BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be legal in every case, even late-term

Also, I would like to precise that when I say "every" case, I imply every voluntary case, of course. A woman should not be forced to have an abortion, and I hope both the reader and my opponent understood that. First of all, I would like to point out that abortion is not always a bad thing. In this 21st century, we are witnessing a considerable population growth that might result threatening our planet in ways we may not imagine. Overpopulation is a problem we need to look at, and it is clear that abortion is a much more humane technique than forced population control and one-child policies. Abortion can also be justified in common cases such as rape. If a woman does not consent to be pregnant, she shouldn't be forced to keep the fruit of a crime. It was not her choice to have a child, and so her having this child shouldn't be forced upon her. When the woman's life is in danger because she is not able to receive enough nutrients with the fetus in her womb or such medical problems, there is a clear argument about the morality of abortion. Abortion can be moral, indeed, in such a case, as it would save the carrier's life rather than letting both the mother and the unborn child die. But the most important case is the philosophical one. I come to the debate floor arguing that a woman, as an individual, is the sole owner of her body and what's inside of it. Just like she should be free to insert anything within her body, she should be free to take away intruders in it. I ask, What right does anybody have to live as a parasite within someone else's womb? Surely, no one has the right to exploit the property of others and decide, for instance, to come to live within your house without your consent. The same applies to unborn children. They have no right to live there if the mother does not want to.
Abortion should be legal in every case, even late-term

For clarity here are some definitionsAbortion-the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancylegal-permitted by lawevery-used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exceptionlate-term abortion- abortions which are performed during a later stage of pregnancy. . http://oxforddictionaries.com...Thanks and I am eager to hear my opponent's case.
Abortion should be legal in every case, even late-term

Abortion is a very controversial issue in the United States, as well as in several developed nations of the world. I come forward with a position that is even more controversial. I believe abortion should be legalized. But not only during the first trimester, or limited to rape and incest cases, but rather throughout the pregnancy of a woman, whatever her reason for aborting is. I take an evictionist point of view, according to which the womb of a mother should remain the woman's property as it is her body, and an unborn child does not have the right to occupy it without consent.
"People enter hell trough no fault of their own" is true.

I am unsure wether or not you are understanding the topic of discussion. I do not intent to discuss the existence of hell. I agree with you that it probably doesn't exist. I certainly don't belief in it myself as I have stated. I realise now that I have worded the statement poorly. I should have worded it ""If hell existed than people would enter hell trough no fault of their own" is true. ", that would have made it clear that one of the axioms of the debate was that hell existed (even though I am sure it probably doesn't). If you wish to continue the debate about my intended topic than we can continue. If not, I am sorry to waste everybodies time and I am sure I will be voted the loser of this debate.
War on an enemy by a country is necessary or not.

I don't know if 28% of wars are justified, but I doubt it.The study to which I referred concluded merely that 28% of the time the *claimed* justification for war was utilitarian. I think the number is much lower. In any event, it is not my intent to argue this statistic, or to argue which wars were or were not justified. My argument is that war can be justified, a point to which you seem to have come around. For that reason--and at the risk of losing my combative fortitude--I must say I agree completely with your conclusion. I hope there aren't many people who believe that "war is always necessary." Should you encounter a Hegelian, however, perhaps this debate will prove helpful. Thank you.
War on an enemy by a country is necessary or not.

You mentioned that 28 percent of the 289 wars surveyed were jistified. What about the remaining 72%. It is of course unjustified. One of the unjustified war is the Iraq war. Iraq war waged for all the wrong reasons from weapons of mass destruction to liberation, and the only way to undo our misdeeds is by removing President Bush from office. So, most of them agree that it is unjustified and you also mentioned that 78% of wars are unjustified. This does not need a separate survey. It states in the survey you mentioned already. And to debate on a topic we need logic and some proof. I have mentioned in the previous round about my logical thinking and the proof is in the survey you mentioned earlier. To say the truth, I should thank you for giving me such valid points. Frankly speaking, I started this debate with a idea that all wars are wrong. But your argument made me understand that all wars are not wrong and we can use violence when necessary that is rarely. I was searching an opponent who thought wars is always necessary but instead I got a better opponent who thinks war is necessary when there is no other way. According to me, round 1 is intro and round 2 is the thing I want to say that is the content and the third round is the conclusion. Conclusion: I conclude that wars are necessary when there is no other way. And we should think twice or thrice before starting a war.
War on an enemy by a country is necessary or not.

Okay, let us consider two situations. Example India, Pakistan. 1] Already Pakistan is waiting for the right opportunity to destroy India. And most of the people, are waiting to take a revenge. In that case if India starts a war and "if" it wins then Pakistan which is already angry will get more angry. It will satisfy the proverb 'Adding fuel to the war'. In that situation, it will be a win-loose situation. So if it follows non-violence and some comprising talks in which both the countries are satisfied then I am sure it is a win-win situation. It will get compromised easily and it will be the end of the enemity. I agree that it wont stop within a fraction of second. But patience is needed. A leader should be very careful in taking each and every step. If India takes a wrong step then whole plan will be collapsed and the people will loose the faith in the country. 2} If any of the two countries decide to take war then there will be following consequences. a] Lose of life, property, peace, economy crisis, the country will not be able to concentrate in the development of the country. So both the countries will be fighting and other countries will be developing. And I am not saying this a 'no matter what' attitude. It is my opinion. You are saying about the victory a country is about to enjoy after winning the war. But I am speaking about the situation during the war, in the battle field, and the situation of the country which is going to loose. Winning is a matter of second but having humanity is not a matter of a second; it is matter of a life time. Of course, there has been some benefits in war but you should agree that merits are less in number compared to the demerits. You said that World war II is immoral. I say that not only World war II all the wars are immoral. How can the government kill it's own citizen by engaging in the war. I am sure that if the members are less in the army a government which is ready to start a war will also be ready to engage engineers in war. It's motive is to win. In that point it does not matter whether the war is for good or bad. If a country wins the war it will be remembered but the country which compromised with huge efforts will be remembered more. As a girl born in the land in which non-violence was practised to achieve freedom and a land which teaches us patience and non-violence I take the side, that the country should not wage a war at any cost and should go for peace talks.
Free University Education

This debate should be impossible to accept, please state your interest in the comments section if you would like to accept this debate. I, as Con, will argue that university education should not be free (i.e university courses are paid for entirely by the student or on his/her behalf, whether by upfront payment or a student loan). Pro will argue that university should be free, which is to say that the student does not pay any of the financial cost for his/her university course. Burden of Proof is shared. Definitions University: 'a high-level educational institution in which students study for degrees and academic research is done.' (1) Free: 'without cost or payment' (2) Rules / structure R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals No semantics No trolling No acceptance without requesting participation in the comments (1) Google: 'Define university' (2) Google: 'Define free'
Drinking Age adjustment from 21 to 18.

Alcohol is mentally and physically harmful [1] [2]. Obviously, alcohol has negative effects on a human"s mind and body. From [1]- Brain- Alcohol interferes with the brain"s communication pathways, makes it harder to think clearly and messes up balance and coordination. Heart- Cardiomyopathy (stretching and drooping of heart muscles), High blood pressure, Stroke. Liver- Alcoholic hepatitis, Fibrosis. Cancers- Mouth, Throat, Liver, Breast. From [2]- Liver disease, Alcohol poisoning, Slurred speech, Ulcers, Malnutrition. If this list is not enough proof of the negative effects of alcohol, I am sure there are other impacts I have not mentioned. An 18 year old mind is less mature than a 21 year old mind [3]. [3] suggests that the human mind develops from 18 to 21 but that the brain is still not fully matured with decision-making until about the age of 25. To allow 18 year olds the right to drink knowing their minds are not as mature as the minds of 21 year olds would be illogical and dangerous. Alcohol can be connected to various crimes [4]. Though initially the link shows the differences between 18 and 21, if you read further down, you read that alcohol annually contributes to somes 1,700 deaths, 599,000 injuries, and 97,000 cases of sexual assault among college students. So to decrease the legal drinking age to an age group where minds are not as developed would seem illogical and dangerous. Sorry the opening statement was short, but it was to the point. Sources: [1] http://www.niaaa.nih.gov... [2] http://www.drugfreeworld.org... [3] http://www.npr.org... [4] http://www.bu.edu...
Drinking Age adjustment from 21 to 18.

Introduction: Thank you all who are interested in debating against me. I look forward to reading your arguments. Given Resolution: The United States Federal Government should adjust the statutory and/or judicial law restrictions of 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U.S.C. " 158 (a) & (b) & 23 U.S.C. " 1208.3] from 21 years of age to 18 years of age. Funding, enforcement and effective implementation shall be guaranteed through any and all constitutional means. Definitions: Adjust: alter or move (something) slightly in order to achieve the desired fit, appearance, or result. Statutory and/or Judicial: Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy) National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984: http://www.law.cornell.edu... Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Semantics are established in R1 while allowing the Negative to pragmatically infer any information not structured by the affirmative. 3. No new arguments in R5 4. BOP: Each side must uphold their portion of the resolution on balance, or as a general principle 5. Violation or non-acceptance of any of the R1 rules or setup constitutes a 7-point loss. Style This will be formatted in a Lincoln-Douglas debate style. Debaters are expected to offer or stipulate to a Value-Criterion structure and evaluate the round through that mechanism. Despite unpopular amongst some, theory, "kritiks," off-cases, and other non-traditional techniques are allowed and encouraged by the negation. The resolution is to be discussed in the abstract, though real-life examples may be used where appropriate. Structure R1: Acceptance R2: AC, NC (i.e. no rebuttals) R3: 1AR, 1NR R4: 2AR, 2NR Closing I look forward to anyone who accepts. Best of luck! Comment for any questions, comments or concerns.
Drinking Age adjustment from 21 to 18.

For if/when my opponent returns:You said that minor drinking under parental supervision will promote better, safer drinking habits when they are legally allowed to purchase and consume alcohol without their parents. However, you neglected to think about the effects of lowering the age following this argument. If minors don't have the ability to practice safe drinking at age 18, how can weexpect them to be responsible when they can finally consume it themselves? If you suggest we start drinking at an earlier age to promote safe drinking when legal, won't that perpetually decrease the drinking age until it is soon 13 or younger?
SJWs are bad

1. There is a system. http://www.alternet.org...Earl Sampson was stopped 258 times by the police in four years. All those times he was accused or ARRESTED for trespassing at the store where he works.http://www.reuters.com...A few years ago ABC's "What would You Do?" did an experiment where they had 3 white kids spray paint, jump on and destroy a car for three hours. Only one person called 911. Then they had 3 black kids vandalize, jump on and destroy a car for three hours. Ten people called 911. ONE 911 call vs TEN 911 calls. Then at the end of part one someone called 911 TWICE saying 2 black men SLEEPING in a car "look like they're possibly getting ready to rob somebody".2. The pay gap exists.http://www.aauw.org...A Yale study had researches sent out fake applications to top, research-intensive universities in the United States. All applications were identical, except have were named John and half were named Jennifer. Professors were asked to evaluate how competent this student was, how likely they would be to hire the student, how much they would pay this student, and how willing they would be to mentor the student.The professors were more likely to rate John as more competent and pay John a higher salary. Female professors showed bias too. http://www.yalescientific.org...http://news.yale.edu...http://gender.stanford.edu...This study only focused on STEM fields, but the 1st link talks about statistic that pay gap exists, even with wages, jobs, work hours, etc. taken to account.3. Social justice cares about mens problems.http://everydayfeminism.com...http://everydayfeminism.com...http://everydayfeminism.com...http://everydayfeminism.com...
SJWs are bad

I agree with you 100 I belive that racism,sexism,islamaphobia ect is evil. You said "racism" is defined as widely held attitudes, or beliefs held by the majority of oppressive people that result in widespread, systematic discrimination against the minority group." There is no system unless you count the made up terms male privilage and white privilage wich I will debunk later. Also you said people of color can't be racist becuase they are a minoroty by this defenition and using what you said but applying it to something alse I by your defenition can say the KKK is not racist because they are a minoroty. Saying that is idiotic becausethey are racist and evil and same as the black panthers. There is no systematic racist people just say it because they want to feel good about them selves so they make up a fake racism so they can blame the world instead of trying to change beliefs of actual racistsI will debunk male privilage and I will debunk white privilage in a latter argument. *Men are expected to pick up checks on dates. * You’re more likely to graduate from college if you’re female. * The homicide rate is much higher for men than women. * You’re more likely to get the kids after a divorce.*More likely to commit suicide if maleIn the university of York people tried to create a international men's day (there is a international women's day) to deal with problems like male suicide rates it was shut down by feminists. one day later a male student committed suicide. Wage gap Men and women have the same pay and statistics that claim that women are paid less are not looking at. Earnings and wages are different thingsWages JobsWork HoursTime offBonusesEfectiveness at compleating a jobHow hard they work Attitude at workCooperationOn taskHow danerous the job isVacationingLeaving to give birthEct.
SJWs are bad

"Sjws claim they hate guns and that they are dangerous. they love guns but only when guns used against there politcal allies. example joseph stallin (killer of 20 million) and the IRS targeting of conservative groups and orginazations"Joseph Stalin and the IRS and not SJWs. "In history social justice has killed many people"Social justice does not kill people. You don't know what social justice is. I will write why I am for social justice.1. Social justice calls for accountability. For example, in social justice "racism" is defined as widely held attitudes, or beliefs held by the majority of oppressive people that result in widespread, systematic discrimination against the minority group. By this definition, people of color cannot be racist. Since the oppressors are the ones that are creating the system of oppression, social justice calls the oppressors to dismantle the systems of oppression.http://everydayfeminism.com...http://www.alternet.org...http://everydayfeminism.com...I also recommend this social justice subreddit to learn more.reddit.com/r/socialjustice101Basically, social justice calls for people to examine their own prejudices and beliefs and to try to change them so people can be treated fairly and have equal opportunities without regards to race, gender, etc. at one point in history, women couldn't vote. People had to change their attitudes 2. Most social justice work is against racism.http://everydayfeminism.com...http://everydayfeminism.com...I cited a few articles in point #1.3. Social justice is peaceful movement.I never heard of violence in the movement, but I know some are extreme in their beliefs. However this does not speak for all SJWs.
SJWs are bad

Social Justice Is a evil racist and sexist belief used by SJWs. Sjws claim they hate guns and that they are dangerous. they love guns but only when guns used against there politcal allies. example joseph stallin (killer of 20 million) and the IRS targeting of conservative groups and orginazationsscoial justice means that because he is something he must be something alse. Example he is white therefore he must be privileged In history social justice has killed many peopleUse and examples of Social justice in historyHitler: killed 11 million people 6 million jews. he said All jews ruin the economy because they are jews.Stalin: killed 20 million people most political enemies Like SJWs only allowed free speach for one cause the others got shut down example college campusesRwanda genocide:Killed 800,000 to 2 million peole said tutsis were bad because they were not hutusAndrew jackson: Moved people on to reservations said stuff like all American Indians are rapist and will scalp youAndrew Johnson: made the jim crow laws that said all black people need to be seperate because they are different and that they are rapistSocial justice is one o the most evil things ever created It is like me saying all muslims are terrorists because some of them are. social justice warriors and 3rd wave feminists say teach men not to rape it is like saying teach women not to commit fruad related crimes because they are more likely to do so.
Catholicism or Protestantism? (Pro-Protestant, Con-Catholic)

I would like to express my gratitude to Con for an informed and civil debate so far. I hope that this will continue until the end. I will now state by counterarguments. 1. Viewpoints on sin It is true that Protestants don't see all sins as equal. However, all sins' cost is death. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). Homosexuality results in same penalty as lying, disobeying, or being afraid. However, Christians can earn eternal life not because their sin is not great, but only because of Jesus' death. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith: and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). One might say that people who commit "lesser" sins may judge the people who commit greater sins, or that someone who commit greater sins might think that he does not deserve eternal life. However, Bible clearly says that Christians must not judge others."Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1). Therefore, true Christians will never look down upon others, no matter what sins they committed. Of course, matter of "pious homosexual" is a different topic and I will not mention it in this argument. 2. Viewpoints on Worship It is true that we must worship God every day. However, going to church is one way of worshiping him. Protestants worship God in our daily lives, as it is written in Psalms 15. "Those who lead blameless lives and do what is right, speaking the truth from sincere hearts" (Psalms 15:2). It explains who can worship God in His sacred tent. If we apply this verse to our lives, we can clearly see that we can and should worship God in our daily lives. 3. Viewpoints on Marriage Many Protestant denominations discourages and bans divorces. For example, Baptist church strongly opposes divorce. There are some churches that recognize divorce (though not accepting remarriage), which is similar to Catholic practices. In case of adultery, however, divorce is allowed. "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (Matthew 5:32). I, being a devout Protestant, believe that Protestants follow the Bible more accurately. I am eagerly awaiting your opinion on the matter. This has so far been a debate with much civility as one can hope for. I would like to say that I am thoroughly enjoying this debate. I can hardly wait for your next argument. Thank you. Sources: New International Version Bible Book of Matthew Book of Ephesians Book of Psalms Book of Romans http://www.thehighcalling.org... http://www.religioustolerance.org...