BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be illegal...after 6 weeks

would like to address a few points right off the bat. I have heard several arguments, and will refute them. 1) It is a woman's choice, her body, her choice. - This would hold true, if the fetus was part of her body. Studies have shown that the baby has different DNA. It can obviously have different things such as gender, blood type, etc. I think that having different DNA, gender, blood type and just about everything else means that it is a different person. 2) It's just a blob of cells. - At 6 weeks, the baby now has nerves, a brain, and a spinal cord. That is not a blob of cells. Before 6 weeks, while I wouldn't be happy, I don't believe that that is a fetus. I think that before an abortion is approved, an ultrasound should be preformed, so see how long the fetus has been alive. Almost all abortions are before 6 weeks and under currently. 3) What about women who are raped? Or have medical issues? - Women can ruin a mans life by the mere accusation of rape. On top of this, 4/1000 abortions are because of rape currently. If there is an apparent health issue, that can be addressed and in those cases only, can result in an abortion at any time. If you were to say the same about rape, the number of rape accusations, which are already at an all time high, would skyrocket. Meaning less then they already do. I am exited to see what you have to say. Please list sources!!! 1. http://www.operationrescue.org... 2. http://blogs.plos.org... 3. https://www.catholicvote.org...
Death Penalty

"'not deprived of life' the death penalty is going straight up against that"How so? I just explained your freedoms are taken as you go through the due process of law. Prisoner's rights only include limited speech and religion. You forfeit every other right to the government, including your life. So it's not going against it. It's suspending it until you get out of prison. After you die, you have no life, and you wouldn't need rights so the dead have no rights. Only the right to not be robbed while they're in a coffin of course, but regardless. Once you go to prison and you commit a crime, you forfeit almost every right.What if you went against your country? That's worthy of death right? I think so. If you give away America's greatest secrets and plans you deserve to be silenced forever. By leaking information, you could cause the death of hundreds of people. Pointing out America's weak spots and it's flaws could cause big problems where lives could be at stake! So if you're willing to take lives, you should be willing to give your life. If not, you already forfeit them by committing a crime correct? Prisoner's rights AND the constitution state this.
Death Penalty

Sorry I was late. Here we go..."It is unconstitutional" Stop right there!In the constitution it states this"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]This means you can lose your life, libert and/or property through the due process of law; therefore, saying it's unconstitutional is not correct. It's completely constitutional. The due process says fair treatment through judicial process. Let's look into this as well...What is fair? Fair is defined as this":agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable :treating people in a way that does not favor some over others :not too harsh or critical" [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] According to these definitions one can ask "Is death too harsh?" Is it? The way people die now is through lethal injection. It works like this. Injection, 3 seconds later you're dead. That's not painful at all. So is the process harsh? No it's actually the most humane way to die. It's "fair". Prisoners don't actually have all of their consitutional rights either. They're only protected by ONE amendment. The fifth, cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty isn't cruel, as mentioned it's humane and it isn't unusual either. This means the prisoner has no rights in prison, including his life when he's on death row. So your statement "it's unconstitutional" is incorrect and false as proven. [http://www.law.cornell.edu...] What about closure? Wouldn't it be nice to know that the killer that murdered your family died? He won't get out and kill more people, that's a nice thought isn't it? It's also the ultimate warning. While it isn't great, it does warn some people "don't kill, or you'll end up like him". Prisoners often commit suicide in their cells too, so wouldn't they prefer the death penalty over sitting in a cell all day? Why not grant them one request because there are prisoners who would rather die than sit in a cell for life.
ted Cruz should not be able to run as president.

If one of his parents was a natural-born citizen, which Cruz's mother was, he can run for president. Politifact states that most legal experts agree that a natural-born citizen does not have to go through a naturalization process to become a citizen, just affirming my point. If a candidate was a suspected terrorist, I believe that the voters would have enough sense to not vote for him or her. You also said that the United States and Canada do not have the best relations, so then wouldn't Cruz as president help US-Canada relations? http://www.politifact.com...
ted Cruz should not be able to run as president.

Look you said he had other requirements to be president, what if someone was not born in america but was from ISIS but his mother was American. He ends up being a terrorist and now he can also run for president? Your point made not sense. Ted Cruz is a US citizen but he is not a natural born citizen. Which proves he cannot run for president. America does not have the greatest ties to Canada, just saying. WE are closer to the Kurds than Canada. Bottom line is that if ur not born in the USA then u can't be commander and chief or run for president.
Fire, Water, Earth, Air: Elemential Debate

I hope that the both of us can learn something from this debate. For this debate, I choose to argue for "air" and why it is better than fire. I'll keep this short, sweet, and simple. Area of influeceEvidently, air's area of influence is planetary; every square millimeter of the planet's areal boundaries up to the molecules near the top of the troposphere [1] (considering that I would not survive the temperatures beyond the troposphere in casual wear) would be in my domain (not simutaneously, of course). This would mean that I would have domain over the following elements that make up air: Gas Formula Abundance percent by volume Abundance parts per million by volume Nitrogen N2 78.084% 780,840 Oxygen O2 20.9476% 209,476 Argon Ar 0.934% 9,340 Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0314% 314 Neon Ne 0.001818% 18.18 Helium He 0.000524% 5.24 Methane CH4 0.0002% 2 Krypton Kr 0.000114% 1.14 Hydrogen H2 0.00005% 0.5 Xenon Xe 0.0000087% 0.087 [2] Societal benefits: I will just make an easily understandable list: I would be able to greatly contribute towards combatting the greenhouse effect by containing the gradually increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide [3] to be used as a substantial supply necessary for photosynthesis [4]. I would be able to keep a flight safe from sudden, turbulent disturbanes I would, of course, be able to provide hours of entertainment for children at a playground without the fear of wrecking anything. I will turn it over to my friend(save rebuttals for round two)! Sources: 1: . http://www.srh.noaa.gov... 2: . http://education.jlab.org... 3: . http://www.eia.gov... 4: . http://biology.clc.uc.edu...
Fire, Water, Earth, Air: Elemential Debate

Before you accept, read everything!Refer to Avatar the Last Airbender (the animated series). Otherwise, read this if you do not know what I'm talking about.The objective of the debate is simple: choose one of the four "elements" and argue why your chosen element is better than my chosen element. Remember, do not argue why it is the best element out of the four or bring the other two elements into the debate. If you accept, you will only use round one for acceptance and to state your chosen element; you may not make a statement at this time (you will be able to make an opening statement--not a rebuttal--in round two).Pro will state his chosen element in his opening statement in round two.Questions to consider when arguing for your chosen element include:1) How can your elements benefit society?2) How much would you be able to control with your element?3) Anything else you can think of.The elements you may choose from are stated and defined below:1) Water: control over water in its gaseous, liquid, and solid state (unless water is in a liquid solution, exclude all substances composed of water; this power is limited only to water.2) Earth: Control over stone, setiments of rock (sand), and anything else related to it3) Fire: Able to produce fire under the condition that the generation of fire is impossibe without supplying the lungs with air.4) Air: Control over every element in its gaseous state that makes up air (if you choose this, know that you would be unable to control water directly).Keep the extent of the power of each element limited to that displayed in Avatar, the Last Airbender cartoon: you cannot displace the pacific ocean, split the Earth into two, burn the earth, or cause the air to move at an infinite measurement of speed.Standard debate.org rules apply; rounds 3 and 4 will be used for rebuttals while round 5 will only be used to summarize the debate.Have fun and good luck!
Christians our illogical

I'll assume this is an acceptance round, so I'll accept and clarify with the fact that I am actually an athiest, but I find this statement false. Since no definitions were offered from the instigator, I'll provide my own. I don't think my opponent should find anything wrong with these as they are very simple, but if he does he's more than free to dispute them. Christian: One who follows the teachings of a Christian Sect, as defined by their holy text. Illogical: Does not follow logical processes
Christians our illogical

first off I said that the Christian churches our illogical not that the people of the Christian churches. But it would affect your scientific abblility for example if you were studying the theory of evolution. And your church is against it you would not be able to except many of the facts. My argument is that there is no way to prove that there is a god or most of Christian doctrine. But atheism can be proved because it goes with facts and real proven things. now my opponent has a weak point because he has not decided if he is pro or con., He will not get to the facts of why he doesn't like my argument. However I am not stating that I do not like Christians just the fact that they our illogical. And my second point illogical means non fact and Christians however do not have facts to build on therefore making them illogical. my sites were webster diconary online and google
Christians our illogical

Christians our illogical because most of there beliefs have nothing to back it up. For example Christians use the bible and it states that black people were cursed because they sinned. And were not aloud in the in Christian churches. but after the civil war black people were aloud in the Christian churches. But the bible it also states that god has seen the past and the future. so if he could see that black people weren't bad why did he write it in his bible.
Increase Funding to Nasa

Title of Legislation : A Bill To Increase Funding To Nasa Designation : Super Session 1 : BE IT ENACTED BY THIS CONGRESS HERE ASSEMBLED THAT: 2 : Section 1: The United States shall increase its funding to 3 : the Nation Aeronautics and Space Administration by 5 billion 4 : a) A board shall be established between NASA and Congress in 5 : order to communicate the needs and concerns of NASA in 6 : relation to funding. 7 : b) Should the amount of funding need to be changed, the 8 : board referenced in Subsection 1a shall propose a change to 9 : the senate where it shall be agreed upon based on proper 10 : legislative majority. 11 : c) Additional funding created strictly in relation to this 12 : Bill shall not exceed 10 billion dollars. 13 : Section 2: NASA shall be in charge of spending and allotting 14 : the new funding. 15 : a) All private contractors that NASA employs shall report 16 : to standard NASA protocol. 17 : Section 3: This legislation shall be enacted within two 18 : fiscal years. 19 : Section 4: All legislation found to be in conflict is hereby 20 : declared null and void.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation should be destroyed.

My opponent has forfeited last round, therefore I will have to point out that all of my points still stand undefeated while he has zero that stand. Due to this, I will reiterate my points.My first argument was about the SGK's use of funds. As I showed with evidence [1], [2], [3], and [4], less than 20% of SGK's proceeds go to actual cancer research while 40% go to unnecessary awareness and another 40% go to the personal bank accounts of their CEOs. My second argument showed the elitist attitudes of SGK. They care more about profits (to pay for their paychecks) rather than taking any donations they can get [5]. Not only that, they cut ties with an organization that helps women diagnose and treat breast cancer due to the conflict between Conservatives and the Pro-Choice supporters of Planned Parenthood [3].My 3rd argument was proof that SGK only cares about themselves. They go out of their way to protect their "trademark" by suing other small charities that have no way of protecting themselves [6]. For these reasons and more, I stongly urge you to vote Pro. I will still give my opponent a chance to rebuttal these arguments in the next speech.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation should be destroyed.

Hello. Today I propose the topic that The Susan G. Komen Foundation should be destroyed.I will be arguing in favor of this topic, so as the contender you must refute my claims and defend the foundation. Round Structure will be as follows:Round 1: Acceptance, make a quick post stating you accept the debate.Round 2: Present case (Pro); Present case and offer first rebuttal (Con). Round 3: Present Rebuttal and defend self (Both).Round 4: Present 2nd Rebuttal and defend self, present voting issues (Both).I look forward to a really good debate between myself and my opponent.PM me or comment if you have any questions or concerns prior to accepting the round.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

Hello ladies and gentleman Let me get right to my case Individuals have a moral obligation and ought to assist those in need. Assisting those in need ought to be valued and should be done as only helping others is the best way to show a individuals morality and kindheartedness. As every thing as 2 sides, I believe trying to help someone as moral obligation is far more superior rather than helping people due to self interest. There are many people which help other people as volunteers, but they also are representatives of many thousands of people which don't get the chance to escape from their daily routine. Thus I hope Assisting those in need continued to be valued over helping individuals because of self interest. There are some thing which are ought not to be left on self-interest. If we left our Health on self interest of individual just imagine what would happen. Lets make it even narrower, What would happen if we left Health of Americans on their self-interest for a year to a decade. I can say with the guarantee that obesity will increase, diseases related to obesity will increase and minimal benefit will incur to all american's health. Same goes on with assisting people in need. In India the majority of government is corrupt and they have left helping those in need in self interest. You see results in front of you, Indians are one of the poorest people in world before third world countries like Africa, Indonesia, and other non developed islands. Australians on the contrary, have designed Center-link which uses the tax payed by the people to help those in need of Assistance in Australia. As tax is compulsory, Australia indirectly has made its citizens to be obliged to assist those in need. Thus it should be quite explanatory by now that Helping those in need ought not to be left on self interest as it may have dire consequences over a prolonged period of time. It is true that majority of us help others for net utility gains but if this debate is looked at a moral point of view rather than a egoistic view than a world will be truly be filled with rich countries and rich citizens. I never have mentioned or supported crimes but there are something which continue to change lives and must ought to happen like helping those in need Lets preview how the debate is going at the moment :- I have provided a moral, more beneficial to human framework which is far superior, just and moral for the society of the today unlike my opponents egoistic framework which will never grant any individual with success, happiness, wealth or morality. I have affirmed the resolution and my arguments have proved my case.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

. https://docs.google.com... #My case is above, as stated in the rules since I can post a case through an external link. My rebuttals are below. The first thing that my opponent's case is lacking is some sort of weighing mechanism to weigh the round under. As this is Lincoln Douglas debate, we need some sort of way to weigh between the advocacies of each case (whether that by a value/criterion pair or a burden system). Since my opponent literally goes straight from definitions to contention level arguments, his case is lacking one. I'm providing you with a clear weighing mechanism through my V/C, so you will be preferring my case for that reason. The side that best realizes self-regarding ends is going to be winning this debate. Since he has no actual framework to go by, you can prefer mine that I provide. Thus, we will be evaluating the round under an egoistic viewpoint. Next, let's go down to his sole contention. This contention, basically saying that people do currently assist other people, so we are obligated to, is flawed for a number of reasons.1. This entire contention commits the is/ought fallacy, which basically says that just because something IS happening doesn't mean that it OUGHT to happen. Just because people are robbing banks and killing people all the time doesn't mean that people OUGHT to rob banks and kill people. 2. You can TURN this contention as offense for the negative case, as he lists a bunch of charities and volunteer networks who are choosing to do it on their own free will, not out of any obligation to do so. This helps my case because the entire advocacy of my case is saying that we can assist people, but we are not morally obligated to do so. A perfect example of this would be volunteers, which my opponent provides for me.3. He's not actually proving that we are obligated to. His entire contention says that we DO help people, and that we SHOULD KEEP helping people, but he doesn't actually prove that we are MORALLY OBLIGATED to, as is his inherent resolutional burden. Since he is affirming the resolution "Individuals have a MORAL OBLIGATION to assist those in need", he must prove that we are obligated to, not that we should or are. So as I'm getting tired and think I've pointed out everything that needs to be pointed out, let's go through how this first round of arguments went down.1. He's providing no sort of weighing mechanism to allow you as the voter to weigh arguments by.2. He has no sort of framework, so you prefer mine.3. His sole contention is massively flawed.4. He's not actually affirming the resolution.5. His argument only proves my case.
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

I accept the topicIndiciduals have a moral obligation to assist those in needI will be debating for the topic as proAS no definitions were provided Here are the definitions:-Individuals in these debates will be human beings who has some sort of power to help those in need like rich people or volunteers Moral obligation is a responsibilities placed on a just humanThose in need includes all creatures (animals and humans) I am only posting one contention this round as Con has not posted anything and maybe disadvantaged Contention 1 - Status quoAt the moment many countries are helping people and countries in needCenterlink provides lot of different types of disadvantaged people(unemployed, single mother, teenager) funds to survive in Australia. This funds maybe a bit inadequate but they still provided to all people till they get in a better condition.Australia and America donated 110 million dollars to Haiti EarthquakeUNESCO and many other organisation helped to end Somalia's famineOXFAM and Kiva collect funds and help many third world countries to improve their living conditions These are just a few example which highlights that first world countries and organisations do help people in need.The Organisations that help third world countries are filled with volunteers which do their best as individuals to help people in need.I still believe this services are inadequate so they should be increased but if people that have power start refusing to help people in need, then people will start dying not because of starvation, poverty and poor living conditions but because of first world country individuals who were selfish, immormal, merciless and refused to help people in need.India is the best example. India is rich but because of its corrupt politicians majority of Indians are poor. Poverty, Starvation, Unemployment and Unhappiness spreads like fire you never know when it will hit you.Summary In conclusion, Individuals have a moral obligations to help people in need and support the status quo. Except the truth it is your turn to make the difference
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need

Well since the amount of debates I'm in has died down a bit, it's time for me to take on another LD debate! Let's bring back an oldie-but-goldie. Because didn't we all love the obligations debate? The resolution is as follows:Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need. Pro is affirming the resolution. I am negating the resolution. Now to set a few ground rules for the debate. ..1. For cases only, posting the round in a google document is permitted. Rebuttals must be outside of a link.2. All types of LD cases are permitted. Any type of weighing mechanism is allowed (V/C, Burdens, etc. )3. Dropped arguments are considered concessions.4. In the case of a forfeited round, all seven points are to go to the victor.2 week voting period.72 hours to argue8000 character rebuttal limit (cases can be posted in a link). Round structure will break down as follows:1. Aff posts case.2. Neg posts case/rebuttals, pro rebuttal and defense.3. Neg rebuttal and defense, pro rebuttal and defense.