BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is unethical because it involves the killing of human life.

While there are multiple charities that economically support a baby, the argument you have presented already presupposes that an "unnecessary" abortion is unethical. However, here's why you're incorrect: - "After 8 weeks the baby has a heartbeat, (possibly thoughts) and nerves, meaning that it can feel it when you crush it's head and tear off it's legs." Yes, the baby does have a heartbeat by the eighth week. However, the very mechanisms responsible for feeling pain, the sensory receptors, are not present throughout the body of a fetus until the 20th week, the latest (http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...). By that time, it is unsafe for an abortion to be performed, as it can risk the life of the mother.
Abortion is unethical because it involves the killing of human life.

Unless it's a medical necessity, or the child will live with a disability, there is no reason to have an abortion. "I can't afford it" Is not a reason. There are several private and governmental charities to help with the cost of a baby. After 8 weeks the baby has a heartbeat, (possibly thoughts) and nerves, meaning that it can feel it when you crush it's head and tear off it's legs. And the sad thing about it is that more than 92% of abortions are had after 8 weeks, and that 99%+ of women have abortions because of that, that's right, children got mutilated because the people who had sex were to stupid to wear a condom. How isn't it a living being when it has all of the qualifications for it? http://www.cdc.gov... I'm pretty sure that this is a reliable source.
Abortion is unethical because it involves the killing of human life.

I will be arguing against the idea that abortion is the killing of human life, and it is therefore unethical. I will start by setting a few simple rules: - Any disrespectful language will not be tolerated. - Use of statistics or facts must be substantiated with evidence, with appropriate citation. Incorrect usage of a source shall be pointed out by either side. Round 2 will be used to introduce our main arguments and points. Rounds 3 and 4 will be used to refute any points we'd like to refute. Finally, round 5 will contain our conclusion along with a brief summary of our argument. We will use this round to highlight anything important. I set the character limit to 1000 characters for a reason. Keep your arguments brief.
I Know Trump is Hated but Hilary will get Assassinated instead

I win. You had to prove your assertion. You didn't do that. You had to respond to my counter-arguments. You didn't. Because of this, you did not fulfil your BoP. And because of that, I win. "Hillary would be the one who gets Assassinated and i provided reasons, i actually don't care what happens to her. " - But you didn't provide any reasons. And the ones you did provide, I rebutted, or you didn't have a source.
I Know Trump is Hated but Hilary will get Assassinated instead

Hmm... "She Covered up Benghazi Murder." - Source Please. "2. She lies Constantly at leaast Trump does the opposite Still don't understand why people don't like him so what he Mocks people when they say stupid crap and cheats people." - Source Please. Also, Trump is a lier as well. He is also a scammer and a con artist. Remember Trump University? [1] "3. She is a Feminist" -Source please. And this is a reason to assassinate her? She supposedly has an opposing ideology then you? "5. She spent 18 years in Arkansas and some of the people she knew turned out to be crazy rednecks and crooks."- Source please. "She"s in the pay of the Wall Street banks" - Source please. So my opponent posted a bunch of assertions, but provided no sources for any of them. Unless you have sources, none of those points matter. Plus, you fail to connect the dots, assuming these things are true. You need to show how these things will make her be assassinated. Plus, apparently one of your reasons on why she would be assassinated is because she is a feminist. How? I dislike much of modern feminism, but to assassinate them? Absolutely not. People won't kill another for an opposing ideology. You still have yet to respond to my counter-arguments. Please provide some shred of evidence to back up your assertion. Good luck.
I Know Trump is Hated but Hilary will get Assassinated instead

What do you care anyway your an Independent Hilary is a Criminal, Trump is Good... 1. She Covered up Benghazi Murder 2. She lies Constantly at leaast Trump does the opposite Still don't understand why people don't like him so what he Mocks people when they say stupid crap and cheats people??? 3. She is a Feminist 4. Donald Trump says she "should be in jail," and he"s a serial bankrupt casino developer in Atlantic City, so he should know. 5. She spent 18 years in Arkansas and some of the people she knew turned out to be crazy rednecks and crooks. 6. She"s in the pay of the Wall Street banks Man there is so much Idiocy i could go on for Days, Trump will destroy her Soon You'll see.
I Know Trump is Hated but Hilary will get Assassinated instead

I guess I win. Pro failed to back up his assertion with evidence, and what he did put out, I rebutted. If you want to have a debate, you need to fulfill your BoP. In this case, you had to prove that Hillary Clinton would be assassinated should she become POTUS. You also needed to respond to my counter points. You did neither. I pointed out that we have the Secret Service, and security for presidents is much better now. You dropped those contentions. I rebutted your point that, "She is hated, so she will be assassinated." You never responded to those clsims. Instead, you said that other presidents were assassinated, and Clinton is like them, but you failed to prove how Clinton is like them or how this proves she will be assassinated. Unless you actually post an argument, I win. Good luck!
I Know Trump is Hated but Hilary will get Assassinated instead

Pro's argument: "Well explain John F. Kennedy, James A Garfield or Abraham Lincolns Death???? They were simply the same as Hilary." - This is it? My opponents only point is how other presidents in the past have been assassinated. He fails to show how this proves Hillary Clinton will be assassinated, or proves how, "They were simply the same as Hilary." He drops my argument about the Secret Service, and he doesn't respond to my counter-argument to the, "She is hated, so she will be assassinated", argument. Unless you can provide more evidence, I win this debate.
I Know Trump is Hated but Hilary will get Assassinated instead

Alright. So before I begin, I would like to talk about the Burden of Proof, defined as, "The obligation to prove one's assertion." [1]. Since it is Pro making an assertion, it is his job to prove it. This means I don't need to provide any arguments, only rebuttals. Pro's argument: "I Know Trump is Hated but Hilary will get Assassinated instead, She lies, People abhor her and she's a Criminal." - First, about her being hated, that doesn't mean she will be assassinated. You can think of tons of people who were hated, yet they were not physically harmed. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, none of them got assassinated, yet they definitely were hated. What about George W. Bush, Justin Beiber, or the Koch brothers? They are all hated by many, but none have been assassinated. People don't just think, "Oh, I hate this person, let me to kill them." Hate is nowhere near strong enough to make someone kill a fellow human being. Now onto you point about her lieing and being a criminal. I won't disbute either, but I will say that those traits are not enough to make someone commit murder. Her criminality was about an email server. No one is going to kill her over that. As for lieing, everyone lies, yet you don't see people killing every politician. People won't kill her over these things. Plus, presidents are so well defended. It would be very hard for anyone to kill her. In the next round, Pro will need to provide more evidence to prove his assertion, otherwise, I will win.
having no government is a option

I think its possible to live a life without a government. there are good things about it such as equality. However the rich would try to prevent it. We would be able to survive without a government however people would need to be more social and aware of things around us. we would need a new job for things the government does such as trading with other locations. war would be far more rare due to governments fighting for more wealth because war has massive rewards for good people dying. If we did not have a government then we would not need to worry about people like Donald trump but we would still need police in cities to keep the peace. people would need to make a group vote as to what we would want done instead of 1 person making all the big changes. If there is no government then it means that the armies that protect us would need there highest rank in the military to make the choices of battle strategy and negotiating but they would have to be trusted to not take bribes for doing things such as lowering defenses to attack or something like that.
Subbed anime is better than dubbed anime.

Case 1: English translation Many people, including me, can not speak Japanese, and want to be able to enjoy our anime in English so we can understand it. I'll ask the people this. Would you rather listen to a TV show speak a language you can't understand; or in a language you can understand? I realize it would be unfair to post more arguments so I'll just refute my opponent's arguments. Rebuttal: My opponent's whole argument is that dubs are horrible because they are made by fans and are not like the original. Let me let you judge for yourself. This dub was made by Funimation who officially made Shakugan no Shana. How would you say the quality is? I'm sorry for the late reply. Illness and homework has plagued me recently. I would appreciate another debate on the topic of anime.
Subbed anime is better than dubbed anime.

Subtitled anime is closest to the original, and usually has better translation. As opposed to other companies buying the rights to the anime and subbing it like is done with dubbed anime, the official subtitled versions of the anime are often, if not, always subbed by the original animating company. Plus, when anime is fan subbed, there is little to no chance of mess up. The only thing they can do is do something terrible like put it in Comic Sans. On the other hand, fan dubs are usually hosts of quiet voices using $1 microphones.
School Uniforms

I. IntroEssentially my opponent has made no argument as to why dress codes are harmful, only why they are not beneficial. I'll start by making a refutation against the single far-fetched harm she provided, and follow with case defense.II. KidnapperIn instances where an unwelcome intruder is on school property, they will be easy to identify amidst a sea of individuals in the same clothing. Additionally, should a kidnapping take place, a school uniform would actually help locate the kidnapped individual, as my opponent seems to agree that few people not attending such a school would wear such clothing. Therefore, it is going to be unique, stand out, and be identified easily in the outside world. Even on this one in a million chance issue, you're going to vote Pro as uniforms help solve the issue.III. CostYou have to buy new clothes whenever children grow. That's across the board. Whether uniform or not, hand-me-downs, Goodwill, etc. are options for those that really can not afford it. Those that can afford it but would benefit by not having to pay for it receive a larger benefit from uniforms, and represent a larger segment of the population. All things considered, uniforms save money.IV. GangsSchool dress codes don't say things like "no wearing red" (Bloods) or "no black and gold" (Latin Kings) because literally every color would end up being banned even if (despite being extremely unlikely) gang insignia were prohibited, outlawing "gang colors" would outlaw literally every single color available, as every color is claimed by at least one gang. Uniforms discourage gang violence and recruiting, and this has been empirically proven via my study.IV. Academic Performance"...even if there was ONE study...there's no proof that it can improve performance internationally..."-ConA. Nothing in the resolution says implies international. As most DDO users are American I assumed it to be American basedB. The BoP is impossible if I'm to prove every single school ever has to improve with uniformsC. That's my one study to Con's zeroD. My study analyzed 64 different schools, so it's really a meta-analysis"Many schools with uniforms are private, which would explain the higher graduation rate, even without a uniform policy. " -ConObviously my opponent didn't look into my source, which specifically references improvement shown when analyzing the grades and graduation rate in 64 schools before and after they implemented uniforms. Uniforms were the only independent variable, and the research shows they improve performance.V. ConclusionCon has provided literally no legitimate arguments against uniforms, while I have provided three concrete, strong arguments in favor of them. Con has also questioned the validity of my data despite having provided literally zero pieces of evidence to support the claims she has made. The resolution is therefore still affirmed. Thank you.
School Uniforms

Sorry, didn't feel the need to take the time out just for my statement. There's no proof that uniforms are beneficial to the classroom or the students' performance. Even if there was ONE study about it improving academics, there's no solid, wide-ranged, unbiased, proof that it can improve performance internationally in schools. No parent is forced to buy back to school clothing, while the uniform is mandatory. Households with financial problems could be saving almost $2,000 per student for their entire school career by not buying the uniforms. No household is required to buy brand new clothes for the school year. Many parents rely on recycled clothing and hand-me-downs, saving them money. The public school dress code is made solely for the purposes such as covering gang signs/logos, inappropriate language, etc. There's no need for a uniform when the regular dress code can do the exact same job, but still letting students wear what they want. Many schools with uniforms are private, which would explain the higher graduation rate, even without a uniform policy. There's no hard evidence that uniforms increase performance in public schooling.
School Uniforms

I'll assume round one is for arguments as my opponent seems to have presented a few.I. Introduction and FrameworkThere are a variety of reasons school uniforms better the institutions in which they are instilled. These benefits are real and concrete, and will be difficult to refute with any potential abstract, non-tangible harms. Therefore, I affirm that school uniforms are beneficial to schools. Whoever best upholds impact on students' and parents' well being, particularly in the classroom, should win this debate.II. Uniforms can save parents moneyIn 2013, the average parent spent $231 per child on back to school clothing. In the same year, the average school uniform spending was estimated to be less than $150. [1] This saves parents over $80 per child per year. Additionally, it is less likely that parents will have to buy new back to school clothes the next year, further decreasing costs. Additionally, clothes can be passed down from one child to the next without fear of the clothes going out of style in the same manner that would apply to non-uniform clothing. Cost efficiency is a clear benefit for the Pro side.III. Uniforms work to prevent displays of gang colors and logosAccording to a 2000 study by the National Association of Elementary School Principals, 75% of parents and 85% of staff surveyed agreed that the uniforms had led to a decrease in violence [2], especially related to gangs, as it gave groups little opportunity to showcase their colors and/or insignia on clothing. This makes the gang divisions and recruiting less prevalent on campus.IV. Uniforms improve academic performanceIn a 2004 study, uniforms were shown to have a positive relationship with improved attendance and graduation rates [3], the biggest impact in today's round. The role of the school is to be an institution of learning, and when uniforms help the school reach that goal it is the biggest benefit possible.V. ConclusionStudents and parents both benefit from the Pro side, the students both in and out of the classroom. The resolution is affirmed.[1] http://parade.com...[2] https://www.gpo.gov...[3] http://files.eric.ed.gov...
School Uniforms

School uniforms have been around for many years. I believe it's time to drop the uniforms, and allow students to wear as they wish. Many supporters of this highly-debated topic say that school uniforms keep students, especially the ladies, modest. I don't see how a short skirt is keeping the girls modest, and isn't that what the regular public school dress code is for? Keeping their students dressing appropriately? School uniforms are doing nothing to benefit the education system. Making students wear the exact same outfit every day has no effect on grades, performance, or testing. Also, imagine if there were a kidnapping somehow during a recess/break, or in the restroom. Clothing is a great way to identify and track down the victim, but if all the children are wearing the same thing, it'll be way easier for the kidnapper to successfully change their look. Just an insane scenario, you know? In the long run, I think students should be allowed to wear their choice of clothing to school, as long as it's appropriate.
should students be allowed to have cell phones in elemantry and high schools

Well if they were to get hurt the first thing the school would do, depending on how serious it was, would be to call an ambulance and the school would most likely call your parents after they called the ambulance this is why schools have phones so if anything happens then they can call people and places and also if you need to call your parents to tell them about something or they forgot to pick you up you can go down to the office and call
should students be allowed to have cell phones in elemantry and high schools

I don't think students should be able to have cell phones at school because if you allow them then the students will get on them and might play their apps or text eachother i do agree with the thing you said about how they need a calender but it is to risky because their phones could get stolen and then the school might have to pay for it or the parents of the student whos phone got stolen could get the police involved if it was a very expensive phone
nothing is information, 0

I said reality, not realreality: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.real: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. everything isn't reality, and everything is realmental =/= 0, physical =/= 1mental is a an adjective, 0 isn't an adjectivephysical is an adjective, 1 isn't an adjective
nothing is information, 0

reality: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.everything: All things; all the things of a group or class. matter: Physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy.These 3 things aren't the same thing. You couldn't say reality is everything, as they are different things.
nothing is information, 0

one could say everything or something defines 1 to say I have 1 soda, is defining what 1 im speaking of if I say, reality, then that implies 1, not 2, as reality is true, and I could say reality is everything, so everything is 1 also, reality can never be 0, so naturally it goes to 1 everything is matter, matter is 1 any thing is matter, matter is 1
The people have no control over the media

Dropped Arguments1) Gatekeeper argument2) The internet as a source of information for people3) That public demand for a story can force media outlets to provide information about it 4) That the government cannot control the media since the media attacks them almost daily5) How even if a government did control the media there is always nations elsewhere where this is not the case6) That conspiracy theories dont imply that that the media must be under government control7) That the media doesnt alter information on the internet since they flat out dont have the means toAs for the arguments the Pro actually provided1) TV BiasJust because some shows are biased doesnt mean that people still cant find the truth. Look at MSNBC and FOX, two of the most biased media sources out there, one is die hard conservative, the other is all out liberal. What one source doesnt reveal the other source headlines, and vice versa. Media Bias doesnt mean that information is withheld unless ALL media outlets all have the SAME bias, which just flat out isnt the case. TV is biased, but not all TV shows are biased, and even if you dont believe that there are other news sources people can use to get actual facts (newspapers, radio, INTERNET)2) The JFK Conspiracy means the government controls the Media"To this day no one knows the details of the case. "JFK Was shot twice on Nov 22nd 1963One hit him in the back, the other in the headThe rifle that fired the gun was a Carcano RifleThe Rifle had been fired three timesThe Rifle was the property of Lee Harvey OswaldHis DNA was found on the GunHe was an employee in the buildingHe was shot days later by Jack RubyConspiracy theorists still doubt the truthSo what exactly is missing?3) Government secretsIf the governemtn keeps secrets, it does not mean they are controlling the entire Media, and the Pro still believes that despite giving no reasonable argument on why. Take Area 51, the government routinely denies its existence and has never revealed any information about it, yet there are movies and novels and reports and references to it all the time because the media is not controlled by the government. The Media doesnt conceal facts, they sometimes just ignore it. The Pro keeps saying how the government can control the media or how the media is immune to what people want to hear, but the plain truth is that the government cannot control the media and that the media cannot control all information. Internet sites such as Wikileaks always gives out information and online forums like the ones here on DDO dont go through any media manipulation that the Pro claims is real.