BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion Should be illegal unless if it is a serious health issue.

First of all, you are using fetus and baby interchangeably. They are not the same thing. A fetus is unborn and in the early stages of pregnancy (1st-2nd trimester). A baby is a fully developed child that is able to live outside of the womb. Babies are not being aborted; fetuses are. Babies are like trees, while fetuses are like seeds. Second. You make abortion sound like using a condom. It is not as if every time a pro-choice women gets pregnant, they go out to a clinic. Most abortions, are first time abortions and are not repeated. Abortion is a last resort and is not taken lightly by anyone. "...by killing the baby then you are taking away the chance at life that the baby would have had." I know they are very different things but let me go back to that analogy. If you choose to take a seed out of the soil, are you killing a tree? No. Yes, you are preventing a tree from growing, but preventing life is not the same as murder.
Abortion Should be illegal unless if it is a serious health issue.

As you are not a woman and have not been pregnant, you have never felt a baby kick or move inside of you, you have not seen your child's heartbeat on a monitor , had an ultrasound and saw your BABY , yes a baby , on the monitor. A head , face , mouth , nails , feet , fingers , toes , etc. No a baby can't live without support before a certain point , because obviously that is what pregnancy is for , to nourish the baby and to help the baby live outside of the womb. By serious health issue , I mean if a women's life is at risk, or if a women has been raped and therefore it is a serious mental health issue then they should have the choice. As for not being financially ready , then don't have unprotected sex. Or give your child life , then give the child up. Why should a baby have to pay for the mother's mistakes? You shouldn't be able to use abortion as birth control. It isn't right. It is murder , maybe a baby can't survive outside of the womb until at a certain point, however I believe that by killing the baby then you are taking away the chance at life that the baby would have had at 9 months gestation. Why shouldn't a women be able to sacrafice 9 months to give a child she made a chance at life. That is selfish. You're right I did do it , so have many other women as they should. If you don't want to get pregnant ,DON't have sex, use Protection , or get your tubes tied. Pregnancy is preventable , if you do not take the preventive measures then you should pay the price.
Abortion Should be illegal unless if it is a serious health issue.

First off, can you clarify what you mean by "serious health issue?" Every women should have the right to choose whether they think they are able to care for a baby or not. Maybe they can't hand the mental, physical, or economic responsibility; that's OK. And don't forget about the women whom are victims of rape and incest. Why should they have to live through the pains of pregnancy? Part of the justice they deserve would be to allow them to terminate their future child, if they so choose. Before the first trimester, what is being aborted, isn't a baby at all. It is a fetus. While it is a living thing, it is not a viable life form capable of sustaining itself outside of the womb. Therefore, it should not be considered a complete human and is still part of the woman. Because it is still a part of the woman, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy. No one is aborting fully developed babies. And the fact that it will become a human one day does not make it one in the first weeks of pregnancy. In other words, I don't think it is appropriate to force women to give birth to babies they can't handle. It is unrealistic and foolish to expect every person to "suck it up." Just because you did, doesn't mean that everyone has to.
Abortion Should be illegal unless if it is a serious health issue.

I think abortion should be illegal unless it is a serious problem for the mother's health. Regardless of religion it is wrong to abort a pregnancy. No matter what you want to call it , a baby or a fetus, at the end of 9 months a pregnant women will give birth to a baby. A human being. It is a women's choice except for rape cases whether she becomes pregnant or not. If you do not want to get pregnant then either don't have sex or use protection. Bottom line. If you do get pregnant then you need to accept responsibility for your actions and spare 9 months of your life. When that 9 months is over fine give up the child for adoption , use the safe haven laws and leave your baby somewhere that is safe. I don't think any women should be able to use abortion as a form of birth control. Whether you call it a baby or a fetus , after 9 months (not even a year ) it is a living breathing baby. Why should anyone be able to decide that they are going to kill a baby because it is inconvenient for you. I think in the case of health reason a mother should have a choice. Otherwise suck it up and don't be selfish. I believe abortion is a selfish act. I was pregnant and call it what you want, but I heard my babies heartbeat, saw her on the U/S and gave birth to a baby girl 9 months later. Life wasn't perfect for me at that time. I wasn't married to my husband yet, we hadn't planned the pregnancy, but we took responsibility. I am sick of the excuses , what if she is a teenager, why should the woman have to gain weight, what is they are in a single parent environment, what if they have no money. Too bad, should have thought about that before you got pregnant. After the 9 months you have a choice , keep the baby or give the baby up.
Abortion Should be illegal unless if it is a serious health issue.

First of all, those web sites are not reliable sources because they are obviously bias. Although there are almost no neutral sites anymore, I would never give you a link to something like the National Abortion Federation. Again, you are mistaken with your distinction between babies and fetuses. It is not a matter of semantics like you claim. By the time a baby starts kicking, it is, in fact a baby. But as seen in this diagram (1), you can see that fetuses in the first trimester are no where near able to kick. (I'm not sure about 2nd trimester). And to correct you, fetuses are like seeds while babies are trees. I'm not demoralizing fetuses and babies by using that analogy, so don't act like I'm belittling the issue of abortion. (1) http://www.babycenter.com... And, as I've said a million times, a newborn is capable of living without its mother. Just because its life span would be very short, doesn't mean that they cannot live. Fetuses literally cannot live outside of the womb. Babies can. My argument was that because fetuses cannot sustain life by themselves, they are not "human" as you so call them. Therefore, no one is "killing a human life." This is why abortion should be allowed, but again, only as a last resort. The decision should not be taken lightly, like how you claim every women does. Can you support, with a respectable source, your statement that women use abortion as birth control? Also, you are judging these women so harshly. Who are you to judge them? "...the women chooses to abort the baby...because the woman , maybe doesn't want to gain weight, [and] stop partying." That is a pretty unrealistic generalization. How do you know what situation these families are in? Maybe they need to sacrifice that one child in order to have enough to feed the rest of the family. You don't know. So to simply dismiss their decision as a means to keep partying is ridiculous. Let me just reiterate that babies are not being aborted but fetuses are. I mean, look at that link. Just in the first seven weeks, the fetus is only "an embryo consisting of two layers of cells." Are we really going to call these cells a human being? Do you call the embryo inside a chicken's egg a chicken? This is why abortion is not murder, but the prevention of future life. In other words, would you make it illegal to pull out because that sperm will one day become a baby? I know that sounds ridiculous, but so are your arguments. You don't bring up any factual or legitimate arguments, but only mention pro-life sentiments that are driven by no scientific evidence at all. You cannot choose what is right for other people; because abortion wasn't for you, doesn't make it automatically wrong. Thank you for debating me and I hope this debate is decided by whomever has the best debate, and not by personal opinions.
Abortion Should be illegal unless if it is a serious health issue.

A women is pregnant with a baby , funny when it comes to sharing pregnancy news I have never heard a woman say I am having a fetus , oh the fetus kicked. I have only heard the term baby, yet suddenly when it is about abortion everyone who is prochoice says no way its a fetus not a baby , but i bet those same people if they were to get pregnant or their significant other was they would call it a baby. A baby is not like a seed or a plant , a baby is a human being. Are you not glad your mom made the choice to give birth to you. I sure am glad my mother wasn't selfish and didn't abort me because she was 19 and pregnant with no money. A newborn would not survive without an adult to nurture them. Should we kill them too? Just because a baby in the womb is unable to survive outside of a mother's stomach at that point , does not give us the right to kill the baby. The baby is growing and forming all the things necessary to survive outside the womb. You know that in just a few months that baby will be born , so you knowingly are killing a human life by having an abortion. Many women are callous about abortion and use it like a condom. There are also many women that have multiple abortions. Also killing one baby seems pretty bad to me. I have two cousins that in 2 years have had abortions because they didn't want to grow up. That to me is sick and you know what is worse they have both had pregnancy scares again. I am sick of women using the excuses and thinking that it is okay to abort a baby , because it is inconvenient. Too bad. Also do you know how many women come to regret their abortions. They take the easy way out and a year or two or even twenty years down the line they regret that decision. examples http://www.lifesite.net... http://www.prcsfv.org... Abortion is wrong. What about the fathers that want to have the baby and the woman chooses to abort the baby. How is that right? Thee is a parent that wants to care for the child and they are denied because the woman , maybe doesn't want to gain weight, stop partying, give birth. How is that right?
The USA must combat ISIS by putting boots on the ground

“What you are basically saying is if we don't combat ISIS directly and try to take for example an economic approach it will be harder to stop them because they have different groups.” No, I was saying that is more strategic to rip apart the ties that bond them. This would make each group weaker. Let me use a hypothetical example to help understand my meaning. If China wanted to attack the US we put up a large fight. It would be easier for them to defeat the US if they ripped apart the ties that bound the states together. Then instead of tying to fight one large enemy they would be fighting 50 small enemies. That a ecomic approach is a vaild alternative to sending in troops, but most be used in combination with other strategies. “Did we care what the Prime Minister of Russia though when we went into the Cold War” I remind my opponent that the Cold War was against the USSR and not just Russia. That we the US cared enough not to send in troops in to the USSR. This is a perfect example of how you can defeat an enemy using a dynamic strategy that that does not include sending in US troops. “Now you are saying that ISIS doesn't exist” No, I didn't state that. I stated that the Muslim Brotherhood does not think that ISIS exists, and that they believe that ISIS is US troops. That if the US sends troops that the Muslim brotherhood will be another enemy that US troops will have to deal with in addition to ISIS. I also maned other simmar groups that would also be enemies to US troops. I was showing that the US would not jsut have to fight ISIS but many other terrorist organizations. “you saying we should waste our tax money on sending troops to a place NOT in war or are you saying that we should send troops with Turkey's to fight ISIS? The latter would be that you are agreeing with my proposition as we would still be putting boots on the ground to combat ISIS.” Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Send in a large military force to Turkey were the war is not happening. To leave the military in Turkey and the Turkish military to be sent to combat ISIS. This would remove the threat of other terrorist organizations from joining with ISIS to attack US troops. This remove the threat Iran posses to Turkey. This would use less tax payer money and would likely have far less injuries to US troops. My opponent was not shown any reason that sending in US troops is the only valid option, or why that option is better than other options. I have shown that sending in US troops would increase terrorist threats and how the Turkish government is more that willing to send in there military. I have meet my burden of proof my opponent has not.
The USA must combat ISIS by putting boots on the ground

"Sending in more troops is likely to be counter productive and to another long drawn out war."You are making assumptions that aren't backed up with evidence. This is an extreme with no evidence which means it is very unlikely to happen."ISIS is combination of three groups that are fighting for there own reasons under one banner"This is not relevant to this debate because by putting boots on the ground we would be combatting as forms of ISIS. Just because they have three groups does not make them any more advanced. Al-Quada had many more groups fighting then ISIS has."While Iraq is open to US help they are wanting to stand on there own."Please provide evidence of this because it is an assumption. Also we need to do what's best for our country and just these horrid beheadings and the best way to do that is by putting boots on the ground."Iraq is also the main target of ISIS"Provide evidence of this as it is an assumption. ISIS wants to covert democracies into harsh jihadist rule like the US. Through the beheadings they have started following through with this action and needs to be stopped by boots on the ground."Both sides of civil war see ISIS as a threat. ISIS is taking advantage of the civil war to extend there territory and power."This not relevant to the debate as the topic you bring up is more a talk in the US getting involved to promote political equality. Provide evidence for the second claim as it is an assumption to if it is the civil war that is gaining them territory and power or is it that there number of followers keeps multiplying and the coalition and US air strikes can't keep up with it."Throughout history dynamic groups consisting of mostly untrained personal have shown they can overwhelm a well trained large military force."Provide evidence as this is also an assumption. This may be true in a handful of cases but the majority of those battles were won by the superior trained military.We both agree that ISIS is a threat and since my opposition has not given evidence for their extreme assumptions I have shown that the only truly winnable way to beat ISIS is by putting boots on the ground.Good luck in your rebuttal!
The USA must combat ISIS by putting boots on the ground

I agree with my opponent on the threat that ISIS posses. This is a threat that presents us with a complex challenge. This is not a threat that will go away from just sending in more troops. Sending in more troops is likely to be counter productive and lead to another long drawn out war. I will be presenting several ways that we can reduce and eliminate this threat with out increasing US military personal. ISIS is combination of three groups that are fighting for there own reasons under one banner: The Islamic State: group of Muslims extremist that want to bring a strict interpretation of the Koran as law in Iraq and Syria Naqshbandi Army/JRNT: A group of Baathist officials and military personal from Iraq. This group consists of two subgroups. The remaining Saddam loyalist that want Iraq to to return to how it was before US occupation. In addition a group of Baathists military personal that that are resentful of there firing over political reasons and want to have the Baathist recognized as a valid political party in Iraq, and there jobs backs. Arab tribes: A group of several small tribes in both Iraq and Syria. Each with there own reasons for joining with ISIS that can be summed up as a lack of power. They range from small farming villages waning a better economic opportunity, to war lords that control several villages wanting more wealth and power. In addition ISIS is spread over two countries that each present there own challenges. Iraq still on the long road to recovery from US occupation. While Iraq is open to US help they are wanting to stand on there own. They see defeating ISIS is a way of showing that they are able to solve there own problems. Iraq is also the main target of ISIS. Syria is in the middle of a bloody civil war. Both sides of the civil war see ISIS as a treat. ISIS is taking advantage of the civil war to extend there territory and power. This is a complex threat. We need several plans of attack all working together. We can not lock our selves in to a single way of thinking. While soldiers are a power tool they are most effective when there is a clear cut enemy, and has clear cut battle lines. Throughout history dynamic groups consisting of mostly untrained personal have shown they can overwhelm a well trained large military force. Throwing more solders in to the battle have only extended the battle not won it, in most cases. Once you start brain storming on how to defeat this dynamic group with out using the military far more effective options open up. http://www.pbs.org... http://www.foreignpolicy.com... http://www.weeklystandard.com...
banning gay marriage makes gay people second-class citizens

They are not oppressed in the working world (entitled to all jobs a heterosexual person is), in their personal life (gay people in a civil union are very entitled to adopt in many states and nations across the globe in this day and age) and gays are also fully entitled to any financial schemes outside of marriage-specific schemes that any straight person is.Any and all human rights laws applied to heterosexual people are all applied to gays so the resolution is an incorrect assertion to make.
banning gay marriage makes gay people second-class citizens

"I am afraid this semantic twist is too out of order and I deny the request for this change of definition."you are OUT OF ORDER! ahaha. anyway, im not changing any definition. you said yourself that they are the same thing, so too late, you already agreed."I don't see how race and sexuality are the same thing and how visiting one in hospital and voting are the same thing either."in both instances, a group of people is specifically chosen to be denied the same rights as everyone else."Marriage is only really serving a purpose for a man and woman not to have a bastard."that's not why people get married. i've never heard anyone say that they are getting married just so that their son wouldnt be born to unmarried people.here are some rights you get when getting married:Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisionsRight to make a decision about last ritesRight to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remainsImmigration and residency for partners from other countriesAutomatic inheritance in the absence of a willCrime victims recovery benefitsDomestic violence protection ordersJudicial protections and immunityPublic safety officers death benefitsSpousal veterans benefitsSocial SecurityJoint parental rights of childrenJoint adoptionMedicareJoint filing of tax returnsWrongful-death benefits for surviving partner and childrenBereavement or sick leave to care for partner or childrenChild supportJoint Insurance PlansTax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning creditsDeferred Compensation for pension and IRAsEstate and gift tax benefitsWelfare and public assistanceJoint housing for elderlyCredit protectionMedical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans.There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. http://www.hrc.org...
banning gay marriage makes gay people second-class citizens

"I'm referring to people who can't legally marry (people who can't have a civil union)" I am afraid this semantic twist is too out of order and I deny the request for this change of definition. "but gays who cant marry have less rights, like hospital visitations" I am sure that friends are allowed to visit people in hospitals."also, saying they can go out of their way to make contracts that are similar to legal components of marriage contracts, is like requiring blacks to go through extra measures in order to be allowed to vote." I don't see how race and sexuality are the same thing and how visiting one in hospital and voting are the same thing either.I don't see how gays are second-class citizens at all simply because they can't marry. Marriage is only really serving a purpose for a man and woman not to have a bastard (not the swear-word usage) child anyway.
banning gay marriage makes gay people second-class citizens

"They are not oppressed in the working world"so? if we denied muslims freedom of religion, you could say the same thing. im not arguing that gay people have no rights"gay people in a civil union are very entitled to adopt in many states and nations across the globe in this day and age"civil unions are marriages. you imply there is only a semantic difference. i agree, which is why for the purposes of this debate, i am grouping them together as the same thing. im referring to people who cant legally marry (aka, people who cant have a civil union). i dont care what you call it."and gays are also fully entitled to any financial schemes outside of marriage-specific schemes that any straight person is."but gays who cant marry have less rights, like hospital visitations. also, saying they can go out of their way to make contracts that are similar to legal components of marriage contracts, is like requiring blacks to go through extra measures in order to be allowed to vote. you could say "they can get the right to vote if they go through all these hurdles we put up in an effort to deny them rights", but that is treating black people differently under the law, just as gays are treated differently under the law, thus making them second class citizens