BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament in America

Besides the fact that I still like my other arguments I would like to highlight my second and third point here. I think they explain why we neither need nuclear weapons to show other countries that we "wont take any crap" and that trying to use them for that is completely wrong. Lets say that after 9/11, the Taliban stood up and said, "We helped these people attack you and we are still hiding them in our country." Would that justify dropping a nuclear weapon on Kabul? What about the Tora Bora region? In either case we would kill thousands if not millions of people who had nothing to do with the attacks or the Taliban government. On top of that we probably would not have killed Osama Bin Laden. All we would have done was give a generation of people birth defects as further reason to hate the US. So now, lets us a different country, maybe China. Say on New Years Eve a nuclear weapon explodes in New York and China says that they gave the technology to terrorists or that they themselves detonated the bomb. Now, which response shows more resolve, not to mention the moral high ground. We could first, responding in kind and blowing up Beijing with a nuclear bomb. Or we could mount a systematic attack with F-22's and B-2's to cripple their outer air defenses with GPS guided conventional bombs. Then continually destroying military targets all throughout the country until some kind of internal change occurred in China. I think saying that we need to use nuclear weapons to intimidate people is to seriously underestimate the capabilities of our military.
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament in America

The US government is now starting a process to overhaul its nuclear arsenal for the price of many many billions of dollars. Many feel that this is required because many of our warheads will soon become useless. I say let them be come useless. Actually lets take it farther and start getting rid of even more of them. It is my belief that the US should unilaterally reduce our nuclear arsenal to a given point, say where we can only destroy the world once or something, probably a few hundred nuclear weapons. Then approach the rest of the world with a plan to get rid of the rest if they sign on. The reasons that I believe this are many and will be laid out below. 1) Cost: The current plan to replace warheads will cost about 100 billion dollars. This is on top of the cost of current upkeep, personnel, and any number of other items. At a time when military spending is at an all time high, one more way to cut costs can only be good. 2) No remaining threat: Iran, North Korea and any other country around the world is not dissuaded from creating or using nuclear weapons by our arsenal. Even if they did attack us with nuclear weapons, we would not respond in kind. We would us conventional weapons to pound them back to the stone age. Countries such as Russia and China are different but still dont pose the same threat that they used to. The idea of mutually assured destruction will remain in place whether we have nuclear weapons are not. If the US was turned into a radioactive wasteland, the toll on the world economy would be enormous. Even seemingly dictatorial wannabes such as Putin understand this. Many world leaders who have come to power since the end of the cold was have risen in popularity by working to tie their countries into the world economy. Those efforts protect us in the future. 3) Immorality: There was once a time where massive carpet bombing raids were a fact of war. The only way that the Allies could assure the destruction of a factory during WWII was to level an entire section of a city. This is no longer the case. Since the framework in which wars take place has changed, so has the morality of those types of actions. Even "tactical" nuclear weapons are destructive beyond what we can imagine. They also create the same type of long term, indiscriminate suffering that lead us to ban chemical and biological weapons. 4) Why chance it: These weapons are so destructive that even one falling into the wrong hands is almost unimaginable. I know it hasn't happened yet, but why not get rid of the ones we have so that there cannot be an accident. 5) World Leadership: Why is it so easy for Iran to ignore the US when we tell them not to produce nuclear weapons? Well, I think one reason is that we are the only nation to have dropped nuclear weapons on someone else. I also think that we lose credibility by saying that we can have them but they can't. If we stood up and told the world that these weapons are horrible, in fact they are so horrible that we are getting rid of them, the world might just listen. Well, thats my start. I look forward to hearing from someone who feels differently.
Abortion should be consensual

In 1973, the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade stated that gave a woman the right to choose to have an abortion. Nothing in the case says anything about the women's partner, but rather that it was the women's private decision, protected by the 14th Amendment. The right to an abortion, thus, belongs to the woman only, the one who has to bear the pregancy. It is her body, and under the 14th Amendment, only she can decide what she wants to do with it. She should not be denied an abortion because the partner does not consent to one.Only a woman can make the decision of what to do with her own body. When abortion is legal, a fetus can not viable, meaning it cannot survive without the mother's support, and in that case the fetus is not its own entity, meaning that it is a part of the woman's body. It is not moral or Constitutional for a man to have any say in what should happen to her. The fetus (when abortion is legal) is not a child, which has two legal guardians, but instead a part of her body. And a body only has one legal guardian, and that is whoever owns that body.Another point I will make is how custody laws work in the U.S. Now, I have just said that the fetus is not a child, but if you truly believe it to be one, then abortion should still not be consensual. Child custody is typically granted to the parent that is deemed to have the best relationship with the child as well as having the best jurisdiction to decide what is right for the child. A man has no relationship with a fetus inside a womb other than the fact that it is his biologically his. He may feel a slight emotional connection to it, but it is nothing compared to the connection a woman has with the developing child. She lives with it inside her. She must change her behavior significantly to favor the fetus. Clearly a pregnant woman has closer ties with it than the man. Furthermore, how can the man decide what is right for the child when he does not feel it or live with it? The pregnant woman would obviously understand the fetus better than the man.So then, under typical child custody laws, the woman would be granted sole custody and thus would make all decisions regarding it, including an abortion.The young fetus is not viable. It is not its own entity. It is a part of the woman, and under law (and basic privacy rights) the woman only would make the decision on an abortion.If you consider the fetus a child (which it is not), then the woman would still make all decisions for it because she would have custody over it.https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Abortion should be consensual

I'm proposing that in the case of unplanned pregnancy it should be that both the man, and the woman involved are required to give consent before an abortion, assuming the woman is not at unusual risk of bodily harm and that everything including the decision to abort need be consensual, by moral obligation with legal backing. Legally, Mom and Dad both need to sign the papers, unless Mom has something extraordinary circumstance that significantly increases her risk during pregnancy and its affects, in which case it should be her choice alone. This is not a Choice vs Life debate. You must maintain a Pro-Choice view to argue how the choice should (not) be carried out. As said before, everything is consensual in these circumstances up to the point we are debating, so there is nothing like rape, or assault involved for simplification. As we may be entering the realm of what if's I will ask that we keep any that come within reason. Obviously there are large amounts of practical and legal aspects that would need to be addressed to make the law theoretically just and uncontradictory. I will do my best to address what comes. First round: Acceptance. Second round: Define the basis of your stance. Third: Rebuttal Fourth: Final elaboration and closing
Prostitution should be Legal

But Sex is a terrible thing to do constantly, there are many other things that are much better for you and think of it this way. In America anything that can make money is swallowed up by the fascist CEOs and then advertisements appear by legalizing prostitution ads would begin to appear everywhere. First of all prostitutes should not be doing this anyway so we do not need to protect them at all. People who consent to an act made to be a very private and gentle thing has been exposed for profit, this is disgusting and prostitutes as well as porn should be banned deleted and erased from our society to make things a better place so more people can focus on science, math and having fun... NOT THE DISTURBING version of fun. You have clearly lost the debate sorry son ! :)
Prostitution should be Legal

As you seem to have ignored all of my previous arguments in favor of making yours which have no correlation of what I have said, I will assume you accept all of them. If this is true, I am not sure why there is sill a debate, but I will still go over your arguments. I am not clear what your point is with the education of prostitutes or the relative intelligence thereof, but if it is in fact what it appears to be, then I really have no response to that. It appears to be "Prostitutes are dumb, therefore prostitution should be illegal." You might as well say, "prostitutes are dumb, therefore we do not need to protect them from potential abusers as we do our smarter citizens." Is this not an accurate summary of your point? Enlighten me if it is not. Most prostitutes have boob enlargements? Evidence, please. Also, though I don't know if they have studies for questions so logically obvious (i.e. do poor people have expensive surgeries?) but I'd willing to bet the answer is a well and resounding no. Even so, the logic behind the idea that prostitutes have breast enlargement surgeries, therefore prostitution should be illegal is murky at best. "By legalizing Prostitution, eventually kids would be seeing phonographic images in advertisements and our population would grow to large as people would be reproducing without knowing what they are doing and committing to, the government will then have to pay those people under the assisted living and child raising program creating even more debt." This is a very long cause and effect sentence. Unfortunately, most of the "causes " have no correlation with the "effects." Legalizing prostitution has no correlation with seeing pornographic images in advertising (seeing as the prostitutes would be in a special district, and there would be no pimp). Next, our population would not grow large as, by law, condoms would be worn. So therefore, the whole assisted living idea and the increasing debt idea are both eradicated.
Prostitution should be Legal

Most prostitutes have boob enlargements and as they are willing to add artificial parts to themselves to attract attention most prostitutes are also idiots, they are not smart and because they either took drugs or only cared about dating as a kid they have no or little education. By legalizing Prostitution, eventually kids would be seeing phonographic images in advertisements and our population would grow to large as people would be reproducing without knowing what they are doing and committing to, the government will then have to pay those people under the assisted living and child raising program creating even more debt.
Prostitution should be Legal

First off all the fact that there is massive safety measures in your area does not matter because it is not the same in all areas. Prostitution is immoral as the point is artificially modifying ones body so that you can get free sex and money without giving any real effort. This creates lazy. And weak minded people who cannot truly work for their living. As sex used to be a private personal thing companies and lazy people are taking advantage of this to earn money as this is what prostitution is i have proven my points valid.
Prostitution should be Legal

This section of the argument will just be used to define some key terms. My opponent only need say that he/she accepts in his part of round 1. Round 2 will be where the actual debating begins. prostitution-the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment. moral-concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character immoral-not conforming to accepted standards of morality legal-permitted by law I eagerly await a response.
Abolishing tariffs, the minimum wage, and public education would help poor people.

Thank you daxtarian for starting this debate, Those were some pretty extreme ideas about what should happen to the U.S. But I completely Disagree about what the outcome would be. First off, Getting rid of public schools would not help poor people, or most of the middle, or upper middle class, Public schools are called that for a reason, anybody can go, and if you take them away There isn't a way for the people who can't afford a private school to go to and who do you think will get pushed way down the acceptance list would be? That's right, the people who need financial assistance, aka the poor people. As for the part about giving the money to the people, how do we decide who gets it? And how much? Not to mention how do we know it's being spent on what would truly benefit their lives? Or does it not matter if government handouts are being spent on cigarettes and drugs? I'm not saying that it all would be spent on those things, but I'm guessing a good portion would be. Also According to 2007's budget almost 373 Billion dollars was spent on public education last year, do you really think the government is really going to hand out that kind of money? I didn't think so and an education, forced or not, is better than no education. As for minimum wage allowing employers to pay people less, that's completely ridiculous, The minimum wage may pool a large group of people in one place, but it stops them from paying them less. Employers will always want to make the largest profit margin, and DUH people are going to pay a brain surgeon more than a factory worker, they do a much more talented, and risky job, he deserves more money he can do something that most people can't and the rarer a profession is, the higher the pay, also known as supply and demand, or capitalism, whichever you like better they all fit. If you didn't have a minimum wage not only would employers discriminate against the "Un skilled" but they would do it in addition to paying them less. And the tariffs not only need to stay in place, they need to be applied to ALL business, and increased, The only thing keeping the few factories here is the cost of overseas shipping on heavy items (like cars) and the tariffs that force importers to charge more, they have found a way to get around that though, on less expensive items, (Shoes, toys, games, movies, etc. They pay them $.25 cents an hour to make up for the cost of importing the items, so that might raise the minimum wage…….. Oh wait but that would be In China, and it would destroy the rest of the factories in America, lowering the now non regulated minimum wage, and thus making it harder or impossible for them to pay their way through private school because they need the money they got from the government (that they probably wouldn't get) to support the already low quality of life that they are used to, and dooming future generations, is that what you wanted? So I would have to say that I agree with you….. To get rid of bad government policies, don't add them. (Ok so I came up with that, same concept)
Abolishing tariffs, the minimum wage, and public education would help poor people.

Abolishing these three policies would do the most to help poor people. Poor people can't get an education or useful skills because they are forced to go to public schools. There is no correlation between funding and school performance. There is one between choice and performance. We would be better off getting rid of the schools and hand the money over to the families and let them decide how to best improve their lives. Not only can poor people not get any skills, but they can't get jobs because the minimum wage encourages employers to discriminate against people with no skills. Whenever you set a price floor, you create excess supply, which in this case is labor, so employers have more applicants and therefore will forgoing the people with the least skills who most desperately need the job. No only can they not work, but the cost of goods and services is increased because politically connected industries get tariffs erected at the cost of everyone else. If we unilaterally got rid of all trade barriers, more trade would create more demand for American work, and that would make real gains in living standards and wages. The answer is to get rid of bad government polices, no to add to them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
God probably does exist

I thank Sandy for being able to enter their argument. I look forward to trying to think past it.Rebuttal:According to Con's source, the 7 planets are the right distance from their suns. But for there to be life, they need atmosphere so the life doesn't die from harmful radiation from the sun. Water is also a big requirement, and none of these planets have been shown to contain water.Like my source said, a 1/10^282 chance of life on Earth. The chance of finding a shiny pokemon in Gen 7 is 1/4096, way more common of a chance than finding life on another planet. I'm not referring to a planet that might have life, but a planet that does have life.Argument:The Ontological argument has been dropped (ignored) by Con. If God is able to exist in some possible world, he's able to exist in all worlds, since he's that powerful.My Fine Tuning argument still stands. The chances are incredibly slim for life. God must've had some divine intervention to make us.
God probably does exist

Scientists have discovered habitable planets around our solar system. Among these possibly life-holding planets are Kelper 442b, Kapetyn b, Gleise 832 c, and many more. This means that Earth isn't the only perfect planet, so it is possible that "God" didn't design Earth any more specially than these planets. All of these planets have traces of water and/or moisture, bearable climates, and are likely able to sustain life. So, is it possible that habitual plants form naturally, and the Big Bang theory is possibly true? I believe so, because there are multiple habitual planets, and these are only the ones that have been discovered by scientists. Astronomers can only study planets within a certain range, so it is likely that there are planets that can sustain life or even possibly inhabited planets in other galaxies or that are too far to be discovered with our modern technology. If there are other inhabited or habitable planets, then its possible that Earth was formed by a natural process (The Big Bang) and not by a higher power. (God) http://www.npr.org...
God probably does exist

Thank you Sandy for joining this debate. Here are some arguments that show God exists.Fine Tuning argument:Think about it; how likely are we to be alive? We're the perfect distance away from a star that gives us heat and energy (the sun), and we happen to have water, and more than enough animals and plants to eat. And our atmosphere protects us from harmful UV rays and the like coming from the sun. God must've fine tuned everything and set up Earth and the sun in such a way that we're able to survive. So far, we haven't found any other planets able to sustain life, let alone any planets with life. So how lucky must we be to be here?According to this site [http://www.reasons.org...], someone calculated the probability of Earth sustaining life, which is 1/10^282. Now that is incredibly thin. I'll be finding 5 shiny pokemon before NASA finds life on any other planet, probably!Ontlogical Argument: P1) It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.P2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.C1) Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.C2) Therefore, a maximally great being exists.C3) Therefore, God exists. This argument flows quite well. If God can exist in some possible world, he must be able to exist in all possible worlds, since he must have maximum power, therefore able to exist in all possible worlds. Ergo, he must exist within this universe.I'm out of arguments for now. I look forward to Sandy's arguments that show God doesn't exist.
Presence of a universal truth

To answer your questions: "Your definition says "a statement", implying one. I would like to know the statement that you plan on asserting. " I am not necessarily planning on ascertaining any particular statement, but instead, my objective is to prove that a universal truth does indeed exist. However, for the sake of debate, if you request that we use a particular statement as a guide throughout debate, I will offer a few suggestions, as shown below: Trees exist in Minnesota. Obama would be a better president than McCain. 2+2=4. The above examples of universal truths, again by definition, are certain to exist as either true or false (but not both) on a universal basis (including everyone). Remember, I am not arguing whether or not a particular statement is true or false. Instead, I am arguing that a universal truth does indeed exist. "On your definition of "truth", who exactly is ascertaining if something is true or false? " No one must necessarily ascertain a universal truth. The point is, it CAN be ascertained. Instead, a universal truth is just naturally there. It is possible that one group of people would think that trees DO exist in Minnesota, and for another group to think that trees DO NOT exist in Minnesota. However, regardless of how the people think, trees, nonetheless, either DO or DO NOT exist in Minnesota. Therefore, one of those groups of people is wrong, and one is right, logically. A universal truth, I am arguing, is in fact ascertained when people logically deduce that a particular statement is either true or false. Until then, the status of that statement as true or false is unknown, but nonetheless, still exists as a universal truth (i. e. definitely either true or false, but still unknown until deduced). "If there is one, what is the significance of the word "presence" in the resolution? " I am arguing that a universal truth does exist, and therefore is, naturally, present. I think that you, as being the con in the debate, are arguing the contrary. If you have any further questioning before actual argumentation begins, if you prefer, it would be acceptable with me for you to use the comment box, in which I can answer such questions.
Presence of a universal truth

I need to ask my opponent a few questions before I form my specific arguments, just so I don't waste space and time thinking about things that my opponent doesn't really mean. - Your definition says "a statement", implying one. I would like to know the statement that you plan on asserting. - On your definition of "truth", who exactly is ascertaining if something is true or false? - If there is one, what is the significance of the word "presence" in the resolution? I apologize if anyone expected something different this round.