BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should not be illegal

I think that abortion should be legal. 1. I understand that some people could use abortion for the wrong reasons, but people will abuse anything to their advantage. 2. No one is good enough to decide if abortion is right or wrong for each and every single person in America. So, everyone should be able to make their own choice. Some people are raped, and if abortion was illegal, would have to look at their stomach as a painful reminder of that event. Every time they would look into the child's eyes, they would remember. No one should have to go through with that. 3. Abortion being illegal doesn't make it mandatory. People just get to make their own choice. Supporting it doesn't make you a baby killer, it makes you a proponent of free choice. 4. Adoption isn't always an option. Some people may not want to give up their baby, even though they can't support it. They would feel too attached, once it is born, to let it go. They (assuming they are young) might drop out of school and ruin the baby's and their lives. Also, even if the child is put up for adoption, the child may feel rejected, and feel out of place when other students talk about family history (1). Also, adopted children may be more inclined to commit suicide according to this study (2). I believe that choice is the only way to truly allow people their freedoms. People can't always choose when to get pregnant, and sadly, sometimes it is worse for everyone (parents & child) for the baby to be born. (1): http://family.findlaw.com... (2): http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
Atheism is more Probable than Theism

I will consider a restart but at the moment I am very busy, but I will definitely let you know soon. Thank you. Concerning the debate, I just wanted to cite two sources that share my thoughts on some of the subject matter. the modal cosmological argument Adler, Mortimer J. How to Think About God: A Guide For the 20th Century Pagan (1980) the problem of evil Adams, Marilyn McCord "Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God" Proceedings of an Aristotelian Society Supplementary Vol. 63 (1989)
Atheism is more Probable than Theism

Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Theism. For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i. e. : omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc. ) That is to say, we are not referring to any specific deity. Therefore, terms such as the incarnation, Biblical errors, etc. are irrelevant for this debate. "More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism). Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access. (2) Sources may be linked to inside the debate; however, no arguments can be placed in that page. (3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. (4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. (5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss. Rounds: (1) Acceptance(2) Opening Statement(3) Rebuttal(4) Rebuttal(5) Closing Statements - 1,000 character limitOther notes:(1) 72 hours to argue;(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. (3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
reason+intent=morality

By intent, do you mean intentions, like good or bad intentions, or the willingness to do something? Because your intentions are your reasons. Also, you are assuming the intentions are either good or bad. Morality is the system of judging whether an action is good or bad. You are predetermining the results by saying an intent is good or bad. People dont know the intent is good or bad until you get morality, you see the paradox. Just like x = ax +4 is not a proper definition of x. Also, I think youre going for that insane genius writing style. Please stop. I dont like to get my Enigma decrypter out whenever I have to reply to you. Just write in sentence and paragraph format.
reason+intent=morality

I believe there are three branches to morality. Morality, of course, changes with the situation. The three branches are: How you would be affected by the action. (least important) How the recipient would be affected by the action. (most important) How society would be affected by the action. If you consider these three things when making a decision of what to do, you should do the thing that best satisfies the most of these. That would be the most moral thing to do. What we ought to do.
Banning Guns

I'd like to expand a bit from my point of view on your last statement, which reads, "...but if they knew people were carrying guns, they'd be less willing to rob some place". First off, I'd like to debunk a myth conservative media has been telling you: there really is no correlation between lax gun policy and crime rate. Places such as Israel, which you have been told has an essentially no holds barred policy on gun ownership, actually have much stricter gun laws than you may believe. For instance, in an article in the Washington Post (source link below), it reads "...Israel laws, Rosenbaum [an American scholar] writes, 'are designed to keep amateurs from carrying guns in the street - even amateurs who have served 3 years in the army'" [1]. Israel has much lower crime rates than the US, but not because of its lax gun policy, but rather, its tendency to leave guns in the hands of professionals: police, soldiers, hunters, etc. Also, if citizens carried guns, and possible criminals were essentially out-gunned by the public, they wouldn't just roll over and die out; they'd probably look for bigger, stronger, more modernized weaponry to outclass any firearm citizens would carry on their person. Then, it'd just turn into a legally questionable arms race between gun-owning citizens and criminals, each trying to overpower the other with superior weaponry. Then, the police would have to overpower both of them just to keep civilian life civil; this means there'd be enhanced police vehicles, advanced firearms, more equipment like breaching charges, grenades, tear/poison gas, flashbangs, etc. being used on civilians and criminals in public, which means someone is bound to get caught in the crossfire, innocent lives will be lost. Then, there's the problem of making sure each citizen with a gun would actually act responsible with their newly acquired toys. Small, drunken arguments could lead to colossal shootouts just because some gun-toting badass wants to show his machismo to others. Then there's the idea that maybe gun-wielding civilians wouldn't be ready to actually kill someone who is a danger to others. If they aren't ready to take a life, then there really is no use for guns to be in the hands of many civilians, since they, meaning the civilians, may end up just running away or finding help. Here's one of the many cases where a regular citizen didn't end up saving the day, "In 2008, a gunman who killed two and wounded two others was taken out by another patron in the bar, who was carrying with a valid permit. But this was no regular Joe with a concealed handgun: The vigilante, who was not charged after authorities determined he'd committed a justifiable homicide, was a US Marine" [2]. Sources http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.motherjones.com...
Banning Guns

Hence, that's why people should take training on how to handle a gun, and not just blindly rush out an buy a gun. I agree with the back ground checks and everything, but Obama is going to far in wanting to completely ban guns. I think it would lower the crime rate a little bit, because criminals wouldn't be able to walk anywhere and so "let hit these guys, there completely defenseless" but if they knew people were carrying guns, Thad be less willing to rob some place
Banning Guns

I accept Con's challenge, and I hope this will be a very informative and entertaining debate. First off, allow me to summarize Con's argument into a single resolution: "Banning guns is wrong because you take away gun ownership from responsible citizens, and criminals will obtain guns anyway". My resolution is this: "Banning guns would improve society because widespread gun ownership would not actually lower crime rates, but provoke an arms race between citizens and criminals, and lead to needless deaths from civilian altercations."
Cate vs Doge

Doge has a very questionable political stance as well.(Please go to: http://i2.kym-cdn.com...)This is also seen by his attendance with his family at this neo nazi rally: In a last ditch attempt, my opponent has tried to reconcile the evidence of Doge cooking illegal product and cyber attacks with other dogs' lack of experience in chemistry and hacking. There is one fundamental flaw with this still. Innocent people don't run.Therefore we need to lock him up just like his former partner in crime, who testified that Doge is indeed the culprit. Doge has brought up a long backstory of Cate and Doge, which we thought was water under the bridge. Now Cate must explain those memories that will forever haunt him. Whilst saving people's souls, Doge had challenged Cate to prove the existence of a Gode. After settling the debate, which ended with a verbal threat from Doge, Doge physically attacked Cate as dramatically redepicted here: From this attack, Cate has conjured up a fear of being touched (explaining Cate's unusual behavior during grooming), and he was left barely alive. Doctors saved him by having a respirator fitted on his face. Since Cate was wearing this mask, he was unable to eat for nearly a week. His ordeal was only made worse by none other than Doge, who taunted Cate even further by presenting himself as food. This concludes that story, and now I must wrap up this debate which has proven to be incredibly fun. While Doge may be transcendent, Cate is eternal.(Please go to: https://pbs.twimg.com...)Good luck in the voting round!
Cate vs Doge

Not to belabor a point, but the only way such devotion to a country could ever be questioned would be via a concerted effort between Cate and communist sympathizers. I wonder who such sympathizers could be? I bet you do, Lenin Cat. I bet you do.Just to practice due diligence, I checked around with other canines to see exactly how much chemistry and hacker expirience Doge might have. The results seemed very... well, you'll see. Chemistry was no different. Honestly, it seems Cate has issue even with simple grooming. And took speech lessons from Doge, but I digress. ProCate is under the impression that some how DOGE is the alien? Doge is not an alien. Doge is transcendent.
Cate vs Doge

RebuttalWhile Cate was saving kids from obesity, He spotted a that Doge does indeed play games. That is: As per Doge's devotion to the United States , it was only distraction.Cate's protégé and also former lab partner of Doge, has discovered that Doge is a felon. He cooks illegal Cate-nip and distributes it via drug dealers. Thus, all of the years of service Doge has put in for his country were merely a distraction. Additionaly, we have evidence that Doge is affiliated with the infamous group of people, Lizard Squad, known for their elite hacking. Doge is seen here to be capable of doing large scale cyber attack. Perhaps Cate wouldn't have been trippin on Cate-nip had Doge not sent aliens to abduct Cate to test the effects of his illegal product.
Cate vs Doge

Doge doesn't need stats.Doge doesn't play games.The simple fact of the matter is that Doge is a veritable Renissance Doge. He is a racer. Well known Doge of the world. And accomplished artist. Cate, officially has blown his cover. Years of training after hearing the Call of Doge to serve his country... As a Double O have now been wasted. s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" />(https://twitter.com...)Doge's loyalty was never in question. s://img1.etsystatic.com...; alt="" />(https://www.etsy.com... to those interested in supporting capitalism, and credit where due, as its where I got the pic from.)Regarding mistaking Doge as food, I ask Cate to put the Cate-nip down. Srlsy, yer trippin'. Let me get the squirt bottle. (some pics are appearing in my editor, but not in the review, please follow the links should they not work.)
Cate vs Doge

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for sticking to the intended path of this debate.By accepting this debate, little did you know that... Argument Cate's stats are far superior than Doge's. So what is giving Cate those incredibly cute, puffy cheeks? He eats Doge for breakfast. That's right. How many people can say they eat their mortal enemy every morning?One last point for now: Doge is conspiring against the United States and all of its allies with the leader of the illuminati, Puttin.On to you Doge!(heavy breathing)
Cate vs Doge

Doge's politcal stance isn't questionable. He is of nobility, nobility ordained by higher powers. Doge, by the way, is Meta. So. Meta. http://www.debate.org...;With regards to Doge running, all I see is "Where's Waldo", and he neither runs, nor hides, he is quite literally plainly visible. Cate seems to want to assume your laziness. We shouldn't be surprised.Wait... in the Light saber battle, Cate is holding a Red saber... it all makes sense! Cate is of the Dark Side! Look! His mentor! Surely, that respirator wasn't due to injury! Its because he became a super-villan, and tried to destroy Gotham! Fortunately, Doge is the hero you deserve, but not the hero you need. I am reminded of a quote "Be anything you want. Unless you can be Bat Doge. Be Bat Doge." I would like to thank my opponent for a very engaging debate, and would like to give my best wishes to all our reading and voting members. Doge Bless.
Is God "Currently" a principle of the United States

This debated will be locked into whether or not God "Is" or "Is not" a "Current" principle. I apologize for the profuse quotation marks but I've attempted this debate before and a trend of misunderstanding has emerged each previous time. Opinionated arguments based on opinions VS logical reasoning were the result. That being said: Warning: this debated stems from an opinion section. Opinions will not be allowed to serve as reasonable argument (For example: beliefs, feelings, thoughts). All statements will be supported with either facts or logical reasoning. The debate will remain void of personal feelings. Agreeing with particular points made by the opposition will not be considered against either party to the debate, showing respect is not forfeiture. Round 1: Acceptance of the debate. Round 2: Pro will be responsible for presenting an intelligent argument for the existence of God as a current principle of the United States, Con may choose to refute through arguing his/her own facts, logic and or reasoning or may choose to discredit Pro's argument instead using the same factors. Round 3: Pro will address each of Con's contradicting points in sequential order from round 2 and will offer argument consistent with the instructions in Round 2. Con is free to respond with either argument to Pro's points or present new argument material in ending. Neither party will address each other's character unless it is done with tact and respect. Both parties will maintain the utmost respect for each other during the debate. Should my opponent accept, I wish him/her the best.
Transgenderism is a mental illness

First, I would like to address my opponent's criticism of my source, the World Health Organization. He says that they are a left-leaning organization. However, left-leaning doesn't necessarily mean left-biased. Even my opponent admits to using a left-leaning new source, The Guardian, in his own arguments. I don't see why this is relevant to his case, but I digress. Next, my opponent claims that while transgender people are discriminated against in this country, that my point isn't backed by science. Now, I ask, did you see the source I used to back up my findings? "A staggering 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6% of the general population, with rates rising for those who lost a job due to bias (55%), were harassed/bullied in school (51%), had low household income, or were the victim of physical assault (61%) or sexual assault (64%)" [1] This report is based on findings from over 6,000 transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. These statistics prove that discrimination indeed does have a hand in transgender suicide rates. Then, my opponent challenges my statement that discrimination causes in transgender people by showing statistical differences between the suicide rates of white and black people in America. However, this could be a result of black people taking only 12.2% of the American population, while white people make up 63.7% of the American population [2]. Also, this is completely irrelevant to the topic. In the statistics I have shown for transgender people, there is a correlation between discrimination and suicide [1]. Next, I shall address my opponent's second question. However, now that I have access to the actual source, the question seems very misleading. Dr. Cantor contrasts autogynephilia, the sexual arousal to the image of being female, with transgenderism. He evens shows the difference between the two. My opponent fails to understand one thing, though: not all trans women are motivated by "sexual desire to be a woman" [3]. Also, I would like to address the next part of the second question. I do cede to this point. I don't agree with children being allowed to medically transition, but I also don't see how this relates to the resolution of transgenderism being a mental illness. Must I address this point? I already showed my rebuttal in the last round and they make no attempt to refute it. Citations[1]sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.thetaskforce.org...[2]http://www.infoplease.com...[3]http://www.sexologytoday.org...
Transgenderism is a mental illness

So I just want to put out there that I have great sympathy for anyone who suffers from this condition. I think there has been an idea that gender is not connected to sex. This is a position of which I highly object to. It has very strong cultural ramifications on our society and also it is normalizing the idea that there is no biological difference between a man and a woman. And there is. No matter how much hormonal treatment, surgery, or counseling you undergo your biology will never change. Your genetics do not change. But I want to start off with asking a few questions and I am happy to answer any questions you have for me. 1. The national suicide rate is 4.6 percent. The suicide rate in the transgender community is 41 percent. What is the cause for this spike? 2. Should you be allowed to do hormonal treatment and sex change surgery for children like we just saw in Australia where a 4 year old had a sex change operation? When a vast percentage of children who are confused about their "gender identity" grow out of it before they turn 18. 3. Considering there is no evidence that the suicide rate decreases after the surgery or when people refer to them as the sex they claim isn't there a strong case to be made that there is a strong correlation between transgender ism and suicidality?
Transgenderism is a mental illness

FrameworkMy framework will revolve around the notion that transgenderism is not the same as gender dysphoria, which is an actual mental illness that can be diagnosed in transgender people. First, let's define transgenderism.Transgenderism - A state or condition in which a person's identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional ideas of male or female gender [1].Now, let's contrast this with gender dysphoria.Gender DysphoriaAccording to the DSM-5, Gender Dysphoria is “a general descriptive term [that] refers to an individual's affective/cognitive discontent with the assigned gender” and “the distress that may accompany the incongruence between one’s experienced or expressed gender and one's assigned gender” [2, pg. 451]. It isn't necessarily the identity that is the diagnosis, but the distress.To further support this, there are two main diagnostic features for both children and adults; the person must have an incongruence between expressed gender and assigned gender, and they must have significant distress that impairs social, occupational, or educational functioning [2, pg. 452-453]. If no distress is present, the diagnosis can't be made.The American Psychiatric Association, who published the DSM-5, states that “gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition” [3].To further illustrate the aspect of distress, Gender Dysphoria has symptoms such as anxiety, depression, social isolation, and a poor self-esteem [2, pg. 456 - 457]. In addition, causes of Gender Dysphoria include being stigmatized for their identity and discontent with it [2, pg. 454 - 456].“Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination” [4].Transgenderism Transgenderism is simply an umbrella term of those who don't identify as the gender they were born as [4]. That doesn't necessarily mean they will have have Gender Dysphoria, or even that all transgender people have a mental disorder.Citations[1]https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5 by American Psychiatric Association. [3]https://www.psychiatry.org...[4]http://www.apa.org...
Good People Disobey Bad Laws

As my conclusion, I'll simply post an excerpt from Wikipedia that could give readers an idea of where to start researching this topic further."A victimless crime is a term used to refer to actions that have been ruled illegal but do not directly violate or threaten the rights of any other individual. It often involves consensual acts in which two or more persons agree to commit a criminal offence in which no other person is involved. For example, in the United States current victimless crimes include prostitution, gambling, and illicit drug use. Edwin Schur and Hugo Bedau state in their book Victimless Crimes: Two sides of a Controversy “some of these laws produce secondary crime, and all create new ‘criminals’ many of whom are otherwise law abiding citizens and people in authority.” This is an issue in the United States where prison rates keep increasing even though it already has the highest prison population[1] out of any country. The term "victimless crime" is not used in jurisprudence[citation needed], but is rather used to cast doubt onto the efficacy of past, existing and proposed legislation; or to highlight the unintended consequences of the same. In politics, for example, a lobbyist might use this word with the implication that the law in question should be abolished.[2]"https://en.wikipedia.org...Not only does one have the right to commit victimless "crimes," (an oxymoron,) one also has the right to violently resist force used by others -- including agents of the government -- if it infringes upon their natural rights.To close, here is the Free Man's Creed..."I am free because I say I am. My freedom is not dependent on any government benefit or piece of legislation. My rights are inherent in the fact that I was born a sovereign being. They are non negotiable. Governments can list them and protect them, but my rights are not theirs to give away." -Unknown VoluntaryistLearn more about Voluntaryism:http://lmgtfy.com...