BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THB Abortion is ok.

I will be the proposition and will set the movement:The mechanism This house believes that the abortion of fetuses before the 12th week is moral and should be legal. I know that it is legal. I would love it if somebody who knew what they were talking about would take the case of the opposition. The rounds will be :Round 1 = Prop mechanism and op openingRound 2 = prop main arguments and op rebuttalRound 3 = Extension on any points previously madeRound 4 = summary speechOk round 2, my main argument (PS screw you, my youtube videos are amazing, I hate you! I hate you! aaaaaaaaaaahuhuhu! :( Sorry, sorry about that, I just, I just really love my youtube videos. ) Anyway, some arguments! SentienceRight, so this is the main argument the proposition will be using. Up until the 12th week of pregnancy, the fetus remains and non-sentient (not alive or conscious) extension of the mother. The fetus is not alive up until this point and as such there is no wrong in removing it from the mother. If the mother wants this extra bit of flesh removed from her body, fine. Let her. It is a woman's right to have control over her pregnancy. 9 times out of 10 the reason a woman will go through with the abortion procedure for 1 of 2 reasons. 1 the woman did not get pregnant on purpose and does not wish or is not ready to bring up a child.2, there is serious medical conditions with the baby which will make it's life a worse thing than not having that life to begin with. So a sub-point :Up bringing. So what do you think the chances are of the non aborted child having a good life? Well, let's look at the evidence. In 2011 91% of abortions in the UK were carried out before the 13th week of gestation. And 78% before the 10th week. Medical abortions accounted for up to 47% of the total. And 1% were carried out because of fear that the child would be handicapped. ( This means handicapped to the point where they could still live a happy life, not something like downs syndrome. ) So looking at these stats do you really think women who get abortions are baby killing monsters, or just women who got pregnant accidentally or who's child would be seriously disabled? The latter? I thought so. So let's think of a woman who did not get a child aborted. She got pregnant accidentally ( because who would abort a child they tried for? ) and doesn't have the money or time to bring up a child. What do you think the chances are that the child will be put up for adoption. They are actually 1 in 5000. And with 69000 children in the UK born every year, that is a high chance. If they aren't adopted, how do you think they will live. They will put strain on their mothers for food and money. Ultimately, they will drag the family into debt. I am not saying you should value money over life, but if a woman doesn't think she can bring up a child happily then she probably didn't get pregnant on purpose and should be able to get that child adopted. Remember the mechanism I can't stress this enough, we are talking about abortion up to the 12th week of gestation. No later. Do not ignore the mechanism. You are trying to prove that it is immoral and should be illegal.
THB Abortion is ok.

I will be the proposition and will set the movement:The mechanism This house believes that the abortion of fetuses before the 12th week is moral and should be legal.I know that it is legal. I would love it if somebody who knew what they were talking about would take the case of the opposition.The rounds will be :Round 1 = Prop mechanism and op openingRound 2 = prop main arguments and op rebuttalRound 3 = Extension on any points previously madeRound 4 = summary speech
High gas prices

If it were fair to allow you to get off with some generality such as "we need to do something about high gas prices", there would be no debate. You opened and elaborated on electric cars as an alternative to gasoline, and used global warming as a reasoning for eliminating gas completely as a source of energy. This is not a discussion about "ideas", but rather a discussion about your primary idea, electric vehicles. We have debated about whether electric is a safe or practical form of energy for transportation, and had small arguments about the validity of global warming. There was no failure to read anything in your earlier points, I simply refuse to allow this debate to linger into too many topics, letting this debate become a meaningless waste of time for the both of us. Seeing as how your last round focused on a question of the validity of economics, and an assertion that America is a 'quick fix' society, I must address this. First, it is completely untrue that economics disagrees with the environment. Economics uses indicators provided from society and the scientists who quantify them in order to help lead someone into making a decision. Environmental economics is unique in that people are challenged to find out how changes in air quality (or other factors) turn into costs for society. It deals with externalities, which can become a valuable tool for policy makers. This is not to say that policy, alone, is the savior of our world. People need to act on their own. It is absurd to assert that people "waited" for solutions towards the gas issue. There has been research for years on different energy sources, modes of transportation, and other alternative technologies. The rising gas prices have only helped to make these technologies more affordable, as they have not been commercially viable while oil prices were low. Take a day or two, research exactly what GM, Ford, Exxon, and other companies have been doing to improve efficiency in engines. You'll find out that car companies have been actively researching better batteries for hybrids to reduce weight, improve pickup and efficiency. Looking elsewhere, you might also find that universities and other labs have been actively researching fuel cell technology to help make them viable. Progress never stops. Lastly, I would like to see an example where Americans have ever had a "quick fix" in industry. In America, 'fast' is perhaps the last term one would use to describe change in the economy. The constitution of the country was written to ensure that political change happened slowly with many checks and balances. The economy is 50 states large, a land mass comparable to Europe with almost as much political complexity. Change happens in this country slowly because of the complexity behind diffusing any new technology. Despite this, people work towards solutions, and can only begin bringing them to the market when the incentives and infrastructure is right for them.
High gas prices

Well, we will slowly pollute the air so badly that it will take away from our life expectancy. Besides, like I stated earlier and you obviously failed to read, electric cars was just one idea. Electric cars do possess that safety threat to individuals, it would save many other lives. Yes, there do have to be alternatives, but one temporary solution is the electric car. Then technology will change to improve it. Asthma related deaths have increased by over 63% since 1980 and in the general population its prevalence has increased over 80%. As for economics, they are important but the environment won't always be able to "agree" in a sense with economics. But just waiting for a solution rather than actively trying to find one won't work, and it seems that high gas prices is the only way to will this on. Today, we live in a quick fix society where we only try to find temporary solutions (as seen with today's sudden gas prices that would not be so bad if we had actively been trying to find a solution) and think that that will solve their problems forever, because that is easier to cope with than knowing that the solution needs time and effort. But as a whole, Americans are lazy and not willing to put their time in to finding a solution. But worrying about gas prices and the economy and not trying to do something about it is a perfect example of how Americans have become lazy after WWII, by not wanting to do their part. And sadly, "Ask not what can your country do for your, but ask what you can do for your country," has been falsified by the American attitude.
High gas prices

In terms of safety, it's hard to tell what is a safer vehicle, the one that will explode on rare occasions, or the one that will take more time to open up and save a victim. Firefighters will spend more than 20 minutes standing around waiting for the charge in the battery to die before going into the car and rescuing someone. In a bad accident, where time is an issue for saving you, your chances of dying are dramatically increased by driving an electric vehicle. As for pollution, don't confuse "global warming" with pollution. Further, be careful where you are talking about when you say "asthma is getting worse". Asthma conditions may be getting worse in some regions, while not changing or, instead, improving in others. Example, In China, there are more respiratory conditions in general due to the high pollution. In the US, it is fair to say regions with more smog or air pollution from local plants are more likely to have asthma issues, but it is not true to say that everything is getting worse. Especially if you don't have any data to show that asthma incidence has increased over that past 10-20 years in the US. Do I agree that less people driving gas vehicles would improve the air quality for people around highways or in cities? yes. Do I think that electric is the way to go? Definitely not yet. This all boils down to economics. Society will innovate in lieu of these prices, making either more fuel efficient vehicles, which will reduce emissions in of itself, or create a new source of energy for cars that is economical. We need to wait until the price is right for other competitive energies to enter the market. At this point, Electric is not economical until gas prices nearly triple on a per gallon basis. If someone were to buy an electric car, it would have cost them $42-80K. They would drive it for a few years, the battery would decay, and they would have to spend thousands to replace it. It's not economical yet, but given time, it will be. There's no magic bullet to our concerns now. We just have to wait and let people motivate themselves.
High gas prices

The lease that the people of California paid was cheaper than that of a Honda Accord, and as long as the insurance was paid, the repairs were not expensive. I know someone who worked on the battery of the EV1's and said that it was less complex than that of a gas engine. Yes, changes would have to be made, I know this having a step-father who is a volunteer fireman. But gas engines can cause fire and explosions unlike electric engines. Oil needs to be replaced in cars every 6-8 weeks. yes, gas is easier, but there is only so much of it left and we need to come up with alternatives quickly, because we will run out. Therefore, the convenience will go away quickly, so we have to do it one way or another. Say global warming is wrong, there is no denying the pollution that is being caused. Cities like Los Angeles are in a cloud of smog. Asthma is getting worse and the air quality is getting worse. Where I live, we get 90% of our electricity from hydropower and nuclear. That does not account for the many at home wind projects that many people use. so don't use the coal argument, even though coal is better than gas.
High gas prices

I am arguing that we need high gas prices to get off of foreign oil, because people like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore have been telling us that we have got to find an alternative, but only now that we are being slammed on at the pump are we taking this advice seriously. The average American commute is 29 miles a day. The electric car could meet 90% of Americans' needs. A person could then recharge the car at night while they were sleeping, drive to work, do some errands and drive home. In the beginning of cars, electric cars were the car of choice because they were not as hard to start up and did not emit smog of any kind. The only reason why oil took over is because Detroit car companies had invested in the oil and slowly diminished the number of electric cars until there were none left. Just before the electric car lines were removed again in 2003, a battery was nearly at the point of being largely manufactured that would allow the car to travel 450 miles on a single charge. That is plenty for all of the population with the exception of the occasional road trip. A car engine is much more expensive than a battery in an electric car and requires much more maintenance. As for global warming, its basic science. Taking carbon samples from ice in Antarctica, carbon dioxide can be measured for 650,000 years. We also know the temperature due to how the ice was frozen and refrozen. High carbon levels correlate with high temperatures and low carbon levels correlate with low temperatures. It is known that carbon is emitted from gas driven cars and it is also known that carbon will trap heat. Though I did speak about electric cars, my point was that car companies don't want to admit that the oil age is coming to an end. We need to have cars run on all sorts of different fuels like clean burning bio fuels (some are harmful but some are not), electric (preferably from clean sources but even from coal the emissions go down), hydrogen. The point is that we need diversity. Diversity is important because that way we don't end up like we are now, using only one fuel and not having enough of it. If we create many fuels, if one is running low there are other ways.
High gas prices

Be careful where your examples come from. There is a problem with documentaries today. Very few of them are fair to other sides of the debate. I could easily tell you that the electric car had at least 2 very simple problems that made them uneconomical and weak in the US market. The first was that a charged battery gave a person 150 miles before needing to be recharged, which took several hours. Over time, an expensive electric car battery would decay and require replacement. Chances are, however, someone would recognize that as they got stranded on the side of the road because the battery meter was unreliable after many charges. Another issue was a failure of the country to have an infrastructure that could competently accommodate the electric car. Forget gas prices, that's merely an accusation of a film that is in no way unbiased or fair. You opened yourself up for criticism on a few points with this debate, so I ask you to get a little more specific to this topic. Global warming is a very debatable topic of it's own, so I could challenge that to refute your assertion that there is a special environmental urgency to deal with gas prices. You also mention biofuels, which have their own slew of problems. And then of course, the electric car as an alternative power source. Are you saying that we should challenge high gas prices and find a means to lower them? Are you saying that we need more funding for alternative energies to lower prices? Or are you saying we need the alternative fuels simply to eliminate oil usage for the environment's sake? Please clarify exactly what you would like this debate to focus on.
High gas prices

The minimum wage today which will soon be passed is $6.55. Gas prices are now just over $4.00. this is about 61% of a person's hourly income. In 1972, the minimum wage was $1.60, while gas was $0.92. Gas was about 58% of a person's hourly income. However, the average gas mileage back then was about 13 miles per gallon whereas today it is approximately 22 miles per gallon. (cato.org) Today, in the face of global warming, there needs to be some incentive to come up with alternatives. Jimmy Carter, though not a perfect president, tried to get us to become less dependent on foreign oil and come up with better alternatives. Since then, global warming has just been getting worse and there is only so much attainable oil left. Well, that was 30 years ago. Though a handful of states (California, Oregon, Washington, the New England states as well as New York and Pennsylvania), have come up with some ideas, the government has not sufficiently funded programs that try to encourage bio-diesel, clean electric cars, as well as solar for sunny places such as L.A., Florida, Arizona, etc. In those thirty years, the government has made our gas artificially cheap and car companies up until now in this gas crisis have made gas guzzling HumVee's, SUV's, and trucks, and have even destroyed the electric car and other alternatives. In "Who Killed the Electric Car," people who had driven EV1's got together and decided to make this video to show how the electric car was destroyed. California had originally passed a law that would slowly increase the number of electric cars available to the public so that the people would turn away from gas and move on. The EV1's were not for sale, only for lease. It could safely travel at highway speeds and passed safety regulations. One charge could go for over one hundred miles, and California had set up electric charging areas for these cars. However, when the lease was up, GM took the cars away and discontinued the line because it interfered with the gas profits and would ultimately end the profits. Now we have high gas prices and car companies are really trying to become very fuel efficient to please the public. Why is it that Americans weren't paying attention and only now that gas is high is the public really concerned. If this is what it takes to switch to environmentally friendly vehicles, then so be it.
If true Socialism can be implemented properly throughout the world, it is better than Capitalism

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Capitalism -an economic and political system in which a country"s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state: These definitions are as per oxford dictionary. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Just to clarify some common misconceptions: Socialism does not always mean dictatorship rule. Capitalism does not always mean democratic rule. Rebuttals allowed in Round 1 No new arguments in Round 5 Also, I ask that my opponent does not focus only on one country(for example only debating that Socialism will cause ruin for Canada) but rather to focus on the world. As implied in the Resolution, this is assuming that socialism is implemented properly, in the cold war era, there were communist states who were not really socialist. They were totalitarian regimes and brought suffering to many people (in many cases). In this debate, it is Democratic Capitalism vs Democratic Socialism hence political systems are not taken into account, only the economic systems of Socialism and Capitalism are taken into account. Now on to the debate Socialism as an ideology is excellent, all citizens of the nation are equal in terms of wealth and rights. Every citizen is equal regardless of whether his/her parents were rich or poor. In capitalism, children born to rich parents will give them better opportunities as compared to children born to poor parents, even if the poor child is intelligent. Capitalism is comparable to the caste system in India. Basically, in a caste system your position in society depends upon your family's position in society. If you are born into a road sweeper family, you will stay a road sweeper even if you are extremely intelligent. If you are born into a wealthy business family, you will stay a wealthy businessperson, even if you are very stupid. I do not see how this is any different than Capitalism. Well, sure you can go up and down the ladder of success, but your starting position in life depends on your parents and most people will not move up or down the ladder. The rich will keep draining the planet's resources and the poor will suffer tremendously. Inequality gaps will, not be a problem in a socialist country since all people work and are in the same wealth class. A drawback is that there can be no rich people, but there is no poverty either, a huge benefit. http://www.dummies.com...
If true Socialism can be implemented properly throughout the world, it is better than Capitalism

I'll tell you why I didn't bother with the rest of the debate. It was the experience I had with one of the notes. I realized that it doesn't matter how carefully I explain my position, some people are just so deliberately stupid around here that I'm probably going to lose despite that fact that every sane and educated person with the exception of a few nut cases in universities know that socialism doesn't work and never will. I got accused of being a racist for pointing out that 14% of our countries population is collecting 47% of it's federal AFDC assistance dollars. These debates aren't about intelligent and thoughtful people discussing ideas; their about knee jerk emotional liberals making god like declarations and anyone who disagrees gets ritually sh!t on. Having to explain for two rounds to Pro that Hitler was a socialist just to have him once again try to make him a capitalist was the last straw. I did my part. If he had just looked up fascism he'd know that it's a derivative of socialism. One source described fascism as "Socialism with a capitalist veneer". He got caught up on the right wing crap and insisted that meant capitalist. If he'd done just a tiny bit of homework he wouldn't have repeated that nonsense. What's worse is there is so much intentional stupidity on this website that people will believe his nonsense so I have to do all that running around. It's not worth my valuable time just so a bunch of left wing pricks can vote me down anyway.
If true Socialism can be implemented properly throughout the world, it is better than Capitalism

Well, there we have it folks. The debate comes to an unfortunate end. All my opponent had to say to my CONVINCING ARGUMENTS was "I don't care". This is rightfully interpreted as a forfeiture of the debate, which is a severe lack of CONDUCT. I have nothing really to say to this other than the fact that I am not pleased with my opponent's participation in round 4 at all. I leave the rest to the voters. If my opponent actually debates in round 5, then that is wrong because con's arguments should have been in round 4 and I would have had an opportunity to rebut it in round 5. But if con's argument for round 4 is posted in round 5, I will not have an opportunity to rebut it. A sad end to a good debate.