BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cops should be allowed to have high IQs

I understand that you believe that cops should have higher IQs. I mean everyone could be a little smarter but if a cop starts to think that he/she is smarter than everyone else, they will feel as if they rule everyone. Police now a days believe that they are in control anyways. If you add that idea of the power onto a smarter person then they feel like they are invinceable or cannot be stopped in any way. Could you imagine an arrogent cop with the idea that he/she is smarter than everyone? That will be one situation i do not think anyone else wants.
Abortion is always immoral

First, I would like to apologize for what will be a short rebuttal Pro's arguments. I'm currently battling the flu, and have not had enough time, or mental fortitude to properly give this debate the full attention it deserves. I will concede that society is indeed made up of individuals. However, that does not negate the premises or conclusion of the argument that I have offered. Simply because society is made up of individuals does not necessarily mean the best interest of the collective is dependent on a single human being. As an example, if a population was at its absolute limit to the degree that birthing another human being would lead to the destruction of the society as a whole, would it not be more moral so sacrifice the one unborn life to save the rest of the community? Within the realm of this argument, I feel that providing a general semantic argument supporting my claim is sufficient as the burden of proof falls to the pro. His argument being "abortion is always immoral" all I must do is provide any number of instances where abortion may be (even hypothetically) the most moral option. Again, I apologize for the lack of substance within this entry. I look forward to Pro's replay, and hope that i've mended up so that we may close this debate properly
Abortion is always immoral

I accept the challenge and hope that if nothing else, we enjoy a solid, well structured debate! I accept the rules of the debate in that I will be sticking to morality as opposed to legality, not using ad hominem arguments, and will do the best I can to sight sources. Within this debate, I will not be taking the side that abortion is always moral. Rather, I will attempt to point out what I believe are fallacies within the PROs argument. I hope that this is acceptable within the rules/realm of this debate. I look forward to the PROs response, as well as a good debate! Definition of Morality for this debate: "The rightness or wrongness of a certain behavior, which is an objective reality to which all individual moral agents should abide. " Prem1:"Intentionally killing innocent human persons is always immoral". Prem2:"All that is necessary to be a human person is to be a human being". Prem3: "The unborn are human beings". Prem4:"Abortion intentionally kills the unborn". Prem5: "The unborn are innocent". Conclusion: "Therefore, abortion is always immoral". Prem1: Morality: "The rightness or wrongness of a certain behavior, which is an objective reality to which all individual moral agents should abide. " Prem2: Morality applies to both individuals, as well as collectives and/or societies prem3: A moral action may be deemed as "good" if it is beneficial to an individual, or society prem4: A moral action may be deemed as "evil" if it is to the detriment of an individual or society prem5: It is morally "good" to perform actions that have the highest intrinsic moral value. prem6: Actions that affect societies have a higher intrinsic moral value than actions that affect one individual. prem7: Sometimes, taking lives is in the best interest of society. Conclusion: intentionally killing a human person is sometimes moral. It should also be noted that if we are using the PROs definition of morality, the term of "innocence" is null as PRO has claimed that, by definition, we are basing our moralistic claims in objectivity. Being that "innocence" is an inherently subjective term, it has no baring in determining intrinsic moral value. In order to remain objective as it pertains to this debate, as well as the PROs definition, all human life must be weighed equally.
Abortion is always immoral

I will be arguing that abortion is always immoral. Definitions: Abortion: "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks:" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... NOTE** Putting aside miscarriages also called "spontaneous abortions". Unborn: "A human offspring at any stage of development from the moment of conception up until birth." Supplied by me Human Being: Any living member of the species Homo Sapiens. Supplied by me Definition of Morality for this debate: "The rightness or wrongness of a certain behaviour, which is an objective reality to which all individual moral agents should abide." Anyone who is going to argue that morality is relative to the individual AND that they can do whatever they want in all cases will be taken as just trying to scuttle the debate and are not welcome. Rules: 1:Let's stick to morality and not legality. (although the moral outcome could have legal consequences) 2: No Ad Hominem arguments. 3: Please reference hyperlinked sources back to place in argument. (or place them right after relevant portion of argument) Opening Argument: Prem1:"Intentionally killing innocent human persons is always immoral". Prem2:"All that is necessary to be a human person is to be a human being". Prem3: "The unborn are human beings". Prem4:"Abortion intentionally kills the unborn". Prem5: "The unborn are innocent". Conclusion: "Therefore, abortion is always immoral". I will wait for the challenger to present their opening argument and challenges to my premises before going into more detail.
Terra-forming Venus vs Mars

This debate will focus around the potential to terra-form Venus (me) vs terra-forming Mars (Imabench). Measuring the winner will be based on two values that we will be pushing. 1) How close we can get our respective planet to Earth like conditions. The closer the better. 2) How close the technology needed is to technology that we already have. Obviously everything that is "scientifically possible" is fair game, but things that can be done with tech that we already have available should score higher than things that are scientifically possible but we currently lack the tech. 3) How safe and successful something can be. Trying something like moving Pluto through the solar system to become a moon means that it has to cross the orbits of many planets and only increases the risk of collision and loss of pluto (and even potential collision with Earth, if trying to send to Venus). Obviously these two values can be at odds since getting closer to Earth may take more advanced technology, so it is up to the debaters to find the ideal balance and up to the voters to decide who has reached the better balance. Things that will not be considered in voting 1) Cost to do this terra-forming. The cost for something like this is easily going to be in the billions and trillions of dollars, and when we consider what the cost of something that is so far out of our current reality, there is no way to be anything close to accurate. I also want to keep this focused on the science and tech, rather than the economics. 2) Time to completion. Pretty much everything will take decades and centuries, and calculations of how long something may take will shoot this well outside of our 8,000 character limit, so the time aspect will be ignored. The debate will follow this simple format. R1 - acceptance and clarification. R2 - we each present our complete Terra-forming plans for our planet, do not counter anything on your opponent's. R3 - we explain why our opponent's will not do well on the three value points. R4 - we defend our own planets from our opponent's R3 arguments. R5 - We offer money to voters and various other panderings. Or just summing up our side, either or. My opponent is free to start first, or they can pass it on to me to start. I look forward to what terra-forming ideas my opponent will use on Mars and hope that everyone enjoys the sci-fi enjoyment that is sure to come.
Abortion

Argument 2: If women become pregnant, they should accept the responsibility that comes with having a child. Just because you had a fun night out and are now pregnant doesn't mean that you can murder an unborn child because it is unwanted or you aren't ready to give birth. Women have to start taking responsibility for their actions, and prevent abortion in the first place. It isn't necessary if girls don't get pregnant in the first place. Also, studies show that during the abortion process, fetuses do feel pain. So, woman is hurting the baby because the abortion process is painful, so they were irresponsible and most likely don't care about their future or their fetus.
Abortion

I accept the resolution. Though, my opponent made no rules and stated arguments in the first round, thus I will too. Also, I will save my cross-examination until the end, and I urge my opponent to do the same. Argument one: Civil Right The affected pregnant women should have a choice about abortion. She has the right (rightfully so {excuse the pun}) to her own body, including this might-be child. It is a civil and human right to control your own body. And seriously, if you "Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?" You really should not be able to control or tell a women what to do with her own body. If she wants a baby? Fine. If she doesn't want a baby? That is also fine! Sorry for the short point, but expect way more next round, Dynamicduodebaters
Abortion

In our country we should not be able to abort a child. Abortion is murdering and destroying a human life. This topic came up in the book Unwind by Neal Shusterman. In the book people are allowed to Unwind their child once they are 13 years old. Once a child is 19 they cannot be Unwind ed anymore. Unwinding is taking the vital organs about a young person and giving them to a donor. Technically the person who got Unwind ed is still "alive" they are just in another person. It is a very controversial topic that is expressed a lot in the book. The main characters Connor, Lev, and Risa all try not to get Unwound. Unwinding a child is equivalent to aborting a teen. Abortion is murder which is against what God said in one of the 10 commandments. Abortion can also give the mother who is aborting her child medical problems. A big medical issue that comes out of abortion is breast cancer. There are exceptions though, if a girl gets pregnant at 16 and is afraid to give birth she would probably abort the baby. Also, it is probably really embarrassing going to school with a baby in your belly. Everybody will question you and think differently of you. Teachers and friends will know you are pregnant because your belly is huge. Abortion is very controversial and can be debated for years.
Abortion

Thanks con Argument #4: Abortion reduces crime. Imagine you are a 17 year old and you have child. You need money to raise your baby. Like $12,500 dollars. Plus you have school and soon enough university/college. The only way to get the money you need is crime. Stealing cash. You are caught and sent to prison. You now have a criminal record. How can situations like this be avoided? Abortion is the answer. Often families who have abortions are poor and kids raised in a poor environment will often become criminals. Because you did not allow you daughter to have an abortion you may have just created your countries next big robber, rapist or even murderer. " According to a study co-written by Freakonomics co-author Steven D. Levitt, PhD, and published in the peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Economics, "legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions." Around 18 years after abortion was legalized, crime rates began to drop abruptly, and crime rates dropped earlier in states that allowed abortion earlier. Because "women who have abortions are those most at risk to give birth to children who would engage in criminal activity," and women who had control over the timing of childbearing were more likely to raise children in optimal environments, crime is reduced when there is access to legal abortion. " Argument #5: Unwanted babies should not be born Like the example I gave above teenagers need money to raise kids. And when you are a teen your number one focus should be school. Babies will be distractions to already overwhelmed teens which may cause their future to come crumbling down. More jobless, broke, and homeless adults all because of an unwanted baby. Often times people don't want kids and if you raise a child that you hate that child will grow up to be hateful, bitter and many other things. These babies are unwanted and children deserve better parents then parents who hate them. "Having a child is an important decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended." Thank you. DDD
Abortion

OK so the way I will do this is I will answer your questions first, and then next round I will, (because this is a debate), post another point or two: What is the main reason that most women abort children? The main reason is because women have an incident, either at a night out or a criminal/sexual abuse case. So basically the women get pregnant when they don't want to/didn't think they would. When do you consider a fetus a human being? I'm not gonna answer that question because I actually have no opinion on it. Do you support abortion? Yep. Are you against abortion? Nope.
Abortion

You make some really good points. You should win the debate. To be honest, we are 13 years old and doing this debate for an English project. We would really like it if you tell us more about abortion so we can get better educated about and do better on our project. You seem to know a good amount about the topic, care to share more... The more information the merrier. Here are some questions: What is the main reason that most women abort children? When do you consider a fetus a human being? Do you support abortion? Are you against abortion? Thank you very much and your insight will be very helpful
Abortion

Hmmmmm. Okay here it goes: Argument 2: Abortion is not murder The definition of murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Abortion does not fall under this definition of murder because a) it is not unlawful one bit, and b) it is not a "killing of one human being, " because "it is performed before a fetus has developed into a human person." So calling abortion a murder is completely wrong and an uneducated categorization of the term. Argument 3: Danger with delivery and illegal abortions. I will split this point into two parts: 1: Delivery. Delivering a baby is painful and can very well possibly be harmful/lethal to the pregnant women. The following are potential risks to your health that might occur because of pregnancy: "Pregnancy induced hypertension Anemia Postpartum depression Postpartum psychosis Thromboembolic disorders. The leading cause of death in pregnant women in the US. PUPPP skin disease that develop around the 32nd week. (Pruritic Urticarial Papules and Plaques of Pregnancy), red plaques, papules, itchiness around the belly button that spread all over the body except for the inside of hands and face. Ectopic pregnancy, implantation of the embryo outside the uterus. Hyperemesis gravidarum, excessive nausea that is more severe than morning sickness." Part two: Illegal Abortions. If abortions are made illegal then people who would want to have an abortion would have to do it the "back alley" way, or in other terms the unsupervised, unsafe abortion that could not only hurt the pregnant woman but also could get her in legal trouble for something that should have been legal and that is the RIGHT THING TO DO. Thank you, Dynamicduodebaters
Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools

Delaware children are too soft for corporeal punishment, but many children in other parts of the nation have much duller feelings. There's a plague infecting close to one fourth of Oregon that causes the auditory perception of children under eight years old to undergo static overload when verbally instructed to change their behavior, and they can become lost souls without getting other clear forms of communication from adults, such as all-out beatings. The ones in my home state of Texas are made of rubber, and punching and scratching are our 27th and 28th letters of the alphabet - we would lose a historically significant portion of our culture without it. We need to continue to bridge the generation gap between adults and their children, and corporeal punishment is a key element of that plan.
Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools

I appreciate the chance to argue this topic. For semantic clarity, the two possible debate-friendly meanings of this debate's title read as follows: "Corporal punishment is being reintroduced to schools" - versus "no it isn't." "Corporal punishment should be reintroduced to schools" - versus "no it shouldn't." "Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools" is like saying "Flowers being picked." One cannot agree or disagree, the sentence is worded as hypothetical. Based on my opposition's first round arguments, until otherwise specified, I will assume he means to use the latter, *should be* phrasing. That said, although public schools do not typically practice corporal punishment, it was never legally un-introduced from schools. 1. Parents are entitled to corporal punishment "Corporal punishment of minors within domestic settings is still lawful in 49 of the United States. Delaware outlawed it as child abuse in 2012" http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Teachers are entitled to the same teaching methods as parents according to "In loco parentis," a legal doctrine adopted by both the United States and Britain. "this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent" http://en.wikipedia.org... A doctrine that was never removed cannot technically be reintroduced. To 'reintroduce' corporal punishment, we would have to first ban it, then reintroduce it. I argue that we should not reintroduce it because that would require us to take the time to unnecessarily ban it.
pc is better that console

Well then I thought that this would be a debate not me explaining my opinion, oh well. Anyway as the judges may read in the comments someone posted that there aren't any HD games for consoles, this is wrong all the games have HD capabilities. Most people these days have flat screens correct? Good that means all they have to do is plug in an HDMI cord that comes standard with almost all flat screen TVs. Secondly you can go online and do the same thing as PC's with consoles, you do not need to shell out thousands of dollars to get a computer and all the accessories.
child labor good? it is

A child age, let"s say 10, has no need to learn the harsh realities of life. Forced child labour teaches children nothing. How will it help them when they reach rock bottom later in life? I have nothing wrong with the teaching of children about what to do in later life, but again there is a time for that. At what age do you see it as acceptable to begin both child labour and the education as to later life? Also children can have nowhere near the same experiences of being at "rock bottom" as there is only so much that you can do to a child before it becomes assualt.
child labor good? it is

its good because children children can get money get money" There are a plethora of other methods by which a child can obtain money, none of which involve working to the ground and/or crippling themselves for the rest of their lives because of a job which they were not physically capable of doing. Whilst in some instances this may not be the case however the reality is that this system is so open for abuse that it is not worth implementing. "learn about how hard life is" There is a time when children will have to learn about the realities of life but it is not in their earlier years. Since you haven"t specified what ages of child labour will be implemented for I will define child as anyone under the age of 18. Does a 10 year old need to learn the harsh realities of life. At that age children are emotionally unstable and telling them about the realities of life will not be good for their well being, especially not through work. I also notice you have neglected to respond to any of my arguments so I"ll just put this little reminder for you.
child labor good? it is

Only estimates exist, but it is believed that at least 250 million children work for a living in developing countries, nearly half of them full time. At least 60 million children worldwide are exploited under extreme forms of child labour such as debt bondage and prostitution. Child labour is a human rights violation on many different levels Children work long hours, often exposed to hazardous chemicals and made to use dangerous tools and machinery that are inappropriate to their mental and physical development. Its so widespread. Child labour in agriculture is not just in the developing world; it even exists in the United States and Europe. In most countries children assist their families in small scale fishing, family farms and subsistence agriculture. Girls are often kept away from school to work as domestics. Because it's often hidden or invisible. This is the case of domestics working outside their own home. The children - almost always girls - work very long hours, have no chance to go to school, and are isolated from family and friends. Often they are treated like slaves and sexually and physically abused. Many girls living in agricultural communities drop out of school to work as domestics in their villages or the nearby towns. Some children are forced to work in debt-bondage. In return for a money advance or credit, a person offers their labour, or that of a child, for an indefinite period. Sometimes only the child is pledged, becoming a commodity in the process. This form of slavery can continue through generations. This happens a lot in agricultural communities.
Golden Dawn - the next nazis

Dear opponent , This is a debate, you are supposed to argue against this topic which means that you have to tell us why do you think that the golden dawn is not like the Nazis but it feels as if you are more concerned with being condescending than you are in arguing. I may be too young to be concerned with something like this but that is none of your concern. FYI, I am not a quitter, my phone wasn't working.
Golden Dawn - the next nazis

You may be correct, however who is pushing them to such extreme ideals? What if a person you never met showed up at your door demanding a free dinner for themselves and their family for the rest of their life? To go along with FREE dinner, they also want you to pay for healthcare, education, and they also want a job with big bennies. They also want a FREE cell phone, transportation, food, water, electricity, emergency services, and to be invited to the gala with a free ticket. If you have something yourself, who is it that deserves some of that for free with no prior service? ILLEGAL immigrants. Are they against ILLEGAL immigrants, or just immigration in general? You are the expert.