BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Only Certain Women Should Be Allowed To Get An Abortion

Point 1 "a potential human". In your own words you said that it isn't actually a human yet. I see nothing wrong with aborting something that is inhuman. Point 2 You mention trying to salvage your own life. If the mother's life isn't good, the child's will be even worse. I have written much to this effect in earlier rounds of this debate and these valid points have gone without contradiction. Point 3 Murder is the killing of a person. Since this is not a human, as you have said, then it isn't murder. Point 4 Women are never ready to handle being a mother when they first begin having sex, honestly be realistic. The average age at which girls lose their virginity is 15 [1]. Point 5 The necessary precautions can fail, condoms have a 14-21% failure rate ad "the pill" has a 5% failure rate [2]. When you have 3million sexually active teenagers [3] that's a lot of babies, and a lot of ruined lives. http://today.msnbc.msn.com... [1] http://www.americanpregnancy.org... [2] http://www.overpopulation.org... [3]
Only Certain Women Should Be Allowed To Get An Abortion

"the state of being pregnant; the period from conception to birth when a woman carries a developing fetus in her uterus"(1) Once a woman concieves a child, she is pregnant. There is most certainly a human growing inside of her. By definition it is called an embryo/ fetus but in a humane way it is called a baby. Aborting a fetus is the same thing as killing your future child. You are taking away a potential human's chance at life to salvage yours. Abortion is a justification for murder and it should be illegal in certain situations. There is no need to kill a potential human being for the sake of your own. Maybe the pregnant woman/ young girl should have been more careful to begin with. If she cannot handle the responsibility of being a mother maybe she should have thought about that before having sex, and/ or should have taken the necessary precautions to prevent a pregnancy. (1) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Only Certain Women Should Be Allowed To Get An Abortion

Just because a woman is pregnant does not mean the possible future human can be considered human yet. By definition the thing inside of her is just an embryo, and not a fetus until 8 weeks[1], a simple pregnancy test can be taken 1-2 weeks after conception. An abortion can be performed as early as 4 weeks[2]. This is similar to an undeveloped egg. Even a fetus has few characteristics resembling a functioning organism until late in the gestation period. A Baby is defined by dictionary.com as "an infant or very young child. "[2] An infant has already been born. http://www.nlm.nih.gov... [1] http://emedicine.medscape.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]
Only Certain Women Should Be Allowed To Get An Abortion

So you'd rather protect the young girl from all those "negative factors" and kill an innocent child? There are certain responsibilities that you should be willing to take on once you make the decision to have sex, having a child is one of them. You cannot kill an innocent child because you don't want your life to change. For example.. a teenage girl that decided to have sex and not be careful, gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion. She decides to have an abortion because she wants to be able to live her life and enjoy being a teenager, she wants to finish high school and get her life started before she has a child. By doing that she is taking the life of a baby. Her baby. She is killing the baby for her own sake.. seems rather selfish to me.
Only Certain Women Should Be Allowed To Get An Abortion

Why would you be so cruel to the ignorant young people? If one of these children does accidentally get pregnant this can change their life drastically for the worse. A young pregnant girl will likely lose the person they got pregnant from, the support of their parents, and may even have a harder time completing school. With these negative factors the girl will likely lead a much poorer lifestyle which will lead to bad conditions for the child. This young girl may even blame many of her problems on this child, which can lead to abuse and psychological problems for this poor kid. Also protection doesn't always work, even if used correctly these devices may fail, and would you submit all of the aforementioned points to someone who did the best they could?
Only Certain Women Should Be Allowed To Get An Abortion

I think that stricter rules should be placed on who can get an abortion. There should be perameters and rules. For instance a careless teenager should not be able to have one. If a young girl thinks that she is old enough and mature enough to be having sex, she should be smart enough to use protection. If not, her stupid mistake should not be taken out on that baby. I think that teens use abortion as a back- up plan, and it is wrong! Killing your baby for your own sake is disgusting. If a woman gets pregnant and her life is put in danger than, with her consent, she should be one of the few to get an abortion. If there are health problems involved, I think an abortion is understandable but unacceptable for a stupid, careless woman.
The Bible stories, The Tower Of Babel and Noah's Ark are false.

I'm so glad I caught this debate. I have been sick lately but I'm back from my three day vacation.Rebuttal 1:Your whole Bible argument is worthless. I don't even know why you posted it.Rebuttal 2:Fake history? You give no reason why this source isn't credible and then, because you can't think of any other ways to refute it, claim it's fake history. Nice try. You then preach about how we should believe the Bible over historic proof. Please, JFS.Rebuttal 3:With no proof to back that up, I can't believe it. I said the ToB isn't true.Rebuttal 4:I did, yet in your closed mind, you neglect to acknowledge it.It was a simple question. What were the skin tones of the parents?Rebuttal 5:It's simple logic. If Adam and Eve would be the father and mother of the human race, they would have to bear at least one male and female child of all races.Let the records show that all of the claims come from bias sources, and don't even apply to the debate EX: christiananswers.This would take a lot of complex math, and variables depending on child rate, mother's death at birth, dead babies, babies killed from diseases, ETC. Con neglects to even try to prove it is even remotely possible, and to keep herself from answering, she puts it off on me. Clever tactic.This link: http://science.howstuffworks.com...Even according to the Bible, man has free will. Now, here is where my logic comes in. We govern ourselves. To someone, abortion may be moral to save the mother's life, to others, no. Morality is determined by man and its society.Rebuttal 6:Bias sources, arguments that don't apply to the debate, all of these are used by you to derail the reader and tricking them into thinking your arguments are relevant. I will give you a list of arguments not refuted or refuted poorly.Rebuttal 7:I'm wondering how this is a rebuttal.Dropped arguments and rebuttals:How can two dogs cross breed into all the dogs in the world?Poorly refuted arguments:Time span of reproduction.Adam and Eve would need to have a male and female of every race.Please see through Con's biased sources and crooked arguments and focus on those with reliable sources and concern the debate. Thank you.
Women's rights first need to be higher than men's rights to become equal to men's rights

"1. Women are not equal, they are inferior to men." I am confused by this statement, are you referring to physical capability or social structure? Because if you mean by social structure that is exactly what I am trying to say. "2. Women deserve to be paid lower than men because women are inferior." You gave absolutely no reasoning/explanation for this-- I'm afraid I can't argue something that doesn't have anything to argue, cupcake.
Women's rights first need to be higher than men's rights to become equal to men's rights

Here are my arguments: 1. Women are so much lower then men that if we strive to give them more rights, we will eventually get them equal anyways. 2. A woman should get payed more than a man if the woman is pregnant/ gave birth. An example of this is lets say a man and a woman get payed the same for working the same job. Lets say that the women got married then had a child, the woman would have to stay home to take care of the child, or she may have to stay home because of other reasons concerning her pregnancy. The man would eventually get payed more. A few notes: - I do not think men should become as low as women are currently, I simply believe that to get women's rights equal, they need more rights. -I am male
The United States needs to cut Military Aid to Israel and recognize Palestine

Hello, Thank you for responding to my debate! I look forward to the challenge! In your argument you are referencing the creation of Israel. Israel has the right to exist. This is not the argument, my platform is not one of a one state solution that is Palestine. My argument is for cutting aid to the government on the basis of human rights issues. Which you did not acknowledge. It is also because an Apartheid against the Palestinian people is forming.1 That was not addressed, the one point you did acknowledge is their nuclear arsenal. While it provides protection, it is against international law.2 As a global super power we should not be supplying aid to a country with a nuclear arsenal that is against the NPT while we are threatening the DPRK with war for doing the same thing. The war crimes the Israeli government is apart of is not something that I want my government supplying billions of dollars too. Palestinians are people too, and while they have also committed crimes they have repented, and Israel hasn't even though their crimes are much worse. The fact we won't acknowledge the state is appalling. If we cut aid what bad would happen? They aren't a threat to our military. We would strengthen our relationship with rule abiding countries in that region such as Jordan, Morocco, and more. Iran would be willing to talk to us. I'm sorry, but we would a small country verse the rest of the world... I like this better than going against 2 P5 nations, and the whole Middle East. Thank you and please refute my points I said or else I will just assume that you don't have an answer to them.. 1.https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com... 2. NPT
The United States needs to cut Military Aid to Israel and recognize Palestine

The United States should continue to support the nation-state of Israel, and should continue to supply military aid to the country. Support for Israel in terms of military is more than the debate between Israel/Palestine. This conflict looks back to the end of the Holocaust, and the perception of support for a defeated and attacked people as a whole. There was a conflict with the sense that Israelis, and specifically the Jews who primarily encompass what Israel's population is today were are the end of the Holocaust fearful for return to any home due to the vast amounts of anti-semitism that swooped through Europe and other parts of the world. With this in mind, there were only so many supporters of the Jewish people at the end of the Holocaust. Western allies such as Great Britain, France and the United States in particular were some of the only left who were in support of building up and protecting a devastated people (www.ushmm.org). With the spread of anti-Jewish figures in the Eastern World, there was a need for the United States to begin to support Israel more heavily. In 1945 Harry Truman got involved with the protection of the new state of Israel (Green, "Why Does the United States Give So Much Money to Israel?" The Atlantic). And even into today, there are more than plenty of reasons for continued military support. With the threat of continued nuclear attack, there is an importance of having a nuclear ally in the Middle East to aid in the cut-off war happening overall. Plus, the support from the United States is taking the load off Israel, allowing them the true time to work on building themselves stronger over time. Thusly supporting a stronger military in the long-run (Green, "Why Does the United States Give So Much Money to Israel?" The Atlantic).
The United States needs to cut Military Aid to Israel and recognize Palestine

The United States is currently supplying 3.9 Billion Dollars to the Government of Israel. This money is going towards a military which violates the inalienable human rights which the Palestinians are given by international law, and is also going towards the formation of a second Apartheid. The War Crimes committed by the Israeli defense are extreme, and uncalled for. The government claims these crimes are for their own self defense. Self-defense, as determined by Article 51 of the UN Charter, applies when the facts of violence alone justify the act, leaving "no choice of means and no moment for deliberation" Yet from the 2010-2014 time period almost 7,000 Palestinians have died while less than 1,000 Israelis did. They are also knowingly in violation of the NPT with the production of Nuclear Weapons. How could America support such a rouge state. A relationship with Israel has also hampered relations between the US and the rest of the Middle East. It was cited by Bin Laden in his letter to the United States that one of the main reasons behind the tragedy of 9/11 was the United States backing Israel as they tried to keep expanding beyond the agreed upon terms which were set by the UN. This has also caused the relations between multiple middle east countries and the United States to not reach their full potential. 90% of the current problems in the Middle East could be solved if America simply cut the aid, and identified Palestine as a country.
Islam is a religion of peace

Sorry for the late response, I've been rather busy at school. But anyway, let's get on. '(if the Quran is not suited for every time and place then the Quran should not be a reference to anything in the modern day and by saying no, you are denying one of the miracles of the Quran, and even if it was true then the Quran wouldn't be relevant today)' Firstly, let me give you an example. Image someone sent a letter to someone who was going to be fighting a battle against Non-Muslim oppressors who were killing people, containing something like this: 'Fight the unbelievers that are near to you.' Obviously, Muslims are not supposed to fight all the disbelievers they see. They have to look at when Allah said that and why to get the full meaning. It is suited to this time only If we end up in the same situation as those people Allah was talking to. I don't think you understood what I said before. Secondly, I don't see a problem with a wife being obedient to her husband. Do you? It makes peace in the house. Husbands cannot strike their wives because of mere 'disobedience' and 'disagreeing'. Those words are not mentioned in this verse. As a person who likes to study the human mind, I have come across an emotion called 'anger.' Many husbands would beat their wives if she did something very, very bad. It's not compulsory. This verse is giving limits to the man, to advise and give his wife warnings first. If hitting your wife altogether was banned, people would disobey Allah if they got very angry with their wives. Anger is natural. Scholars have also analysed this verse, and have figured out that the word 'Strike' in this verse, has limits. It is not allowed to leave a mark, be on the face or be a hard, painful blow. 'Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defence since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time.' The audience obviously WAS under attack at that time. Those disbelievers, (The Quraish) were killing people who converted to Islam. You can tell from the way the verse is written in that they were being oppressed. 'if you want to disprove me, then you must prove how each one of these verses does not condone violence, leaving one out would only prove that Islam is not a peaceful religion and if you can not then there is simply no merit to the Quran which means that Allah is not real.' In the Quran, Allah only tells Muslims to use violence when they are being treated unfairly, killed or oppressed by other people. It is not violence for no reason, everyone uses violence when they need to. That's fine. In this debate, I'm talking about unnecessary violence. It has nothing to do with Allah not being real either.
Islam is a religion of peace

Alright, Let's begin. I do not believe Islam is a violent religion, and Islamic extremists are wrong and stupid for forcing people to do extreme things by violence. Allah says in the Quraan, in Surah Baqara: "Nobody can be forced into religion." Therefore non-Muslims cannot be forced into Islam and nobody can be forced to wear hijab for example. There is a verse in the Quran saying something like "When you meet the disbelievers" Then an instruction of how to kill them by cutting off their heads? Many Islamaphobic people use this verse as an excuse to make Islam look violent. But they are wrong. Allah is telling the Muslims what to do when they meet the disbelievers in BATTLE. Allah was giving instructions to the Muslims at that time because the disbelievers then were severely oppressing all the Muslims in Makkah. Allah is not referring to all the non-Muslims in the world, Allah was telling the Muslims at that time what do. Not us now. This is the case for some other verses in the Quran too. Also, beheading is a less painful way to die. http://listverse.com... -Beheading, if somewhat gruesome, can be one of the quickest and least painful ways to die. So long as the executioner is skilled, his blade sharp, and the condemned sits still.The height of decapitation technology is, of course, the guillotine. Officially adopted by the French government in 1792, it was seen as more humane than other methods of execution. So why do you think Islam is violent?
Islam is a religion of peace

greetings!! I am an ex-Muslim atheist living in an Arab Muslim majority country and have read the Quran in Arabic the original language of the Quran, after numerous studies, I concluded that Islam preaches violence in numerous verses in the Quran. now yes there are different interpretations for the Quran this is why the interpretations that I will be providing are ones that are in the "Madhab" which are a collection of 4 books ( Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafie, Malaky) which are regarded in the Muslim community as authentic sources or interpretations for the Quran. I will also be mentioning "Hadith" which is also considered the second source after the Quran but only "hadith saheh" which is the most authentic grand of a hadith, in other words, its the exact same words that are said by the Prophet Mohammad. I will also be mentioning the "sera" which is a book that tells the story of Mohammad since the Islamic faith was presented to him, the "sera" is the third most authentic source about Islam after the Quran and the "hadith". throughout the debate, I will be arguing that the Quran mentions unethical commands that can be considered violent, and at times calls for violence, this will be further expanded and explained when referenced to the Hadith and the Sera. the English translations that I will be using are the ones used by "Ibin Kather" a liberal Islamic scholar that is regarded the most authentic English translated Quran out there. if there are certain or any source that you find does not satisfy your understanding of the Islamic Faith I would be happy to remove or not mention any of them if you so kindly mention it in the next round of debate. general argument: Islam is not a religion of peace due to commands found in the Quran and other authentic Islamic sources. good luck and my the best man/woman win!!!!
The New Deal was successful

Contention 1: NIRAMy source States that the overall unemployement averaged 17%, as you can see from Pro conceeding this fact is that the bill caused people to go into unemployment after it was enacted. (. http://www.encyclopedia.com...) It forced buisnesses to 'co-operate' by declaring that competition to be illegal, ILLEGAL! (. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) As I brought up in my last round that the Supreme Court found the bill to be unconstitutional by forcing buisness out of buisness. Now my opponent said to take this to minimum wage and child labor, but if we look to round 2 we can see that the bill that established that was the Fair Labor Standards Act and secondly I am not allowed to presue new arguments in the finail round. Contention 2: Keynesian EconomicsMy opponent drops this contention, so please extend this across the board as it indeed had a huge impact among Americans both then and now. ConclusionAfter overviewing this debate one can see that the New Deal was a Failure, because the federal government forced unemployment upon Americans and attempted to use a Command Economy. They also installed the AAA which hurt the average Joe by increasing food prices and caused people to starve. We can see that the Keynesian Economics hurt Americans by forcing us into debt. We can see that the New Deal did not lead to recovery, but if it were not for World War 2 the US would have ended back into the Great Depression.
The New Deal was successful

Contentions NIRA Your own very source says "prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%." (1). Also, the very fact that it was ruled unconstitutional by a conservative controlled court does not take from the effectiveness of the act. This argument is not on constitutionality. The NIRA set up precedents that led to the establishment of a national minimum wage and the banning of child labor. Unless my opponent would like to argue that a national minimum wage or the illegality of child labor are both good things, I think he should take into account the effectiveness of such a policy. It was designed to "That New Deal law was designed to promote recovery and reform, encourage collective bargaining for unions, set up maximum work hours (and sometimes prices) and minimum wages, and forbid child labor in industry." (2). You have failed to show how any of these reasons were ineffective, but since all of these things happened as a result of the NIRA, I would say that this piece of legislation was effective. Keynesian Economics The broad topic of this economic system is imperative to this debate, however I would love to debate this with you at another time. If you challenge me after this debate relating to this topic I will accept. I feel it is a bit irrelevant to this debate. Conclusion So far in my arguments, my opponent has conceeded in all except two areas, that New Deal policies have been effective. These included the Glass-Steagall Banking Act, the TVA, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the debate continues on the effectiveness of FIRA, I feel that I have successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of the New Deal. (http://cf067b.medialib.glogster.com...) This website shows the unemployment rate during the 1930s. FDR took the presidency in 1933, and you see the escalation of unemployment until FDR becomes president. His hands on approach to government decreased unemployment by more than 10% over just 4 years! While this period of growth was followed by another recession, it is easy to see the great benefits of the policies of FDR. His policies were effective in securing short term relief and in putting in place long term benefits that would continue to benefit America for decades. Con has failed to prove anything, except for the failure of the AAA. I urge the voter to look at the failure of con to discredit the effectiveness of the New Deal, and to take that into consideration when voting. (1) http://www.cato.org... (2) http://www.u-s-history.com... Thank you