president and that in itself should show the destabilizing for another Clinton resigm. Sorry ladies she didn't win but when it was fairly obvious the democrat that was to beat elect trump was Bernie sanders not lying Hillary and you still try to ram in another Clinton/Obama government, don't be upset that the right and now obviously a good portion of the left and even former Obama supporters had grown tired enough to vote trump should be enough for these people to realize that just because it's there idea of the dream government doesn't necessarily mean it's everyone's. trump was elected purely because he was a real change (at least at face value) and people looked around and said wow socialism isn't helping us. I look forward to hearing people on this lol ty
The french are cowards

You are conductiing yourself in a stupid manner , insulting me and calling me biggoted and rascit are you ? I will keep my cool , i have learned that if i respond in kind to any of your low blow insults , I am jsut as bad as you are and that would be unprofessional right ? I meanw ho would call soembody a rascit bigioted idiot in a non-heated debate. I wonder. Any back to my oppents responsose , may i remind you , at no point have i said ALL FRENCH are cowards , I am sorry for not makign the statment above " the french are cowards " then explaining the statement , saying that i cause no offence , and yes of course there are brave frenchmen , I am sayying that a fair amoutn fo tehm and their goverment are cowards. These people have no moral obligation to vote for anybody , so dont even bother trying that rubbish , claming you are morally right. I say that the french worked for the nazi's and killed allies , you "corrected me " by saying the joined the nazis ... oh terribly sorry you have difficulty working out that those two words are similar , and the majority of people will understand this .... Now i say that , if the frenchmen retreated they would of been shoot , you responded with ... hahaha no ... nice answer ... so i will respond in kind , hahaa of course they would have , unless a general ordered the retreat , if frenchmen abonded there lines they would have been shoot .... Now you say that in response to me saying that the french strike at everything this proves they are not cowards . Oh please , they know if they sit down and act up , nothing will happen to them , what do you think its brave and almost hero like to go on strike untill the rest of europe play ball ? pffttt. War veterans msut be turning in there grave if thats todays modern bravery, Now please everybody , I urge you not to vote for him , as he basically is jsut saying , VOTE FOR ME YOU HAVE TO , he is also insulted me , and has failed to read the paragraph at the start . Im sorry if i cant make it anymore clear or easy for you to produce an argument , rather than play the rascit biggoted card ...
The french are cowards

all the best. My opponent states that my claim that the french are ignornant and annoying by striking and trying to slow up europe if things dont go there way is irrelavant. I would like to clarify on this point . I state this because it is true. The french in general have a rather annoying attiutue towards things , there people tend to act like small children in the wake of troubles , cause a lot of noise , start a riot and think they are playing french revoultion 21st century. But whenever a serious threat comes a long , they are quick to try agree a compromise , ww1 it is argued that they fought bravely , ok i will not dispute that to an extent. But it is there lack of spirirts and willingness to continue to fight . Once a force has occupied there country the see it as the duty of other countries , mainly britian to free there country and they feel the need to act as slaves to the people that over-run there country. May i also remind you the reason why they held up for around 9 months was because of many , number one was because if they ran away , there own country would kill them , number 2 is probably the main reason , ww1 may i remind you was fought in trenches , it was a slow and dirty war . Number 3 is that no doubt the germans were prolonging the invasion for many reasons like , preparing for a proper attack etc , or they underestimated the french defense etc or jsut because it was trench warfare and took weeks to move a mile. WW2 however is diffrent , this is were the majority of the french acted liek cowards and infact supported the nazi's because in actul fact , the nazis never done anything much to the french people , they treated them ok in comparision to other countrys. However this is the bit that really gets me , it has been widley acknowledged that , french soilders fought agaisnt and in a lot of cases killed allie soilders by the hundreds working for the nazis. Now i don't know why the french have been forgiven for that act of cowardice , sure the was a great chance they would be killed for not fighting , but would you surrender your country to an evil enmey ? and then kill your allies ? dispiciable by my standards anyway. .. They didn't put up a fight , the only way you can get accross france that quickly is if they completely surrendered and didnt put up a fight , and thats what they done , they didnt bother to sacrfice the lifes of soilders , holding up the nazi's so reinforcements could arrive , or they could reorganise there army and arrange a counter attack , no instead lots of them joined the nazi's , killed allies , till the allies reached them and swapped sides. The idea that they were taken by suprise is not true , they prepared defneces years in advance , they knew this was coming , they done nothing . ..
The french are cowards

before i start of this debate , I would liek to point out i mean no offence to any french man , living or dead that has fought in any wars , not saying you are not brave , but i am saying the general attidude of the french is to jump on the winning bandwagon , or only look out for themselves . Over the peroid of history the french have proved to be exciptionaly bad fighters , with bad leaders and tatics and politics. They have proved to be very annoying when things dont fall there way , by going on strike , closing the channel tunnel , attmepting to bring europe to a hault. They have had this attidude , ever since the public deicded to chop there leaders head off . The french have abondoned or lost most wars the have particapted in. The best example of course is ww1 and ww2 . During the war 1.4 million French fighters dead, of 8.4 million peroid of ww1 they had very bad tatics and attituides this resulted in heavy losses. After noticing how heavy the losses were the french decided to " sit out " if you will and leave most of the war to the americans , british and russians. However the best example i can think of is WW2 , the french laid their arms down to the germans and there so called defence of france lasted 3 days , I find that shocking , as batles are fought for weeks often , but a whole country the size of france was occupied in 3 days ! the only reaosn it took 3 days not less was because it probably took the germans 3 days to walk through france. the Maginot line , thew so called greatest defence system in modern history at the time , was either a poor system , or poorly manned . Now the germans pushed through that almost laughing probably worried waiting for a real defence to come along and relived when they found otu that was it. The French are cowards , the americans strongly belive this , the british do , hell almost all countrys do. You want to know what happended , when france became occupied by germany ? The french loved it. They wanted control of europe and wanted to be allies with germany . However the only rthing that annoyed them was that germany were in command . But they would not mind as they probably had ideas to go along with it and seize control after germany won the war. Its despicable i think , that the french who claim they were on the allies side , jump bandwagons and refuse to put up a real fight , when the germans come knocking . They are allt alk and greatly overexaggerated. The french resistance , sure the people in it were brave , but there was only a small amount , and there bravery and what they done was ggreatly overexaggerated in most cases. You know my grandad who was scottish like myself once said to me when i was a kid and he was still alive , " you know something , I had to hold back serious temptatious , from shooting a frenchmen on several occasions , whenever they got shoot at the ducked down to the ground retreated and told us to do our part by taking over , I hated them more than anything in the world , they called us cowards and all sorts , the english treated us better , and son ... the english are w**nkers !
Why Politics is Stupid

This is the start of a 3 round argument. Your objective is to try to convince me on how politics (different from government), is completely arbitrary and of no use to us. There are really no rules accept to avoid stupidity, thanks. ----------- My Argument: Politics is pointless. I know how government keeps us in order, but the whole idea of majority rules, and 2 political figures fighting for supremacy is redundant. We fight with ourselves, and only satisfy a percentage. I do understand people want certain policies in action, and will vote for the candidate who is closest to their ideals, but is that really the right way to go? It creates a sort of anti-nationalism among those who lost, and the leaders we elect do so little for the majority of us. As they affect people in particular, and not helping (almost) everyone. I'm interested to see who can turn my ideals around. Thanks for viewing! *Note: this is for countries with representative democracies.*
Why Politics is Stupid

Closing argument incoming. I don't live in America but in Holland. I don't want to sound holier than thou but corruption here is really low. The main problem here is not corporations towering over the government, but tax money being too high and thus discouring entrepeneurship. It's like the opposite.My point being: the system of democracy is not the fault, it's the people that participate in it. Fighting corruption is a neverending battle, but what's the alternative? Communism? Anarchy? Democracy as we have it now is currently the best-working system when it comes to politics. Everyone gets an equal vote, everyone gets a chance to say what's on their mind. So don't hate politics, hate the people who partake in it.
Why Politics is Stupid

My final response is short and to the point. I don't care for voting, and "sides". What I care about is what the officials do when they get elected. The majority go corrupt, sell out to private businesses. Politics is easily corruptible, but yet we still participate? We put all our trust, what many of us (races and sexes) fought to get, on a never-ending, completely arbitrary argument. To that, what has the senate done for YOU, in the past decade! That IS modern-day politics, and unless we come up with a solution, the economy, jobs, and life will be pointless. The idea of electing anyone (whoever wants to run) is stupid, but government is not.
Why Politics is Stupid

The way you see politics as a highly competitive thing is naturally because there are so many people with so many different opinions. When politics was done in a civilized manner, it was because only rich men could vote. They shared the same opinions so they agreed on most things. But later, working class people acquired suffrage, and then women. Each all had highly different priorities. Naturally it has become more of a battle to win people over for your cause, and that is logical.