BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In approximate 300 years, important natural resources should be finished

Resolution: - Approximately: roughly, about, around [*]. - Natural Resources: materials or substances such as minerals, forests, water, and fertile land that occur in nature and can be used for economic gain [*]. - Finished: Depleted. BOP: - The burden of proof is on Pro to prove that indeed in approximately 300 years, important natural resources shall be depleted. [*] Google Dictionary.
Abortion is murder and should be illegal

Now, to the debate at hand. Con has mistaken my notion that I was debating when life begins. I was building the foundation of life to the audience. Con then attempts to diminish the complexity of life by asserting that life starts starts as a single cell and it's unimportant. I would like to point out to con that this single step alone is what made Con the person Con is today. Without this cell, life is nothing. I ask con to evaluate the complexity of this single cell Con wishes to degrade. Con then attempts to equate humans with animals. Although this is an entirely different debate and an attempt to string the debate into another to make Cons seem more acceptable, I will touch on this. This debate is not why animals must kill each other live, those animals were at least born to kill or live amongst each other and by the laws of nature given a shot a life. This debate has to do with Human abortion and how it is unnatural and murder, not a predator killing it's prey. I am sorry if I did not make this point clear. .. Con attempts to degrade the fetus as if it was not a human. It's genetic blueprint is human and it's organs whether forming or fully formed are human. Con attempts to make the notion that if it is not fully formed and out of the mother than it is not human, this is a fallacious argument because as I stated - the blueprint for a human and the foundation of human life is obviously evident. I ask the audience to examine 4D ultrasounds and see that these are in fact human beings . http://www.4d-ultrasounds.com.... Con then argues that because the fetus is reliant on it's mother while it's in the womb and is to be equated to a parasitic being, such as a tick. May I remind the audience that the mother created this life, this is not an accident and the fetus should not be in the same category as say- a tapeworm. This "parasite" was due to an act of the mother and father. I would also like to remind Con that con was also a parasite. Calling a human fetus a parasite is not only disturbing but shows no sense of morality or love for the child. This argument could lead to the argument that if that child causes your bank account or fridge to be drained than you can kill it because it is reliant on you. Con then attempts to equate a human organ or limb with a fetus saying that "A woman has the right to remove parts of her body". May I remind the audience that the baby was not there before the act of sexual reproduction and is not "apart" of the Womans body as an organ or limb is. The baby should not be put under the penalty of death because of the irresponsibility of the mother and father. The act of sex is to reproduce, it is natural. What is not natural is abortion. As stated in Round 1, the taking of life is in fact murder. I have laid out the foundation of life and how we define life. The argument is not why murder is acceptable, the argument is Abortion is murder and should be illegal. Ending a human life is murder.
Abortion is murder and should be illegal

Pro has tried to make this a debate about when life begins, asserting that once the fetus has a heartbeat, it is alive, and thus killing it is murder. However, there are several problems with this view. First, the fetus, at this point only a single cell, is alive from the moment of conception. It is not as if before it has a heartbeat it is inert or not alive, and afterwards it comes to life. Second, murder is not simply defined as the bringing about the death of a living being. If this were the case, all our farms involved in the raising of animals for human consumption would be teeming with murderers. Not to mention all predatory animals would be considered murderers as well. If you mean to specify a human actor and a human victim, thats something but it still doesn't get you to a accurate conception of murder. Generally, murder is thought of as the unjustified killing of another person. given this, two issues remain: the question of whether a fetus is to be considered "a person" and the question of whether or not abortion is unjustified. I am arguing that the answer to both these questions is no. My objections rest on a fact of pregnancy which you briefly mentioned in R1 but dismissed. Up to a certain point, a fetus literally cannot live except in full physical dependence on the mother. The fetus must live as a parasite off of her, stealing nutrients from her blood, and in fact secreting chemicals that actually serve to divert more nutrition to it [1][2]. Personhood is a concept of independence. Any being that cannot live except by its physical tie to another is not a person. Let me make this clearer- the fetus, up to the point when it is viable, is wholly dependent on the mother, and can be dependent on no one else. It is either feeding off her body or it is dead. Babies are also dependent beings, but their dependence is not tied to a single individual. If a mother does not wish to care for her baby she can give it up for adoption and allow someone else to care for it. There is no such course open to a pregnant woman. If she does not want to "take care" of the fetus by nourishing it with her body, she has no option but to kill the fetus. No one else can take up the responsibility for her. I can't belabor this point enough. The interests of a half-formed human being cannot override the interests of a fully formed one. Because the life of the fetus is inexorably tied to the body of the mother, the fetus lives only as an extension of her body, a part of her. A woman has the right to remove parts of her body she does not wish to be there. A fetus is no exception. 1. http://www.nlu.edu... 2. http://www.rnceus.com...
Resolved: The US government should give scholarship grants to girls who have big boobs

"If theyre going into college though then 99.9999% of the time they are under 25, which is the optimal age for boobs to be free to frolic with one another."That may be true, but it doesn't proclude fatties, which you have stated you want to avoid."When in the history of forever have men NOT wanted to watch a cat fight?"I am not referring to a cat fight, I am referring to the constant bickering and backstabbing that is annoying as hell to listen to."More strippers doesnt hurt anyone. "Apparently you've never gone to a strip club Monday during lunch, have you?Yes, low quality stripper hurt everyone, from the owners/employees of closed strip clubs, to the creeps that now roam the street without the ability to voyeur, to the girls with daddy issues now having to deal with real relationships, to the rowdy male youths looking for a good time, to the housewife who benefits from her husband wandering eyes. Keep in mind the porn industry will be hurt substantially, as well, though not crippled."So you agree that they should be given grants, got it. "I admit the better use of funds would be a work program, not scholarships, as the resolution states.And, yes, eye candy is work."Cellphones and facebook have been doing that in college classrooms long before big boobs ever became an issue."That is true, but it doesn't mean we have to aid its destruction.Also, college classrooms may actually be free from these distractions, both with professor and student not bringing/being allowed to bring phones to class. However, a big boobed woman fresh out of the shower and forgetting to where a bra is a distraction for all, especially the professor with a front viewpoint, regardless if you brought your phone to class or not. ---All in all, it is quite clear that scholarships for big boobed girls would cause more harm than good, in both the classroom and campus life.
Resolved: The US government should give scholarship grants to girls who have big boobs

"You didn't define the parameters of your scholorship program, therefore we must assume it is not based on age, weight, or any other factor, except big boobs."If theyre going into college though then 99.9999% of the time they are under 25, which is the optimal age for boobs to be free to frolic with one another. "Yes, and since no boys are interested in them, they will take out their claws at the ones who wronged them...big boobs. I don't want to see them hurt, do you?"When in the history of forever have men NOT wanted to watch a cat fight? "If this happens, then college will get more expensive, and the flat chested girls will be forced to strip to "pay their way through college", and that hurts everyone."More strippers doesnt hurt anyone. "Big boobs are best used in the workplace as eye candy, so pay the girls to bring their girls to campus, but not in the class."So you agree that they should be given grants, got it. "Besides, if they were in the class, the professors would also be distracted, and the entire class suffers from lack of knowledge, bringing our future generation down the road to incomptency."Cellphones and facebook have been doing that in college classrooms long before big boobs ever became an issue.
Resolved: The US government should give scholarship grants to girls who have big boobs

"If they have nice boobs then EVERYONE cares what they think…" No one cares what they think, they just pretend to keep the boobs around. "Big boobs can help women be anything in life, why not make 'smart' one of those things?" Human nature. They don't need to be. "These are SCHOLARSHIPS though, aka they are meant for YOUNG women going into college, not old bats whose boobs hang to the floor. " "They can fix that with liposuction, which the government could also give grants for. " You didn't define the parameters of your scholorship program, therefore we must assume it is not based on age, weight, or any other factor, except big boobs. "Girls get jealous over EVERYTHING though." Yes, and since no boys are interested in them, they will take out their claws at the ones who wronged them...big boobs. I don't want to see them hurt, do you? "Thats where being naturally smart comes in handy. If youre not hot but smart you can still get into college. Thats how it works" Not if the big boobs are crowding them out (pun intended). If this happens, then college will get more expensive, and the flat chested girls will be forced to strip to "pay their way through college", and that hurts everyone. "But that doesnt mean its not beneficial (to men) to have big boobed women at schools or at jobs, preferably the ones im at." What you are overlooking is that there doesn't need to be scholarships for them to be there. There could just as well be a work program. Big boobs are best used in the workplace as eye candy, so pay the girls to bring their girls to campus, but not in the class. Besides, if they were in the class, the professors would also be distracted, and the entire class suffers from lack of knowledge, bringing our future generation down the road to incomptency. "And thats the selling point for conservatives…" The conservatives that care about repressing homosexuality are closeted gays, and this will hurt their chances with the young male interns.
Resolved: The US government should give scholarship grants to girls who have big boobs

"Huge boobs are naturally a distraction for men, a source of scorn for the voluptuous impaired, and who cares what the huge boobed women think? "If they have nice boobs then EVERYONE cares what they think, its flat chested women whose opinion is worthless. "Huge boobed women aren't known for their intellectual endeavors, nor do they need to be."Big boobs can help women be anything in life, why not make 'smart' one of those things? "circumference vs. surface area, or a firmness test. Do you want boobs that hang to the floor?"These are SCHOLARSHIPS though, aka they are meant for YOUNG women going into college, not old bats whose boobs hang to the floor. "Fatties - they got big boobs, too, you know. We need a bust to waist ratio."They can fix that with liposuction, which the government could also give grants for. "Big boobs are a benefit for the student body, but the benefits are marred by distraction for males, and jealousy for females."Girls get jealous over EVERYTHING though. If you so much as pet your kitty when shes home she'll give you crap about it and say stuff like "I WISH YOU LOVED ME LIKE YOU LOVE YOUR CAT" even though you JUST took her on an expensive date like 4 days ago....."If you're hot, you get free college, if not, go away."Thats where being naturally smart comes in handy. If youre not hot but smart you can still get into college. Thats how it works"Big boobs are under - represented in college because big boobed women need not an education... or a job... or a brain at all."But that doesnt mean its not beneficial (to men) to have big boobed women at schools or at jobs, preferably the ones im at. "College is a time for experimentation. What man is going to experiment when there is a surplus of big boobs on campus."And thats the selling point for conservatives to back this plan!Grants for big boobs = less homosexuality in colleges, the most liberal places in Earth!
Resolved: The US government should give scholarship grants to girls who have big boobs

Before I address my opponent, let me paint a picture... While you sit in the last row in class listening to the professor, you hear the door open, a sliver of sunlight catches your eye, and a disheveled woman sits next to you. She is fumbling through papers, her hair and skin still wet from sweat from running across campus, she is still trying to catch her breath. Of course, like the man you are, you notice her boobs, the size of cantaloupe, and just as firm. Her chest heaves up and down, up and down, as she unbuttons the top two buttons of her shirt, trying to cool down, fanning herself with her hand, making the wondrous jiggling only huge, firm breasts can. I'm sorry, what will be on the test tomorrow? 1. Huge boobs are naturally a distraction for men, a source of scorn for the voluptuous impaired, and who cares what the huge boobed women think? Am I right? 2. Huge boobed women aren't known for their intellectual endeavors, nor do they need to be. 3. There is not stipulation in said regulation regarding hotness of said boobs or body. For example, circumference vs. surface area, or a firmness test. Do you want boobs that hang to the floor? 4. Fatties - they got big boobs, too, you know. We need a bust to waist ratio. To the rebuttals: 1. Sports attract revenue for the school, so it is a benefit for the school. Big boobs are a benefit for the student body, but the benefits are marred by distraction for males, and jealousy for females. 2. So, the apology to women comes at dividing women into two groups? If you're hot, you get free college, if not, go away. 3. Big boobs are under - represented in college because big boobed women need not an education... or a job... or a brain at all. Men will provide for them. And, let's face it, we're thinking about what under the sweater, not under the hair. 4. College is a time for experimentation. What man is going to experiment when there is a surplus of big boobs on campus. This is a homophobic policy. Shame on you.
Resolved: The US government should give scholarship grants to girls who have big boobs

Reasons why the US government should give scholarship grants to girls who have big boobs1) Scholarships are already given to people just for playing sports...Sports are nice and all, but those scholarships that are given to athletes are not rewarding someone for their intelligence in any way at all, they are rewards given to people for arbitrary but understandable reasons. Giving scholarships to girls with big boobs is also arbitrary, but one can quickly figure out and understand why colleges would give out scholarships to women with big boobs..... Because they have big boobs2) It would be the US government's way of apologizing to women. Just like how Congress authorized affirmative action to apologize for slavery and racism to black people, Congress could authorize scholarships to girls with big boobs to apologize for all the crazy crap that the US has taken against women.... Abortion is still heavily regulated, women are vastly under-represented in Congress, a woman still makes 77% of what a man makes working the same job, the list goes on. Point is, the US government kinda owes women one, and scholarships for big boobs would go a long way in healing that history of neglect towards women3) Big boobs are under-represented in top colleges. When was the last time you saw a nice pair of tits walking around Yale, or MIT? Chances are you havent, because those schools have a history of discrimination against women who have big boobs, as evidenced by the fact that there arent any in their schools..... Scholarship grants though to women with big boobs could fix that, while also giving the nerds in those schools something to think about rather than dumb stuff like 'engineering', or 'curing cancer'4) BOOBSLike seriously, need I say more?
Transgender does not exist

You're predicating your arguments on an ad-hominem defense, saying that it can't be detrimental because you re part of the LGBTQ community. To start off, no genders physically exist, in most cases they're assigned by sexuality or what they're given at birth. But saying that because someone doesn't identify with a classic binary gender system is reinforcing transphobia and cis-dominance. Now, to take out your framework, transgender is actually no longer classified as a mental disorder. In 2012, according to CNN, the American Psychiatric Association, or the APA for short, ruled it was no longer a disorder to believe that a man could have been born to be a woman. It has, however, been replaced with gender dysphoria, which is related to the stress surrounding a gender crisis. I would like to emphasize that you are insisting that it exists because someone is mentally ill. Now, there is one other prominent cultural change that may shock you. Before 1973, homosexuality, which you identify yourself with, WAS CLASSIFIED AS A MENTAL DISORDER. But I mean, it's not like medical journals ever get anything wrong(homosexuality, smoking, heavy drinking, etc.) By classifying it a mental disorder, you are stifling not only the LGBTQ community, but nyone who would EVER happen to become part of this community by having them looked upon as lower class and "brain damaged" Defending yourself in this argument by saying that it can't be detrimental to the LGBT community becasuse you're a part of the LGBT community is like saying a sinking canoe can't hurt you if you're in the canoe. If you truly believe that transgender is only the byproduct of a mental illness, you yourself are handicapping all those who feel the need to step out of the binary for generations to come, and those reinforcing cis-dominance. You're destroying a cause yet to be heard. (coming from a cisgendered, heterosexual, white male, not that it matters when we're talking about gender-allignment being a handicap on the population identifying with it)
Transgender does not exist

I am by no means attempting to claim that this is a mental disorder simply because I want to be "disrespectful" to the LGBT community- and this is coming from a lesbian woman. I'm simply saying that there is a high amount of transgender-based suicides, and despite the fact that even after surgery, there is still a large amount committing suicide- and even more staggering amounts of ones who want to go back to their own physical state. I agree 100% with these articles ; http://townhall.com... and especially this one https://www.lifesitenews.com... and finally http://www.sexchangeregret.com... However, many people would rather overlook the depression in these individuals and say : I support tearing apart your body so you feel "right". Thus, you are supporting and funding their depression instead of trying to cure it. Anyways, this was not the debate at hand anyways, it was that transgender could possibly not exist. For example, was I born in this world "feeling female"? OR was that conditioning? What if "gender roles" were swapped? I wouldn't notice- or feel unnatural in that placement because that is what is deemed normal. You cannot feel like a gender. You cannot feel like a noun. Yes, you can feel feminine. But to say in order to feel feminine you must also become female is shocking and only feeding the stereotypes against women! The same can go for FtM's. Personally, it could go as far as to be compared to anorexia. Do we look at these patients and say ,"I'll actually give liposuction to you because you feel so fat! It's alright, dear." when in reality it'd kill them and make them worse off? They look into the mirror and see this fat human, while transgenders look into the mirror and see the opposite sex. Both should be treated as either highly delusional, confused, or depressed with a poor self image. I again, end this argument and eagerly wait to be proven wrong: How can one feel like a concept? How can one feel like a gender? We are not born into this world assigned behavior that corresponds to our genitalia. Transgender is in itself sexist due to this very question. In order to feel like a gender you must also act out that gender's/sex's very stereotype. (If gender exists, then I swear there is one gender for every single person on this earth. And at that perspective it isn't gender anymore. It's personality.
Transgender does not exist

I see that your argument is moreso a feminist rant? In fact, transgender does not even appear in your argument whatsoever. Also, I understand that the *history* of many languages is in fact sexist against women, however, we do not live in the day and age to recreate a gender-neutral language. There are also many "male" insults, i.e. "dick". However, "blonde" does not only apply to females, because there is no female association. My exact argument is that transgender is false. We are not born into this world "feeling female". We can feel "suppressed" but we cannot feel like a noun/adjective- female being one of the classifications for a creature with female parts. The matter of feeling female is a product of conditioning. Think about it, you know those stupid "How to pick up men!" things? Why are they stupid exactly...? Because they try their best to group every man together in one group. There are many, many men that wont want a stick figure lady who does there laundry, and there are some who just want someone to climb up mt. Everest with them. Many people this era believe that gender is a representation of their mental mindset- which is true in the case of nurture not nature. I think the only reason why gender pronouns are even still around because they help many people find the significant other they are looking for. And to tackle your last paragraph, I agree, but it is off topic. We should portray doctors as a level playing field- however, I doubt that words are the ones that need attention. What about the wage difference? Isn't that way more important than labels? Ending argument: Con has not challenged the statement directly, and my argument awaits disproving. You cannot feel, at birth, or any other time in your life, like a gender. Because gender is something that is a product of society, a product of nurture, and a product of social classes. And because your argument is taking such a feminist stance, isn't cross dressing men sexist? Don't they imply, that in order to be female, you have to doll yourself up to the extent of no return and have perfect hair? How about go shopping, or other "feminine" activities that are dictated by media and culture? Transgender relies on society's stereotypes to float. http://thinkprogress.org...