BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
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. Yes, the fetus is alive. Agreed. Fact 1-2 agreed. Fact 3, it's murder because as was stated above, a WOMAN decides what to do with her body, not anyone else. If the woman doesn't abort the fetus, it's murder.
Abortion

I will accept the con side of this debate. Abortion is the taking of an innocent life that is growing and maturing inside the body of another human being. If abortion is right, as pro has clearly stated, then what type of morality are we judging the set of guidelines on? I could argue that life begins at conception, but I'll leave that alone for now and just base my arguments on facts. Fact #1) Heartbeats are detected as early as 4 weeks. Fact #2) Brain activity begins as early as 8 weeks. Fact #3) When a crime such as murder is committed against a pregnant woman in the United States, the individual committing the crime will be charged with multiple murders, not one.
Abortion

"The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com....... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked" You aren't debunking anything. So you believe that ending someone's life and not giving them a chance at life is a better option? This is a disgusting ideal abortionists try to convince themselves and other of. "Let's not be burdened by the cost of a human being due to its inconvenience to others..." "Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked." Yes, sex is natural. What, exactly, does that have anything to do with aborting a child? "Sex is fun, so we should just allow anyone to engage in it and then terminate the human growing inside if we don't want to deal with the consequences of our actions." "No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence," Actually, I have, which is why I am pro life. "As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights." Abortion became legal in the United States in 1973. Was there overpopulation before this? No. This argument isn't even relevant. "Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds." No, pain is felt for a while as it bleeds out after being ripped apart limb from limb. And if the fetus is a bunch of cells, how does it feel pain at all? Pain indicates that it is a human life being painfully ended.
Abortion

The cost is not minimal. The average cost to raise a child is $245,340 http://www.huffingtonpost.com.... Multiply that by 1 million and well....Argument debunked "If a parent can't handle a child, maybe they shouldn't engage in sexual activity until they can. It isn't right, morally, to end an innocent life." This is a ridiculous statement. Sex is natural and has nothing to do with being able to raise a child. Evolution made sex feel really good so that we would produce. Practically everyone wants to have sex badly. It's a natural desire. Argument debunked. "I care about children, which is why I am pro life." No, you are only looking at your side of the picture, rather than considering EVERY piece of evidence, whereas I have weighed both the positives and the negatives of abortion and formulate my argument accordingly. I highly suggest you learn to think objectively. For example, like I stated, you haven't considered the cost of having tons of unwanted babies. This affects the babies already in an orphanage. You claim to care about children, yet you don't consider the wants and needs of the babies already in an orphanage looking for a home. As I stated, there are 100k orphans ALREADY. If we become antiabortion, this number will reach ridiculous heights. I mentioned it already but you ignored it so here it is again: how do you think this will affect the children already in the orphanage? Or do you not care about them? "A lot less traumatic than being ripped apart while still alive. But then again, you believe the child in the womb isn't even alive. It has been proven that a child in the womb CAN feel pain. http://www.mccl.org...... http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...; Actually, no. This is untrue. Pain MIGHT be felt for a couple of seconds. To claim this is MORE traumatic than a life time of knowing that you are unwanted is faulty reasoning. Evidence debunked.
Star Wars is better then Harry Potter

First I would like to start by saying that I'm taking the challenge of GiantPanda. And also that the side anyone is on is all opinion, but my goal is to change your opinion. SW is better than HP by first, less profanity in the films and books, more understandable twists and the stories don't leave you an unexpected love story for people who just watch the movies and miss the few love scenes. This is just an opening statement and I haven't got much time so this will all for now and I can't wait to see what GiantPanda gives me to argue about. GiantPanda, I prefer you wait for your big statements till the end to have a much bigger closing statement. And good luck! You'll need it.
Urinating and defecating in public should be allowed as long as you clean it up

Ok, and when I need to clean up my fathers pile of dead babies, I use a pitchfork. I do not think congress wants to use your work. I guess its rebuttal time. I don't know what rebuttals are, but I will still try to make them. Rebuttals- It is ok for people to die from diseases caused by the dropping left by people in public. Thin out the herd I say. The only way to keep out poop out of the environment is to destroy it, bury it, shoot it into space, or tell it to leave. For the wildlife that die off, that will not affect us that much. We will have more than enough plants to go around to make soylet. http://en.wikipedia.org...(drink)#Taste I read the article, checks out. I check out too. The freedom we will get will be worth all of the damage. A lot of jobs could be made for disinfecting areas. Imagine the riots!
Urinating and defecating in public should be allowed as long as you clean it up

You should go to may profile and cheek out my other debates. I think everyone should. First off, If you step on a spot on a concrete path with a shoe, death is not going to be 90% If you don't have a foot, that person might be homeless, they do not give to society and no one will care if they are gone. If they are not homeless, then there would be a law that says you need to wear shoes around pooping areas. Like smoking areas in parks, there can be pooping areas (with little blue baggies). Where shoe in public is a good idea anyway. Someone could be walking on a gravel road and pick up a worm that digs into their foot. I could source that type of worm that does that but naww Anything could happen to your feets when you walk barefoot. This Ebola could lower the population significantly. We have been saving the weak and fat from mother nature for years. Letting nature kill us off to control our stupidly overgrown population is not something that we do not allow. We have about 7 billion people on earth as of 2013. We need less humans on this planet. I recommend watching the movie Rampage. I noticed that you said very little about urinating. People have always pee-pee'ed outside for generations and it has not affected anything. People will still use toilets like they do today. Most people have septic tanks or septic systems in the US. What is the difference of feces hitting the ground and feces draining from a septic system? In conclusion, its ok if people die. :P Mmmwa!
Urinating and defecating in public should be allowed as long as you clean it up

Tell do this!! Everyone is different in their own way, but.....everyone poops. http://upload.wikimedia.org... I think that everyone should have the right to poop and pee-pee anywhere they want. Examples of places to poop could be on the sidewalk, in the street, very close to someone, in a bottle you found in the gutter, in the gutter, down someone's chimney, on a parked car hood, a homeless man's face. If you really wanted to be creative and have a blast, take a carbet and cover the whole area of the carpet with feces and roll it up, and take it onto a subway train, and then unroll it. Fast food chain restaurants or any other privately owned business owner would have to put up a sign that says no pooping or peeing here! Even if you tell then you will clean it up, they will most likely don't want you doing you business in their establishment. Home Depot has those toilets on display you know. Not everyone would poop or pee in public, only a handful of people would want to do that anyway. If i do not clean up my poop, i would be arrested. Just like in a dog park if i did not clean the poop. Some people will try to throw there poop on others, and that should be against the new law. So lets say that pooping and peeing in public is legal, now there are some people in the streets pooping, others on top of building taking aim at people below, and on interstate bridges taking aim at cars. Man walks into street, pulls his paints down and leaves a huge pile of poop in the street and takes off running. The police would have to take samples of the poop to find out who done it. Then after they id'ed him, they go arrest him. I could see this as a tv show. Poopers gone rogue, premieres saturday at 10. Man pees on plant outside in say new york city. He whips his dong out and is fully erect. A family walk by him. In that family there is a mother and a father, and a small 8 year old girl. She sees the man's large penis. The man sees that little girls reaction and turns to gives her a better look, then the father decks him in the face. The mother cries and holds the child. This is why it should be legal. Flashing is completely different. Lets see what you have to say.
We don't need legal rights, the government should do what they want

You say that the country's new leaders would be much worse, but do you know that that would be the case? There is the possibility that the new leaders could greatly improve our country. It many be that the only reason that they weren't in power before is that their extremist views were shot down by the more popular democratic parties. Even if we have a leader that primarily wishes to further their own power, there won't be much that they can do in a modern society. Monarchs of old relied on the feudal system to keep themselves in power, which is effectively an extinct form of government. Modern despots rely on their total control of the army to ensure their rule. This hypothetical dictator would require the support of the majority of the army, navy and air-force, along with the support of the police force if they want to remain in power after using their power for massive personal gain. That is simply not viable in modern Britain.
We don't need legal rights, the government should do what they want

However if we lose our rights we will then not have the right to vote in people to run this country. If this is the case we will end up with people running the country that haven't been voted in by the people. This means that, although we could get someone better than current in power we could as easily have someone in power how is much worse. Because of this we might end up with someone in power that cares more for themselves than 'their vision of our country' as the vision for someone like that would involve them being in power perpetually and using that power to their own gain
We don't need legal rights, the government should do what they want

You say that the individuals that run the country aren't trustworthy, however you forget that these people have been voted in by the population. If we had no legal rights, we would have no right to vote, so the people that were voted in would have no authority to rule our country. Whoever replaces those currently in power may in fact be better for our country than the democratically elected parties, as there would be no need for the government to placate their voters, which allows them to focus more on their vision of our country.
We don't need legal rights, the government should do what they want

Yes but even if they are knowledgeable individuals that doesn't mean they can be completely trusted. If they have complete power to do as they wish, eventuality they will start doing things for their own gain. Nothing will be able to stop those in power from doing as they wish with the country, and that will not only negatively affect the people of the country but also how other countries see the said country as a whole
If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to here it, does it make a sound? YES.

The very definition of sound is "Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz."[http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] If someone cant here it, it doesnt mean the sound waves dont travel through the air! They still travel, regardless of the surrounding humans.
I(Mikal) am a Christian

Since my opponent has not offered any rules, I'll propose some; my opponent can contest these if he likes but they should be acceptable:Definitions:*Christian - A person who adheres to Chrisitanity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. [1]Rules:1. Burden of proof is shared (Pro must prove he is a Christian, Con must prove Pro is not a Christian).2. Forfeiture from either side results in an instant win for their opponent, and all votes should be awarded accordingly. References:1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...
Dark Side of Amazon

I accepted this debate because i saw dark side and thought it had to do with star wars or pink floyid. but it some BS smeer campaign against amazon.You think the amazon partners are so clean and holy? Amazon partners are the same people that deal in drugs and sex slavery. The gaint amazon is a fence! Fences dont have to pay sh1t to their partners. and amazon gives them partners a contract. If they sign it and b1tch about monney then that's their fault not amazons. Con is propbaly some guy that believed he would become rich from trying to exploit amazon and got nothing. Now he tries to F*ck over amazon.Did you even pass the BAR bro?Also this motherf*cker plagerizied his argue. He should then be sentenced to hang from the neck till deadhttp://www.srmti.com... ! http://cdn.pichars.org...; />
Smoking should be outlawed

For the final round, Pro has elected not to add any new points, but to examine some that I have made and refute them. However, I have some conflicting opinions. "The government should be allowed to outlaw something if it harms the body. " I wish you had elaborated on this idea, because that in and of itself would make an interesting debate. As I explained in Round 1, I believe that the government has no business protecting people from themselves. Everyone has a right to make unhealthy decisions that will very likely harm them. It may not be smart to smoke two packs a day, but that is the choice you are free to make in a free, democratic, First World society. Now, you could argue that the government should protect us from ourselves, and many people do believe that. But since Pro failed to explain her logic behind the above, I see no reason to give any further justification for my viewpoint. ". .. my debate is that there should be strict laws against smoking. Notice that I made laws plural. "With this quote, Pro appears to have added an entirely new dimension to this debate. Never before has she mentioned that multiple laws should be passed. Only in this final round has she "made laws plural". Disappointingly, I was unable to hear what laws Pro had in mind, since she brought this up so late in the debate. Pro also tries to refute my environmental argument with a few hasty generalizations and no backing from sources of any kind. She appears to be hinting that cigarette butts ought to be treated as litter, which I agree with, but this has little to do with the argument of whether or not smoking should be legal. Therefore, it is irrelevant.
Smoking should be outlawed

You have made some fair points, con. I am fully aware that this is my fault for not clarifying, but please keep the last round of debate short. I just want to sum up each of the points you have made, and you can do the same for mine. Thank You. 1. Civil rights. The government should be allowed to outlaw something if it harms the body. Like you said, there is specific evidence that it does harm the body. 2. Exaggerated harmYou are correct that there is no legal backing, except my debate is that there should be strict laws against smoking. Notice that I made laws plural. As far as the environment goes, trash on the beach does hurt the environment. It collects in rivers, oceans, and dams, where fish eat it. Do you ever see a cop pull some on over for tossing a cigarette but out of the window? No, but they would if you toss you soda can.
Smoking should be outlawed

People everywhere are smoking, in public and non-public places.Smoking is terrible for your health. It also dangers the health of other people.Smoking can cause lung cancer, heart diseases and poor circulation. Your cat is twice as likely to get cancer if the owner smokes. Smoking is VERY bad for the environment. If people stopped smoking, 28 percent of sand litter would disappear. 600 million trees would be saved annually, and less pesticides would be in the air. If cociane is illegal, then why should smoking not be? Both a drugs that are harmful, only one is outlawed. http://therealcost.betobaccofree.hhs.gov... http://www.npr.org... http://www.familylives.org.uk... http://nationswell.com...
Is Donald Trump Racist Pro= yes con= No

Thanks for the debate. Framework: I have also watched many of Trump's rallies and debates. I have had heard him call the African-American 'The Blacks' and how 'lazy' they are only a few times. Trump is one of the most ignorant candidates in the presidential race. He wanted Muslim neighbor hoods to be on surveillance. He barely has any political experience and says the immigrants from other countries are the problem. The US was built by immigration. Our ancestors came from Europe to the Americas without any papers; They came here because they wanted to start anew. Most Illegal Immigrants don't do the paper work because it's too much. My dad, (who's from Venezuela) said that he had to go through a lot of paper work to earn his residency and visa; Most families avoid that. Illegal immigrants also pay their fair share of taxes like you and I. I know I went a little off topic what I said in the last couple of sentences is what Trump needs to know about. Definition/Meaning of ignorance: the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. Conclusion:All in all, I explained to my opponent that Trump has utilized the elements of bigotry and racism towards the many races of the world and toward the disability of people. Thank you for the great debate. Good luck in future debates and hope to debate you in the future.
Is Donald Trump Racist Pro= yes con= No

Also In regards to "the blacks" ive watched over 10 Trump campaign speeches and not once have I heard him say "The Black" He goes, "We're winning with whites, blacks" And how is it racist or Racial profiling to say Blacks because people are always calling me white I never get annoyed. I have to take a final and I had to check my race as white/ Caucasian while Blacks were as well Black/ African American. I too go to school with many black people, whom they didnt grow up in great areas and so didnt I myself, almost every night growing up I heard gun shots so saying that "ghetto" was no violence was a complete an utter lie my house was also broken in too, and have seen things many people dont want to see. Also I want to point out a video where Donald Trump has a Hispanic (Mexican Hispanic) where he had a shirt that said "Legal for Trump" And where he said he said he doesnt want his people (Mexican Hispanics) to come in ILLEGALLY and yet the media fails to show it. I know that was off topic but people say he hates Mexicans but he actually said ILLEGALS, which really pisses me off frankly. Also saying "japs" isnt racist or mean at all I talk to all my Jap friends they dont mind it, its a short term name for Japanese just like Caucasion is to white and African American is to Black its all just just a way to say it short term. Thank you for taking part in the debate and may the voters choose who was better. :) 1) Youtube 2) my childhood 3) OANN
Is Donald Trump Racist Pro= yes con= No

Framework: The Only Reason why those people who criticized Trump now is because they don't want a racist bigot to become the U.S. President. Trump has made fun of a disabled reporter, criticizes women, and mentions the African-American community as 'The Blacks' and he also says that 'The Blacks" (African-American) Community are the laziest people out there. Due to personal experience, I do work with black friends and they are the most hard working people I've ever seen. I used to work in the 'Ghetto' and not once have I ever got something taken from me and I worked with criminals who just got out of jail/prison; until I moved to the Rural areas outside the city into a white community, I'd always have things being stolen. Trump has also made racial remarks towards the Japanese people. He mentions them as 'The Japs'. The article says:"Speaking to Time magazine for a profile published in January 1989, Trump was asked to give an estimate of his total wealth. “Who the f knows? I mean, really, who knows how much the Japs will pay for Manhattan property these days?” he asked in response, using a racial slur for the Japanese."Source: http://www.politico.eu...