BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sex

Now, there are many arguments about sex. I am Completely PRO-SEX.My opponent, In his insolence, thinks sex a bad thing. He must be a priest.So alas: HERE COME IN THE CONTENTIONS.1. IT IS LOVED BY SOOOOOOOO MANY:Check out some of my sex debates:1.http://www.debate.org...I won, and I supported semen in food.2.http://www.debate.org...Imabench won this one, because it talked about us being able to have sex MORE without worries of pregnancies.3. http://www.debate.org...I don' even need to say anything about this one.Tons of people love sex. A. There are jobs about sex (i.e. Prostitutes, strippers, etc). B.There are movies about sex. Almost every box office movie about sex sells like sex itself.C.Sex is in our ears (not literally, unless you like that kinda stuff.) By in our ears, I mean that we listen to songs about sex. The majority of songs nowadays (that are popular) are about sex. Lil' Wayne, Enrique Iglesias, Flo Rida, Chris Brown, Rihanna, Big Sean, DJ Khaled, it's all they sing about.D. It's what SELLS (in the news). When you read a newspaper or read news off the internet, do you see "Celebrity has SEX with another CELEBRITY in HOT AFFAIR", or "Celelbrity and another Celebrity are NOT having sex and are happy and virgin!". Nuff said. 2. IT FEEL'S GOOD.Sex is so popular because IT FEELS GOOD. When you have sex are you like "Meh, never doing that again" or "God DAMN I gotta do that AGAIN!!!! WWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!!!!!!!!" That is completely obvious. When something feel's good, do you say "oh my, that is bad!" or "HOLY CRAP THAT'S F*CKING AWESOME". Therefore, SEX IS GOOD AND SWELL.3. Even the CHURCH IS GOOD WITH SEX!Now, I know that my opponent is indeed catholic, and I know i'm kind of splittin' hairs, but I never said that I was talking about sex in or outside of marriage specifically. Sex makes babies! Without babies, NO HUMAN RACE. God LIKES HUMANS. Therfore, HE LIKES SEX. SEX GOOD. INSIDE OF MARRAIGE, BUT STILL GOOD! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.Sorry for not trolling more, I will do so more next round, but for now I hand the reigns over to my opponent.Thank you, and GOOD LUCKYOU'LL NEED IT
Sex

Hello, and welcome to sex. Yes, sex. sex sex sex. That is what this debate is about!!! this debate is about sex. I am saying "PRO SEX", but my ignorant opponent "AlwaysMoreThanYou thinks sex is "BAD BAD BAD". What a fool.This will be a 5 round debate. Since sex is so broad, and with with me, so LONG (aha), we need the max amount of rounds.First round acceptance. COME AT ME BRO.
There should not be any type of ban on Abortion

"when i meant that the father should have a say in the abortion of the child, it was to say that the decision on abortion shouldnt be just the decision of the mother. " And why shouldn't it be? You have yet to support this claim at all, dxpilot. Let's suppose a girl got pregnant, and the boyfriend left her because of it. Who else is there? What right would her friends have to tell her whether or not to abort their child? The parents could agree, and if they don't, what power would they have to tell their child not get an abortion? They are an adult, after all. If the father isn't present, there really isn't anyone that can have a part in the decision. Sure, they can put in their opinion, but in the end, it's the choice of the mother and the choice of the mother alone. "and even if the father isnt involved, the child who would one day be a grown person, he is still being affected so he should have a say. " And do you have a plan for making that work? How would the fetus have a say in whether or not the mother gets an abortion? "you would feel MUCH pain if you were in the end of the 3rd month because by then your nervous system is already funtioning as well as your digestive system ( thats why you can see a physical change in the mother). " According to an online medical journal, a predicted 4 out of 100000 abortions are done during the third trimester of pregnancy. "Believer also said that the fetus would only serve as a painful reminder for the mother. wouldnt the mother have a more painful reminder of her taking the life of her offspring. " It depends on the mindset of the mother. If she believes that she wants to do everything she can to get the memory out of her head, she would not likely feel guilty. If it is an accidental pregnancy, by a boyfriend or husband, than guilt would be more of a factor. "As for his statement on a diseased child, there really isnt a way to see that the child has a disease until the end of the 2nd trimester, in which the child is almost fully developed, it just has to grow more. " This is true, although you seem to have forgotten that I wasn't giving this as a serious solution. I was only asking for you to consider it. And there are still ways to predict a defect before the third trimester. Suppose the pregnant mother is shooting Heroin, binge drinking, Marijuana, and the list goes on. On top of that, there are many genetic factors that can be used to vaguely predict any genetic disorders. Moving on. .. "and even a mercy kill is wrong because you never know if there will be a cure discovered for the disease over the course of the childs life. " There are many instances where you can assume there will not be a cure within the child's life. Cockayne Syndrome has no cure at all, and there is little hope it will be invented within 15-20 years, which would be the child's lifespan. The same goes for Ataxia, Sickle Cell Anemia, and so on. Wouldn't you rather put the child out of it's misery, instead of making it go through 10-20 years of pain and disability to wait for a cure that may never come?
There should not be any type of ban on Abortion

first of all, i was unclear on what i meant on many of my issues. 1.) when i meant that the father should have a say in the abortion of the child, it was to say that the decision on abortion shouldnt be just the decision of the mother. and even if the father isnt involved, the child who would one day be a grown person, he is still being affected so he should have a say. 2.) my opponent also made a mistake in his statements. "Sorry, but I don't think you would. Fetus' cannot feel pain, or for that matter, emotions while they're in the womb." you would feel MUCH pain if you were in the end of the 3rd month because by then your nervous system is already funtioning as well as your digestive system ( thats why you can see a physical change in the mother). Believer also said that the fetus would only serve as a painful reminder for the mother. wouldnt the mother have a more painful reminder of her taking the life of her offspring. As for his statement on a diseased child, there really isnt a way to see that the child has a disease until the end of the 2nd trimester, in which the child is almost fully developed, it just has to grow more. and even a mercy kill is wrong because you never know if there will be a cure discovered for the disease over the course of the childs life.
There should not be any type of ban on Abortion

dxpilot made some good points, but there are several flaws in his responses. "1.) shouldnt the father have a say in the abortion of the child?" Most abortions that happen are because the father isn't there. It usually occurs in rape victims. "2.)wouldnt you be mad if you were killed for just growing and doing nothing and out of nowhere, something just comes up and sucks up your limbs? i would" Sorry, but I don't think you would. Fetus' cannot feel pain, or for that matter, emotions while they're in the womb. "but even if you experience a bad experience, it isnt the childs fault. and if you believe that the child is to blame, you can still give it a chance to grow in a fauster house." For some, if the child is a result of a bad experience, the fetus would only serve as a painful reminder for the mother. Some women could possibly be afraid of giving birth. To those who aren't, kudos to them. But for those who are, a safe abortion should be available to them, because the Bill of Rights entitles every US Citizen to the "Highest standard of health". And another reason why abortions should not be limited or banned; What if an ultrasound test shows that the fetus were to be born with some kind of disease that would make life for the child very painful and short? Wouldn't you then see an abortion as a mercy kill?
There should not be any type of ban on Abortion

Well, first of all, i would like to say that believer does post some good ideas, but he shows many flaws in his answers. First of all, he says that the choice to abort the child is the mothers choice, and the mothers choice only. Thats wrong because 1.) shouldnt the father have a say in the abortion of the child? and 2.)wouldnt you be mad if you were killed for just growing and doing nothing and out of nowhere, something just comes up and sucks up your limbs? i would post abortion guilt doesnt always happen, i know that. but even if you experience a bad experience, it isnt the childs fault. and if you believe that the child is to blame, you can still give it a chance to grow in a fauster house. And if a women gets murdered, the child must be in the second tri-mester for the murder to be counted as a double-murder. I do see your point that a growing fetus shouldn't be seen as a person but it is considered a GROWING person, showing that the fetus is a living thing.
There should not be any type of ban on Abortion

First of all, I'd like to welcome dxpilot to this debate. I would first like to state that, there are many reasons there should not be a ban on abortion. First of all, it is the mother's choice, and the mother's choice alone. Simple as that. Post-abortion guilt. These effects do not always take place. Suppose a woman got raped, and she was worried about the child she was to have. She could, very easily, feel relief in getting an abortion, knowing that there will not be any other long-term effects. Although this seems a bit immoral, I do not think a growing fetus should be considered a human. Just like an apple seed should not be considered an apple tree. And although this seems just as immoral, it is not an independet creature. It lives much like a parisite, living off of it's host. Some may say that, when a pregnant mother is killed, it is counted as double murder. And because of this, there should be a ban, right? Wrong. It has often been proven that medical laws and procedures, can very much differ from the laws upheld in the courtroom. Prove me wrong.
Capital punishment is justifiable

Seeing as how I am taking the "con" position in this debate, the burden of proof will rest on my opponent to demonstrate that capital punishment is justifiable, while it will be my attempt and intention to rebut such arguments.For the purposes of this debate, the word "justified" will be defined as "something which has been demonstrated to be both pragmatic and morally legitimate."Rounds:(1) Opening Statement(2) Con Rebuttal, Pro Counter-arguments.(3) Closing StatementsNote:I am new to formal debating and not entirely aquainted with how things work; therefore, I apologize if the format of this debate seems awkward in any way. Please feel free to provide constructive criticism :)
Abuse of women

No man should lay a hand on a women ever, you do not owe that person or have power over her. You can not do what you like to anybody that does not consent. It does not give any person a right to abuse a women because he has power to do so. People that do this is mentally unstable, got some strange idea about women, got to bee in charge, many get it from home where they see there mother been pushed around by the boyfriend,
Abuse of women

Yes, but it's the victim's fault for not saying anything to the cops or friends who will tell the cops. That's idiotic and cowardly. Their like little porcupines being chased by a fox. The porcupine can turn around and launch spikes at the fox, but they don't. They keep running. A lot of people think they can help women. How can you when your the ones known for domestic abuse? Women are admired for their traits like compassion, tolerance and amiability. But sometimes, these traits are mistaken for submissiveness. And some women, knowingly or unknowingly condition themselves to be submissive. Eventually, they become subject to insensitive, discriminatory and offensive behaviour, be it at home or at work. Some women employees are conditioned to accept offensive conduct in the "best interests" of everyone. They avoid arguments and don"t speak up in a bid to avoid conflict. They back down and fail to defend themselves for the sake of maintaining harmony. As Dr. Linda Tillman, a licensed clinical psychologist and founder of www.speakupforyourself.com explains, "Our culture still supports men in aggressive behaviour and women in deferential behaviour. So, men who are afraid to speak up may express themselves aggressively and women who are afraid to speak up may put aside their wishes to please the other person." Going with the flow in a passive and docile manner may earn women brownie points from some male colleagues who are content with maintaining the status quo and getting their way. However, such behaviour is perceived as a reflection of women"s credibility and self-esteem. It ultimately devalues their abilities too and people don"t really take them seriously. When women constantly hold back their true feelings and blanket their reactions, it is like an open invitation to others to walk over them! Bosses, peers and subordinates may expect them to unflinchingly accommodate their attitudes, moods and frivolities. Moreover, self-defeating behaviours trap women under a dark cloud. The brewing sadness and bottled displeasure escalate into frustration, resentment, anger and even depression which can engulf their career and life completely. So, why do women keep quiet and let others step on them? Why do they live with the regret of not having voiced their opinions or shared their ideas? Instead, why don"t they be authentic and assertive " why don"t they be themselves? "Some women may find it difficult to stand up for themselves and be assertive. But they don"t have to suppress their femininity and act like men either. It"s just about preserving one"s rights and well-being and not letting anyone take advantage of one"s softer side!" Is what they say when people like me scream out "MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP ACTING LIKE KITTENS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!" Well, newsflash, they can do something instead of just hiding in the corner. You're argument is good, but women aren't unliving dolls! They can walk, talk, and be human!
Abuse of women

Bill Cosby, accused by more than two dozen women of sexual misconduct. I am sure there is a Law for that, and Mr. Cosby is not above the Law. I am very much against women been abuse by anybody. and differently not by men like Mr. Cosby that he is in his right to do so. A Jail term would bee in order so he dose not do it again. Domestic violence destroys the home. No one deserves to be abused. The responsibility for the violence belongs to the abuser. It is not the victim's fault! Pathetic. Nobody will do anything. You control your own actions and if you abuse your woman, then thats your choice. Nobody else should have any say in what you do. The responsibility for the violence belongs to the abuser. It is not the victim's fault! I think we all know that. You control your own actions and if you abuse your woman, then thats your choice. Nobody else should have any say in what you do. Sorry this part I do not understand, please tell me I am wrong. You can not do what you like, and she is not your women she is your wife or partner.
Law against Racism

I get that emotional harm isn't enough of a valid argument as to why there should be such a law. Laws against bullying are actually existent in 43 of the 50 states, although fairly different things, the law was created to do nothing more than prevent self and emotional harm. I believe that prejudice has the same effects as bullying, it makes the victim feel small, helpless, and unimportant. Prejudice affects thousands of people in the US annually, such law, although complicated to be reinforced, could help such statistics and decrease the numbers of victims. I understand that such law would come in conflict with our rights of freedom of speech and to express ourselves. I also understand your argument that the law would mostly affect Caucasians, but racism is an act that doesn't originate from just the white race; Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans, among other races also express their racism against each others, including the Caucasian race. 77% of the US population are Caucasian/white, For being the majority, whites, are generally more prone to be racist, but racism can be done by anyone, regardless of their ethnicity. So I disagree that "the only people who could possibly be punished by this law are those of Caucasian decent!" for, I believe, that such a law would serve to defend the entire population not just the minority. The manifestation of those groups are, to me, a large part of the problem. I don't personally find prejudice wrong, but as soon as those groups get together and start to spread their racist messages, they can cause emotional pain. Although I realize that 'emotional harm' isn't enough of a reason to pass a anti racism law, I believe, that those groups might become militant and cause violence. The greatest problem with racism isn't the emotional harm but what it leads to. People are killed daily by ethnic violence. Groups like the KKK, Death Angels, and The Order have killed many people solely for the color of their skins. If a law that prohibited racism had been around at that time, it could have spared thousands of lives. How many more people need to die before we open our eyes? I fully agree with my opponent that we, as Americans, have the right to have opinions, but I also believe that, a simple opinion about which race is better, can lead to much worse things. If we try to 'cut the problem by the root' we can, perhaps someday, have a racist free America. Where no law is required for people are raised without the idea of racial superiority.
Law against Racism

I'd like to open up by pointing out that I'm not against racism. I am starting this debate to get the hang of the topic so soon I can make one for the position I fully stand behind. With that being said you (con) also do not have to be a racist to debate back. I'd also like to point out that by "racism" I'm more specifically referring to Caucasian towards black. I am fully aware that black people can also be racists and that there are other ethnicity's that are discriminated but I'd like to only talk about black. My opening argument: Black people have been discriminated against for centuries. They have been used as slaves and segregated. Racism is rude, insensitive and hurtful. Not only does it harm people's feelings, but can also cause a certain friction between races of which can lead to a full out war. What happened in Ferguson serves as proof that prejudice between a cop and a black citizen led to riots. A Law that made prejudice illegal, meaning that people could no longer use racial slurs or express themselves in a way that could be harmful to a black person would make it so intrigues caused by those terms or behaviors would benefit society by making it so no one would get emotionally hurt and preventing fights.
21st century brings more harm to our society than Potentials benefit presently

I therefore see no point in developing my argument further. Is Pro out of their depth here or are they going to surprise me in round three with an amazing 10000 word treatise on human society in the 21st century? As for my point: 1) Pro's opening statement is not only obscure in it's presentation but also grammatically inaccurate. Their failure to elaborate in round one, Allows me to make good use of these shortcomings by questioning how a particular moment in time can have a direct effect upon social function. 2)I attempt to point out that neither society or time stand still and that everything is constantly in a flux of evolutionary progress and material development, Hereby suggesting that there is probably an inevitability to any social situation at any given moment in time. This further suggests that how we perceive these changes is only relevant to ourselves at that given moment in time and has no greater relevance beyond that. 3)Historical comparison is a simple premise. Compare current day society and the harms and benefits we might place upon ourselves with events that occurred in previous centuries. Are things worse or better or do things have a certain similarity? 4)I was merely suggesting that perhaps I was in a better position to judge Pro's proposition, Simply because I have had the benefit of existing in two centuries, Whereas Pro has only had first hand experience of the 21st century.
21st century brings more harm to our society than Potentials benefit presently

Hello. A somewhat obscure statement. A society is a collection of organisms and a century is a period of one hundred years relative to the orbit of a planetary body around a star. In this respect a century is what a century does and a century has no direct impact upon a society. Most societies tend to function instinctively. That is to say, That notwithstanding catastrophic natural effects most societies will continue to function much as they always have, Irrespective of any given time frame. "Our society" and more so, Individual human beings or sub groups within our society, Although functioning instinctively at a base level, Because of their advanced levels of cognitive ability have been able exceed the limitations that a slow rate of evolutionary development imposes on other species. To this end our society is greatly affected by how we manipulate matter and as a consequence how we have been instrumental in an exponential increase in the rate of evolutionary progress, Or more specifically an accelerated rate of material development. What I am implying quite simply is that things are as they are, Not because 100 years has made any great difference to the base function of human society, But because there is an underlying inevitability in the process of material development and also how this process impacts upon our society. Therefore the concepts or notions of harm and benefit are irrelevant when viewed realistically and only relevant to a society in it's current situation and with it's current observations. However. If we regard the proposition in an historical context and make comparative observations with previous centuries. I think it is fair to assert that human social events were no less turbulent. The great wars of the 20th century being obvious examples. Ultimately we can only really judge by experience and a 58 year old has experienced society in two centuries, Whereas an 18 year old has only known the 21st century. I would therefore suggest based on my experience, That potential benefit or harm is appreciated in much the same way today as it was in the 20th century. I'm very much looking forward to seeing how Pro substantiates and expands their proposition.