BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Canada should be pro global warming

I'll go through this a bit more slowly since Pro doesn't believe I'm smart enough to understand his arguments. 1. Opening of the Northwest Passage: There's no reason to believe that doing so will make Canada a global shipping hub and center for international trade. Ships don't need ports unless they're going to take on or discharge cargo and there's nothing along the extreme northern coast of Canada that requires that service. Whether there might be in the future is purely conjecture. We can see, today, that simply having a lot of shipping passing your coast is no guarantee of economic success. An enormous amount of shipping, for example, goes through the Suez Canal and down the East coast of Africa and those places never became shipping hubs or centers of international trade even before their recent troubles. Back in the 19th century having good port facilities helped make you a trade center, but today it's being centers of banking, finance, and corporate headquarters is what does it. As regards the confrontation with Russian interests you might take notice that regardless of the "wrath of the rest of the world", Russia was not deterred from it's seizure of some of Georgia, it's annexation of the Crimea, and is still interfering in Ukrainian internal affairs. The "wrath" Pro is counting on doesn't seem very effective. 2. More natural resources for Canada. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has it's cost and the cost for more oil, coal, and gas extraction is environmental damage. Are the profits from that activity worth the cost? That would be up to the Canadians to decide but I think that anybody whose seen what oil sand extraction or open pit coal mines have done to the landscape would have doubts. 3. Resources plus forests. I wouldn't expect palms to replace conifers but you will see species that thrive in more southerly zones to move north. See http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us... That in itself will produce major ecosystem changes. Also, as Pro has pointed out, the existing forests will expand North. When that happens they won't be moving into a lifeless area but will be displacing the flora that's there now and the animals that depend upon it. 4. Refugees. Does anyone truly believe that the mass migration of billions of people worldwide will have no adverse effect upon any nation? That Russia and the US will, somehow absorb them all? The world is tightly connected. This ain't the 19th Century. Finally, let me point out that it's reasonable to assume that the sea level rise and the loss of sea life associated with global warming will cause a great increase in global instability. A number of the nations immediately affected like China, India, Pakistan are nuclear armed. Will this increase in instability make Canada safer, even with it's presumed increase access to oil, gas, and coal? I think not.
There should not be guns in the United States of America

the 2nd amendment says," A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."not to protect a free person. if guns were allowed in the US there wold be a higher crime rate.Most people get hut by guns if the own them. A 5-year-old girl died after she accidentally shot herself with her father's gun while he was in the shower, apparently getting ready for an outing with his children. Investigators say Haley Moore got a hold of her dad's gun, which had been left unsecured on a table. Joy Ursin, a neighbor of the family said she considered that fact unusual, because, she said the father, a military veteran, was known to be conscious of gun safety. "He would tell them about the dangers and he had this thing about safety," she said. "He did not want them to be ignorant of the fact that they can harm you." Ursin said Haley Moore was spunky, and full of life. "She loved to have fun." Ursin said another sibling told her that the family was planning to go see a movie Saturday. Officers who responded to the scene said things always take on an urgency when a child is involved. "The first thing that goes through your mind is that it"s a child and you want to do everything you can to help that child get through this ordeal," said Lt. Greg Baker with the St. John the Baptist Sheriff"s Office. But after being rushed to the hospital, Moore died. "That"s a tragedy, there"s no other way to put anything like that" said neighbor John Tracy.
God's existence can be proven, more likely than not

In order to fix this debate a little (I didn't have an understanding that those were Pro's opening arguments, since it was so stream-of -consciousness. I apologize.) and since Pro didn't establish any rules, I'd like to provide for the defining of God as intelligent design in general (to avoid my opponent using God in terms of the laws governing the universe), and establish that only my opponent has the BoP. As such, I will pick apart my opponents argument line by line. 1.) "this is somewhat just another way of thinking about the infinite causal chain of objects (if God could just be, could'nt that?)" This isn't really any indication of the fact that intelligent design can be proven. In this example, you're only personifying an idea as God, not proving that his existence can be proven. 2.) if God is the uncaused caused beyond trying to define that as being mass that could exist, and would have to be before that mass occurred... that suddenly become very significant. This statement doesn't make much sense. I would ask my opponent to clarify. 3.) but to my understanding, random quirks occur from other random quirks, and only in mass, which has to occur to begin with. ie, i dont think you find quantum stuff in a vaccum. You do. That's the basis behind the prevailing idea of the big bang, the fact that space itself has energy. This is the basis behind dark energy and zero point energy, also. [1] 4.) it'd have to have been a unique event that we're unfamiliar with for it to be quantum soup into mass... but it's contrary to what we know so far. if it was mass first, that brings us to the macrolevel that we see in every day life and all that that entails as mentioned. The argument posed here seems to be that of the majority of those who try to rationalize God's existence, stating that because there is an absence of explanation, that immediately opens up the possibility of intelligent design. This notion is weak however, if you truly want to rely on the possibility of intelligent design being possible simply because there are things we can't understand. 5.) in a very real sense, though, our knowledge of trying to prove God, continues to become debateable as our knowledge of the cosmos exists, leaning about quantum stuff, etc I feel the contrary, actually. The more we learn, the less debatable the topic becomes. We are running out of miraculous and inexplicable events to paste the god hypothesis into. 6.) that stick is by definition beyond time and space and our laws. At one point, the tides were beyond our ability to comprehend. As were the movement of planets and heavenly bodies, understanding volcanoes ... these were all once explained by gods or a singular god until someone went out and discovered the scientific causes behind it. You're merely stating that the existence of God can be proven becasue there are things that we don't yet understand, and I must say that I reject this premise. For these reasons, please vote in the Con. Sources 1.http://www.cfa.harvard.edu...
is jordyn from the moon

Jordie was born on the moon, but she was very different from the other moonlings, like se was much weirder and so much more but the main thing is her hair is very different from everyone Else's, making her the chosen one. She was LEGENDARY and they have never had someone like her ever on moon history. when she got to be 2 years old, they chose her to be the leader of the war against the sun, which she had no chance against. but the sun sent out a warrior she had nightmares about, the dude in the suit ( space suit ) She had the biggest moon hole and shopped in the best moon malls, but that all changed when she saw him, she jumped off the moon when she saw him on on and the sun sent out a giant sun ball, blowing up the moon, she managed to fly with her strawberry lockes onto earth, and the moon was gone. she learned the earth ways and now lives among us.
Abortion should be a crime when the life of the mother is not in danger.

My opponent claims that "abortion is not a right". However, the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has the "right" to an abortion. Therefore, it is a right. That brings us the second part of his rebuttal. An unborn fetus, not a human, should not have enough rights so that the woman's are denied. It makes no sense that a woman's rights should not be upheld in place of an unborn fetus. Addressing your next point, the Constitution is a complete document, it can just be amended. Since amendments to the Constitution become part of it, and those amendments grant us rights, the Constitution grants us rights. ". .. I am arguing you are denying the hypothetical person its rights, as a fetus has no rights. " By not denying the hypothetical fetus its rights, you are denying the rights of the woman. There is also no way a fetus can be denied rights if it doesn't have any to begin with. Going back to the exaggeration, aborting a fetus that isn't fully developed is not the same as murder by random chance. By using this analogy, you are making abortion sound worse than it is. "When one aborts early on, there is only a two-thirds probability that she is infringing on the rights of that future human. " This statement is questionable for two reasons. First, there is no such thing as a two-thirds chance when it comes to rights - your rights are either infringed, or they aren't. Trimesters are not the same as three bushes with men behind two of them. Also, if the fetus is not yet human (the key word here is "future"), it does not have rights until it is born. By "unwanted pregnancy", I meant not in a case of rape, but by accidentally getting pregnant. Also, not all women would like to have a child with a major (possible life-threatening) disorder. They would be more money involved, such as payments for doctor's appointments, medication, etc. I only stated the fetuses may never get rights because my opponent cited that "92% chance a fetus will become a person. " Therefore, there is an 8% chance that the fetus will not develop, and therefore, not have rights.
Abortion should be a crime when the life of the mother is not in danger.

I'll start off Cons with a contention to your contention (haha). Your opening statement, "A just society will look towards the maximization of rights, as rights are necessary for happiness, and happiness is inherently good.", contradicts your argument, since denying the right to an abortion is the opposite of maximizing rights. Your contention 1: According to the U.S. Constitution, rights are guaranteed to "persons", not "fetuses". Since a fetus, according to said National Center for Biotechnology Information, has a 92% chance of becoming a person, there is no absolute way to tell if it definitely will be a person, and therefore, have rights. Your contention 2: Although your entire contention 1 protects the rights of fetuses, in this contention you state, "In effect, it is not the rights of the fetus in question. It is the right of that person that that fetus will likely become to live life. Abortion infringes not on the right of the fetus, but on the right of that hypothetical individual." If it is not the right of the fetus, your entire first contention is pointless. In addition, if it is the right of that person, you are infringing their rights by denying them abortion rights. Then, you state abortion infringes on the fetus' rights, a contradiction to your contradiction. Your contention 3: Adoption is not exactly a safe alternative because the woman would still have to go through labor, which could cause lifelong problems/complications. Contention 1: It should be the woman's own choice to an abortion. Maybe she does not want a child with a genetic disorder, or did not mean to get pregnant. Whatever the reason, a fetus' "rights" should not take priority over the woman's. To compare abortion with shooting at random bushes that may have people in them is an exaggeration. Contention 2: Fetuses don't have rights, since they are not a true person yet, and since there may be no chance at all that they will become a person. Also, if abortion should be a crime, who would be charged? There's no completely fair way of telling. Why you should vote CON: 1. My opponent hasn't made a strong argument and contradicts himself. 2. There is no decent reason why a woman should not be able to do what she wants with her body. 3. The rights of a fetus, if any, should not take priority over those of a living person.
Abortion should be a crime when the life of the mother is not in danger.

To define the parameters of this debate, abortion shall be defined as the termination of a pregnancy through the removal of the fetus. A just society will look towards the maximization of rights, as rights are necessary for happiness, and happiness is inherently good. To uphold rights, those who infringe upon other's rights must be punished. For this debate we must look at whether aborting a fetus infringes on any individual's rights. For the sake of reason we must also conclude that a fetus in itself does not have rights, as it is not self-aware nor does it have much of a mind at all until much later into the pregnancy. This of course gives PRO a hard burden, but I will bear it to the best of my abilities. Contention 1: Fetuses will have rights. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, two-thirds of pregnancies are carried to term (not including abortions). This means, there is a two-thirds probability of a fetus, at conception becoming a person. After six weeks this probability increases to 92%. If there is a probable chance that the fetus will become a person, there is by definition, a probable chance that a fetus will have rights. This can not be extended to gametes, as only one in billions will develop rights. Contention 2: If an object will have rights, it must be treated as if it had rights, to a reasonable degree. A scenario in which we could imagine a similar situation is a case where an individual is offered $10000000 to shoot a bush. In this area however, two-thirds of the bushes contain men. Now, although this will give said individual many benefits, the offer should not be accepted. There is a two thirds probability that he is infringing on a man's right to life. The same applies for abortion. If one aborts, she is denying the fetus the rights it would have as a person that it will likely become. In effect, it is not the rights of the fetus in question. It is the right of that person that that fetus will likely become to live life. Abortion infringes not on the right of the fetus, but on the right of that hypothetical individual. To argue against this would be to argue against rights. Contention 3: There are safe alternatives to abortion Adoption. The right of the mother to not have a child is upheld, and the right of the possible individual is upheld. If there is a safe alternative, abortion is not necessary. Why vote PRO: 1. Abortion infringes on rights 2. Abortion is unnecessary
Abortion should be a crime when the life of the mother is not in danger.

I will start by addressing my opponent's contentions. My opponent is right about the Constitution - just because a right is not listed, does not mean we have it. This is presented in the ninth amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." However, the ninth amendment only applies to "the people" - and as both of us agree upon, a fetus is not a person. In fact, any part of the Constitution concerning rights, powers, etc. only applies to people, not fetuses. Thus, a fetus does not have rights, because it is not a person. Just because it may be a person, does not mean it should have right NOW. To give a future human rights, who may not become a human at all, is exactly like punishing a future criminal, who may not become a criminal at all. The future human does not exist yet, nor may it ever. The same is true for said criminal act. You cannot punish someone for something that may or may not happen, and you cannot give rights to a person who may or may not be born. The problem with giving a future human rights is that the future is not now. In the future, the fetus may have rights. But now, in the present, that fetus does not have rights. Since there is no human NOW, but a fetus, there are no rights. I have not put "a pricetag on life", I meant that supporting the child would be expensive, obviously, and that the woman may not be able to afford a child. Why vote CON: 1. My opponent's arguments are not logical, are repetitive and have been rebutted, and his points have not been sufficiently backed up. 2. My arguments, on the other hand, are logical and backed up by the Constitution. 3. The rights of a future person should not take the rights of a "present" person, a person here NOW.
This poem captures the lived experience of all boys

con says "I thought the point of the debate was to make logical assertions based on the topic at hand. If the spirit of the debate was to interpret the subjectivity of the poem and whether or not it aplies to all lived experience of boys, then i would still argue that you are making a hasty generalization which is a logical fallacy." this is not a philosophy debate but an arts one so for someone so clever you cant see the word "all" is used in an arts sense as hyperbole etc but you have achieved your goal of derailing the debate I guess you found the poems themes to unsettling so had to avoid your true feelings by treating an arts debate as a philosophy one
This poem captures the lived experience of all boys

con says "Some boys die in the womb. They don't have any lived experiences. Since you said that the poem captures the lived experiences of all boys, but didn't take into account the lived experience within the womb, this poem does not capture that experience." tricky cleverness to avoid the point of the post look why waste our time if you are not going to act in the spirit of debate then why waste your time and ours
This poem captures the lived experience of all boys

Not for Duncan This poem captures the lived experience of all boys it takes us to the essence of what all boys will eventually have to face http://www.scribd.com... PREFACE Innocence that precious state When the world a wondrous place Enchanted things Innocence brings Purity a glow on Innocence face Magical beings magical seeings The very light Whorls so bright Housing our imaginings sight Encased in an enchanted ambience the world an outer reflection of what the inner does feel Our innocence an enchanted world does reveal The world magically afire But all is lost when up wells desire
Resolved: Demilitarization of the United States Police

Resolved: Demilitarization of the United States PoliceDefinitions:Demiliarization: reduction of a polices's equipment, weapons, or military vehicles to an agreed minimumUnited States: United States of AmericaPolice: the civil force of a national or local government, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order. May the better debater win! Audemus jura nostra defendere
Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water

In Conclusion, bottled water does not need to pass E.coli tests, is not required to produce quality reports, costs more than tap, and is wasteful as only one fifth of them are recycled.[1] Bottled water does not even taste better than tap, according to a survey from Penn and Teller. [2]Their only pro is that they are put in a portable, carry-able bottle. [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdvJOF-2mm0
Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water

Here are your arguments and my responses "Some bottled water come from tap, though it is in a bottle so it can be carried, which is not available with tap." There are reusable bottles that can be used for moving tap water from place to place, and buying one can be cheaper than bottled water in the long term, as bottles for bottled water are usually not designed to last, though those reusable ones do. "Mineral water is available in bottled form, and those minerals reduce some health risks." Those minerals are healthy for you, but can also be got from food and not from something that flows for almost free on our tap and is sold for thousand times of that. For example, milk also got a lot of these minerals, and so does some other foods too. 'Minerals or milk salts, are traditional names for a variety of cations and anions within bovine milk. Calcium, phosphate, magnesium, sodium, potassium, citrate, and chlorine are all included as minerals and they typically occur at concentration of 5"40 mM.' [1] "You stated that only 1 in 5 recycle their bottles, though 4 in 5 have no problem with buying another one. It is not very expensive." Only one in five recycle their bottles [2], and that causes environmental issues, like giant piles of bottles ending up in landfills. Then, they buy them again when they can just get it for almost free from the tap. "bottled water is good for the environment because soda releases co2 into the atmosphere and bottled water does not" Bottled water industries use 17 million barrels of oil each year to make plastic. [2]And count all the shipping around the world before they end up on the shelves. Plus there sure are carbonated bottled water on the market. [3] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [3]http://www.finewaters.com...