BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Another Abortion Debate

First of all voters, at the point where you vote for my opponent you immediately dis-value human life. He specifically states. . "I'm not saying absolutely no mother would do this. .. and we shouldn't legitimize millions of 'safe' abortions in the name of saving a small number of radicalized mothers. " He doesn't value life because he agrees that there is a potential for death. He also states. .. "Because abortion is sanctioned, there are millions more deaths a year than there would be if abortion was illegal. " This is completely false. I don't see how monitoring abortions rather than not monitoring them would lead to MORE deaths. It is completely illogical to say so. He says. .. "True, we run the risk of mothers hurting themselves, but this is a risk we NEED to take in order to stop millions of deaths a year. " But he then is valuing one human life over another and saying basically that the mother doesn't matter as long as we save the child. Ends do NOT justify the means. We could dehumanize the mother and still have her living just to save the baby. We must value both lives in this case, and keeping it legal is the only way to do so. He then states: "It leads to more widespread use of the undesirable act. " I don't see how it would be more widespread if it was inevitable. He states "If we legalize abortion simply because a small number of mothers are going to risk the coat hanger approach, we are sanctioning and indirectly causing millions more abortions each year. " This is a good thing not a bad thing because the mothers lives are saved . My opponent states: "Our current abortion laws attempt to walk on eggshells between two heated groups. The fact that they recognize the potential for the child absent its cognition is proof that this should be extrapolated to conception. If the government protects children 3 months from birth because of the future child, they have an equal burden to protect a child 9 months from birth. There is no reason to draw the line, only politics. " but this doesn't respond to the fact that our government is still keeping the deaths as moral as possible. He then states. .. "I agree that the Constitution is not always right, but I think the basic ideals that our country is built on should be followed. " He agrees that the constitution is fallible and that we can't always look to it. He gives no distiuguishment between the good and the bad. .. therefore it is impossible to evaluate the morality of everything in the constitution seeing as there is no weighing agent. Onto slavery. .. it was only an example of a bad thing in the Constitution, proving that it is fallible. See the past paragraph for further explanation. On a last note. .. Abortion SHOULD NOT be put in the hands of the federal government because of infringement of rights on the mother. My opponent neglects the fact that the right to life is one of the most important rights and he then states that we shouldn't value the lives of the mothers because abortion is such a "massive wrong. "
Another Abortion Debate

I'm not saying absolutely no women would do this. I'm saying less would than before. True, illegitimate births are on the rise, but there isn't the social stigma that comes with a bastard child that there used to be. Teenage mothers are more and more common and therefore there is less and less pressure on the mother to feel the need to go to extreme lengths. Furthermore, we shouldn't legitimize millions of 'safe' abortions in the name of saving a small number of radicalized mother, potentially. Because abortion is sanctioned, there are millions more deaths a year than there would be if abortion was illegal. True, we run the risk of mothers hurting themselves, but this is a risk we NEED to take in order to stop millions of deaths a year. I'm not saying you sanction drug legalization. I'm merely making an analogy. Saying that since something is inherently going to happen, so therefore we should legalize it is bad. It leads to more widespread use of the undesirable act. If we legalize abortion simply because a small number of mothers are going to risk the coathanger approach, we are sanctioning and indirectly causing millions more abortions each year. Our current abortion laws attempt to walk on eggshells between two heated groups. The fact that they recognize the potential for the child absent its cognition is proof that this should be extrapolated to conception. If the government protects children 3 months from birth because of the future child, they have an equal burden to protect a child 9 months from birth. There is no reason to draw the line, only politics. You mean to say fallible. I agree that the Constitution is not always right, but I think the basic ideals that our country is built on should be followed. I'm not talking about some small clause in the document. I'm referencing the prime principle of rights infringement that have been cited throughout history. Slavery is actually a perfect example. The federal government ammended the Constitution (which didn't directly sanction slavery) in order to disallow the states from making their own decisions on such an atrocity. The federal government felt that slavery was so wrong that no states should condone it. This should be the same as abortion, because it is a massive rights violation and a severe breach of constitutional values. Having compromise on an issue like this would be similar to allowing some states to still condone slavery. It shouldn't be left up to the states because it is such a massive wrong.
Another Abortion Debate

First of all, you can't prove that women will not take coat hangers to themselves as it has been PROVEN in the past - also along with that the argument that they will not do it nowadays turns on yourself because the number of illegitimate births has gone up and so has the number of people having underage sex. To the drugs argument, drugs are not as immoral as abortion so this is clearly the most important issue. I am not saying that we should legalize drugs because they are going to happen anyway - they happen anyway but doing them underground has always happen and they pose a less serious threat than a baby being killed, possibly the mother too. When abortion is legal, we can moniter it and we make sure the abortion is done in a "sane" way. If you agree with me that a blastocyst is a child, you should also agree with me that that child goes through stages of development. Under our current Abortion laws it states that the child being aborted cannot be over x number of weeks. This shows that our current government knows that the blastocyst eventually becomes a baby and at least we are keeping an eye out for signs of cognition in the child. The Constitution is also infallible. We cannot always look to it. Slavery was specifically in the Constitution and was amended because we knew it was immoral. This shows that things can be in the constitution that need to be amended. You agreed that there is no specific place to look so anything dealing with constitutionality. I believe we should both agree that abortion is immoral, but we have to keep it up to the states, not the feds. If we kept it within the states, those states would moniter it and others would still deem it immoral, thus reaching a compromise.
Another Abortion Debate

Just because things that are against the consitution and are legal exist doesn't mean they should. I think we should abide by the constitution. No, the consitution does not specifically address abortion, but it does say that your actions can not and should not infringe on the rights of others. Abortion is in direct conflict with this fundamental principle, as the actions of the mother and doctor infringe on the rights of the child. Assuming that mothers will take coathangers to their babies is a thirty-year-old argument. True, this could still happen. But, in a day and age where the societal shame has faded, it is exponentially less likely. Your argument is like saying "people are going to sell drugs anyway, why not just legalize them?" Your argument means that would should permit millions of rights violations in the name of potentially ensuring the health of the reckless mothers that would inflict that risk upon themselves and their child. The point is, legalized abortion is sanctioning millions of rights violations a year. You don't refute the fact that it is against the constitution. You merely argue that unconsitutionality is OK. I think our country should abide by its constitution and stop the rights violations that are occuring. The mothers that are going to take coathangers to themselves are not as much of a risk today as they were. Protecting these people from themselves is not worth sanctioning the millions more abortions that occur each year because of its legal status.
Another Abortion Debate

No, I don't agree. I am totally against abortion, but i don't see in the constitution where it says a thing about it. Also to the point where you look at something that is unconstitutional but not illegal - there are many things that are this way. Paper money is a good example - so something could be unconstitutional but still legal. Also, abortion is inevitable. If we try to prevent it, people are going to go underground and use the coat hanger method - which would harm both the baby and the mother. At least when it is legal we can monitor it. It should be up to the states because it is immoral but it should still be legalized. It is a free country - based upon the constitution.
Another Abortion Debate

I'm not one of those impassioned pro-life people that go out and call everyone genocidal maniacs and baby-killers. However, I am against abortion. My main point is that abortion is unconstitutional and fundamentally against our country's paradigm. America has always had this notion that someone can do what they want, as long as they don't interfere with someone else's rights. I don't see how abortion doesn't fly in the face of this entirely. I believe that a government doesn't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, but in the interest of protecting another life, shouldn't they be able to? I guess this leads the debate to the question "When does life begin?". I think it is undeniable that life begins at conception. Denying the ensured future of that life is to deny all rational forethought at all. Also, I think that some abortion is OK. When the women's life is endanger, the chances of survival between the two lives make it acceptable to save the mother. Based on its apparent unconstitutional nature, I think abortion should be only allowable in situations of medical emergency.
Single Sex school are better than Co-ed Schools

dfadsfhwekjsvndojfjsdafnjdsfnajsdfnjsdafnjdsafnjadsfnjasfnjsdnfjsdnfjsdfvhsdfzcv jefjraesfdvjc sef cjdfjsanfjsdnjsdafnjdsfnjasdfnjdsfnjdsfnjsdafnjdsfjsabhdfn chfsdj hfcsdafnfnfndjvdjhrfvfjnsadlfjsdjfsadkjfnasdkjfnsadkjfnskadjfnksdajfnksdjafnksadjfnkjsdfnksdjfnkjdsafdskajfnaskdjfnskdajfnsdkajfnkjsdafnkjsdfnksjdfnakjsdfnksdjafjksda
Single Sex school are better than Co-ed Schools

I totally disagree with the first argument that Famer has put down. It does matter if you don't socialise during your school, reason being is that you are able to go to university then that is co-ed so you have all the time in the world to socialise and get to know the opposite sex. Contention 1: Students in Single-sex school success more than Co-ed Schools Studies have shown that it gives students a better chance to do well in subjects where one sex or the other traditionally does better. Girls sometimes think it is not feminine to do well in maths and science. Boys sometimes think it is not masculine or 'macho' to do well in expressive subject such as English. If they are in segregated class, they may not be so affected by these ideas, and so be more likely to perform at their best. Studies from the National Association for Single Sex Public Education. Percentage of students scoring proficient on FCAT ( The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ) Boys in Co-ed classes: 37% scored proficient Girls in Co-ed classes: 59% scored proficient Girls in Single- sex classes: 75% scored proficient Boys in Single- sex classes: 86% scored proficient Contention 2 : Opposite Sex Studies at different rates Another main argument for segregated education is the fact that boys demand more of their teachers' time. Firstly boys need more discipline because they are more likely to misbehave in class. Secondly they get more attention than girls do, because they tend to speak up more in class. If girls are educated separately, they might have more of their teachers' time, and so learn faster. Contention 3 : Teacher that favour one sex over the other Teacher frequently favour their own gender when teaching co- educational classes; for example, male teacher can undermined the process and confidence of girl students by refusing to chose them to answer question etc. A recent study by the American Association of University Women found that ‘gender bias is a major problem at all levels of schooling', asserting ‘girls are plagued by sexual harassment and neglected by sexist teachers, who pay more attention to boys'.[1] As a result, girls tend to fall behind their male counterparts.
Communism is the way that the world should be run

The Soviet Union fell because their economy couldn't survive their aggressive military buildup, and because the general populace was dirt poor and starving. New China is a powerful nation, yes. However, it is no longer an economically communist nation. China also has an appalling record in the area of liberty and human rights. My biggest problem with communism is that human beings are always corrupt, especially in positions of leadership. And a free democratic government is a much better way to keep that corruption in check.
Video games have done more harm than good to society

In this debate, I will argue that the malevolent effects of video games far outweigh the beneficial. Both my opponent and myself will be obliged to offer concrete evidence of the good or the bad (obviously I will prove the bad while my opponent provides evidence for the opposite) The first round is solely for building our cases. The second is for strengthening our cases and optional rebuttal. The third round is reserved for rebuttal and closing remarks. No new points shall be raised during this round. If you would like to make an inquiry, feel free to use the comments section.
Do bears poop in the woods

I accept this challenge, and look forward to debating this subject I argue that bears do NOT defecate "in" the woods. In order to defecate "inside" wood, the feces must after defecation be completely encompassed by wood. However, because beers expel feces from their anus when defecating, and the anus is by definition "the opening at the end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste matter leaves the body.", the act of defecation itself involves an opening through which feces is expelled
Peer pressure is beneficial for students

HI, MY FRIEND I am usnish and today i would like to argue on the context :- Is peer pressure beneficial for students:- I think peers are beneficial but peer pressure are not......... Firstly who are peers? Peers are people who you socialize with or that are similar to you in age, interests, or in some other way. Peers can include people you are friends with, go to school with, work with or meet at an event. Now,what is peer pressure? Peer pressure is when you are influenced by other people (your peers) to act in a certain way. If you're with friends who are doing something that you typically would not do and they convince you do what they are doing, that is an example of peer pressure. So, I am gonna tell about the disadvantages of having peers. Firstly:- I disagree, because if your friends and/or other people are trying to encourage you to do something good then it really isn't peer pressure. That is called giving good advice, or friendly encouragement. Peer pressure is when people try to encourage you or pressure you to do something that is against your better judgement, which in most cases tends to be something that is usually and/or potentially harmful. Secondly:- Always is too inclusive Cyber bullying/bullying related teen suicide incidents alone prove that peer pressure is not 'always' beneficial. There are cases in which peer pressure (keeping grades up to match those of fellow peers). It is unfair put 'always' into the question since there are positive and negative sides. A better question would be: Is peer pressure more beneficial than not? Thirdly:- According to my opinion peer groups influence is not beneficial but harmful.Sometimes or always it used to be like that, that is the good teens may get addicted to drugs,drinking habits etc.And it has been happening in our day to day life. Am not completely opposing it but there should be a limit. Lastly, No peer pressure may not always be beneficial Our companions some may be good and some may be bad . The bad companions create a pressure on us to get addicted to bad habits. So, this may be harmful for us.For example one friend may force the other to smoke. Due to the pressure and temptation created by his friend, he would smoke. But this will be harmful for him. So, peer pressure is always not beneficial. So i would like to conclude peer pressure is not beneficial for students. Especially for those who are in the hard phase of teens .
Resolved: The Iranian Nuclear Deal is a "mistake."

No semanticsNo Trolling. No KritcsBOP is sharedThe Following users are prohibited from voting on this debate. If they do their votes shall be counted as a Vote Bomb and their votes shall be removed from this debate. ZarroetteImabenchMikalIranian Nuclear Deal- Text is found here (. http://time.com...) "mistake"- meaning that it was a bad deal for the Western and other Middle Eastern NationsIn order for Pro to win he must prove that the deal was harmful to western nations. In order for Con to win he must show that the deal was benefitial to western nations. If it is a compramise (neither beneficital nor harmful) the arguments section is to be tied.
Proofs Of God Fail To Be Sound

I am a phyrronian skeptical Atheist who maintains that there is no necessity to believe in God. This is my second attempt to have a debate of this sort, the current one has resulted in my match being accepted by a troll who didn't engage in any true dialogue with me over the topic at hand.Regardless of any potential disagreements, I am greatful for the existence of people who do strive for knowledge and take debates seriously like Brontoraptor. I hope that the time used to discuss this topic will be used well, and that the both of us can truly come to question a long debated phenomena and appreciate any differences.Anyway, I yield the rest of this time for Brontoraptor's potential acceptence of this debate.
Proofs Of God Fail To Be Sound

The first ontological argument in the Western Christian tradition was proposed by Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work Proslogion. Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind; even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible — one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. Seventeenth century French philosopher Rene Descartes deployed a similar argument. Descartes published several variations of his argument, each of which centred on the idea that God's existence is immediately inferable from a "clear and distinct" idea of a supremely perfect being. In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz augmented Descartes' ideas in an attempt to prove that a "supremely perfect" being is a coherent concept. A more recent ontological argument came from Kurt Gödel, who proposed a formal argument for God's existence. Norman Malcolm revived the ontological argument in 1960 when he located a second, stronger ontological argument in Anselm's work; Alvin Plantinga challenged this argument and proposed an alternative, based on modal logic. Attempts have also been made to validate Anselm's proof using an automated theorem prover. Other arguments have been categorised as ontological, including those made by Islamic philosopher Mulla Sadra. The basic idea as I explain it in some of my arguments is this. If reality is infinite and has always existed, everything has always existed infinitely. This includes the highest conceivable being. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world". This would include things like the probability of the drake equation vs no other observed intelligent civilizations/the Fermi Paradox, the codon table or "Genetic Code "of DNA, and adinkas vs String Theory in reference to scientists such as James Gates and "Super Symmetry" including the equations that are used to describe the universe being destinctly Hammin's Binary Self Error Correcting Computer Code. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Proofs Of God Fail To Be Sound

My opponent looks to have disappeared, so I will give a variety of interesting proofs. * Scientists have observed that at the moment of conception, when the sperm infiltrates the egg, there is a flash of light. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... * The Fermi Paradox- The apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence and high probability estimates, e.g. given by the Drake equation, for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. In other words, by probability alone, if darwinian evolution is a real thing, and not a fairytale, our small portion of theMilkyway Galaxy should be teaming with intelligent life. So where is everyone? https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * Kalam Cosmological Argument- Whatever begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * Satisfying Infinite infinities: God as the singularity- My argument goes something like this: We have 2 possibilities in our reality. 1)Our reality is finite, thus the equivalent of an oil spill that literally exists inside of nothing. The entire concept is a paradox within the vary rules and constructs of our reality. This is why most scientists and Atheists stay away from this proposal. It would quickly point to an outside neccessity. 2)The second is the infinite reality. No beginning. No end. No start. This is where the atheist thinks they have cheated theism and jumped past it. Not so much. It leads to the law of EVERYTHING. Infinite everything means literally everything. Through some type of darwinian-like means, everything exists. Every story ever told has happened, somewhere, somehow(Including the Bible). Every person and thing is a doppleganger. There are infinite you's, infinite me's, infinite everything. There is no first me, yet has never not been infinite me's. We have in one form or another always existed. This goes for the highest possible, conceivable being as well.