BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does it Matter ...

You responded that,". Inaugurations are what presidents do..." What is the logic you used here in your rebuttal , That because other presidents had spent enormous sums of tax payers money this excused the practice. If this be true, then you bringing up Donald Trump's inauguration costs are of no consequence because, after all, that's what all previous presidents had done as well. But News Week Magazine's author writing about Donald Trump's military parade must have had ulterior motives in mind one must suspect. Military parades that a country puts on are more than just a glorification of a sitting president, they represent a countries military abilities to defend itself against all tyrants. The Roman general, Publius Flavius said, "If You Want Peace, Prepare for War....." Russia and the China, for instance, do not hesitate to demonstrate their military might by having parades, are they to be considered foolish when they do that or are they demonstrating that they are a power to be reckoned with and prepared to defend themselves at all times.
Does it Matter ...

This is a little silly to be honest. Trump's military parade was a silly waste of taxpayer money, it reminds me a lot of Kim Jong-Un and his military parades which are really just things he uses to inflate his ego. Yes, Obama spent 150 million dollars on his inauguration but that isn't frivolous spending because it's his inauguration. Inaugurations are what presidents do. In fact, Trump's total costs for inauguration are estimated to be 200 million dollars. Pretty similar to Obama's. So if you're mad at Obama for having an inauguration then you should also be mad at Trump too...
Does it Matter ...

Recently there was a article in News Week magazine, which bemoaned the military parade Republican president Donald Trump paid for with the taxpayers money. and the News Week Magazine author of the article ridiculed Donald trumps frivolously spending the taxpayers money that he was entrusted with. THe News Week author seemed to be outraged that Donald Trump would be such a spend thrift with tax money when as the Author wrote,"Trump Could Feed Every Homeless Veteran for the Cost of His Military Parade, Even Conservatively Estimated..." NEWSWEEK SITE 3-11-2018 " Does it matter," which parties president "frivolously," used the tax payers dollars, Barack Obama's Inagural cost 150 Million Dollars,...." just think how many homeless people could have been feed with that money. " does it matter," which parties president used the tax payers money frivolously .
Does it Matter ...

I will close this debate with a conclusion.I believe that it does matter if our President is wasting millions of dollars of tax money on a silly military parade. Whatever his goals were, they were not acheived. The parade does not make America seem strong, it only makes for an easier comparison to North Korea, which I would not consider a win on our part.As I said before, talk is cheap. If America truly wants to prove its strength, it needs to prepare its army and prove this on the battlefield (should the need arise).
Does it Matter ...

Thank you for your response to my subject," Does it Matter " You posted as your rebuttal the following,"Yes, Obama spent 150 million dollars on his inauguration but that isn't frivolous spending because it's his inauguration. Inaugurations are what presidents do....." Yes as we all know, presidential Inaugurations are a tradition and have always been costly affairs. The fact that previous presidents had spent an extravagant amount of the Tax Payers money in the past on this frivolity just to sooth the pomposity and ego of a political parties president and the parties minions doesn't negate the fact that that money could have better spent on more worthy causes. The extravagant cost of Inaugurations however wasn't the point that I, nor the News Week Magazine author was trying to make about Donald Trump's presidentialInauguration. No, the author made it explicitly clear his intentions were to denigrate the republican president when he added the insensitive caustic remark, "Trump Could Feed Every Homeless Veteran for the Cost of His Military Parade, Even Conservatively Estimated.." The News Week Author's political bias was obvious for all to see but for the most willfully native who read that article. Did the News Week author write about the money spent on Barack Obama's Inauguration or for that matter, the other democrat President's past Inaugurations and how that money spent on their Inauguration could have been better spent, no, somehow, the democrat presidents extravagant use of tax payers dollars was of little or no concern to the author. Why didn't the News Week author, if he was so disturbed by President Donald Trump's supposedly wasting taxpayer's money on his Inauguration, why didn't the News Week Magazine, when Barack H. Obama was president, feel the same disdain for Michelle Obama when she traveled to Spain on the taxpayers dime and rented four floors of a luxery Hotel while in Spain ," Michelle Obama's Spain vacation cost taxpayers nearly $470G, watchdog group claims " Published April 26, 2012 Fox News Or News Week writing about former President Obama's numerous trips to Martha's Vineyard Island, Massachusetts Or, Under President Barack Obama ," US sent plane with $400 million in cash to Iran - "" https://www.cnn.com...... Aug 03, 2016" Selective outrage towards presidents extravagant use of tax Payers money raises the question, "does it matter" which political parties president who is wasting the taxpayer's hard earned money.
Abortion

Ah, well, I suppose this isn't going to go anywhere. It seems to me blatantly obvious that you are ignoring my points. You just responded 'BTW This is not even a debate, as you did not write a resolution this should be a message or somthing'. You make me wish I never started. Did I not clearly state in Round 1: 'So, please enlighten me, what do you see as unclear about the child abuse and murder issue (a.k.a. abortion), that a supposedly god fearing man like yourself should be undecided??' The resolution obviously would be to show that it is reasonable for such as you to remain undecided, as opposed to my stance of decided. The same goes for Round 2: 'If you are in agreement with my stance on abortion, please state so. If not, please outline clearly and distinctly what you feel we differ on, and why.' Clearly I wish to dispute the stance of 'undecided', dito the resolution stated in the preceding paragraph. Heaven's above, please spare me: What do you mean by 'Note I wrote undesided not one way or the other bec. abortion is such a vauge term without specifying what point and for what reasons I thought the safest thing to do would write undesided.'? I would of thought I clarified this in Round 2! Do you respond undecided to all concepts who's meaning is not-%100 ironclad defined?! I imagine you never say to your friend 'I am going to the store.' 'Cause of course, you might be hit by a meteor. Inconcievable that a statement is interperted from the context and usage, isn't it? Do wish to tell me you are undecided about thievery being OK? I mean, thievery 'literally' includes stealing a drug that will save your life, from those who kidnapped you. Murder includes killing the guy who is trying to kill you. But obviously that is not what is meant when one asks 'Murder is awful and wrong, isn't it?' As I stated in Round 2: 'Anyways, it behooves one not to be, as you stated, 'literal', in situtations where the meaning is interperted as something more general by those who with whom you are communicating.' I believe this is how the world works. So I invite comments by viewers to help determine: Am I unreasonable in my interpertation of a vote of 'undecided' on the issue of abortion, as presented in this forum (see Round 2 for link)? Was it an unreasonable basis for my challenge?
Abortion

Spelling, spelling, spelling... ;)That aside, I think the following two point are very pertinent: You responded that 'you said pills are okay'. I would of thought it obvious from the context that I was refering to the so called 'morning-after-pills'. Clearly the next day or so there is as yet no more than a tiny glob of cells, at the very most. You accuse me of being unclear and reading to much into your concept of abortion. Well, if you would read the issue on which you voted 'undecide' (http://www.debate.org...), we may gain some clarity. Aside from from the first few 'politcally correct' lines, it seems pretty clear that the issue at hand is women who wish to terminate the living child for various reasons of 'it's to hard for me'. I really don't think life being hard is a reason for murder. Do you disagree? Anyways, it behooves one not to be, as you stated, 'literal', in situtations where the meaning is interperted as something more general by those who with whom you are communicating. I would even argue, that, as this is not a math problem, language means what people interpert it to mean. Not the 'literal' dry meaning that may be stated in the dictionary, rather the meaning taken from context, tone, and usage. But, I suppose that is not the issue at hand. If you are in agreement with my stance on abortion, please state so. If not, please outline clearly and distinctly what you feel we differ on, and why.
Abortion

To clarify my stance, regarding a jewish woman abortion of any kind is forbidden, unless a competent orthodox rabbinic athority rules that under specific cercimstances its okay. The only cicumstance I know of is if the mothers life is at risk bec. of the fetus or the child birth. I am not shore with regard to a non jew if the prohibition applies to a fetus. Now before You get the wrong Idea of what I believe let me clarify, I am useing the word abortion literaly. The following is a quote from wikipidia: "Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term may be defined more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy before birth.[disputed ï¿½€" discuss][note 1] An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human rather than non-human pregnancy." It seems you were useing a different definition bec. you said pills are okay. That being said I don't think there is much of a debate. In my opinion the fetus should not be killed by any one without reason. reason may be rape major medical issues ect. It is in a case where there is reason for the abortion, that I am undecided. There is a major factor which is at what point in the pregnancy, it is. So being that abortion includes the erliest parts of pregnancies, I am undesided. It seems this is the point that you missed. Gotta define your terms man. sorry for lack of spelling and organization. I am in a rush and just wanted to clarify this misconception
Abortion

Yo, dude. Saw you were Jewish, but were undecided on abortion. Me, I've heard jews were supposed to be god-fearing folk. I mean, I don't now much about them; I don't see them out here in the backwoods of Wyoming. But, don't god-fearing folk of all religions oppose abortion? Me, darn right I'm against it. Pathetic murderers! Who's fault is it that a women is pregnant with a human life in the first place. Of course, there is the exceptional case that she was raped. But, common on, now-a-days that's no excuse. There are plenty of drugs that will stop pregnancy afterwords. And in the highly unlikely event that she wanted to but couldn't take the drug - well hey man, life ain't fair! Join the army, work a farm - life can be hard. (But mighty satisfying at the same time:)) Furthermore, there are adoption agencies out there! But, for god's sake, why would you support murdering the child? And don't tell me it has no conscious feelings - yes, that might be true very early on, but even then - do you support killing a grown man with down-syndrome? And those sick, twisted doctors. Do you truly feel it's OK for them to execute the child? Not only that, but they are pushing to pass this awful law: that a nurse who doesn't agree to take part in the abortion when needed, should be fired! Not satified with their own hell, they are trying to force others to be murders like them. May god have mercy on their souls, though I don't really think they deserve it. So, please enlighten me, what do you see as unclear about the child abuse and murder issue (a.k.a. abortion), that a supposedly god fearing man like yourself should be undecided??
Abortion

well newb welcome to ddo. I suggest you read some debates get some exprience than we'll debate. What is unclear about abortion is point in pregnancy and reason, thats all. No it is not analogus to your enalagies bec. thier extream. As opposed to abortion which almost every case has some sort of reasons of which thier is an infinit spectrum. point of pregnancy is also a huge spectrume vague questions get vague ans. so here is my ans. to your question. late abortion without good reason is wrong. what is late what is a good reason I don't know. hope I've clarified myself If youde like to discus this when I have time to spell and be coherent, I'll be available in about 2 months. P.s. I get the felling this is a prank but whatever.
Minecraft makes children sex slaves and destroys our economy

Minecraft is not really a video game. It is amazingly much worse than that. It is as if Satan, Second Lifeand The Sims all had a huge sex orgy and Minecraft was the bastard child that came out of it. They even have a specific variant called "Lava Survival" in which children falsely learn it is possible to escape from Hell! The horror that is Minecraft: Defying God by promoting genetic manipulation! First of all Minecraft shows us what the world will look like once the evolutionists finally get what they want and start genetically manipulating everything and everyone. This is not outdated software! This is hypermodern brand new software which is specifically designed to look like this! To mock God and His amazing creations everything has been made to look like idiotic cubes. Notice the tree and the pig are both completely made out of cubes! This is what will happen if we allow defying God's creation with genetic manipulation to go on! Minecraft is already manipulating our innocent children into thinking that all this is normal! How this is defying God? Genetic engineering will take on a role beyond what God has given to us as His creation. The Bible states that all things were created by God and for Him (Colossians 1:16). As individuals we are made in God"s image and therefore should be subject to His plan (Genesis 1:26,27; Matthew 22:20,21). God designed all living things after certain "kinds" (Genesis 1:11-25). Too much manipulation of the genetics (altering species) could be delving into issues reserved for the Designer. Turning children into sex slaves, or "griefing" as they call it. There is not a single controlled Minecraft environment. Every pedophile can start his own Minecraft server and start luring in hundreds of innocent children. He can first let them build for hours and hours and then threaten to destroy their work unless they do his bidding. The Minecraft term for using children as sex slaves is "griefing". There is no protection whatsoever against pornography inside Minecraft and there is no control over what the inside chat function is used for. Minecraft is web browser based, so every child who can surf the web, can get lured in by an online pedophile. Since every pedophile can start his own Minecraft server, pedophiles can also track down your children using their IP address! Joel 3:1 "For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for wine, that they might drink."
registered organ donors are given automatic priority when they're in need of an organ.

I agree, I am also against the motion. Since Pro has negated his own proposition, I automatically win. Anyway, the point of giving organ donors priority in receiving organs would be to motivate people to sign up to be organ donors. If 100 more people sign up to be organ donors because of this policy being implemented, then 1 of those people will end up donating organs, by your own reasoning. From that one organ donor, we could up to 25 organs and tissues, which could save up to 25 lives. That sounds like a pretty good deal. Here's a source for the 25 organs number: "Up to 25 different organs and tissues can be donated for transplantation. " . http://www.lifepoint-sc.org... Anyway, again, Pro has conceded the debate.
Gay Marrige Should Stay Legal in America

Hmm... First off, it isn't up to you to decide what marriage is for. That is the choice of the couple to decide. Next, it is the choice of the couple to decide if they want to have children. Why should the government force people to have kids? As for your problems about kids and gay parents, shouldn't we give everybody a fair shot? Also, gay parents are actually better at raising kids then straight kids. [1] Next, how is homosexuality unnatural? It happens all the time in nature, so how is it unnatural? Now on to my argument. First off, we all have equal rights. To give some the right to marry but not others is against our laws, morals, and constitution. We can not do that. Now I believe in a smaller government, so why should the government tell 2 consenting adults if they can not marry? I think it is pretty simple, treat each other equally. Sources: [1] http://www.medicaldaily.com...
Gay Marrige Should Stay Legal in America

Gay marriage should not be stay legalized in America. Marriage is to make a family, not for pleasure, and homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. The most obvious reason is that marriage is for procreation, and gay couples obviously cannot reproduce. Children also need both a father and mother. With girls who are raised without a father, according to "Not Yet Equal: The Health of Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Youth", teen pregnancy rates are nearly quadrupled, and children raised without a mother do not have the emotional support and security mothers provide. An 1859 Supreme Court ruling stated, "the first purpose of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is procreation." Court papers in 2014 also stated, "the State regulates marriage for the primary purpose of channeling potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring unions for the sake of joining children to both their mother and their father... Same-sex couples can never provide a child with both her biological mother and her biological father." Children with heterosexual parents are proven to do better in life and the argument for children is all for banning gay marriage. Similar to marriage being for procreation, homosexuality is completely unnatural and immoral. The only reason someone would be gay is for their own pleasure. Like the previous paragraph, that is not what marriage is for. Being gay is unnatural because gay is a choice, and we are all naturally born straight.
abortion should be legal up to the first trimester

I will debate anyone who believes abortion should be completely illegal. I want a opinion based debate but if you do need to use sources for FACTS then I'd rather not have to read through a ton of sites so please try to keep sources to a minimum and they must be reliable as in not .com or wikkapidia. My argument is abortion should be legal up to 3 months. If you disagree post why and I'll tell you why I disagree with your opinion and vise versa. Comment if I forget to address one of your point
abortion should be legal up to the first trimester

My opponent forgets about post-birth lack of treatment for cases as tay-sachs. My opponent has not given solid foundations for his arguments, so quickly, I will write this.In his given cases, he gives fringe examples, but doesn't give any reason to justify complete legalisation or why 3 months, over say 4 months. I can say for all his cases 'Let's allow an 'emergency' abortion', but that still doesn't meet the criterion for his B.O.P, that is 'all abortion'. He failed to meet his B.O.P.
abortion should be legal up to the first trimester

Abortion should be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy because post 3 months some children are able to live outside the womb thus can be considered unnecessary inhumanity to abort. Tay-sachs is a prebirth testable disease that is when the child is incapable of breaking down fats in his/her brain causing death before the child is 5 and retardation earlier than3. If abortion was illegal than that parent would have to to watch her baby die over the coarse of 5 years instead of just quick, painless
abortion should be legal up to the first trimester

My opponent has not made an argument. He has listed words. I am not arguing against anything. He doesn't get to simply spam random words and then expect my to piece together his argument like a jigsaw.The proposition. "abortion should be legal up to the first trimester"His argument is just singular words with no context. Midgets? What? What about rape? Is rape a reason for abortion legalisation? Why? Why the first trimester? No argument. I have written more than he has about this on this debate.
abortion should be legal up to the first trimester

Every thing I say is most serious. Again I say abortion should not be completely illegalized. Abortion needs to stay an option because of the reasons I listed above. I don't know why my opponent has already given up but my opinion stands. Illegalizing abortion would be a rash, irresponsible move. Once one has been 3 months pregnant I believe it is too late to abort but again I say it must be an option.
Legalization of Marijauna

Like I said, I am 100% Pro-Legalization of marijuana. However, Pro did not win this debate: 1. He attempted to prove that marijuana wasn't addicting but failed. 2. He did not argue that marijuana was a Gateway Drug. Simply saying "No it's not" does not mean you have presented an effective rebuttal. 3. He had no good response to my contention that Big Tobacco would become the main distributor of legalized marijuana... dun dun dun. 4. I argued reasons for why this movement could be bad for the economy, and Pro responded with the fact that our liberties should trump the importance of the American economy. I proved that this is not always the case. 5. Crime is necessary for society. Pro denied that this was even possible let alone provide an argument for it. 6. I agreed that smoking pot wasn't immoral, however, what does that have to do with its legalization when there are so many other factors...? Pro didn't respond. 7. A lot of people smoke pot. Big deal. A lot of people break a lot of laws every single day -- that doesn't make it right. This argument is void. 8. The 'spiritual development' argument for pot had flaws and I nabbed them. 9. Pro continuously pointed out the dangers of cigarettes and alcohol which remain legal; however, like I said -- just because he proved that those things were bad does not mean that marijuana is by default good. 10. Pro forfeited the final round and tried to make me look foolish in prior rounds simply for "disagreeing" with his faulty logic. Hmm. In conclusion, I feel a vote for Con is in order... but in the real world, smoke up if you wish!