BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Thank you for setting up this debate, I hope for this to be a fun few rounds.Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester (88% of women who have an abortion do so in their first trimester), when the fetus is incapable of existing without the mother. The fetus is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord. Its health is dependent on her health, and as such it cannot be regarded as a separate entity because it cannot exist outside of her womb.If a teenager is to find herself pregnant, she doesn't exactly have the brightest future ahead of her. Teenage mothers are much more likely to leave school, receive inadequate prenatal care, rely on public assistance to raise their child, develop health problems, or end up divorced.If a woman or teenager becomes pregnant as the result of rape, this will not only cause more psychological torture to them than being raped in and of itself, it can also affect the mental health of their child. Children conceived of rape are more likely to suffer from severe psychological disorders such as PTSD, depression and anxiety.Unintended and unwanted childbearing has been linked with a plethora of social problems, including divorce, poverty, child abuse, and juvenile delinquency. Unwanted children are found less likely to have a secure family life, and they have lower self-esteem than their opposite intended peers 23 years after birth. If an unintended child is told that they weren't meant to be born, their lower self-esteem and possibly their depression doesn't exactly help the mother's argument that something so great came from an awful situation. Finally, I think civil rights is worth mentioning. A woman should have the choice to opt out of birthing a child. If someone thinks abortion is wrong and they're pregnant by mistake, they can simply not take that option and go through with parenthood, while at the same time someone who does not think it's wrong should have the option to abort the child. The pro-abortion side is also the pro-choice side. A woman should have control over her body, and a law shouldn't determine whether or not she can abort a child if she doesn't want to risk all of the aforementioned negatives to unwanted childbearing.In my eyes, there are far too many negatives to banning abortion. I just don't think it should happen, for the numerous reasons that I've put into one argument here.I eagerly await your response.Sources:http://womensissues.about.com...http://trauma.blog.yorku.ca...http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk...
Abortion

The embryo is more than just cells, it's the foundations of a living human! If you didn't harm the embryo it goes without saying that it will form into a living being, and your taking the life away from the baby. When the embryo is created that's when the soul enters the body, your taking away the person's one chance to live on this earth because you MADE THE MISTAKE(not including rape). But even with rape, the spouse will ever be so great full that you gave them a chance to live! Instead of people saying that the spouse will remind them of being raped, it will show them how that the most beautiful thing on earth came out of something horrible! It shows the strong women that survived an awful experience that no one should have to go throw. My great grandmother made a mistake, but she decided to go throw with having a baby, even though she had to put the baby up for adoption, i would like to say that my siblings, mother, ants and uncle, and grandmother got a chance to live their lives, and a most of us have been successful in our lives.
Hurricane Sandy Cost Mitt Romney the Election

Individual Polls verses Aggregation The Gallup poll you cite has a margin of error of +-2 points. You are using it to measure the difference between two polls, so the margin of error becomes +-4 points. Since you are trying to use these polls to prove Romney lost 4 points over the period I wouldn’t brag about using the same companies if I was quoting the pollster who predicted the 2012 election by far the worst.[1] Quoting poll aggregations prevent cherry picking like this to fit the narrative you like. Incumbency Advantage The study my opponent’s evidence is based on is 24 years old. The biggest problem with presidential election statistics is that there are so few with adequate polling, relying old studies that don’t have the most recent and most polled elections is inadequate. Modern evidence only points to an incumbency advantage during spring when it is unclear who the challenger is.[2] Even if we accept the existence of an incumbency advantage it does not explain why it would be mostly undecided voters that decided to support the president. Or alternately why if hurricane Sandy convinced the majority of undecided voters to vote for Obama why the rise in poll numbers was so small. The primary question in this debate has been what the swing in the polls was between the hurricane and the election. The presented polling aggregates showed a small growth in Obama’s polling after Sandy: +0.9 Huff Post and +1.5 RCP. While my opponent seems to assume all this growth can be attributed to hurricane Sandy he completely ignored my argument that other factors can explain Obama’s popularity growth or that Obama already had momentum before Sandy happened. So the reliable polling evidence shows a small rise in Obama’s polling following Hurricane Sandy of less than 1.5 points. By my opponent’s own analysis he must show a more than 4 point rise in the popular vote for Obama caused by the Hurricane. This is not justified by the evidence.1. http://x.co...2. http://x.co...
Hurricane Sandy Cost Mitt Romney the Election

The aggregates paint a similar picture to the Gallup polling. According to Real Clear Politics' averages, Mitt Romney led by a full percentage point before Hurricane Sandy hit and trailed by nearly that amount after [1]. While that is not quite the four percent shift that Gallup shows, it is still significant. Furthermore, a problem with aggregates is that they take into account any poll, rather than keeping with the SAME COMPANIES every day.Let's say, in a hypothetical world, that Mitt Romney did only lose two percent of ground during Hurricane Sandy. Even in that case, I still maintain that Romney would have otherwise won the election. Mitt Romney, himself, recently said "I wish the hurricane hadn't happened when it did because it gave the president a chance to look presidential" [2]. As I said before, a country tends to unite behind a leader after a tragedy. Just look at George Bush's 92% approval rating after 9/11. Obama handled Hurricane Sandy well and efficiently, gaining the praise of New Jersey's Republican Governor, Chris Christie. Therefore, he was able to project bipartisanship.Lastly, according to the Real Clear Politics average, only 94.8% of Americans had decided on Romney or Obama before Hurricane Sandy hit [1]. Once you factor out the 1.47% of the vote third-party candidates received, there was still nearly 4% of the electorate to win over. The election had NOT been decided. Furthermore, in Nick Panagakis's famous Polling Report, he concluded that in 82% of elections, the majority of undecided voters vote for the challenger. However, Hurricane Sandy came, causing people to see Obama as presidential. Therefore, the undecided voters and some who were leaning towards Romney voted for the incumbent.SOURCES:1. http://www.realclearpolitics.com...;2. http://news.yahoo.com...3. http://www.pollingreport.com...
Hurricane Sandy Cost Mitt Romney the Election

Hundreads of differnt polls were conducted for the 2012 election by a variety of pollsters. Since each polls has a signficant margin of error and its own biases this allows us to cherry pick individual poll to prove almost anything. Instead we should use only poll aggregations or satistical projections. Individual polls, like the two Gallup polls you showed, create more confusion than clarity. I'll beign with the Huff Post aggregation for the same dates you cited Gallup. Before the hurricane it said Obama was ahead by +0.6 points. On Election Day Obama led by +1.5 points. This leaves only 0.9 points of swing towards Obama following hurricane Sandy. As renowned New York Times statistical forecaster Nate Silver said the polls already showed momentum towards Obama before Sandy even hit so likely not all of that swing can even be attributed to Sandy.(3) Many other events may have contributed to the growth in Obama's support like the strong jobs reports and polls show he won the second and third debates.(2) In the partisan environment of 2012 most people’s votes were fixed and these events and scandals rarely changed the results. The combination of a very successful democratic convention and the release of the video in which Romney called 47% of the population lazy moochers only managed to swing the vote 2.3 points (from +1.9 on Sept 2nd to +4.2 on September 21st – the second date is a local maxima). There is no reason to believe that the swing caused by hurricane sandy would be anything like the swing caused by either of these events, combined or separate, effect on the popular opinion. Ultimately Hurricane Sandy probably had a small but positive effect on the popular vote during the 2012 election it is unlikely Hurricane Sandy even changed the popular vote by even a full point. As you laid out clearly it would have required at least a four point change in the popular vote for Romney to become the winner. 1) http://goo.gl...2) http://goo.gl...3) http://goo.gl...
Hurricane Sandy Cost Mitt Romney the Election

For much of the fall, it looked as if Barack Obama would cruise to re-election over the Republican former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. However, the momentum shifted after the first debate, on October 3, 2012. A CNN poll stated that 67% of Americans believe that Romney won said debate [1]. Sure enough, following that debate, Mitt Romney began to gain ground in the national polling and in the swing states. On October 28, just before Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast (on October 29), Gallup said that Mitt Romney led Barack Obama 51% to 46% nationally. However, on November 4, the first polling after the storm, the same polls showed Mitt Romney only leading 49% to 48%. He lost at least four percent ground during Hurricane Sandy [2].A four percent swing would not have given Mitt Romney the election, only the popular vote. It would have only allowed him to win Florida, Virginia, and Ohio, giving him 266 electoral college votes (to Obama's 272) [3]. However, Hurricane Sandy's presence was felt more in some parts of the country than others. For example, in Pennsylvania, a state greatly affected by Hurricane Sandy, people would have been following the hurricane much more closely. Mitt Romney only lost Pennsylvania by 5.2%. Voters in Pennsylvania saw Barack Obama cooperating with Republican governors Pennsylvania and New Jersey, giving them confidence in his bipartisanship. Countries unite behind a leader after a tragedy. Many people know that George W. Bush has the lowest approval rating ever, but few realize that he also has the highest, right after 9/11 [4]. Had Obama handled Sandy poorly, it would not have benefited him, but Sandy gave him an opportunity that Romney did not have.1. http://www.cnn.com...2. http://www.gallup.com...3. http://www.politico.com...4. http://abcnews.go.com...
Stormcloaks are better for skyrim than Imperials

I will only be rebutting in this round as to be fair to my opponent. Whiterun Most of your opinion on this prompts me to think that you are a companion yourself. A lot of the reasons you provided dealt with the companions and I suspect that it may in fact be a faction siding. (Not a bad thing) However, if this were into play, I am a member of the thieves guild and from my perspective the Imperials would be better for me and my faction, since Maven Black Briar would be Jarl. I will go more in depth on this point in the Riften argument. Jarl Balgruff's housecarl is incredibly loyal to him, and is the only one of importance that is of elven descent. She would not lead to betrayal. The Stormcloaks basically forced him to take a side in the war, or get attacked. He is a great example for all Jarls to follow. He is loyal to his hold first, Empire second. If the Stormcloaks hostily took over Whiterun, then it would be a stormcloack tool that replaces the good Jarl, no better than the imperial tool at Falkreath. Greybeards and Blades It is Canon that Tiber Septim became a god. Also, the Imperials consist of Nords just as well as Imperials and Bretons (more actually). The Blades were a part of the Empire which also supported Tiber Septim. Magic We also see bandits killing, raping, pillaging, and even more horrible things to innocent people. These bandits also have Warrior skills. I do not blame the Warrior skills, that is just absurd, as is blaming the Magic for the evil Necromancers. Falkreath Nothing much to say really, I said I would agree with you on some stuff. I believe this man is generally lazy and should be replaced with someone who cared more about his people. Riften The thieves guild is in Riften, and if not for the war than one of the high ranking guards said he would go in the ratway and wipe them out. IF he did this then Nocturnal would lose a lot of her worshipers, and she is one of the few Daedric prince/princesses who is not considered to be inherently evil. The Thieves guild would be lost forever and the Dragonborn would lose a lot of potential experience and REALLY good gear. Misc -There is no proof that the dragonborn will become high king. -Ulfric would try to stop it, but ultimately, the Aldemeri dominion, seeing some easy land ripe for the picking would take it. -And therefore he encourages the outcast of other races which would hinder skyrim, not help it. -Skooma might not come as easy/hard we would have to see how far the racial segregation goes. -COULD be made, but why would Hammerfell want to have an alliance with a country that JUST go up off of it's feet? Now to wrap up, I think that the imperials are better for skyrim than the Stormcloaks are. The leader of the Stormcloaks is power hungry, and can't wait to get more. And even if the Stormcloaks win they are sure to die out soon and be captured by another country. Under imperial rule they at least have a chance to later win.
Stormcloaks are better for skyrim than Imperials

My first argument was a list of pros for a stormcloak Skyrim. Now I will try to refute what my opponent has stated and use some lore. "The Imperials and the Stormcloaks are united in their desire to make Talos worship a right of every Nord"I do not agree with that. In the temple of the divines in Solitude, Either Silana Petreia or Freir says that "Tiber septim was a good emperor, but he was not a God" and in "The Talos Mistake" it is clearly shown that Imperials are adopting the idea that Talos isn't a God. So The Imperials are slowly being brainwashed into believing this about Talos.The stormcloaks know that the The thalmor have infiltrated the empire and empire follows the orders of the Dominion, so THIS is enough for the stormcloaks to fight against them both. http://www.uesp.net... It clearly states there that a stormcloak victory should be avoided.After re-reading the dossier, it looks as if Ulfric used to be in contact with the thalmor, and no longer is in contact with them. During the quest season unending, Ulfric shows his hatred for Elenwen. However, it is the Dragonborn who is the true leader of Skyrim, not Ulfric. Talos himself was merely a soldier but after conquering tamriel he became emperor. Ulfric is a tool to be used, nothing more.As I said earlier, there are more nords in the stormcloaks than there are in the legion, so killing off all the stormcloaks and restablishing the legion will weaken skyrim and spread it's soldiers thin, and there will be bad blood within skyrim because of the persecution and Talos worship.As you know, Hammerfell is fighting the dominion and High rock is the smallest province, and without the empire, High rock would look to skyrim for support. So there, you have a potential alliance or maybe even confederation between High Rock, Hammerfell, and Skyrim, and the actions of the Dragonborn in the "Dragonborn" DLC make me think Morrowind could join in too. Remember, The Dragonborn is potenitally the reincarnation of Tiber Septim/Talos, and is capable of both defeating the dominion with the stormcloaks, and the empire. The only difference is that with the empire, you help kill the true king of skyrim, and with the stormcloaks you help free skyrim and potentially renew the tamriel under a DIFFERENT banner, which, I think, is better than the empire of Cyrodil.
Stormcloaks are better for skyrim than Imperials

All of what I write in this is what I believe myself in the rights of skyrim. Some things I will agree on with you, but ultimately I think the imperials are more in the right than the stormcloaks. BTW it is Cannon that Tiber Septim became a God, the Elves want the worship outlawed because they are embarrassed at their failure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here are some Points I made up. Hypothesis on what the imperials WERE doing. The Imperials and the Stormcloaks are united in their desire to make Talos worship a right of every Nord, but the Stormcloaks refuse to admit it. The Imperials only agreed to the ban (that they only rarely or never enforce — only the Thalmor enforce it) as a bargaining chip to end the war with the Elves. The Stormcloaks are a band of poorly unorganized nords, who just sit around and moan about how they cant worship talos in the open anymore. And instead of attacking the THALMOR Directly (which are few in number ) They decide to attack the Imperials of their own blood. WHY? The best plan, if the Stormcloaks could actually think for a second, unlike the racists they appear to be, is to become an Imperial, rise up through the ranks, and then sucker-punch the Thalmor with a surprise attack that will shatter their foothold and turn the tide widely into Nord favor. The Stormcloaks should be in support of Imperial efforts, not hampering it with their incessant whining and poorly-organized attacks that only strengthen the Thalmor advantage! The Stormcloaks are HELPING the Thalmor The war is only hurting the imperials, which is exactly what the thalmor wants. If the stormcloaks win, then morale in cyrodill will be horribly low, and with their resources nearly gone, the Thalmor can attack and take more land. And in so how would skyrim be able to defend themselves against the Aldemeri Dominion? The Imperials had only Stale-Mated them. The Stormcloaks wouldn't stand a chance. I know you are thinking "But they beat the imperials, so they could beat the aldemeri dominion." No. The imperials were weakened after the war and were not as powerful as they once were, so they were probably only HALF of what they used to be. So how could the Stormcloaks stand up to a superpower that Made the Imperials step down? Skyrim would fall shortly after they won. Let's face it, they don't like Foreigners, which means less people for their army ( Even if they let you join as a different race than nord, you had to go do a very dangerous thing just to get in.) They would be trying to rebuild skyrim, and would be ripe for the picking. So the Aldemeri Dominion would be able to capture Skyrim and get what they wanted all along. I will be doing Rebuttals NEXT round, as it would be in all fairness with my opponent.
advertisment aimed at children should be banned

My opponent says a few more things: 1. Children demand products. ----> Extend my arguments about parental responsibility. 2. Sometimes parents can't afford what children want. ----> This doesn't have anything to do with my points regarding advertising rights and the good that comes from marketing, nor does it challenge anything I said about parental responsibility. 3. Advertisements should promote healthier things. ----> This isn't a debate about what advertisement should advertise; it's about whether advertisement aimed at children should be banned. I've explained throughout this debate that advertising is vital to a company's success. Said company employs many people which is good for the economy and society in general. Many times advertisements are the only way to successfully promote a product. Children can inform their parents of the product, and the parents can use their best judgment about whether or not to make the purchase. Regarding the harms of self-esteem from advertisement, extend my arguments from the previous round.
advertisment aimed at children should be banned

ya as pro says that its parents responsibility. to guide children about things. but children get exposed to certain things of advertisment that they start demanding product. now and then., because advertisment is shown in such a way. they get attracted. to it. 2 In day to day life parents go fo job you cannot have control on child about sayin advertisment product. which they easily get attracted.so things which are not affordable. to spend money on jetstrix video game. wher every child wants when they see advertisment. to spend money on that.they can spend money in something else. which will be useful for them. 3 then why dont they show healthy advertisment about fruits, which is more use ful for children to be nutrient.than obesity to have junk food which they are exposed to advertisment and then get attracted.
advertisment aimed at children should be banned

advertisment aimed at children should be banned because advertisment aimed at children is unethical because children are not mentally developed to make decision 1 they are easy manipulated by advertisment seek not to give information but to persuade them. 2 children food marketing business is strong they fall into it cause obesity problem in children As my opponent is saying that every thing depends about parents to buy, materalistic thing to children or not buy, 1 but what about the advertisment that they show in tv, about branded things, which all children nowadays needs to seem to think they need but which is beyound budget of many household, contributes youth to crime. 2 children are not mentally prepared developed enough to make decisionthey are easily manipulated by advertisment. 3 advertisment to boys has promoted voilent behaviour they cause children to be more fearful agressive and less senstive to the point of other. 4 as opponent says its upto parents decision but as todays generation parents cant keep an eye on children every seond what they do.. 5 for little girls asked if they want to be teen top model that the way to do is barbieit is a negative impact. because model are paid to advertise specific clothing instead of defining themselves they are defined. child is exposed to more than 40,000 thousand ads given a year. 6 the reality is we shape our social values behaviour, taste based on what we see on tv magzine. companies sell their thousand of product which is unhealthy lack of nutreint will make you fat, but ad is shown with beautiful skinny girls . but reality is few this women have that kind of skinny body. but ad is shown in some other ways. In ad they show voilent movies, music, and m rated video games wher children jus get attracted to it wher then children constantly demands.
should minors above 13 be able to drive

There is no reason for minors over the age of 13 to be driving. Even 15-16 year olds are a little bit to young to be driving. Why is this? It revolves around maturity. Kids don't realize that hey have other people's lives in their hands when they step into he drivers seat. Kids make mistakes more than adult which is completely normal, but these mistakes should not endanger people's lives. Also driving is a part of growing up, you get to be on the road with other adults. There is no reason to grow up to fast, you have plenty of time to be an adult.