BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion Should Be Legal and Unrestricted

What's important to realize about abortion is the fact that it is absolutely not murder. If abortion actually did involve the killing of a child, it would have never been a legal option in the first place. You simply cannot logically argue that a child is killed if said child would not be able to survive outside of the womb at the point of abortion. Additionally, a baby/fetus cannot have autonomy because their brains are not capable of making such a complicated decision as abortion. And yes, I absolutely believe that there are circumstances in which abortion would be necessary, such as if the birth of the child would lead to the death of the mother. This is not to say that the woman would be forced to abort, because it a right and not a responsibility. Women do deserve the right to abortion for their own individual reasons, as there are many cases that would harm the lives of the mother and/or child. Women that are raped deserve the right to abortion if they wish it, as a child is a huge commitment to which they did consent. If women become pregnant due to misuse or faulty birth control methods, they too deserve the right to abortion. Caring for a child is extremely costly and time consuming; women that cannot afford to care for another human being deserve the right to terminate a pregnancy. Lastly, if abortion were to be made illegal, it would not stop abortions from happening. Abortion is extremely common; as many as 1 in 3 women will have an abortion in their lifetime. To make abortion illegal would only make it much more dangerous for the women who have them. The women that would not attempt abortions would end up raising a child in poverty and/or neglect, which would absolutely be detrimental to the child's life.
Abortion Should Be Legal and Unrestricted

My opponent states that women deserve autonomy when it comes to decide whether they want to kill another human, but my opponent is hypocritical when making such a decision because they are taking away the autonomy of the baby. Therefore this point my opponent made is refuted because of hypocrisy. Then my opponent states that women have to right to kill someone for any reason, which is seldom used as an argument by pro abortionists because it"s easily refuted. My opponent proposes that someone should be able to kill another human being for any reason, such as for their inconvenience. But it is immoral to kill another human being, and especially so for someone who kills someone just because they don"t want to deal with the person. This is similar to kill someone because they annoy you. My opponent says that abortion is NECESSARY, but I see no situation in which it is and would like my opponent to provide it "and taking away reasonable access will only harm the woman (and possibly her potential child.)" Pro basically states that making abortion illegal, will harm the child, but making it legal will not harm child. Therefore saying killing is not harming someone, which doesn"t make sense. Point is that my opponent is trying to justify killing someone for any reason.
You can't convince me that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

Opponents Arguments 1. My opponent is assuming that I would accept a mind altering substance. In fact, I will not accept a mindaltering substance, specifically if it used to obtain a false positive. In that circumstance, his argument is dependent upon my taking the implied drugs. I refuse to take the drugs that would cause a false confession in the denial of God's existence. 2.& 3. At least in my mind, God would have to exist for me to believe in Him. The God that I still believe exists has the power of omnipotence, therefore, He can use divine intervention. 4. According to Webster, Probability is not proof, close but complete. Probability is the liklihood, not the guaranteed. If I were to comsume or otherwise partake, which I won't, my opponent has no clue which to use, nor the amount necessary to achieve a false confession. 5. My opponent refers to the enjoyable, yet ficticious work of George Orwell's (aka Erik Blair) 1984. Because of it being fiction, it is not realiable. As both Mongeese & Grape implied, is it possible for O'Brien to take me to room 101 and obtain a false confession? Even at the torturous hands of the flying spaghetti monster? Unfortunately for my opponent, the answer is no. Why? Because also in the realm of fiction, all of the atributes of Aslan, John Rambo, Rocky Balboa, and of course Jack Bauer would prevent any such false confession. Semantic Rebuttal While Grape has made this debate much more interesting than I expected, I too can throw a proverbial semantic-based curveball. In the Resolution, I used the pronoun "You". "You" does not refer to the debater known as Grape who accepted this debate. While brilliantly argued, the responsibility of You does not lie with the debater known as Grape. Given the above, I, "me" remain convinced that the God of the Bible does exist.
You can't convince me that the God of the Bible doesn't exist.

While I do find the use of the verb "can" somewhat semantical, that too is a tactic I often engage in. I admit my intent did not fall within that realm, I will address the argument presented. Is it possible to convince me that God does not exist after administering a mind altering drug? Excellent proposition indeed. Given that I would not be of my normal state of being, any information I provided may or may not reflect an accurate representation of how I would respond without the mind altering drug in question as I would not be in possession of my full faculties. Suppose at such time, divine intervention, disallowed any negative disclosure? An omnipotent God certainly would possess such an ability. In an unaltered state it is completely impossible. In an altered state of mind, it may not be an accurate reflection of my views. Further, we can't know how I would respond, nor do we know if God would allow it. Given the above, I disagree I am not convinced that God does not exist. I will not be unsporting to my oppponent, please present new/additional ideas.
Religion is useless

Since the opponent did not depict a concrete definition:Usefulness: (n) Being of practical useRebuttal:The opponent states that religion does not provide any answers. This is, of course, not the case. Religion certainly does provide answers for many questions (e.g., "What caused life to begin?"); the validity of these answers, however, is controversial. "Religious books are full of errors and are severally outdated," states the opponent. On the contrary, many old books that play extremely influential roles in science and other fields have many errors. There were errors found in Einstein's theory of relatively [1], which, according to many, is one of the most influential works in the history of physics, if not science, as a whole. "Outdated"? How old is too old? Isn't "outdated" sort of outdated? The works of Socrates and Plato are respected by philosophers today, and they are pretty "outdated," wouldn't you say?"So many conflicts in this world are caused by religion." This is irrelevant, since we are discussing usefulness, not whether religion is good or bad. But one could argue that, in fact, initiating conflict is a way in which religion is put to use, thereby evidencing its usefulness.I would go on with these rebuttals, but they are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. We are not questioning how beneficial religion is; we are attempting to determine whether it is practical or not.Arguments:Let's see how religion is used for practical purposes...Religion enables clergymen to receive a salary to sustain themselves and their families... And that's practical. Religion gives people a feeling of understanding and purpose by shedding light on questions that are seemingly(?) unanswerable... And that's practical. Religion builds bonds among people. People of the same religion feel more close to each other due to their shared belief systems. This leads to strong relationships among people... And that's practical.---Practicality, or "usefulness," just depicts the ability to reach an end through a means. Based on my rebuttals and example-based counterargument, I think it is not only clear but BLATANT that religion is "useful."[1] http://www.wwlange.de...
Religion is useless

Ok... seeing as you accepted the debate, that means you must disagree with me, correct? That means you find religion is useful. I simply would like to know in what way religion is useful. I don't see any single factor of life improved upon because of religion and due to scientific advancements, it could be that religion is no longer needed at all. Religion does not provide any answers... that's a fact. Religious books are full of errors and are severally outdated. So many conflicts in this world are caused by religion. Religion is always given so much respect... it gets tax reliefs, it's "not right" to make fun of it... and (especially true of Islam), you get in so much trouble if you question it. This is not fair. Religion gives false hope to billions of people and tells them that their life had meaning. In all probability, this is a lie. Life has no meaning, because humans are only here by chance. Something that exists by chance can have no meaning. Over to my opponent to respond to my points.
Abortion

Since my opponent has forfeited the last round, I will conclude my arguments in this one. The base line is the rights of women. Women should have the right of what goes in or out of her body as she sees fit. It is her body, and no one else should have a say in what happens to it. This debate has mostly been about early abortions (since those are the most common by far) where the pregnancy consists of nothing but a ball of cells with no consciousness, individual life, feeling or anything that would indicate life. A woman's rights should always be above that of this non-conscious, non-feeling and non-developed ball of cells that reside inside her. Most abortions take place because contraception has failed, and not because of a woman's incompetence, and no-one should be able to tell a woman that she MUST carry this child for 9 months and put her body through pregnancy just because it is against THIER personal morals. It is not for other people to decide, because, simply, it is not their body, it is not their pregnancy, and it is not their business. Thank you. Readers.
The United States should adopt a negative income tax.

Thank you to Bob and Shab for the debate. Good luck if you advance.Just a general note to the voters: please recognize Con didn't offer a shred of evidence to attack our case. Prefer our evidence-based case to our opponents' logic-based rebuttal. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with logic - but if the evidence proves the contrary, which it does here, we have to side with the evidence. Vote Pro on this alone.We're going to provide key voting issues on which the debate should be decided.1. Reduction of BureaucracyCon concedes this to be true. It's just a matter of whether it's a benefit. We showed that this reduces cost (more in Voting Issue 2) and also reduces unnecessary government control on our lives. It is safe to say that individuals will, on balance, make wise decisions with their money. The opponents make a distinction between this belief and the belief that the poor will spend money wisely. However, just like the rest of the population, the majority of the poor will utilize their finances properly. Therefore, the reduction of bureaucracy is a good thing due to the reduction of cost and unnecessary oversight.2. Reduction of CostsWe proved that this system is significantly cheaper. This is an obvious benefit that goes Pro. While the opposition claims costs would increase (again, with no evidence), we demonstrated an NIT would cost less than 1/13th the current welfare system. It is safe to say we won here.3. Incentive to WorkOur opponents' idea of decreased incentive to work is ridiculous, based on information that is outdated at best or incorrect at worst. We completely refuted their study in the third round. Don't let them pull this through.4. Empowerment of WomenRemember, we turned this against our opponents. Women gain financial independence and can break free from troubled relationships. Our opponents' have no response here.Therefore, we have four key arguments in our favor and our opponents have none, as their summary is disproven by our voting issues 1 & 3. Since Pro is the only side with arguments still standing, we can see no other vote than Pro. Thank you!
The United States should adopt a negative income tax.

Our team has demonstrated throughout the debate that a negative income tax would be less effective than any alternatives such as a welfare system. A negative income tax decreases incentive to work. The study discussed in round two found productivity loss and wage replacement as a result of the system being using used in the experiment. This is also supported by the fact that the tax supplies money instead of providing for individual needs. A normal welfare system uses programs such as food stamps to make sure recipients have only what they need, which prevents productivity loss. It is necessary for the welfare system to be more complex than a negative income tax. In order to make sure welfare is used only for what recipients need, it is necessary to have a relatively complex system. A negative income tax is simple, but it isn't an effective system because it gives money to those who don't need it, which decreases incentive to work. ConclusionOur opponent's argument rests on the assumption that a negative income tax would encourage workers to be productive, but the opposite is true. It has been proven to lead to productivity loss and wage replacement, so it is necessary to have a complex welfare system that provides for what people really need. Thanks to our opponents for a good debate, and thanks to Bsh1 for hosting the tournament.
The United States should adopt a negative income tax.

In the interests of fairness, in this round we will only be rebutting our opponent's R2.The opposing teams makes two arguments. First, they claim that a study showed an NIT was ineffective in that it reduced productivity and only replaced existing wages. However, the study they cite had multiple errors - first, it didn't replace welfare, but only supplemented it. Professor Glen G. Cain disputed the findings. Actual productivity losses were far lower than expected by NIT opponents, and the wage replacement was only "suggested" - not actually found.[1] In other words - this limited study was disputed by other researchers, not really applicable to our argument (which is to replace most, if not all welfare), made less damage than NIT opponents expected, and didn't really show wage replacement.The opposing team also claims the study reduced family stability. We want to say two things here: first, this study was conducted so long ago (the 60s) that the results here are less relevant - family stability has reduced anyway as women earn more money. Second, this seems mostly to correlate with women having increased economic opportunity, and thus being able to escape from marriages that they were only staying in because of money. Is that really a bad thing?The opposing team also argues an NIT would cost a lot of money - $38 billion per year, in fact. This claim is almost laughable. Since we are proposing to replace most, if not all welfare, $38 billion is far lower than the current amount we spend - over $1 trillion.[2] Given our current deficit of $503 billion, that would be suffiicient to grant us a massive surplus.[3] Of course, $38 billion is a bit lower - greater benefits would be expected. But even if we spent 13 times that much, we'd still have a surplus. To get around this obvious point, our opponents claim that the negative income tax will be increased often, comprably to Social Security or unemployment - they claim this will mean it will cost "Trillions of dollars". I contest this claim. As part of overall tax reform, the negative income tax would be tied to tax reform - either a flat tax, simplified tax, or sales tax. Increasing NIT would throw the system out of whack. Since the NIT is so different from other welfare, and costs are fairly obvious rather than spread among 100+ organizations, it simply isn't as easy to increase it. References1. http://www.econlib.org...2. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...3. https://www.thebalance.com...
The United States should adopt a negative income tax.

Thank you for the definition. You can be more specific about what plan for a negative income tax you support in your argument, so I will use this round to argue against the tax in general.Contention #1: A negative income tax decreases incentive to work.Experiments in Seatle and Denver tested the effectiveness of a negative income tax. The Stanford Research Institute analyzed the results and found a 9-18% reduction in productivity, and that 50-60% of those recieving the tax used it to replace wages they would have otherwise earned themselves. [1]The same study also found that the tax decreased family stability because families no longer relied on wage-earners.Contention #2: A negative income tax would be expensive to implement.Even proponents of the tax estimate a cost of $38 billion a year, and that is underestimated:"And if once the main principle of either proposal were accepted, the minimum subsidy or guarantee demanded would be bound constantly to increase. Anyone who doubts this need merely consult the history of unemployment insurance and Social Security benefits since those plans were initiated in the 1930s."Implementing this system would be very expensive, possibly reaching trillions of dollars.ConclusionA negative income tax would be ineffective because it decreases incentive to work and causes family instability, and it would also be costly.I will not have access to my computer this weekend, so I would appreciate it if you could take your time to respond.[1] http://www.econlib.org...[2] https://mises.org...
The United States should adopt a negative income tax.

This is a debate for the second round of the DDOlympics Team Tournament. Bob13 and ShabShoral are on the instigating team, with TN05 and warren42 on the opposing side. The first round is acceptance. The next two rounds will be for arguments, rebuttals, and defense, then conclusions in the final round. Since TN05 and Warren will be be arguing for a negative income tax, they will post a definition in the first round. Additional rulesNo unfair semantics. No kritiks. Use sources to support your arguments, not to be your arguments.
Katana ("Pro") vs. Rapier ("Con")

3) A katana symbolizes honor, social status, wealth, and power. A katana is wielded by the best swordsmen in Japan. Rebuttal on Con: 1) As proven before, katana is perfectly forged with proportional amounts of high and low carbon steel. It doesn't shatter like a rapier. 2) Samurai has dignity and honor. Mute point for Con. 3) Katana are kept polish and cleaned before returning to the scabbard, rapiers not so much. You're turn!
Katana ("Pro") vs. Rapier ("Con")

Since Con forfeited, I suppose I'll start. 1) Katana is forged with a proportional amount of high and low carbon steel. This balances the durability and life expectancy of the weapon. While the rapier is made solely from steel, thus more likely to shatter. 2) A Katana will easily deflect any rapier blocks because the katana has more mass. The katana is designed for both offensive and defensive (slashing, thrusting) while the rapier is adapted mainly offensive (thrust). I await my opponent.
Katana ("Pro") vs. Rapier ("Con")

I affirm the resolution. Katana description: The metal forged for the rapier is too fragile. The katana is forged with a precise proportion of high carbon and low carbon steel. Low-carbon steel enables the katana to absorb shocks/impacts without shattering, while the high carbon steel maintains a katana's durability and sharp edge. Layers after layers of these mixtures are hammered into a durable and reliable katana. Seeing that we have 5 rounds, my arguments will be posted R2.
Katana ("Pro") vs. Rapier ("Con")

RESOLUTION: Assuming one is superior to the other, the katana is a superior weapon to the rapier. POSITION: I will be arguing for "Con." ARGUMENT: The rapier is a more refined and civilized weapon, capable of dealing a precision death blow with minimal effort and allowing a skilled swordsman to slay his foes with dignity. The katana is an unwieldy, asymmetrical monstrosity historically wielded in a haphazard fashion by Asian rednecks and often dirtying its wielder with blood and entrails.
Build or Buy a PC

There may be a larger change that a bought PC is more reliable, but a custom built PC is less likely to slow down over time due to annoying bloatware and free trial software that uses up more space and slows down your bought PC. On the other hand a custom built one will not come with any of this useless software, unless you install it yourself which is highly unlikely. By not having any of this unwanted software you can feel better as your anti-virus won't suddenly stop working because of a silly trial as you have actually bought a reliable anti-virus program that actually works.
Build or Buy a PC

Building a PC may have its benefits, but buying one is much more reliable. The creators of the PC's you buy are technology exports, and they know the proper way to design a computer. It is possible that you may make a mistake, and because you're dealing with different companies for the various parts, it'll be complicated to figure the situation out (1). Also, buying a computer is quicker, and it requires much less effort. I do not want to figure out how to build a computer, as I want it now. The price of building versus buying is close enough that the effort is not worth it. Thanks for debating me! (1) http://compreviews.about.com...
IS Hilary Swank hot? Seriously, though- let's debate this.

Dane! Your slamming Swank left and right! First off, these are statistics formed after multiple studies and data recording of people's preferences- so no, science isn't telling you- it's your friends telling you that data. Besides- those measurements that you referred to? They're of Kelly frickin' Brook! People adore her because shes got a ginormous rack, doesn't look hideous without makeup, etc. She is ONE example of a woman with those measurements. I challenge you to find at least three more ' alluring' figures that are well past the 34-24-34 standard like her and 'adored' by all as well. Secondly, true perfect symmetry doesn't exist. Yes, Swank's right eye is lowered, but the same is with mine- mine looks like an old hag's own squinting eye. Heck, even Megan Fox has went under the knife with injections and botox for her face. The fact of the matter is that some people find her to be significantly symmetrical, NOT perfectly symmetrical. If our faces we're perfectly symmetrical- well, here's a article with a few images of "perfect symmetry." (1) (1) http://www.thejournal.ie... Thirdly, some of those ladies have measurements that have been greatly thanks to surgery. Those ladies are Scarlett Johansson and Angelina Jolie. I would call listing these ladies as a cheap shot- simply because Swank has been known for her more natural beauty- not necessarily artificial plastic beauty. As for my conclusion, I will say that while Swank is not the sexiest, most beautiful, hottest woman in Hollywood, there's no doubt she's hot ( to an extent.) I will and have agreed with some of my contender's points along the lines of her hotness, but overall, I stand strong to my claim that she is hot. Thanks to my contender- who put up a fair fight- and thanks to everyone who's read and considered voting for either me or my contender! Good luck to my contender in his conclusion.