BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

I would like to deal with the biggest misconception that you have "You seem to not understand the definition of murder. It's the act of killing someone. Although in all of these cases death occurs, it's not murder, because the act is simply not letting them use resources you own. That may be douchey, but it's not murder. Evidence debunked." This is simply untrue. There are multiple procedures that I will summarize here: (http://americanpregnancy.org...) Aspiration: (6-16 weeks) Over the course of 10-15 minutes a fetus will be removed by vacuum from a woman's womb. This results in the death of the fetus. Dilation & Evacuation: (16+ weeks) A lethal injection is given to the fetus. Afterwards, a cannula and curette will be employed to remove smaller bits of tissue. If there are large chunks, forceps will be used as well. Finally, a sweep with a vacuum is used to ensure that there are no bits remaining. Dilation & Extraction: (21+ weeks) The fetus is partially removed from the womb and an incision is made at the base of the skull. After this, a suction catheter is used to remove the brain matter and collapse the skull. Once the skull collapses, the fetus is completely removed. Tell me, which one of these procedures doesn't involve the killing of the fetus. Which one? There isn't one. To cover it up by saying "the act is simply not letting them use resources you own" is a euphemism and nothing more. Evidence debunked. Also, when you say that the right to bear arms and the right to bodily autonomy are different rights, you are correct. However, the right to life is even more sacred than the right to bodily autonomy. If you are to talk about the sacredness of rights, you have to acknowledge this. Otherwise, you would be saying that rape is worse than murder, which it clearly isn't. Finally, who cares if there will be more unwanted kids. The solution isn't to slaughter them all. That's the advocacy of murder. Don't murder.
Abortion

"Here's the thing, it is considered murder if a person kills a fetus inside the womb of a mother. This person is prosecutable. Abortion is similar to this, so what is so magical about who holds the power to end this person's life." Again, the concept is that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body. If a person kills the fetus, then it's murder because no one OTHER than the woman is allowed to make that choice. It's her body, remember? Evidence debunked. You keep using the word murder. Not helping someone who is dying is NOT considered murder. Is it murder to not give a man dying of thirst water? No. Is it murder to not give someone dying a kidney? No. Is it murder to not give the fetus its mother's body against her will? No. You seem to not understand the definition of murder. It's the act of killing someone. Although in all of these cases death occurs, it's not murder, because the act is simply not letting them use resources you own. That may be douchey, but it's not murder. Evidence debunked. The right to bear arms was made because the founding fathers wanted people to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. To compare this to abortion is absurd. This is your strongest argument, yet it's incredibly weak since both are completely different rights. The right to bear arms is not even close to as sacred as the right to do what you want with your body, so it is a strawman to compare the two. Furthermore, you ignore the externalities of having unwanted kids. There are already 100,000 unadopted kids in the USA alone WITH the laws letting people have abortions. (https://showhope.org...) How many unadopted kids would there be if we forced everyone to have kids? The number would probably be close to 1 million. This would DRASTICALLY negatively affect everyone; now we have a bunch of unwanted kids sucking up resources from other kids.
Abortion

Here's the thing, it is considered murder if a person kills a fetus inside the womb of a mother. This person is prosecutable. Abortion is similar to this, so what is so magical about who holds the power to end this person's life. Keep in mind, the kidney analogy isn't apt either. A far better analogy would be if somebody (Human A) were forced to spend their time with somebody on life support (Human B). If, knowing that Human B will not have to be a part of Human A's life after nine months, Human A doesn't suddenly have the right to murder Human B. Another thing worth mentioning is that several rights have reasonable restrictions. If I said that the right to bear arms was not a right to be restricted, period, I would be absolutely wrong. The fact of the matter is is that several restrictions have been placed on this right in order to save people's lives, even at the inconvenience of several people's jobs and property. It is absolutely true that bodily autonomy is a right, and, as such, it should be subject to the restrictions that other rights face. To say that this one right can't have restrictions that are reasonable would morally require that all other rights cease to have restrictions, which is beyond untenable.
Abortion

Abortion is not killing innocent life. Rather, it's letting a woman control her own body. Abortion is accepted because a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. Is this considered murder? No, of course it's not. Is it a little douchey? Perhaps. Is it acceptable? Yes, a person has the right to do whatever he wants with his body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.
it isn't wrong to be sexist.

Women be bithin', They all belong in the kitchen, They men be out earnin' money, They like a man on a mission, The only purpose of a wife is to support her man's vision, If a man says 'we need kids', the wife must produce on demand, She must obey the man of the household, follow every command, Hers to do and die, not ask why or understand. She must go out and play sport, She has that kid, doesn't abort, She marries midgets whether or not she is turned on by men that are short, It is her duty to be a cutie, she wears a skirt so that men can flirt, How dare she oppose the accusations that she's down for the dirt, She better suck it, like a human cum bucket, Not touch her man's body unless she want's to rude up it, Her duty is to do as she is told, to iron and to fold, All of the clothes her man wears she best serve him until he's old. Life is not about me equals you, It's about doing as a good hoe should do, All women be sinners, Just look at Adam and Eve, And f*ck the homosexuals; it wasn't Adam and Steve! Women are inherently evil, They are the scum of all people, They are weak and pathetic, it's safe to say they're all feeble. That's the truth, no doubt about it, If you got an issue then go get doubted, Shut up and read the bible, Women deserve the menstrual cycle, If a women gets raped, unless it's videotaped, only the man's witness account should be vital.
it isn't wrong to be sexist.

Females are predominately the ones to be judged due to their gender, by the opposite sex, males. Males on the other hand can also the ones who are judged, by their opposite sex, females. There is no law specifically for sexism, but there are laws regarding sexual discrimination. My personal view on sexism is that, it is wrong for males to be sexist towards females and it is wrong for females to be sexist towards males, and here's why. In my opinion, just because you're a male doesn't make you anymore stronger than if you were a female on most standards like emotionally. There are studies showing that males are "technically" physically stronger due to More muscular definition. But that is another topic to be desperately discussed. What I'm trying to get at is, sexism is not right, period. We should consider both sex, equal. It will only cause more issues than we already need.
A Challenge To You

Hello once again dear 'friend'. Followerofchrist1955. This here is a chance for us to move on and reset the slate. Over the past few weeks, we have both dealt each other blows, with you attacking my/people's lack Of Christian literacy, and then you have me attacking your debate style. For example, 2 weeks ago backwardseden said '@MRAAJ - You will find here that there's true scum like followerofchrist who babbles on and on..'. Nonetheless it's time we had a mature, professional debate about religion. Here you will be able to defend Christianity, all I will do is highlight the disadvantages of Christianity,and /or press for more information. Rules: Send me a debate request, since your profile is currently private, bet your receiving tons of hate crime, oh so rule 2... No low blows or hate crime No disrespect to opposition Aim:Gain understanding of contrasting our opinions on Christianity 'being the only way to live '. In the meantime, someone can accept this debate and you can feel free to openly mock him, if you share the same concerns. Conversely some of you might actually agree with his debate style of openly condemning non-Christians, and may want cool my ego down, as you know I'm (not) perfect. MWAHAHAHA HA. But I'll wait for him first.
war

I thank my honorable opponent for participating and challenging me to this debate. In conclusion war is bad. War is never good because lives are lost and countries are bankrupted by it. War is however necessary because evil must to be destroyed, places must be justly conquer and law and order must be established . I am talking about the modern world, not the pre 1900 world. In answer to your argument of "war can take the world population down because we have a too high population count", I say this, yes the population of the world is too high, yes war does kill people and reduce he population but war is not the way to reduce population. We must create a balance of people not having too many children so population does not go too high, but equaly we must make sure we do not have a high dependency ratio with lots of young people and lots of elderly people.
war

Do I win? War is not a good thing. People die, families are destroyed and a lot of the time both countries economy suffer. War is however necessary considering that evil must be destroyed. I do not believe that many people would consider World War 2 a 'good' thing but would consider it a necessary war as the evils of Nazism and German expansionism had to be destroyed. In answer to your first argument of "war is good because it keeps our population down", I say this, yes it does keep the population down but that is not the best way to do it. If war keeping the population down is a good thing then maybe you also believe that the Holocaust was a good thing because that brought the population down. Or even Americas involvement in the Philippines. In answer to "it can also get rid of some people who cant get a job", I say this, that is a awful and disrespectful thing to say because we should never put lives being lost into something that helps society. Also you may have contradicted yourself because many people who cannot get work is because of being in a war-torn country. So what you are saying is that war is good because it kills the unemployed who were made unemployed because of that war. This next part shall be in capital letters because I want my honorable opponent to defiantly read this part. I HOPE YOU HAVE THE DIGNITY TO RESPOND TO THIS ARGUMENT BY EITHER ACCEPTING MY POINTS OR BY COUNTERING THEM.
war

I shall accept your challenge of this debate on War. As I can see, your point is that war is good for reasons that you have stated and will state. I believe that War is not good. But I do not believe war is bad. I believe that war is necessary under certain circumstances, e.g WW2, defending allies and not allowing the vileness of Nazism to spread, the Hundred Years War, Edward III (attempting to) taking his place on the French throne, the Falklands War, Britain rescuing it's own territory of the Falkland Islands from the Argentine who unjustly captured it. I do not however believe the Iraq War was necessary.
Earth is flat

The earth is flat. I have researched the subject for 6 months now, and there are more proofs on the side of a flat earth then I can find on a spherical one. The debate format shall be as follows. Round one is acceptance. In round 2, I state my argument, and con can either use this round for rebuttal or state arguments against the flat earth. Round 3 is for rerebuttals, and further arguments, if possible. Round 4 is strictly for rebuttals and round 5 should be used for conclusions but no new arguments in the last round. Please respect your opponents many sources and media may be used in your argument till that source is proven unreliable or the media is shown to be faked or false. Good luck, I hope to provide insight as well as receive it. I do ask that anyone accepting this debate please have a look at least at the flat earth theory before accepting and arguing against it as it has become redundant arguing the same 10 or so proves that the earth is a sphere. It is not required but makes for a better debate for the both of us. I also ask that theoretical math equations be excluded from the arguments, as they will confuse voters, though not to be confused with basic math as in Pythagoras theorem, and the like.
Animal Testing

I began writing with the intention of posting both my rebuttal (to all four of my opponents arguments) and presenting my 2nd of 3 arguments. However, due to the length of my rebuttal, I do not want to convolute this post with additional information. Therefore I will include my 2nd argument in my next posting, alongside my 3rd. Rebuttal: My opponent"s arguments (pillars): 1) Animal testing helps treat/ cure diseases. Firstly, this assertion ignores that there are alternative forms of testing which can greatly treat/ cure these same diseases without the unwanted death of animals and humans caused by animal testing. Secondly, my opponents have listed at length the graphic symptoms of Cancer, HIV and "baby defects" (what?). This sort of sensationalism attacks the maturity and objectivity of you, reader/voter. 2) Without animal testing, people would suffer. (This is essentially the exact same argument, just worded differently) My only additional response to this claim, is by way of comparison. Lets look at airplanes. Lets say that 3000 people travel every day from L.A. to Vancouver via airplanes. My opponents state that if these airplanes did not exist, 3000 people would not be able to travel from L.A. to Vancouver. This is simply not true, we know that alternative methods of transportation exist, like busses and trains and boats. Just because airplanes exist, doesn"t negate other methods travel. Therefore, because many individuals use methods of animal testing for their health, obviously we cannot assume that without animal testing, they would simply suffer or die! This is a glaring logical fallacy. 3) Without animal testing, drugs could be dangerous for humans. Again, this assumes that there are no alternative methods of testing. Additionally my opponents admit even animals "may react differently to (than) humans". This is actually quite a serious problem, as I will elaborate on in my own argument #2. Also, it is worth noting that my opponent"s argument #3 has no statistical evidence supporting its claim. It is simply an assertion without any provided proof. 4) "Putting thing(s) into perspective". Firstly my opponents state that we eat 160 million animals a year. They are trying to prove a double standard in regards to the treatment of animals. This argument is completely invalid because, I also believe that the consumption of animals as food is similarly unethical. One other note- My opponent asked "what is wrong with copy an pasting something that helps your argument?" I want to answer sensitively. I meant no personal offence by pointing out that most of your arguments are copy pasted from the Internet. Just that, this means these are largely not your own arguments, and this detracts from the originality that is essential to debate.
Animal Testing

I have been wanting to debate you for a while! The resolution we will be debating is animal testing. It is defined as: “Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments (although some research about animals involves only natural behaviors or pure observation, such as a mouse running a maze or field studies of chimp troops). ” {1} You may not vary from this definition. (LAYOUT) R1: Pro does rules, con accepts. R2: Pro presents up to 2 arguments, same as con. No rebuttals from con. R3 Pro can rebut and state up to 2 more arguments. Same as con. R4 Same as R3 R5 Pro can rebut and can state up to 2 more arguments. Con can rebut but can not rebut pro’s R5. Con may also present up to 2 new arguments. This round is also used for conclusion. 10,000 characters. 72 hours to post each round. May the best debater win! (CONCLUSION) Again thanks, DDD (REFERENCES) {1} . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Upon the death of Her Majesty The Queen, the British Monarchy should be dissolved

Her majesty, the Queen of Canada who also serves as the monarch and sovereign of the United Kingdom is arguably the greatest monarch of Commonwealth/Empire. It is also true that she may not live through the next decade. So here we are, to dissolve the largest monarchy in history or not. One has to look at it from a scope beyond that as the monarch of one realm. Her majesty is the Head of the Commonwealth of Nations (Republics and Monarchies alike), the Governor of the Church of England, Queen of Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, Duke of Lancaster, Mother of all People (British Columbia), Nebraska Admiral, as well as many other titles and honours. The monarch is a central part to all of the governments of all the Commonwealth monarchies and the oldest realm needs to remain intact though in order for all of them to remain in personal union. Her majesty is a central figure in all the governments of her realms, and that it would be reckless to dispose of the good government that has come from the Westminster system for so many years. the United Kingdom and Canada both are without wholly codified constitutions that depend on the balance that the crown and the system bring.[1] If one was to simply replace the Monarch who has no real power with a President that has no real power then there would not be enough change to justify replacing hundreds of years of tradition, and a perfectly good system with yet another partisan politician. It is hard to argue that Charles would make an.... interesting King, we shouldn't just disband and form republics at every sub-par monarch as there have been many more great Kings and Queens than ones who were below expectations. Incompetent monarchs have been few and far between and there have been many more incompetent politicians at the helm and I don't believe there should be even more incompetent politicians fighting for power. If the United Kingdom wants greater democracy that can actually make a difference then maybe they should have a referendum to replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate[2]. Doing so would keep the Commonwealth intact and averting many constitutional crises that would unarguably follow such reform. The United Kingdom has always had an effect on many countries in the world because of its colonization and that hasn't stopped simply because they are all governed separately. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...
Upon the death of Her Majesty The Queen, the British Monarchy should be dissolved

Like most British people, I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for our monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty has served The United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth graciously and faultlessly over the many years of her reign and it would a grievous insult and an act of profound ingratitude to dissolve the Monarchy within her lifetime. On the other hand, with very few exceptions, the rest of the Royal Family are parasitic, over-privileged, dysfunctional, in-bred aristocrats and it’s an affront to democracy that Britain’s next head of state and consort is currently destined to be a half-witted, snotty-nosed toff and his boot-faced old hag of a wife. That’s why I suggest that a referendum should be held before the Queen passes away that would determine if the British people want to continue to be ruled by an unelected head of state or if they would rather be governed by a democratically elected president. If the result of the referendum shows that the British people would rather have a president than have Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall lord over them, I duly affirm that, upon the death of Her Majesty The Queen, the British Monarchy should be dissolved. Thank you.
Upon the death of Her Majesty The Queen, the British Monarchy should be dissolved

With thanks to my opponent, I would like to apologise for the brevity of this response: I am away from home and using my phone to send this argument. Firstly, few people, even dyed in the wool lefties like me, have a problem with The Queen personally. It is the monarchy many people have an issue with. The next King will be Charles and his consort will be Camilla. They are both totally out of touch with the lives ordinary British people live, and, like Marie Antoinette, are widely despised by their subjects. However, I am not suggesting they be beheaded, just stripped of their official status, and Charles should not become head of state when his mother dies. The Commonwealth countries will, of course, have the opportunity to allow the Royal Family to continue to rule over them and if, for example, Canadia invited them to go over there and live at their taxpayers' expense, then few people in Britain would stand in their way, I'm sure. Thank you