BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Having an abortion should be illegal

Having an abortion is equivalent to murdering a new born baby, so why do we allow it? A child can't simply ask to be born, because this is only an option an adult can have. It also makes doctors look so hypocritical, i mean their supposed to save lives, not help one end another. Parent's or females who agree to parents are not fit to ever be parents in their life. I know that sounds extreme but you shouldn't be allowed to raise a family if you've killed your own future children by having an abortion. I also know that are kids out there who might of had accidents while having sex but that doesn't simply mean you have to kill it. Putting the baby up for adoption is the best idea if this was to happen, and having an abortion is the worst.
This country is to involved in foreign issues, it should be taking care of her own people.

I agree with you when you talk about invading Iraq and now Iran, but I disagree, strongly that we should only concentrate on ourselves. Yes, around 18,000 die a year for not having health care in this country, but 200 million people have died from the Congo War. In places like Congo, Sudan, etc. and some of the poorest countries and places in the world, we should exercise our power. Money, 450 billion dollars and more, has been going into funds that are some what unnecessary, but to say we must forget the rest of the world in more inconsiderate. We live in a global village. We live in a place where everyone should be respected and have a certain level of rights according to ethics and their culture. It isn't our place to decided where, when, what or who, but we know how and why, which is ammunition enough to take our superpower and help the hungry, sick and dying.
Will Carmelo Anthony come to the Houston Rockets

Your source only goes against your favor. It states "Anthony’s max contact with the Knicks would be worth $129.1 million over five years. Other teams may not offer more than $95.9 million over four years. The Rockets would have a difficult time giving Anthony his max, starting at nearly $22.5 million in the first year." This suggests that perhaps the Rockets will stop after a while, or even hesitate when giving Antony the money. This goes against your position. Vote me.
President Barack Obama's religion.

Obama's father was not a Muslim. "1) Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a "radical Muslim who migrated from Kenya to Jakarta, Indonesia."FALSE. Obama, Sr. wasn't a Muslim at all except during early childhood, let alone a "radical" Muslim." [2]"Although the elder Obama was raised as a Muslim, no evidence supports the claim that he was ever a "radical Muslim," and Senator Obama's family histories note that his father was an atheist or agnostic (i.e., no longer a practicing Muslim) by the time he married the younger Obama's mother. Of his mother's religious views, Senator Obama wrote:For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness. " [3]Obama's father was an Atheist. Sources2. http://urbanlegends.about.com...3. http://www.snopes.com...
President Barack Obama's religion.

I will contend that our president is a Christian.My opponent will contend otherwise.From the below links clearly Barrack Obama claims he is a Christian and thus I conclude he is Christian. "in the days before the South Carolina primary, he is driving efforts to speaking with media to emphasize his Christian beliefs. His campaign also sent out a recent mailer portraying the candidate with his head bowed in prayer and says that he will be guided by prayer when he is in office." [0]Sources0. http://www.christianitytoday.com...1. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com...
Polygamy and/or Incest is morally permissible.

It seams that my opponent has yet to make an argument other than giving the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and then did nothing to elaborate on it with regards to his position. I hope he will be making an argument in the next round and not just rebutting my points. Given the definition above morals come from society,a group or the individual. The American society or group has largely decided that polygamy, and incest are not morals permissible. This is shown in to ways first the laws we have agenct them, and second because of how rare these types of activities are. This is shown in a poll that shows that 91 percent of the American population consider polygamy to be wrong. http://www.usnews.com... I would assume that the number would be much higher for incest but I could not find any statistics on it.
Polygamy and/or Incest is morally permissible.

I agree with my opponent's definition of morality, and I'm fine with his rendition of polygamy. The way I will play out this round is simple: I will first clarify my reason for supporting polygamy and incest, then I will supply a brief background of reasons why. By supplying such a background, I'll make it both clear and easy for my opponent to find where he disagrees. If he can't successfully refute my stance, or find a fault in any of them, then obviously the vote goes to PRO. ==================== Clarification on polygamy & incest + Rationale for supporting them ==================== To make a quick note, I should make it obvious that I support polygamy and incest that are 1. consensual and 2. between adults. Obviously, if my opponent was diligent in accepting this debate and not hoping for an easy win, he would probably agree that it's common sense for me to support relationships that are consensual (otherwise it'd be coercion/rape/etc. ), and those between adults. Even though I actually believe using "adult" as a limit to relationships is erroneous, that best serves for another debate as it can get complicated. My rationale for supporting polygamy and incest is a simple case. I take inspiration from the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment[1], which states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " Of course, the important key to note here is that the 14th amendment will allow exceptions if there is a rational and secular reason. For example, children are not treated as equally as adults for the mere fact that they are not on average as adequately psychologically developed as adults. Incarcerated criminals are obviously not given the same rights as others for time being because of their crime(s). Likewise, I agree that though we should treat everyone equally, there is many times the case in which we shouldn't due to some other reason. I then turn the tables on my opponent to supply give me an appropriate reason as to believe why polygamy and incest is immoral. I argue that they are "morally identical", one can say, to heterosexual and homosexual relationships. The presence of more partners or a close bloodline does nothing to sway the moral value of such relationships. ---References--- 1. . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
Polygamy and/or Incest is morally permissible.

I believe many of the argument for both polygamy and incest will be similar. Because of this we should have both of these up for debate. To start I will define morality according to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy morality 1 descriptively to refer to a code of conduct but forth by a society or A. Some other group, such as a religion or B. Accepted by an individual for there own behavior or 2. Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be put forward by all rational people. . http://www./plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ There is one thing I think needs clarification which is the definition of polygamy. I believe the word mate should be substituted for spouse.
Polygamy and/or Incest is morally permissible.

I am of the opinion that neither of these relationships - even when they come to fruit via sex - is not morally impermissible. [Polygamy] [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] "Marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time." [Incest] [http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] "Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom." This is 4 rounds, so I will allow my opponent to choose what he wants to debate on for his first round. Either you choose polygamy or incest, or you choose both. Once this done, we shall continue on with a normal 3 round debate.
Mafia Theory Debate: The inactive Rule is better to follow than the noob rule

In this debate, I will be arguing the opposite of TUF's stance, in that the noob(new and or bad player) rule is theoretically superior to the inactive rule. For starters I'll start by saying that both rules have their place in games, and actually are quite complementary to each other when used in unison with each other. It is also important to note, that these rules, from my understanding of them, apply solely to beginning game pressure, when there is still yet a lack of posts to analyze, and pressure players based off of their behavior. I'll start off with: Contention One: New players are more likely than experienced players to slip and out themselves as mafia This is obvious enough to players who have played mafia on this site long enough to see the trend. New players, being unaware of the finer points of mafia, indeed do slip more often then more experienced more skilled players. Some perfect examples of this were already supplied by TUF, but I'll supply one more examples of this. That being Lannan13's infamous outting of the entire mafia in Kyro's Mafia Game(Naruto Mafia I believe). But it is important to note that the "noob rule" is not solely based upon the higher likelihood of new or less skilled players to scum slip. No, it also pertains to new or less players, being behaviorally unable to react town-like when faced with pressure early in the game as scum. In this sense they are not slipping, but rather simply acting scummy in the face of pressure, unable to grasp how to fake town-like behavior under said pressure. Contention Two: New or bad players are simply in a majority of cases unable to think quickly and claim early in the game Most of my contentions arent really, from what I see, going to require examples to prove. They are all rather common sense. Its a simple concept, that new or bad players will stall as long as they can if they at forced to fake-claim as scum. They simply dont understand what a good claim looks like, or how to come up with one quickly. So if they try not to stall, they come up with a bad one as scum, if they try to stall, it makes it obvious they are scum due to the stalling. Thank you TUF, although my case is short, I feel that I have demonstrated why the noob rule is better to follow then the inactive rule. I look forward to hearing your responses, and throughly enjoyed reading your original argument.
The Electoral College is a more fitting system for the United States of America than popular vote

First of all, I would like to apologize for me having forfeited the round. I happen to have a lot of work to do and therefore cannot be online regularly. Now, to make my argument: The popular vote is not only simpler, but it is also more democratic. The popular vote is much simpler due to the votes having to simply be added together. The rigged votes can be prevented with more regulations and controls. I recognize the flaws of the popular vote and I see the advantages of the Electoral College, but I also hope you acknowledge the fact that the popular vote is indeed on the side of true justice. In 2000, Gore and Bush had a dispute over the votes. Bush won the electoral votes and Gore won the popular vote. If a larger portion of people wish to have one candidate but get the other instead, that is injustice. If we eradicated the Electoral College, there wouldn't be as many vote disputes and there would most certainly not be issues of democracy. I understand that the United States is in fact a republic, not a democracy. But by "democracy", I am addressing the issue of voting. Now, if a majority of people in a state support a candidate and that state's electoral votes go to that candidate, what shall become of the people who supported the other candidate? Their voices are unheard and their opinions are not acknowledged. That, my friend, is injustice. I would like to point out that I did not cite my sources. But the truth is, my friend, citing sources doesn't automatically make you win a debate. Instead of using websites, you can use logical reasoning. Now, the debate shall be decided by the voters. To the voters, I say this: Please read the debate entirely before voting. There are some important points in here.
The Electoral College is a more fitting system for the United States of America than popular vote

The electoral college is a more fitting system for the United States of America than popular vote. Many voting machines, in the United States, are rigged [1][4][5]. In order to prevent such fraud from scaling to a national level, we must first stop rigged votes in the states. Dead people can be placed into the election process not by others, and the vote still remains valid [6]. We can prevent this fraud from reaching a national level with the electoral college. Popular vote, as being a direct democracy, is unconstitutional! These persons are trying to form something of a democracy from us, the matter of which is unsanctioned by our forefathers. How dare those vouching against this system consider such an injustice, as the constitution has not had such an unreasonable change, as to change what we are governing ourselves with. The electoral college amplifies the votes and opinions of minorities as majorities in some states although minorities when placed on a national scale, contrast hispanics percent in New Mexico and in the United States as a whole[1][2]. Over 45% of the state of New Mexico is hispanic[2]. The hispanic opinions are amplified by the entire state's votes being in a great deal, what they believe is best for themselves as a region of the United States of America. "A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." said Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787. We can stop the whims of many voters on a state level before that of national. This is the will of the state in general, and nothing less. Every single vote counting, from the nation as a whole, is not what our country stands for. The majority of a state does represent the will of the state. Voting to find what the majority of the state believes, is the best way to find what is best for the state. It counts out a great many of the votes cast by those who know little to nothing about politics, nor do those persons care to any extent in many situations. States are, in many cases, with different markets and political ideals from one another, and for each person to speak up... you might as well be a Union supporter in Georgia during the civil war. Your opinion is not for the good of the state, but what the good of the state is, shalt be what a majority of its population agrees upon, exemplified by chosen representatives who meet with other persons who represent the different views of their states! [1]http://www.youtube.com... (the video of a 2012 voting machine) [2]http://datacenter.kidscount.org... [3]http://quickfacts.census.gov... [4]http://www.youtube.com... (the video of Ron Paul testimony) [5]http://www.votescam.org... [6]http://ballotpedia.org...
The Electoral College is a more fitting system for the United States of America than popular vote

The debate shall function as follows. My opponent will be arguing for popular vote over the electoral college for the United States of America. I shall be arguing for the electoral college to stay in place. There will be no polls used for this debate. Public opinion-based statistics are invalid in this debate. My argument: Round 1: State the rules Round 2: Affirmative Constructive Round 3: Affirmative Rebuttal Opponent's argument: Round 1: State position and acceptance of debate (for instance, "I am for the popular vote and accept this debate) Round 2: Negative Constructive Round 3: Negative Rebuttal
If a rooster lays an egg on a house and there is no wind it will fall to the right

You are right, roosters can not lay eggs. That means that it will not fall to the right. Even if for some reason a rooster did lay an egg on a house, there is no proof that it spins clockwise when it lands. Roosters do not have a dominant foot. http://en.wikipedia.org... I hope that clears things up.
If a rooster lays an egg on a house and there is no wind it will fall to the right

I will begin with observations, then my arguements. 1: Roosters can not lay eggs, so I must assume that this is some sort of wierd a-sexual thing that some doctors thought of doing for a science experiment. =) 2: It doesn't have to be on the topmost point of the house, just ON the house somewhere on the roof. I will assume it is around the topmost, to give my opponent the benifiet of the doubt. CONTENTION 1: It would be difficult to maintain balance on the pivotal point of a roof, most of which are triangular. Since most living things are right handed, footed- whatever, they would put most of their support on their right foot, resulting in a leaning to the right. Therefore, when the a-sexual rooster lays the egg, it will roll to the right. CONTENTION 2: Considering the geometry of the egg, when a rooster lays it, the geometry of the egg would spin it slightly clockwise, forcing it to move to the right and roll off the right the roof. The roof, most of the day and part of the night, is hot. This heats the egg and raises the viscosity (ability for liquid to flow faster/slower). Since it is rolling clockwise, the liquid in the egg would create enough force to push itself to the right. I actually came up with more evidencal support than I thought. = ) Good luck
The self is an illusion

"If the self is an illusion, Do tell me who is the one experiencing the illusion. It is the self. " That's an interesting reaction. Obviously the self is not experiencing the illusion of the self since then it wouldn't be an illusion. Experience of the illusion and experience in general is not really happening to a central self. The brain is a collection of different simpler parts that together form a more complex structure that manages to maintain itself. Now do you want to call the brain as a whole the self? Fine, But then every cell, Tissue or organ in your body is a self. Every group of animals or every society would be a self. However this is not the definition of the self I'm arguing against. I argue against a central part of the brain or something invisible that is receiving information from the brain or controlling it. This, I think, Just does not exist. "If you are telling me an onlooker is experiencing you or we are all a Buddhist-like 'one' and reality is experiencing parts of itself then that means the self isn't an illusion, It's just not all of the self is revealed at one time to the self. " I agree that if an onlooker is experiencing you there would still be a self, However I don't see any reason why this would be the case. The idea that reality as a whole is a self kind of comes back to what I mentioned earlier about the simpler parts forming more complex structures, Which you could call a self. Again, If you want to call this the self, Fine. This is just not the self I'm arguing against.
The self is an illusion

The brain's sections form the. . . Well, Actually it's unclear which: Structure in which the self is physiologically rperesented to be flowing through. The actual mechanical foundation for the self to operate via mechanistic means. If the self is an illusion, Do tell me who is the one experiencing the illusion. It is the self. If you are telling me an onlooker is experiencing you or we are all a Buddhist-like 'one' and reality is experiencing parts of itself then that means the self isn't an illusion, It's just not all of the self is revealed at one time to the self.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

1: if it doesn't matter of the value of the school then why are they complaining about the schools. #2: the biggest reason why kids did drop out was because of the desegregation and that was back them, now doesn't really matter on this topic. #3: if they only gave the segregated children the survey, wasn't the younger kids segregated as well? so your facts really doesn't add up.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Answers to your question Q#1 it doesnt matter the value of the school its the principle of the judge choosing for the child, the parent has the right to decicide whats best for their child not the judge. the judge's job is to judge and state a opinion not to demand and make choices for others based on how they feel. Q#2 its not necessarily just the desegrication that leads to drop outs. there are many other reasons why children drop out of school like there are today. Yes, race is a factor but not the only one. Also if the white parents decide to keep their children home , that is for the government to enforce not a judge. the judge has no athority over that. Q#3 odds are that most younger students will not take the surveys seriously, the surveys are just another way to get the students in between the issue and stress the YOUNGER students out. The survey was only given to the segrigated children.
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Answer#1: underaged innocent children are viewed by their race or color skin because thats just the way life was and the way the cookie crumbles. its not like the courts have dicided to bring the little black kids in it because of their color. the courts was just following their orders that the people in charge was demading and the people in charge in this case is the white parents and white people that hate black people ever since slavery days. Answer#2: i dont actually get how their color have to do with a childs level of education and right to learn because their still going to school and learning things that needs to be learned in life. the only thing that went wrong was that they didnt have any school materials and i agree that the courts should have given the schools a little more money for materials and stuff but i still dont think anything was wrong with their level of education and right to learn. Answer#3: the courts have the rights to demand parents to send their children to a particular school just like they have the right to take your child from you if their being miss treated and just like they have the right to send you to court or throw you in jail. the court doesnt care about "free counrty" nonsense! they just do what needs to get done and thats that!
courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

questions for negative assertion..... 1. why do you think judges shouldn't tell parents were their kids can go to school? what if it was a good school academically and physically and actually benefits the child? 2. how doesn't desegregation not speak to drop out rates? its proven that more white and African American kids drop out of school when their placed in the same schools. white parents demanded for their child to stay home because of the fact "Black kids" were attending their schools and African American didn't want their kids to go to school because they feared for their children's safety. 3.who said the surveys weren't gonna be taken serious? who said the survey was for segregated people?