BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
aside from rape, abortion should illegal in first trimester, but not investigated nor punished

im not sure why con is quibbling about the use of "we". obviously i meant that as a hypothetical.... if the government, ie we, passes a law outlawing abortion, then 'we' are against it, even if it has no 'teeth'. and, im not trying to say those in the minority wouldnt be entitled to their own opinion. con is just ranting it seems like about things that strike 'unjust' to him, but reading too much into the things to begin with, and then blowing htem out of proportion. con concludes that any law that did as i said is a 'holier than thou' approach. but again ive said nothing that would indicate this. again, con is just reading too much into things, and blowing them out of proportion. and not even getting into much of anything in terms of actual substance in the debate, for why it should or shouldnt be that way etc.
aside from rape, abortion should illegal in first trimester, but not investigated nor punished

"we can be against something in principle" But who is "we"? Is it the politicians that will vote for this resolution? Their moral authority is rather weak these days. Is it the majority of voters? Even assuming that this resolution would accurately reflect their views, in pluralistic society those who disagree with the majority are still entitled to their own opinions. In a free country, people in the minority are required to follow the laws set by the majority or face the penalties. However, they are not required to agree with them or recognize the higher moral ground of their supporters. Therefore a "law" that carries no penalties for its violators would be just a demonstration of holier-than-thou attitude.
aside from rape, abortion should illegal in first trimester, but not investigated nor punished

while i respect old chinese proverbs and such, i do not see the point in that saying. our legal system would not be undermined. it would be strengthened. the laws would be clear, abortion is illegal, but there are no consequences for violating them. so there isn't an issue of lack of clarity. it also strengthens our system, cause it shows that we can be against something in principle, but it's not like we don't understand the countervailing considerations, and have our laws reflect that accordingly.
aside from rape, abortion should illegal in first trimester, but not investigated nor punished

There is an old Chinese saying: "When I visit another country, I don't ask whether its laws are good or bad, I ask, "Are they being followed?"" The main difference between successful western countries and oriental despotisms is the rule of law, with a clear boundary between legal and illegal. Creating laws that are not going to be enforced would only serve to undermine our legal system.
aside from rape, abortion should illegal in first trimester, but not investigated nor punished

aside from rape, abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished. given there are no legal consequences involved, these are more about arguments on principle. abortion should be illegal, because we should recognize that we should be giving the benefit of the doubt to human life. it is clear enough that we should outlaw it, but not clear enough that we should be punishing them. for example, to establish the uncertainty, note that a snowball is not a snow man, and a lego is not lego man. same could be argued for the cell in early pregnancy. at what point does a lego or snowball become the corresponding man? it's unclear there, as it could be said to be with personhood. but, on the other hand, the earliest cell does meet the requirements for what would constitute an 'organism', albeit it would probably be viewed as more like a parasitic organism given it must live off of the mother. and it's not like every other cell, given not every other cell can grow into a person. the pro and con about human life here are enough to say in principle we should defer to human life, but not clear enough to make any meaningful punishments for it. human life is such a strong factor to be weighed, that it is not unreasonable for a person to be against abortion, and want to punish so as to deter and for justice's sake. but, i would not go that far. i would take that same reasoning, though, and argue that it's such a strong consideration, that it should at least be illegal, albeit with no legal consequences. and the last reason it should be illegal in principal, is because the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy. having sex is something that can result in pregnancy. it's not like it just happened, getting pregnant, out of no where. another reason why we shouldn't punish is deferment. while we are deferring to human life, we are respecting the autonomy of the woman involved. given there is uncertainty, who should decide? should the government decide? why not give the autonomy to decide to the person most affected by it, the mother? plus,there are uncertainties involved, but there are other considerations as well. while the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, she may have tried her best not to get pregnant, and got pregnant anyways. things happen, plus she has a lot of other things to consider like making sure she can hold down a job, or continue in school. or maybe she's poor and doesn't want to bring another kid into the mix. the common arguments in favor of abortion should be used here, as holistic approach to why she should be able to decide given the various moral considerations involved. but again, this stuff is just sufficient so as to not make legal consequences for the abortion, but not enough to make it legal.
The US should allow other countries to rent major US states, and charge the sh** out of them for it

Finally! A sensible topic! Now, I guess I'll go crazy. I think this would be unpopular internationally for the following reasons: alligators, rednecks and bad driving. Let's start out with alligators: As potatoes are to Ireland, so alligators are to Florida. There are 1.3 million alligators there [1]. Can you imagine renting that place? Talk about a dangerous animal. Those things will rip your arm off in a second if you're not careful. Even several point blank shots with your standard pistol won't phase them. What's the reason there aren't more dead bodies in Florida? Well for one, bodies decomposed, but aside from that alligators are actually really patriotic [2]. There are the rogue gators that you really don't want to mess with, but the alligators were honored by Florida using them as the mascot for their state football team. We uplifted them to the status of our warriors that come to fight, and they decided they loved America because of that. Can you imagine what would happen if a country like France, who no body likes anymore anyway, tried to rent out that area? Their embassies would be attacked. The landlords would become one with the land if you know what I mean (they'd be found in either feces or decomposing matter). My second point is going to be rednecks: What is Texas famous for? Well, it's not their immense population of gun control advocates and cities boys. They're famous for the gun flinging rednecks. Don't underestimate these guys. They stick together, and they'll blow your head off if you mess with Texas. Unfortunately, some foreign countries might have never heard the phrase "don't mess with Texas," or "everything's bigger in Texas." It just takes one rumor that the renting country hates any of the following: beer, their moms, or Jesus, and suddenly an army of rednecks will be at the doors of the new country's temporary government, and there will be a massacre. Texas knows their second amendment, and they protect it with an average of five guns a piece. Some have more and some have less. Renting Texas would fail because the citizens wouldn't allow it. You'd need to bring the army in for that, but we all know who would win. Don't mess with Texas. My third point is bad driving: Now, we know another thing about America. California has some of the worst drivers in the states [3]. Heard of a California stop? One of those almost killed me the other day. If you haven't heard of it, it just means you don't really stop at the stop sign. Not to mention the people there are generally too drugged to be paying attention to the road anyway. Who wants that? That's like renting an apartment, but you have to share it with that crazy guy that constantly runs into things and will probably destroy your stuff every time you get it set up. This is what renting the state of California would be like. That system would also fail there. Sources: [1] http://www.tampabay.com... [2] http://www.alligatorsarepatriotic.com... [3] http://www.scpr.org... That's why I think this is a bad idea. Your move imabench.
The US should allow other countries to rent major US states, and charge the sh** out of them for it

I will be arguing, trollishly, that the US should adopt a program where other countries can rent either the states of California, Texas, or Florida for 5 or 10 years (the renting country has the option to choose which they want), and in exchange the US can charge the living sh** out of countries for renting one of those states. Basically, the US should lease unpopular states to other countries for money. Important details about the program: 1) Only Florida, Texas, and California can be rented/leased 2) The US will charge a minimum of $250 Billion per year for another country to rent/lease one of these 3 states 3) The renters can do whatever they want with the state 4) Only 1 state can be rented at a time 5) Other nations can enter into bidding wars to rent a state, meaning that the price of $250 billion a year could go even higher 6) Once the 5 year or 10 year rent period ends, the US can decide to shut down the program or keep it and start a new bidding period for the next renter/occupant 7) The rented states will not have any say in US elections or policies during the time they are rented 8) The rented states's debt will contribute to the country that is renting them, not that of the US. First round is NOT acceptance only. Go crazy
Banning smoking in public areas is the right thing to do.

Many thanks to my opponent for his last argument, which was undeniably well thought out, reasonable in its tone and seemingly convincing. Mr. Hanson is clearly a most worthy adversary. Nevertheless, it behoves me to highlight some serious flaws in his arguments, to whit: 1 - Nobody need breath secondhand smoke. In America, for example, there are many establishments that prohibit smoking within their buildings, indeed, depending on which state you are in, finding a pub or another entertainment venue that welcomes smokers is becoming increasingly difficult to find. With this being the case, there is no need to legislate so that all public venues should make separate accommodation for non-smokers. 2 - Employees are not forced to work in smokey environments. If they choose to work in a pub, bowling alley or casino that allows smoking, they should expect to breath in secondhand smoke, just like miners, shipbuilders and policemen accept that there is a certain amount of risk to their health associated with their jobs. 3 - Banning smoking in certain areas is the thin edge of the wedge. That's what happened in Europe a few years ago and it led to a total ban, just like the Nazis in Germany started boycotting Jewish businesses led to an attempt to completely exterminate the Jewish race. In conclusion, there is no need to legislate against smokers - people wish to avoid breathing in secondhand smoke already have ample opportunity to do so - they can go to Starbucks for a latte and a croissant while people like me and my friends go to the pub for a glass of wine and a smoke. Keep the status quo and everybody's a winner man! Thank you.
Banning smoking in public areas is the right thing to do.

You are welcome, thank you for joining me for this debate. The thing is, nobody is segregating smokers. You choose by your own free will to smoke, but those who are enjoying the "mainstream" as my opponent states, should not be forced to breathe in the dangerous particles. Sure, you can take the rare cases where people may feel neglected, but does that justify forcing people to breathe smoke against their will? It appears as though your argument is as much an argument against your point, if not more than it is against mine. Now, my opponent is trying to justify it by saying people will feel neglected for 5 minutes while their friends/family have a cigarette. But does this rare 5 minutes of feeling of neglect, justify health problems for the rest of ones life? I don't think so. I have a short story to share. My grandpa, owns and runs a bowling alley, where smoking inside was previously allowed. Well, he recently went to the doctor for a check up. The doctor thought he was a regular smoker. A man who has never smoked a cigarette in his life lung's looks like a smokers. Should this really be okay? or do you put a couple minutes with the feeling of neglect in before millions of people's health? That sounds wrong to me. And your next point, you say "it should not be banned." I did not say it should be banned, I do not think it should be banned either. But it should be restricted as my previous points clearly state, in a manner which is not demeaning. And About 80-90 years ago in the united states they prohibited alcohol, and it resulted in absurd increases in crime rates. Therefore no I don't think it should be banned either, but people are not forced to drink alcohol like they are forced to breathe smoke, completely irrelevant in my opinion. Please disregard my opponent's plea for your votes. But instead please read over the debate and vote for what you believe. Not just because your a smoker or not a smoker, but for the debate. But I would also like to counter his defense for civil liberties with, civil liberties are not being attacked, the health of everyone is being aided and defended while still allowing others who wish to enjoy a cigarette to do so. Everybody wins in that case. The will for someone to smoke wherever they want should not be put ahead of the health of everyone around the smoke, but instead we should look after the free will of the people who do not want to breathe the smoke. Thank you for the debate.
Banning smoking in public areas is the right thing to do.

Thanks for continuing this debate, I appreciate it. As you may have realised, it is a subject close to my (at risk of cancer) heart! The thing is, though, by segregating smokers, who represent a sizable minority of the population, in social contexts, you are dividing friends and family. Inevitably, on a night out in London, in practice, when the smokers in a group go outside, many of the others follow them, not wanting to be left out of the conviviality. Those left behind, not wanting to get cold or adverse to the smell of smoke, often feel isolated and neglected - left out of the crowd. I would be happy, as I said, if there were areas, as my opponent suggested, where a group could sit and eat, drink and smoke, if they were all agreeable, but, unfortunately, the staff have the legal right in many countries to work in a smoke-free environment so such a solution is no longer practicable. I do feel, however, that while smoking is unhealthy and people should be informed of the very real dangers associated with it, it should not be banned. This would be to curb civil liberties and could be the thin end of the wedge. What would be next? Alcohol is unhealthy, that is why it is prohibited in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do we really want to live in such a sterilised society? Not me. Not many of the voters, either, I would suspect. In the light of this, please vote Con in defence of civil liberties and freedom of personal choice. Thank you.
Banning smoking in public areas is the right thing to do.

First off, you are welcome for posting the debate. But to business, you bring up your home country and state that smoking is prohibited among open spaces, but if you had designated smoking areas you would be happy as a sand boy in a desert. So what is wrong with the idea of restricting smoking to designated areas? If it would make you happy, and not harm or force anyone to breathe in the smoke, wouldn't everybody win? And yes, tobacco is a legal substance, that is why people should still have the ability to smoke, in certain areas. But, one should not be forced to breathe in these dangerous particles because they want to play in the park for example. Also, smokers are not being "ostracized from society" These designated places are set aside, but while in the confines of society. Any one is welcome in a smoking spot, but then they at least have the choice of breathing in the particles. About the traffic and industry. One does not breathe in the particles directly from a car, unless perhaps he is in the middle of the street which is illegal anyways. One must also not walk through an industry either, seeing as they are not places of interest and would be no purpose of going close enough to one to where you could directly breathe in the smoke. And yes, littering is an offense but it is not enforced with cigarettes and as you can see by the ground outside your home, they are still everywhere. But that would drastically change if you could not smoke anywhere.
Banning smoking in public areas is the right thing to do.

In actual fact, what my opponent is proposing is a lot less Draconian than the laws that already exist in my own country: England. Here, one is not allowed to smoke anywhere except in completely open spaces or in one's own home. This means you can't smoke anywhere on a train or in a railway station, or even in your car if it is company vehicle. You can't even smoke in a private member's club. Obviously, therefore, smoking in a pub, hotel, restaurant, office or any other public building is completely prohibited and designated smoking areas are also strictly forbidden. So, if my opponent's suggestion that there should be areas set aside for smokers were implemented over here, I'd be as happy as a sand boy in a desert! Never mind that though, why should smokers be ostracised from society by being sent to an area set aside from the mainstream in order to enjoy a cigarette, pipe or cigar, as my opponent recommends? Tobacco is a completely legal substance and people have been smoking socially for many centuries. Yes, there are health concerns, but pollution form traffic and industry is a a far bigger problem. Should we ban all cars and shut down all the factories while we are at it? With regard to my opponent's point about cigarette butts - littering is an offence whether it be spent tab-ends or sweet wrappers - this matter is already dealt with under existing legislation. In the final analysis, everybody knows smoking makes a bloke look cool and hard in front of the birds and it is my suspicion that the bans on smoking that now exist in so many European countries were introduced by spiteful, resentful male lobbyists who ended up with dowdy, frumpy old slags because the good-looking fly-girls thought they were boring squares with no joie de vivre. Is that a good reason to introduce discriminatory anti-smoking laws? I don't think so.
Banning smoking in public areas is the right thing to do.

In my opinion, banning smoking in public areas is the right thing to do. Secondhand smoke is very hazardous to the health of those who unfortunately must breathe it. Now, I am not saying it should be banned entirely in public, there should be designated smoking areas aside from places of interest for non smokers. My second point is environmental defense. America in it's natural state is beautiful, but walking down the street it is nearly inevitable that you see cigarette buds scattered along the way, and that does not do the atmosphere justice.
Resolved: Animal Rights Ought To Be Recognized In Society

Resolved: Animal Rights Ought To Be Recognised In Society Rules Round 1 is acceptance No trollingNo forfeiture The Burden Of Proof is shared Definitions Animal Rights: the rights of animals to live free from human exploitation and abuse. Animal: a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. (excluding insects, humans and bacterial life).
The U.S. Government has the right to make laws regarding a national dress code.

In response to my opponent telling me that chocolate pudding was not a valid refute only goes to show how wrong he truly is. If one does not become one with thier inner pudding, may it be vanilla, chocolate, or butterscotch, then he cannot truly call himself human and be part of this pudding society. If we live in a world where nobody appreciates their inner pudding anymore, then what is the use of living?
The U.S. Government has the right to make laws regarding a national dress code.

Did you even read my argument?I guess not.To refute your rebuttal, I must use some very good refution skills. In order to refute any kind of rebuttal, one must also be able to rebut any kind of refutal. When refuting rebuttals or rebutting refutals, one must always be one with themselves, always staying to their true passions. Mine personally is chocolate pudding. So... All in all, chocolate pudding should be enough to suffice my refute.CHOCOLATE PUDDING Thank you for your time.
The U.S. Government has the right to make laws regarding a national dress code.

Thank you eyeballsac for accepting my challenge in this debate. I the Opposition believe that the government has no right to tell a person what to wear. I also want to make clear that this debate is not regarding the statement of "Should the government U.S. enforce a dress code" but rather "CAN the United States government enforce a dress code". Given this, I believe that the government has no right to do so. Since when does the government have the right to tell a person what to wear or what to look like? American citizens are given the right to free speech in the first amendment of the constitution which says quote, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging free speech (endnote)." This amendment gives people the right of free speech, which allows a person to speak through their clothing, their body, their dialect/slang etc. As long as he/she is not endangering national security, justice, or personal safety and last time I checked a person that looked different was not endangering anyone or anything with his/her appearance. Secondly, I would like to state that I realize that certain types of clothing may be deemed potentially offensive or inappropriate, but I believe that this is not a valid reason to enforce dress code in the U.S. For example if there is a certain shirt bad-mouthing a certain president, banning the shirt would not eliminate the message behind the shirt. Thank You and this concludes my arguments for this round.
The U.S. Government has the right to make laws regarding a national dress code.

I feel passionately about the need for a dress code. Because if we didn't have one, then why didn't the unicorns eat my pancakes this morning? This I ask you, because in a world of code and honor, we can truly become on with the Jedis and get rid of Justin Beiber for good. I challenge you in this debate because I believe that one day a man can ride a unicorn to work and not be laughed at by his fellow co-workers. One day, we will be able to put a stop to people stubbing their pinky toe on the hard corner of their coffee tables, and start freezing Legos so that we can make Jell-O. I believe that we can all come together for a stand against these wrong things of the world. I conclude my beginning argument.