BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Countries Undergoing Demographic Transition Should Ban Abortion

The future of nationsMy opponent has completely misread the source: it explicitly states "if nothing is done", or "if nothing changes". So if current trends continue as of 2010, then yes, this debt would happen. Same goes for Japan. I humbly request my opponent to correctly cite sources, not misrepresent them.However, my opponent has dropped and conceded the point about raising a child costing so much more, instead comparing it to an uncited, unstated "economic disaster that may befall nations". He has dismissed the fact that his state-run childcare would skyrocket national debt far faster than abortion would in the long term. Economically, all abortion bans would do is harm further the citizens of the nation. This isn't a worry, or anxiety, but scientifically verified fact.Culling of the elderlyFirstly, my opponent states he is not for the culling of the elderly. This means he should abandon this entire line of reasoning, as now it is just absurd speculation. More importantly, he has explicitly stated that one solution he would use is "state-mandated euthanasia", yet is now explicitly dropping this. This is simply foolish conjecture, with no rational support. I wish my opponent would use an argument which he supported, rather than what may possibly happen in the future but he disagrees with. Further, the debate is still normative. As long as it is a "should" debate, saying this entire discussion is based on a hypothetical, non-existent public, and "regardless of my opinion or my opponent's". This is blatantly conceding that current opinion is certainly against such actions. Proposing a nonexistent group instead requires empirical evidence to be justified.Abortion ban wouldn't limit abortionThis point is simple: the ban on abortion would not limit the number of abortions taking place[1][2]. The abortion rate would barely change. The only real difference is they would become more dangerous: Abortion bans "just make them dangerous"[2]. This would mean less productive members of society, with no real change to the number of children. Even if I concede my previous point about children being a larger strain on the economy, the fact that abortion bans doesn't limit abortion shows that the impact of this legislation would just be an infringement of liberty.A liberal democracyFirstly, the people of today are educated on the issue of abortion, and the majority are still against it, and trends show that number will only increase, as previously stated. Further, we live in liberal democracies, where the rights of the individual is protected, and the right to a child - and right to not have one - is enshrined in our democracies[3]. It is still undemocratic and unjustified to ban abortion.I await my opponent's final round, and ask him to follow proper debate procedure, and not post new arguments in the final round.1 - http://www.ppao.org...2 - http://news.google.com...3 - Roe v Wade case, and similar.
Countries Undergoing Demographic Transition Should Ban Abortion

Cost of Demographic Crisis Is No Laughing Matterhttp://www.dailyfinance.com...According to a recent Standard & Poor's study 30 of 49 major developed countries will see their credit ratings reduced to junk status by 2050.Japan's national debt in 2050 is projected to be 750% of its current GDP (keep in mind that by 2050 if this debt keeps accruing Japan's GDP will likely have shrunk). This is something that these countries are going to have to deal with one way or another.To Prevent Future Attrocities Countries In Demographic Crisis Should Ban AbortionMy opponent misunderstands when he says I am supporting the culling of the elderly. I unequivocaby OPPOSE such measures and would continue to oppose them even in dire economic circumstances, but I am only one person. If things get as bad as projected the developed world may not even be "developed" so to speak. An economy where 750% of its GDP is national debt will have to declare bankruptcy and will experience widespread poverty.Under such circumstances the public may vote for people who favor culling the elderly regardless of my opinion or my opponent's. To prevent such outrages from manifesting in the future these countries should take appropriate steps to promote proper population growth now, such as by banning abortion.My opponent is worried about the extra expense of caring for more children. This small effect will be nothing compared to the economic disaster that may befall nations that don't maintain enough population growth over a long period of time. Even considering the current recession look back at Japan's projected outcome and think about an economy in a nation in that level of debt and insolvency. The risk is compounded because don't know when the lenders will want their money back or how much.DemocracyThere's a very easy way to ban abortion in these countries and have it be democratic. Simply, educate the public about the demographic transition and the need for an abortion ban, and then when it has enough support the public elect people to office to pass the laws against abortion.Even if it were by some other mechanism such as a court ruling that does not negate democracy any more than the US Supreme Court ruling in Love negated democracy when they decided interracial marriage was legal against the wishes of a vast majority.
Atheism, Theism and Society

My opponent's closing statement is that because Christians are opposed to embryonic stem cell research that this proves the entirety of Theism to be inferior to atheism as a fundamental system on which society can rely. History has disproved him with the USSR and Communist China outlawing Theism and falling apart because the people didn't support such a regime.Then he uses ad hominem to justify why hell is not real. This is not proven at all and hell can very well be real.History has proven that the only societies that thrive are those accepting one's right to be a Theist, very often being more fundamentally Theistic than Atheist by population.In conclusion, God is great and so is Satan, as well as Allah and Odin... Oh and, of course, Zeus. http://www.youtube.com...
Atheism, Theism and Society

Plain and simple, yet again! Society can do wonders if it didn't have the religious community holding US back! Christians still don't want stem cell research to go through! Who would you rather live; a few day old embryo or a 30 year old man or woman who is dying who could benefit from that and get better with stem cell research? If any religion is holding us back, it would be the christian religion... ALSO, atheists will more likely support legal gay marriage than a religious person. That is a huge setback in society. They believe it is a sin for a man to lie with another man or a woman to lie with another woman. They say that these individuals deserve to, "burn in hell," which is quite childish and WRONG if you ask me. I know that this doesn't deal with science but it is a HUGE example of how religion is holding us back as a society. You can say, "Oh the new pope says he doesn't care!" Wrong!! He said, "If they accept the Lord and have goodwill." Emphasize on the word, if. So, if they don't believe in the lord (God) than it isn't okay if they are atheist or a part of another religion. That is still wrong and lurid! So you tell me; is religion holding us back? Answer that correctly and HONESTLY. My answer? Yes, OH YES, religion is definitely holding us back.
Atheism, Theism and Society

Pro contradicts himself by stating that he would believe someone based on supposed evidence despite having just said that his viewpoint requires no belief.Pro states that there is no physical evidence for God, yet this is irrelevant to whether a society thrives better with atheism or theism.After this, Pro decides that atheism is not 'blind' faith because it is verified by physical evidence. This is also irrelevant to the debate as it has no relevance to society.Pro has failed to deny that since atheism can't explain the origin of everything and since this is a logical loophole that is yet to be explain via physical means, atheism requires just as much emotional investment as Theism does in terms of the existentially aspect of it. Thus, when it comes to science there is absolutely no hampering with Theism whilst there is emotional hampering if a society is atheist as I have supplied numerous examples of and evidence in support for.
Atheism, Theism and Society

Atheism doesn't require belief. I could say I do but I really wouldn't mean it unless there was truth behind it. If one says to me that he or she is telling the truth and there is EVIDENCE that he is; I'd then believe him or her. If it is a belief that requires me to have faith in something that has no physical evidence like God; I would not believe it. There is no physical evidence whatsoever to back that up. That is the definition of blind faith. My kind of faith is something that I can trust in as it has physical evidence to back it up. It isn't spiritual faith but rather a trust that has been verified by physical evidence. If I say that I am putting faith into something that something better have some form of physical evidence to back it up. I may very well say that something that has no physical evidence whatsoever, is real. By using basic and simple logic and reason; I then conclude that there is no evidence to back up God. You can say, "look around you, God is everywhere. Look at his magnificence. Look at what he created." I, then, will say by using logic and scientific proof and facts, "The only thing I see is the collection of iron, hydrogen, oxygen, water (H2O) and carbon that formed this planet. All of this formed when there was vast amounts of dust and rock colliding with eachother to form a planet. Overtime, the planet has cooled down and water vapor precipitated and made liquid water. From then on, the rock that formed land and expanded upward and made even more land. This is done by plate tectonics. Life was then only microbial life which evolved to an animal and then that animal decided one day to go above sea level and viola; the rest is history." Also the Earth has been proven to be 4.54 billion years old not 6,000 to 10,000 years old as stated by creationists. Your turn..
Atheism, Theism and Society

I have have five uncontested arguments.My opponent has one, contested argument based on zero evidence.His argument is that a society must accept facts without belief but this requires belief that we are not in the Matrix, or a fake reality, to begin with.Atheism requires blind faith in that physical evidence is accurate. It is possible that everything is an illusion and that beneath it all there really is a god. Atheism requires belief too.
Atheism, Theism and Society

My main point is this. In order to MOVE FORWARD as a collective species; we must accept the facts for how they are. So many people deny the facts as it, "conflicts with their 'beliefs.'" They not only lack logic on the topic but don't research it. IF you truly wanted us to succeed as a species whether it is scientific or political; you must accept the facts as they are and move on. Use those facts and test them further and you will, only then, move forward and so will the people who use logic and reason with you. Deny the facts and we will be back in the dark ages.
Atheism, Theism and Society

1) Provide one example of an atheist political regime ever working. Otherwise concede that history supports that an atheistic society ultimately falls apart.2) Many scientists believed in god and were Theistic. [http://www.biblequery.org...] Science in way a conjecture to Theism. One is literal, the other metaphorical.3) Science shouldn't be done if it's unethical though. Society needs morals so that we don't all go around raping and killing each other. These morals extend to the treatment of an unborn fetus for some and that is the price we pay for being moral.4) You can't use first hand evidence as this is not reliable.[http://www.angelfire.com...] and the logic is on my side.5) Here is another source for suicide rates: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com.... Add together nations like Japan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and China and you begin to understand that they, collectively dominate other religions as the leading suicidal societies. there are no fundamentally atheist societies so their stats do not count.
Atheism, Theism and Society

1) Atheism will work if applied correctly. What the USSR did wrong was force it upon everyone and completely wipe the republic clean of any religious remnants. 2) Science will further our kind. We just have to learn to accept the facts that are put forward for us. Many people believe that God will cure their child of a disease (whether it may be). They are dead wrong; we have medicine and treatments put in place to help them get better. Example of this are nano-particles that will make a cancerous tumor self-destruct. (Article on this will be below.) 3) Religion can get in the way of a scientists work if it conflicts with their, "beliefs." If a scientist finds a way to make a baby or human being using in vitro and while doing so finds a way to make that baby not be affected by any disease known to man; that scientist might not go through with his work as it would be, "playing god," in his mind. And yes, this may be possible in the near future thanks to gene therapy. 4) Whether religion was invented for people who, "need religion," in order to, "want to live," is refutable based on your opinion. There are other ways, SCIENTIFICALLY, to help that person want to live because of bullying , childhood neglect, abuse or whatever the cause may be. This is curable. (Trust me, I have been diagnosed with severe depression, and I have recovered thanks to an experimental hypnosis session with my psychiatrist.) 5) Based on what you said about people committing suicide because of being atheist is merely argumentative as that comes from a very unreliable source (Wikipedia). Besides they were Buddhist which doesn't make them fully atheistic as they have a spiritual side to them.
Atheism, Theism and Society

1) There has never once been a successful attempt at creating a society founded on pure atheism (meaning that Buddhism is not included since it has elements of theism), examples include USSR, China in its communist days. 2) Additionally, societies founded on Buddhism have, collectively, the highest suicide rates worldwide[http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Buddhism is the most atheistic religion.3) Whether a scientist believes a god made the universe or a pixie did is irrelevant to their efficiency as a scientist. Science is studying how things work, whether or not a god made it.4) If religion conflicts with science (such as blood transfusions and embryonic stem cell research) then this should be resolved peacefully, not handed over entirely to the scientific community because that's not resolving hte conflict, it's giving one side auto-win and will result in civil war.5) Theism, to most who believe in it, is not about truth versus lie, it's about maintaining sanity versus killing themselves. There are people who psychologically need religion to want to live, this is the predominant reason for its origin in the first place.
Atheism, Theism and Society

This debate will be about why atheism will lead to more advanced society and why theism is holding the human race back. I shall begin mine. 1) Let's first talk about what atheism is. Atheism is not a religion first of all, atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. To which I will explain as to how the disbelief of God or gods will advance our species. If we learn to not to have a religion but use education, logic and reason to explain how things happen and not depend on what a book or books (Depends of your religion) that were written by a mere mortal like you and I has to say about how certain things happen. For instance a lunar eclipse happens because the moon passes the Earth's shadow (umbra). It does not happen to foretell a disaster or crisis. It happens because of gravity and how the moon orbits around the Earth. 2) As to why religion is holding back human progression is because people choose to have faith in something that would make them feel better. Now, to some, that may sound like a good thing; sadly, that isn't the truth. Not only does religion blind people from facts that are explained thoroughly by science but it also leads to wars and power (that was to given by "God" AKA absolute power) which would make that society a totalitarian formed government. NEXT
Rap Battle 6

So I haven't done one of these in a while, but I wish to take part in some lyrical banter, some articulate attacks, some flinging of foolish flow, some word whips. Whatever way you say it, I don't judge. I just want to rap! RULES FOR ACCEPTING: You must have been a member for at least 2 months. You must have participated in at least 3 debates. You must have rap skills. So lets go! I don't go easy! Someone accept this shizzzzz!
Democratic Socialism is better than Capitalism

I agree with your definitions. Mine were definitely not carefully thought through. Although I fail to see how they are arbitrary or biased, they do appear to be inaccurate, so I submit to the definitions you have provided. Let's start with some statistics. Democratic socialist/social democratic welfare states such as Denmark, Norway, Canada, and Sweden have constant successes relating to economic/quality of life issues. Norway has the highest living standard in the world, graduated using the Human Development Index. In fourth place is Denmark, with a HDI of 0.923. Denmark is the happiest country in the world, closely followed by four other democratic socialist/quazi-socialist countries. Canada, Norway and Sweden are all in the top ten countries ranked by life expectancy. Countries such as these are obviously some of the most successful in the world. It's because of socially democratic policies that protect equal opportunity so that all people have an equal chance of succeeding. The private sector has failed us by allowing corporate greed and carelessness to come before the needs of the people. Take Martin Shkreli, for example, the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals. Overnight, he raised the price of a single pill used to combat HIV/AIDS from $13.50 to $750. Because he had a monopoly on the drug, he knowingly and willingly withheld the drug from people dying of AIDS who could not afford to pay $750 per pill. This is just plain wrong, and this is why we need socialized healthcare and college tuition, following the policies of the aforementioned countries. Eagerly awaiting your response!
Democratic Socialism is better than Capitalism

I accept.I am glad my opponent is willing to debate this topic and hopefully shed light on the universe we live in one debate at a time.I respectfully disagree with your definitions. I find them arbitrary, and not considering all possibilities. In short they are near-sighted and suit your purposes for your arguments you will probably make. Therefore I propose different definitions.Democratic Socialism: "a form of socialism with a democratic government; the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole -- combined with a democratic government" http://www.dictionary.com... Better: "more attractive, favorable, or commendable <in better circumstances> 4 : more advantageous or effective <a better solution> 5 : improved in accuracy or performance <building a better engine>" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Capitalism: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now that all the key terms are defined in the resolution in a more fair way for both debaters, I eagerly await my opponents arguments!
Democratic Socialism is better than Capitalism

Democratic Socialism: To avoid confusion, democratic socialism shall be interpreted as the collected group of economic/social policies that the country of Denmark currently has in effect. This means government-funded public college tuition and single-payer healthcare. Capitalism: An economic system based upon the idea of a free market. Most or all goods and services are privatized, excepting things such as police departments, military and militia (National Guard) and education, as well as various safety-net social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Jesus Christ was gay and John the Apostle was his boyfriend

I would like to once again address my opponents arguments, and, as he said, the burden of proof falls on him as he is going against an accepted belief of over 2,000 years.The Jordan codices have been authenticated by scholars of ancient history. "The director of the Jordan's Department of Antiquities, Ziad al-Saad, says the books might have been made by followers of Jesus in the few decades immediately following his crucifixion." (1) Although I agree that they may not be any more "significant than any other piece of fiction ever written", the same can be said of the New Testament itself.The key words in the statement are "might have been made." This signifies that they are guessing and do not know for sure. This is hardly evidence.I'm not a professor but Michael Ruse, whose article I referenced, is (2,3) and it is his research and assertion that Paul was gay that was the basis for my claim.Once again this is an assertion, merely an opinion, not evidence.My opponent is mistaken, Jesus was, indeed, a Jew: in fact; the members of his gay club even referred to him as "Rabbi". (4)I did not say that Christ was not a Jew, I said He did not follow the Jewish Religion of the day. The Pharisees got it all wrong and Jesus set out to tell the truth of God, Himself, and how life and Salvation worked. As far as Mary Magdalene, perhaps she wanted to be around the man who cast demons out of her (Luke 8:2) because she knew He was more than a man.So as we seee, the evidence is nothing more than opinions that are derived from circumstantial and out of context "evidence."I yield the floor to my oponent to bring real evidence to the claim.
Jesus Christ was gay and John the Apostle was his boyfriend

I am happy to accept the challenge of this debate so that the truth can be made known.When examining the evidence you will find that my opponents claims are not founded upon fact, or reality, and most are taken out of context.In reference to the codices found in Jordan, the article used to represent this claim with the BBC does not state that Paul wrote the document, the author is unknown, this is no more significant than any other piece of fiction ever written.To the claim that Paul himself was gay, I would love to see the documentation of this, it is in fact true that Paul was very emphatic that homosexuality was a sin and an abomination to the Lord. See the book of Romans for details.To the argument that Christ never married, you state that because he was a Jew he would have been married. You forget that Christ did not follow the Jewish religion of the day, instead, he came to restore and birth the true teachings of God.Where did Mary Magdalene "throw herself" at Christ?The argument that Christ was close to His mother proves nothing. Of course the Saviour of the World would be close to the woman that God used as a way to bring Him into this world. I am not sure how this is a valid argument.There is also no proof of the homosexuality of the disciples or even John. They followed Christ as Lord, God of the universe, no proof can be given to the contrary.It is clear that the claim that Christ was a Homosexual is absurd at best, and unfounded but on Scripture taken out of context, and unsubstantiated archeology.