BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Watch this 2 hour documentary and debate me. Abortion is used as a eugenics tool.

You didn't want he the documentary so I don't know why your even debating me. You seem to understand that the pro choice movement began as a eugenics movement and that planned parenthood began as a eugenics group. A by Johnson is a Texan who used to work at planned parenthood. Her website has the quotas where each planned parenthood clinic gets more money if they do more abortions. Abortion adverts-no directors of clinics. Abortion doesn't have to be optional to be used as a eugenics tool. I allready told you that 78% of planned parenthood clinics are in minority neighborhoods. As for the university studies the names are in the documentary which you didn't watch. 50% of Blacks are aborted. That's because of planned parenthoods locations. The first groups to speak out against abortion were the black panther party and the Nation of Islam. They saw it as BLack genocide. Legalized abortion is used as a way to keep the Black population down. Abortion clinics are mostly in their communities. Watch the documentary at some point in your life. Have a terrible thanksgiving and don't waste your time. It's sad you can't accept the truth that your part of a eugenics movement.
Watch this 2 hour documentary and debate me. Abortion is used as a eugenics tool.

Abortion is not a eugenics tool, as to be such it would not be optional. Your whole comment is based on the fact that abortion started as a eugenics tool, and I am arguing that today it is not a tool. Which is it sir? Secondly, you keep talking about sterilisations, which was a eugenics tool. Abortions and sterilisations are very different things, and it seems that you are confusing them. Abortions today are not used as a eugenics tool, and I would like to begin by analysing your first argument: " They sell abortion and their job is to market it and raise the number of abortions."- http://america.aljazeera.com... follow this link. I typed in "abortion adverts" into Google and I found none. So I ask you to not throw sophisms around, it benefits no one and wastes time. As of 2012 it was made legal to advertise abortion in the UK, but no adverts have ever been placed on primetime television. "A study by 3 major universities found that the number 1 factor in locating their facilities was percentage Black."- Sure, I'll just swallow this one without any citations or links(!) I have no new arguments that weren't stated in my first comment, but this debate is beginning to get on my nerves- your points are long and irrelevant. You throw sophisms at me and do not use sources. Too much information is being put into this debate without considering its worth-A KKK member's opinion is going to be biased is it not? The same way the documentary by Mafaa21 on Youtube is biased, and this is beginning to annoy me, and I'm sure other readers too. As such, you can have your debate, but I refuse to argue repetitively against sources that cannot be trusted.
Watch this 2 hour documentary and debate me. Abortion is used as a eugenics tool.

Abortion is no eugenics tool. Abortion is a way to stop overpopulation and families that can't support their children, thus preventing poverty and low HDI scores. Furthermore, abortions are totally optional, which means that they can't be used for eugenics, do you think that the government can reach inside your head and somehow target African-Americans to have abortions? How stupid can you get? Clearly, by the title of such a debate, your arguments will be based on what is a very biased documentary, containing nought but sophisms. Abortion prevents unhappiness, and I, being pro abortion, disagree that abortion is a eugenics tool. Indeed, it could be used if parents don't want to have a disabled child, thus preventing disabilities such as Down's Syndrome, Huntingdon's disease, Type 1 Diabetes and other genetic defections, but then again, it stops women who were raped from living lives of regret and misery. It stops families and couples breaking up because of the stress involved in having a child. 1.2% of abortions are undertaken by girls of 15. You are suggesting that those 15 year old girls are having abortions because of a disabled child, and not the fact that they don't want to risk their health, development and future. You are correct in suggesting that it could be a eugenics tool, but it is not. A eugenics tool would be non-optional and any disabilities would cease to exist, however, there are disabilities and African-Americans, so clearly, over the many years of abortion, it has not been used as a eugenics tool. Furthermore, African-Americans are people who emigrate to America after having a nationality of African, if they don't meet those circumstances then they are black and American. Two things that are not mutually exclusive. Thus abortion cannot reduce the numbers of African Americans, unless you are suggesting that abortions nearly always cause people to not emigrate, of course. To conclude, abortions are a tool to protect children from being born into, and living in, situations where they cannot be looked after. For example, if abortions weren't around, then a child could be taken into care, where they can, and often do, develop psychoses such as depression and paranoia. Abortions CANNOT be used as a eugenics tool when they are optional. Thus, you cannot be right.
Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States

Thanks Con. My opponent ASSERTS that illegal immigration is bad, with literally no analysis. He only states: "giving them an education and allowing them to work in establishments for the same pay as regular citizens is unjust"The first part can be turned, since these immigrants will be here anyway, it's better to have them educated than condemn them to manual labor because they have no education; that's a way to throw away talent. THe argument could also apply to Poor citizens. Sure, illegals dont pay taxes (although they generally make so little that they would pay nothing or next to it under our tax codes) but neither do citiznes in poverty; at the end of the day, the major reason for having public facilities is to help the poor, so my opponent needs to draw a moral distinction between citizens and those he deam illegal. That will be hard to do. The second part of his argument is: " Illegal immigrants do not typically go to college or produce nearly enough money to be worth their income, they also are a minority who has the most typical involvement in crime. "Straight up, no sources or warrants on these correlation causation fallacies. Secondly Turn: Education reduces crime and poverty, this turns his education argument and his implied economic argument. However, most important is that NOWHERE has he linked illegal immigration with birthright citizenship! This is incredibly significant, because his only impacts aren't even linked to the resolution. He's already lost this debat because hes given you no reason at all to change the status quo. My Framework has been dropped and therefore conceded. This means that he needs to prove uniqueness on his impacts, as well as justify an amendment and he hasn't tried to do that at all. He attacks my second contention saying that my source is "dismissed", while apparently ignoring the citation it offers from Time magezine. He hasn't offered any counter statistics, so we have to go with mine anyway. His second two points have nothing to do with my case, and make no actual attack on them. So my Contention two stands. My Contention one has been totally dropped, and therefore conceded. Extend the impact that this sets a dangeerous precedent, and extend that argument that birthright citizenship doesnt warrant a constiutional amendment.
Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION . I Still, the point remains that you haven't explained how my case is wrong. I will simply list what policies I would find acceptable for citizenship. . II Illegal immigrants still are protected by the police force and use the public education system. That really is not fair, giving them an education and allowing them to work in establishments for the same pay as regular citizens is unjust. Illegal immigrants do not typically go to college or produce nearly enough money to be worth their income, they also are a minority who has the most typical involvement in crime. REFUTES . I Your source is correct but then adds "Rich Chinese moms" which I don't think is statistically backed up anywhere so therefore its legitimacy is dismissed until you back it up. . II Still even so, doesn't matter if the mom intends to if the baby is born there and she is already there illegally in the first place its the same outcome. I don't see the difference if intended or not she is on the soil illegally and therefore having a baby is still abusing the system. . III Yes, but they still cause competion and many still go through public school. In the end still costing the government money and in the process possibly making real US citizens lose jobs. Citizenship subtext to post . II under Illegal Immigration * Parents must both be legal citizens of the USA * Legal immigration remains the same as current policy CONCLUSION Whatever my opponent may believe, Illegal immigrants cost some portions of money and sometimes take jobs from real US citizens. Meaning they cause problems and many more come a year. Illegal immigrants due to being poor also are a big source of getting drugs over the border. Source: . http://www.cis.org... . http://www.usillegalaliens.com... . http://www.mnforsustain.org...
Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States

First off, my opponent should know that his constant assault on character and sharing Pm's should count off for his conduct. I will personally be respectful and polite to my opponent despite his "character". I would like to thank my opponent for starting this argument since this is an excellent topic! ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION .I Well this one is simple, if your parents illegally immigrate here. Then why do you get the same rights as a person who's ancestors sacrificed sweat and blood to create this nation! I would like to ask my opponent if he thinks that fair? .II Now I do support the constitution.. To a point, on topics like immigration. It simply doesn't apply in this age, with illegal immigration from Mexico being an issue. CONCLUSION My main point is simple, illegal immigrants children getting rights for the cost of nothing! Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States

My opponent recently votebombed me on a debate that I clearly won[1], so I've decided to let him prove himself.When I PMed him about it, he responded: "birthright citizenship is unfair, plain and simple", with no analysis of any actual argument made in the debate, and that annoyed me. So if birthright citizenship is unfair, let him prove it. He can make his case in round one. 1. http://www.debate.org...
College Football Should Have a Playoff System

"Having millions of viewers watching ESPN and every single game of the season to figure out whether their team will make the top bowl, or any bowl at all is not a mess." Quite frankly, this situation is a mess; largely in part to the muddled BCS rankings. Fans are stuck on pins and needles all year while watching their favorite team play, knowing that one loss will destroy their chances at the gold, the supreme BCS Title. One loss equals devastation for each team. One simple loss crushes a team's dream. One loss is one year wasted. Does it have to be that way? No, it doesn't. I believe that the way the college football postseason is currently set up takes away from lesser-known colleges, with focus primarily shadowed over the high-ranked, success-predicted schools. With the bowl game system, focus on many schools are taken away. Tell me, how much time is spent on Sportscenter dicussing the dynamics and breaking down the gameplans being put to use in the Roady's Humanitarian Bowl? Played since 1997, last year's game featured Fresno State and Georgia Tech, with the Bulldogs running up 27 unanswered points in the second half, trouncing Georgia Tech 40-28? Who could forget that? I did. Maybe it was because the media preoccupied me with ongoing stories about the Fiesta, Rose, and Sugar bowls. Not to mention the BCS National Championship Game. Yes, while some bowls are going to be bigger than others, if you're going to have that many (32 as of last year) then divide attention among them equally. Which brings me to a solution for lack of attention given to bowl games and colleges; a playoff, one hypothetically resembling the NCAA Men's Basketball Bracket. It should come out like this: 4 sections of 16 colleges, whether sorted by region, league, etc., totaling out to 64 teams. A round would be played each week, narrowing down from the first and second preliminary rounds to the Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, Final Four, and the National Championship Game. The whole process would take about six weeks, leaving analysts and fans plenty of time to track their favorite teams, in an arguably more exciting way; more upsets, more drama, more at stake. Unlike underappreciated, miniscure bowl games, each round and game would earn equal attention, much like the March Madness Tournament. "if there were a playoff system many less teams would compete thus many less college programs would receive the benefits of post season football." Au contraire. With the playoff system I have devised out, the same number of teams would play as the bowl games, 64, giving each team the benefits of postseason football. It could arguably give the teams even more benefit, as rather than their resume for the year simply stating "Lost in Meineke Car Care Bowl", it would read, "Reached Sweet Sixteen", or even "Reached Final Four". More benefits would be given to each college and team, with more promises waiting in store for them. Your rebuttal?
College Football Should Have a Playoff System

Ok well you say that the post season is a mess however I would argue that it is nothing near that. Having millions of viewers watching ESPN and every single game of the season to figure out whether their team will make the top bowl, or any bowl at all is not a mess. In taking the affirmative side of this debate your opinions say that you don't think that every game should matter because right now every team knows that with a single loss they could be eliminated from contention for a national championship. The fact that right now every game is extremely important makes more fans watch the games which turns into more money for college football as well as each individual college. Having this massive decision at the end of the year also makes more and more people watch shows like ESPN to see what teams made what bowls. And finally, the bowl system simply gathers more money for everyone. The places that the games are held receive more tourists which gives more money to different areas of the country. Also if there were a playoff system many less teams would compete thus many less college programs would receive the benefits of post season football.
College Football Should Have a Playoff System

The college football postseason is a mess. From the complex bowl games, to the BCS rankings, to the controversial decisions, a change is definetely in order. I think a playoff system is that change needed. Just look at every other major sport, pro and college; hockey, basketball, baseball, soccer, pro football; they all have a playoff format, a bracket, to determine the overall champion. No complaints are coming out of those sports about their postseason, controversial champions, or rankings. Why should college football be any different?
isreal vs gaza conflict

I'll start short Hamas which is a terrorist organization launches rocket's at isreali civilians with that no will argue now if someone is killing your kids you would do anything to save them even if other people would die on the way because your kids go first that why Isreal retaliates when they do and they try there hardest not kill cillvilans but Hamas makes there civilians stay in dangerous neighborhoods so they can have propaganda attack on isreal even they it means there own kids will die now theses people are just monsters
The earth is a big ole ball.

Lol I've angered you?(maybe you thought this would be an easy win) I've got a new word for ya bro: cognitive dissonance. Through this whole debate you've offered no proof at all that the earth is a globe, and the finale is the best, a diagram saying that you can see better from farther up because you can see the other side of a sphere? If that's the case, wouldn't everything be leaning away from you? If you couldn't see an object from the ground because of the curve and you climbed up high enough to where you could see over the curve, You would see the curve, but no one ever has. And you won't, no matter how high you go the horizon will always be eye level and flat, except in the cute little diagram which shows a tree sitting at a 45" angle away from the viewer. Ever went to the top floor of a skyscraper and looked out and seen any buildings or anything for that matter leaning away from you? I've offered several resources and brought up a great many proofs, all related, and all pointing at the same ending. It's not improbable, the earth is flat. You should take a few minutes and watch any documentary on the subject, that is if you're as open minded as you say. As far as gravity, people notice that things going down is not called gravity, everything does not go down, its simply called density and how things work, objects with greater density will drop below things with less density, and vice versa. But NOWHERE except when Nasa says so, will anything move or be attracted to the center of a spinning ball. First the magical unseen force will cause things to orbit around it, others it will attract and make stick to it? Why hasn't the moon crashed into the earth, gravity is supposed to be several times stronger in earth than the moons, yet the moon pulls the earth's tides? If I jump high enough(against gravity, why wouldn't I take off on an unending orbit? I resisted earth's pull.Instead of believing the religion of outer space science which we can never prove, use some of that common sense God gave you. One last chance to offer some real proof of a globe!
The earth is a big ole ball.

If you came into this world and they never taught globular heliocentrism in school as they do now, if you just walked outside and looked around, especially at sea LEVEL, you would assume that the place you were living was relatively if not mostly flat. If you took Nasa out of the equation, gravity, as described by pro wouldn't exist, with gravity comes the globe, the 93billion mile sun and every thing related to this model. In short, no personal observation or experiments can prove that part of"science" even exists, it's become a religion of sorts, we're supposed to believe it, though we can't physically prove or see it. It simply does not exist. Governments are known liars, the space frontier has been monopolized. We have to take their word for it? You really think if we went to the moon, they wouldn't be charging a few hundred thousand dollars for a seat to visit it by now? In no experiment no matter what the medium whether it be tennis ball or a bowling ball, has water ever made a globe around anything. In short t
The earth is a big ole ball.

Since pro has yet to provide any proof through experimentation, or observation that either gravity exists(other than what goes up must come down) or the earth is a sphere, I will address arguments in the comments section. At what size does gravity take effect? Planet size only? If so, were taking someone else's word for it and is non- provable. As for eratosthenes' experiment, this would also be true if the sun was much closer than he thought. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
The earth is a big ole ball.

It is not my "personal wishes" that most footage above a certain height is shot through a fisheye lens and any educated person can evaluate the footage and see. In the famous Red Bull video, the earth actually curved outward, I have many video references to back my claims. I never stated that water was held "perfectly still". I said flat, and no this doesn't not mean faceless or currentless, it only means if you hold a ruler to the sea horizon, the measurement doesn't lie, and in no experiment ever has water some anything but settle flat. That's real science. Speaking of real science, you cannot compare a ball, or globe covered in water to as glass of water in a car, a soaked tennis ball however, when spun will exhibit centripical force and the water will escape at the center or equator the fastest. I don't know about you, but I've seen a few full moons during the day, wouldn't that be nearly impossible, if the sun is 93million miles away, and the moon were on the same side of the globe as the sun was, it would mostly produce a new moon or close to it. I see you failed to recognize the idea of gravity we are being given and how I am perceiving the amount of force it requires. The earth is said to spin at 1,000 mph, that's at the equator. The top and bottom of this sphere would not be moving fast, but only spinning in place at the poles correct? So if gravity is uniform on earth that would mean it would take more force at the equator to keep things "stuck "to it that higher or lower in the parallels. So in short I should weigh a considerable but more at the pole(s) than at the equator. I would be willing to bet you haven't done a whole lot of research on the idea that is was flat. Trust me I've been searching for definitive proof of either. Also please explain in the official photos of earth where are all the thousands of satellites? Also, degreasio recently came out and said the earth was not a blue marble as the official photos depict, but an oblong spheroid, I think was the term, sure looked like a ball to me.