BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking Ban is a necessary law.

Yes, I did agree with your points only because they are valid. 1. I thought I did mention my solution to the economy. Anyhow, I will explain now. Your argument was that the economy will take a turn for the worse. And it will. Only if there are no other replacements for the cigarette. We have advanced to a great extent in science and technology. I am sure there must be some artificial and non harmful replacement. And I as I have said already, the companies previously manufacturing cigarettes can manufacture the replacements. Therefore there is no loss of jobs and the previous smokers, will see the light, and opt for the replacement. Therefore not leading to recession. And as for the economy, it can be rebuilt, a person's health cannot. 2. I am not sure if Con has read my argument completely but I did explain the dependency in my first point of my previous argument. And in the first point of this argument. 3. Liberty means the right of a person to be allowed to make his own decision. But how many times haven't we waived that right? When people become old, when they are mentally disturbed? Similarly here the person is mentally biased over the fact that he needs cigarettes/tobacco. Therefore he has lost most of the capacity to take a firm decision, especially even after his friends, family and colleagues advice him/her against smoking. The BOP is not much on my side as there is not much precedence. Smoking has rarely been banned, and the only argument I have is one of health. After all that is the main reason for this debate. 4. Con's rebuttal for the health risk is liberty. Liberty does not outweigh posing a health risk to one's self. 5. As Con said, home is not a public place, therefore the person is allowed to smoke there, therefore putting his family and neighbors in risk of getting various health risks. Con's solution:- Smoking zones aren't going to hep if they are in open spaces, therefore they would have to be in some building. That means that the whole building cannot serve any other purpose even a few years after the zone has been decommissioned or whatever one might like to call it. Another problem is that eventually the smoke is going to have to be disposed of. As we know a lot of companies are doing an amazing job of disposing residue or harmful chemicals!! Smoking zones might bring about a communal feeling between the zones like the feeling between members of a single gang and members of different gangs. Which might lead to an increased crime rate. Con does not rebut my legal argument. Let us ASSUME you are right, then why do people keep complaining about children smoking, about the excessive smoking taking place? The economy is doing well, people's rights are intact , its wonderland! Then why is there complaining? Let children , adults, elderly people go into smoking zones and smoke to their heart's content. Why do these NGOs and governments show these advertisements that "Smoking Kills"? They can just say "Go smoke in smoking zones, not in public places." There is no way we can confine smoking to particular 'zones'. Sometime or the other the zones will be taken advantage of.
Abortion

Well I guess I'm doing ok because I have managed to tick you off and you ramble on about nothing. But to make you happy ill give you examples and facts, and ill do it with my pinky finger up. I can explain that if you want me to bit first ill explain what I said about the woman and there body's. Because I know its Greek to you. A woman has the rite to do whatever she wants with her body, like plastic surgery, tummy tuck (liposuction), or smoke cig. However they do not have the rite to kill a child. Ill tell you why I call it a child while I explain what a Fetus is. A Fetus is an unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn HUMAN BABY more than eight weeks after conception. You are partly rite about a fetus being a blob of cells. A fetus also includes human dna, blood, and starts forming its brain, backbone, and cardiovascular system with in the third week. I don't wanna speak in Greek so a caediovascular system is a beating heart. A fetus can also feel pain in this same week so maybe you need to do some research before you go around saying its just a blob of cells. You also said that a baby has to be born for the cycle of life to begin. But doctors or scientists can come to an agreement on the beginning of the life cycle. But im glad you did. You have not given any facts instead all you have done is ramble on about how you dont understand what im saying, you want to chose spelling and correct punctuation to get across thar I dont know what im talkibg about. And now its timw for you to bring up facts, stop worrying if the spelling is ritw or wrong. Give me facts or shut you flappung mouth and rest your fingers
Abortion

You round 2 debate is firstly written in some of the lowest quality English I have ever seen my whole life.Second of all it went downhill from the moment you said "Lets[sic] forget about the mother having to carry the baby." A foetus is not a baby. A foetus looks almost like a tadpole/alien for a long time in its development. A baby has been born. That is just basic knowledge of the human life cycle. Additionally while you agreed to 'forget about the mother having to carry the baby' you never... REMEMBERED that you forgot it and never addressed ANYTHING I raised your entire round 2 debate!You also said "a child in that stage is the same as a child at the age of two or three, or the same as most or some handicaps, or vegtibals[sic]." ARE you suggesting a foetus is at the same stage as a child at the age of two or THREE?! Are you debating as a joke or something? Do I even need to explain how ATROCIOUS this FALLACY in child psychology and development this is?! LEARN something before you debate for CHRIST's sake! A three year old can usually form sentences and has a PERSONALITY! A foetus is a BUNCH OF CELLS which, until about 24 weeks, doesn't have a functioning brain or heart (well not fully until then). I suggest you either read up on the topic or admit you were being sarcastic or something?! That is not just an invalid argument, it is a STUPID SUGGESTION WHICH SHOULDN'T BE IN A FORMAL DEBATE ABOUT ANYTHING AT ALL!"But a child is not her body..." WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING A CHILD, a foetus has no personality yet! Let's observe your ridiculous justification for this even more irrelevant statement!... It is not her face for plastic surgery. It's not her belly for a tuck. It's not her lungs for a smoke WELL! I listed that in Greek because all you are doing is speaking God-damn GREEK to me! Firstly is a face for plastic surgery?! WHAT THE F*CK?! Is a belly for a tuck?! WHAT THE HOLY F*CK?! ARE LUNGS EVEN FOR A SMOKE?! HOLY MOLY F*CKING ROLY POLY THIS IS IDIOCY TO THE HILT!! You think that a woman's face, belly and lungs are even FOR those purposes?! DO you think that if they are, this disproves that the fetus, which depends purely on her health, what she eats, drinks and how much exercise she does, is NOT a part of her body and her FULL physical ownership rests upon it?! LEARN TO DEBATE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Your English, lack of appreciation of my favourite science (biology) and plain trolling (or genuine idiocy) has p!ssed me off to the f*cking hilt! I suggest you come up with real points next round because this is beyond anything acceptable of anyone in the f*cking world! A SIX YEAR OLD could write a better debate than that!
Abortion

First I understand what you are saying, and in a way it makes since. But when a woman gets pregnant the baby forms its spine,heart,bones,brain, and limbs. Lets forget about the mother having to carry the baby. Lets talk about the baby and well get back to the mother. There should be no diff. in going out a choping a mans head off and aborting a child. Like it or not its human, and its helpless. I cant stand people that harm children, women, or animals. We as adults or born with a brain. we can reason, make hard decisions and think on our own. a child in that stage is the same as a child at the age of two or three, or the same as most or some handicaps, or vegtibals. I'm thinking that sometime in this debate your going to tell me that a woman has the rite to do what she wants with her body and you would be rite. But a child is not her body, it is not her face for plastic surgery, its not her belly for a tuck, or her lungs for a smoke. It is its own self, its own existence, and one day will make choices like you and me. Its unfortunate and wrong if a man rapes a woman. I think he should be shot in the head. And a dad doing that to his daughter should have a worse fate. But its not that average for that to happen, most abortions are from a drunken night,or a mistake, or something completely diff. A woman has the ability to be strong and do what no man can do. And no matter how you may look at when a child is aborted it can feel, move, pee, and poop and its no diff. than murder. I have tried to see a way around it and there is not one. you can say what you have to say to make yourself feel good about it, or being politically correct or the rites of a mother however a mother does not have the rite to kill a child, in the end its always the same outcome. and that's taking the life of a child that can make a decision for its self because we have already made one for it.
Abortion

I won't bore you with a list of strong points for abortion as I see you prefer a to-the-point over-view style of debating (which I adore as well). As a fellow skip-the-details kinda guy I'll cut straight to the general overview of my side of the debate.The fact is this. Past conception, the man involved biologically has zero say in the baby (not socially but this is often also true in many poor regions of the world where many men f*ck and run). A woman has to spend 9 months with this 'thing' (it is in no way an independent being because its sole source of oxygen, food and water it its mother, it is no different to her arm or her foot in terms of how much power she has over it nutritionally). It has a huge demand on her body and additionally will have a huge financial demand as it grows into a fully grown human being which the mother must consider if she can manage (not all countries have successfully set up any sort of adoption programs whatsoever, especially in Africa). She could very well be in a state of poverty practically dying by the time the child is aged 6. What kind of an upbringing is that? It would in fact save both her and the baby time and pain to abort it. Unless it is legalised there will be dirty back-street abortion methods such as shoving a coat-hanger up her vagina as opposed to getting the standard safe abortion methods which would be far more readily available if it were fully legalized for ANY mother if she had good reason to abort.More relevant to this day and age is the issue of an overpopulating world ESPECIALLY in nations where abortion is hard to come by, India, Uganda etc et era. These countries have the view that it's only legal if it directly saves the life of a woman who would otherwise die if she had a baby. Well, many mothers are in such dire situations that they essentially might as well be dead to their baby.Imagine a 10 year old getting raped by her dad... Well should we allow her to abort it?I really hate pro-life retards who think one absolute moral applies to all situations. They are fools.
Same Sex Marriage (SSM) is not a Civil right in America.

1. While the U.N. Declaration is admirable it fails to support your argument for the following reasons: a) It is unenforceable with regards to American Law b) It does not identify "sexuality" as a potential discrimination and relies upon the usual limitations and qualifications for marriage which have been implemented both as tradition and as law in many societies throughout history. c.) Your cited document refers to a "family" as being natural...furthermore, the U.N. specifically defines a "family" as being specific with persons being "related" and with Husband and Wife...a definition that was even more deliberate in the 1940s.[1] d.) Your cited document relies on the country's laws to define what "marriage" means, and in America this is a legal definition that has yet to be established as including Homosexual Partnerships. 2. So while we apparently agree that Marriage is a Civil Right we must recognize that the right of Marriage is not offered to everyone equally and that does not violate the American notion of a Civil right. For example, an 8 year old boy is not allowed to marry anyone nor is he allowed to vote. 3. The morality of same sex marriage is irrelevant to the argument here, the distinction between a marriage and a homosexual partnership is empirical and not religious or arbitrary; therefore introducing the Bible or other religious sources does not justify your position nor is it a basis for a legal definition. [1]http://unstats.un.org...
Same Sex Marriage (SSM) is not a Civil right in America.

Hello! My name is Sam Kast and I am currently a High Schooler hoping to go into law or politics I am against this statement because of basic human rights that we have not just in the United States but in the world and to say it's not a civil right is to say that voting is not a civil right. 1. The Declaration of Basic Human Rights This declaration was passed by the United Nations with a 48 for and 0 against but the USSR abstend and was pushed through with the leadership of Eleanor Rosevel and under article 16 which states "All Men and Women of Full age have the right to marry and found a family."[1] And they never defined a marriage is between a man and a woman. 2 The Declaration of Independence of the United States Of America The United States states constitution says in the preamble that "...all men are created equal..."[2] and "among these is life, liberty, and THE PURSUT OF HAPPINESS" (caps is not apart of document) [2] we are all created equal and we all sould have equal opportunities to persue happiness but why do some belive that some americans should not be able to marry based on a book of their OWN religion. We are the home of the free and the brave but we are also the home of human rights! 3. Conclusion We are a nation of people who are not all the same. So why do some belive that some of our laws must be based on a book that not all of the people belive in and that the book is over 2000 years old, times change empires rise and call and beliefs change from era to era. We are all equal we must be equal in marriage and everything else that's what our found fathers fought for and what the world agrees on. I wish you the best I luck and may the best man win Supergenius [1] http://www.un.org... [2] http://www.archives.gov...
Same Sex Marriage (SSM) is not a Civil right in America.

In America, the legal marriage tradition is a contract based upon a "voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife".[1] Marriage has been viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization as is echoed by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Oklahoma v. Skinner (1942) "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."[2]. Marriage is indeed a Civil right as affirmed by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia (1967). The ability of a Homosexual Partnership to be afforded the Civil right of Marriage relies upon an empirical case being made that a homosexual partnership and a Marriage are indistinguishable - for SSM cannot be considered legal on arbitrary and unjust foundations[3]. - In other words, a homosexual partnership must be proved to be an actual marriage before it may be afforded any justification for Civil right protection(s). Following is an example of how the empirical case distinguishing between Marriage and Homosexual Partnerships - National Center for Health Statistics study on Marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with 50 percent lasting twenty years or longer.[4] contrasted by: Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census survey found that only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with 5 percent lasting more than twenty years.[5] The distinction exemplified above prevents the required empirical case for Homosexual Partnerships from being made that they indistinguishable from Marriage and therefore SSM is not, nor can it be, a Civil right in America. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] http://supreme.justia.com... [3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [4] Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States," Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics (May 31, 2001) [5]"Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, www.glcensus.org
Aliens should be held acountable for the 2008 economic recession that they caused

When wildlife filmmakers see a lost, injured or starving animal they don't intervene because they don't want to upset the balance of nature. I suppose the aliens adopt a similar policy with the human race. However, unlike stricken animals who are unable to ask humans for help, we have the ability to communicate with the aliens because they use a Babel fish (like the one on the You Tube clip) to monitor our telephone calls and internet posts. So, on the assumption that the aliens are reading this I am going to make the following statement on behalf of the human race: "Now look here you extra-terrestrial explorer chaps, we appreciate that you don't want to interfere with our affairs and would rather just observe our activities but there are occasions when we really could do with your help. One of those occasions was back in 1929 when the collapse of the Amercan Stock Market led to the Great Depression and another was in 2008 when another banking crisis led to another massive depression. Now, we don't know if you were around for the first economic crisis because we only learned of your existence in 1947 when one of your flying saucers crashed into the desert near Roswell in America (what happened there, by the way, was the pilot drunk, or a female pilot or what?) but I'm afraid we are going to have to hold you accountable for the 2008 economic crisis because you could, and should, have done something to prevent it. Now, we don't want any Star Wars-style unpleasantness, and I am sure you are civilised enough to accept responsibility for your failings in good grace so, on this occasion, consider yourself duly admonished but the next time you see investment bankers playing fast and loose with the economy please ensure you step in and stop them. Thank you." http://www.youtube.com...
Aliens should be held acountable for the 2008 economic recession that they caused

All that's necessary for the forces of evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. So said the Irish political Edmund Burke in the 18th Century and that adage is as true today as it was ever was. And it is not just the apathy of good men that is to blame for things going wrong in the world: it is the apathy of aliens as well. When the aliens observed grasping, incompetent investment bankers recklessly gambling with other people's money in pursuit of ever more obscene bonuses, they could, and should, have intervened. I don't exactly know what they could have done to prevent the economic meltdown that has caused financial misery for millions of blameless, hardworking families, but then I don't exactly know how to cross the vast distances between the stars like the aliens do. It therefore follows that they have the intelligence to predict the collapse of the banking system and also to figure out what to do to prevent it, but they did nothing. They just sat idly back in their intergalactic spaceships and watched the whole caboodle go down the toilet. Disgraceful. These should be ashamed of themselves and they should be held accountable for the 2008 economic recession they caused. Thank you. . . . . . . . . . . . . http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Aliens should be held acountable for the 2008 economic recession that they caused

Does anyone read as far as the fifth round in debates? I bet nobody does. I could say anything I like here and it wouldn't make one jot of difference. So I will. "All aliens are morons." It doesn't matter, they didn't even read as far as the third round where my opponent took the opportunity to insult them on a wholesale basis, although the first bit was conducted in a language that would be unintelligible even to their Babel fish. Anyway, just in case I'm wrong and somebody does read this, I hereby reaffirm that the aliens should be held accountable for the 2008 economic recession that they caused, because it was their fault. Thank you.
This House Would Ban Sex-Reassignment Surgery!

You know the deal...<<THIS DEBATE HAS BEEN MADE IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT, IF SOMEHOW YOU FIND A WAY TO ACCEPT IT WITHOUT MY PERMISSION YOU FORFEIT THE DEBATE. COMMENT OR MESSAGE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ME ON>> EDIT: This debate has been accepted by FourTrouble (a.k.a FT)The debate resolution is simple enough: I will argue for the ban of sex-reassignment surgery (the process of changing a patient's sex through surgical and chemical procedures), while my opponent will argue against the ban.Edit: Sex reassignment surgery (initialized as SRS; also known as gender reassignment surgery (GRS), genital reconstruction surgery, sex affirmation surgery,gender confirmation surgery, sex realignment surgery, or, colloquially, a sex change) is the surgical procedure (or procedures) by which a transgenderperson's physical appearance and function of their existing sexual characteristics are altered to resemble that of their identified sex. It is part of a treatment forgender dysphoria in transgender people.Here are some rules: 1. The Proposition accepts the burden of proof. 2. No semantics or forfeits (either will result in a 7 point loss). 3. No trolls, semi-trolls, pseudo-trolls, half-trolls, 8-gendered trolls, or Bench worshipping trolls. (Praise unto Chicakdee!) 4. My opponent can either accept in the first round, or start immediately and skip the last round. 5. No use of popular blogs or newspapers to present scientific evidence (use journals or other sources). Fine use it but you will be penalized >.>And here we go.