BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Judeo-Christian God is derived from the ego.

First I will argue with your initial construction of your argument. It is facile to say that if God and human ego have the same characteristics, they have the same source. Correlation never equals causation and this argument is assuming precisely that. Even if correlation did equal causation, one could just as easily come to the conclusion, given this evidence, that the human Ego has derived from God, not the other way around. In any event, even if it were all true, you simply have stated that God and the human ego have a common ancestor, not that God is derived from the human ego. The Judeo-Christian God is also a being placed above all humans, a being that dwarfs any human's greatness unlike the things created by the human ego, which always compliment the human(s) creating them. The human ego would feel nothing but threatened by the existence of a beings such as God.
Should we legalize abortion

Very well, it depends on what danger the child or mother is in.If the danger can be subdued by medical care, the i don't see any reason for abortion.Second, 151600 people die everyday, it is normal for a baby to take their place in this world. To support that statement i just mentioned, rising birthrate is slowly crawling its way up, and to prevent that, parents should be wise whether to have another child or not. Moving on, abortion not only kills an innocent life, it also terrorizes the mentality of the mother, her parents and husband respectively. Lets say a baby has zika virus, it is still wrong to abort his/her birth, until the baby is born. If the disease doesn't harm the mother, then you should not proceed with abortion. I would like to hear your rebuttals please.
Should we legalize abortion

Not because I am pro abortion, but (to a extent) pro choice. I believe that there should be a limit to abortion, however completely banning it would be mindless. If the Mother or Child is in danger, then it should be a option, and plus don't forget over population. The Foster Care system would explode. And we won't face any danger by doing this obviously, far more mothers choose to keep their child than choose abortion. If they are in danger or the child is, it should be provided as more like a sort of mercy kill, both of them would die the other way. No one is saying that the mothers are forced to choose abortion, but if either one of them are in danger, it is the better choice. I will await your response
Should we legalize abortion

I think they should,because abortion can cause mental disruption. Abortion is also killing innocent lives. Based on the word "fetus","embryo" and "zygote" are living organisms. Thus abortion is harming a living thing. Furthermore, abortion is a choice made by the mother. If you force the mother to abort the birth, it is against the law. But the mother should just deliver the baby and raise him/her just like any normal human being.
Modern feminism is cancer.

For the sake of separation of rounds I request that you refrain from addressing any of my arguments in this round (2). This round is solely for building up your arguments. Before I begin, I'd like to define what I mean by modern feminism. Modern feminism refers to the third and fourth wave feminist movements. I'm not trash talking the first feminists who actually strove to achieve equal constitutional rights for men and women, but now it has turned into something else. Every feminist you see on the news or media these days seem hell-bent on "destroying the patriarchy". They blame all the problems they have on men. They say the wage gap that exists is because men are discriminating against women, when they completely ignore that the entire wage gap is the result of individual women's choices. They say women are discouraged from going into STEM fields, when females are even more encouraged than men to pursue these careers. The modern feminist movements try to portray women as victims of society that need special treatment over men. These feminists advocate "equality of the sexes" but when mens' issues are brought up, they disregard them.Also, men and women aren't the same. Feminists sometimes say, "Why are men so afraid to show their feelings?" or "Why do men try so hard to be masculine?" (Try the Buzzfeed video "26 questions women have for men") These feminists try to make men less masculine for the sake of "gender equality" but then go after the masculine guys (because that's how nature works).Obviously this round was a little rushed (sorry for the late response), but I'll have a lot more to say in the upcoming rounds.
If marriage is legal in the USA, SSM should also be legal in the USA

Thank you, Taylor, for your quick reply. I wish you the best of luck as we advance in the final round.I am going to start off by refuting Taylor's one and only contention. I certainly hope you have more as it is ludacris. It is impossible for same sex couples to procreate with each other In a nut shell, my opponent argues that the only reason SSM should still be illegal is for procreation reasons. This is absolutely ignoramous. Firstly, sterile couples can marry; and second, senior citizens, who cannot procreate, can marry. Also, not once in the marriage liscence process is the question asked if you will procreate. How do I know? I was there when my step dad and mother got their marriage liscen e.I will also say that my 1st father was sterile and could not procreate and yet my mom was allowed to marry my dad. I was obviously adopted.I will also give another example from my own life. In my church, one senior citizen got married to another senior citizen. They were not able to procreate, but were allowed to get married. How is this possible if marriage is for procreation?In this rebuttal...I have given three examples from my own life how procreation is not the purpose of marrying and have shown how idiotic this argument is.I also thank you for your source, I am in honours biology and really did not need the source. Let’s see how my opponent’s syllogism works when we apply it to different situations. Hey there, thank you for answering your OWN QUESTION!polygamy is illegal because of the legal issues of dividing the decease’s possessions after death. Incest is illegal because of birth defects. Pedophilia is illegal because one of the participants is a minor, who may not understand the entire situation A word of advice, do not answer your own rebuttal in your contention. Thank you. If my opponent understands that this case is referring to interracial marriage then he shouldn’t cite it. He is taking the court ruling out of context, and he knows it. I am not taking it out of context. I needed a source to back up thet claim that marriage is a fundamental right. Therefore, I used that Supreme Court case.My opponent has once again taken the Amendment out of context because this is not even referring to marriage. My opponent has taken the first court case in his first contention, and this contention is based off his first so it is equally flawed. The purpose of that source was to show that all citizens are entitled to equal rights. Also I would like to note that my opponent has cited Wikipedia which is an unreliable source because of the fact that anyone can change it. I’m not saying that this is what my opponent has done; however, I would like to see some more legitimate sources. I do not cite wikipedia unless wikipedia cites good sources. ConclusionI have successfully refuted my opponent's one and only contention and given reasons why his other syllogisms are ludacris. Back to you, con, and next time DO NOT ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION!
If marriage is legal in the USA, SSM should also be legal in the USA

He has offered to let me go first, but I'll allow him to do so and I look forward to the debate. We must remember to stay topical and adhere to the resolution. Also, I disagree with my opponent's comment in round one that religious arguements may not be offered. I will comply with his demand, however I do request that I be allowed to bring up religious arguments because marriage was set up by religious institutions. I wouldn't say things like the Bible says it's a sin so it's immoral. However, I believe the debate would be more fair if we were allowed to talk about what actually created the foundation of marriage.
If marriage is legal in the USA, SSM should also be legal in the USA

In this debate, I will attempt to show that SSM (Same Sex Marriage) should be and needs to be legal in the USA. By accepting this debate, you (my opponent) are agreeing to the structure and rules.Structure:Pro's objective: To show why SSM needs to be legal in the USA.Con's objective: To show why SSM should NOT be legal in the USA.Both need to refute the other's arguments and make a compelling case of your own.Round 1: Acceptance, no arguments.Round 2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals.Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: RebuttalsRound 5: Closing Arguments, no new arguments allowed.Rules:No Religious ArgumentGood conductWhoever accepts MUST be con SSM This debate is NOT over civil unions or other variations.Good luck.
The United States should have a national health care system

My opponent talks a lot about the way how the government will handle healthcare better. However, given that the US federal government is a bureaucracy, there will be paperwork and lots of "chain of command" procedures. Healthcare is already complicated, and given the funding shortfalls of most programs in the US (such as education), there is no way the government will be able to delegate funds to match the efficiency of the private sector. Unless they raise taxes, by a lot to compensate. Higher taxes are always bad when it is not vital to national security or personal safety. So given the previous argument, universal healthercare (public option) works in the following manner: The tax payers pay more, by % of income, to the government and a low monthly premium; the government then pays for all, or most, healthcare costs. Given this, the using of the healthcare system will be cheaper; given that it will be cheaper. Drug users and alcoholics will then abuse this, driving up the costs to everyone else (by % of income) and the costs will end up being higher than before. My opponent also talks about doctors taking advantage of patients. First, no they do not. That is illegal. Even if they did, it is with the consent of the patient. There are FREE clinics all over the country for people who cannot afford healthcare. These clinics are free (or very, very cheap) to the user, and draws in a lot of drug users and alcoholics. They run off of a combination of government funds and donations. If patients were being abused, they could always turn to free clinics. Do they not? Is it because it is too long of a wait? The service is poor? The medicine is not as good? It is all because they lack the funds of other hospitals that charge enough to maintain good medicine and service with sufficient staff. All hospitals will go into a similar state should public option be put in place. >>Implementing a public option in the US would curb the flood of doctors that leave Canada to practise and while improving access to fairly priced health care. >>The idea that by making the US healthcare system a universal one will solve Canadian problems as well is faulty. The doctors come to the US for better wages; they became doctors so they could come to the US for better wages. It is not possible that they would become doctors in Canada then discover the land of "high paying" after many years of school. Should the US implement public option, the doctors coming to the US will not apply for MedSchool in the first place, and the numbers will also drop in the US. This is worse for both countries, but mainly the US. =====Sources Just logic from points already established in previous rounds.
The United States should have a national health care system

My argument is founded upon a flaw in the laissez faire economic system in regards to healthcare. I first want to state that I'm very impressed by the comprehensive argument put forth by my opponent and look forward to exploring this topic further. I will agree with my opponents premise that all physicians shall do what will benefit themselves the most however I cannot concede that all individuals will seek the cheapest provider based simply upon the fact that more experienced physicians charge more for their procedures and higher levels of care can be attained for higher cost. To state that someone with a serious ailment would attempt to contact the cheapest physician available seems to be innately flawed. However even if i grant my opponent the assumption that all health care is fairly priced and that individuals will chose the health care option with the highest utility to cost ratio, the fact that we are discussing health care renders this point moot. Customers can only seek the cost effective alternative when they have time and the physical capacity to do so. When an individual is rendered unconscious and is transported to the nearest hospital, they have no input as to their care and thus are left the whims of physicians, waking up later to find the price tag attached to their mishap. One can easily see that a doctor in this situation has the ability to charge what ever exorbitant fee he desires. While this is an extreme case we can also take this into consideration when we deal with terminal illnesses. When dealing with a pressing medical ailment, time is of the essence and every day spent searching for cost effective solutions causes further damage to the individual's well being. A fundamental aspect of the laissez faire system is that all negotiations must be made of free will and cannot be a result of a physical threat. However in a situation where treatment for a critical illness is needed immediately, a patient cannot be expected to effectively barter when they are left at the mercy of the physician. I'm glad that my opponent mentioned physician salaries because it demonstrates the premise that doctors will indeed do whatever benefits them the most. Since the United States has a system in which doctors are able to unfairly charge patients and set prices in an unfair market a physician can make MUCH more in the United States than in Canada. Implementing a public option in the US would curb the flood of doctors that leave Canada to practise and while improving access to fairly priced health care. As of this moment 46 million people remain uninsured... However due to exorbitant doctor's fees 100% of Americans are paying too much for that insurance! creating a government option would provide competition for a doctor's procedures and would lower insurance costs! making it affordable for those 46 Million. I look forward to discussing this in the next stage of the debate.
The United States should have a national health care system

he United States claims to be based upon a laissez faire free market system in which free exchange spurs internal growth and creates increasing wealth. If this is indeed the goal of the USA Americans must recognize that free exchange cannot exist in the health care industry without regulation. The creation of a government option in the healthcare industry is needed in order to prevent against patients being taken advantage of by their physicians. While I certainly agree with the premise of the laissez faire economic system, I believe that there are certain sections of society that do not conform to this theory. The idea of free trade is based upon the ability of individuals to make rational decisions and make pricing comparisons. An individual facing an urgent medical condition does not have the time to investigate alternative treatment prices and locations. Furthermore, transport to another location in order to receive treatment drastically increases the financial burden in receiving care. As a citizen of Canada I receive health care through a national insurance program and elements which are not covered are left to our own expenses. Doctors are paid by the government program which sets an agreed upon rate for certain procedures. Any procedure not covered by the insurance program is paid by the individual. While this system is not ideal I believe that it has prevented patients from being turned away with serious conditions due to their inability to afford a particular doctor's set price. The United States could easily create a superior health care system where doctors are mandated to allocate a percentage of their time to working under a national health care plan while still enabling them to run their private practise and see patients who wish to accelerate the process. The current health care system in the United States has numerous flaws which can be remedied by implementing a Government Option or another version of a national health care system.
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use in the United States

The question is then, is it worth it? You say that the the harm would be insignificant compared to the reward. While I agree the reward is tempting and desirable, I still don't think the means of getting there are worth it. Marijuana use can be devastating to someone's life. I have no idea how many people are on the fence about its use, but should it surge, a surge in the United States is far more significant than Denmark due to sheer population size, as well as the availability of marijuana in the first place. Marijuana can ruin lives, careers, etc. I fear that if we legalize marijuana, we lose the ability to honestly recommend against its use; it would be a hypocritical belief based on our actions. Imagine my son was interested in marijuana use. I told him, "Son, I don't recommend using marijuana, it's not healthy for you, it can get you into a lot of trouble, and there are better ways to get help for whatever is going on. " He can very easily respond with, "but dad, if that's true, then why did you legalize it? " All I can say to that is the very conversation we are having here, "Well hopefully so that people will find out it's not good". Thus giving him reason to go find out. I admit, that's a goofy way of putting it, but the point is, we give up our stand, we abandon our opposition to it, and making it legal can indeed be seen as a permission slip, and I do dare say an invitation. I do not wish "sacrifice" if you will, thousands of individuals just to prove the point that marijuana is bad. I don't want to sacrifice thousands just to get them onto a "lesser drug". If we are concerned about marijuana use, which you are, and I am as we can tell from this debate, then we need to make that clear to our government representatives and make a bigger effort at education. Sure it will take longer, I understand that, but acting quickly on matters, seeking faster results isn't always better.
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use in the United States

No, a ban does not have to be at 100% success to be working. Yes 5 or 10% might be helpful but then that raises the question is it good enough. I am trying to present a better alternative to the system we have now that would work at a maybe 25% success rate. I agree that legalizing marijuana is not the best solution to the marijuana problem, but it's the solution we have right now. As to education, it sounds like a fine idea, however, the people that are actually willing to go out and buy marijuana are the people who resist this kind of drug education and take huge unnecessary risks. You said that, "In Denmark, marijuana was temporarily "legalized", use surged, and then dropped by 30% but only after everyone was starting to realize the effects of marijuana." We have had this debate for over three decades. The harm it would do when the surge happens would be insignificant when compared to the reward. If the legalization never happened in Denmark then how would we get to the end result? The tobacco argument you mentioned is invalid because you are correct tobacco was never illegal in the first place and there was no huge problem with it. If the same thing was done with marijuana think about what the effects would be like. The moral question about do we let people find out for themselves or do we keep it illegal and help them see why is also invalid. Currently the United States government would endorse the second option and it is because of that that the United States is in this situation right now. Like I said, the study at UCB confirmed that Dutch citizens consume considerably less cannabis now that they have unlimited access to it. It appears that the Dutch have played with this question and it also appears that they have done something right, in this case, legalizing marijuana. The question of would U.S marijuana companies try to buy illicitly grown plants from Mexico is certainly a complex one, but I think it would have a different effect than what you have predicted. If the U.S and Mexico both legalized marijuana a trade partnership would form, but if Mexico did not legalize it I would see that Mexican marijuana would be priced about the same as us marijuana because the Mexicans need to sneak it past the Mexican police and U.S border patrol which is a whole different battle. Even if illicit Mexican marijuana was cheaper than the U.S alternative, I could see ATF taking these cases very seriously and putting the violators out of business so there would be lots of profit lost. This is a good better best argument. What you are arguing is that because the better argument has flaws the good argument should still be put in place while we search for the best option. Society needs a solution now and just saying no without a solution that is not already existent in this country would be a disservice to this country as a whole. Thank you for debating this with me.