BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortion

Thank you for accepting my request snd thank you to your parents for choosing to keep you so that we can have this debate. To your point if incest or rape is in play then I am okay with having an abortion. I could not imagine living with that let alone being reminded of it. That being said those are my only pros. Up to what stage for you is it okay to have an abortion? The heart begins to beat and brain waves occurs in the 6th-9th week. Women know if they have missed there periods and if they have had unprotected sex they should be getting checked if something is off. If they catch it in the first month then so be it but beyond that to me it should not be there choice to abort a human being with a heart beat and brain waves. Things happen for a reason and baby's can have good lives coming from good or bad situations but it is there life and if we stop them from living it then what are we? A women recantly spoke about how at 17 she had an abortion at 7 months into her pregnancy. Then later in life she gave birth to a still baby at 7 months and said the baby was fully functioning when it came out. She has to live with that and she feels that every day because she knew her baby was alive and could have lived on its own outside the mother. If at 6 weeks it has a heart beat and brain waves is that not a sign of a living life? If we take that life are we not committing the ultimate crime? You tell me. People can choose to do as they please we will all have to talk to the big guy one day but for me it's pro life because it is not our choice once a baby has any sign of life. We all have to make hard decisions those that have chosen abortion have grown weaker because they feel that pain daily and those that have kept the baby and dealt with it may have struggled mightly but they have ultimately become stronger because of it no matter how it all turned out. Again at what point is it not the choice for you? Or can they have an abortion at any point before birth and leaving the mother? I pass the torch.
abortion

So in essence, I shall be arguing for abortion? I hope I don't bore you or anything, I'm merely only trying this debate website to be honest, I'm not a pro or anything... Moving on, what you have claimed about "it's not your choice" I would like to state that, if you are able to conduct what you wish, if you have everything that is needed, then I am unsure what is stopping you from doing so. Currently, we all have a mind, and I do believe, that we can all make a choice. Besides that, your statement, "The women made the choice to have unprotected sex the end" Well, in all honesty, that may not be true. First of all; "There is an average of 293,066 victims (age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each year." ( https://www.rainn.org... ) . I doubt it was their choice to end up like that, I would quickly like to point that out. When you stated, "Should you spend your whole paycheck if you can't afford a medical bill to come up?" Are you actually implying that the human race would be ever so... Stupid? The average IQ of the people in America is 90 - 100, I would say that I clearly doubt they would even make such a decision. Clearly, before anyone would make such a decision of under going abortion, they would clearly think about the cons and pros. Nevertheless, I look forward with this debate with you.
minimum wages dosn't support low class finiaically

Hello - First I will say this is my first debate and I know my viewpoints will not be popular among the people reading this. However, please think rationally and logically while reading my arguments. 1. The worst thing for this country is the enforcement of a minimum wage. If a person is good at what they do, no employer would have to be forced to pay them a certain dollar amount per hour worked. If a person isn't good at what they do, they would need to find something to better fit their set of skills. No person would take a job for a dollar an hour which would naturally force the employer to have to offer more if they want a person to work for them. 2. The minimum wage (as well as other government enforced regulations) are what causes companies to ship their companies overseas where the price of labor is much cheaper. 3. The purpose of a business is to make a profit. This is done by reducing costs, labor is a cost. If the minimum wage is increased, the company will cut back on workers, forcing a higher unemployment rate. 4. Minimum wage interrupts the natural supply and demand ratio. As the labor pool is increased, demand for these jobs goes down, decreasing wages. However as more companies are created (thus creating job openings or not shipping jobs overseas), the demand for workers also increases, which in turn causes wages to go up. 5. The big question I have is do the people that make minimum wage need a hand out or are they looking for a hand up? I have no problem helping someone looking for a hand up but when they are looking for a hand out that is a different story. 6. When it comes to not being able to afford "bills" I would also assume that a person doesn't have a cell phone, only has basic television, dial-up at best for internet service, a car at least 8 years old, only eats out once or twice a month, and doesn't own a big flat screen TV. "Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime."
minimum wages dosn't support low class finiaically

many people in the low class struggle but they do get little help from government that provide food stamps and medicare. but mimium wage dosn't help finiacial support. today our apartment bills cost just as much as houses that have more than 3 or 5 bedrooms, bathroom and etc. even though minimum wages is going up in 2009 to 7.55 an hour does it means that our bills will go up over what we can budget.
Resolved: The UK police force should routinely be armed with handguns.

I'm sorry for the delay and short arguments. Real life time constraints. Again sorry.1997. The UK banned guns that year and murder literally sky rocketed. The only year to ever below the homicide rate since 1997 was 2010. Why? <strong>Crime rates. </strong>The UK has a higher violent crime than the U.SU.S actually has a violent crime rate of 466 of 100,00. Meanwhile the U.K, a country who has the unarmed cops,has a 2,304 of 100,000.(http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)(http://www.breitbart.com...)Have you ever heard the saying "Never bring a knife to a gun fight"? Well, the UK's police doesn't even have guns so its an even match. Crime vs cops. The cops need an edge.Now lets see how the data matches against other EU countries. You might be surprised to hear that the UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.Not to mention that some countries in the EU *allow* guns. Now we know that the UK has a problem, right. But to be sure lets check on one more place like south Africa. Let's see the data. U.K.'s number of crimes is 1,158,957 vs SA's 732,121.(http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) <strong>Comparisons</strong>. Japan. Let's see what Japan has to say.Japan has a low crime rate. (http://www.nationmaster.com...) But do they have armed police? Yes. (http://www.hitrecord.org...)Why don't they emulate it?Extra graphs and sources. http://www.debate.org...I look forward to the possible police brutality and definitions arguments from con. XD.
Resolved: The UK police force should routinely be armed with handguns.

I accept. Definitions UK - United Kingdom Police Force - an organized body of police officers responsible for a country, district, or town Routinely - regular course of procedure Armed - Equipped Handguns - any firearm that can be held and fired with one hand accuratelyAll definitions are from dictionary.comhttp://dictionary.reference.com... NOTE: In the rules it states that I have to accept all definitions however there are no definitions provided by my opponent so I have provided them. Good luck Pro.
Resolved: The UK police force should routinely be armed with handguns.

Resolved: The UK's Police force should be issued guns and should carry them routinely. I haven't done a serious debate since I first got in here so I thought I should do three before I go. Rules: This debate should be impossible to accept for now I'll open it later. No forfeiture All arguments must be within the debate, but sources can be put in the comment section if needed. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere No trolling My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to challenge my definitions The BOP is shared First round is acceptance and definitions only. My opponent must argue in R1 but only post constrictive criticism in R4. Good luck Con.
Why are parents taking their kids out of public schools

The question is where to begin in providing reasons why America's parents are removing their children from America's public school systems when they are able to do it. Home Schooling has been gaining in popularity and the public school system has been declining since many concerned parents are beginning to realize that their children instead of learning about the great history of this country and what it means to be lucky enough to be an American living under freedom are instead learning to hate and have disdain for their country. This lack of patriotism and love for their country in the young citizens would be bad enough and unacceptable but not only are they learning to hold their country in low regard and not worthy of fighting for but the youth in America's public educational institutions are being sacrificed on the alter of multiculturalism, political correctness, and racial preferences. "The Dumbing Down" of America's young students is quite evident by their academic standings as compared with those of other countries. "Overall, according to the U.S. Department of Education, American students' rankings in math have slipped from 24th to 29th compared to the last test in 2010. In science, they've gone from 19th to 22nd, and from 10th to 20th in reading. " "That drop is mostly due to surging performance from regions abroad, especially Asia. China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are all ahead of the U.S., as are European countries like Poland, Finland and Holland, as well as neighbor Canada and Australia....." Fox News.com Reading, writing, arithmetic, the former basis of education, is being relegated to insignificance and such courses as Cultural minority and gender studies have taken their place. Writing, "Cursive handwriting is disappearing from public schools..." "...Since 2010, 45 states " including Maryland " and the District have adopted the Common Core standards, which do not require cursive instruction...." https://www.washingtonpost.com......\l By T. Rees Shapiro What is being taught in America's class rooms, its obviously not "Reading, writing, arithmetic, nor patriotism."
Why are parents taking their kids out of public schools

First off, public schools are not centers of "Secular Indoctrination". Secularism was the founding principle of our country, hence their is no mention of a specific deity in either the Constitution or the Declaration if Independence. Religious Schools (looking at you, Catholics) are far worse places of indoctrination. An actual period is dedicated to indoctrinating young children to thinking by a certain philosophy. However, instead of Reason, Religious Schools use Fear and Guilt to make their (pathetic) arguments. This is time that could be devoted to studying true philosophy, or the arts, or history, or the maths, or the sciences. What is worse is how sometimes a period (never the indoctrination hour) may be cancelled so some Religious Ritual may be performed. How many Math classes or Science classes are missed in the name of chanting their hymns and prayers (aka spells and incantations) and eating a wafer? Now, as for the Public Officials removing their children from public schools. This is, indeed, a sign of worrying times. But the children of the Elite do not go to Religious Schools, but instead go to actual centers of Education. This is because modern public schools are not "Secular" as you claim, but adhere to ideologies which are just as perfidious and disgusting as those primitive fairy tales taught in Religious Schools. Feminism and Social Justice are taught there, and these have all the hallmarks of organized religion. They have chants: They have unverifiable and disproven articles of faith: ...... disproven: Public Officials find these ideologies useful, just as Feudal Tyrants found Christianity and (and still do find) Islam useful. They brainwash the populace. However, the Elite will not subject their precious tykes to that, so instead they put them in Schools where only the modern Nobility can afford to send their sons and daughters. My proposal is to abolish ALL private schools and make the officials running the education systems in each district not answerable to some other bureaucrat higher on the totem pole, but to the people in that district. Instead of Oligarchs authorizing what may and may not be taught, the people of a county will decide what their children learn. Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite! Looking forward to this debate.
Why are parents taking their kids out of public schools

Has the purpose of education of America's citizens as intended by the founder been subverted to secularism indoctrination centers? Why are more and more parents starting to Home school their children Has the American educational system been so unionized that education of our children has became secondary in the systems objectives. Reading, writing, and Arithmetic are not subjects of much importance in public schools any more but sex education and drivers Ed. are. Doctor Thomas Cooper wrote in "letters from American farmer," 1735 about the education of a countries citizens."The easiest way of becoming acquainted with the modes of thinking, the rules of conduct, and prevailing manners of any people, is to examine what sort of education they give their children....." Why is it that so many of our public officials in Washington have removed their children from public schools and send them to private schools instead, are they aware of the poor quality of America's public school systems and don't want to risk the damage that public education would do to their children's future. Do you agree that public education is a danger to the well being of your children and their future ,that public education isn't educating our children but indoctrinating them.
government should intervene more with alternative fuel

that's not necessarily true. every company is different. we have a lot of potenital companies out there. if we gave breaks and such, there could be even more companies out there, the ones who are closer to the line. there's nothing to say they won't be the ones making the critical leaps we need to advance. with more companies comes more compeittion and more innovation, and ulitmately more advancement of alternative fuels.
government should intervene more with alternative fuel

increasing taxes would just expedite the free market transition, causing it to happen sooner than later. the problem, though, is during that transition, costs can be kept lower on the supplier to help make the products more economically feasible. we don't have to tax everyone..... and if we chose not to tax people who create good things for us, that is entirely fair. or we could just help them pay for their employees starting out. the problem with solyndra and such is just throwing money at problems doesn't help much, and causes a lot of waste. if the companies have to invest mostly their own money, it will still have the benefit of directing innovation through the free market choices of efficiency.
That it should be a criminal offence for a politician to lie

There is no contradiction at all in my claims that charges of lying are very easy to bring, but very hard to prove. If you had a national audience in a litigious country, and everything you said was scrutinized for exaggeration, flattery, and errors with prosecution the consequence, you would soon learn to let others talk for you. Pro has proposed pixie dust as a practical means of flying, and protests in outrage that I keep bringing up gravity as an objection. The American Founders recognized the problem of freezing government by litigation, and they accordingly protected against it by allowing no charges against a president except impeachment through Congress. The resolution would undo that careful protections with disastrous results. Pro offered scant evidence that --while we agree that politicians lie-- many of the lies are provable in court, nor does he provide evidence that legal procedures would prevent inundation by prosecutions and lawsuits. Rather than providing evidence and logic, Pro has relied heavily on empty claims that his arguments stand, demands to change the subject, and personal insults. I offered ample good evidence of the willingness and ability of political opponents to assault government through litigation. The present proposal is naive attempt to use the courts instead of the judgment of voters as to what was a lie and what was a reasonable change in position due to circumstances. The resolution fails and should be voted down.
That it should be a criminal offence for a politician to lie

A quick summary of my case follows in the next 9 sentences. I gave you six clear reasons why my model was a good idea. Con came up with three responses, which he more or less stuck to even until his final speech. First, he thinks people will accuse everyone of lying for trivial phrasings, despite my model clearly stating that there had to be intent to deceive as otherwise the mistruth is not deliberate. Second, he still hangs on the idea that we can't prove it, an obvious contradiction to his first point, and ignorant of all the first-degree murder cases that we do prove. Third, his idea of a sock puppet government is as silly as it sounds, because the protection can be destroyed legally, destroying the whole system con made up in desperation. By way of comparison, con failed to understand that my morality point was not about what legal issues it relies on, but rather the fact that the people should be able to bring bad politicians to account, and thus con's attack ultimately fails. On my second major point, abut transparency, my opponent only ever repeated the same old arguments that he gave in his substantive material, which I have rebutted many times over. Therefore con has failed at attacking the motion, and therefore the motion stands. (-;
I am a prophet of God

If you have denied this logic, then how can you ever be right? How can a house stand on a foundation made of sand? I serve humanity for these reasons. Everything that is literally happening right now has a literal reason in which to why it happened. Thus, if we accept that there will be a point in time or at the end of time that humanity will become no more, then it would imply that every action we take now until then would cause such an event. Take for an instance all the actions you do in your life. We will represent all those actions with the letter "A". Now all those actions will lead to other people making their own actions. Those people's actions will be labeled as "B". Now all of those actions will lead to more people making more actions. We will call all of those actions "C". "A" leads to "B" which leads to "C". This is logic, point effect. We will get to the point where people no longer can take action(Humanity's end). We will call it "K". The alphabet is a representation of the timeline where "Z" will represent the end of time. Now I am arguing that ending humanity at "K" is wrong. I think we should be going for "Z". But in order to do that, we first have to figure out why is it ending at "K". However, I'm getting a little ahead of myself. What if you could change even a little of your actions today so it could lead to pushing that to even "L"? At which letter would it be worth it? (yes, realistically in this metaphor, the Earth itself would be completely barren unable to sustain any life due to the increasing temperature of the sun a lot sooner than "Z", but hopefully we have some kind of effective form of space travel by then.) Causality states that your actions today will bring extinction to Humanity eventually. We just have to keep trying to push that point as far as we can. At least that's what I want to do. So tell me good sir will you follow or will you let die? When will you love your neighbor?
I am a prophet of God

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. You don't come with any bible verses only philosophy Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ
I am a prophet of God

God has given me insight to what humanity is. I claim I know the love better than any man alive, so come non believers and rebuke me. I am a Christian and I will use the christ word to ruin all who oppose. Come and bring it. This is my proof that I know God's love. The Objectivity of Morality: What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do. "The sole meaning of life is serving Humanity." -Leo Tolstoy It is right to follow the sole meaning of life. The only way to serve Humanity is maintaining its existence. Therefore, it is right for Humanity to survive. Thus it is wrong for Humanity to become extinct. You should not maliciously or apathetically end humanity. Which of have you has the courage to prove me wrong? You should listen to any prophet of God
Borderlands: Scooter is still alive

A valid argument, but lets look at some things, shall we? 1: Scooter's Catch A Ride stations sometimes have a New-U machine near them (New U machines respawn players when they die.) It is possible that Scooter could have used a New-U machine (A lot of NPCs also claim to use a New-U machine, so why not Scooter?) 2. Look how excited and happy he looks/ sounds seconds before being shot off into Pandora's atmosphere, and blowing up. If I were in that situation, I probably would p*ss my pants and cry like a little b*tch. he even screams "CATCH A RIDE!!!" As he rides the rocket engine like a bull into his fiery 'death'. 3. When Fiona does her thing to say goodbye, it says "Scooter will never forget you". Why would it say "Never forget You" if he was supposed to die seconds after this message? Maybe he spawned on the other side of Pandora and has no means of transportation (besides Catch a Ride, but they can't go over water) to get back to where you live/ work. There's my theory, but I could be wrong (I hope not, Scooter is/was my favorite Borderlands character of the series.)
Abortion should be illegal

Actually it states that in the Hippocratic oath in the original(the one translated to english) and makes no mention of it in the classic or modern one.http://en.wikipedia.org... And for the sake of arguement, I would ask you not to bring God into this, as religion is completely up to interpritation and has no scientific backup.But to the part of "I must not play God", this also means that we should not cure people, as apperantly 'God" will take as he pleases and everything is up to him. But this is all in the theoretical sense that I took that argument seriously. Since you had a poor rebuttle to any of my arguements with little backup and logic, I declare I have won this debate.
Abortion should be illegal

In the Hippocratic oath it states, "I will not give a women a pissary to cause an abortion." It also states " Above all, I must not play at god." Abortion is not only a sin but insult to gods creation. God has a plan for everyone and not one person should have the right to kill one of gods creations. Lastley a majority of people who get an abortion regret it later in life, after all it is murder.