BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is morally wrong.

Okay, so let's consider a few points first, then I'll refute my opponent's arguments.First scenario: You and your boyfriend get a little frisky. He says that it doesn't matter whether or not he wears a condom, you're too drunk to care. A week later, you figure out that you're pregnant. Your boyfriend bails on you, refuses to give you any support and gets out of town. You don't have a job, or (at best) a part-time job that pays minimum wage. Definetely not enough to raise a child. Your parents won't let you give up the baby for adoption, and the baby will have a much worse life if you let it live. So why not spare the child a miserable life and abort the baby? How would you like to have been in the babies shoes, living a miserable life with a mother who can't provide for you?Second scenario: This time, you and your husband are perfectly happy, and have a stable income in a stable home and a stable life. You decide with your husband that it's time to have a baby and you get pregnant with him. Everything is fine and dandy, until after a scheduled sonogram your doctor announces to you and your husband that your child has a horrible disease that there is no known cure for. This disease will cause them massive amounts of suffering and pain to your child. Giving them up for adoption won't cause the pain to end. Why would you force your child to endure this pain and suffering just so you don't have a guilty conscious? If you cared for your child, wouldn't you want them to not have this kind of suffering?Now, to adress my opponent's arguments line by line."I believe that killing innocent unborn children is wrong even if you say they are not human yet"1. Just because you believe it to be true, it doesn't make it true. I could believe that pink, fire-breathing unicorns that eat nails and poop diamonds exist, but it doesn't make it true.2. At what point do we consider a mass of cells to be a human being? If any ol' mass of cells that have human DNA are considered a human being, is it immoral to kill ANY mass of human cells? Would this mean that it would be immoral to scratch our noses or cut our hair, because doing so would be killing masses of human cells. They were created as a result of sperm fertilizing the egg, so under your line of logic, it would be immoral to scratch our noses and get hair cuts. Does that even make sense? Nope. I do hope you reconsider your position.
The United States Must actively work towards diplomatic relations with Russia.

ok, back to the oil You said and i quote: "Looking Towards Ros Buissness Consulting, RUssian gas production is expected to rise 25.3% through 2020" Shell oil Company is currently placing facility's in and around these shale fields. (Fox) (am i the only one who thinks that is ironic?). You cant simply say this is a bad idea because of our environment. Here is how they currently extract the oil. They put super heated rods in the ground, which liquidizes the rock and then they pump out the oil. To date it is the most environmentally safe way to pump oil. When you say Russia's gas production is expected to rise 25.3%, it doesn't make sense to go with that when we have it under our feet, and when we can pump it right now. You also said oil corrupts nations.. maybe a nation that is housing terror cells and is not demonstrating a free market. Face it, Russia is a nation that is once again failing. Making allies with this nation would simply be hazardous to our Economy, Military, and would defeat the purpose of being in the middle east. Our top officials stated near a month ago that Russia is funding weapons production in Iran. Our officials then stated that Iran was funding insurgents in Iraq. Therefor wouldn't helping Russia's economy hurt our troops? Thanks for reading my argument And thanks for your debate WarMonger (which is also ironic that warmonger wouldn't want war...)
The United States Must actively work towards diplomatic relations with Russia.

Buid a defence? a missile defence system is superflous considering the thousands of nuclear weapons in russia's possesion. -Nytimes of just today russia invaded Georgia, showing how it is asserting its influence in the region,and moreso, another reason why we need to accomodate our foeriegn policy in europe to include russia as a viable ally and reduce residual cold war tensions. - ok so your right about oil but if you look towards foreign affairs(the journal that published the strategy to winning the cold war in 1947), they state "Summary: The world has grown much more peaceful over the past 15 years -- except for oil-rich countries. Oil wealth often wreaks havoc on a country's economy and politics, helps fund insurgents, and aggravates ethnic grievances. And with oil ever more in demand, the problems it spawns are likely to spread further." In their May/June 2008 issue ^- That demonstrates that despite our vast oil, we would not take the chance of it wreaking havoc on our enviroment and infrastructure, and while we should move towards alternative fuels, We must have oil in the meantime and we can only receive ful from russia by increasing/reforming diplomatic ties in Russia
The United States Must actively work towards diplomatic relations with Russia.

I negate all of my opponents oil talk with the following: We do not need foreign oil! Russia's oil has nothing to do with thsi debate. the truth is that we have more oil than russia, and ti is currently under our feet. Our newest discovery on how to use Oil Shale has allowed us to take a new stand on oil. While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Green River Formation would last for more than 400 years. WASHINGTON — The United States has an oil reserve at least three times that of Saudi Arabia locked in oil-shale deposits beneath federal land in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, according to a study released yesterday. Oil is no reason to make a treaty with russia. My opponent seems to argue that the Russians building an army is a reason to not build defence... where is the logic??
The United States Must actively work towards diplomatic relations with Russia.

First of, my opponent didn't cite any sources, therefor i must simply assume that what he is saying is the truth. My opponent said this: 1.a. Russia's Transformation into a growing economic power now threatens the effectiveness of traditional Post Cold war Policies. My Response: 1.a. Russia Economy is nether strong nor weak, but i can assure you it isn't growing. But i can assure you it will fail soon. I'm a firm believer in the statement - those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Russia until recently was working towards capitalism, Vladimir Putin undermined the efforts of the nation. Every communist nation has fallen or is getting ready to fall. Therefor i can conclude that Russia's economy is in a horrid condition and it isn't getting better. My opponent then stated: b. Russia's large natural gas reserves and wealth of oil would serve the U.S greatly in this time of rising fuel prices My Response: b. The goal no matter what party you are a part of in the USA is to reduce dependably on foreign oil. Plus the fact that the oil in Russia is under ice in which they have yet to obtain the technology that is required to get to it. My Opponents next argument served as a message of no sense: 2.a. Russia's growing Regional influence is another reason why the U.S must advance it policy to ensure a lack of Hostilities My Response: Russia's influences are deteriorating, they have made a near enemy out of the closest Economy as well as military support that they had (Ukraine). To further the ignorance my opponent says: b. We must Move away from Missile defense systems in Europe to avoid further aggravation. My Response is simple: A missile defense system is for DEFENSE, therefor it would only aggravate someone with bad intentions. Then my opponent says: c. There have been recent encounters of Russian Long Range Bombers entering U.S airspace My response: If this is the case I'm sure we would of all heard about it on fox news by now, cite your source.
The United States Must actively work towards diplomatic relations with Russia.

I would like to wish my Opponent the best of luck(Considering you will need it) ---------------------------------------- The United States must actively pursue a new and more effective foreign policy towards the Russian Federation. 1.a. Russia's Transformation into a growing economic power now threatens the effectiveness of traditional Post Cold war Policies. b. Russia's large natural gas reserves and wealth of oil would serve the U.S greatly in this time of rising fuel prices 2.a. Russia's growing Regional influence is another reason why the U.S must advance it policy to ensure a lack of Hostilities b. We must Move away from Missile defense systems in Europe to avoid further aggravation. c. There have been recent encounters of Russian Long Range Bombers entering U.S airspace For The Aforementioned reasons and many more we must make a drastic shift in Foreign Policy towards Russia.
The minimum wage should be 10$ an hour and adjust to inflation.

Cost vs. Benefit AnalysisWhen minimum wage is raised, employers receive no extra benefit. The employees still have the same level of productivity, so the employers are still receiving the exact same benefit for each employee as they were before. However, the marginal cost is increased. Since the business will have to pay more for the same level of productivity from each employee, the employer has no reason to hire more people. In fact, the employer has every reason to lay off workers, because when the marginal cost is higher than the marginal benefit, the business is suffering a loss. If a business is suffering a loss, it becomes necessary for the business to remove that by removing the deadweight, or the extra employees. This leads to the next point. Higher Minimum Wage = Higher UnemploymentFor the cost benefit reasons stated above, when the minimum wage is raised, unemployment is also raised. However, this doesn't just effect those who are currently making the minimum wage. It would effectively work as a new standard, which would mean that other wages would also have to increase, as other jobs require higher levels of skill (1). This means that the "Cost vs. Benefit Analysis" written above would apply to all workers, not just those earning minimum wage. Since the costs would outweigh the benefits, the firms would have to fire more and more workers. Higher unemployment is not desirable, as America already has an unemployment rate of 7.5% (2). No BenefitRaising the minimum wage does not significantly effect poverty. In fact, most minimum wage workers are young, part time, and live in families with an average income well over the poverty line. All the minimum wage hike would do would be to raise the pay of the teenagers (while simultaneously lowering the amount of teenage work opportunities); it would not reduce poverty. In fact, just 4% of all minimum wage workers are single parents, and minimum wage earners only make up 5.6% of all American workers. This is such a small, insignificant number that raising the minimum wage would have little to no effect on poverty levels. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would like to remind readers that my opponent is Pro, and is arguing the affirmative claim, so he has burden of proof. My opponent still has not offered any evidence or proof for his claims. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: 1. . http://www.npr.org...;2. . http://data.bls.gov...;3. . http://www.heritage.org...;
Catholic Priests should be allowed to get married.

I think in a perfect world, yes they should. However taking on the role of a priest is NOT to have SEX. I agree that they have something really wrong with the old school priests. I'm willing to say it is still going down as we speak. I feel they should weed through each one of them and start over. Hopefully with this new group they will have corrected whatever screwy desires they had. Thanks and bear with me, I'm learning at 44 yrs how to debate..it has been yrs. Peace, Ruth
Abortion should be illegal

Some consider abortion to be murder since the being inside the mother is living. The definition of something living includes the ability to grow, which is exactly what is going on inside a woman who is pregnant. Adoption is always brought up when people talk about aborting an unwanted child. The idea of aborting a child who would make a welcome addition to another family's household is expressed by many pro-life individuals. A child doesn't have a choice. If you got pregnant it's your fault and should be responisible to raise a child.
Insects can be our next primary food in the future .

"While I would love to prove to you that Insects can be our next primary food in the future.." Walk The Talk,Sir! Insects cannot be promising as our future foods (even U.N. campaigned for this). For example, crickets often trumpeted as our future foods. But the fact is not, according to a new study published in the journal PLOS ONE. When researchers raised crickets on several different diets and tried to see how much protein they could squeeze out of them, they got some disappointing results: just not a whole lot of protein. In the experiment, researchers raised crickets on one of five different diets. They replicated each diet three time and harvested the crickets after two weeks. One group ate corn-, soy- and grain-based feed, while others survived on food waste or crop residue. The researchers measured how big the crickets grew and how much edible protein they produced. Diet made a huge difference, the study authors found. Those that ate a diet of processed food waste had a feed and protein conversion rates no more efficient than that of chickens. Nearly all those fed straight food waste died before they could be harvested. And the most successful crickets were those that ate a grain-based diet similar to what most poultry eat. They had a 35% protein conversion rate, which is only slightly better than chickens. We have Algae also as an alternative future foods. Scientists at Sheffield Hallam University used seaweed granules to replace salt in bread and processed foods. The granules provide a strong flavour but were low in salt, which is blamed for high blood pressure, strokes and early deaths. They believe the granules could be used to replace salt in supermarket ready meals, sausages and even cheese. Beside that, Lab-Grown Meat can be also our primary option. The scientist proved that growing meat in a lab rather than slaughtering animals would significantly reduce greenhouse gases, along with energy and water use. Production also requires a fraction of the land needed to raise cattle. In addition it could be customised to cut the fat content and add nutrients. Sources: http://time.com... http://www.bbc.com... -benshine7-
Insects can be our next primary food in the future .

Any ideas please? Seems you are the 'fool' one because you'd claimed that you are pro but you didn't give your pro-argument on this debate. Please be grow up to show your maturity. Give a smart argument as a pro. Show me why you are disagree that "Insects can be our next primary food in the future". I'm waiting for your "smart" argument. Thank you. -benshine7-
Technology to give all a vote

"I had a dream where I have seen a future in which we use the technology already available to us, enabling humans to have a direct voice in how governments operate." Pro The technology is already present, its called the internet. Con will contend against the resolution on the grounds that not everyone should have a vote. Babies, mentally handicapped, and comatose patients should not get a vote. Next, a lot of the legal language is incredibly complex and even if the common folk could understand, many would opt not to understand and vote anyways. This is just Con's opening statements. Con will make a full argument next round. Note the resolution could be more clear.
Technology to give all a vote

I had a dream where I have seen a future in which we use the technology already available to us, enabling humans to have a direct voice in how governments operate. When we lived in small tribes the people could stand up for their needs and they would be heard. I believe what the ancient Greeks did was to solve a problem that there where to many people and they had to design a system of democracy as we know today. Voices travel through regional systems and voting happens only to choose the new leader. But i think people should vote on more than they leaders. Their leaders should provide the best possible course of action and the people then vote for or against it. Technology allows us to do this. This must be a better form of governance than what we have now because a government should not have the power to make choices without understandingredients what the people want.
Evolution vs Creationism

However, the time it takes to fossilize is highly variable, depending on pressure and other forces, so it would make sense that the decay rates could be "jump started" by quick fossilization or other forces." From my first link: "While it is true that there can be great variability on the rate at which amino acids undergo racemization, the changes in humidity, temperature, and acidity required to make the oldest known samples conform to a young earth (under 6000 years) view are completely unreasonable. Such conditions would destroy all traces of the amino acids rather than just leave a racemic mixture of the molecules behind." "Could not have gravity changed their direction prior to human realization?" As far as we know, gravity can't change sporadically, so from current evidence, we can say that they've probably been moving for 80 million years. Also, using current speeds, we can backtrack the asteroids to when they've collided. "If scientists were wrong once, why could they not be wrong twice, three times?" This is a great example of the continuum fallacy. This is remarkably similar to Example #1 in the link below. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... "And, remember, this is only a theory." http://en.wikipedia.org... "I believe that the cause was the release of many geysers under the land, that all erupted and forced the land out in different directions. That is one part of the true story of Noah's Ark." The true story of Noah's Ark? Well, take a look at this picture: http://www.skepticblog.org... The Titanic had more room, less people and food to weigh the ship down, and sturdier materials, but it sunk. It would be practically impossible for the Ark to keep up so many animals on one little wooden boat. "Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. (From aig)" Actually, most secular astronomers believe in the Big Bang. "This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. (From aig)" For the Big Bang, there is evidence. http://www.universetoday.com... Okay, I'm not going to quote the next paragraph, because it's basically one sentence with a lot of glamour: The speed of light was slower in the past. Well, triangulation shows that if the speed of light was slower in the past, you get an older universe! Next one says that the Bible uses cosmic local time. Local time was made because in different parts of the earth, the sun was in different positions. It turns out that we use cosmic local time too! We see what we observe, so we are on local time. And, with local time, we have figured out the age of the earth, and that local time is the same as universal time. Next one says that because God is supernatural, he made it with the stars somehow appearing further from the earth than they are. This is a clear example of unfalsifiability. So, invalid argument. Final one says that if points A and B in the big bang were of differing temperatures, then they couldn't have swapped heat to equalize. Want to know why? Because points A and B didn't equalize EACH OTHER. They equalized with much closer points.
Evolution vs Creationism

I assume that with your belief of evolution, you believe that the world was created via the Big Bang." I do believe that the UNIVERSE was created via the Big Bang. BUT, we are not talking about the Big Bang. Evolution and the Big Bang are two different things. "Radiometric dating also has several faults to it." Okay, so you try discrediting Radiometric dating. Lets mix in all of the other overwhelming evidence. http://rationalwiki.org... http://atheism.wikia.com... There is: Amino acid racemization The Baptistina asteroid family Continental drift Coral Cosmogenic nuclide dating Dendrochronology Distant starlight ... and so on. You see, there's not just radiometric dating you have to deal with. "if conventional dating is followed, ancient man seems to be far more ancient than he should be." I believe you just discredited radiometric dating? If you did (which you did), that means that this section is unreliable. Tip: When discrediting opponent material, don't use that material later. Your opponent will be sure to exploit that flaw.
Evolution vs Creationism

"common sense undeniably proves creation" I do not see how that works; please explain in round 2. "as does radioactive dating" Have you heard of Zircon? Zircon is a rock that is made up of silicates and zirconium that may contain trace amounts of Uranium. Using Uranium-Lead dating, scientists have dated the earth to be at least 4.4 billion years (1). If anything, radioactive (it's actually radiometric) dating is more evidence for evolution, as creationism would use up only 6000 years. "Also, only intelligent creation would be able to create the many things that "prehistoric" people could make." Which things? As far as I can tell, most prehistoric artifacts are very primitive, and could have been easily made by prehistoric people. 1. http://www.geology.wisc.edu...