BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion Being Allowed In The US

"Abortion is not suddenly getting popular." Yes the abortion rate has dropped a bit, but abortion event is still happening. "Pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion." Abortions may be dangerous, but that doesn't meant that you will be perfect with no injuries, no side affects and everything is perfect. Dream on. "Abortion is not "killing." "There are many things that happen when an abortion occurs that are more dangerous than having a baby. "Many women do not regret their abortions." Abortions may be liked, but that doesn't mean that every single person loves killing their was going to be child. "Abortion is the best option in many circumstances." Not all kids are put in a bad home. If the parents actually cared, they would go to the agency and pick the right people to take care of the kid.
Abortion Being Allowed In The US

Abortion is not suddenly getting popular. From 2000 to 2009, abortion actually dropped 8% and it is continuing to drop today. The way to lower the abortion rate actually is not making abortion illegal. "The World Health Organization defines unsafe abortion as a procedure for terminating a pregnancy that is performed by an individual lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both." Essentially this is what happens with illegal or "backstreet" abortions. This, of course, is not as much of a problem for the United States. It is mainly a trend we see becoming a major issue in countries where abortion is illegal. So if the United States were to make abortion illegal, women would resort to backstreet abortions. Pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion. Reuters health notes that women are actually 14 times more likely to die giving birth than they are to die due to complications in an abortion. It has been concluded that today both abortion and giving birth are relatively safe procedures, but with this evidence, it is obvious that pregnancy is more dangerous, proving my opponent wrong.Abortion is not "killing." A fetus and a baby are two very different things. Many doctors agree that "Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive." My opponent talked about how it doesn't make sense to consider killing a felony, and to keep abortion legal. Through this evidence, we can see why. Abortion is fundamentally different from murder because with abortion, you are eliminating a blob of cells with the potential to become a child. With murder, you are ending an actual life.Many women do not regret their abortions. "Research indicates that relief is the most common emotional response following abortion, and that psychological distress appears to be greatest before, rather than after, an abortion." Of course, there will be women who regret their abortions. I concede to that point, but making something illegal simply because citizens will regret doing it is unreasonable. Abortion is the best option in many circumstances. Often times, if a child is put up for adoption, it will end up being put in a crappy foster system with parents who will treat it badly. Also, we have to look to not just the well being of this "potential child" but the well being of the mother. Many mothers, as shown by the research in my previous point, have a more positive emotional response after their abortions. Women are 14 times more likely to die during pregnancy, showing that pregnancy is more risky. These points prove that abortion is a valid option.For these reasons and more, I am pro-choice.
Abortion Being Allowed In The US

Abortion is a big issue in the US, and it is suddenly getting popular. There are many disadvantages. The side affects are even crucial for the mother that was once bearing a child. Second, it would be killing, and if it was with 2 actual people, that would be a felony and prison time. Third, the memory would be horrible to live with, unless killing is a passion. And lastly, there are other options. There is also adoption and many other things that are much better than having an abortion.
This is not about nationalism, it is about FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

You're most definately welcome. For some reason my bolding does not want to work so I will not be able to use it this round so I apologize ahead of time. Contention 1: More Freedom is Anarchy My opponent has conceded here so I extend my argument across the board. Contention 2: Nationalism is identity. My opponent's argument here about a nation that doesn't fallow their own laws isn't free makes no sense. If that statement is correct then no nation in this world is free and freedom is a myth. There will always be people in this world who do not fallow the law. So if my opponent's statement is also true then that means there is no freedom and that means via default that Nationalism is more important than freedom, because there is no freedom. Also my opponent has dropped my nationalism is your identity. So I extend that argument across the board as well.
This is not about nationalism, it is about FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

Thanks for your patience sir. I will retort honestly, as that is my manner. I had a root canal today, no painkillers accepted by me although the prescription was ready ahead of time, I like life, and it is a pain by nature. So be it. I agree that "no law", or anarchy as another term, is a horrible idea. We, humans, as a race or species have not evolved far enough for that. We still have a large amount of just plain killers, at all levels of society, mostly at the top, but thoroghly distributed through all ranks. To further define this-They are the same thing in this nation. A nation of law that does not respect it's own laws can never be considered a free nation. My quote means that when we let people jump our borders illegally, and with no punishment for breaking the law, at the blessing of the regime, how is anyone free here? there are so many laws, I bet almost everyone that lives free breaks some every day. We are all criminals, mostly, except maybe nuns. Speed limits? whats that? No food scraps allowed in the trash? huh? I welcome your debate and wish I had the fortitude to continue, however it is difficult to have a dispute with someone you admire. Carry on soldier, I respect you. Thanks.
This is not about nationalism, it is about FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

Contention 1: Total Freedom Means AnarchySome freedoms have to be restricted. If we had total Freedom it would be an anarchy and our civilization would be gone. Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. "I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think."Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. ( http://www.iep.utm.edu...) You see humans are violent by nature so if we do not have law and order then we will all kill each other and rape and pillage everything. Sometimes freedoms need to be compramised. Much like the Patriot Act and the new Airport Security Messures. The fact is that it is a dangerious world that we live in and we need to protect those who are innocent. Contention 2: Nationalism is important. Your nationalism is your identity of who you are. I'm part Irish and fiercely proud of it. I'm also an American and just like the song goes, "I'm Proud to be an American." America is known as the melting pot nation (and jokingly called the salad bowl nation as well), because we have many different cultures and nationalities here. Take me for example, I'm predominately Irish, but I'm also Welch, Scottish, English, German, and Swiss. Do these nationalities affect my decission makings? Possibly. In World War 1 President Wilson had to be very careful about who he declared war on as many Americans were German. He declared war against the German Kaiser, not Germany. This was in order not to upset the many Germans living in the US. There was also a vote in 1795 to make German the official language in the US. It was defeated by one mere vote. Can you imagain how different the world history would have been if that bill had passed.
There is an Ideal Opening Move in Chess

Resolved: There is an ideal opening move in chess. Chess is this game: . http://en.wikipedia.org...An opening move is the first move made by either Black or White. A move is considered "ideal" if it enables the player to guarantee a tie or a win. Obvious examples of "ideal" moves are those that lead to forced mates or those that stalemate the game. The burden of proof is on Pro is to show that an ideal opening move exists.
Freethinking V Religion

I will be defending Freethinking. This debate comes in light of my recent exploits of extremist FollowerOfChrist1955. Things got personal, however he never really addressed the negatives of religion, whereas I addressed both pros-cons. I'm looking for someone to defend religion as opposed to freethought (individualism with god). I myself have stated many religions are against self thought: -Islam: is all about surrendering to god -Sikhism (my religion): separates a freethinker (manmukh) to a godsman (gurmukh) -You can just ask follower' about the bible, he talks about it all the time. Conversely ideologies such as Buddhism, deism, paganism and even atheism tackle being in the current state, and working towards a better, simpler future. I am defending freethought because religion thrives on fear, control and is highly appealing to a narcissist. Whereas FT is all about morals, ethics, and soul searching. R1;Acceptance R2: Further arguments, and criticisms R3: Rebuttals R4: Conclusion Argument may expand-continue in comments section.
reindeer are better then people

I actually did not realize it was from frozen. lol. Anyway, while reindeer are an important part about the Santa folklore, they could not be able to give or make presents and so are just a cog in the machine. While humans may backbite, have you walked behind a reindeer? It gives you the same result as if you walked behind a horse. A very fast, painful hit to whatever body part happens to be close enough to get hit. That would be my definition of backbiting. Anyway I had fun with this.
reindeer are better then people

Alright, this is my YOLO debate. This should be fun. People are better than Reindeer for three main reasons. 1. People are more intelligent. Intelligence is a measure of how much one can compute and Reindeer simply can't understand how to create a nuclear bomb just as we cannot understand how the world came into creation. 2. While humans do have the capacity for evil, they also can do good. Reindeer just do eat, sleep, go to the bathroom on this tree, an run from bear. People are unique this way because while we can be evil it only makes the good all that much better. 3. Finally, while Reindeer do pull Santa's sleigh, Santa is the human who gives out all the presents.
Animal testing should be banned!

Actually mr what ever it doesn't matter if i get it from that link because i only have to prove it. By the way Animal testing is cruel last night i read this really sad story about this cat and it says "Kyle is a little white mouse who lives in a lab. Unlike others, he doesn"t have to worry about risking his life for food. But of course there are worse things. His mother was being cut alive to test for a reaction to certain products and his dad was being tested for different types of drugs, which made him lost the ability to see. Kyle knows his destiny, he"s still waiting for his day to come, and he"ll never forget the hopeless look in his mother"s eye. He watched his mother being rudely taking out of the cage, tortured and abused. He only hopes that someone will understand how he feels, but even that is too scary to think about." Think about it guys. Imagine you as a dog being locked inside a cold barren cage waiting to be tested . Will you still think animal testing is fair?
Animal testing should be banned!

There are a few things at this point that I would like to point out. First, my opponent has already lost. Everything in her argument is merely copy and pasted from this link: . http://www.teenink.com... The website is called "teen ink" and the website title notes that its purpose is to display "Magazine, website, and books written by teens since 1989. " So, that my adversary has plagiarized the entirety of her argument from this easily searchable website is one thing. But the piece she copy and pasted was from a mere teenager. The young girl who wrote the essay didn't include a single footnote in the piece, either, so we have no reason to take as fact anything that has been written at this point. Next, if my adversary would like to have a genuine debate on this topic, as I would, I would like to invite her to present her own arguments, including proper sourcing, attributions and so forth. Finally, if she chooses to have a genuine debate on this -- and I sincerely hope that she does, though I have my suspicions that we may simply see a series of forfeits -- I would remind her that, because she is affirming the resolution and making a positive statement, she possesses the burden of proof.
Racial Profiling

I'm kind of lost. Pro just asserts that black people commit more crimes than white people, thus racial profiling is bad. I'm totally lost as to how this is that relevant to the resolution. I am going to focus strictly around his case and negate it, because that is all that needs to be done and provide a simple syllogism in order to affirm that racial profiling can be good in some cases. This is not my BOP but Con's entire case is summed up here " White people commit the worst crimes and everybody is yet terrified of black people. The black people as criminals stereotype is completely false and is a hoax. The stereotype like this came back then when slavery was common and that is not the fault of blacks. I have provided evidence for this claim in one of my sources. Blacks are assumed to commit all the crimes but nobody pays attention to whites and asians who may commit crimes. " Take the Us for example. Blacks statistically commit the most crimes in the United States[1]. If you look at that charm it's literally a truism. Blacks commit twice the amount of murders and rapes as other races, and nearly 1.5 times the amount of rape. A truism is an argument that is de factro true and that cannot be debated. Blacks commit more crime that is a fact. How does that tie into racial profiling? If you know blacks are *more likely* to commit crimes than other races and *see* them in suspicious places. Being able to racially profile *can possibly* reduce and prevent crimes. It can be a good thing. That affirms the res and negates cons case. Con just said black people do not commit more crimes than white people, I provided a study to negate that and showed how racial profiling *can possibly* reduce rimes Vote pro Sources [1] http://www.fbi.gov...
Racial Profiling

Just to make it clear, this is the definition of racial profiling: Racial profiling is the use of an individual's race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. stop and search or arrest). Racial Profiling is mortally wrong.Racial Profiling is simply wrong in a society like ours. America is SUPPOSED to be a democracy and have equal rights to individuals. However, racial profiling is violating equal rights and is racist. Racial profiling is also against the 4th ammendment and many others because one's race is no reasonable reason to search.If somebody is a certain skin color, why should they be judged so harshly on just because of other people of his race? (S)he can't help it, (s)he was born with that certain skin color and it's not his/her fault that some people of their race decide to commit crimes. Racial profiling means less equality. Somebody is judged based on the genes they were BORN with. It's like the flawed system of fuedalism in England a long time ago. You could be born as a noble and stay like that your whole life and live a great life. You could also be born as a peasant and almost never escape the class. The same logic implies here. People should not be accused based on how they were born, it's not logical. There could be a white man who commits a lot of crimes and a black man who abides by most laws. Yet, the white is at less risk then the black for the very few laws he broke. White people commit the worst crimes and everybody is yet terrified of black people. The black people as criminals stereotype is completely false and is a hoax. The stereotype like this came back then when slavery was common and that is not the fault of blacks. I have provided evidence for this claim in one of my sources. Blacks are assumed to commit all the crimes but nobody pays attention to whites and asians who may commit crimes. sourceshttp://www.louisianaweekly.com...http://www.alternet.org...http://reason.com...http://www.civilrights.org...http://colorlines.com...http://heinonline.org...=http://thesocietypages.org...
Racial Profiling

Like I said, what's more important is the crime rate in an area, not the races there. It's likely that there is at least one neighborhood that has more white people but a higher than average crime rate. You are ignoring the fact that there can be a town filled with whites and asians that still has a high crime rate. Instead, you are throwing facts and numbers about the comparision between black and white crimes. That was your whole argument, just mentioning black vs white crime rates without actually debunking any of my arguments.Racial profiling is also racist, not all blacks are criminals. By using racial profiling, you are putting the entire race at stake just because of a few people. There are many innocent blacks who are wrongly being accused. There are white dominant neighborhoods with high crime rates, and black dominant neighborhoods with low crime rates. While typically it is the other way around, it can be the other way around some times. Imagine a neighborhood with high crime rate which is mainly filled with white people. Imagine a neighborhood with less crime rate and is filled with black people. Racial profiling would mean there's more security in the neighborhood with black people. It's simply racist and will not solve anything. sourceshttp://forwardtimesonline.com...;http://www.usatoday.com...http://thesocietypages.org...
Racial Profiling

Con is now ignoring the crux of the argument. If a certain race is more prone to committing crimes by a high degree, statistically areas where that races congregates will have high crime rates. Blacks commit the most crimes in america. Generally towns that have a high black population, have extremely high crime rates. Take Alabama for example. In 2010 Alabama was comprised of nearly 67 percent Caucasian people and 26.2 percent black with the rest of the races varying [1]. With such a small percentage of the population being black, still nearly 77 percent of robberies were committed by black offenders [2]. Aggravated assault nearly 55 percent from blacks[3]. Burglary nearly 60 percent from blacks [4]. 62 percent of African Americans committed homicide[5]. A whopping 92 percent of African Americans where responsible for interracial rape [6] . My adversary just says target high crime area,s but as we can see those statistics literally point to one race being responsible for the most crimes. Now if you have most of that race congregated in one area, you can logically assume there will be probably be crime. Now let's take these stats and apply in to an on city comparison. Mobile Alabama has nearly 51 percent of the population as African Americans [7]. Surprisingly enough nearly 80 percent of the crime in this city is committed by African Americans. Mobile has been in the top 5 most dangerous cities in Alabama along with prichard multiple times, and both have nearly the same statistics and high percentage of African Americans. From these stats we can conclude, there is reason to racial profile. If you expect a certain race to commit more crimes based on stats, and that race is high density in one area. We can logically expect more crimes to occur there (which happens as cited). Thus racial profiling has benefits because it reduces crime. My adversaries only rebuttal is that is not true, and that racial profiling is a violation of the constitution. IT does work and it's not a violation of the constitution. You are not committed unlawful searches as he suggests, but keeping tabs on areas that are more than likely to commit crimes to mitigate damage. My adversary has been properly refuted an the resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.occidentaldissent.com... [2] http://www.occidentaldissent.com... [3] http://www.occidentaldissent.com... [4] http://www.occidentaldissent.com... [5] http://www.occidentaldissent.com... [6] http://www.occidentaldissent.com... [7] http://www.usa.com...
Racial Profiling

If you know (which I have shown) that a certain race is more than likely prone to commit crimes, then you can establish stronger patrols in areas where large numbers of that race live. Look at it statistically. If you know (x) race is 70 percent more likely to commit crimes than (y) race. Then you know a majorette of that race lives in (z). If you set a stronger patrol around location z, statistically you have a higher chance to reduce crime given a de facto truth about statistics.The problem with this is that we are profiling people based on race. Not only is this racist but it is more logical to decide how much patrol to establish based on crime rates, not based on race. For example, there's location A and location B. Location A has mainly whites and asians yet the crime rate is very high. Location B has mostly black people (who are stereotyped to commit more crimes than other races) and the crime rate is very low. Racial profiling would mean you set up more patrol and surveillance at location B. However, it's more logical to judge by crime rates, not by race.Not only is racial profiling a bit racist, but it's more logical not to have racial profiling. Now if high-crime rate areas typically have black people, it doesn't mean that all the time. We should ignore whatever race lives in a certain place and make a decesion on how much security to put in a place based on the crime rate and typical enviornment of the place. A place like a ghetto would need more surveillance and patrol then a rich neighborhood, and there are other factors besides wealth.Instead of racially profiling people, other factors should be considered. Racial profiling may not be most logical given my examples above.