BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Ill make this short and sweet as I expect this to be a forfeit debate. Definitions: Fetus- an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind Woman- an adult female person Abortion- the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus Life- the period from birth to death Main Argument- A woman should have control over her own body. By the constitution all are created equal. Women have rights. One of those rights is to control ones being. A rebuttal argument might say that the fetus is its own being, this in fact is not true. To be ones own being you must not completely rely on another beings energy. Without the mother the fetus would die. Therefore the fetus is not its own entity but just an extension of the mother. If this is true then the mother should have the right to extinguish this extension of herself. Sources- http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... Argument reinforced at: http://www.naral.org...
Dose God Exist

I have broken down my argument into three parts. One Improbability, two Stupid design, three the problome of evil. Number one improbability: There is no evidience for God, one could give you alot of semi evidence such as the cosmogical argument but there is no physical evidence. Not only is there no evidence for God but it is highly improbable that such a being exists. Think about it someone that is so complex that he can hear all of our prayres at once and read our thoughts ect, has to be much more complex than us therefor making his existence very improbable. Complex beings only come from evolution, complex beings do not simply always exist. Number two Stupid Design: Most spots in the universe would kill life instintly, pepole say well the forces of nature are just right for life thats just stupid go look at the volume of the universe where you can't live. Most planet orbits are unstable, the star formation is inefficent, we are on a one way expanding universe to nothing, all of the other planets in our solar system are dead. Now let me move on to earth. Volcanos, tusnamis, earth quakes, floods, lightning kill 150,000 pepole each year, there is so much disese, 99.9% of all species to ever live went extinct, it took 3-5 billion years to make multi cellular life. Number three the problome of evil: There is so much suffering and evil going around the world right now, as we speek one child is dieing every four seconds. 21,000 children around the world die each day. Most children will die before there fith birthday. These are just a few examples of all of the suffering that is going on around the world. If you believe in a good God than you are faced with the problome of why there is so much evil in the world, then pepole say there is so much good in the world and God must have a plan for all of this suffering. If you believe in an evil God then you are faced with the problome of why there is so much good in the world and pepole say well I am sure that God has a plan for all of this good in the world. So either you believe in no God or you believe in an evil God or you believe in a good God. If you believe in no God you are not faced with any problomes, if you believe in a evil God you are faced with the problome of why there is so much good in the world, if you believe in a good God you are faced with the problome of why there is so much evil in the world. Givin all of the evil in the world it is unlikely that a good God exists. Givin all of the good in the world it is unlikely that an evil God exists so it is unlikley that God exists. Conclusion: I have given three good arguments to think that God dose not exist, if my opponent is to try to say that God dose exist he must first tare down all of the three arguments that I have presented and then give his own arguments to say that God exists. http://www.globalissues.org... http://www.youtube.com...#
Dose God Exist

My opponent dose not give any arguments to prove the existince of God. My opponent seems to think that I have to disprove the existience of God. I can't disprove anything, what I can say is that there is no good reason for me to believe in God and there are good reasons for me not to believe in God. My opponent seems to think that without God morality dose not exist. I don't think that this is true. It would be very sad if it were true that you needed morality in order to be good, because what that would mean is that either you get your morals from the bible or some other holy book or you just don't want to go to hell. I hope that noone dose get there morals from the bible because of all of the offial things that are dotted in the old testament and the new testament as well because the idea that this loving God of knowledge and power could not think of a better way to forgive our sins than to have him self come to earth and have him self killed its petty and its small minded. Now my opponent seems to think that I said it is unlikely that God exists because there is no evidience this is wrong I said that it is unlikely that God exists because a God is very complex and something so complex as a God has to be very imrobable thefor it is unlikely that God exists. Conclusion: Givin the fact that my opponent has not given any argument to suspect that God exists and I have given three good arguments to say that God dose not exists, I clearly win the debate so vote for me.
That the economic-stimulus act of 2008 will sucessfully mitigate economic slowdowns over this year

Ok then starting off I would Present new arguements then attacking my oppenents. First our product here in US has increase dramatically. According to USITC Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb The majority of products we have our from other place such as, Footwear is 92% import, audio and video equiment is about 90%, computer equipment is 79% and apparel is about 75%. so we can clearly see that the products we mostly use are not even made here in which will make no difference to the US economy. Why are we going to waste money on products made in other places? Also According to Al Norman, editor of the monthly Sprawl-Busters Alert, Wal-Mart makes about $819,976 in sales every minute during the fourth quarter of its 2007 fiscal year. What does that mean? Well it means Wal-Mart will be wasting every single person with their rebate checks going to their store. why is this a major problem? Also accroding to Norman, Wal-Mart is estimated to was about $9 billion worth of imports from China this year, not including its indirect imports. so we can clearly see if we waste this money or not the majority of the will not go to the economy but to other countries. Now also this also effect the US deficit with china increased. also to attack the 2001 stimulus act...it didnt help at all..stated by Eugene from daily Kos. the stimulus act before didnt work either people didnt get that much money...and aswell payed of bills...people arent going to put it in the bank they ar going to pay of the bank mortgages and such...debt..so in saying this....the people are only going to do what they did in the past pay off debt and bills....it is not going to help the economy and it wont make jobs for many in the US....
That the economic-stimulus act of 2008 will sucessfully mitigate economic slowdowns over this year

My PF partner and I don't have much either and we have 30 mins to write a case, so here goes.... My opponent assumes that this is a "poorly timed policy," but it is clear that this policy could not come at a better time. The economy is in urgent need of help, and the fact that Congress was forced to overcome its partisanship to approve this bill only reinforces this. Now for my contentions: First, rebates have had the desired effect in the past, 2001 being a significant precedent. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, when rebates of $300 per person were given in 2001, two thirds of the cash had been spent in the first six months. The economy proceeded to grow 1.6% in that quarter and 1.4% in the following quarter, according to Rachael Beck of the Associated Press. This had the precise result of mitigating economic slowdown in the short term, as the resolution states. Second, even if some Americans choose to save their money, it will still benefit the economy. According to Brian M. Riedl in The Washington Times on January 16, 2008, the banks will lend the money to others to spend. "Therefore, money is spent whether it is initially consumed or saved."
That the economic-stimulus act of 2008 will sucessfully mitigate economic slowdowns over this year

a one time "rebate check", while it may provide atemporary boost to many working american families struggling with the current downturn, is not going to provide the type of sustained income growth nessary to restore consumer confidence......spoken by senator ron paul..i am against the resolution that states...That the economic-stimulus act of 2008 will sucessfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year... the stimulus act will only add on to US deficits... the congressional budget office." options for respondding to short term economic weaknes" jan 2008 stated that.....poorly timed policies may do harm by aggravating infltioanry pressures and needlesly increasing federal debt and if they stimulate the economy after it has already started to recover..........................yeah beat that.....its all i got up to now so sorry...
That the economic-stimulus act of 2008 will sucessfully mitigate economic slowdowns over this year

Regardless of how many of the products are made in the U.S., the money still benefits the U.S. economy. Not all of the revenue goes to foreign producers, it is still needed for employees' salaries in the U.S., and even foreign companies have plants in the U.S. Speaking of which, the Act also provides incentives for small businesses in the U.S. According to the IRS, "These incentives include a special 50-percent depreciation allowance for 2008 purchases and an increase in the small business expensing limitation for tax years beginning in 2008." So the Act is putting money back into the economy, even if the rebates are spent on foreign products. Yeah you should win since i just forfeited like 2 rounds.... sorry :)
The death penalty should not be used.

The death penalty is a waste of a valuable resource. Many laws in western civilisation is based on the Bible and Christian teaching. It is no wonder then that one of the most popular justifications for the death penalty is the "eye for an eye" mentality. I could go down the "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" route but I see a different approach. The killing of anybody who commits a crime such as murder is a way for some to get retribution and to give closure to the friends and family of the victims, is short sighted and shows a flaw in character. Not only does it show an inability to even attempt forgiveness but an inability also to see the larger picture. What would you prefer, a quick death, or a lifetime in prison, where you have to live with yourself and face what you have done? A lifetime by oneself is enough to break anyone and to make them truly repent. "An eye for an eye"? The family and friends of any victims must be strong and wait for the retribution. It will be larger closure in the long term and can lead to forgiving. You may be asking yourself now about the financial side of this. Sure it may be better for the victims, but what about the tax payer? Is it not cheaper to just kill the criminal rather than feed and house them? If the prison system was left as it is then yes you are correct, it would be cheaper to kill them. However these damned criminals are an untapped resource, waiting to be used. How many man hours of work are wasted and put to death each year. If correctly and justly carried out, prisoners could pay for themselves several times over in labour and help the society they have harmed. Imagine, a killer could be in a secure factory making clothes, manufacturing products, growing food or even making wheelchairs, for barely anything. You could have the kind of workforce you have in the east on home soil. This does not just provide a way of punishing criminals, it gets work done and also provides a deterrent for all. I know I would not want to work for the next 30 years of my life in a factory. My final point I would like to raise is one of the problems with the death penalty at the moment. The legal system at the moment as a whole works reasonably well at sorting the criminals from the innocent. However no matter what there will always be some who are falsely convicted. People cannot be simply freed after the death penalty, an evidence can often come forth years after any trial. You can see the trouble. I would definitely not want to be the one to put an innocent man to death. That is why I believe the death penalty to be wrong.
The death penalty should not be used.

Lets not waste time and begin: o Burden of proof The death penalty has been practiced for thousands of years ; my opponent as the instigator has the burden of proof. o My opponents arguments -" Many laws in western civilisation is based on the Bible and Christian teaching" You have the burden of proof. -"What would you prefer, a quick death, or a lifetime in prison, where you have to live with yourself and face what you have done?" Depends on the person and the prison. -Forgiveness To this I say - justice. -Prisoners having a job I am afraid prisoners do not have a job. They may have a job in the future or in your world but not at the moment. Personally I strongly support this idea but it is not practiced. -"I would definitely not want to be the one to put an innocent man to death." Nor would I, but I doubt that someone who has been so unlucky that he is wrongly accused of a crime deserving capital punishment would have any chance of being proven innocent. o My Arguments -Morality Eye for an eye. It is not that I hate or have blood-lust. I simply advocate a civil society, where we can live in peace without being picked off like ducks during "Open Season". After the convict dies - a very humane death, by the way - he will never again be able to harm another person. Not another inmate, not a prison guard, not an innocent child . . . and no one in my family. -Mercy If I had no mercy in my heart, I would want each killer to die in the manner they took a life. That would be true justice. But it would not be merciful. -Final words You want to end capital punishment; show me a better, more humane and just way to deal with the criminals, and still ensure the safety of society and I'll support it wholeheartedly. Until then I will continue to live in the current realities of the world, and not by the assumption that others given the right education, opportunities, and motivation will deem my life as precious as their own.
Christopher Columbus discovered America

No, you sir are incorrect. A quick search on the definition of "Discover" brings up the following: "to see, get knowledge of, learn of, find, or find out; gain sight or knowledge" None of that mentions a requisite of being the first to find something. Discovering does not necessitate being the first (See above). Hence, Columbus did indeed "...get knowledge of, learn of, find,.." America, and hence discovered it.
Christopher Columbus discovered America

I argue that Columbus, though he was not the FIRST to discover America, did indeed discover it. It is widely accepted that Columbus did indeed travel to America in 1492, and set foot on the New World, etc. It is similarly widely accepted that various Vikings from Scandinavia ventured to the New World well before Columbus did, possibly as early as the 900's. Further evidence may suggest that the Chineese discovered the new world at some other time. Hence, you say, how can Columbus have discovered America? Because although with hindsight we know he was not the first to find it, in his time and world he was. Prior to his voyage, none or very very few of the Europeans in his society knew of America, and he brought this knowledge to them first. Even if the Vikings did discover America before him, they did not manage to widely distribute this knowledge, and the people of Columbus' time did not know of it. Hence, Columbus did not know of America and found it, so he discovered it. This is similar to two people inventing the same device independently- one may in fact invent his device a day before the other, but they still both invented it, since they both went through the process and work and made the device independent of the other.
Palestine is the victim where Israel are the aggressors

I don't know how serious my opponent wants to debate this so I'll just put up some points and say this.The world does not revolve around absolutes. The actions of the Palestinians are just as bad as the Israeli government. In 1947 when Israel was first formed under a UN mandate did the Palestinians accept the new nation and followed suit to create Palestine? Nope, instead the Arab league tried to destroy the new nation, but got beaten handily time and time again. Did the Palestinians attempt for dialogue before 1967? They didn't of course since they were a part of Jordan and Egypt at the time. During the Intifadas did the Palestinians fight equally on par against the Israeli soldiers? Nope, they used suicide tactics and killed civilian targets instead of military targets. So let me ask pro this, Do you believe in absolutes and want a serious debate or do you want a light hearted debate? I don't know the mood of this debate so answer this before I start some contentions.
colonization in space

Though I think it would be cool to colonize space there are a few problems that the US federal government would run into when colonizing space and since there's not really a timeframe established by my opponent I will assume that he means the Solar System around our Sun. Contention 1: Earth is OverpopulatedHere's a fun fact of the day! If the entire world population had the same amount of living space as New York City then they would fit into Texas! (http://www.omgfacts.com...) See this means that we aren't overpopulated it just shows that us as humans are just really just spread out. In an article by Time we can see that the world's population is actually decreasing not increasing. (http://newsfeed.time.com...) Doesn't look like you believe me. Many nations that have high female financial independence look at Europe. Thier childbirth rates are actually lower than the death rates! The US has actually reached it's lowest all time as the US birth rates are falling. US birth rates are down 8%, foreign births are down 14%, and Mexican birth rates are down by more than 23%! (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) So it looks like the Earth is not overpopulated. Contention 2: US colonization of Celestial Objects (Mars, Moon, etc...) is forbidden!My opponent brings up the US is the leader of the UN, but here's something funny. In 1967, the UN, including the US, signed the Outer Space Treaty. This treaty forbids another nation claiming a celestrial body for sovernty. What is a celestrial body you may ask. (http://www.unoosa.org...) It is actually a planet, star, planetoid, astriod, and planet http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) The current resolution is that the US should colonize Mars. Which means Mars will be claimed by the US violating this treaty signed by the US, USSR (now includes all of the states of the former nation), and the UK, so the US cannot, by law, colonize Mars.Contention 3: Mars and Moon would cause nothing but problems.There is many things that Mars would cause to us here are some important things: loss of conscienceness due to little ammounts of Oxygen, Extreme weather changes, because Mars is far from the sun and has little atmosphere, tissue exspansion due to low preasure, but you think a space suit can help you? You're wrong because the space suit you are wearing would be ripped to shredds by micrometeriods moving at fast speads. So even if you make it you can freeze or burn to death, inpload, or die from suffication. (http://science.howstuffworks.com...) Contention 4: Getting there.In my opponent's arguement he fails to bring up how will we get there. It seems like the most viable option would be the Orion shuttle which is powered by nuclear pulpulsion according to NASA. (http://www.nasa.gov...) The bad thing about using this ship is that it is also illegal, this is also according to the outer space treaty. Which many nations have rattified and/or signed here is proof. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Atheists are wrong. God is real

Every breath that flows in the nose, Every beat that throbs in the heart, Every artery that pulsates in the body, Every thought that arises in the mind, Speaks to you that God is near. Every flower that wafts fragrance, Every fruit that attracts you, Every gentle breeze that blows, Every river that smoothly flows, Speaks of God and His mercy. The vast ocean with its powerful waves, The Mighty Himalayas with its glaciers, The bright Sun and stars in the wide sky, The lofty tree with its branches, The cool springs in the hills and dales, Tell me of His omnipotence. The melody of sweet music, The oration of powerful orators, The poems of reputed poets, The inventions of able scientists, The operations of dexterous surgeons, The utterances of holy saints, The thoughts of the Bhagavad Gita, The revelations of the Upanishads, Speak of God and His wisdom. II Atheist want proofs for the existence of God. Can they give proof for the non-existence of God? No one has succeeded in showing proofs that God does not exist. Even many educated men now say boldly that there is no God, that everything in this world goes on and evolves according to definite laws. Can law arise by itself? Can any law come out of nothing? Surely there must be an ultimate cause. That is God. That is the supreme Brahman or the Absolute. God is self-existent Being. He is infinitely powerful, wise and good. The notion of God means an absolutely perfect being. An absolutely perfect being must have all the positive attributes, including the attributes of existence. So God must exist. The existence of God cannot be proved by scientific experimentation. It is purely a question of faith and refers to the intuitive side of man. The deepest craving, the deepest aspiration in man is for eternal happiness, eternal knowledge and eternal Truth. Man should search for some supernatural entity which can satisfy his deepest cravings and aspirations. As we explain everything within Nature by the law of cause and effect, so also Nature as a whole must be explained. It must have some cause. This cause must be different from the effect. It must be some supernatural entity, i.e., God. Nature is not a mere chance collection of events, a mere jumble of accidents, but an orderly affair. The planets move regularly in their orbits, seeds grow into trees regularly, the seasons succeed each other in order. Now Nature cannot order itself. It requires the existence of an intelligent being, i.e., God, who is responsible for it. Even Einstein, the great scientist, was strongly convinced of the creation of the universe by a Supreme Intelligence. Everything in Nature has some purpose. It fulfils some function or other. Certainly every object by itself cannot choose a function for itself. Their different functions ought to have been planned or designated by a single intelligent Being or God.