BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prostitution should be legalized and regulated

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. However, you failed to refute these: 1.You failed to refute prostitutes and pimps would go under the radar. 2. You failed to prove any of my sources false. 3.You failed to refute prostitution would be bad for the country. Case 1 Rebuttal: HIV and STI screenings as I stated before, only a certain number would take them. Women who had the virus and knew it would not go to the screenings, basically exposing people still, but with a larger number of people being exposed. If prostitution would be legal, more people would do it thinking it would be safe, but people can easily forge documents, or just say they did the screening. If anything, there most likely would be an increase in STD's in the world. Case 2 Rebuttal: As I stated before, women who had diseases would still be under the radar, and some pimps would probably want to have privacy, so he would either forge documents or prohibit them from going. Also, girls in between screenings might contract an STD, and give it to multiple men. Also, not all pimps would be registered as pimps. Same with prostitutes. The women would want to stay away because the embarrassment of many people calling her names or she has an illness. Case 3 Rebuttal: My opponent could not refute any of my case three, but instead made an assumption that I am against private business. This is not true. Private businesses may be selling cars that you fix up your self. But there is no risk of getting an STD while fixing a car! My main point was that legalizing prostitution would have little benefits in our economy, and it would cost more to hold the disease screenings. Case 4 Rebuttal: This is my opponent's most solid ground, but many people think the way I described in my case. Overall, legalized prostitution would be no benefit or a lose of profit from legal prostitution and it would not be worth the risk of getting an STD. I have also proved that prostitutes and pimps can easily slip through the cracks and not go to the screenings. Thank you.
Prostitution should be legalized and regulated

Case 1: The part about "regulation" and "safety" would include STI and HIV screenings. If legalized prostitution were to be kept safe, infected prostitutes would not be allowed to work. If anything, this is an argument in favor of safety in the industry rather than criminalizing it. Case 2: As for being under the radar, that's going to happen whether it's legal or not. In fact, since prostitution is currently illegal, ALL pimps are under the radar. But if a majority are controlled by the government, considerably fewer would be able to escape the screening. And what makes you think they would want to, anyway? Case 3: I'm not claiming legalized prostitution will be good. I'm simply saying it's not inherently bad. By that logic, all private business fields should be illegal because they're not providing much of a benefit. Case 4: That's solely an opinionated argument that not everyone agrees on. You may personally hold that sex-negative viewpoint, but it's merely a personal belief. Clearly not everyone sees sex as a special sign of reproduction--your logic makes as much sense as disallowing libraries to include computers because they were originally meant for books.
Prostitution should be legalized and regulated

Hello! I will now tell you why I think legalized prostitution would be bad. Case 1: Sexually Transmitted Diseases It has been proved that 50% of prostitutes have contracted the HIV virus. For all of you who do not know, HIV is a virus where all your T-cells get destroyed. This causes low immunity to diseases that even gives you the ability to catch cat diseases! There is no cure for HIV, but there is costly medicine you may also take to make your immunity higher, that many prostitutes can not afford! http://www.virusmyth.com... (This link will also be used to back up m other information) As you can see from the link, it is confirmed that 50% in the and 6-8% in the United States!of prostitutes contracted HIV, imagine how many people would receive and transmit it! In the link, it shows that prostitutes have unprotected sex 300 times a YEAR! It also show 1 in 10 men purchase a prostitute. We might face an HIV epidemic because many women either don't that a man has been with a prostitute, or if her PARTNER is seeing a prostitute. Thus, making totally innocent people who don't have intercourse with a prostitute contract the disease! If prostitution is legalized, we would likely have an epidemic of AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease! Case 2: The Government Could Not Control It! If the government even tried to control it, many prostitutes would not go to the screening as say they are not a prostitute. There are many pimps that would remain private and under the radar, which would mean that the sexual diseases are still not taken care of. Case 3: Barley Any Benefit To Our Economy! In prostitution, prostitutes are controlled by pimps. Prostitution is a private business with many pimps, so even if the government wanted to, they could not tax much of it! There would be so many pimps, and all of their prostitutes, they could not trace every prostitute. Therefore it would not be much of a benefit to our economy. Case 4: Morally Wrong! Sex and Virginity is sacred and should be saved for your spouse or someone you really care about. Not a random girl accepting money to take it away! Sex is shown as a symbol of reproduction and passion. Do you love the prostitute? Do you want to have their baby? That is what people need to be asking themselves when they want to have sex with a prostitute! That is why I think legal prostitution would do more harm than good. Thank you!
Prostitution should be legalized and regulated

I sort of disagreed with the stance you posted on your profile regarding prostitution, so I wanted to discuss this with you. Yes, a discussion. Let's have the goal of this be not to win, but to come to a mutual understanding. My belief is that prostitution can be legalized as long as it is kept safe and regulated--not that it currently is. Sex work ought to be solely work--again, not that it currently is. There are problems with the seedy underground sex trade, yes, but the exploitation and unsafety parts are the issue, not the sex part. If the prostitution industry were legal, where it could be federally regulated by an authority, and if safety measures were taken, then there would be no issue with legalized prostitution. That's my opinion. Why do you have yours? What puts you off about the idea of a legalized sex trade? I'd love to hear.
Abortion

The physical pain to the fetus is irrelevant to its status as a human. Ability to feel pain does not dictate a human life, there are four criteria for establishing human life, all four processes the fetus actively engages in from conception: 1) Metabolism 2) Growth 3) Reaction to stimuli 4)Somatic reproduction In your original argument you also say that it is ok to murder the baby because it does not feel pain. If you are under anesthesia and I kill you is it not murder? You wouldn't feel pain so I assume it's fine isn't it. Your argument is faulty because the line you ascribed to be the start of human life can be applied outside the womb on people who are obviously still alive.
Abortion

I think abortion isn't wrong morally because first of all zygote can't feel pain until 20 weeks in the pregnancy. That is 5/9 months of the pregnancy so if an abortion is happening at that time, it is probably because the baby or the mother and baby would die during the pregnancy. That means at 20 weeks it is just starting to develop enough brain cells and nerves to start feeling pain. "The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 66 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 92 percent are performed within the first 13 weeks. Only 1.2 percent occur at or after 21 weeks (CDC, 2013)." Also please don't call the fetus a child or baby when in the womb because it is either a fetus (reference Source 3 for definition) and zygote (reference Source 4 for definition). A baby does refer to a human that has been recently born (reference Source 5 for definition). (1) https://www.livescience.com... (2) https://www.plannedparenthood.org... (3) https://www.merriam-webster.com... (4) https://www.merriam-webster.com... (5) https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Time travel to the past is possible

Well your so called formula only applies in physics which is a joke! I only studied the finest classes in troll physics while getting my trollology degree. You say trollology doesn't exist, HOW DARE YOU! Trollology is a very respected ology. I even have proof of my PhD in trollology right here: http://i.imgur.com... Santa does exist because my mom and dad said so, only people who believe can see him! It is impossible to get a PhD in telling if somebody is lying, but if you insist than provide proof.
Time travel to the past is possible

Thanks for the the clarification on my formula. By fixing this equation you proved yourself that time travel isn't possible. Trollology? That doesn't exist. You must be on shrooms and crack to hallucinate this form of science. I have three PhDs in zoology and I know that zebra ghosts don't exist. Lastly, Santa doesn't exist. Satellites and people have been to the North Pole. There was no sign of human life. I have a PhD in telling if somebody is lying. According to my calculations you are lying.
Time travel to the past is possible

Well first of all I have a PhD in Trollology so I know what I'm talking about. You obviously haven't attended troll physics, troll cosmology and troll roundaboutology. Oh by the way 2 times square to the power of chicken feathers is false. It is actually 2 times square to the power of chicken skin, HA! In FACT I have used triganomacalulasgebra to calculate that in fact speaking as a scientist with a PhD that zebra ghosts have already invaded the south pole that's why I could only use the north because santa was friendly enough to let me engineer my project.
Time travel to the past is possible

First of all, I'm a genius in physics and space. I have 3 PhDs in zoology. Spinning on the North or south pole won't send you back in time. Yes, The North and South poles have strong magnetic fields, but no UFO time machines. You want to speak mathematically huh? Well, 2 times square to the power of chicken feather says that time travel isn't possible. I have studied the poler ice-caps and have seen no paranormal activity. Your argument is invalid.
Noahs Ark - Impossible Fiction or Biblical Truth

First off, your opening arguments have caused me to re-think my approach. Obviously I can't use a comedy routine to map out a debate. However the fact that you require evidence and a list of sources proves two things: 1. You believe the old and new testament to be factual accounts of archaeological history. 2 You are my 9th grade debate teacher. (meant to be funny not rude) I bring this up because I want to make it clear that if I'm going to entertain the idea of the Bible being your source, I should be allowed to take inspiration from people like Richard Dawkins who put refuting Noah's Ark in such a way as "Smashing a tiny nut with a large hammer"! Again despite what you think of Dawkins as a source I would ask you to honor it in the same way I will give you the bible! Anyways here is a rough outline of his Book "The greatest show on earth" He gives a potent speech about Darwins Natural Selection in 2010 where he simplifies the geographical distribution of animals and the independent evolution of life forms based on survival of their surroundings! I want to point out that this type of evolution has very few examples of an accelerated change, especially in every animal on the planet in such a short time! I'm only mentioning this because if you studied it yourself. You would not see room for a global flood or geographical distribution from the epicenter of Mount Ararat. Richard Dawkins asks: 1. Think what the geographical distribution would look like if they had all dispersed form Noah's Ark. a.Shouldn't there be some type of law of decreasing species diversity as we move away from the epicenter? ("I don't have to tell you that's not what we see")-Dawkins quote b.Why would all of the marsupials migrate to Australia, but no placental did at all? c.Which route did they take? d.Why did not a single member of their straggling caravan pause on the way settling in another haven along the way? e. Why did the penguins migrate south to the Antarctic, but not one to the equally hospitable Arctic? I will continue my arguments about the Ark itself and the massive undertaking it would be compared to the pyramids with a fraction of the "slaves"! Your information about stables was illuminating but is dwarfed by the number of animals vs. the labor force! How many animals were on that boat? How many in Noahs Family? "Genetic variety and selective breeding are responsible for the multitude and variety of different species we see today." I'm sorry, I cannot accept that this all happened in just a few thousand years. The diversity and geographical placement is due to Natural Selection in a very subtle process that is extremely rare. But in millions of years has created the diversity that we experience today. There is no evidence for an accelerated change of that magnitude. In fact It is possible that since the time of Noah only one species would likely have made the leap in the evolutionary process!
Noahs Ark - Impossible Fiction or Biblical Truth

1.Was Noah a 600 year old drunk when he built the ark and does that make him too feeble to take on such a project a. This was before any tools had been invented to help Noah build a giant boat in short notice. b. Noah lived in the dessert. Where did he get the wood and how did he take the time to craft each piece without the help from massive saws, cranes and conveyor belts. 2. I was told the size of the boat. Although it is massive, it is hardly big enough to hold one of every animal let alone two. a. I saw a documentary where a physics professor, engineer, and ship builder describes the concept of the Ark as "impossible". He says that physics would topple the giant boat before the first wave hit it. Let alone tidal waves. 3. 2 of every animal fits on a boat after traveling 3959 miles across oceans jungles and desserts. Protected from nature while on the treacherous journey. a. Were their 2 bears, or 2 brown bear, grizzly bear, black bears, poler bears, Kodiak bears. etc b. what did the animals eat on the boat (Animals eat other animals) I don't want to even think of all the feces! c. How did the animals migrate from the mountain to their current habitat? 4. If Noah repopulated the earth where do different races come from? a. Did Noah have to commit incest? b. where does this fit into evolution? 5 Do you believe the explanation for the existence of rainbows provided in the bible? a. Did rainbows not exist before the flood? b. how do you respond to sciences explanation for the existence of a rainbow? 6. Do you believe that God suspends natural laws in order to fuel his plan? a. Wouldn't this divine intervention be more useful in the guidance of the "Gods Children" Instead of sending divine Wrath!
Noahs Ark - Impossible Fiction or Biblical Truth

Finflan, you recently started a debate questioning the veracity of the biblical account Noah's Ark. I would like to challenge you to a similar debate. You recently raised a number of interesting objections. I would submit that your objections are unfounded and challenge you to raise them again and let me respond to them in a structured manner. I believe that there is both plenty of evidence to support the biblical account of Noah's ark. As such I challenge you to the above debate. Your position would be that of Pro - Arguing that the account of Noah's Ark is an impossible fiction. I will argue that not only is the account possible, but that there is also much evidence to support the account.
Electric fans are better than air cons

But despite of danger, fans release no hot air into the air but air-con release a bunch of hot air. It is quick to make the room cool, but the opposite it release a lot of hot air. Somebody opens the air-con in winter! That's a waste. I think that if they are hot in winter. Fans are a good choice. As I said, the fans can install a protect cover. So things get harder to get into the fan. Hope you enjoy debating as I am.
Electric fans are better than air cons

Most fan blades are exposed unless they are circulated through a vent. Many people have accidently stretched up into fans. So caution is needed while in operation. Not to mention kids throw stuff up into fans. Solar panels would make the cost cheaper, even free. Fans work via the wind speed chill factor. Not adequate in comparison. Aircon sucks more juice on starting the compressor but then consume very little energy like a fridge. I guess the big question then is if it's cheaper is it better?
Electric fans are better than air cons

Thank you for accepting my challenge. First of all, I think that your no.1 is true but the people are not tall enough to hit the fans! Or maybe the fans are in the ceiling board with a cover instead of hanging down and spinning over people's heads. Second, yes, air-cons are cooler and make the room cool faster. But if you consider the prices of both products, no matter what function do the fans have, the costs (including electrical payments) of air-cons must be higher than fans.
Electric fans are better than air cons

I will concur that fans are better suited in some cases but I will state aircon's are more efficient. 1. Fans are safer for the environment but not for humans. The main reason refrigerant gasses are let out into the atmosphere are because of car accidents. However tall people walk into fans. 2. True! 3. To an extent true. Although installing an aircon can raise the value of a home. They can cool more then one room at a time & remove more heat energy in far less time.
Electric fans are better than air cons

Here are my reasons. 1. Fans are the right choice for those concerned about the environment. They do not produce harmful gases and they save electricity, producing much less carbon. 2. Fans cost far less to operate than an air conditioner. They are also far less expensive to buy and maintain. 3. Fans are far more transportable than air conditioners and can be used in multiple locations in the home, office or apartment. They are also easily stored after use. Thank you
Be kind towards animals and give them freedom from killing and harassing

Hi,we [humans] are killing and ..............Very cruellyions and tigers specially) and humans are not different, we all are same. We should not get punished since lions and tigers are not getting punished. You compared yourself with animals. Compare yourself if you feel so. But don't compare us with them since we have mind maturity than animals. That's the reason we called as a human and they called as animals. If we also do the same thing like them. Then we'll introduce ourselves as animals. Till the time hold that sentence. I am sure if you guys also see........................Get changed surely.I can say that this can be a new scenario to the world to write in books for next generation to explain about our present generation people in future. Thanks for your example.what all we have to do ........................This earth equally to us.of course, our support will be there for the people who is struggling towards plants rights too. It is may be possible may not in our generation. But I am sure in future people will also consider the pain of plants equally to animals. I am ready to eat only fruits instead of plants and animals. Then do you change your mind towards animals???Media and governments...................Too as humans.I am feeling there is a great different between animals and humans as I already told you in my first paragraph. I am still believing me as a human only not an animal brother. I'll let you know if I become an animal. Till then you also feel as human like us. Because we all are humans as per God and Govt Law.Thank you very much for your debate. Please forgive me kindly if you feel that I hurt you. As I told you earlier my intention is to convey my feeling towards animals and not to hurt you guys. Sorry once again brother :) feel free to debate to find out exactly what is true. this can be helpful to you and me. because you and me intention is to know that who is correct. :)
Be kind towards animals and give them freedom from killing and harassing

Ok, let me start by saying that I am a staunch atheist so I would prefer not to argue religion here if that is ok.Quotes from Pro will be underlined and italicized.we [humans] are killing and harassing them [other animals] very cruelly.Big cats such as lions and tigers kill their prey by suffocation which is VERY cruel. The prey animal did not make a mistake there but it was still killed.I am sure if you guys also see once killing animals lively then your mind will get changed surely.I have seen the decapitation of a goat when I was 9 or 10 years old. I have not changed my mind about eating meat.What all we have to do is to get the people aware on pain of killing animals and they have also same rights to live on this earth equally to us.Well, then what do humans eat instead? Plants seem like a reasonable alternative, until you consider the fact PLANTS FEEL PAIN AS WELL.[1] Harvesting plants using machines especially must be cruciatingly painful for a plant. We cannot prioritize animals over plants, that is a double standard since both feel pain.Media and government also should look into that and punish the eaters and killers of animals by creating laws for animals too as humans.*sigh* Do we really need to imprison lions and other carnivores there as well? I can just imagine that zebra in court with a lawyer and everything accusing a pride..GANG of lions for attempted murder.How about this scenarioOh no! that guy killed a mouse, he is sentenced to 20 years in prison.... In 20 years a person can acheive a lot. This will be a SEVERE drain on manpower and not good for the human race in any way. We have placed enough and more laws to protect endangered species. That makes sense because bio diversity is a good thing and hence we cannot allow too many species to go extinct. But we cannot be making laws to protect goats and donkeys and what next? fleas?Of course Humans consider themselves more important than other species. If we did not do that WE WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED. Any species which does not put themselves before every other speices is inevitably doomed to exinction. Now this is not an argument of 'the end justifies the means' however it is to show that it is only natural for humans to put themselves first and is nothing to be ashamed about.Sources:[1]http://www.uncoveror.com...;
The CIA and other agencies involved in covert operations should be forced to release information

Without a doubt, I believe that the CIA and other agencies should not be forced to relay information to the public. A quick over view of my points 1)Public would not approve Just look at the anti-war sentiment in America today. Would the public support the assassination of an known-terrorist aid in Iraq? Would the public support the CIA wire-tapping a neighborhood and capturing a known child molester? Currently, the public can only hear the mistakes of the CIA because they can not report their success 2)Politicians would not approve If the public does not approve, why would politicians? they rely on support from the people. 3)Foreign countries would not approve We do not want to go to war with Russia. But what happens if a Russian is sneaking enriched uranium to a country. Would it be wrong for teh CIA to stop it. No, but Russia would not think so. 4)Operations would be compromised Say teh CIA was tracking someone. They told the media. Person ran. Simple to understand