BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should be a law that only allows abortions before the end of the first trimester

That's still just a claim, not an argument. : Abortions should only be allowed before the end of the women's first trimester (the first 3 months), after the first three months the only option for the unborn child should be adoption. Why? Why do you believe this? Why should we believe it? What is significant about three months? : Why punish the baby for the mistakes of another. It's not a baby yet. It's not an unborn child either. Why don't you call it an unborn adult? Or an unborn English teacher? And it's not punishment. The embryo isn't a person; there's nobody to punish. Why not start your rule four months sooner? "There should be a law that you have to have sex every night. Otherwise, you're punishing innocent sperm cells!" : This is my belief because there are thousands of women who cannot conceive and some are grief-stricken for that reason. I doubt that. I doubt that your belief is based on the thousands of women who can't conceive. Would you change your mind about abortion if new fertility treatments fixed them? Would you change your mind if you saw orphanages with children that nobody wants? If forbidding abortions didn't fix the baby deficit, would you require more conceptions? And even if that's your true motive, why should one woman get to force another woman to have a baby for her? : Most women that cannot conceive are looking to adopt a newborn if we passed a law such as this they're would be more babies for those women.But if we don't pass that law, then maybe they'll adopt older kids, kids who are people, and who already exist and need parents. If you favor forcing women to have children for other women, why don't you favor forcing women to adopt kids they don't want? In a philosophy class, I learned about scientists who tested birth control on poor mexican women. Some of them were told they were getting birth controll, but were really getting placebos. The excuse of the scientists was that the women could always have abortions if they didn't want babies. That's reprehensible. I'm pro-abortion, but there is absolutely no reason to assume the victims of those scientists were pro-abortion. We can't assume that those women could have abortions, no more than we can assume that your proposed victims can give their kids up for adoption. There's a huge difference between not having a kid and having a kid and giving it away. If you're going to force people to have children when they don't want to, you are exercising enormous power, destroying freedom, hurting people, ruining lives. You need a compelling reason for that. You haven't given us a reason. I'd rather live in a free country than in one where the government gets to decide whether and when you'll have children. In China, they force women to have abortions. That's no less of an enormity than forbidding abortions. It is a gross intrusion on the private decisions of otherwise free people. In a free country, we get to make our own reproductive decisions. Freedom is good.
There should be a law that only allows abortions before the end of the first trimester

Abortions should only be allowed before the end of the women's first trimester (the first 3 months), after the first three months the only option for the unborn child should be adoption. Why punish the baby for the mistakes of another. This is my belief because there are thousands of women who cannot conceive and some are grief-stricken for that reason. Most women that cannot conceive are looking to adopt a newborn if we passed a law such as this they're would be more babies for those women.
Theory: How the our universe came to be 3.0

#1. Pro defined the universe as all existing matter, thus encompassing the multiverse within the universe. So he can't appeal to the multiverse to explain the origin of the universe. Pro's explanation of the universe is silly; he says it's what we experience everyday is the entirety of the universe! Since I've never experienced a black hole, that must mean they don't exist, and thus, Pro's argument fails.#2. Pro's idea of a black hole is incoherent; it's supposed to have such gravity that nothing can escape, yet X-rays escape!?#3. Of course an empty room isn't non-existent, but nothingness is. The room analogy makes no sense because an empty room =/= nothingness.
Theory: How the our universe came to be 3.0

I'll make this brief.#1. 'Universe' is defined as 'all space and matter', meaning that the multiverse, and all it's space and matter, is part of our universe. This means multiverse is meaningless; it is the sames universe. So Pro can't appeal to the multiverse to explain the origin of the universe; that's like appealing to the universe to explain the origin of the universe. The ultimate source of free will (the origin of all other free wills) never came to be; it always was, by logical necessity.#2. Pro said we observe black holes. This makes no sense; black holes are supposed to be so black that we can't see them.#3. Pro said space rips into nothingness. But nothingness is space, so Pro is stuck with the original problem: space can't rip into space.
Theory: How the our universe came to be 3.0

I accept. As Con, I will try to disprove Pro's theory/hypothesis/whatever, and I think we can all agree that if I succeed in disproving even one of his steps from #1-9, I win.I'll start now, since Pro said it's fine with him.#1. MultiversePro's theory fails to get off the ground; the Multiverse is a logical impossibility. It is a fundamental principle that whatever doesn't exist of logical necessity, must have been brought into existence by an act of free will. Since the particular constants supposedly governing the behavior of our universe (such as G, c, etc.) could theoretically be any value out of an infinite range of values, but they happen to be of a specific value which is not logically necessary, they must have been assigned the value they presently have by an act of free will. Those who refuse to accept this posit the multiverse; an infinite quantity of universes, each with different values for G, c, etc. The goal is that this way, the specifics of our particular universe can be explained as merely a random sampling of the infinite multiverse.However, this argument fails on two counts. First, because the multiverse is still part of the natural world, and actual infinities do not exist in the natural world. Second, the word 'universe' refers to all existing space and matter, which means the universe is the same as the multiverse, making the multiverse idea redundant and utterly useless for achieving the end it was created for.#2. A star collapsed into a black hole in one universe, leading to the creation of another universe.The concept of back holes is another logical impossibility. Black holes are singularities; they have infinite mass, and are predicted to exist solely on the basis of division by zero in the equations of General Relativity. A logical person must admit that once you get to this point, the model ceases to be an accurate representation of reality, but the philosophically naive person insists that reality must conform to the zero he has written under his division bar.Even Stephen Hawking has abandoned the notion that Black Holes are real.[1]#3. Space ripped into the unknown spaces between dimensions.This doesn't make sense. Space can't rip into space.I'm done for now, and I look forward to Pro supporting his case and dealing with my objections.[1]http://www.nature.com...
Theory: How the our universe came to be 3.0

since last one was me vs troll, I'll be making this impossible to accept. Opponent's goal would be to provide adequate evidence that this "theory" is impossible. Theory: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true. Were going to keep it in the logical field, were not diving into the imaginary realm/space which is not bound with the laws of reality, numbers, letters, definitions, individuality, time, matter, and logic. Were going to stick to "our" universe, after exploring the imaginary space and find a rational explanation how the multiverse came to be i'll add it, but till then we should stick to our dimension, aka, universe. when I speak of dimension it normally refer to it as a universe. How our universe was created, Chronological order: 1. Multiverse 2. _____ star(unknown size) collapsing into a black hole, from one of these universes from multiverse. 3. Causing space rip into the unknown spaces between dimensions 4. Due to everything have a polar opposite the collapse into a single point, ripping the space fabric, causing the inverse of collapsing to a singular point in one dimension making a big bang in another creating the space later becoming a universe. 5. The violence of spilling threw this space rip causes the particles that were ripped apart when pulled into the black hole to collide into each other forming the first elements of this new universe, like particle acceleration. 6. from theses newly form elements the first galaxies were formed. 7. followed by solar systems, and suns 8. which inside these solar systems form planets 9. which, if conditions allowed it, formed life. 6-9 I really didn't care to go into details for if you want details its kind of common knowledge.
Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

Arg to point 1: This is completely ridiculous, the fact that the cease 2 billion dollars of aid going to Pakistan yearly, will completely collapse all form of government and will just be controlled by the Taliban is ridiculous, and I'd like to see futher evidence on that argument. Arg to point 2: The relationship that we have kept with Pakistan over the years, if you look to my case, is a relatonship which is stable, and by no means, will Pakistan ever come after us if we stop giving them aid, Specially since our aid covers most of their military budget, and a lot of their own supplies. Arg to point 3: Once again, you can also apply my argument to your point 2, about the relationship we keep with Pakistan, and all aid we actually provide for their army. They trust us, mostly because they have to. We share a relationship that helps to give us a presence in the Middle East, and it helps their citizens.
Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan. Point 1: Foreign Aid Causes a Vicious Cycle of Dependency Tom Wright, "Will US Suspension of Pakistan Aid Work?," Wall Street Journal, December 13, 2011 Large sums of aid have been wasted in many inefficient projects in the past few years. The aid that we are providing Pakistan with, has not become not productive at all, and has made Pakistan, enter into a cycle of complete dependency. Reduction in public investment, infrastructure deficiencies, and lack of social services are the main gifts of aid. Tom Wright argues that to enhance aid effectiveness there is need to break the vicious circle of dependency and rehabilitate the economy through prudent macro-management policies. Point 2: Pakistan helps Terrorist Groups when Convenient "Pakistan troops rush to Taliban-Infiltrated Area," MSNBC, June 25, 2011 A "stable dysfunctional relationship" is one in which the parties damage each other but maintain the relationship because they also nurture each other. This is just like the U.S.-Pakistani relationship. These clashes have added to the force when in November 2011 there was a killing of twenty-four Pakistani soldiers by NATO forces which sparked a fresh crisis in the relationship. It has allowed U.S. incursions into Pakistan and provided some of the intelligence on which drone strikes are sometimes based. On the other hand, the Afghan Taliban can hide, rest, regroup, rearm, train and organize in Pakistan, especially in North Waziristan. This greatly hinders the drive to end the insurgency in Afghanistan. Which further harms our own relationship. Point 3: Pakistan Intelligence uses Terrorists as Assets Office of the Attorney General, "Audit of US/Pakistan's Livelihood Development Program in the Upper Regions of the Tribal Areas," US Agency for International Development, December, 2011 Pakistan is unapologetic. This was stated by Pakistan, when admitting to errors and holes in their own intelligence. In the toxic anti-Americanism now flowing through Pakistan, that could be a death sentence. Public outrage arises not only from the violation of sovereignty but from a suspicion that the army's denunciations are a smoke screen for a secret deal that permits US Special Forces to kill Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan unmolested. How could bin Laden live for five years undetected in a leafy suburb under the noses of an army that has received an exorbitant amount of money and arms from the United States, and he was living around 5 miles away from a military school! The answer is simple, it was convenient for Pakistan to use him as an asset, so in fact they did.
Robert McCall would kill John Wick in a Fight to the Death

Well, here's the thing. While Robert McCall is a skilled fighter, he hasn't demonstrated fighting against people as skilled as he is. John Wick is an assassin with a reputation amongst assassins. He's fought assassins just as good as he has, and come out on top, many times while already being injured. And on top of that, John Wick almost always goes in prepared with multiple guns, knives and body armor.He's also resourceful, having used pencils and bedsheets to beat his opponents. The problem with Robert is that from what I've seen, and I'll have to watch the movie again to make sure, even when he's expecting a fight, he doesn't bring his own weapons. Improvisation is a quality to have but it will only take you so far, because if you go in un-prepared, you are at the mercy of your environment. And while these measurements aren't readily available on the internet, John Wick appears to have longer legs, and possible longer arms than Robert McCall, giving him the edge in Hand-to-hand.
Butts are the best body part

First of all, Jeez. this is such a fun topic. Thanks for doing this. I'm getting involved in some heavy stuff so I am glad there is something amusing to discuss. Although your debate is awesome, I disagree. Butts are important, and useful, and convenient, but not the best. I think that legs are the best. Legs allow you to move, and without legs, there is not point in even having a butt. Legs give you motion and allow you to move around on your day. Even while driving you are using your legs to operate the pedals. Butts are good at farting and pooping. That's it. Legs give you opportunity to do more, get out there. Be with someone so you can get to their butt. All of modern society is based around legs, not butts. There must be a good reason for that. Butts are fun and squishy, but this is about the best, not the squishiest, which I think Legs fit into quite nicely.
Butts are the best body part

This is a very serious topic, and I hope everyone can take it that way. Again, thank you for taking the time to read this debate. Contention 1: Butts are squishy. We all have butts- it's what we sit on everyday. What would we do without them? Sitting would be painful, and who knows what sort of unwanted injuries we'd get ourselves into. Not only is sitting important to us, but touching butts is also lots of fun. I think we can all agree on that. No matter if you are a boy or a girl, we all love touching butts. Even our own! Admit it. Butts are cool. Contention 2: Everybody has a butt. Lets fact it: everybody has a butt. They're important for everyday activities. . sitting down? Need a butt! Want to rock those jeans? Butt! Need something fun to look at? Butt! Butts are part of our everyday life, and it's time we show them the respect they deserve. Contention 3: Butts! Need I say more? Butts!
Hope is a delusion created by man

The examples you use are well evidenced to what I've stated if you hoped for something and the result of it was not being what you were hoping for is considered a let done or how you've stated was acceptance of the situation. When the fact that you easily accepted the outcome of what you hoped for not happening is the same as taking a loss but shrugging it off as way to say things happens. That is isn't hope that's just something you could live without, I speak of something dear or needed versus something you want like when you stated I "hoped" to "get lucky" before and got lucky. I wasn't despairing about the possibility that it wouldn't work out vs. I hoped to get a video game. You can't despair over something you've never had and the chances are if you were lucky why would one despair over the possibility of it not working out it would've been the possibility of one never being lucky at all. The thing about "hope" is the odds of it really happening through commitment than fantasy
Hope is a delusion created by man

I have many examples of how this is not true. I "hoped" to go on a vacation once not knowing whether it was going to happen or not and it did. I was not despairing over the possibility of not going on vacation. If it didn't happen I would've been like "oh well". I "hoped" to "get lucky" before and got lucky. I wasn't despairing about the possibility that it wouldn't work out. I hoped to get a video game one time and then they were all sold out but I wouldn't say I was despairing either before or after that minor disappointment.
Children should not be able to watch rated-R movies

Introduction: Rated-R movies harm the mental health of children. Studies have proven the dramatic negative effects of rated-R movies on children. My three arguments are that: 1. rated-R movies cause mental and emotional scars to children. 2. rated-R movies promote illegal activity and often includes inappropriate content. 3. Kids watching rated-R movies are likely to be unsuccessful in the future. I will now set the definitions of the prompt. "Children" refers to any human being under the age of 16. "Rated-R" movies refers to the "Restricted" rating given by the MPA or Motion Picture Association. "Should not be able to watch" means putting restrictions on the movies that does not let people under the age of 16 have any access to the movies in any way.
Children should not be able to watch rated-R movies

My 3 arguments are that 1. R rated movies can offer great teaching opportunities 2. not all R rated movies depict violent or sexual themes 3. It is too difficult to obtain accurate data on the real affects of kids. I agree with your definitions. To respond to your argument 1, R rated movies don't necessarily cause any emotional or mental scarring. This would be somewhat true if you said SOME R rated movies cause mental and emotional scarring this would be somewhat true, partly due to the fact that almost anything can cause emotional scarring to children, but this argument is almost completely irrelevant in a debate advocating for children not to be allowed to watch ANY R rated movies. An R rated movie doesn't necessarily have to be incredibly violent or sexual. Yes, a movie like superbad might teach a child some inappropriate subjects, but it would by no means leave them with emotional or mental scarring. This argument would be better suited for a debate about not allowing kids to watch violent or sexual films, but not for all R rated movies. To respond to argument 2, once again I'd like to point out that not all R rated movies have illegal activities to, but I would also like to point out that they generally don't promote them. A common misconception among adults is that kids will just blindly do whatever they see on screen. I'm 15, I've seen lots of R rated movies and I have never shoplifted, smoked, drank or done anything and neither have the majority of the people I know. The people that do do illegal activities generally do them because of other issues, not because they saw it in a movie. Of course R rated movies have inappropriate content, thats why they're rated R, but that doesn't mean a kid is gonna plan a heist after watching some crime movie. To respond to argument 3, first of all, I would like to see where you got this evidence. It seems nearly impossible to obtain unless you keep track of every kid that has watched an R rated movie or ask every hobo if they saw an R rated movie before age 16. Regardless of that, I could STILL use the not all R rated movies response. I don't think anyone's chances of success would be hurt by seeing slumdog millionaire or any inspirational movie like that. On top of that, there isn't any hard evidence that is true. I doubt any adult would blame their lack of success on watching R rated movies and vice versa. R rated movies don't impair one's ability to work hard, and some can even strengthen that drive. Thank you and I am now ready for the rebuttal.
cloning of endangered species.

Mr. Tepman, I am sorry to inform you about this, but you do not make any sense. You did not consider any of my arguments, and made no effort to answer any of them. Instead, you childishly claimed that you were, indeed, from the future and babbled on about that subject. You also claimed that I am not familiar with the subject of cloning, which I find offensive. Please read my earlier arguments and make an effort to answer them, or present new arguments in favor of your stand on the issue we are debating. I will any more of my time on this, for now.
cloning of endangered species.

Mr.Pallkvaran, i think you did not know what cloning is.You see in cloning, we try to take some samples of eggs or sex cells from this animals.this doesnt really harm them. Yes let's im from the future where people was almost extinct because of armageddon.but this doesnt change the fact that cloning,as i was speaking should be used in endangered species.Cause in the time where i belong, they used cloning for people and used this to destroy human kind.all the powerful people now where beheaded and massacred.Mr.pallkavaran,im having this debate to tell the whole world that they must only use cloning in animals and not humans understand.If you do this then it would be a favor :Tepman
cloning of endangered species.

Greetings Mr.Tepman, you must be from the future. In our time, cloning still is an experimental technology that succeeds only by chance. Dolly the sheep is the most famous example of a successful cloning today. She was born after 277 eggs were used to create 29 embryos, which only produced three lambs at birth, only one of which lived. I think that the death of 29 embryos, and 2 lambs is a high cost for the life of one sheep, this is a highly controversial issue and I will not waste any more words on it in this round. My main argument in this debate will be this one; "Animal cloning is highly experimental today. Further research in this field, with the aim of saving endangered species is highly likely to siphon funds from established and working projects and does not address any of the issues underlying animal extinction (such as habitat destruction, hunting or other overexploitation, and an impoverished gene pool)." We should not waste our time and money on very expensive and highly experimental measures, while many of the animals we are trying to save are still alive. Letï¿½s freeze tissue of endangered animals and let scientists work on cloning technology by themselves. When the right time comes, we can bring them back to live, without endangering the already endangered animals of the present. Patience, Mr. Tepman, patience...