BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Republican Presidents increase the US debt more than Democrats

This debate will be over whether or not presidential party affiliation has a significant impact on the increase to the US debt. The rules for this debate are the following: Pro will be trying to prove "Republican Presidents increase the US debt more than Democratic Presidents" is true. Pro will win this debate if they"re able to prove that there is significant evidence that the presidency belonging to the Republican Party has a significant impact at increasing the US debt. Con will be trying to prove that there is not enough evidence to claim that "Republican Presidents increase the US debt more than Democratic Presidents" is true. Con will win if they are able to prove that there is not enough evidence to claim that the political party of the presidency is significant to the change in the US debt over the course of a presidency. Round 1 is acceptance only. No arguments may be presented. Republican and Democrat refer to the respective political parties in America. The increase to the debt refers to the cumulative change to the debt over the course of the respective President"s term in office. Increasing the debt will refer to the average percent change in debt yearly during a President"s time in office. For example, If a President started office with 10 trillion in debt and ended their 4 years in office with 20 trillion in debt, That is counted as a 100% increase over 4 years equalling a 25% average increase. The modern American political party system (1945-present) will be analyzed. Any Presidency before Truman will not be relevant in this debate. I will debating for Pro, And my opponent will be debating for Con. For this debate, Debt accumulated during a Presidency will count for the President who is in office. The party affiliation of congress and factors like that will not be relevant in this debate. If you have any questions about the rules, Please state them in Round 1, And I will try to clarify. Thank you!
Abortion

First off there is a actually a big difference from killing an ant compared to a fetus. Question- Is stepping on and killing a ant the same as murdering a human? Answer yes and no, yes because you are killing something, and no because killing a human can get you into some serious trouble (and it's just morally wrong). So in fact, since a fetus turns into a human it is different and not the same as killing an ant. You also backed up your argument with court cases on abortion (from 1978!) but i know that we can both agree that sometimes the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions aren't always the one that it right. Like Dred Scott vs. Sanford and Plessy vs. Ferguson. So the Supreme Court COULD BE WRONG, therefore it is useless to back up your statements with some of their cases. There are also 31 states that have entirely banned abortion. In this case i do believe that majority rules!
Abortion

Since I am taking Pro position, let me set the rules guidelines for the debate. Only guideline: BOP is shared 50/50 between Pro and Con. Con’s opening statement position: I believe that aborting your child is a crime [Claim] because it is the same thing as murdering your child when he is at an older age [reason] Aborting a child is not a crime according to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade [claim supported by evidence]. The majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun said the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to the women and not an unborn embryo/fetus has not have legal rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. [1] There has never been a single court decision that gives Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fetus. [2] Therefore, it is not the “the same thing as murdering your child when he is at an older age. ” [fact of US legal system] Personal convictions or beliefs are not valid unless there are claims, reasons, and evidence. Here is a hypothetical example to illustrate why personal conviction is not valid: The reason is quite simple: I could say, I believe that stepping on an ant is a crime [claim] Because killing an ant a living being is the same as killing a human being [reason] However, this argument does not make a compelling case, meaning the reasons are not adequate along with the fact that I have not provided evidence to make others think that what I am saying is true or supportable. [1] Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973). [2] Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973).
Abortion

Okay, so Con wants to make one final point that is essential to the argument. The resolution debated was being in favor of abortion or being against abortion. While I have provided several arguments that are supported by evidence to make that claim, the most convincing piece comes from Pro’s closing remarks. Here is the relevant statement quoted from Pro: “…women who are raped should have the choice for abortion, although that would not be right. ” Even though Con does not support abortion as a concept or as a value in itself, Con does support abortion in instances of rape and incest. Therefore, Con concede that Con supports abortion in these cases, although with the caveat “although that [abortion] would not be right. ” Reasons to Vote for Pro: BOP for this debate is 50/50 Pro provided rebuttals to every single [warrant] or counterclaim made by Con. Pro provided evidence or support for arguments made. Pro asked Con several questions or warrants, every few of which Con provided answer and none that Con rebutted with evidence.
Abortion

Heretofore, Con has failed to provide evidence for a single claim, provide evidence or any form of support. Moreover, Con has failed to answer questioned posed by Pro in earlier rounds. I will keep this round brief because BOP is 50, therefore only one side has advanced arguments, rebutted claims, and provided evidence. But let me answer Con statement: “The female way have the decision to abort the baby, but then why would she even chose to have the baby in the FIRST place!” The answer supports Pro. Okay, so “why would she chose to have the baby in the first place” implies that all women chose to have babies but then inexplicably abortion them. However, there are many circumstances where women are raped or coerced into incest are entered forcefully against their will. These women do not have a choice. Apart from those examples, it is also true that almost 50% of all pregnancies are accidental, not planned.[1][2] That provides an answer to that question. [Question for Con]: since you are opposing abortion, categorically please explain why raped women should be forced against their will to bear the child of a rapist. [Question for Con]: In instances where the fetus endangers the life of the woman, what is the proper course of action? Do you give priority to a non-viable fetus or a living woman? [1] National Health Statistics Report: “Intended and Unintended Births in the United States: 1982–2010 William D. Mosher, Ph.D.; Jo Jones, Ph.D.; and Joyce C. Abma, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics. http://www.cdc.gov... [2] Lindsay Abrams, “Why We Keep Accidently Getting Pregnant,” The Atlantic Magazine. http://www.theatlantic.com...
Abortion

You still didn't answer my question or even try to disprove that a fetus is a human being. So again, I must repeat my question. Since both the fetus and newborn baby are human beings, Why is it okay to kill the fetus but not okay to kill the newborn baby? Do you think newborn babies should be killed because of "child neglection, Domestic abuse, Financial problems, Depression, And even PTSD could occur. " If not, Why do you justify fetuses being killed for the same reason? If you do think newborn babies should be killed for this reason, Then you seriously need to reconsider your morals. Both the fetus and newborn baby are human beings. Please present evidence that could prove otherwise. If you don't disprove this, You are in support of murder.
Abortion

The psychological trauma that a rape victim goes through is tremendous, This is amplified furthermore if the women actually gets pregnant from the incident. Having a daily reminder of your rape causes a lot of depression and disconnection from the mother and the child she is bearing. When the child is born it is likely that they could resemble the rapist, Causing further distaste of the child from the mother. Since it's the case of rape, It is also likely that the women is single and not married, Causing the situation to escalate in the case of a single mother raising the child of her own rapist. This leads to child neglection, Domestic abuse, Financial troubles, Depression, And could even cause ptsd to occur.
Abortion

Redshinx, What do you think about the humanity of a fetus? A fetus is a human being, Just like any of us alive right now, And I have proof. Quoting Ph. D. Dianne N. Irving from Princeton University: "This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), And genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, This genetic growth and development have been proven not to be directed by the mother. ) Finally, This new human being the single-cell human zygote is biologically an individual, A living organism an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen: ". . . [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, Which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. " (Emphasis added. ) In sum, A mature human sperm and a mature human oocyte are products of gametogenesis each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, I. E. , Members of the human species. They are only each part of a human being. On the other hand, A human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, An organism with 46 chromosomes, The number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, Directs his/her own further growth and development as a human, And is a new, Genetically unique, Newly existing, Live human individual. " As you can see, A fetus at conception is a human being. Now that we know this, I have a question. If abortion is justified in the case of rape, Is a woman also justified in killing her newborn baby for the exact same reason? The fetus and newborn baby are both human beings, So why is the mother allowed to kill the fetus while not being allowed to kill the newborn baby? My point is that killing the fetus in the case of rape is just as bad as killing a newborn baby for the same reason because in both cases it is the murder of an innocent human being. (If you make the claim that a fetus is not a human being, Please use a reliable source). Source :https://www. Princeton. Edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb. Html
Abortion

There is always a risk, With any child, Wanted or not that they will go through abuse, Poverty, Or neglect. But that doesn't give the mother. Or anyone the right to murder them. Everyone single innocent human being on Earth has a right to live. No one is able to trample on that right, No matter how grim the future seems. It is the human's right to determine if they want to keep living or not. If the fetus later grows up and decides that he or she wants to commit suicide, Ultimately that is their choice, Not the mother's. Think of kids in Africa. Right now, Most of them are suffering through extreme poverty with little hope of living a better life. Should we allow their mothers to kill them to end their suffering? I disagree that the fetus and newborn baby are different so much so that it's okay to kill the fetus but not the newborn baby. "The newborn baby is already in the world and experiencing life, It has a full functioning body. "The fetus is "in the world" too, Just inside the mother. It's like saying your brain is not a part of the world because it's inside your body. Of course, Your brain is in the world. The newborn baby does not have "a full functioning body. " The newborn baby is unable to walk. Not being able to walk is not full function. The baby has an undeveloped brain so much so that the average person is unable to recall memories earlier than 3 years old. An undeveloped brain is not full function. A person in a coma is not experiencing life. Not experiencing life or not having a full functioning body doesn't give anyone a right to murder. A disabled person does not have a full functioning body. A person in a coma is not experiencing life. This doesn't give anyone any right to kill them. When killing the fetus or the newborn baby, There is a minimal difference, Except that a newborn baby will cry if you kill them. Murdering innocent human beings isn't humane, Even if it is to prevent suffering, Just like it isn't humane to kill someone in a coma or to kill African children. It's inhumane. So now that I've gone over that the fetus and newborn baby aren't that different and that mercy killing is wrong, I must ask the same question again. Is it okay to kill newborn babies to prevent them from living a rough life? If so, Why is it okay to kill fetuses? I want to thank my opponent for debating with me. Vote pro-life. Let's end fetus killing.
Abortion

Both the fetus and the newborn are human beings, But in different context. The newborn baby is already in the world and experiencing life, It has a full functioning body. However, Subjecting a child to a life of poverty, Neglect, And abuse leads to trauma and experiences that I personally wouldn't wish upon anyone's upbringing. Children in these conditions are more likely to drop out of school, Commit crimes, And even kill themselves. These kids are living lives that aren't worth living, And the parent consciously deciding to put them through a life like that is a terrible parent. Abortion occurs up to 36 weeks into pregnancy, The fetus doesn't feel pain yet and has no conscience. In these context of the baby being born through rape or incest, We can think of it as deciding to kill someone who is in a vegetative state with no chance of recovery. It's the humane thing to do, Because no one should have to live a life like that. Those kids have a future of despair and depression awaiting them that only ends in tragedy. The reason why a newborn child shouldn't be killed in these same conditions is because the kid is already past the point of no return. At this point, The mother has accepted the conditions that child is going to live in, And accepts the problems that will occur. It's like a community voting on whether or not a pedophile can live in their neighborhood and voting yes. They accept what is likely to happen, And can only change their mind when tragedy strikes. Except with the newborn child, You can't change your mind when tragedy occurs. At this point you're gambling with that child's life, And the odds are not in your favor. So is it better to humanely abort the child, Or let them into a life that will be a living hell?
Sasuke wins. [Read round 1 debate for this to make sense]

Ok, so first off nice job at your special pleading on chakra absorbtion. But if you want to play that way I call cursed seal cheating, meaning that most characters could beat sasuke. Second, you mean valley of the end fight right? The one where naruto could have taken sasuke's head off with his rasengan, but instead chose not to? The one where naruto had several chances to kill sasuke, but instead spent most of his time beating him about trying to knock some sense into him? Please tell me you're refering to the fight that naruto dominated sasuke in, right up untill the point that they used chidori and rasengan respectivly and naruto only lost the collision because he didn't want to kill him. Please tell me you are. And lets says the tried the chidori vs rasengan again. Naruto, having created the rasenshuriken, would beat sasuke hands down. Especially because naruto can throw his rasenshurkin.
Sasuke wins. [Read round 1 debate for this to make sense]

Wow, I expected so much more. And I would almost call your interpretation of my saying the six paths of pain defeating naruto a strawman. It completely ignores sasukes ability to control the kyuubi which was the deciding factor in their match. And what is all hat about the truth of pain? What does that even mean? But, basically, If all your gonna say is chidori, all im going to say is preta path. Chidori is null against an ability to absorb infinite amounts of chakra in any form.
Sasuke wins. [Read round 1 debate for this to make sense]

Sasuke thrashed naruto, let's nto forget that.HE is so meaningful and knwos the truth of pain and suffering imagine your whole family got killed?! Anyway he could beat sage of six paths (I apologise for thinking it was nagato, very similar) because he is jsut so super , his dhidori can slice basically anything, evne a path of pain, it is after all only a puppet.
Sasuke wins. [Read round 1 debate for this to make sense]

I was mistaken in that I thought this would be one on one battles. Not a free-for-all brawl. I retract my selections that have put forward, all but three that is. The sage of six paths is not Nagato. Nagato had the rinnengan, but the Sage of Six Paths was the first to have it. He sealed the Juubi into the moon, and was know to have been able to control it like a pet. The Sage of Six Paths was the first person to use chakra. He was the first ninja. In a free-for-all brawl he would say sit down and everyone would sit down from pure fear. In the case of a free-for-all brawl the sage wins. But lets say for the sake of this paragraph that he isn't there. Sasuke would instantly attack Itachi, and Itachi being perfectly healthy would beat him. I mean ffs, he nearly beat sasuke when he was half blind and nearly dead. Sasuke wouldn't stand a chance. Also, your contention that he would beat Minato is completely absurd. Minato has Hirashin which allows him to teleport to where ever his Hirashin seal is. All he has to do is throw a kunai at Sasuke while Sasuke is in the air. Finally, as to your claim that sasuke could beat the six paths of pain. Naruto, with the power of the kyuubi and sage mode, could not beat the six paths. Jiraya in sage mode could not beat the six paths. Heck, the six paths even defeated death when they raised hundreds from the dead. No character in the series could defeat the six paths. They are all but invincible seeing as if you kill one they just revive it.
Sasuke wins. [Read round 1 debate for this to make sense]

We have to remember that emotional ties would cause both Uchihas to feel extreme empathy for Sasuke. Probably the Uchiha clan would fight together apart from Itachi, who would have a series of enemies to be concerned with. After all, genjutsu is only effective against a few opponents, try casting mind tricks on a 1vall battle and you are doomed. Madara is closely related to Obito, considering Obito's (aka Tobi) significant affection and care for sasuke it would indicate a lack of will to fight sasuke unless they were the last ninjas to fight to the death.Minato indeed would be a contender for his super fast rasengan but if sasuke can use chidori in time or even his super fire jutsus, which are far longer ranger than Minato's attacks, then Minato would understand to stay well away from him. The ability to fly in beast mode renders nearly all of Minato's moves useless.Mikoto Uchiha would rather kill itachi than sasuke, considering that itachi killed her. I extremely doubt that mikoto would touch sasuke, her 'favourite' son (as itachi was his father's favourite).Sage of Six paths is Nagato... And I foresaw this argument. The issue with NAgato (aka controller of the 'Pein' puppet) is that he is in fact immobile. His only true reach is his forcefield and six paths of pain, both of which Sasuke could avoid wings, additionally Sasuke is an extremely fast and powerful taijutsu artist, as shown by his fight with Danzo and others. He would thwart all six puppets.
Sasuke wins. [Read round 1 debate for this to make sense]

I accept. Let's see you meet your burden of proof. The characters I argue would beat sasuke are as follows: Itachi Uchiha Madara Uchiha Minato namikaze Sage of six paths Mikoto Uchiha There are others, but lets leave it at them for now. And, as you said, they are all at their prime. So Itachi isn't sick and has no ill effects from his mangekyo. Madara has the rinnengan, wood realease, and so on. And Minato is stocked up with hirashin kunai.
Sasuke wins. [Read round 1 debate for this to make sense]

This is purely based on anime [both Young Naruto and Shippuuden). Any arguments using evidence from manga alone sall be invalid for this debate.I believe if all characters from naruto, the dead being brought back to life, were to fight in one go, Sasuke Uchiha (or Uchiha Sasuke, if we list his name in Japanese fashion) would win. I understand that Nagato, Naruto, Neji, Hinata, Gaara and probably Yamato would be extremely unusually gifted opponents for the others to handle, I also appreciate Shikamaru's intelligence and Rock Lee's insane taijutsu skills. However, I have reason to believe Sasuke would win.The BOP of me is to prove Sasuke to be a more elite fighter than all the rest.The BOP of my opponent is to not simply state that Sasuke isn't the best but explain who could beat him, the fght is with all at once by the way.I assume Nagato will be your most likely person to support but notice that Sasuke, in beat form, could fly over all six paths of pain. Just a tip.Conditions for the fight: All fighters are at their prime with maximum Chakra Capacity. All Jinchuurikis have their Bijuu ready to use. All characters are entitled to commit suicide at any time. This means emotional strength is a strong factor too. There are not teams, it's individual but any emotional ties and friendships remain in fight and affect people's willingness to hurt those people.
ADHD Medication Should Require A Brain Scan For Diagnosis

The primary reasons people fake ADD to get pills is to improve studying or work performance, or to get high. Neither of which indicate that without it the person would become depressed. The other group of people I am worried about is people naively tricked (or simply misdiagnosed, doctors do make mistakes) into thinking they or their children have ADD and prescribed stimulants when there is no ADD. If a person is misdiagnosed and given a pill they don't need then they are needlessly exposed to the risk unwanted side effects. http://sideeffectsbase.com... One of those can be "depression". So much for Con's theory that if we require a brain scan in order to get ADHD medication that this will lead to more depression. Seizures, mood swings, and paranoid delusions can also happen. And abuse can lead to serious addiction.
ADHD Medication Should Require A Brain Scan For Diagnosis

I disagree because if this happens depression rates will increase in the country even more as everyone uses depression as a way to get free pills from the NHS. This is a bad thing because if say claiming to be depressed was the only way to get free pills it would soon be stopped for those who really need it. An argument to this cannot be, it doesn't matter because people should not do it, because people always will. I think people should be tested to see if they are taking medication.