BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Ok. You quote me on saying how you couldn't keep a fetus alive at three weeks. I'm afraid that there was a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that it was your fault. I don't think I worded this in the way I wanted to. What I said was not really what I was thinking and I'm sorry. So, let me rephrase that a little. What I intended to say was that if a mother had a c-section then the baby would not be able to survive. You may have the same comeback to this. If that is the case then that is fine. 'You seem to say this to give me a tip, well I don't need your tips. ' Con gets annoyed and exasperated at my offer to help. Con says that my statement is untrue. Again, I think there was a misunderstanding. I meant that I didn't really want to but, I felt like it could help you. All I wanted to do was help and Con came back rather aggressively. No, I am just pointing this out because I want to win the "Who had better spelling and grammar? " Section. I was trying to provide some form of help. If you don't want my tip then you don't have to use it or take it into account. It doesn't really make any difference to me. Con goes back to say that human lives are more important than human emotions. I won't supply a full argument to think as I think if I did so, we would just be going back to where we were before. As we have discussed this previously. If you have anything else to add, feel free to. I agree with your point that people should take responsibility for their actions. But, I do still think that they should have the option of abortion. On the topic of poverty, I believe that if we can SAVE a child from poverty then, we should. But, again I don't think this should be done without out the mother's consent. As I believe that it should be the mother's choice if she wants an abortion or not. I am not saying we should kill all of the homeless. Yes, the act of shooting someone is horrible. I can agree with you to that point. Yet, I referring to a baby in a mother's care. If you don't want to kill a child and the mother doesn't want the child then, what do you suggest? I still stick to my original opinion that it should be the woman/girl's choice of what to do. I, however, do not think this should apply to all people. To me, it should apply to mothers who don't want to be mothers. "Did you not read my previous argument," Well, yes, I did. Did you read my answer where I clearly stated my opinion on this matter? The next topic was the matter of the mother carrying a child for nine months. I asked this question in context. I suggest you go back and read this in the context it was written in. Con goes on to recap what has happened so far. It seems that Con is trying to point out everything bad that has happened and none of the other content of this debate. Yes, I know we have another round after this one. I didn't know I was coming across as eager to finish. I'm sorry.
Abortion

Thanks for three rounds so far, Con. I would like to clear a few things up. I definitely care about lives of children and other humans and animals. All I was trying to say is that if a mother has a c-section so early that even doctors can't help the child survive then I see little to no harm in an abortion. Say the mother had an abortion at week three. There is an extremely high chance that even if you wanted to, you couldn't keep that baby alive at three weeks. I think we have mostly exhausted this argument but, if you would like to add anything else feel free to. 'Let's imagine a world were people people's emotions given more priority than people's lives." First, I don't want to bring grammar into this but, there is an error in this sentence. But, I strongly encourage those that vote on this debate to not worry about this particular sentence because I feel like you should vote on the debate not on grammar. To Con, make sure you watch that. Just a tip. Ok, now that we got that out of the way, to this I would like to say that, people's lives don't really have much use if there are no emotions. Not to say that human lives don't matter. To me, it seems like human emotions should be taken into account. I agree that it is a couple's decision whether to have sex or not. At this point, I don't really think there is much more to say about that. So let's move on from there. Of course if you have another point you would like to make, please feel free to. I would like to address the topic of the mother not being able to afford the child. Just say a mother does get pregnant and she can not financially take care of it. If she doesn't have an abortion and has the child then, that child will most likely end up growing up in poverty. Do you really want that for a kid? I know I don't. At the point at which an abortion would take place, the child wouldn't be aware of it. It's not like were doing it when it would hurt them and they would be aware of it. Alcohol. Again this brings me back to my closing statement in round two. Even if we make the wrong decisions it is still your body. I believe that it should be our choice. Con goes on to say that I can't choose two options and that last time I choose option two. I would like to disagree with that and say that I used a mixture of option two and a completely different one. I don't think it is fair for Con to try and limit my options. I don't want to make this personal but, if you are a guy or haven't experienced carrying a child and don't plan to then, what difference would it make to you if a mother has to carry a child for nine months? If you are in one of these situations then you can just sit back and criticize this all you want. Pregnancy does come with physical and mental tolls. If you don't want to take this into account then that is your choice. I just want to bring that up just in case you were feeling that way. Again thank you for this debate. It has been very helpful to me. I've been able to see a different view of this topic and to think about it.
Abortion

I would like to address your first argument. You mentioned that you shouldn't punish someone for the crimes of others. Normally, I would agree with you. But, when it comes to a subject such as this one, there are a few points I would like to make. At this point in development for a baby/child, they can not survive in the world. So, I don't consider this to be "Murder". If the mother had a c-section at this stage of the baby's early development, and the baby couldn't live with little to no help, I don't believe this is harming the child as it could not survive on it' own. Con stated that he/she has heard arguments refer to how the mother doesn't want to be reminded of the rape every time she looks at her child. Then goes on to say that I am prioritizing the emotions of one human over the life of another. Then goes on to say that human life is infinitely more valuable than human emotions. This is where I have a problem. The emotions of a someone is what really makes them a human. Let's say that we lived in a world with no emotions. That would basically mean there is nothing. Humans fall into the category of animals. And without emotions, animals are nothing. In Con's next paragraph, he/she says that most people know the risks of sex. If the woman/girl get pregnant after having sex they should take responsibility for such. To me, this is saying that you shouldn't have sex if you don't want to have a chance of having a child. I believe that, in some cases, making love is part of a relationship. People use different kinds of birth control to try to prevent having a child. If a couple wants to make love this is the best they can do. This leads me to my next point. Con argues that "excuses" such as, "I can't afford a child. " or "I'm not ready for one now. " are "ridiculous". This I must address. When a girl/woman says this, it could be being used as an excuse. Yet normally, these statements are true. A lot of the time when someone says this, they mean it. They may not be ready to take on the responsibility or they may really not be able to afford to care of a child. If this is true and the mother is forced to have a child, this child is not going to grow up in the best living conditions. If a mother has a child, I want the best for that child. Don't you? As for the alcohol topic. I must say that I agree with you. They were stupid. I still think this girl/woman should have the right to get an abortion if they would like to. Con wonders/asks, "Is a fetus worth the same as a human life? Is human life after birth worth anything? " To this, I still say it depends upon the stage of development of the child. This is going back to how I viewed this is my first paragraph. Con declares after asking/ wondering that there are only two options remaining for me to agree with/ disagree with. I say that there are almost always more than two ways to address something. This is one of those times. My conclusion for this round is that I feel like when it comes to women it is their/our body, therefore, it is their/our choice.
This Resolution Is False

"My opponent assumes that Russia was not already nuked in the 70s. How does he know? Was he there?" Yes. "That's not an idle question; according to one interpretation of quantum physics, Russia is both just fine and radioactive as hell until you actually observe it. I know I haven't. So even if Zaradi has, he's simply part of the wave function whereby Russia is both fine and nuked at the same time. The only way to collapse the wave function is to become part of it." Not true. As long as one person observes it, then it becomes definite. Unless we want to believe in the multi-verse theory, in which case there may be parallel universes in which Russia was nukes or not nuked or both nuked and not nuked or only partially crispy with a bit of grape jelly on top and an ice cold glass of milk to wash it down with. Damm it now I'm hungry. "Thus, we must all go to Russia. Once that happens, the entire human race will have observed Russia, and it will definitely be nuked or not nuked." Not unless we live in alternate universes. In which case it would still be both. "To us, anyway. Not to the aliens." False. There could be alternate universes in which aliens do exist or don't exist, and in which they observe it or not observe it or just look out the window at it while taking a dump in the bathroom or bump into it once in a while while having wild sex with their significant other. So overall, when we break the paradox by either biking the f*ck out of it, sending it's sorry a** to a Jo-Bros concert, or sic OberHerr on it, it will straighten out and prove that I won :D
This Resolution Is False

My opponent assumes that Russia was not already nuked in the 70s. How does he know? Was he there? That's not an idle question; according to one interpretation of quantum physics, Russia is both just fine and radioactive as hell until you actually observe it. I know I haven't. So even if Zaradi has, he's simply part of the wave function whereby Russia is both fine and nuked at the same time. The only way to collapse the wave function is to become part of it. Thus, we must all go to Russia. Once that happens, the entire human race will have observed Russia, and it will definitely be nuked or not nuked. To us, anyway. Not to the aliens. Speaking of which, I think it is safe to say that when a logical paradox is brought about by a human, like "it is true that this resolution is false," the only thing that can save the universe from exploding is alien intervention. So the fact that the aliens have not yet come is proof positive that the resolution is false. On the other hand, if we're all still here at the end of this voting period, then it is false that the resolution is false, and I will lose the debate. Except that I'll have already lost or won. My apologies to anyone inconvenienced by the breakdown of logic, and hence spacetime.
This Resolution Is False

As I expected, my oppponent is attempting to utilize the paradoxical nature of the resolution to baffle and confuse me. Let the audience be assured that I am not one who can be baffled, but one that baffles! In order to solve this resolution, we must first get past the paradoxical nature of the resolution, as it hinders our ability to debate it accurately. If pro were true, the resolution would be false. But if we proved a false resolution true, what have we really done if either? However, if con is correct, then the resolution is not false, but true. This would then mean that the statement, the resolution is false, is now true, which brings us back to square one. So clearly, we have to find a way to break the paradox. How do we do this? I offer a few ways to break the paradox. 1. When in doubt, nuke the sh*t out of it until it straightens itself out. It's what we should've done to Russia in the 70's, so it would clearly work now. 2. Send it to a Jonas Brothers concert. The Jonas Brothers are flaming homosexuals, and any male person in their presence (the resolution's a dude, I had thett check) becomes instantly straight in their presence in fear of becoming like them. 3. Sic OberHerr on the resolution. Just the sight of the massive Spartan in MJOLNIR armor will make it straighten out rather quickly. Once it has been straightened out, we will truly be able to see that con has won the debate. Thank you.
Atheism vs. Theism

I accept the challenge and its accompanying parameters. Theism The debate is Atheism vs Theism. We are equally burdened to convince the reader that one is more rational than the other. Neither of us is burdened to prove our position with 100% certainty. If, in the final analysis, the reader finds one side more rationally defensible, then that is the side the reader should vote for. I respectfully request that voters vote responsibly in the areas of Conduct, Spelling & Grammar, and Sources. If you find we have failed any of these areas, please let us know why so we can improve our debating technique. I will be defending Christian Theism, since I find it to be more defensible than other forms of theism. I will therefore offer my usual definition of God as described in the Westminster Confession of Faith [1]: There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. Sources http://www.reformed.org...
Atheism vs. Theism

If you are a qualifying Theist who wishes to be part of this serious Atheism vs. Theism debate, please except. I wish for this to be a serious debate. If you cannot comply with my rules or commit to this debate, do not accept. Here are some rules:1. Proper spelling and grammar must be used at all time.2. All sources, if any, must be cited.3. Take this debate seriously.Rounds:Round 1: Acceptance only.Round 2: Arguments only.Round 3: First rebuttalsRound 4: Second rebuttals and conclusion.I would now like to give some definitions as to what I will be refering to when I say 'Atheism' and 'Theism'.Atheism: Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to Atheism)I look forward to this debate and hope to only debate someone who is serious about debating this topic.http://dictionary.reference.com......http://dictionary.reference.com......
Should Guns Be Completely Banned In The U.S (U.S Residents Only Please)

First Of All I Do Not Claim That Crime Rate Flatlines When Guns Are Completely Banned , I Claim That Violent Crime Rate Flatlines When Guns Are Completly Banned. There Is A Differcence, Crime Is Anything That Is Illegal And Encompasses Everthing From Tax Fraud To Drug Possesion. Violent Crime Is Crime That Is Carried Out To Harm A Human Being. According To The Source That I Used In My Previous Argument About Australia This Is True. http://www.aic.gov.au... Secondly Pro's Harvard Scource Acutally States That "They Found No Correlation Between Gun Ownership On Non-Gun Homicide. This Invalidates His Previous Point That Overall Homicide Rate Is Reduced When Firearms Are Banned. Another Point Is That Truly Violent Criminals Are Not Going To Become Law-Abiding Citizens Just Because A Very Efficent Method Of Violence Has Been Made Harder To Access. Think About It If, A Complent Gun Ban Would Only Make It Harder For Criminals To Get Guns, While Law-Abiding Citizens Would Turn Theirs In, Leaving The Civilain Sector Relatively Defenseless. Over To You Pro.
Should Guns Be Completely Banned In The U.S (U.S Residents Only Please)

Just For A Moment, Lets Say Hypothetically Civilian Owned Firearms Are Completely Banned In The U.S Tomorrow. Citizens Are Allowed A Two Day Grace Period To Turn In Their Firearms To A Firearm Collection Center But After That Citizen Firearm Possession Is A Felony Crime. Well After That, The Crime Rates Going To Be Smoothe Sailing Right ? Not At All. If Other Western Nations Are Any Example, Banning Guns Decreases Gun Crime Rate But Increases Overall Violent Crime Rate. Look At Australia ( They Didn't Completely Ban Guns But The National Firearms Agreement Was Highly Restrictive) After The Law Was Passed, The Gun Crime Rate Went Down, But The Overall Violent Crime Rate Stayed The Same. It Makes Sense, Guns Aren't The Only Thing That Can Kill People, They're Just The Most Efficient. Although The Australian Crime Rate Can't Be Applied Everywhere, The United States And Australia Are Very Similar In Terms Of Both Politics And Sociology. This Shows That A Complete Gun Ban In The U.S Would Not Accomplish The Intended Goal Of Reducing Violent Crime. Another Point Against A Ban Is The U.S Constitution. It Is Clearly Stated In The U.S Constitution That Because People Should Have The Ability To Over Throw Their Government Should It Become Corrupt, Citizens Should Have the Right To Bear Firearms. The United States Was Trying To Limit It's Own Power And History Has Shown Us That A Government Limiting Their Own Power Is A Very Good Thing, If A Gun Ban Was In Place, Nothing Would Be Standing In The Way Of The United States Government From Oppressing It's Own People ( Civilian Gun Bans Have Been A Characteristic Of Most Tolitarian And Fascist Regimes). This Data Alone Shows That A Complete Gun Ban In The U.S Would Be An Overall Negative Thing. I Will Provide More Support And Examples In Round 3.
Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2016.

I would like to point out that my opponent has not offered rebuttal against any of my arguments presented. I would also like to point out that both sources offered by my opponent are broken links (at least for me) and not in the MLA format he wanted to use, I think putting him more at fault than me in this regard. Also in an attempt to justify his precarious position my opponent has stated that "I am sure you can find the exact same information I have presented from other sources, such as books published about Clinton and encylopedias including her." Without citing those encyclopedia's and as I have already said referring to broken links and articles that when dug up turn out not to be in the MLA format he has attempted to corner me with. Also even if you discount my sources that do not adhere to MLA format, my opponent has not given any sources that are of any meaning to this debate and not come up with convincing counter arguments or arguments. I would like to ask voters to take this into account.
Hillary Clinton should run for President in 2016.

I said that sources must be cited using the MLA format. My opponent has cited his sources using a different format. Also, I would like to point out that my opponent mainly uses . com websites. I would prefer . org or . gov. Granted, I used only . com sites until now, but I cited them properly and they are therefore more reliable. I am sure you can find the exact same information I have presented from other sources, such as books published about Clinton and encylopedias including her. Given the arguments I have made and given the fact that my opponent's sources were not properly sited, I must say that the voters must consider this before voting.