BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortion

Actually, abortion should be completely illegal, with the except of endangering a mothers life, means exactly that. Not anything else... lol, when you quote me, actually try to come up with a good rebuttal. It's the effort that counts though. If you're raped...why would you have an abortion? What difference does it make if it's conceived from two healthy marriage parents or rape? It's still an innocent child that does not deserve abortion. If you don't want the child, then there's something called a-d-o-p-t-i-o-n. Same with an abusive relationship. WebMD, says nothing about nerve activity. you just listed a random site about babies, and your point is hereby, obviously wrong. I got this from another debate, I'll comment the name and give credit in the comments later. The definition of life is: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. What distinguishes us from animals, plants etc, is that the cells are human. You can tell because both of the parents are human, the chromosomes and DNA. It's growth comes from the dividing and reproduction of cells. (cell cycle) Reproduction comes later in life. If you think that this means that my entire point is invalid, then just because a baby or fetus cannot reproduce means it has the same worth as a 6 year old who cannot make babies. So then let's kill the six year old!! Next is functional activity, which means:. A task or act that allows one to meet the demands of the environment and daily life. The demands for the environment of the womb and daily life, include developing, eating, sleeping.. From fetuses to babies, to toddlers, to kids, to puberty, to teens to adults, to middle age to elderly to death...there is a continual change until death. lol If your not going to put up an actual debate I'll just create another one with somebody else..
abortion

"Abortion should be completely illegal, with the exception of endangering a mothers life." Saying abortion should be completely illegal, means just that. Completely illegal means no exceptions. If it's life or death, you're having that baby. If a little girl is raped, she's having that baby. If you're in an abusive relationship and in no position to be bringing a life into this world, you've still having that baby. Is that what you want? Science says that life begins and ends at brain or nerve activity. According to WebMD, the first nerve activity is at the three week period. Until then, there are just cells, not a baby, or even a fetus. http://www.webmd.com...
abortion

No actually, I chose to be a woman on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and sometimes Sunday depending on the weather. I don't understand why you don't know that. Abortion should be completely illegal, with the exception of endangering a mothers life. Abortion is murder. No buts. You are killing, murdering, swallowing the life of an infant. You are stealing the babies first breath. How does science prove otherwise? You're a horrible debater, I'm sorry.
wait times are no real problem with single payer systems

i'm not sure why con is talking about the high cost of health care. we are debating wait times. but in that vein he should have talked about the over priced cost of our health care, given that price control is the number one way single payer countries save money over us and what makes ours the most expensive. research accounts for only four percent of our healthcare spending, or in other words less than a percent of our GDP. healthcare spending in general is seventeen percent of our GDP. here is some numbers on this research spending point on that it's mostly just more expensive here, not all these other problems listed by con so much. also it's possible that we could starve innovation switching to single payer, but we probabaly wouldn't. .. the usa would never starve innovation and would find a way to make sure it flourishes. that's just the way this country is. it's bad judgment to say otherwise. . https://www.bloomberg.com... i could go on trying to put everything else in perspective too. it's not medical school for example that's the problem, it's a small fraction of the problem. but i will leave it at this for now i guess.
wait times are no real problem with single payer systems

the idea that we have to wait longer in a single payer system is mostly a myth. according to the Commowealth for most procedures the usa is well below average in wait times. for some specialized care, the usa is towards the top, but still not best. what can we conclude? -wait times is mostly a red herring- if we want decent access to doctors we shouldn't limit the supply of doctors like we have in the usa. let the free market work more in this regard. -every other developed country is either single payer or has some sort of government involvement majorly. and they all are almost half as costly. most countries to save money by regulating costs. this is probably why specialized care wait times has been hurt some in other countries. but the fact that the usa is not the best in that regards, shows that it can be done better than here and with government involvement that covers everyone. and, all it means is we shouldn't be too gung ho on over regulating specialized care. -other countries are like us. to the extent that there are wait times, it's mostly for people who dont need urgent care. the more urgent your situation, the faster you get seen. that's how it's done here too. any delay to the less urgent isn't significant enough to justify all the good points of single payer or a government involved method. -there might be some limitation to access if we open up access to doctors to the remaining ten percent of uninsured just by demand going up some, but ten percent more people would not cause a significant shift in outcomes, and most states have less than that uninsured. and, is it all that moral to make your own care better by denying it to someone else? especially when you can just find a way to take care of them that doesn't really affect you, but simply choose not to?
Should we execute all marijuana junkies

Due to the fact that marijuana is a deadly drug that is responsible for billions and billions of deaths we should eliminate every user and anyone who has any sort of evolvement with the deadly plant whatsoever. "Bob Richardson '14 of Pinhouse Massachusetts was peir pressured into injecting 2 whole marguanas, 2 microseconds after the injection his heart exploded and he passed away" -Pinhouse times 2016 You stated no valid facts about how deadly this plant can be. I don't think you have any idea how many people are addicted and on the streets killing innocent folks do to there blood thirsty cravings that the mariuanas gave them. You need Jesus asap. STOP INJECTING MARIJUANAS! MARIJUANA INJECTION OVERDOSE CAUSES 400 MILLION DEATHS A YEAR! FOR HELP CALL THE SHOOT UP HOTLINE: 1-800-668-6868
participation of foreign countries in protecting human rights of a country could be justified.

Thank you for accepting my challenge...:) I look forward for a healthy debate! In my point of view good person, bad person it quite doesn't matter. What matters is that everyone obeys by the rules and regulations put forward by the international community in order to protect human rights. Wasn't the great Gaddafi killed by his own people? It maybe true that he provided funds, free electricity and many more privileges to his citizens. But simultaneously, he supported mass terrorism, bomb attacks and sent assassins to kill his own Libyans who left the country for freedom. And yes... if we do not know whether he was bad? how do we say that he was good? An organization like UN was appointed to protect human rights and resolve conflicts. Therefore, a country cannot go and blackmail another country and use its sources or chase away its ruler just because they want to. They should have solid reasons and strong evidence to do so.. And then everything is questioned in the UN summits and an actions are taken accordingly. Whenever there was a dictator it has been evident in the past that he use his administrative powers to have his way. And the people cannot petition or complain because they will be complaining to the same ruler about his own wrong doings. At times like this, victims of these countries are compelled to talk to a higher authority, most probably the UNO (which is an organization combining many countries) Therefore, participation of foreign countries in human rights of a country could be justified because, at the end of the day we all are humans and it is common to everyone despite their colour, religion, gender or social origin.
participation of foreign countries in protecting human rights of a country could be justified.

There are many types of administrations in the world. Some are democratic, some are socialist. But, human rights are common to everyone. Of course, because we all are humans. Therefore if a certain human right is violated either by the society or the government, other countries could involve in order to help the victim affected. Even if both the society and the government was against the victim, he/she could get the help of a foreign country/ organization in order to get justice for themselves!
participation of foreign countries in protecting human rights of a country could be justified.

Since Minoli Has forfeited the third round, I can not make up an argument. However, I'll simply state my points again: 1. When foreign countries aim to protect human rights in a country by involving themselves in that country's affairs, their wonderful plan to save civilians can backfire. 2. You don't really know whether the country's leader or even the country itself is a dictatorship, so you can't exactly justify your country's involvement in another country under the banner of "Protecting Human Rights". 3. After foreign countries involve themselves in a supposedly authoritarian country, they can end up leaving that country in chaos. 4. Even the U.N. can make the wrong decisions. To sum up, participation of foreign countries to protect human rights of another country ccannot be and is not justifiable. Thank you.
Gun Confiscation is needed

Argument 4The USA has more gun violence, And gun-related deaths, Compared to any other industrialized country [1]. They also have some of the loosest gun regulations. How many mass shootings will the USA need to see before it addresses this issue? Do you honestly think this would improve if we gave the public access to far more dangerous weapons? Rebuttals:"The army is just as destructful with military grade weapons as a normal citizen would"The difference is that soldiers are trained on how to responsibly use weapons. They take commands from teams of strategists carefully calculating their next chess move. I trust a weapon in their hands more than the hands of my crack-head neighbor. To argue that all citizens should have open access to machine guns, Biological weapons, Explosives, EMP's and other military-grade equipment is just irrational. This is a recipe for destruction and anarchy. It's completely irresponsible. You haven't thought through the implications of this at all. "The only real restriction i believe in is a psych evaluation"Really? No criminal background checks? No other regulations? What if they are perfectly sane but are a known member of a violent gang? Should we give them guns too? What about minors? What about ex-convicts with a known history of armed robbery? What about people who are simply badly trained, And don't store/use their weapons properly? We need a lot more than a simple phych check. Mandatory safety education, National criminal background checks, Psychological evaluations, Proper licensing and insurance should be required. We regulate automobiles at least this much. "free speech is not limited, At the time that amendment was made, The amendment itself was illegal, Everything these men stood for was illegal"I'm super confused. Wouldn't that also mean that the 2nd amendment was illegal? Why is freedom of speech illegal, But the amendments you like are not? "The constitution can (cannot? ) be regulated unless it says so within that amendment. "I'll just point out real quick that the word "amendment" literally means to change something. Every nation on earth already regulates weapons. Every nation on earth regulates free speech. We regulate food and vehicles and companies, And alcohol - there's no reason that guns shouldn't be regulated to AT LEAST the same level. [1] https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Gun Confiscation is needed

We do regulate dangerous things, But quite honestly, Some things are over-regulated. The army is just as destructful with military grade weapons as a normal citizen would, The only real restriction i believe in is a psych evaluation. And free speech is not limited, At the time that amendment was made, The amendment itself was illegal, Everything these men stood for was illegal, So no, I also do not believe that the constitution can be regulated, Unless it says so within that amendment.
Gun Confiscation is needed

I argue in favor of gun regulation. I don't think all guns need to be confiscated, But I certainly don't agree that citizens should have open access to military-grade weapons. So I'm going to assume that we're talking about the USA here. Here are three arguments in favor of firearm regulations:Argument 1We regulate dangerous things all the time. For example, We regulate vehicles. We consider driving to be dangerous and only let licensed, Insured operators take the wheel. Why should one be regulated but not the other? Argument 2Where do you draw the line with "military-grade weapons"? Should people be allowed to have bazookas or grenade launchers as well? Or does it have to use bullets? What about drones equipped with automatic weapons? What about biological weapons, Should we allow open access to those as well? The advancement of technology is making modern military-grade weapons so dangerous that it no longer makes sense to allow public access to them. Argument 3Just because something is in the constitution does not mean it cannot be regulated. For example, We have the right to free speech. However, That does not give us the right to verbally attack someone based on race or ethnicity. Our free speech is limited in that capacity. Looking forward to your responses!
PS4 is Better Than Xbox One

The PS4 is better than the Xbox One for numerous reason. One of these reasons is that the PS4 costs one hundred dollars than the Xbox One. Also Playstation Plus costs less than Xbox Live, saving a person more than $28 dollars a year. Also the free games with Playstation are far better than Xbox's Games with Gold. For example the Games with Gold for February were Dead Island and Toy Soldiers: Cold War, while PS3 users get games like Borderlands 2,Bioshock Infinite, Pay Day 2 and Metro Last Light. Also Playstation'f free games program is already supporting the PS4 with Outlast, Don't Starve and Contrast. Is Microsoft lazy? They still don't have games with gold for the Xbox One. Also the PS4 has the better hardware,for example the PS4's GPU is 50% more powerful than the Xbox One. Another reason the PS4 is the better consoles is because it offers the better selection of games. Along with its regular games Playstation offers indie games, a field which Microsoft is trying to catch up in, and major free-to-play games such as Warframe and DC Universe, with Planetside 2 coming to PS4s soon. Microsoft is still struggling to catch up in this field to. All in all, I think that Sony is innovating while Microsoft is struggling to catch up. Sources: http://us.playstation.com... http://www.xbox.com... http://winsupersite.com... http://www.trustedreviews.com... http://www.extremetech.com... http://www.polygon.com...
I don't believe that US spaceship have ever landed in the moon

I admire your effort at attempting to demote the value of my arguments, although with all do respect please work on your English to a level where the majority of debate.org may understand you. There is no need to state my ignorance for I know of the apparent evidence that goes against my argument and I simply do not give them as much credit or value. Now for my final argument, there is evidence that there has been man made objects left behind on the moon including objects left behind by Apollo 11 such as a laser retroreflector that has been secured on the surface on the Moon which was the APOLLO (Lunar Laser Ranging) Collaboration. Now there had been since countless experiments where a laser had been fired from Earth and hit the mirror on the moon and reflected back to Earth and collected into a receiver where this in turn counts as prove as there had been man on the moon including the assumed and aforementioned Apollo 11 team.
I don't believe that US spaceship have ever landed in the moon

Its too expensive to build a station on the moon even more so when you have permanent human residents occupying it. Now for the purpose of launching a missile to Earth from the moon would be financially fruitless respectively. Currently there is no benefit to send a research team to the moon unless there is profounding evidence to prove that there is some kind of form of alien life or resource. Now I'm not saying that it would be completely pointless to travel to the moon rather to achieve a scientific and astronomical feat for example the period of 1969-1975. Now your questions are not coinciding with your original argument. More specifically and famously Apollo 11, perhaps when you start a debate you need to prepare and provide relevant points and question is to aid your argument.
I don't believe that US spaceship have ever landed in the moon

I'm sorry you need you provide more specific statements in your argument its very displeasing when you mention years ago without providing no specific period or saying 'funny-shaped' without using the proper terminology. Now as I digress, the 'funny shaped' spacecraft I assume your referring to called Apollo 11, designed to take astronauts obviously (FYO; Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin etc.) for the purpose of travelling to the moon (Which was successful IMO). Now from there NASA has developed far more advanced technology and space vehicles that we are capable of delivering biological forms to the edge of this solar system respectively, even planning to have a manned flight Mars in the forthcoming decade. But that is beside the point now you need to provide specific arguments and mention examples to show and prove your point. Not necessary for the petty jokes either.
I don't believe that US spaceship have ever landed in the moon

Its not my fault that you get confused easily, you know by fact that astronauts need a lunar spacecraft to get to the moon. Now would you like to have a crack and guess how much it would cost to take one more extra person (tourist) to the moon let alone a few more to profit from it? The cost rate of a manned flight per kilo is ridiculous especially when you have to factor in tourists. Now without the aspect of tourism, the US have dedicated a fortune into the moon landing more specifically Apollo 11 which at the time was groundbreaking . Look at the evidence ahead of you, there are even shadows cast by the American flag and what not on Google Earth. The plain evidence overall inevitably says that the latter is true whether we like it or not, there is less evidence saying it happened rather otherwise.
I don't believe that US spaceship have ever landed in the moon

As much as you don't believe, in my opinion the US or more specifically NASA have successfully landed a lunar spacecraft on Earths only natural satellite called the Moon. Now why would the US fund so much money into allegedly staging the feat when they had the technology and know-how to actually do it. Why would they train the astronauts so tirelessly and thoroughly if all they are going to do is apparently bounce around in spacesuits on a fake moon set. Who was NASA trying to impress at that time if they already were the leading astronomical organisation in the world, so why would they stage it?
Internet is a better substitute to travelling.

I see that afreen96 has failed to post his argument. Very well. Because he has the BOP, all I have to do is give one (1) reason why the internet is not a better substitute for travel. But I'll give three reasons, and I will refute some of your points from round 1. Also, afreen96, it should be duly noted that the last round, round 3, is for conclusion statements. First off, you ask, "If books can be replaced, why is the idea of replacing travelling [sic] such a bad one?" Just because something can be replaced does not mean it should be. A lot of people would argue that real books are better than eBooks. To use your example of books, I actually prefer a nice paperback to a Nook or a Kindle. They just have these intangible qualities that eBooks cannot replicate. Books, as anyone who has read a book can attest, are friendlier, more personal, warmer. They make for a better overall reading experience. And the thing about replacing something like travel with internet-based alternatives is this: would you rather say, "I climbed Mt. Everest," or say, "I climbed an computerized replica of Mt. Everest"? It might feel real, but it's not. Let me illustrate this point further. If you see a picture of the Sphinx, or the St. Louis Arch, or the Golden Gate Bridge, it's DEFINITELY not the same as visiting the Sphinx or the St. Louis Arch or the Golden Gate Bridge. It's not legit. If you replace travel with internet-based "travel", you are sacrificing the travel experience. Plus, there's the old saying, "the journey is half the fun." That's a saying for a reason. There's no journey with internet travel. So those are my points. Your turn, afreen96.
Internet is a better substitute to travelling.

"Travel broadens the mind." This statement is undoubtedly true. But is it still true in the era of the internet, where you can get information about any country by the tap of a key? Let's look at it this way. Books have existed for centuries. But by the arrival of the internet it has become obsolete and less preferable than an eBook. If books can be replaced, then why is the idea of replacing travelling such a bad one? With the modern technology any situation can be either recreated or reported. In that case, why should people take the risk and trouble of getting out of their own comfort zones?
Ron Paul is a better candidate for president than your candidate.

Let me answer my own questions- 1 Ron Paul 2 Paul also wants to get rid of the IRS and Federal Reserve 3 He is a Texas Rep 4 Well, he is ron paul 5 Gun Owners and Homeschoolers Let me commentate if I may on your response to my round 1 questions. "1 Mike Huckabee 2 he wants to get rid of the IRS 3 he was the governor of Arkansas 4 he actully has a chance 5 the one that gets votes" 2-Ron Paul also wants to get rid of the IRS 3-Governor, not bad. 4- You say he actually has a chance? Huckabee has raised only 4 million. His goal is 5 million! Ron Paul has raised 18 million+ 5- You say he is the one that gets votes? View the Straw Poll Results link I put. Ron Paul has the best record. http://www.ronpaul2008.com... Please show me now how Huckabee is better than Dr.Paul?
Do video games really cause bad behaviour to children

My opponent has conceded in saying that "games can lead to bad behavior". Regarding the topic of the debate, the debate topic is listed as a question: "Do video games really cause bad behavior to children?". As my opponent took the Con side, he should be arguing that video games do not cause bad behavior in children. He has previously, in Round 1, said that "video games can't really put bad behavior into the lives of the kids of today". Therefore, based on what was established in Round 1, this debate is about whether or not video games cause bad behavior in children, and not what the best course of action should be.Therefore, since my opponent has conceded, I urge you to vote Pro. (My opponent even said at the end of his last statement to vote for me, but I'm assuming that was a mistake).