BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion Should be Illegalized

I understand that rape can happen, and it's a really bad thing. But, it's not fair to take your problem (rape) and use it as an excuse to kill something (the baby) that was a byproduct of it. Also, if you're in poverty and "unable" to raise a child, you should look at all the single moms that have raised children in the United States and other countries perfectly fine. They may have struggled, but they made it eventually. It's definitely not impossible to raise children when you are at or below the poverty line. Tokophobia is not a valid excuse to justify abortion either, because at one point you have to realize that there is this thing called facing your fears. I have a perfect example. I am afraid of falling. But do I man up and ride roller coasters? Yes. And, in fact, I actually enjoyed it. In the end, you have to come to terms with the fact that fear is simply a natural reaction and that you shouldn't base your decisions purely on fear, because if you do, you will never accomplish anything. You said in your statement that a fetus does not qualify as a human because it is not sentient. Well, there is no proof that the fetus is or is not sentient. Absolutely no one remembers whether they were sentient or not when they were in the womb, and scientists cannot read the minds of babies to figure that out. So, it is purely undefined whether they are sentient or not. If a vegetable human without a consciousness isn't sentient, then should we deny him his natural rights? No. Even if the fetus was not sentient, it still has its natural rights, because they are NATURAL and apply to ALL HUMANS, which the fetus biologically is. The fact that a pregnant person has legal authority over their body is true, but the fetus is a physical body, so that legal authority does not extend to the fetus. The fetus is in no way part of the mother's body, because they are physically two different things. They may be joined/connected, but that doesn't make them one entity. Abortion is as unfair as it gets. You may say that it's not fair to favor the unborn over the living, but that is invalid. First of all, the fetus is a living thing, so the mother and the baby are on the same level. Second of all, the fact that it is living, just unborn, gives it the right to life. And, third of all, if the mother will be looked down upon no matter what path she takes, then why doesn't she choose to save a life and be looked down upon, or kill a baby and be looked down upon? Just letting you know, all of the scenarios you listed in your second-to-last paragraph are potential scenarios, and not everybody that has to choose whether to get an abortion or not is not in those scenarios.
Abortion Should be Illegalized

Abortion is the process by which a baby is terminated while still in its mother's uterus. I consider this to be a form of murder, because you are killing a baby while it is helpless in the womb. Usually, by the time a mother finds out that she is pregnant, the baby already has a beating heart, fingers, a torso and legs, and is about the size of a quarter. It essentially has all the body parts of a human being. So, that proves that you aren't killing a blob of cells, you're killing a baby. You also have to consider that the baby is helpless. It can't do anything about what will happen to it because it doesn't even know. When pro-choice people say that it's a woman's right, they don't take whether it's the baby's right into consideration. After all, how is it fair to kill a human baby (as I said before) when it can't even do anything about it. That is murder. And even if the baby could do anything about it, that would still be murder. And, last time I checked, murder is against the law of the United States of America.
Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

So, my first contention has two impacts. The negative effects of drugs on adolescents and impaired memory means that adolescents won"t be able to make accurate medical decisions autonomously. Drug abuse leads to school failure, family problems, impaired memory, and increased risk of infectious diseases. And, giving adolescents medical autonomy is problematic because they are 20 times more likely to abuse numerous illegal drugs like marijuana and heroin. Thousands of adolescents are dying in the US yearly because of this abuse. This is important because these lethal drugs can kill thousands of adolescents. My second contention is disease. Adolescents will not take vaccines if they are given medical autonomy because of multiple reasons. This has resulted in outbreaks of diseases in the past. Deadly viruses have the ability to wipe out populations because these viruses are often so hard to detect. They take advantage of humans as we subtlety transport them to others and they take control of our bodies and deprive us of essential nutrients. If adolescents refuse vaccines, then outbreaks are inevitable. Even if extinction does not occur, massive populations will be wiped out. This could be comparable to an ebola outbreak in New York City. This either kills millions or billions of people, and could cause extinction.
Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

1. I am attempting to solve for the internallised repression that we ultimately desire from what DnG call fascism.2. My value is that we should act in the self-interests of people (ethical egoism). Zizek makes the claim that this does a lot of things, and principally it is that it forms a community-based interest set. For example, my interest of being protected in a state leads to a state being formed because other people follow these self-interests, etc.And then my criterion is a movement away from the state itself; move from point A to point B without the rigidity of the state--I can explain it more in detail if you would like, but I think that this explains the gist of it.3. That's a good question, something that Deleuze and Guatarri write an entire book about (Anti-Oedipus 1972). Oedipus himself is this idea of the boy hating his father and loving his mother, but through a psychoanalytic lens of what this implies/how it is materialised is what my case gets at.Read Oedipus Rex by Sophocles.4. My impact is that we become entrenched in the state and we ultimately get the suppression and oppression that we think that we want through what DnG call fascism. It's not a political fascism, it's a social one and that leads us to gridlocked within the system and to ultimately be either socially or biologically dead.Pure destruction is exactly what it sounds like, we are all destroyed purely.5. No, you wouldn't win if you prove that adolescents aren't capable of autonomy, for a few reasons, which I would probably make arguments about in my next speech -- but principally, just having the right afforded of autonomy leads to all of these benefits that I claim (moving from the bureaucracy, the segmentary, etc...).(Also, there is no way that you would win the round without conceding to my value and criterion since they are really dope and do a lot of things beyond just what I explain!)
Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

The second part of round 1 will be the 1AC. The first part of round 2 will be the first CX time. Max 5 questions, not including clarification questions, and if you don't agree with that, add in what you feel should be the proper amount of questions at the end of the 1AC. The second part of round 2 will be the answers to those CX questions. The first part of round 3 will be the 1NC. The second part of round 3 will be the CX questions. Again, 5 questions max. The first part of round 4 will be the answers to those CX questions. The second part of round 4 will be the 1AR. The first part of round 5 will be the 2NR. The second part of round 5 will be the 2AR. When placing cards, write out the tag as usual. When citing, write out the author last name and year. When placing the actual cards, just type in what you would say if you were in a real LD debate. If there's any questions, comment. Good luck to my opponent.
A greater study of human vices

I'm not quite sure where my opponent intends to go with this round just yet; It would also appear that my opponent must go first in this debate. Thus I'll simply use this round for acceptance, and for laying out the virtues I will defend. It seems most logical to defend the direct opposites of what my opponent intends to defend; thus I will argue that chastity, love, pacifism, generosity, kindness, and the polar opposites of whatever else my opponent decides to argue are more preferable to their vice counterpart. I am also excited at the prospect of having a purely logical debate (with the noted exception of empirically based arguments). Good luck to my opponent, and with that I hand the debate back over to them!
This debate will get viewed 1000 times before the voting period

1. Still, maybe it adds three views for everyone besides you, me, and anyone who testifies that it only adds one. 2. In R1, I did make the mistake of accepting. However, I didn't make a typo in that mistake. As far as I know, I haven't made a single typo for the entire debate. You have made at least three. It's cheating because the 1,000 views should occur naturally. 3. No comment? 1. First of all, there's another typo. Second, you don't have proof that there isn't an error. Thus, you don't have significant proof that there is 1000 views other than what the page says. 2. Kind of ironic that you claim that this isn't a typo, and you make the exact same typo again. We already discussed issue #2. 4. You have provided no basis for legitimately saying that I hate ninjas, or that I am not Chuck Norris. Furthermore, it says right on my profile that I'm Chuck Norris. This is the last straw. I'm coming for you. Pro seems to have dropped the issue of unique views, which is an important one. Pro never specified whether the views should be unique, so there's no reason I can't base my arguments on unique views. If the views need to be unique, I have won. Another very important factor I forgot to include is that the title says "This debate will get viewed 1000 times before the voting period." Keyword: debate. Before we started arguing, this wasn't a debate. It was a challenge. In the time between the start of the debate and the voting period, this debate has not gained 1000 views. My Conclusion: I win. My opponent claims that: 1. He wins just because the page says there's 1000 views. Really, it's possible that there isn't 1000 views, especially considering I'm Chuck Norris. Plus, it hasn't gained 1000 since I accepted the debate. 2. He wins even if someone cheated by refreshing 1000 times. Even if this wasn't cheating, it hasn't been refreshed 1000 times before the voting period. 3. It's impossible for DDO to have a view bug. It really is entirely possible, and he can't prove otherwise. The following video explains more on this subject: http://www.youtuberepeat.com... 4. Chuck Norris makes mistakes. Saying that is a BIG mistake. 5. His tone suggests that this is a serious debate. It isn't. Vote con because: -of my arguments. -my trolling was way more awesome than his. -I'm Chuck Norris and he failed to prove otherwise. -I'm really just a poor kid that accidentally clicked on a debate I shouldn't have. Give me a break.
This debate will get viewed 1000 times before the voting period

1. It does not. I have proof too. Refresh the page, and look. It only adds one. 2. It is just ONE error! Stop complaining! It's not like you haven't made a mistake before. Look at R1, YOU were the one that made there error of not looking at the views. Besides, even if I had mean't 100, it does not matter because this has more than 1000 anyway. If SarcasticIndeed did it, how is it cheating? Even if I did it, it wouldn't be cheating. The resolution never says anything against someone refreshing it. Point is, it has more than 1000 views. 3. 1. You do not have proof. A Youtube error has nothing to do with DDO views. How do you even know there is an error? You do not prove that DDO has an error. I have proved it does not because refresh the page, and look. It only adds one. Besides, the Youtube is UPDATING problems, so the Youtube has MORE views than it shows, which is kind of proving my point. 2. This is not a typo. Again, stop assuming everything is a typo just because I had one typo. Again, the resolution does not say that there must be 1000 views from 1000 different people. 4. You are not Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris hates ninjas. Chuck Norris is not an idiot who assumes everything is a typo because of one tiny error that would not even affect the outcome even if I did mean it. My opponent claims that: 1. Everything I type is a typo because of one typo- I trust the audience to see that this is not true. 2. I refreshed it 1000 times- I did not. 3. There has to be 1000 different people to refresh the page- That was never included. Vote Pro because. 1. There are over 1000 views. 2. Just because there is one typo, Con is latching on to it for the entire debate even if it does not matter at all. Besides Con made a mistake in R1 too. 3. Con is a Chuck Norris imposter! Chuck Norris hates ninjas. Chuck Norris is not an idiot who assumes everything is a typo because of one tiny error that would not even affect the outcome even if I did mean it.
This debate will get viewed 1000 times before the voting period

1. DDO's bug isn't necessarily the same as Youtube's bug. Perhaps DDO adds three views every time one person views it. You never know. 2. You're probably losing points for your careless typos. Anyway, if SarcaticIndeed did it, that's still cheating. 1. We already discussed issue #1. And I do have proof. http://lmgtfy.com... 2. We already discussed issue #2. I suspect that this is a typo, along with the above. Once again, your typos will make you lose points. 4. Don't tell me what I do and don't like. Look at my name. It says Chuck Norris.
This debate will get viewed 1000 times before the voting period

1. Why can't you do this yourself? http://lmgtfy.com... The first results talk about Youtube having more ratings than views. You've probably heard about this. Anyway, so many people claiming that Youtube is messed up clearly proves that Youtube is messed up. You have no proof that DDO isn't messed up as well. 2. 100 views? That's not 1000. 3. But this page does not have more than 1000 views by different people. 4. I chose a ninja avatar because it represented martial arts more closely than the other avatars. I'll spare you this time. Don't try to prove I'm not Chuck Norris again.
This debate will get viewed 1000 times before the voting period

Rebuttals "If you think about it, the amount of views is most likely rigged. Some sites claim they have more views than they actually do. It isn't any less likely here. The real amount of views is probably about 500." Sources? No proof. "Also, there's a very good chance that you created this article and then refreshed the page 1000 times just so it would look like you won. Since almost all of the views were by you, it shouldn't count." I did not. It was SarcasticIndeed. Read comments. Besides, even if I did, it still got 100 views. "You also didn't specify if you were looking for all views or unique views only. I'm going to assume you meant 1000 unique views. Therefore, you are losing. I doubt this page has more than 20 unique views." No semantics. I will refute this anyways. Each view was probably at a UNIQUE time. "Lastly, I'm Chuck Norris, so I'm always right. If you say otherwise, you know what will happen to you." Your profile picture is a ninja. Chuck Norris hates ninjas. You don't want to know what will happen now that Chuck Norris knows he has an imposter.
This debate will get viewed 1000 times before the voting period

Arrrgh!!! I didn't look at the views before I accepted. Still, I'm going to have to try to prove my point. If you think about it, the amount of views is most likely rigged. Some sites claim they have more views than they actually do. It isn't any less likely here. The real amount of views is probably about 500. Also, there's a very good chance that you created this article and then refreshed the page 1000 times just so it would look like you won. Since almost all of the views were by you, it shouldn't count. You also didn't specify if you were looking for all views or unique views only. I'm going to assume you meant 1000 unique views. Therefore, you are losing. I doubt this page has more than 20 unique views. Lastly, I'm Chuck Norris, so I'm always right. If you say otherwise, you know what will happen to you.
GodSands Should Cease Discussing Religion on DDO for His Own Good

I think Pro's argument that he should not stay on DDO for fear that he will become atheist is irrelevant. This is because GodSands believes his faith is true and cannot find reason to doubt it, therefore now he is not in danger. He does believe that one should believe in things because they have good reason and make sense. I think GodSands were converted to atheism, there would have to be a really good reason for doing so which made it in his eyes the best choice for him and others for him to be atheist. As an atheist he would not fear Hell. A pill is a bad comparison to turning atheist because this pills would change who you are and how you thought. If he was converted, he would still be GodSands and would have reasoned atheism to be correct in the same manner in which he reasons Christianity to be correct now. I think it would be against GodSands's principles and reasoning to fear becoming atheist and backing down because of it. In he current mindset, he is convinced he will never become atheist and has nothing to fear. In the new mindset where he is atheist, atheism is good and Hell doesn't exist so he has nothing to fear. In neither mindset does GodSands have anything to fear. I have pointed out many benefits he gets from being on DDO, none of which Pro has negated.
GodSands Should Cease Discussing Religion on DDO for His Own Good

I think it is irrelevant that Godsands believes atheists will go to Hell. If he were to convert, it would not be so that he can not be afraid of going to Hell because he is now atheist and does not believe in Hell, it would be because of some more powerful reason as that is what I think it would take a devout Christian like Godsands to stop being a believer. Godsands obviously does not think the possibility of his conversion is a problem, and if he did, I do not think he could be as evangelical and faithful Christian as he is. I think he would be much more open to peoples' ideas, have much more doubt, and not cause the frustration he does with other members of DDO. Since in Godsands reality there is a zero chance of his conversion, he has nothing to lose. Like I said, if he became atheist there would be no risk of going to hell because in his new reality there is no Hell. It is all or nothing. You either believe in Hell and God and stay Christian and think all atheist go to Hell, or you are an atheist and there is no Hell. In his beliefs, you cannot be a Christian just for the sake of if Hell is real, you will not go. Godsands has everything to gain from being on DDO. Though there is no proof of his improvement in his debating skills, it is possible they will improve in the future. Not to mention that being on DDO gives people a chance to be informed about world issues, new ideas, new perspectives, and discuss things with people around the world. Those things can have a great effect on people; it makes you more intelligent, more well-rounded, more knowledgeable, and better able to see things from all perspectives. Not matter what his religion this can improve him as a person. I also believe DDO has taught him tolerance and forgiveness for all the people who he believes has sinned, there are a lot of people, like myself, who he believes are going to Hell and wishes to help. Believing what he believes, could you yourself standby and watch these people damn themselves? If Godsands did convert someone then he can feel that he is a great agent of God. Pro acts like Godsands cannot help God in better other ways than talking on DDO because he is on DDO. Obviously Godsands does other things and I bet he does his best to serve his God in those areas too. While he may not convert many people here, at least people are hearing his perspective. While Godsands may be forced to endure much criticism and taunting on DDO, he believes he is doing the right thing, and I think we can all agree DDO makes you a better person in many ways.
GodSands Should Cease Discussing Religion on DDO for His Own Good

Resolved: GodSands should cease discussing religion on DDO for his own good. For the sake of this debate, we shall assume that the religious beliefs that GodSands has expressed in the forums are true. Con may not make statements about his beliefs that strongly contradict his previous claims. I will not take advantage of this to drill Con on any contradictions, but he/she may not use BS and ambiguity to weasel out of the point I am making if it is consistent with the spirit, implications, and overall message of GodSands prior statements. GodSands has clearly expressed that he believes he is saved from sin and eternal punishment through his faith in God. He believes that Satanism is pure evil and that those who worship Satan will be punished. He also believes that atheism is basically equivalent to Satanism, morally speaking. Here are some statements from him that back up my assertion of these beliefs: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... There are probably other examples of when he has said similar things because these seem to be core parts of his religion. I am not affirming or denying the truth of any of the statements themselves. My Argument: Based on this, GodSands should leave DDO and stop engaging with a largely atheist intellectual community. He may think he is doing some good, but the costs clearly do not outweigh the benefits. Consider the following: If GodSands converts someone on DDO, he will receive a finite reward (his own personal satisfaction). He will also please God, but he is already assured a place in Heaven because he is a devout Christian and undoubtedly serves his faith in other ways. If someone on this site were to convert GodSands to atheism, he would stand to suffer an infinite loss. He would stop believing in God and probably commit many other sins. It may not be likely that GodSands could be converted, but as long as there is a nonzero chance, the infinite penalty of Hell outweighs the possible finite benefit. There are better ways that GodSands could serve God than by trying to convert people on a site where he has been defeated 95% of the time. He is taking a massive unnecessary risk, and it would be most prudent for him to leave.
Minimum Wage and Labor Unions

No, my position is not "like supporting PETA and wearing fur". It is just difficult for you to grasp such a concept that nothing has to be absolute. I do not have to be exactly for or against something in the exact way it is portrayed. Unless it was meant for that way, then it does not apply. I can be for some things in Labor Unions and against some things they want. It is very possible. Your way of describing it though is illogical. This is not a black and white situation. It is a rainbow-like situation. Your position is more: "You have to be either Pro for Labor Unions or Con for Government controlling everything". It is not necessary.