BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortion

I am A_hungry_hedgehog and I will debate for the pros of abortion. 1. Quality of life after Birth Although abortion itself isn't very pleasant we have to take into account the state of the parents, are they financially stable ? Are they in a committed relationship ? and are they able to provide a good overall life for the child ?. All of these things have to be looked at before being able to decide how morale the action is. If the parent aren't able to give the child a good life then the child should not have to face the hardships of a life where its parents might not even want them. When the baby has been developing for 24 weeks it is no longer applicable for abortion, now although this is quite away into the development of the child it is highly unlikely that abortions will be carried out as they become unsafe and usually if someone has left the baby this long they intend to keep it. As for abortions after this period they are carried out illegally and therefore like anything are not able to be controlled by the government. I look forward to a second round of debating.
abortion

Hi, I'm mariah Norton, I'm 16 years old and I'm against abortion, because it takes away the baby's right to live, and should have the right to develop and live, it's not just the mom body. it is legal murder and here is the proof. first of all, People who are pro-choice say that the baby is just a blob of cells and the mom should have the right to get an abortion because it's her body. Well, that's not true. Science has proved at the moment of conception, sperm and ovum( the egg) meet and form an entirely new living organism with its own individual DNA distinct from both mother and father.* In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells by their self-directed, organismal behavior.* this Proves that it's not only the mom's body, and they are not just a blob cells, as they say. Also, people who are pro-choice say that, the baby can't, hear, or feel pain, or think. That is also not true. A baby's brain waves can be detected 6 weeks after conception, the baby can feel pain at 8 weeks, An embryo's heart begins to beat between 18-24 days after conception, the development of the baby's organs, begins during the fifth week. At 12 weeks from conception, a baby can kick, turn over, make a fist, open its mouth and press his or her lips together.At 13 weeks, the baby can make noise with it's vocal cords. At 20 weeks, a baby can hear outside of the womb. at 23 weeks the baby can make rapid eye movements and dream. 61% of abortions, happen when the baby is 9 weeks and less,** but still, thousands of babies are being killed every day in every stage of development. in every development stage, the baby is fighting for his or her life. also, when they a done aborting the baby,they throw the skull, and every thing in the garbage can, and it's bloody.
Christian churches need to distinguish between dangerous people and safe people and act accordingly.

On example 1: Armed guards don't have to shoot to kill. I doubt that the guard in the news story intentionally wounded the gunman, but perhaps it is better for this church that she did only wound him. I'm not defending the right of a church to use lethal force, I'm defending the right of a church to defend its parishioners. Yes, a guard may ruin the experience of many people looking for a place to worship, but there were clearly a lot of people who were fine with it at that church. Example 2: The drunk people are not necessarily a risk to the other people, but they are certainly a risk to the building and to the continued patronage of the other people there. Why should the church be required to cater to anyone who walks in the door and then be forced to pay for it all later? In the example I gave, there were friends with the drunk-sick person. Those friends are perfectly capable of calling an ambulance for their friend if they felt that it was needed. They were just looking to take advantage of a church so the party could go on. Example 3: How big of a sacrifice is a pastor expected to take when he or she is ordained? If the pastor is a female, like the one in my example, would she feasibly be comfortable with a drunk, aggressive man outside her home trying to come in? Even if the doors are locked and the windows are closed, it is still a dangerous situation. It is not hypocritical of the pastor to watch out for her own safety, as well as the safety of her children. Churches are often faced with the very difficult problem of finding the line between being a "Good Samaritan" and being a doormat. They are perfectly justified in defending the well-being of their facilities, employees, and parishioners. If, in that defense, one dangerous person is excluded, so be it. Churches do not exist to be doormats. If they allowed themselves to be taken advantage of, they would not be able to keep their doors open for long.
Christian churches need to distinguish between dangerous people and safe people and act accordingly.

I am familiar with this incident, as I religiously keep up with the news (no pun intended.) I still think it would be hypocritical for churches to have armed guards in a church. Yes, your point is sensible, but it would completely ruin the church environment. Can you imagine walking into a church to be greeted by a man carrying a loaded rifle on him? Would you feel like you were in a church-like environment? Your argument lies on the fact that several Christians were murdered in a church several days ago. If the incident happened in a mall or school, I can understand the call for armed guards. But since it happened in a church, where killing is universally considered bad, even for those who commit evil acts, having armed guards in place to do intentional harm to evil-doers seems very hypocritical. Most religious Americans would disagree that it would be somehow justified to kill someone inside of a church, for any reason. In the third example, the pastor made the best decision for the safety of her family. If he really was a danger to himself and others, why not let him go home and stick it out, possibly encountering and endangering people on his way home? If he stayed at the pastor's home, even long enough for someone to come pick him up, the pastor's children and the pastor are not safe with him in the home. Example 2 is not an incredible risk, by my standards. To cover this example, all you have to do is study Christianity. Jesus didn't call for religious compassion during church services only. So for a church to shun someone sick away, even during "business" hours, would be hypocritical. I am not arguing that the people throwing up in the bathroom aren't wrong. I am arguing that it would be hypocritical of a church to turn a sick person away in the name of business. In example three, I believe that all pastors make some sort of sacrifice, whether it be familial or personal, when he or she chooses to devote his or her life to God. First off, in your example, no one argues that the person needs to be inside the house. The pastor can step outside with the person until help arrives, or if the person is an extreme danger to himself or others, call the police or an ambulance. Ignoring the problem, however, is completely un-Christian, and would be hypocritical of the pastor. The pastor has every right to defend himself and his family in this situation, but to shun someone and turn him away is not Christian at all. Would the good Samaritan have chosen not to help the person in need, simply based on the fact that the person in need may have been a danger to him?
Christian churches need to distinguish between dangerous people and safe people and act accordingly.

Example 1: Is a true story. It is plastered all over the news. http://www.cnn.com... I won't deny that employing an armed guard or having metal detectors wouldn't deter some people, but the armed guard was not wholly uncalled for. Example 2 and 3: I'm surprised that you are asking, especially in example 3, the people to take an incredible risk. In the second example, the church is not having church services, they are operating as a non-profit business. There are posted signs informing all people that the church's facilities are for paying customers only, so these people walking in off the street are already in the wrong. In the third example, the pastor made the best decision for the safety of her family. If he really was a danger to himself and others, why not let him go home and stick it out, possibly encountering and endangering people on his way home? If he stayed at the pastor's home, even long enough for someone to come pick him up, the pastor's children and the pastor are not safe with him in the home.
Christian churches need to distinguish between dangerous people and safe people and act accordingly.

Well, I would that any place of worship - regardless of religion - has the right to protect its property. You're correct in saying that a church building has a right and certain obligation to protect the property of the church and the safety of the parishioners present. Your examples, however, although justified, do not reflect something that a good Christian would do in the given situation. Christianity is based on helping others help themselves, not shunning them away. Example 1, to me, seems preposterous to propose in a church-like environment. While it is certainly legal for a church to employ armed guards, I'm not too sure if that would be sending a good message to those who came to church on Sunday (or any other day.) Perhaps metal detectors, and search guards would be a better idea. Oh, how I can think of the millions of people who would stop going to church based on the fact that it became like an airport, though. Since most churches that I know of oppose the death penalty, and physical harm in general, it would seem harshly hypocritical of them to employ armed guards to shoot a gunman inside a church. Example 2 also seems harsh. Again, it would be very un-church like to force sick people to leave a church, regardless of how or why they're sick. I would propose that the church parishioners call an ambulance and report alcohol poisoning, if its really that bad. That would be the "Christian" thing to do. Help others, not shun them. Example 3 lies on the same premises as example 2: Christians are not supposed to abandon those in need, especially if those in need ask for help. If he is really concerned with the behavior of the church member, and he really believes that the member is a "danger to himself and others," the pastor should make the decision as to call an ambulance or a psychiatric center for his parishioner. A good pastor, though, would never turn away someone in the fashion you proposed.
Christian churches need to distinguish between dangerous people and safe people and act accordingly.

If a person poses a threat to the church building or the people inside, church employees have the right to ask that person to leave or take other steps to make sure that that person does as little damage as possible. Example 1: A church is so big that they feel that they need armed guards on the premises. A gunman enters the building, shooting parishioners. The armed guard shoots the gunman. Example 2: A church located near a football stadium sells parking spots on home game days. The church's facilities (kitchen, restrooms, lounge area) are open to those parking at the church that day. A group of very drunk people unassociated with the church's parking operation come and want to use the church's restroom to drunk-puke in. The parking manager and several parkers tell the drunk and sick people to leave. Example 3: A pastor is at home with her young daughters. A member of the church shows up on her doorstep asking for help, but is clearly a danger to himself and others. The pastor, thinking of her daughters' safety, forces the man to leave. Are the actions taken by those associated with the churches in these examples justified?
God is illogical

The frist point is the good old bible that rebbuts your statement that there is no legit evidence of godNo it didn't. I used the Bible as my source and still proved how illogical God was. The second point is who is god? Which rebbuts the rest of your speech. I really wish I had someone who was not trolling. This is not an argument since I gave a definition right at the top. And the last but not least point is the unexplainable events. Unexplainable. God is also unexplainable which is another reason why it is illogical, The first evidence that show us that god is logical and real is the good old bible that tells all of the stories that happend many years ago, Perhaps in a rdical and uncorrect way, But it shows us who created the world and if in a more Precise way, Who created the big bang. I can agree that some parts of the bible is ilogicall or redical, But the main thing that it want to show us that god is real is clearly logical and it will get explaind in the rest of the speech. Going of topic. Never mentioned the Big bang only God. If parts of the Bible is illogical then it is not the word of God. God cannot do wrong therefore if there is wrong in the Bible it proves it is not the word of God. God could be a human from the far future, And we can asume that humans will get much more smarter than now. Everything possible and things that we can't answer them not necceserly ilogicall. God has 3 main attributes. All-powerful, All-knowing and everywhere. It cannot be a human with those kind of powers and the Bible makes it really clear if you read the evidence I gave. When you see a mirical, That one percent won the rest 99 percent. You see it as a mirical. Not a point. Overmore things you can't explain how it happend or why. For example, The purpes of life, No one can answer that, Or why we exist. The questions that the answers for them are way beyond us. Things that our creator did. Things that seem for us ilogical but are logical. Soooooo, To sum up, God is logical and things we can't explain aren't necceserly ilogical. Purpose of life is subjective. You make what you want of it. If we cannot explain something it is illogical. I guess I am going to re-upload this. Don't worry Con I will stay and answer your rebuttals.
God is illogical

Lets face it, The only thing that we ask billion times is if god is real, And the only thing that side prop says is that the good old bible that exists for thousents of years is the only evidence that god is real and logical, And the charming person who spoke for this motion said that there is no evidence for god however there is tons of evidece for the existence of god. I will show you three arguments that show you that god is logical and also rebbuts side prop in this motion The frist point is the good old bible that rebbuts your statement that there is no legit evidence of god The second point is who is god? Which rebbuts the rest of your speech. And the last but not least point is the unexplainable events. First point; the good old bible: The first evidence that show us that god is logical and real is the good old bible that tells all of the stories that happend many years ago, Perhaps in a rdical and uncorrect way, But it shows us who created the world and if in a more Precise way, Who created the big bang. I can agree that some parts of the bible is ilogicall or redical, But the main thing that it want to show us that god is real is clearly logical and it will get explaind in the rest of the speech. Second point; who is god? : The real question we need to ask before we state that god is illogocal, Is who is god? Who created us? God could be an alien which has alot of knowlage and by that it knows everything even the things we can't understand. And those people in the past saw it as thier god and wrote the bible on it. God could be a human from the far future, And we can asume that humans will get much more smarter than now. Everything possible and things that we can't answer them not necceserly ilogicall. The last point; the unexplainable things: When you see a mirical, That one percent won the rest 99 percent. You see it as a mirical. Overmore things you can't explain how it happend or why. For example, The purpes of life, No one can answer that, Or why we exist. The questions that the answers for them are way beyond us. Things that our creator did. Things that seem for us ilogical but are logical. Soooooo, To sum up, God is logical and things we can't explain aren't necceserly ilogical.
Eli Manning is not yet an elite quarterback compared to Brees, Brady and etc...

Eli is not an elite quarterback I dont care if he won another Superbowl you forfeited a round to prove that hes an elite quarterback. On that last drive he had only threw one pass to Manningham what else happened? They tried to run out the clock because they were scared of Brady. I promise you if Eli was on the other end Ellis wouldn't try to down the ball on the one yard line. Thats how good Brady is. Your also very lucky the 49ers coughed up that fumble. Lets see next year if Eli is consistent or if he falls off the board again like he did in 08-09 season. Eli didn't even score the game winning touchdown they kept on running the ball to keep Brady off the field. The giants pulled this years Superbowl off of the skin of their teeth. Manning performs well in the clutch but that's it. I want to see above a 60 percent completion percentage next year and I will put him in the elite class. Its not going to happen though. Especially since he has 3 amazing wide outs.
Eli Manning is not yet an elite quarterback compared to Brees, Brady and etc...

I did not state Tebow and Alex smith are elite quarterbacks you did when you stated "to be an elite quarterback simply means you have to be able to come out on top when your pressure. When you stated that you said an elite quarterback comes out on top when under pressure. Tebow did it against the steelers, and Smith did it against the saints. I am not arguing that Tebow and Smith are elite quarterbacks cause they are not. I am arguing what you said "to be an elite quarterback simply means you have to be able to come out on top when your pressure". By your definition of an elite quarterback Smith and Tebow would meet the criteria. Please clarify on this. I am sorry I forgot to provide evidence to my claims above but here is some of them. http://www.pro-football-reference.com... http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com... http://www.giantsfootballblog.com... Now to justify the backup quarterback compared to Eli. Hill has started almost two complete seasons which gives a lot of evidence. 1 season isn't much but two full seasons gives a lot of evidence. We never really came to a conclusion if we were talking about the present NFL. The question is Is Eli an elite quarterback? I think its safe to conclude that an elite quarterback is consistent season after season always putting up the big numbers What happened to Eli after his first Superbowl victory? He fell off the charts. Four years later there he is again. Where has he been in the last 4 years. Bree's and Rodgers after their Superbowl run put um amazing numbers and continue to each and every game. Now to the argument that Big Ben has a better supporting cast. The wide-outs right now since we are talking about present day which you stated has the giants favored big time. Hakeem nicks, Victor Cruz, and mario manningham. Compared to Wallace and i cant name the steelers second string wide out. Don't think about pulling the card that Eli made cruz into cruz look what he was doing with a 3rd string quarterback in the preseason last year before he got injured. Another interesting statistic is sack percentage. I think its easy to conclude that not getting sacked makes you a better quarterback. Eli got sacked 28 times this year. Thats number 20 on the list. Brees got sacked four times less and look at the numbers he was able to put up this year record shattering. Why were Elis states so different from Drews stats. The answer is Bree's is an elite quarterback. Brady and Rodgers also got sacked more and look at their stats this year compared to Eli. The reason why Eli is good is he has a superior pass blocking O line. If you look up the stats I think this will probably be true for his last super bowl run as well. Eli has always had the superior Oline when it comes to pass protection. To add to this even more they have to verse Demarcus ware twice a year who is an active all time sacks leader. The eagles and redskins dont particularly have good D lines as well . http://espn.go.com...
Eli Manning is not yet an elite quarterback compared to Brees, Brady and etc...

Okay I'm going to make this short and simple. First, Tim Tebow is not nearly reliable enough to be called a elite quarterback, he pulls a fourth quarter one week but looks terrible the next. If Tebow and Smith are elite quarterbacks then Eli must be too because Eli's in the Super Bowl, Not Tebow and Smith. Second, as far as Eli's percentage goes comparing him to a backup is not a fair debate. A backup might throw one pass his whole career and his percentage is 100%. If you compare Eli to a starting quarterback you also have to look at pass attempts. Eli has far more attempts than "Big Ben" but has less of a team around him dropping his percentage therefore making him no less of a quarterback. Third, we're talking about the current NFL. Brady is playing against Eli and Peyton isn't playing eliminating you're argument. Also if Eli wins when it matters then he'd be elite correct? Fourth, of course it's alright nine and seven team to go to the playoffs. If you can provide proof that Giants fans were "Bashing" the Seahawks then fine but it wont matter because the Seahawks haven't made a Super Bowl (plus no one likes them). Fifth, Eli's winning percentage are not unlike his brother Peyton's. I would like to point out that you considered Tim Tebow an elite quarterback, yet his stats are reletively equal if not less than Eli's. Wouldn't this make Eli an elite quarterback?