BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be legal.

Abortion should be illegal for the following reasons: 1)Abortion can be harmful to the woman if it's not conducted properly especially if performed in a third-world country. 2)Controversially, crime rates could actually go up. Prostitution is at an all time high, because a woman could easily get an abortion whenever she wanted to. 3)The fetus IS A PERSON with a future just like you and me! It is morally wrong to murder a baby in horrific ways and deprive them of that future! Plus the woman sometimes regrets getting an abortion afterwards. So pro-choice isn't always good. 4)You may have a choice to abort the baby but he/she does not. Think about it. You are in prison. You are completely innocent. Everyone knows you are completely innocent yet you are still in prison. Without a court case, you are taken to the executioner and killed on the spot. This is in essence what you are doing to the baby! 5) You say the fetus it not human, yet it has human DNA and is therefore human in nature! Just because a mother has this choice a baby is separate from her as a person. I'm sure if you asked the baby they would want a future! Another argument I say is the sexist argument of "Men shouldn't decide what is right for us women. We should!" Men aren't solely deciding the GOVERNMENT is. Last time I checked the government consisted of both men AND women. And yes there are woman who do not agree with abortion! With that being said let's start the debate! Some conditions I expect are: You must agree with abortion. (Duh!) You must stay on topic! We must treat each other with respect even though we have different viewpoints! Let's start the debate!
Would be parents should need a licence to have intercourse.

It sounds to me that you're saying that an intercourse licence would not be practical. You gave a lot of examples, but that is what it boils down to. I have no counter arguments to this subset of your arguments. When I started this debate, I was trying to focus on the moral aspects of the licence itself, not of its enforcement. I thought that the exam was implied with the term "licence." It would have the sort of questions that are relative to the licence in question, in this case things about financial stability or decision making. There wouldn't be anything about calculus or ancient Rome, so it hardy seems to matter that your example is a college graduate. I don't see how sex is a natural right just because the species needs it to survive. Just as you probably can't convince me that it is, I probably can't convince you that it isn't. 1. Just like an Englishman without a driver's licence can't drive in the US, he can't have intercourse in the US without a licence, even if his partner has one. 2. The sort of thing they teach in sex ed. 3. The licence would have to be renewed every couple years. 4. Sure, there are all sorts of books on relationships and parenting. 5. For the licence? I don't see why there would be. If there were, it would be for the same reason that buying a gun has a waiting period. 6. If there's no chance of having children, (assuming that no birth control is 100% effective.) then there'd be no need for a licence. I apologies for the poor quality of my argument, I had to write this in a small window of time.
Would be parents should need a licence to have intercourse.

Let me clarify. By "people" I did not mean all people. You're right, such a statement would be ridiculous. I ment that, given a large enough sample, some people will behave irresponsibly, doing irresponsible things like having children that they can't support, or won't support. That list was by no means the definition of irresponsibly, but rather a list of examples. You say that we would need a licence for everyone, not just irresponsible people as if the purpose of the licence wasn't to separate the "responsible" people who could pass the exam, and the "irresponsible" people who can't. That's essentially the purpose of the licence. You also say that it would apply to all intercourse as if I was under the impression that it wouldn't. Not all pregnancies are planned. That was the basis for B2. I never said that it would stop all unwanted conceptions, but it would stop some. Just because a piece of litter doesn't destroy the environment, that doesn't mean that it isn't bad for the environment. You say that a licence would compromise one's freedom. Doesn't a driver's licence? A gun licence? Licences my compromise freedom slightly, but they do so in favor of the security of the community. I don't want to go into the details of the licence, because I don't have time to develop a working system right now, and you could easily pick apart whatever I posted now.
Would be parents should need a licence to have intercourse.

I accept this argument, though I believe it may be some kind of joke. However, boredom has compelled me to take it on anyway. Your argument seems to be able to be summarized in the following premises and conclusions: Argument A: P1.) People have children when they can't afford them, or will neglect them. CA.) Therefore, people are irresponsible This serves as a premise for the next argument: Argument B: P1.) People are irresponsible. P2.) Requiring a license for intercourse would prevent the conception of unwanted children P3.) Requiring a license for intercourse would minimize the need for social services CB.) Therefore, we should require a license for intercourse. This ridiculous argument can be dismantled from so many angles that I'm not sure of where to begin. BP1 says that people are irresponsible. This is a very vague claim. All people all the time? Or just people who have children when they can't afford them or will neglect them? If the former, then you're incorrect, since the existence of one responsible person would disprove you. And responsible people must exist; otherwise we wouldn't call people irresponsible. "People" would give enough information. If the latter, then your argument is ridiculous, since we could only define irresponsible people as people who conceive children they can't afford or children they neglect. At this point they would already have committed the "wrongs" that this license is meant to prevent. No matter what the criteria for an irresponsible person, we would have to require licenses for every person, in every situation. Responsible people included. People at a bar who meet for a one-night stand. Everyone would need a license not only to reproduce, but to just enjoy the physical pleasure of sex with another person. BP2 says that a license would prevent the conception of unwanted children. If a couple only wants one child, but conceives twins, the license has instantly failed to do what you're claiming it would do. BP3 says that requiring a license would minimize the need for social services. Minimize is a very strong word. Perhaps decrease would be more appropriate. But no matter what it's economic impact, look at the cost: Your freedom. So now I ask some logistical questions that highlight the absurdity of this argument: What are the criteria for getting a license? Can only U.S. citizens receive a license? Do you mean an actual license, or a temporary permit that would allow for some number of sexual encounters or sexual encounters in a given time period? Is there a waiting period between applying and receiving the license? Most importantly, how would this law be enforced? Driving without a license is far different from having sex. Being caught having sex by a police officer is only ever a concern if you are in public, and I assume this fact would not change with the invention of a license. To make it illegal to have sex in your own home without a license would be a grievous invasion of privacy, and would certainly open the door to unwanted intrusion into your home, since that is the only way you could be caught in most cases.
There should be websites that list the identity of people with HIV

My opponent admitted to me in a private message that he has HIV and that he wouldn't want his name listed on a HIV registry. Therefore my opponent is bias and should have never accepted this debate. A website that list the names of people with HIV would be no more intrusive then a website that has a persons criminal record or the White Pages online which has a persons address and the names of their relatives. Personal information is already available to the public and it does not save lives it invites identity fraud, harassment and discrimination. A national HIV registry would prevent the spread of HIV and wouldn't violate a persons privacy any more than Spokeo, WhitePages, instantcheckmate, intelius and many others.
There should be websites that list the identity of people with HIV

It is more important to keep a healthy person from being infected rather than protect the privacy of a person with HIV. A national HIV registry would indirectly save lives by exposing those who have it. If you contracted HIV from unprotected sex or needle sharing you don't deserve privacy. If you contracted HIV from a blood transfusion, from a bloody fight or rape then its not your fault, but you should still be listed. Would you have sex with someone who you heard had HIV? Would you eat at a restaurant if you read that the chef has HIV?
There should be websites that list the identity of people with HIV

Gun owners must be registered, child molesters must be registered and placed on a public website. People with HIV should be listed on a website and openly viewed by the public. Hivlist.com kind of does this, but there should be a national HIV registry for every country. A person having HIV is like a human gun and their status should be public. Wouldn't you want to know if your babysitter, nurse, dentist, cook or date has HIV ?
Xbox One is a superior console to the ps4.

The xbox one is a better console then the ps4. for many reasons like better games like ryse. Also you can watch netflix on it Its bulkier means it more long term.mini borderLarger size may mean it"s more reliable long-term The huge console size of the Xbox One gives air more room to circulate, which is likely to ensure the console does not overheat even when under strain for prolonged periods. It has a better launch line-up At launch, the Xbox One offers a better selection of games than the PS4. Dead Rising 3, Forza Motorsport 5 and Zoo Tycoon are games we"d rather play over Killzone: Shadowfall. Several of the games we thought would be PS4 launch exclusives have been delayed until 2014. Kinect is undeniably cool Not everyone likes Kinect, but it has serious potential that you don"t get with the PS4 camera. For example, you can use it to control the console, swiping in the air to perform commands. Wider distribution of Kinect will mean for more interesting motion gaming Even more
Xbox One is a superior console to the ps4.

The ps4 is a superior console for several reasons:1) the graphics processor is more powerful2) the RAM is faster3) it is $100 less expensive 4) playstation plus offers free, recently made games each month freely available for download.5) it is less bulky than the xbox one 6) it doesn't require kinect to be on when it's played. 7) the controllers have an internal rechargeable battery while xbox ones controller does not.
A God Can Exist

After a lengthy hiatus, I’m back up in this thing, so let’s get it. Resolution and TermsThe resolution before the house is that, “ A God Can Exist” My contention is such that, a God cannot exist, which is to say, a God does not exist in any possible world. Pro may argue that any such God can exist, however, the only necessary condition is that this entity created the universe. I add this qualification in order to rule out tautological notions such as pantheism, and pan-deism, and other non-meaningful propositions. By exist, I mean that, X exists, if, and only if, exist is ontologically objective, or exist external to, or independent of our experience of it. I do realize that some phenomena such as consciousness, love, etc. exist and are ontologically subjective, however to apply ontological subjectivity to God would be reducible to, I feel God exists, therefore God exists, which doesn’t get us anywhere. So we shall argue if a creator of the universe can have an objective existence. Lastly, by universe, I mean the totality of all existence, in some capacity. We may discuss what this means, rather if the universe is the totality of facts, objects, sets, etc, but if by universe, one does not mean everything that exists, in some way, shape, or form, I’m afraid we are discussing two different things. StructureThis being said, 1st round is for acceptance and acknowledgements. The 5th round is designated for closings, which may be prefaced by brief rebuttals, but no new arguments may be put-forth. Also, the BoP will be shared.
always make your own sandwhiches..

He also moves on to telling Chuck Norris jokes, but they are far from relevant to his previous points on the matter, so these must be disregarded. I don't mean to attack my opponent here, but it seems that he has gone from using, to some extent, reason and common sense, to incoherent recitation of 'facts', coupled with a lack of good grammar, spelling, and adherence to other rules of writing; I'm not so much attacking the style as using that example to prove that my opponent's position has fallen apart, and he lets that show. I do agree with one thing my opponent says, however: that "with these few facts our voters will know who to choose and vote for. .. " Give this round to the CON.
always make your own sandwhiches..

Well as our voters should kow.. both the turtle and the eagle both churn butter in tibet.. its just that the turtle does it a 12 PM and the eagle gets midnight. But this is not the point , for if it was then all of the worlds butter scothc would arise in the firey churning tooth of the bread munchkins from the naughty west trying to melt your lazania in the toaster during the forest fire of january on christmas day. as this should tell you the munchkins have a king that will eventually release all of the fleas from the ostrich roaming japans streets whilist giving it some hairy ape crumbs of bread chuck norris doent stub his toe... he accidentally breaks furniture. chuck norris can belive its not butter. if u have 5 dollars and chuck has 5 dollars... he has more money. jesus can walk on water... chuck norris can swim through land. i belive that with these few facts our voters will know who to choose and vote for...
always make your own sandwhiches..

Okay first of all, I'd like to say that I accidentally used the word 'argument' in place of the world 'opponent'; and, as far as I know, he has shown no causal link to bipolarity; debating oneself may perhaps be schizophrenia, but I don't think it has anything to do with bipolar disorder. Also, it's basic logic that one's hands would be one of, if not THE dirtiest part of the human body, since they come into contact with multiple objects and surfaces per day, many of which are questionable in terms of cleanliness. What I would really like to turn your attention to is this statement my opponent makes: "For instance I wash my hands vigorously after fondling my useless genitals, and you may not. knowing this would you rather I make your sandwich, or you? " In this statement, he is implying that his hands may very well be cleaner than my own, and if that was the case, most people would easily want him making the sandwich as opposed to doing it themselves; unfortunately for my opponent, he is supposed to be defending the claim that you should 'always make your own sandwiches', and this slip in logic leads us easily to a CON vote. As far as Chuck Norris is concerned, even if you buy into the PRO argument that Chuck Norris could make a sandwich if he wanted to, then it's still going to turn to the CON, because not only would it be the best sandwich ever made, but Chuck Norris is incapable of carrying any kind of germ, so his hands would be extremely clean 100% of the time, so go ahead and turn my opponent's logic against him here.
always make your own sandwhiches..

.. but obviously this man is in no state of mind to be debating, for as he states in paragraph 2, sentence 1, "Also, my argument makes an argument about Chuck Norris" clearly a sign of bipolar disorder. clearly anyone capable of arguing with ones self needs prompt professional care Back to the matter at hand, my opponent claims, "since the hands have the highest amount of bacteria, a person making his or her own sandwich is just as likely to infect the sandwich with some kind of germ", But your are incapable of telling someone elses cleanliness as opposed to ones own. For instance I wash my hands vigorously after fondling my useless genitals, and you may not. knowing this would you rather I make your sandwich, or you? as for the chuck Norris matter. .. .. Chuck Norris will prepare any delicacies he dam well pleases. . especially if he wishes to teach one a lesson I eagerly await my opponents response indeed yes.
always make your own sandwhiches..

I negate that one should always make his/her own sandwiches. My opponent claims that having others makes your sandwich for you can and will lead to some 'undesirable penalties', such as AIDS or scrotum itch. The PRO's personal experiences aside, I fail to see any proof that these conditions would become reality. Even if you buy this argument that my opponent is making, keep in mind that the hands are the dirtiest part of the human body: http://ezinearticles.com... ; and since the hands have the highest amount of bacteria, a person making his or her own sandwich is just as likely to infect the sandwich with some kind of germ; so, it's easy to give this to the CON on the grounds that it doesn't really matter who makes your sandwich, as there is an equal risk regardless of the sandwich-maker. Plus, if this argument were true, that would render nearly all restaurants as being dens of disease and suffering; which, as they generally are not, this argument is simply unacceptable. Also, my argument makes an argument about Chuck Norris, however everyone should know that Chuck Norris would not stoop to the level of servitude required to make a sandwich for someone else; therefore, the threat of a "roundhouse kick full of disease" is irrelevant. I look forward to my opponent's response.
always make your own sandwhiches..

for being made a sandwich could lead to some undesirable penalties .. such being, 1. aids 2, scrotum itch http://www.youtube.com... ETC, just because the arduous task of making a sandwich bothers u... don't mean u should let someone else make your sandwich. the greatest paradime for this would be chuck Norris... he can make a sandwich for anyone.. but if he makes it for u it comes with a roundhouse kick full of disease. in other words.. make your own sandwich's.. have a moist day.
Euthanasia is Ethical

I am under the impression that my opponent was trying to justify the practice of euthanasia on the basis of common sense. I felt that the evidence introduced by opponent would strongly support the conclusion that Euthanasia should not be unduly discouraged or something. Although my opponent conceded, I, myself, learnt many things from this debate such as living wills, and the information about Swiss program "Dignitas". Thank you.
Euthanasia is Ethical

Living Wills- Living wills can be used to refuse extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are effective in providing clear and convincing evidence that may be necessary under state statutes to refuse care after one becomes terminally ill. A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power a living will can have. In that case, a Bucks County man was not given a feeding tube, even though his wife requested he receive one, because his living will, executed seven years prior, clearly stated that he did 'not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition. The Right to Die- The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death. Patient Suffering at End-of-Life- At the Hemlock Society calls are received daily from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all quality... Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights -- the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent. Government Involvement in End-of-Life Decisions- We'll all die. But in an age of increased longevity and medical advances, death can be suspended, sometimes indefinitely, and no longer slips in according to its own immutable timetable. So, for both patients and their loved ones, real decisions are demanded: When do we stop doing all that we can do? When do we withhold which therapies and allow nature to take its course? When are we, through our own indecision and fears of mortality, allowing wondrous medical methods to perversely prolong the dying rather than the living? These intensely personal and socially expensive decisions should not be left to governments, judges or legislators better attuned to highway funding. http://euthanasia.procon.org...
Euthanasia is Ethical

Subject- Today's debate is centering around the ethicality of euthanasia and whether or not it's process should be practiced throughout the world. Although today's main argument will be about " Voluntary Euthanasia" Euthanasia- (from the Greek: εὐθανασία meaning "good death", eu (well or good), thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Ethicality- in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct, esp those of a given profession or group. Voluntary- proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent Like other terms borrowed from history, "euthanasia" has had different meanings depending on usage. The first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia" belongs to the historian Suetonius who described how the Emperor Augustus, "dying quickly and without suffering in the arms of his wife, Livia, experienced the 'euthanasia' he had wished for. "The word "euthanasia" was first used in a medical context by Francis Bacon in the 17th century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a "physician's responsibility to alleviate the 'physical sufferings' of the body." Bacon referred to an "outward euthanasia""the term "outward" he used to distinguish from a spiritual concept"the euthanasia "which regards the preparation of the soul." Euthanasia conducted with the consent of the patient is termed voluntary euthanasia. Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Passive voluntary euthanasia is legal throughout the U.S. per Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. When the patient brings about his or her own death with the assistance of a physician, the term assisted suicide is often used instead. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Montana Premises of Debate: Round 1- Acceptance Round 2- Presentation of Main Argument Round 3 & 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Conclusions "Let the games begin!" ;D