BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

In the year of 2014, 53% of abortion patients paid out of pocket for their procedure. Abortion procedures cost a massive amount of money. For both medication and aspiration abortions, the exact costs depends on their location and their facility. "Planned Parenthood estimates that in the United States a medication abortion costs between $300 to $800 and an aspiration abortion between $300"$950." Also, many mothers have a difficult time talking about their experience with deciding whether to get an abortion or not to others because they are emotionally unstable about their experience. Also, each mother has many different beliefs, feelings, thoughts, values, and goals in life. They might feel anxiety and afraid of what everyone might think. Furthermore, there are risks for pregnant women who have had abortions in the past. Risks include vaginal bleeding during early pregnancy, preterm birth, low birth weight, and placenta problems. These problems and situations will make it difficult for women to have children. Also in 2014, most abortion patients had health insurance. About only thirty-five percent have Medicaid Coverage, while 31% had private insurances. However, insurance doesn't cover the abortion services, and even if it does, patients may not use their coverage for a variety of reasons. For example, the woman doesn't know her plan and they could be worried about confidentiality or if their provider would accept their plan. http://afterabortion.org... (graphs) https://ramahinternational.org... https://www.guttmacher.org... http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org... http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au...
I will not contradict myself.

Much thanks to my opponent for his well thought out responses. 1. Do you sin? 2. Are you a true Christian? 3. Was Jesus human? 4. Do you support the death penalty? 5. Is the Bible the ONLY good basis for morality? 6. Have you ever vote bombed? 7. If birth is certain to kill the mother but the baby would survive then is abortion justified? 8. Do all people have an equal right to life? 9. Has humanity polluted the Earth? 10. Do you agree with Karl Marx on anything? Thankyou.
I will not contradict myself.

As my opponent and I have a history of a couple of debates, a dramatically opposed political ideology and a (hopefully reciprocated) mutual respect I think this could be a particularly interesting game." Same here. "I apologise in advance if my interrogation seems harsh or critical but I think that is pretty much the nature of any interrogation and hope this will not count against me in the conduct category, I reassure my opponent and the readers that I bear him no ill will whatsoever and do not intend to mock or insult in any way if I question his political or spiritual beliefs." The questions are difficult, but not harsh, no. 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. 4. Under certain conditions, such as the person having done something that would deserve torture, and the torture bringing about some worthwhile positive effects. 5. Yes. 6. Only if you can't reasonably save the child from starvation. 7. If by affirmative action, you mean favoring one person over another based solely on irrelevant race or gender, then yes. 8. No. 9. No. 10. As a natural event, yes. As a man-made epidemic, no.
I will not contradict myself.

Much thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to take part in this fun semi-debate. As my opponent and I have a history of a couple of debates, a dramatically opposed political ideology and a (hopefully reciprocated) mutual respect I think this could be a particularly interesting game. I apologise in advance if my interrogation seems harsh or critical but I think that is pretty much the nature of any interrogation and hope this will not count against me in the conduct category, I reassure my opponent and the readers that I bear him no ill will whatsoever and do not intend to mock or insult in any way if I question his political or spiritual beliefs. 1. Do you think minimum wage laws are always wrong? 2. Do you think the Bible is a good basis for morality? 3. Are you pro-life? 4. Do you think torture is morally permissible? 5. Do you think that workers have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions? 6. Do you think it is morally permissible to allow a child to starve to death? 7. Do you think affirmative action is always wrong? 8. Do you think prejudice is justified a lot of the time? 9. Is Infrared Ed your brother? 10. Does global warming exist? Thankyou.
I will not contradict myself.

First, I ask for a source about KM-C and his opinions. Can you source that he was a Christian? Can you source that he thought that the world is round? KM-C may have had no opinion on abortion at all. As for the "I don't know," I did not know, and any answer I could give would simply be a reflection of whatever research I found. For the KM-C, it is extremely difficult to find info about him, and I can't get into the mind of a Communist. I've always used the translation "Thou shalt not murder," and even if we were to use such a translation, the death penalty is neither careless nor negligent. Furthermore, it seems as if the work can be used with only the intention of meaning "murder," based on your source. As for forgiveness, there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. He can shed his own blood. As for being Pro-Life, the term is generally applied to abortion, and in one sense I am Pro-Life, so I can say that I am Pro-Life without contradiction. It is further explained in another answer. As for being guilty versus being innocent, the term "guilty" can refer to having been prosecuted of a crime, and not everybody on Earth is guilty in that respect. When I answered the "human" question, I checked the definitions, and decided that there was a very good definition that would show Jesus not to be human, so I used it. The faults of human nature would be sins. Death and pain are not moral faults. Jesus never sinned. That makes him without these faults, which makes him above human. "I don't believe there can be any doubt that my opponent has lost this debate/game, although that will of course be up to the voters to decide." I think I've got a chance. ;-) "Thankyou[sic]." Thank you, as well.
I will not contradict myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(composer) We're talking about two different people named Karl Marx here. You never specified. The commandment that my opponent cites is also read in some translations as "Thou shalt not murder." http://en.wikipedia.org... Because murder is any homicide that is against the law, the death penalty would not be murder. http://en.wikipedia.org... I can be Pro-Life for innocent lives, but Pro-Death for guilty ones. Your contention about Jesus being human is false, because one definition of human is "susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature," which He was not. He never sinned. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. Yes. 5. I don't know. His Wiki article doesn't say. 6. No. 7. I don't know. I'm not a Communist. 8. Yes. 9. Yes. 10. No.
Homework Should Be banned

Homework was something I contested against during my childhood, but as I grew older, I realized how much it actually helped me. Homework is a measure of how well one is doing before a quiz or test. This is important because homework was generally less in contribution to a grade and was ideal to make one's mistakes while doing so rather than making the bad execution during an actual test. In college there may not be such a luxury and one would bomb the test before even knowing one's capability until they where handed back. It also teaches discipline which needs to be grown over time. Homework requires one to sit down and focus on a task with a purpose, which is essential in any future job.
Donald Duck is Better than Mickey Mouse

Many thanks for starting the. I wish my opponent the best of luck! =========================================================================== First, let us quickly respond to each point which the instigator has instigated! :) =========================================================================== 1) He start off by saying that Donald Duck is sailor. Donald Duck may be a sailor, but Mickey Mouse captains his own ship, as we see in "Steam Boat Willie." Naturally, a captain trumps a mere sailor any day of the week: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) Next, he points out that Donal Duck is magic. That may be true, but Mickey Mouse is also Magic as we've seen as early as Fantasia: http://www.disneymania.ws... In addition, in the very game PRO is linking to, Mickey trumps Donald not only in magic skills (thanks to his personal keyblade), but also in authority as he is referred to as KING Mickey: http://en.wikipedia.org... In fact, the video to the right is an excellent demonstration of his combat skills. Watch Mickey in action as he proves a worthy adversary to the one winged angel himself, Sephiroth!!! http://www.youtube.com... 3) My opponent points out that Donald is one of the main Disney characters that aids Sora in Kingdom Hearts, but as I've pointed out, as has Mickey, so this doesn't help his case. 4) He argues that Donald has been to Atlantica, halloween Town and the Pridelands. However, Mickey had been keeping an eye on Sora and the gang to insure throughout the entirety of the game. We know this on the basis of the fact that Mickey could potentially show up and aid Sora every time he came close to meeting his demise at the hands of the wicked heartless. Thus, it is only reasonable to conclude that Mickey had been to all of those places as well. Not that this should be considered a feat in the first place. 5) Donald's bad temper may lead to comical misadventures, but has also lead him to be considered a RACIST BY MANY!!!! Watch the second video to the right and listen to what he calls Daffy Duck: http://www.youtube.com... 6) My opponent argues that Mickey is a supporter of a terrorist group, yet if we watch the video to the right, all we see him doing is professing ignorance to what Islam is by asking if it is his uncle or mother! ======================================================================== All of that aside, we must keep in mind two additional things when deciding who is better. ======================================================================== 1) Mickey Mouse is Disney's flagship character and is what people generally associate with the name Disney itself: http://en.wikipedia.org... This gives him a great deal of seniority over Mr. Duck. 2) Mickey Mouse actually has the decency to wear pants whereas Donald Duck has no shame parading around his duck penis as if anyone actually wants to see that! Thus, based on my arguments as well as the arguments I've gained in refuting my opponent's arguments, there remains no doubt that Mickey is clearly better than Donald Duck. And that'll do it for now.
Donald Duck is Better than Mickey Mouse

The resolution to this debate is that Donald Duck is better than Mickey Mouse. Pretty straight forward. Definitions: Mickey Mouse - a comic animal cartoon character who has become an icon for The Walt Disney Company. Mickey Mouse was created in 1928 by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks and voiced by Walt Disney. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Donald Duck - an American cartoon character from The Walt Disney Company. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] better - something superior in quality or condition or effect [http://www.google.ca...=] ____________________________________________________________________ I move to affirm the resolution that Donald Duck is better than Mickey Mouse Arguments: Donald Duck is a sailor http://upload.wikimedia.org... Donald Duck is Magic http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net... He is one of the main Disney characters that aids Sora in Kingdom Hearts http://www.red-rider.ca... And has been to Atlantica, Halloween Town and the Pridelands. http://www.freewebs.com... http://www.creativeuncut.com... http://ui20.gamespot.com... Donald's bad temper often leads to comical misadventures (see youtube video). http://www.youtube.com... While Mickey Mouse is a supporter of the terrorist group Hamas. (see second youtube video) http://www.youtube.com... Therefore Donald Duck is better than Mickey Mouse. Thank You.
People with the name Adam Jordan are homosexual.

With all due respect, does one person who's name is Adam Jordan and who is gay makes every person with the same name homosexual? I don't think so. And no dear sir, by name is not that and this debate isn't about me. Such statements should always be supported by facts. Which you don't seem to have. Please, stop carrying such generalizations with you. Any person with any name can be anything. :)
Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status

In the past, if a king needed money he would assemble a fleet of frigates and galleons that would be bristling with guns and canons. He would load these ships with cargos of soldiers and send them across the Atlantic to the New World to rape and pillage newfound civilisations, and plunder their gold and have it repatriated back to Europe. Unfortunately though, these days the United Nations take a dim view of such activities and it is, therefore, necessary for the government to collect money from the general populace instead. This inevitably leads to the double-taxation my opponent referred to. You pay tax on the money you earn and when you buy something with the money left over the recipient pays tax on the profit from the sale. But my opponent suggests that churches shouldn't pay tax because they "help others" in places like Haiti. I looked into this and discovered that a Baptist group from Idaho did indeed travel to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake to "help others" - they were arrested and accused of attempting to traffic 33 children out of the country. [1] Presumably their intention was to sell the youngsters on to paedophiles rings in America and if they had not been caught they would have succeeded in their mission – their mission being to "help others" sexually molest vulnerable children. Meanwhile the Jewish Orthodox Union uses their tax-free donations to fund the Institute for Public Affairs [2] which is an American lobby group that opposes humanitarian aid being sent to victims of military aggression in Palestine, rejects the United Nations and international law and supports the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem and the illegal Jewish land grabs in the West Bank. At the same time, there are widespread concerns that tax-free donations made to mosques may be channelled into the hands of Islamic terrorist groups. [3] With regard to countries such as Ireland where church attendances are higher, the income from tax paid by the churches would be very helpful in reducing their budget deficits and allow them to spend more money on schools and hospitals. In conclusion, the activities of religious organisations may seem worthy and noble by some: Christian paedophiles; racist Jews; Islamic terrorists and others; but not everybody welcomes having to pay more tax to make up for the shortfall in receipts from tax-exempt churches, temples, mosques and synagogues. Thank you. [1] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] . http://www.ou.org... [3] . http://www.foxnews.com...
Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status

Religious organizations, in my opinion, should not pay taxes from church collections and other donations. Money gotten through collections and donations has already been taxed (it comes from a group of people who have already have been taxed). Additionally, the majority of the money gained through collections and donations is used in the purpose of helping others (examples include Haiti, earthquakes, money used to organize soup kitchens, and so on). Additionally, you will note that in certain countries, such as Ireland, 85%[1] of the population attends church. That would mean the Church in Ireland does have significant impact on the population. Religious individuals, on the other hand, should be taxed. I don't believe that it is fair reverends who earn proceeds through televised programs ought to be allowed to keep any of it, or if they would be allowed, then that income ought to be taxed. Any actual business (such as mass selling, investments, and so on, also ought to be taxed as it is a method of earning). Collections and donations should not be taxed as they are gifts. I apologize in advance for any spelling and/or grammar mistakes and for unclear sentences. Additionally, I apologize for having such a short counter-argument, however, I am short on time. I beg your understanding. [1]http://www.nationmaster.com...
Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status

Agreed, a country must raise taxes to run a government though I question my opponents comment on the fact that pillaging is now illegal is a bad thing. I, personally, enjoy the fact that people can't run around burning and stealing. I also concede that there was a, emphasis on a, single group of Baptists who were trying to use the situation in Haiti to there advantage. However, the information that did not get to the media were all the other parishes that collected and sent money for actual aid to refugees. As far as the Jewish Orthodox Union using money for illegal activities is something that ought to be fixed, but you'll note that the Catholic Church does not use their tax free status for illegal activities. If you suggest that one example of someone(s) doing something bad ought to influence laws for everyone, then we ought to all be in single cells. there are people who use the ability walk outside so that they might steal from others which is certainly illegal. Your logic dictates that we should not be allowed outside. Islam is a religion of peace. Therefore, if a mosque is truly Islamic, donations will not be used aid terrorists. If it is a mosque of radical Islam, then the UN ought to be acting in order to shut down a terrorist cell. Additionally, I would like to point out that single examples should not influence all other examples. Furthermore, laws for taxation differ from country to country. I would like to point out that there are countries where a Church Tax[1] is imposed. So in certain countries, such as Denmark[1], you would first be speaking out cutting government support to the church. Also, I would like to point out that corporations such as Wal-mart con the government out of millions[2]. Isn't that a slightly bigger problem ( Wal-mart is also guilty of sexual discrimination, employment of illegals, and many other crimes[3][4]. I am much more fine with the church getting free money then with Wal-mart getting free money.) In conclusion, there are many counter-examples to the ones referring to the usage that my opponent has provided as to the activities of religious organizations, I have provided examples of other organizations that steal more money from the government than the church does and conduct other illegal activities, and I have pointed out that many governments grant financial support from the treasury to churches. Again, I apologize for any mistakes, and thank you. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org... [3]http://www.reuters.com... [4]http://www.foxnews.com...
No true republic in history has ever lasted longer than three hundred years

Roman Republic? 509 BC–27 BC There was a set of laws that were placed in each forum and acted as supreme law, listing the basic rights of citizens. Your definition is only in the sense of the United States. Therefore, you are ruling out most other major nations in the world, that are either missing an executive branch (UK, Japan) or are non-democratic in nature. As a majority of the world is represented by democratic-derived government, the world can reasonably be split between democracies and non-democracies. A non-democracy is one that does not support a democratic government. As for that, it doe...isn't even matter if it is in "form" or "nature," for as a nation whose constitution is "...-adopted by the people and changeable...", it is a democracy by definition. On another note, in most senses politically, the USA is a representative democracy in nature and a federal republic in form. As for your point on the Rome Republic, it did establish such a government form as described above. Nature is the "how". Form is what it actually is.
Should 15 year olds be alowed to hookah

I accept, and will defend the position that 15-year olds should be allowed to use hookah. Note that this is a normative resolution and thus CON and I bear equal burdens of proof. He must argud that 15-year olds ought not be allowed to use hookah while I will argue that they should be. Note that this debate concerns permissibility. I need not comment or defend the wisdom of using hookah, but only the fact that 15-year olds ought to be allowed to use it if they so choose.
Legalizing gay marriage

First I would like to say you are very well-spoken, and I appreciate that. I hope to answer your questions in the best way possible. 1)The thing that a lot of people get hung up on is this ideal of marriage. Very much traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman, but it has also many times been between a man and many women. So I think that the traditional "one man one woman" concept can be thrown out the door. I myself do not see the huge fascination with having a legal document declare your love forever. Most people find this document a necessity or validity of their love, so I think that gay couples should have the option to do so if they choose to. 2) Love is partially a learned thing. Most people learn from the example of their parents. So i think that if most people grow up seeing heterosexual couples they will see that more as the norm than homosexual couples. I think maybe people prefer to marry people of the opposite sex is because they won't be so different. Even though we are in a time of change, it's still rare to see homosexual couples (also depending on where you live) I worded my statement wrong. "you can't help who you fall in love with" I should say that love is different for everyone, and love shouldn't be defined by just a man and a woman. 3)I think that marriage itself is hard. It truly is a difficult thing to commit to because it takes work. I don';t think that there are lower marriage rates because of the barriers that we have broken down, or the barriers we have yet to break down but the fact that so many divorces happen that people have become afraid of the word marriage.