BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If a woman tricks a man into getting her pregnant, he should not be financially liable for the child

Ok if a man gets pressured into doing something that he doesn't want to do, then that just shows that he is weak. You should use protection even if she lies about taking birth control and if she is pressuring you, then it's not a healthy relationship and you should leave. It's like peer pressure, you can give in or you could be the bigger person and say no.
If a woman tricks a man into getting her pregnant, he should not be financially liable for the child

Well they should know to keep a strong mental guard on these types of things because if he makes one mistake like have a baby then he will have to pay, I must agree but he should see if he should have sex and be a risk of the person lying and getting her pregnant, or he should watch her take the pill and then have sex. Thanks for debating, I'm new at this and I'm sorry that I suck :)
If a woman tricks a man into getting her pregnant, he should not be financially liable for the child

Ok, her new response is that "if you know she's lying, don't have sex". This isn't resolutional. This debate is not about men who knowingly have sex with unprotected women; it's about men who are TRICKED because the partners are lying. Her argument is that you shouldn't have sex with women unless you watch them have the pill, so basically she's propagating misogyny by implying that all women are untrustworthy. Moreover, she's ignoring the fact that you can't hold the victim accountable for the actions of the perp. You don't say "don't do contracts with businesses unless you know 100% that they won't cheat you." Rather, you hold businesses who lie and don't deliver on their promises accountable. Similarly, these con women should be held accountable for their despicable behavior, not financially incentivized to steal from innocent men. She's not really responding to any of my claims in this debate.
If a woman tricks a man into getting her pregnant, he should not be financially liable for the child

He literally dropped all of my arguments and only responded with some new claim that you are responsible if she gets pregnant. But the problem is he dropped the part about the sex being done under fraudulent pretenses. You can't be responsible in a contract if the other person is lying/committing fraud. You aren't responsible because she said she was protected, so if a child results from the sex it's because of her lying, not a willful act on your part. You can't hold a victim responsible for the act of a con woman
The Confederate Flag Should Be Banned

My opponent's premise is basically that banning the Confederate Flag would encourage people to rise together and demand that they be given their freedom of expression. My opponent has offered up one of the oldest debate tactics, All A's are B's. What my opponent is really trying to sell is "Every time a government takes away your rights you appreciate your rights more". Or, "You don't know what you got 'till its gone". However, one of the easiest debate arguments to refute is the "All A's are B's" argument is to offer one example of an A that isn't a B, or one B that doesn't result from A. I feel like an analogy! Whoo-hoo Analogy time. A country has a reserve of money, as opposed to a debt. The people of this country are coming to their King and demanding that the King be generous with these reserves and spend it liberally on tax cuts and social programs. The King denies saying "Lets save the money for when we really need it, such as in a time of war". However, the people of the Kingdom keep on pestering the King to spend the money on tax cuts and social programs. After several weeks of this the King finally snaps and says "You ignorant people you do not appreciate having such a great luxury such as a reserve of money! To make you appreciate it more I will drive our country into debt my spending the reserves all on Jello and leopard print 5 inch heels!". And he does. A few weeks later the country is in a deep economic depression while the King enjoys jello and wearing 5 inch heels. Okay, analogy time over. Similarly, the people of this country have a right to Freedom of Expression. If the government deprives that right, than what is stopping the government from depriving more rights (religion, press, assembly, etc). Pretty soon, after the government has taken away our rights to make us appreciate them more, we have no rights. And we cannot demand our rights back we had in the first place if we have no rights. Government is just a group of power-hungry, stupid, greedy individuals. What gives them the right to say "Appreciate this more"? Thank you and good luck.
The Confederate Flag Should Be Banned

======= Definitions ======= The Confederate Flag-the flag used by the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War (1861-1865). If your unsure of what it looks like, go to Google image search and type in "Confederate Flag". Banned-To ban the Confederate Flag would mean for it to be made illegal for it to be displayed anywhere one might be offended. Many individuals and groups (such as the NAACP and the ACLU) believe that the Confederate flag should be banned because it represents the "Old South" and endorses racism towards African Americans. Being from Dixie myself (Mississippi is about as far south as it gets) I stand in strong opposition of any banning of the Confederate Flag. I justify this believe upon the following reasons: 1) The Confederate Flag is a symbol of the South, not hate. The Confederate flag existed decades before the Civil War, in fact it was used by Revolutionists in Tennessee fighting the redcoats in the American Revolutionary War. Therefore, it doesn't represent hate, but rather is a symbol of pride in one's region. Last time I checked, being proud of your heritage was not racism. 2) To ban the Confederate Flag would be to ban a symbol of Pride. Similarly, take for example that we were to ban "I Love NY" t-shirts. All a I Love NY t-shirt is doing is showing favoritism towards one specific region of the United States, the Confederate flag is too, so why ban it? The Confederate Flag, even though used in KKK demonstrations, is not a racist symbol, but rather a symbol of pride of one's heritage. 3) If we ban the Confederate Flag we might as well ban the American Flag. After all, the slave ships that carried future slaves to the United States flew the Stars-n-Stripes. So what's the difference? 4) The Confederate flag has no intrinsic meaning. The meanings symbols carry is that which humans attach from their own learning. Thus, any viewer of a symbol is free to assign it any range of meanings. The symbol itself, then is constant, but the value symbolized is not. Assuming that the Confederate Flag is an element of our culture, it becomes necessary to define culture Thank you whoever responds to this debate.
The Confederate Flag Should Be Banned

I want to finish by thanking my opponent for instigating this debate, and for his spirited participation. I will address his RD 3 posting, and then provide 2 reasons to vote Pro. On the "wrongness" and unconstitutionality of banning the Confederate flag: First of all, my opponent never proved that the Confederate flag has no intrinsic meaning. Granted, yes, people assign this meaning, but that is what makes the Confederate flag such a powerful symbol. I'm not sure what my opponent is getting at with this response. Second of all, my opponent seems to have glanced over my entire advocacy. Banning the Confederate flag is, most likely, unconstitutional. Supreme Court precedence establishes this for the most part, and this precedence only exists because states passed unconstitutional laws, mind you. However, my case hinges on this crucial expectation of a Supreme Court challenge to any laws that ban this flag. This is what creates the discord between US populations, which is what drives the opening of discourse, which is what will ensure sincere rights discussion unparalleled in the last decade. On the use of the Confederate flag, rather than hundreds of other flags in existence: Though this response seems to come out of nowhere, I have two responses: First of all, the Confederate flag, for example, is far more popular than most other flags. If a state's citizens decide to ban the pirate flag, I doubt that my opponent can attempt to claim that the same reaction will ensue. Second of all, the instigator wrote the resolution, so we are required to argue whether the Confederate flag should be burned. He picked the symbol. In fact, as he states in the comments, this issue is a huge controversy in his home state, as I'm sure it is in many other previously Confederate states. By selecting this flag, he proves conclusively that this symbol is highly iconic and controversial. This serves my advocacy very well. On my case's water-holding capacity: Just stating it does not make it so. My opponent has failed to prove that my case "does not hold water." He didn't carry through his arguments in any of his rounds. They remain addressed and therefore unoffensive. Voting Issues: Look to the following reasons to vote Pro at the end of the debate: First of all, I am maximizing human rights & progressive development of society in the debate round. A vote for Pro stimulates necessary societal discourse on rights, which are the basis of the US's representative democracy. A vote for Con is nebulous, because he has yet to give his advocacy any impacts: what good can come of voting Con? Hence, a cost-benefit analysis reveals that a Pro vote yields more good to the country. Second of all, the Con has failed to carry through any offensive arguments in the round. Each time he has attacked my advocacy, I have answered. These answers have gone unchallenged. Instead, the Con offers a new round of unrelated responses, which I answer as well.
The Confederate Flag Should Be Banned

I've gone in the same order as my opponent: On my opponent's pseudo-turn involving national security: I would encourage my opponent to elaborate on how banning the Confederate flag actually challenges the national security of the US. If, by making this claim, he supposes that the nation will degenerate into a big, hairy ball of protesting anarchy, then that's about as hyperbolic as claiming that banning the Confederate flag will plunge the US into a human rights void or a socialist dictatorship. Not only that, but my opponent still seems to think that the government has some huge role in this topic, and has yet to challenge my interpretation from RD 1 that states that the citizens are doing this all via the referendum process. The only role that government plays is through the process of nullifying the ban (i. e. through court challenges). Hence, please extend all of the benefits coming out of my advocacy. I state in RD 2 that open clash and discourse involving human rights and civil rights is the only way to ensure that they are maximized. My opponent doesn't feel the need to address this, nor does he prove that he can maximize rights by not banning the Confederate flag. So, you can vote Pro on that alone, since Pro is the one achieving more rights for the citizenry of the US. On my opponent's accusation that I've dropped his case: I did address his entire case in RD 1. I would encourage the readers to take a look at the section of my RD 1 posting, which I title: "Onto my opponent's case. " In fact, if anyone dropped Con's case, he did—when he didn't address it in RD 2. Basically, his contentions, as I stated previously, all prove that the Confederate flag is an invaluable piece of culture & heritage, which I agree with entirely. In fact, I argue in my advocacy that this makes the Confederate flag a better object to ban, because it will cause the most open clash, and therefore the most discourse on rights. Not only that, but extend the fact that the Confederate flag doesn't actually relate to national security, unlike privacy rights & due process. Hence, banning the Confederate flag is literally the perfect way in which to redirect our collective conscious to regaining our civil liberties. The only contention that I felt the need to address was his 4, in which he stated that the Confederate flag had no intrinsic value. Not only does that contradict everything he says about pride, heritage, and cultural value in his other three contentions, but it simply isn't true. Extend my RD 1 response to this contention, please.
The Confederate Flag Should Be Banned

My opponent claims that a ban on the Confederate Flag will break through all the "national security" mumbo-jumbo and awaken citizens to what rights have been stolen from them since 9/11. This is an excellent reason to not ban the flag. If the flag were to be banned than the national security of the nation would be severely compromised. The top priority in a wartime or peacetime situation is to protect its citizens from harm both domestically and abroad. Banning the Confederate Flag would compromise this. My opponent has still yet to challenge three of the contentions I made in Round 1; meaning that those contentions stand. If she fails to challenge them by the end of the debate, they will stand, meaning I will of won. I encourage my opponent to challenge those in the next round.
Abortion should be legal

In this debate on abortion I would like to honor Candace Pickens who died, because she would not get an abortion. Her and her one year old baby Zachaeus were shot, relatives believe it is because she insisted on keeping her second child. Read more at http://www.christiandaily.com... In this last session of the debate I only want to invite readers to keep questioning what they hear. We never want to come to conclusions based on inaccurate, irrelevant, or ignored information. Many people are misled by questions regarding the safety of the mother. Ectopic pregnancy is one such example. Anyone can challenge this point of view and find out about real survival rates, misdiagnosis', and new medical procedures available from the group of prolife supporters "Personhood". Here at http://www.personhoodinitiative.com... Another argument may be that abortion is okay in the instance of rape. Members of personhood make this statement: "As someone who really cares about rape victims, I want to protect them from the rapist, and from the abortion, but not the baby. A baby is not the worst thing that could ever happen to a rape victim " an abortion is," said Personhood USA spokesperson Rebecca Kiessling. "We need to educate the American public on the truth in this matter and not make public policy based on myth and misinformation," Kiessling, who was conceived in rape, added. Read more at http://www.christianpost.com... All of us have to give our due diligence not to distort data and state it inaccurately. If we do then we fail to think through the implications that we are ending a human life. In today's society it is difficult to challenge what is commonly accepted as the saying goes: "The fish is always the last to see the water" because our habitation allows our minds to cancel out constancies. Many of us have become desensitized to abortion. Now that we have learned the truth we have to take action to alert others, it is never too late. Now is the time to do the right thing, we can stop abortion!
Abortion should be legal

Thank you, Rightreform, for being respectful in this debate. This is my first debate as well, and by no means would I like you to take it easy on me. Oftentimes, it is argued that abortion is murder- a common argument. However, this is not the case. Nearly all abortions occur in the first trimester of pregnancy (about 12 weeks). This takes place when the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her heath; thus, it cannot be regarded as a separate entity due to the fact that it cannot exist outside of the mother's womb. Also, studies have demonstrated that fetuses do not feel pain when abortions are performed. Neuroscientists have argued that because a cortex is critical in order to feel pain, and is not yet functional when most abortions are performed, the fetus is unable to feel any pain. The cortex only becomes functional around the 26th week of pregnancy (around the third trimester). Abortion can also give women the the option to minimize a child's suffering in the case that the child is born with severe birth disorders or defects that would result in the child living a difficult, painful life. Some of these disorders can be so severe that death is guaranteed after a short, painful life. For some, death imminent to birth is also a possibility. Furthermore, it is foolish to believe that simply making abortion illegal will keep people from getting them. (ie. Drugs are illegal, but people still obtain them, oftentimes with more dangers involved.) Abortions will still occur- however, they will occur illegally, and with significantly higher risk involved. Prior to the recognition of abortion and various advances in the field of medicine, back-alley abortions used to be performed via coat hangers, illegal/unregulated pharmaceutical products, knitting needles or a punch to the stomach. If there is no legal, viable alternative, couples or mothers will inevitably resort to these back-alley operations, which are both highly dangerous, and will likely prove deadly for the mother.
Abortion should be legal

Thank you for having this debate with me Chiinchillin, I want to let you know that this is my first debate but by no means should you take it easy on me. My stance on this issue is that it is wrong to legalize abortions, and that if it were legal then that in itself would not validate the killing of an unborn baby. The term pro choice is a hot button, which masks the social genocide of the unborn babies. The word pro choice is tipping scales on which this topic balances whether the intent to kill should be lawful or if one should care for the unborn human child's ethical rights. I use the words human child, because that is what this infant child is. The Infant is "ALIVE" and it is "HUMAN in NATURE" As someone once said: 'Nature is a great inspiration' Mothers and Fathers (such as myself) have the right to get current and accurate information about the embryo's development which is superbly written in DNA, which also characterizes and describes physical traits of the baby . Mothers should also be taught about the Dangers and consequences that they would face from an abortion. To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature. Therefore I argue that the mother has no right to kill that which is human inside her. I urge all of you not to allow the law to be used as an instrument for justifying such an abhorrent act.
"Truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege."

Truth-seeking alone would entail a legal process that would be more inquisitorial than the current process, which pits two interests against each other. Therefore, it appears that my opponent would prefer inquisition-style trials to the current ones that we have. If this is the case, then he should be prepared to accept this as part of his argument. Attorney-client privilege is vital in our current system, since our system is predicated upon two interests fighting hard for their side, with the truth functioning as the outcome of this process. Without attorney-client privilege, one side puts itself at a disadvantage, since they have no certainty of their private discussions being used in a manner that they do not approve of at a later time. Either accept attorney-client privilege as essential, or suggest another trial system for finding the truth which does not require attorney-client privilege to be a major part of it.
"Truth-seeking ought to take precedence over attorney-client privilege."

Attorney-client privilege helps the truth-seeking process, because it provides an assurance to clients to speak freely with their attorney. An attorney is also known as advocate, one who fights in your place because he can articulate better your position or defend you in a court of law. Therefore, your attorney must be able to know everything and anything about you to accurately advocate for you in a court of law. Attorney client privilege allows a client to be more truthful with his attorney, because he knows that what he says will be kept confidential, even after he dies. Without attorney-client privilege, clients would be more hesitant to be truthful with their attornies, the attorney would have less truth available to accurately advocate for the defentdant, therefore your argument is self-defeating, since truth-seeking is enhanced by attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, what is meant by "truth-seeking"? In this case, we have one term which is clearly defined, attorney-client privilege, and one which isn't. I assumed that by truth-seeking you meant it in the colloquial sense of determining what is true in reality, as opposed to what is legally true. Since we can't let this devolve into a metaphysical debate of "What is truth?" and "What does it mean to seek?", can we agree that truth is the physical reality of what actually happened and who is at fault for it?
bullying

ConclusionDisregarding the forfeit, here's what my opponent has done wrong:First off, the resolution at the top was simply "bullying." This could mean anything, so I interpreted the resolution to mean what he stated in round one.Second, he did not acknowledge my arguments, but rather claimed I made none because they were not within his own defined perameters.Finally, after disregarding my arguments entirely, he continued to argue a claim that I neither asserted nor denied.On top of all this, Con forfeited.---I thank my opponent for this debate, and ask anyone wanting to start a debate of their own to please, please make the resolution a sentence. Not a question, not a single word, but a sentence. Because that's what debating is.