BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Sure, I'll be pro abortion. I think abortion is a pretty useful thing. People/families that have abortions do so because they don't want the baby. If these people/families did not have the option of getting an abortion then, in some situations, they would have a child without intention to care for it. From a societal benefits perspective this is worthless because it leaves the child in a nurtureless environment. In turn the child is more predisposed to a low quality a life, sparse education, and criminal tendencies. I'll also say that abortion is mostly a zero sum game for potential life. A family that desires two babies will have two babies irregardless of aborting previous fetuses. Finally I'll argue that abortion is beneficial because it allows more freedom of sexual expression. Studies suggest that having more frequent sex reduces stress levels, promotes inter human bonding, and heightens creativity. Those thing are probably all societal net positives.
Abortion

I thank my argument for the solid responses so far. Once again I urge the voters to permit my opponent one extra response in the comments. Overview:In pursuit of crystallizing this debate I think two arguments can be extended that are fundamentally under covered. The first is that pragmatics is greater than morality. And the second is the unintended consequences of not having an abortion. In a world where abortions are precluded violence increases and quality of life severely decreases. These are indicaitons that I outweigh my opponents advoacy. However, I will also argue each of my opponents new arguments. Morality:Production of sperm is not a moral issue so it probably doesn't count for anything here. Additionally, sperm production is not limited in any definite sense. New sperm is generated every momenet that a male is alive. My opponent says that internal problems will occur if too much sex arises. I'll argue that this doesn't outweigh the increased crime or decrese in quality of life. Also I'll say that my opponent's does not describe the majority of people having a lot of sex. Perhaps it describes the few individuals who do so as their only past time. Next my opponent argues that sex causes more stress due to societal pressure. This is an argument irrespective of abortion which means it has no bearing on this debate. But also I'll argue that that pressure is directed predominately at media stars and almost no one past high school. This suggests that the benfits of sexual intercourse, which apply to everyone, outweigh Cons arguments. Con makes brief allusions to sex being misused and its purpose being for creation of life. These are arbitrary distinctions. Sex can be undertaken for any purpose, it does not necessitate life. Also, not enough sex can cause stress.My opponent argues that accidental murder is a valid analogy. Not true. The reason accidental murder culprits get more lax sentences is because they are not deemed a societal threat. In the case of potential life the culprit knows all actions which will not lead to birth. Which means in both the case of typing this argument, and the case of abortion the preclusion of potential life is premeditated. There is literally no distinction between these which indicates that abortion is not a moral issue. Pragmatism: Con argues here that children born into a society that does not value frivolous sex as much will be happier. I'm disinclined to believe that this benefit exists and/or somehow outweighs the detriments of not being wanted. My opponent's arguments appear to be purely speculative here. Abortion is useful, and beneficial, because it relieves unintended potential life from being born into the world. I've already demonstrated that those individuals have a much lower quality of life and are more predisposed to major crime. This is an impact which effects all people and not just the moral decision of the mother. Therefor this impact of abortions is the deciding factor of the round. Fin.
A Theist should value a killer of the innocent over a killer of the evil.

Pro makes several assumptions about Theist beliefs in order to complete their argument. These assumptions are: 1) All Theist philosophies generally teach the same thing 2) Evil people go to hell 3) People must be selfless to serve God 4) Innocence is a function of lifetime length 5) Humans have the power to send people to heaven or damn them to hell by killing them I will address each of these assumptions in order. 1) The first assumption is the most important for my opponent's case. By claiming that "all Theists should prefer a killer of the innocent" Pro must prove that every Theist religion actually teaches according to their chain of reasoning. If even one Theist religion does not teach this, then my opponent's claim cannot be true. While I believe many religions disagree with some or all of Pro's points, I will focus specifically on Christianity. 2) Evil people go to hell - True. However, Christianity teaches that all people are by nature evil and sinful, which becomes problematic for Pro's assumptions later on. 3) People must be selfless to serve God - Also true. However, Christianity teaches that one cannot serve God by sinning. Murder is considered a sin according to the 10 Commandments, so by definition murder cannot be considered a righteous act of selflessness. The Bible teaches that damning yourself is foolish, not selfless. 4) Innocence is a function of lifetime length - Pro argues that Theism advocates killing people who have not lived long enough to sin. Unless I am misinterpreting how the argument is phrased, this suggests Theism advocates killing children. This is clearly not a principle of Christianity, nor is it advocated by the other major religions. The biggest obstacle for this point however relates back to assumption #2. Christianity teaches that all people, including children, are sinful by nature and not as a function of time. The whole point of Christianity is the philosophy that all people are sinful and in need of God's saving grace. As a result, no one is innocent through their own merit, and killing children before they can sin is not only impossible, but would fail to accomplish salvation anyway. 5) Humans have the power to send people to heaven or damn them to hell by killing them - Again, this is not taught by Christianity. According to Christian doctrine, only God has the power to judge, damn, and save people. The Bible teaches that only God has the power to determine innocence from guilt - so even if you decided to kill someone you thought was innocent, you could never be 100% sure they actually were. The Bible also teaches that humans cannot save other humans, only God can, so Theists who fall under the Christian category would not agree with the assumptions of Pro's argument. If it can be shown that at least one branch of Theism does not teach according to my opponent's points, then Pro's claim is false by definition. I therefore submit that Christian doctrine is an example that disproves all Theists should prefer a killer of the innocent. I look forward to Pro's reply.
A Theist should value a killer of the innocent over a killer of the evil.

In all Theistic religion's, even Satanism, the more agonising afterlife comes to the evil.All religions encourage selflessness and sacrifice as part of serving God.Killing an innocent ensures they didn't live long enough to sin and end up in the more unpleasant afterlife of that religion.Killing an evil ensures they end up in the worse afterlife.You are eternally damning them.there is nothing more selfless than eternally damning oneself for the sake of ensuring people 100% end up in the more pleasant afterlife.Thus, all Theists should prefer a killer of the innocent over a killer of the evil as killing is a sin and thus it is selfless to eternally damn oneself for the sake of ensuring others end up in eternal bliss.
THBT red is better than blue

org. My argument will be split up into two parts: The advantages of red, and the downsides of blue. -Advantages of red: My opponent has pointed out that red has negative connotations. This is true, however red has positive ones that outweigh any negativity associated with it. In an international survey of over 130,000 people, red was chosen as the color which best represented the categories powerful, sexiness, and good-tasting. (1) To the ancient Greeks, red symbolized super-human heroism. Red is also the most popular color used on flags in the world. Approximately 77% of all flags include red. Red is seen as representative of good luck in Asia and is the most popular color in China. Brides in India and Nepal wear red saris because it symbolizes happiness and good luck. Red is also one of the most visible colors, which is why it is used on fire engines and stop signs to trigger alertness. (2) Red is used by companies such as YouTube, Bank of America, Kmart, Target, Mitsubishi, Coca-Cola, and Verizon. Downsides of blue: Blue has negative associations. In English "to feel blue" is to feel sad, while in German "blau sein" (literally: to be blue) means to be drunk and in Russian "k5;l6;l3;m1;k3;l6;l1;" (literally: light blue) means to be homosexual. (I am not saying being homosexual is a bad thing, but historically it has been viewed negatively). Blue is recognized as the color of depression. In Korea, dark blue is the color of mourning. Whereas red captures attention, blue is perceived as fading. Blue is sharply refracted by the eyes. This causes the lens to flatten and to push the blue image back. (3) Blue is also seen as highly unappetizing. (4). Sources: 1. ) . http://www.colormatters.com... 2. ) . http://www.colormatters.com... 3. ) . http://www.colormatters.com... 4. ) . http://www.colormatters.com...
THBT red is better than blue

Often we base our lives around particular colours, themes and ideals. Many artists use different colours to connotate different interpretations. Red and blue are both primary colours and thus they can be presumed to be at a similar level of importance in art. However, scientifically it could be argued that blue has a shorter wavelength than red and thus is seen higher up in a rainbow (starting from violet-red). Primarily, red is represented as blood and evil; often used as themes in movies to represent satanic behaviour or apocalypses. Since blue is often taken to be the sky and oceans, it represents nature and life; the beauty consistent within our lives whereas red shows us the sad truth of our mortality and that one day, we will die (connotations with blood). In media, we often relate red skies and oceans to that of a doomsday or similar apocalyptic event suggesting some sort of devilish, satanic behaviour. Historically, communists were seen to have failed in their missions. They had red flags - which could be a simple coincidence or could be seen of the potential failure hidden deep within the red colour. Politically, blue is one of the most used colours in flags suggesting the unity of our society. Coincidentally, almost all social networks use blue coloured themes - facebook, tumblr, instagram etc. All these networks allow us to communicate together, become more social and in a way create a larger group of circles worldwide. In Ellen degeneres' show, her entire set is blue. Blue being the form of media and technology which are making their way forward into our life. Technology becoming more and more important in human life. Blue, thus represents the future and opposes the theory of mortality represented by the colour red. Thus, I believe that blue is better than red because of several obvious psychological, scientific, political and historical reasons. I will continue more points in my next round and look forward to reading opposition's arguments.
Mike Huckabee is the best Republican candidate.

Wow well my opponent didn't bother to argue this debate, but no points either way were made, and crap I just realized there are four rounds. Well whats left is to make one point. Mike Huckabee is the most viable candidate coming out with a victory in the Republican Iowa Caucus. And if I end up being wrong on that I invite you to use it against me, but I know I am right.
Mike Huckabee is the best Republican candidate.

Well thank you for your effort I do note that you are a libertarian and you guys are rather forceful to say the least on your views. Huckabee has executed 16 criminals more than any other governor in his state has had to and 16 times more than anyone else running for president has had to. If your implying that he's soft on crime he is definitively not. Percentage wise Huckabee turned down the majority of over 80% of the people who applied for clemency's - not pardons. You have to understand that he did not give out pardons only clemency's which is just lighting the sentence, he in no way allowed a criminal to escape justice all together. A clemency is a petition to the governor to have your sentence reduced, and in Arkansas law every person ever convicted of a crime that is serving or will serve it may apply. Yeah thats a lot so much that he had to make a board to just review them all, and the ones that made it to him from the board, he looked at every page scrupulously and made a fair decision. Based upon what was fair for the people, now what was best for his political career. Compare that with governor Romney who's state makes it incredibly difficult to file a clemmency and when an Iraqi war veteran was able to quality he turned him down. He was applying for clemency for a misdemeanors he commuted when he was 13 that was preventing him from joining the police force. The man shot another kid with a bb gun and the pellet didn't even break the flesh. He goes off later to serve in Iraq as a sergeant, comes home wants to join the police force can't applies for clemency to get this ridiculous thing overturned and he is turned down. You got to ask , did Romney act out of what was best for his constituents - or what was best for his political career? Thats what we are getting with Huckabee a person who is looking out for us. We got to send a candidate to the general election who can beat a Democrat. These Democrats are alls saying they ill fight for the little man, John Edwards more so with his very angry anti-corporation message. But if we send 250 million dollar Romney, or Fred Thomas Bush the Third, we are not going to win this election. Huckabee was the first Republican governor in Arkansas history 1 of 4 Republicans ever to win state wide office. He has a history of up hill battle against the Democrats- and Winning. He is someone the party needs for this election coming up. Bush has put us in a bad pposition, we're at the bottom of the hill and Huckabee has been there before.
Mike Huckabee is the best Republican candidate.

First off, I would just like to apologize profusely for not arguing earlier, as I was in Tampa, and did not have access to the Internet. If you wish to start a new debate with the same topic so we can have a serious debate about it, I would be more than happy to participate. Now, onto my points: First off I would like to mention Mike Huckabee's domestic policies that he would like to enact. One of the most notable policies of his is a new FairTax, a system which would eliminate income tax, raise sales tax, and incorporate a 23% import tariff. All three of these actions would be detrimental to America's economy, as a sole retail tax is one of the most regressive tax systems known to man, and would only strengthen the gap between rich and poor. In addition, the massive tariff he wishes to enact would greatly harm our foreign policy, and would only cause America to become that much more isolationist in this current global market. In addition, one only needs to look at Huckabee's sketchy past as governor of Arkansas to see how he would only be an atrocious president. One key example of this was the massive amount of rapists and murderers he pardoned as governor. A great deal of these pardoned criminals went on to commit more crimes, and there has been a great deal of controversy when dealing with these issues. My last point deals with his massive desire to in essence go against everything the First Amendment stands for, and have America be a Christian nation. By putting up the Ten Commandments in all courthouses and in essence lying about our founding fathers, Huckabee is turning our nation into a theocracy, and one that has no freedom fo religion and only oppression and totalitarianism So, no, I do not believe Huckabee would be the "best" republican candidate at all.
Anime cartoons should be banned

Again I say you that anime has many advantages. My arguments: 1) study history. For instance,Japanese culture and history is ingrained very much in anime, even those that take place outside of Japan. There are a number of anime that take place in ancient Japan or during a specific time in Japanese history. 2) show real life. for example, Romance in anime very rarely subscribes to the typical "love at first sight" or "living happily ever after." Over the course of anime series, the relationship between two characters grows and changes, and they face many misunderstandings, betrayals, and love triangles along the way. Emotions and inner conflicts run strong and deep in anime relationships. 3) depth characters and depth of the story...
Anime cartoons should be banned

I can disagree with you, because researches prove that today more and more anime cartoons with violence scenes appear. It is good that some children can become more polite and kind with the help of anime cartoons, but practice shows that it has more negative effects on children's behaviour than positive. According to Napier (2001) animated features account for about 50% of all movie tickets sales in Japan. Anime"s fan clubs appear in different world corners and the number of fans increase every year, it has grown into an important social and cultural phenomenon especially in Asia. The amount of money spent on the purchase of CDs, books, pictures and notebooks featuring anime increases every day, so it became a big business. Even America has caught up in this wave. Anime cartoons are so powerful that its influence can even be seen in children at early ages. They spend most of their time in front of television and cannot break away from it. As scientists proved, pupils devote their time to lessons about 12 hours a week, but 18 hours to cartoons. They cannot control themselves and manage their time. So it is obviously an addiction. The consequences of anime cartoons" addiction can be underachievement in school, psychological problems and health damage. A big number of people today are addicted on anime cartoons, so despite although it seems to be not serious, it can lead to unacceptable results.
Anime cartoons should be banned

I think that anime cartoons should be banned. There are many reasons of it . It can harmfully influence children. The most important and meaningful reason why anime cartoons should be banned is an inappropriate information for children. First of all it is platitude. Recently more and more obscenity scenes appear in anime cartoons. It is unacceptable because of age limitation. According to Aleardo Zanghellini (2009) Yaoi " is a Japanese genre of anime, which focus on love between males. It shows love not only between man " man, but also boy " man, so "its erotic and even sexually explicit subject matter makes yaoi /BL work a possible target for censorship in some western countries". As it was mentioned in the article "Adolescents' anime-Inspired "Fan fictions": An Exploration of Multiliteracies" anime includes inappropriate topics, because "the Japanese have a much better grip on gays, sex, violence etc. than we do" (Kelly Chandler-Oclott & Donna Mahar, 2003). Children used to watch it in cartoons and they begin to think that it is normal, so it can lead to psychological destroy. Such obscenity scenes are unacceptable in cartoons. In early age children have flexible memory and they are arresting all seen and heard. Therefore, all the information that a child absorbed in shildhood fixed in his mind forever and parents should be very cautious in choosing anime cartoons, because many of them are full of obscenity.
Anime cartoons should be banned

Yes, there are some advantages of anime cartoons, but against disadvantages are more dangerous. Against it is showing violence in cartoons. Cartoon"s characters fight with each other, and even positive characters kill people, so after this children will think that murders for a good reason are justified. According to Huston children at the age of four spend about 50-70 minutes in front of television, watching cartoons, most of which is animated cartoons. Researches showed that 92% of children"s Saturday programs contain aggressive scenes and immoral actions. Showing violence in cartons can lead to some negative effects, which cause children"s behavior. For example: when a child sees the violence in cartoons he/she can be aggressive in real life and take it as a normal behavior. So eventually children will become desensitized to the victim of crime. Another side o f this issue is the fact that today there are a lot of anime cartoons, in which some characters remain uninjured, so it creates misconceptions about the death. Because of it some children fight with each other and sometimes can really injure someone. This information is not for children, because there is a thin border between reality and fantasy. Therefore, fights and murders in anime cartoons can form a mistaken conception of the world and a man, which can lead to serious consequences.
Resolved: I have the burden of proof in this debate.

My opponent has made strong arguments about BOPs in general, but failed to make a convincing case in the context of our debate, as I shall demonstrate below. Neither side has the BOPMy opponent appears to misunderstand the debate rules laid out in R1. Contrary to what Con has written, there is no alternative claim. The sole resolution is 'I have the burden of proof in this debate', and I defined 'I' to mean Diqiucun_Cunmin - that is, myself. So what Con is arguing for is not 'PsychicPhysicist has the burden of proof in this debate', nor is it the claim he brought out last round, but it is the negation of the resolution - 'It is not the case that Diqiucun_Cunmin has the burden of proof in this debate'. This is not an alternative resolution, either: The only resolution is that I, Diqiucun_Cunmin, have the BOP in this debate. As I am Pro, this confers upon me the sole burden of proof, for reasons I have adequately explained in the previous round. Even if the negation of the resolution were an alternative resolution, my claim is still a stronger one and thus I have the BOP. This is because 'It is not the case that Diqiucun_Cunmin has the burden of proof in this debate' does not necessarily presuppose the existence of the BOP; it could be that I don't have the BOP because there's no such thing as a BOP. Con more likely has the BOP My opponent attempts to put a BOP on himself using this claim, which I shall call X: 'The burden of proof in this discussion is not clearly upon either party, but if it were upon either, it would necessarily be upon myself. ' The problem is, this is not the resolution of this debate. The resolution says, 'I have the burden of proof in this debate'. As X is not the resolution, the scope of X's BOP is only within Con's argument space, instead of the entire debate. If I both Con and I forfeited all rounds, Con still would win as I didn't fulfill my BOP.