BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be illegal

My opponent were saying that fetus is not a human being, but I think that fetus is never anything other than human from conception, and therefore has a right to life from this time. Even if people are saying that the fetus is not a human being, it is clearly regarded by most people and most societies as something special that should not be casually discarded. The Bible teaches that the child in the womb is truly a human child, who even has a relationship with the Lord. My opponent were pointing out a lot about racism. Yes, there is racism in abortion, so there is one more reason why abortion should be illegal- because of the racism. Religion believe that life begins at conception and that killing is morally wrong and also the Bible clearly teaches that abortion is wrong. This teaching comes across in many ways and for many reasons. Women have rights to control themselves. I want to talk about women rights issue in relation to the fetus rights. I will say that women are allowed to make abortion in three different cases-1. women life is danger 2. pregnancy is a consequence of sexual violence or 3. expected child will be hopelessly sick. Problem is then when woman does not have one of these cases, but she still want to make abortion. Woman has rights to control herself, but we cannot forget that fetus is not a part of women body. It has other DNS and although it is growing in mothers body and it is autonomous entity which is going to be born. Its goal is being born and it has the right to be born. Woman has right to control herself and should logically avoid sexual intercourse or conception. Once fertilization has taken place, it is a responsibility for the new life.
Abortion should be illegal

Rebuttal 2: Argument 1: reproductive coercion My opponent conceded that this is a possibility. This argument is important as if I can find just one example where an abortion would make sense, abortion should not be illegal, just restricted. Remember, restrictions on abortion without total outlawing is a solution that means a vote con. My opponent is arguing against rape alone, though reproductive coercion is not just rape. In the case where there is unanticipated, undesired conception, the women deserve the right to abort. Argument 2: Racism My opponent completely dropped this argument. Extend this argument. Making abortion illegal discriminates mostly against the black community. This means that it is an act that institutionalizes racism. Argument 3: Human being My opponent has argued that abortion is killing human beings, yet they have dropped the argument of what qualifies as a human being. Extend my third argument. This shows that abortion does not actually kill anyone/anything. Argument 4: Women feeling bad Here my opponent uses a study to say that women suffer after abortion, but I have three concerns with the argument. The first is that in the case of the problems being a result of exterior pressure, it has been dropped that that is a societal problem, not one of abortion. Second, even if there may be consequences, the women deserve the right to choose, even while knowing the risks. In addition, mental problems are better than death. Third, my opponent's study shows a very small impact. An increase of 4.1 per thousand is too little an impact to have any weight. Argument 5: tax dollars Tax dollars are meant to benefit the people of the United States, not just what the majority of taxpayers want. A democracy (or like-government)'s job is to zealously protect the ideals of the minorities. If the minorities need abortions, it is not in the power of the majority to take that right away from them. Accordingly, I negate.
Abortion should be illegal

Of course not always women get pregnancy because of the mistakes, but still do not forget that fact that there are many other cases. Three most used reasons for abortion are inadequate finances, not ready for responsibility or woman"s life would be changed too much. I agree with point that there are cases where abortion is the best choice, but there are less this kind of cases then cases about which girls after regret. Girls often regret it when they grow up and they understand that they want to have a child, but they cannot because of the abortion which they did when they were young. There are a lot of these cases. Abortion damage women. Women after abortion have a depression, anxiety disorder, suicidal ideation, alcohol dependence, illicit drug dependence, or mental health problems. There are possible side effects -hemorrhage (heavy bleeding) possibly requiring treatment with an operation, a blood transfusion, or both, incomplete removal of the unborn child, placenta, contents of the uterus, requiring an operation and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. Acute inflammatory conditions occur in 5% of the abortion cases. A study sponsored by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found that after three months, aborted women had a rate of 5.2 per thousand hospitalizations for psychiatric problems, compared to a rate of 1.1 per thousand for the control group. No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different. In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence. Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion.
Abortion should be illegal

Accepted. This speech will start with my case and then move on to my rebuttal. Case: Argument 1: reproductive coercion Pregnancies aren't always because of mistakes. reproductive coercion is the idea of forced pregnancies inflicted upon women. This is a common trend in the U.S. [1] In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, women deserve the right to undo what was done that could be harmful to them. Denying them that right is simply enhancing the patriarchy that is our society. In the case where they can't survive the pregnancy, this is effectively murdering the women. Argument 2: Racism Five times as many blacks in the US abort than whites. Any action against abortion is an act of racism [2] By denying a choice that is taken primarily by black individuals, it is effectively enforcing institutional racism, whites denying a choice that is primarily used by blacks. Argument 3: Killing a human being.xx A fetus is not a human being. Google definitions defines human being as having qualities such as "superior mental development, power of articulate speech" [3]. Killing human being is awful. However, not aborting can result in a mother's death and this is not killing a human being. Since babies do not posses the power of articulate speech, they are not human beings. The aborting mothers, however, are human, and so killing them instead of aborting is much worse. Rebuttal: There are a number of broad problems to look at first before going into the details. Response 1: sourcing My opponent has notably few (no) sources. This means that his arguments are baseless claims and carry no weight in this debate. Response 2: assumptions Going along with the lack of sourcing, my opponent is making assumptions about people and giving them a voice they don't necessarily want. This is most obvious when my opponent talks about how the women and girls feel. By just assuming how these people feel, my opponent is effectively dehumanizing them. Op argument 1: women and girls feel lonely and left out because of abortion. Response 1: choice Without arguing whether or not the statement is true, there is a clear fault with the argument. The women deserve the choice. If the pregnancy could hurt them, they deserve the choice to abort. Completely outlawing abortion leaves no room for unique and important circumstances. Response 2: beneficial My opponent has shown no reason for the girls to feel that way, therefore this is a baseless claim. Op argument 2: women are made to feel bad about it response: This is a problem not with abortion, but with society. If a girl is forced to feel bad about herself for aborting, society is the thing at fault. Girls should be able to abort without society making them feel bad about it. Don't get rid of abortion, fix society, For the above reasons, I negate the resolution. [1] http://www.care2.com...... [2] http://www.theatlantic.com...... [3]https://www.google.com...
Abortion should be illegal

An abortion should be illegal everywhere. All abortion clinics should be closed. I think there have been too many abortion during all years and I think nobody is happy. Not even women and girls who have had an abortion. After abortions girls and women feel lonely and left out. They feel like nobody understand them and other people think that they are murders. I think one of the big problems is that people are not talking that much about abortions and it is time to talk about it.
A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist

As we are entering this final round (or rather, as I enter this final round. I cannot help but being slightly annoyed at my opponent for taking this debate and forfeiting his two rounds without offering any explanations whatsoever), I will provide a brief flow of this debate. Because Con has neither offered any arguments, nor explained himself, any arguments he brings up in R4 should be discarded. New arguments, especially in R4, should not be tolerated. Pro Case 1)Completely omnipotent beings cannot be bound in any way. -Unrefuted 2)If an omnipotent being is bound by logic, it is not completely omnipotent as there is a restriction on its power -Unrefuted 3)If an omnipotent being is not bound by logic, it does not exist logically. -Unrefuted. 4)"I do agree. This shall be a debate of epic proportions. .. " -A clear lie on my part. Unrefuted nevertheless. 5)Regarding the brief Pokemon battle in Round 1 and 2, I effectively counter Con's Pikachu with its weakness, ground-type Pokemon. -Unrefuted. -Casualties: Pikachu As the body count steadily rises, let us take a look at the Con's side. Con Case Moving on, I shall toss in a few sources to pad my argument. . http://en.wikipedia.org... If we look at these five scenarios, we see that omnipotence in the last four scenarios is limited to logic. This is not complete omnipotence. In the first it is not. This is not logical. Finally, let me tie up the spelling/grammar point by analyzing Con's few words. "Theology always being a topic of interest to me, I want to start off by stating that I am agnostic, and I believe in the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, because it seems almost crazy to me not to. As I understand, this debate is not a run of the mill, intelligent design vs evolution snoozer. " -I would like to point out some minor grammatical errors in this argument. Con's first sentence represents a comma splice. The very first comma should either be replaced with a period or semicolon. Also, "run of the mill" should be run-of-the-mill. At this point, voters, I beseech you to do something you may never have done before. I beseech you to vote Pro in all categories, barring with whom you agreed with prior to this debate. Here is my reasoning: 1)With whom you agreed with after the debate Con has offered no arguments whatsoever. I do hope that I have convinced you that a completely omnipotent being cannot logically exist. 2)Conduct This should be self-explanatory. Con has forfeited two rounds after accepting this debate, and has offered no explanations whatsoever. 3)Spelling and Grammar I have pointed out a few mistakes that Con has made in R1. 4)Convincing Arguments Con has offered no arguments, so this ought to be a default Pro win. 5)Sources I have provided a source from Wikipedia. The section I am using has been verified, and is from a reliable source. Thank you audience, for reading what has been, in large part, my monologue.
A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist

Seeing as my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I will briefly restate my position. A completely omnipotent being cannot logically exist. For a being to be completely omnipotent, there can be no restrictions on its abilities. If this is the case, we cannot bind an OB by logic. Therefore, the being does not exist logically. If we remove logic from the situation, the being does not logically exist. The resolution is affirmed.
A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist

Theology always being a topic of interest to me, I want to start off by stating that I am agnostic, and I believe in the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, because it seems almost crazy to me not to. As I understand, this debate is not a run of the mill, intelligent design vs evolution snoozer. So ToastOfDestiny, I accept your challenge under the resolution "A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist." Pikachu, I choose you!
A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist

The notion of an omnipotent being is logically flawed. That is, an omnipotent being cannot logically exist. Note that this debate isn't about beings that seem omnipotent, for example ‘my boss is omnipotent', but rather omnipotent as defined as "almighty or infinite power, as God" (www.dictionary.com). To accept this debate is to accept this definition (basically I'm looking to debate "the idea of infinite power has intrinsic logical flaws"). If my opponent is able to show that the idea of a completely omnipotent being is not logically flawed, then he/she wins this debate. The abbreviation "O.B." stands for "omnipotent being" With that, I'll leave the next post for Con to accept, with the debating occurring in rounds 2-4. Con can post an argument in R1, but I shall only begin in R2.
The Bible Teaches Predestination And Salvation By Faith Alone

I admit I will backtrack on the resolution. I believe that predestination is taught in the bible, because the exact word is indeed used. However, I don't believe that my opponent's interpretation of predestination is taught by the Bible. Hopefully my opponent my forgives my naivety. That being said...My opponent is also correct that I hold the Synergistic view. I believe that God offers salvation to everyone, and whoever accepts it, is saved. I believe in predestination, as in, God predestines all men to go to heaven, upon the one condition that they accept the grace required to do so. My opponent believes that God predestines certain people to go to heaven, unconditionally and regardless of their will, and others are predestined to go to hell, unconditionally and regardless of their will. Correct me if I'm wrong.Using my interpretation of predestination, the following verses do not contradict with my views:Rom 8:29-302 Thess 2:13Eph 1:3-6Eph 1:11Now it is simply a matter of whose interpretation is right: Mine, or Cons? Con's authority to interpret scripture comes from the belief in Sola Scriptura, which states that scripture, and scripture alone, is formally sufficient. There are a couple problems with this stance. First of all, the notion of Sola Scriptura is never supported by the scriptures themselves; in fact, it is directly refuted:"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (2 Thessalonians 2:15 - KJV)How can my opponent believe that scriptures are formally sufficient when the scriptures themselves claim otherwise? The second problem with my opponent's belief in Sola Scriptura is that the scriptures were given to him by the Catholic Church. Since my church compiled the scriptures and gave them to him, how can he claim that the scriptures are sufficient without the Church?My opponent says that "The bible, clearly teaches predestination, and I believe this will be the least challenging part of my position to demonstrate", and I do, as a matter of fact, concede this point. Out of ignorance, I worded the resolution poorly. My mistake.My opponent's claim of Sola Fide can be refuted with one verse:"by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24 - KJV)Ba Dum Tss.
The Bible Teaches Predestination And Salvation By Faith Alone

I don't believe my opponent is even trying any more. He hasn't addressed any of the scriptures I presented, he hasn't made any real argument, so by default I should win this debate. However, I'll make a few more points, even though I'm repeating myself. Con says that Grace isn't forced upon people. But, the passage from Romans 9 says that it is; in Romans 12 it says God distributed faith to us; and in John 15:16 it says that we didn't choose, HE did. My opponent believe God is just a beggar. He can't save anyone, he can only ask for them to be saved. Like if a parent saw their child running into a busy street. If the parent was God, then CON's God could only beg the child not to go any further, he would give reasons not to, but he couldn't save the child.. so if the child doesn't listen to him, the child will certainly die. While, my God wouldn't simply sit there and let his children make that fatal decison, he see the child has made his choice, and that choice is death. So instead of letting the infant get oblitorated by an on coming car, like a good parent, he chase after them, grabs them, and actively saves them from there foolish choice. His love for them is greater than their foolish will. There seems not to be an argument against Faith alone, but not faith that is alone, except his bare assertion that it doesn't make sense. Which I've already cleared up, if it even needed to be. Faith = trust, belief. Faith is given to us by Grace, from God. This gift, is what justifies us and sanctifies us. Since we have Faith, given by God, whom no one can remove from his hand, we are saved. Our Faith, however, creates in us, the desire to do good. It provides emperical evidence for our neighbor, that we indeed have faith. Our faith isn't simply a statement, but an active faith that produces good fruit. This isn't was saves us, but is a result of our salvation. Faith alone, but not faith that is alone.
The Bible Teaches Predestination And Salvation By Faith Alone

Romans 9 clearly states that God chooses whom he will elect, not based on their will or desires. This goes hand in hand with the fact the man never seeks God, nor does he choose to accept Gods grace. Romans 3:1010 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. Choosing to accept his grace is seeking God. John 15:16 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. God chose whom he would save, they did not choose him. Romans 12:33 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.The only reason we have faith, is because God distributed it to us. Ephesians 2:5 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. We were once dead in sin, and this is when we were saved, by grace. Dead in sin means, we were not able to make a choice of the living. If God grace was a feast, and we were literally dead, then this food wouldn't be desirable to us. God chose to give us life, so that it became desireable. My opponent doesn't seem to understand what Grace is. It's free and unmerited. If there is a condition, it cannot be grace.So, my opponets position on Predestination is obviously fallicious. Since, there can be no conditions to Gods grace, including acceptance of ones own free-will (Rom. 9). Especially since no man would do such a thing when they are dead in sin. Faith that isn't alone makes perfect sense. Our faith will producse good works; love, patience, kindness, etc. These things aren't what save us, but they do come with true faith.
60's Rock

Each round my opponent and I will submit a rock song from 1960-1969 with a video link and a short description of the song. House of the Rising Sun by The Animals http://www.youtube.com... This song was released on the 18th June, 1964 by British "blues-inspired rock" band The Animals. This song was not written by The Animals, it was apparently taken from an old English folk song then brought to America and reworded. The reason this rendition deserves a place as one of the best 60's rock songs was mainly due to lead singer Eric Burdon's gorgeously gruff vocals. This really was proved when it topped both the UK and US charts when it was first released. It was also reissued in '72 reaching 25 in the charts and then again in '82 where it reached No 11.
60's Rock

Originally written by Jake Holmes in 1967, and then covered by the Yardbirds, dazed and confused went on to become very well known when it was covered by led zeppelin in 1969. This song demonstrates both incredible guitar playing by Jimmy Page and Excellent vocals by robert plant, it's fast heavy guitar solo is also worth mentioning as having an influence on later guitar solos by heavy metal and rock bands. The original writer; Jake homes, attempted to sue led zeppelin over rights to the song in 2010, though plant claimed in the past that he had changed enough of the song to escape plagiarism laws. The court case was dropped. The song was featured in the rock and roll hall of fame's 500 songs that shaped rock and roll.
60's Rock

My next choice is My Generation by The Who. http://www.youtube.com... This definitely has to be one of my favourite clips. It is a section from the film The Kids are Alright and it really shows just how mad the band were. The legendary Keith Moon, who died after taking 32 Hemineverin tablets, managed to get himself and The Who banned from multiple hotel chains after he caused so much damage flushing bombs down toilets. However the band benefited greatly in publicity from "Mad Moon's" antics which even legends such as Jimmy Hendrix tried to copy. The song itself was written for the British "Mods" and became one of their most recognisable songs. When it was released on 5th November 1965 it also became their highest charting single in Britain when it reached No 2 in the charts. It also appears in The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll and was placed at No 11 in the Rolling Stone list of 500 Greatest Rock Songs. "My Generation" is a legendary song from a legendary band that really defined British Rock in the 1960's.
60's Rock

http://www.youtube.com...The Kinks - You really got Me - 1964The third single to be released by the kinks, You Really Got Me features on the bands debut album; The Kinks (also known as 'You really Got Me' in america). This great song has had a dramatic effect on the development of hard rock and heavy metal, often said to be the foundation of all heavy metal music. The song went through multiple recordings, in many different styles before being released The song has recieved much praise over the years, it was placed at no. 82 on rolling stones 500 greatest songs of all time, got to number 9 in a bbc poll on the 100 greatest guitar songs of all time, and got to no. 7 in the american pop singles charts. There is a well known rumor that the guitarist who played the solo in 'you really got me' was infact Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, though he denies the claims.