BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion Violates the constitution

Okay,it does not violate the constitution.You mentioned freedom of life. While their is also "freedom of body" which says we own our bodies. Since the fetus is inside the mother,most people consider part of the mother therefore part of her body. So therefore,she gets to choose what to do with fetus because she owns it,because it is part of her body.Also,the whole life begins when the sperm-hits-the-ova is pretty dumb because up to 40% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage-does that make the woman guilty of murder and violating the constitution?If you make abortion illegal,that will not end abortions that will simply make them more unsafe.They may get an abortion from a untrained person in the back alley or shove a clothes hanger up there to kill the baby therefore harming the mother's body.I'm Pro-Choice because I believe the mother has a right to the safest produce possible if she desires it.That also goes with "freedom of body".
Abortion Violates the constitution

=Definitions= 1. Created: "to bring into existence" 2. Endowed: "to provide with something freely or naturally" 3. Life:"the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body" 4. Also definitions from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary -> http://www.merriam-webster.com... =Arguments= The preamble to the constitution states: [1] "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The constitution says that "all men are created equal", not "all men are born equal" this means that at conception all people are guaranteed the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as a new being is brought into existence, Even at the earliest stages of development, a fetus has it's own unique DNA [2] so the argument that it is part of the mother, and thus her body to do as she pleases is not an argument that holds any water. By aborting an unborn fetus we violate the right to Life, (as they are killed) Liberty, (as they are not given the chance to defend themselves) and the pursuit of happiness (as they cannot pursue anything since they are not alive.) Thus since we alienate the unalienable rights, we violate the constitution. Sources- [1] http://www.ushistory.org... [2] http://www.utilitarian.net...
The human brains, function, geography, theorem, psychology and upkeep education should be compulsory

Knowing the brains structure will help the understanding of how it works. Imagine you have moved to a new town, it will help you a great deal if you know where the bank is, the library, the town hall, the hospital. Its the same with the brain, it will aid in the recognition of what each part of the brain does so we can all become accustomed to it.
The human brains, function, geography, theorem, psychology and upkeep education should be compulsory

You cant make money unless you spend money. In reality, It is fairly straightforward to understand the basic allocations of brain structures and their respective functions, for example, the prefrontal cortex in relation to decision making, the amygdala in relation to compulsive behaviour, the hippocampus and memory. If condensed into bite-sized informational chunks an understanding of how the brain affects an individuals daily life can become apparent, for example, an individual can understand what leads them to react to certain stresses in such a way, someone failing at math can understand how to strengthening areas of the brain dedicated to logic and short term memory, an artist can understand how to more potently exercise the parts of their brain dedicated to creativity, these examples contextualized are improvements in the processing of information, through the creation of new neuronal pathways. Other benefits include, increased emotional intelligence making a participant aware of their thoughts allowing them greater control, overall better quality of life for participants giving one example participants will be more prepared to deal with the problems in life in a more concise and astute manner. These types of improvements applied on a societal level will increase productivity, create more robust employees, leading to more revenue to employers creating more jobs and more innovation.
The human brains, function, geography, theorem, psychology and upkeep education should be compulsory

It would cost a lot to hire professors or teach the professors about this new topic. It is very advanced. Students may not even understand any of it. Just an article outlining a "basic overview" of the brain is insanely long and in depth.http://www.ninds.nih.gov... There is no easy way to teach those students. Will making people more self-aware be worth the costs? Will it even work? There are already health classes about our body with all its systems, there is no need to teach about such a complex topic like the brain.
The 'Religious' Of The Day: Talking Smack

John 8:44pm "You are of your father the devil, BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, and you want to do the desires of your father, NO HE ALCOHOLIC, ME NO DRINK. He was a murderer from the beginning, U DONT EVEN KNOW MY POPPA FAM, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him, I KNOW HE'S A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, I'M NOT. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. YEP MY GRANDAD IS A KLEPTO Revelation 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." TERRIBLE ENGLISH Proverbs 10:18 He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool. John 8:55 and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. BLAH BLAH BLAH Still, we must put up with follower'
Theists are no more moral than the irreligious

There is a tendency for theists who advocate their cause to state that their faith furnishes them with morals that atheists lack because of their ungodliness. The Ten Commandments, divine scripture and the lives of religious figures, among other points, are frequently cited as moral precedents. As a consequence to my disagreement with this, I am for the motion that the religious hold no distinct advantage over the irreligious in terms of morals and ethics--and, in some cases, are disadvantaged as a result of their religion. With this I propound that morality has always existed, regardless of the presence of religion. Sincere, interested debater wanted; I ask everyone to keep affairs civil; thanks in advance.
Private Property is not recognized by the United States Government.

First, when I say private property, I am dealing specifically with land ownership. I request that whoever is Con debate along those lines. Now let us examine what it means to recognize private property. Recognition of private property requires sovereignty. Why? Because if sovereignty is not recognized, then the state could interfere with the property as it saw fit, because it did not recognize that property as being independent of the state. The only way property can be independent of the state is if it has sovereignty, as the only thing a state has no legal jurisdiction over is another state. If the property is not considered to be independent of the state, then it is hardly private, is it? So, we have established that recognition of the owners sovereignty with regard to the property in question is necessary for recognition of private property. Now let us proceed to how the United States government fails to recognize the sovereignty of the owner. 1: Eminent Domain. Eminent domain is defined as the ability of the state to seize property with due monetary compensation, but without the owners consent(1). If the state has the ability to seize land without consent of the "owner" then the owner is not being recognized as sovereign over that land. If she was sovereign, then consent would be required, or else sovereignty would be violated. Because the state has the ability to seize land without consent, it does not recognize private property. 2: Property tax. Property tax requires that the "owner" of the property being taxed pay a certain percentage of the worth of that property to the state(2). In essence, it is rent. The "owner" must pay the state for the privilege of living on their land. If the "owner" truly had ownership of the land in question, they would not be required to pay rent on it. Therefore, because the state imposes property tax on the "owner" of that property, they do not recognize ownership. 3: Search Warrants. A search warrant is a court order which allows a law enforcement group to search persons or land for evidence of illegal activity(3). In other words, the state retains the right to enter your property, with or without your permission, at any time it desires, and is authorized to use force if you fail to comply. Such a thing is incompatible with sovereignty, because it denies the "owner" the ability to control who does and does not enter "their" property. Search warrants, by not requiring the permission of the "owner", violate the sovereignty of that "owner", and therefore, denies recognition of private property. I welcome whoever chooses to accept this debate. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Private Property is not recognized by the United States Government.

Seeing as my opponent forfeited the last round, simply extend my arguments from that round, where I show very specifically how the state does not recognize private property because it is the state who always retains effective control over property. Please discount any new arguments (except responses) that my opponent may make in his next response, as I would be unable to respond to those arguments. Because I have provided three clear examples of how Private Property is not recognized by the United States Government, and have answered all of my opponents responses to them, I strongly urge a Pro vote. That said, I would like to thank surfride for accepting this debate. It was quite fun, and I am glad to have gotten a clearly quite intelligent opponent.
Eritrea should cede all of it's land to Ethiopia

I have come to two realizations.1) The pro is in fact an Ethiopian nationalist, who is merely projecting his irridentialist desires of territorial revanchism for Ethiopia. Was a video of the Ethiopian national anthem really neccessary? This debate was never meant to be about Eritrea, but about how Eritreans should roll over and surrender their sovereignty freely for the benefit of "Greater Ethiopia"2) Pro is not concerned with actually discussing the Eritrean state and instead focuses on the percieved evils of Eritrean corruption, the failures of the judicial system, and other topics that are not related to the actual existence of the Eritrean state as an entity free of external controlConclusionThis debate is weighed on net benefit. Pro: territorial revanchism and paternalistic imperialismGreater Ethiopia should get its land back, and Ertitreans can't take proper care of themselves, so we must take up the burden of caring for our little brown brothers. Sounds familiar. Con: Let the UN and organizations designed specifically for these purposes peacefully solve Eritrea's problems, without handing everything over to the one country wich has an ax to grind. The Pro case will only incite conflict with the locals, as has already happened in the past, while the Con case actually leaves room for cooperative, non-violent progress.
Eritrea should cede all of it's land to Ethiopia

Pro point 1: Ethiopia and Eritrea historically part of same realmThis is a ridiculous reason for denying the independence of Eritrea. The Chinese have subjugated and domineered East Turkestan, Mongolia, and Tibet for centuries. Does this mean that Tibetans, Mongolians and Turks have no right to self-determination without Chinese overlords? Eritreans are culturally and ethnically different people who as a whole want their own nation.Pro point 2,3,4: Eritrean government is not perfect.That's understandable. No country is perfect, and they are still developing. It is bad that they have human rights violations, but that has nothing to do with SOVEREIGNTY. If a country does not behave properly, it should be punished, but should not be revoked its right to exist.Even when the Nazis committed horrible atrocities against the world, the UN did not just let Germany get annexed by other countries, Germany still held its right to exist.Pro point 5: claimsMuch territory in the world is disputed. Ethiopia lost territory in a war, and wants it back. This is understandable. But the real question is, does Ethiopia have the right to claim that land?Eritrea has shown that it definitely does not want to be a part of Ethiopia (1)(2) According to international law, the referendum was overwhelming in favor of Eritrean independence, and the wishes of the people should be respected.Harms of Pro case:The Eritreans are tired of Ethiopian rule and will fight to preserve their own independence, as shown by the War of Eritrean Independence (3) and the Ethiopian-Eritrean War (4).Ethiopia clearly does not intend on ruling Eritrea kindly as evidenced by massacres against rebellious Eritreans during the war (5)If Eritrea is handed over the Ethiopia, it is very likely that a civil war will occur, where the Eritrean people will rise up and take arms to re-establish their own government.Benefits of Con case:Under self-rule, Ertireans can have their problems solved peacefully with cooperation from the UN and the international community. If change comes from within, it will be much more accepted. Peaceful resolution means the country can develop without fear of violence.I ask the judges to weigh:Con case: Status Quo, minor human rights violations that can be solved with the UN peacefully.Pro case: massive and bloody civil war tearing the region apart.Clearly the Con side provides more benefit and less harm.Sources:1)http://www.debate.org...2)http://www.dehai.org... 3)http://en.wikipedia.org...4)http://en.wikipedia.org... 5)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Eritrea should cede all of it's land to Ethiopia

I accept your challengeI will use round one to discuss definitions and the value critireon.I am assuming that this debate will be wieghed on net benefits. The side that produces the most good and the least harms wins the debate.Government - the political body that controls the function of the state"dispose of government immediatly" would mean all elected officials who are not neccessary for the day-to-day administration of the state immediatly resign from their positions.I will argue for the benefits of Eritrean independance, and show the harms of resigning an entire government.
Eritrea should cede all of it's land to Ethiopia

I am of the opinion that Eritrea should cede all of their lands to the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. After which, they should dispose of their government immediately. Rules: You can just accept round 1 or begin your arguments right away. Round 2 and 3 will be up to you. Round 4 will be a brief closing. If you want to keep debating into round 4, please notify me. I will be using google drive due to computer issues, and in return, you may use any tool to write your arguments with.
Jesus was not born on December 25.

"I'm a king in a land of abusesUndermined by the promise for excusesWhos to win if we know that its not fairwho would fight when it seems that no one caressometimes we need to WAKE UP!Let us loveLike we were ChildrenGive us timeTo beat the systemMake us feelLike were still LivingIn a world I know is burning to the ground."
Jesus was not born on December 25.

I once heard in a debate on abortion between christians a pro-lifer argue this "In the bible does it say 'and the angle of the lord came to them and said 'behold thou art with fetus!', no it does not it says 'thou art with child'. even the bible recognizes that while still in the womb its a child."So the question must be asked, when is your true 'birth date'? is it the day you finally got to breath air, or is it the day you are concieved?for purposes of this debate I will only refer to 'birth' in one of two forms. the 'carnal birth' and 'True birth'. Carnal Birth is the birth of combing out of the womb, and True birth is the day of your conception.and intrestingly enough while you could argue jesus carnal birth may have been some time during the fall, the day of his conception can almost be traced exactly to December 25th.http://www.keyway.ca...http://www.hebrew4christians.com...It was indeed on the 25th that the Holy Spirit decended upon Mary and blessed her to carry baby jesus inside and to let him start to grow in the body he would one day willingly sacrifice for all of us. It was on the 25th of december the three wisemen that believed in Zoroastrianism saw the signs in the stars that matched with prophoceys that there religions founder, Zoroaster, got from Daniel concerning Daniels messiah. So they started there jurney to Juresalem seeking him out, a journey that takes them 4 years to complete. http://www.messageland.org...Thus Jesus was clearly TRUELY born/concieved right about on December 25.
Future Energy Production Should Include Mostly Nuclear, with some Renewables and Storage Techniques

The main part of the argument, that nuclear is perfect, if only we used more fast breeder reactors, is bunk, because that is only experimental. I especially lke how you come back against my argument by sayng "no, there aren't only 3 fast breeders! There are so many more! There are TEN!" You also provide no sources at all that support your conclusions about renewables, and I think the burden of proof would be on you to show why lubricant is more detrimental to the environment than nuclear waste. So the source, for whatever reason, always gives a 404, which is odd, but if you look up 'falling price of renewable energy,' the top hit will be the guardian article I tried to link.
Future Energy Production Should Include Mostly Nuclear, with some Renewables and Storage Techniques

Protip: When you cite sources, indicate where in the text that info appeared. Like this(Ex.).Your point about how we deal with nuclear waste essentially means nothing, as none of those "solutions" actually solve the problem of "where do we put the nuclear waste?" It makes the waste a bit more useful on its way to toxic decay, but it still doesn't solve the issue. You also undermine your point about fast breeders by pointing out that only three reactors have ever been created. You also mention how a reactor meltdown a la Chernobyl is impossible, but don't explain why.Let me propose the truly ideal alternatives to dirty power: Tidal, wind, and solar power. There are literally no emissions across all three, and they provide backup for eachother. Tidal, which is essentially hydroelectric power, but harvesting tidal forces, never stops, but its lack of sufficient power will always be covered by solar power, wind turbines, and storages from all three. Renewable power is remarkably cheap(1), and solar power industries in the US are creating jobs at a fantastic rate(2). SOURCES:(Ex.) Like this (1) https://www.theguardian.com...;(2) http://fortune.com...
Future Energy Production Should Include Mostly Nuclear, with some Renewables and Storage Techniques

This video refers only to our current nuclear technology and I take Issue with it on many points. However, I would first like to point out that all forms of energy production produce waste. Although the toxicity may be a different level and coal is the only other which produces waste which is significantly radioactive, all other forms of energy production are worse in the following ways in respect to waste;- a) It is produced in greater quantities per unit of energy produced than nuclear waste b) It is less regulated and less controlled than nuclear waste c) The danger it poses towards humans remains about constant over time Now, I would also disagree with the way in which this video suggests we deal with nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is an opportunity, not just a hazard. Firstly, we should chemically separate out the useful byproducts that make up nuclear waste. Isotopes from waste can be used in the medical industry, food industry (killing bugs) and can be recycled into fast breeder reactors. Also, Plutonium from waste can be used as a fuel source in an RTG system. These steps are currently taken. I then suggest we develop methods of separating out the rare minerals in the waste, such as neodymium which can be used for powerful magnets. Doing so would reduce the price of many consumer and industrial machines which require high power or small magnets. Finally, once the fast breeder has ran its fuel cycle, we should run the waste from the fast breeders in a waste burner reactor. Only three reactor capable of this have ever been built and were not put into service for political reasons (in the USA, these were that waste was not seen as such as issue, these reactors did not produce weapons grade nuclear material and there was some resistance to change in the Nixon administration and reactor building companies, in the soviet union, lack of bomb material and Chernobyl were the issues, despite a Chernobyl scenario being impossible here). These types of reactors are currently under development again. As oppose to normal reactors, which add safety systems to prevent meltdowns and plant explosions on top of the basic design of the reactor, the new generation of reactors do not have the capability, even with no safety systems, of having this type of failure. http://www.world-nuclear.org... https://whatisnuclear.com... https://whatisnuclear.com...
Going to War

I understand: War is harmful. However, in certain instances, war is a necessary thing. When your way of life, your well-being, or your very existence is being threatened, you have two options: roll over and accept your fate, or fight to the last breath for what you believe. War is a gruesome, yet necessary part of existence on this Earth. If war is avoided at all costs, the entire world would be under Nazi rule. The only reason the Nazis did not win is because we fought for what we believe in.
Christianity is easier to believe than atheism

As I commented earlier: Belief, Like any other concept is created in the human brain. Belief and other ideas are thought constructs we produce in response to external stimuli. In simple terms, Gods were made up as an explanation for things that we didn't understand at the time. Whether or not one thought process is easier than another is difficult to say. Maybe a brain scan or an E. E. G might shed some light on this contention. But as we are all conditioned differently, Maybe our responses would be similarly variable. I would therefore suggest that the proposition as it is presented is somewhat untenable.