BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be illegal in all U.S states

That is a great article, and I definitely agree that once it is made illegal everything about it is public. I can also see your point about thinking of it being my child. I know there are other options other than abortion, and keeping my personal opinions out of it of whether I personally would agree with it for myself or not, I do believe that other women should at least be able to make the choice for themselves. There should be a time limit of course. No abortion should take place when it is almost a woman's due date. After Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal, Georgia made its own regulations. For example, one has to have parental consent if under age 18. The woman also has to have it down by a licensed official. Lastly, it has to be within the first trimester. If it is after the first trimester, the only way an abortion can legally be done is if the mother's life is in danger (which would be up to the discretion of the doctors). This is the most important regulation. There are women who are not physically capable of giving birth. Girls can get pregnant at 12 and 13 but that is not old enough to physically birth a child. Also one has to think about girls who may have not consented to sex and later found out they were pregnant. These women should be allowed to make major decisions about their own body; and the regulations that Georgia places on the law help to make it more humane and moral.
Abortion should be illegal in all U.S states

Abortion has been one of the main and major contentious issues of our times especially by most public leaders in both Religion and Politicians. To get elected in public office here in the USA, just support the movements that are against abortion who are the biggest spenders and those that hang on to your morality and you are sure to get judged or elected. I know it is legal but on the other hand why do they make all and I mean all aspects of abortion so secret.? If it is legal, then why not publish all its statutes or be open with them. Is it not all about Morals and Principals which are wholly governed by our cultures and traditions? Informed consent and abortion limit terms are just but a few that are contradicting and not practiced statutes in abortion. This link will give you an idea of why abortion should be made illegal, especially when you think of it as your child being the one who is undergoing that process. http://www.lifenews.com... I still think Abortion should be made illegal and that way we can have free access to the information and procedures for relevant prosecution of the perpetrators because when its illegal, then everything about it becomes public.
Abortion should be illegal in all U.S states

Many think that abortion should be illegal in the United States. As of right now it is legal in the country, but certain states have regulated laws that put limits on the times and periods that women can get an abortion. Only 39 states require an abortion be done by a licensed physician (Georgia being one of them). 42 states prohibit abortions after a certain amount of time of the pregnancy has passed. 17 states require that in order for a woman to get an abortion, she first has to go through counseling. These laws and regulations are not full-proof, but they do help to make it as moral and ethical as possible. Women should be allowed to get an abortion if they feel the need, but not after a certain amount of time has passed in the pregnancy. A woman's body is her own and she should be able to make the choice she wants to make with it. http://www.guttmacher.org...
An argument is not just contradiction

1. PRO himself is arguing using simple contradictions. Hopefully my opponent will agree that, because we are debating, we are, by the definition of 'debate,' arguing. My opponent has been arguing, as have I, by using simple contradictions rather than evidence-based facts in multiple places. - "Its not just scientific evidence to prove your point that is needed. It some sort of reasoning. " (Why? ) - "If you are just giving a simple answer that shows you are in opposition to what is being debated, but don't care enough to show why, then that would be classified as contradictory. " (Why? ) - "A little child arguing back and forth with their parents [is] pointless, and shouldn't be classified as an argument. " (Why? ) He never justifies any of these as true. Using PRO as an example, we can negate the resolution. PRO and CON have been arguing; both sides have used unsupported claims to justify their position. This proves the resolution false. --- 2. PRO acknowledges how the word 'argument' ought to be used. "Its like a little child arguing back and forth with their parents. " Notice: PRO uses the term 'argument' when referring to statements that he would consider 'contradictions. ' He talks about children arguing with their parents, among other things, as arguments, but then posits that they aren't arguments at all. His intended point (that an argument can somehow not be an argument) doesn't make sense, but he touched on something important; people very frequently use the term argument to refer to contradictions. When I argue with my parents, it is rarely more than what PRO would consider 'contradiction,' yet the average person who saw us debating wouldn't hesitate a moment to call it an argument. PRO uses 'argument' in this way multiple times (perhaps without realizing) while trying to argue that it shouldn't be used as such. --- 3. The definition of 'argument' "Argument: a STATEMENT, reason, or fact for or against a point Notice how that definition says 'reason. '" Why, yes, I notice that it says 'reason. ' I also notice that it says 'statement,' and that 'statement' is separated from 'reason' by the word 'or. ' What PRO doesn't want you to notice is how he takes the word 'reason' out of context like that. He ignores the word 'or' because he realizes that it spells defeat for him. Yes, an argument can be a reason. However, it can also be a fact, or (most important in this debate) a statement. My opponent does concede that contradiction is little more than a statement against a point.
An argument is not just contradiction

"Yes, ideally, we all would use logic and fact-based evidence. Unfortunately that is not the case. We still have many, many arguments in the world that have no evidence involved whatsoever." And you could hardly classify them as an argument. Its not just scientific evidence to prove your point that is needed. It some sort of reasoning. If you are just giving a simple answer that shows you are in opposition to what is being debated, but don't care enough to show why, then that would be classified as contradictory. "I got into an argument with my teacher today over whether or not I should have to do the work she assigned. She gave me a detention because she "didn't like hearing me complain." Did we argue? Yes. Was it reasonable to give me a detention to avoid confronting the truth? No" Her reasons for having gicing you a detention are irrelevant, and I could care less, so I won't tell you my opinion on whether she was justified in her actions or not. A better argument here, would for you to have posted what you and your teacher actually said during the argument. Was reasoning, and logic provided with each statement, or was it another auto-matic gainsaying scenario? "would it have been logical for me to argue with the teacher? Hardly." This too is irrelevant, seeing as we are not talking about judgement of ones morality. Like I said, all I would care about is the actual argument itself between you and your teacher. I fail to see where you are going with this. "In most arguments, there is one (or more) sides arguing without logic or factual evidence. Do we still classify it as arguing?" As I have been saying, no, we don't. Its like a little child arguing back and forth with their parents. Pointless, and shouldn't be classified as an argument. Does PRO propose changing the way the word 'argument' is used so that he can win this debate? Yes I am trying to win this debate by showing the proper definition of an argument, if that is what you are asking. "Argument: a STATEMENT, reason, or fact for or against a point" "Certainly you aren't going to tell me that we cannot consider something a statement unless someone used evidence to back it up? " Notice how that definition says "reason."
An argument is not just contradiction

I think my opponent has shifted slightly away from the resolution. We aren't debating whether contradictions make a GOOD argument, simply what makes an argument. PRO makes numerous claims along the lines of: "a good argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition" "here would be an example of a proper argument with your mom." Yes, ideally, we all would use logic and fact-based evidence. Unfortunately that is not the case. We still have many, many arguments in the world that have no evidence involved whatsoever. I got into an argument with my teacher today over whether or not I should have to do the work she assigned. She gave me a detention because she "didn't like hearing me complain." Did we argue? Yes. Was it reasonable to give me a detention to avoid confronting the truth? No. Perhaps you view it the other way, in that I was at fault. In that case, would it have been logical for me to argue with the teacher? Hardly. In most arguments, there is one (or more) sides arguing without logic or factual evidence. Do we still classify it as arguing? We certainly do. Does PRO propose changing the way the word 'argument' is used so that he can win this debate? --- My opponent does give a definition of 'argument.' I think it's silly to let this debate be resolved on a single definition, particularly when the debate is about what the definition of 'argument' is. Regardless, if you do wish to vote on which side better adheres to the provided definition, you still vote CON. "Argument: a STATEMENT, reason, or fact for or against a point" Certainly you aren't going to tell me that we cannot consider something a statement unless someone used evidence to back it up?
An argument is not just contradiction

--That's wrong." And that's simply contradiction. "PRO must prove that the above statement either: 1. Isn't an argument against the resolution. 2. Is indeed 'a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition' and not simply 'a contrary position to the proposal the instigator brings up'." Actually Pro must prove that contradiction is not an argument, as the resolution implies, and that a good argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. "--I argue with my parents all the time. Neither of us uses evidence. Many rebuttals on this site cite no evidence. Are these not arguments? I believe that my opponent's conception of what entails an 'argument' is far from correct." If an argument is given without reasoning, then it is hardly an argument. I am talking contradiction such as: Your mom: Your room is messy, son! You: No it isn't! Your mom: Yes it is! You: It most certainly is not! Now here would be an example of a proper argument with your mom. Your mom: Your room is messy, son! You: No it isn't, I cleaned it this morning! Your mom: And I checked it just recently, and found that is was still messy. You: But I folded all my laundry, and vacuumed! It most certainly is clean! The difference between both situations, is that in the first, no tangible evidence is brought forth proving that your room is messy, and no evidence of your room not being messy is aroused. Thus both sides are at a clichï¿½ of using "The automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes." "--Maybe an argument 'should be' logically based, however, as I pointed out above, many (possibly most) aren't" Well than can hardly be classified as an argument than, can they!? An argument is not an argument unless at least one piece of evidence is provided by both sides, in each statement. "Argument: a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point" http://dictionary.reference.com... As you can see, every argument requires logic and reasoning behind it.
An argument is not just contradiction

"an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition." --That's wrong. PRO must prove that the above statement either: 1. Isn't an argument against the resolution. 2. Is indeed 'a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition' and not simply 'a contrary position to the proposal the instigater brings up.' Now, my opponent says "Every argument must have evidence to be qualified as an argument" --I argue with my parents all the time. Neither of us uses evidence. Many rebuttals on this site cite no evidence. Are these not arguments? I believe that my opponent's conception of what entails an 'argument' is far from correct. "simply saying 'No it isn't', or 'your wrong' doesn't support what the intended purpose of an argument should be" --Maybe an argument 'should be' logically based, however, as I pointed out above, many (possibly most) aren't.
An argument is not just contradiction

I will be arguing that an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. My opponent will be arguing that an argument is saying anything that takes a contrary position to the proposal the instigator brings up. An argument is not just contradiction. Contradiction is the automatic gainsaying of statement the other person makes. An argument should be a carefully constrewed and thought out process, with an intellectual purpose to dis-prove the opposer. Contradiction is just saying that whatever you say is wrong without provided evidence. Every argument must have evidence to be qualified as an argument, and simply saying "No it isn't", or "your wrong" doesn't support what the intended purpose of an argument should be.
God is real

Since I ran out of time last round, Since there is only a 1 hour time limit. I will write here what was supposed to be last rounds response. 1. God created all the laws of physics, And created all the laws of the natural world. Everything that is natural must have come into existence from something supernatural. Every law must have a law maker. I have heard that quote from Stephen Hawking before. The problem that I see with the quote is that God is timeless. God created time. God is not bound by his own creations, And therefore he doesn't need time to create anything. Also another problem I see is that, Something must have caused everything to exist. The fact we are here existing shows that. In my opinion I could turn that argument back around by saying "If time didn't exist before the big bang, There would be no time for the big bang to exist" 2. I disagree with flat earth, And I disagree that the Bible teaches that earth is flat at all. All the other scientific topics would be a lot of explaining for the amount of characters in this debate. Plus whole other debates themselves. I will say this though, What if God knowingly made things the way they are knowing that people would come to their own conclusions of how everything was created? What if everyone knows of Gods existence by everything that is made, But as the Bible says we are blinded by the devil? As for the supposed contradictions I don't believe the Bible has contradictions. I think we are just flawed and finite. Also what if God had the Bible worded in such a way that some things may appear to be contradictions but they are not? I have a few supposed contradictions answered in some word documents. I am slowly working on trying to answer them, And that website you are listing I am using it. Here is a link to show how I view what evidence is. Evidence and God (4 things to understand) https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=kjDgGz6xRX8&t=136s The video is on Whaddo you meme? Channel.
God is real

As you forfeited the previous round and that I have fully refuted all your arguments, I will make a case for why I believe there is no god. We understand how the big bang works. We know that space and time came to be at the beginning of the Universe. Therefore, If there is a god, Then that god did not create the universe because it did not have time to create the universe. We know how planets are formed from stars exploding into supernovae, We understand how light is created from the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atoms and how these sustain life on Earth(Photosynthesis etc. . . ). Every explanation is completely natural. There have been plenty of cases(Flat Earth, Creationism, . . . ) where a religious explanation had to be let go for a better scientific one. Yet there has not been a single event in history where we had to let go of a scientific explanation for a better religious explanation. God has always been used to fill the knowledge gap whenever we did not know something about the universe. "What created the Earth? We don't know therefore God did it" "Oh a supernova created the planets. Well, What created the stars then. We don't know therefore god. Oh the big bang. Well what created the big bang? Dunno so it must be god". Every time a secret of the universe has been uncovered, The answer has never been "God did it" We came to be through the process of evolution, Consciousness/mind is a product of the brain, When we die, Our body decays and we cease to be. No god is required at any step. This thus leads to two possibilities: Either there is no god or there is a god but that god is useless, It does nothing. At most it might had a part in the starting process of the universe but then did nothing since. It has been so inactive that there is no noticeable difference between that god and a god that does not exist. So out of these possibilities, The simplest explanation is that there is no god.
God is real

1. If God is immaterial, Spaceless and timeless, Then this God cannot be measured or seen using the natural means. That God cannot exist in reality as it defies the laws of the natural world. If your God defies the laws of physics, Then it is physically impossible for your god to exist. "Even scientist agree that Space, Time, And Matter all had to come into existence all at once, And couldn't be eternal. Therefore whatever caused the universe to exist would have to be Spaceless, Timeless, And Immaterial. Which matches the god that all these major religions believe in. " This is evidently untrue. To make my case, I will cite the late astrophysicist Stephen Hawking from his last book Brief answers to the big questions: "When people ask me if a God created the universe, I tell them the question makes no sense. Time didn't exist before the Big Bang so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It's like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth- the Earth is a sphere that does not have an edge, So looking for it is a futile exercise. 2. Even if everything you said is true about the authors agreeing with each other, That doesn't change the fact that the bible affirms things that we know to be evidently false(Creationism, Flat earth, Age of the Earth, Global flood, Etc). For these events to occur, Everything we know about reality has to have been different. For brevity reasons, I will cite scientific sources in the comments. https://skepticsannotatedbible. Com/science/long. Html There are plenty of contradictions in the bible showing that the various authors disagreed on quite a lot of events. https://infidels. Org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions. Html You gave no evidence and make extraordinary claims that cannot possibly be true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary extraordinary evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
God is real

I will be arguing for the God of the Bible. 1. Many people do not have a clear understanding of God's attributes. God is, Immaterial - Spirit, And not made of matter. Spaceless - transcends space. Timeless - transcends time, Is eternal, Had no beginning and will have no end. No other major religions god's except a handful have these attributes. Christianity, Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, Islam, And Judaism. Even scientist agree that Space, Time, And Matter all had to come into existence all at once, And couldn't be eternal. Therefore whatever caused the universe to exist would have to be Spaceless, Timeless, And Immaterial. Which matches the god that all these major religions believe in. Something that is interesting though is if you study into each one of these religions. Each one has something to do with the Bible. That doesn't mean each one follows the Bible, But each one has something to do with it. 2. Next I want to argue that the entire Old Testament in the Bible points to Jesus, And Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament. What makes this impressive is the fact the whole Bible was written over a span of 1500 years, By around 40 different authors, In 3 languages, On 3 different continents, In times of peace and times of war. If we was to take just 10 people from the same location tommorow, And talked about just 1 controversial topic. What are the chances they would be in agreement? Yet this book over a span of 1500 years, 40 different authors, 3 languages, 3 continents, In times of peace and war, Have the same consistent message? I would give examples, But there is not enough characters. Let's just say the Old Testament has many foreshadows of Jesus. You could say 1 or 2 could be coincidence, But after a while you start seeing more and more you start realizing this book must be divine. Also not to mention Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies from the Old Testament about himself. No other religion except Christianity Bible has this.
God is real

I will let my opponent go first and explain why they believe in a god/gods/higher power and I will give my opinion on their argument. Please provide at most your best 3 arguments in the first round. I place such a word limit because long essays are boring for both the viewers and the debaters. Let us stick to the point and make a case for our position. My position is that: I believe there are no gods. I do not possess knowledge of the nonexistent of any deity so I could potentially be proven wrong and my mind can be changed.
Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy.

According to http://www.pennies.org... Penny keep high prices in check, not only that but many charities are fueled by the power of the penny. Realistically if the penny was gone companies would not round down to the nearest penny, but up costing the consumers money! Sure it costs about 2.2 pennys to make a penny, but really you would be paying about three cents extra for every time they rounded up when you bought something. We also honor Abraham Lincoln, so in a way its American tradition. The penny has value who honestly never tried to put pennys in a piggy bank you would be surprised!
Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy.

Pennies, just like any unprofitable variation of currency. are a waste of time and money. For instance, according to http://www.usmint.gov... it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny's production should be abolished in order to improve the country's GDP. Although the opponent may argue that pennies save citizens from taxes, the Canadian model shows that there is no net effect from rounding if the price is .01 or .02 the price is rounded down. If it is .03 or .04 it is rounded up. This only applies to cash transactions and not cheque, credit or debit transactions.