BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
abortion

Yes the government has the obligation to protect the rights of people, in general. Women have a right to decide whether and when to become a parent. But not abortion, it's an ending life that should be illegal. If your not ready to have a child and you get pregnant abortion isn't an answer. Getting an abortion is periodically wrong and no women should even think of it. Even if they have to carry the baby for 9 months. As I stated before abortion is a big deal, it can cause serious psychological impairment to the woman in the form of depression an guilt. And the mothers life in danger doesn't always have to have a reason to have an abortion she might just have a miscarriage in the early period which could lead to having an abortion but that didn't mean she wanted that to happen, things can go right and wrong. Choosing adoption as an alternative to abortion would give the baby it's right to live. When the fetus is aborted it is skilled it has the same status as with respect to what is important. The most important argument against abortion would be- can we choose to kill unwanted pregnancies? Should a person be so irresponsible to land up in a situation where they have to be merciless to the unborn? P1:: It is always wrong to kill an innocent person. P2: the fetus is an innocent person. P3:: Abortion kills fetuses. ::< therefore abortion is morally wrong. *the fetus is a person because there is no way to determine that it is not a person.
abortion

You staid it yourself the government has an obligation to protect the rights of its individuals but what difines a right. Is it the opportunity to make our own decision regarding what we want to do or is it when someone tells us what we can do and why it is the right thing to do.women should be allowed to decide wether to abort or not because at the end of the day they are the one who need to handle 9 months of pregnancy. If a women was not ready for the commitment yeah she should have tought about what she was doing but that does not me that she lost the ability to decided what to do with her pregnancy I do think their is a time when it should be consider inhumane but if the fetus haven't fully developed i think that theirs not a big deal regarding wether a women decided to abort her child or not.
abortion

I understand that women have fought for their freedom but in this case abortion should not be illegal, taken a life of a child isn't right. Yea woman should be allowed to make decisions regarding their body but not for abortion,they should watch how they dress and who they go to bed with as I said before use a condom if you don't want to get pregnant , safety first. Abortion is a big deal it's not something that happens and then you forget about it, you'll always have it in your mind even if your not thinking of it. Either way society would be a judge, even if it's by a stranger or a love one you'll get question at first but you'll always be judged whether you believe it was right, you can't stop society, people do what they want even if it doesn't require them. . Ok but thats a different story though, if the mothers life is in danger, it doesn't mean she is giving up on the baby and giving an abortion it means she has been hurt and it could effect the baby. In this case it a choice of matter it's either her life or the child's , as a women many mothers would rather give up their life for the need of their child and points it's not up to them to the hands of the doctors who is operating them, they see who can easily survive and that's who they safe. Sometimes everything goes right and sometimes it's doesn't there are chances both can live and there are chance either can die but they do everything they can to have them both alive. Yea everyone is able to make their own decisions but having an abortion can sacred their life pretty bad, sometimes we make the wrong decisions in life, and then face the consequences. P1:: the government has an obligation to protect the rights of its people. P2:: Abortion is a form of murder the government must prohibit abortion. > :- therefore abortion should be prohibited because it's a form of murder.
abortion

I understand that the common answer to this issue is " Why was it she didn't use a condom". Women have been fighting for equal rights since 1848. the situation is really confusing but women have been fighting for rights that would grant them opportunity to show their independence for such a long time. I believe that a women should be allowed to make any decision regarding their body. if they feel that what they did was a mistake society should not be a judge in a case that's base on a persons own body. what if the mothers life is in danger?, is it more convenient to give birth even though the life of the mother is in danger and just because abortion is considered immoral. everyone is able to make their own decision. why should their body be a limit. P1: women have been fighting for equal rights since 1848. P2: Everyone is able to make their own decision Therefore women should be able to make the decision to whether keep a baby or abort
abortion

I understand what you are saying but if a woman in different cases didn't want a child why didn't she use a condom I get the rape situation is different but if she does get the abortion who knows if she will get pregnant again. Answering your questions should a women be forced to produce a life? It has nothing to do with abortion, unless she is already pregnant then yea she should be forced to produce a life giving birth is a miracle just because she may not want the baby doesn't mean she can not give the baby up for adoption, because unlike her there are people in the world who may or trying to have a child but can't she is really lucky in many cases she shouldn't kill the baby. You stated giving life to an unwanted child might invite world of troubles for the mom and the child, so are we being fair to the child? We'll ask your self this is it fair for the child not to be born how would you feel if one day you found out your mother didn't want to have you how would you react to it. There wouldn't be any troubles if the mother doesn't want nothing to do with child she should just give it up for adoption killing a life is like killing a part of you. It isn't right. P1: The child is not unwanted if it's giving to a family that wants to adopt a child the otherwise could not be able to have one. P2: Picking and choosing who can live is essentially murder and if murder is illegal than abortion should also be. >:- therefore abortion should be illegal .
abortion

Sometimes life can be really harsh on us. There are times when abortion may appear as the only option for the betterment. Although a mother may have a hard time opting for this option, she may eventually consider this soul-killing decision, keeping in mind all the pros and cons of this decision. A women should be allowed to make the decision of choosing abortion or not. i f a women is raped and becomes pregnant she should not be forced to keep a baby that would become the embodiment of a tragic event. Now many people argue that abortion is killing a young life. but how is it killing if its done before the first trimester when the fetus itself is not fully developed. Should a woman be forced to produce a life? Giving life to an unwanted child might invite world of troubles for both mother and the child. So, are we being fair to the child?".
Does the Christian God exist

1. I did not give up on anything. I merely limited my argument to disproving your claim that the bible is trustworthy. You attempt to prove that the bible id "a viable place of information" based on the fact that some of it is true. I agree that some claims from the bible have been verified. Egypt, the Roman Empire, a lot of the cities and towns have been attested by numerous other sources. Influential people, like emperors and other leaders are historical figures. These things are not that difficult to believe as they are correlated with other things that we assume about that period.And here is the key: the more information we can find about particular people, places or events, the more likely it is that we are discovering true facts about them. However, extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence that there was anything godly about Jesus. There is no other evidence about his miracles besides what we know from the bible. The bible stands on its own for these claims so they may easily be just fantasy tales.The fact that part of a book is true does not validate the whole book. There is a novel called "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter". The fact that Abraham Lincoln existed does not prove that the rest of the book " is a viable place of information".2. Agnosticism does not mean that no claim can be true. My view is that you can never prove the existence of a metaphysical god because you cannot produce any evidence. In simple terms: you cannot prove that miracles are miracles. They may be perfectly explicable natural events that we don't fully understand. You can't show the god's involvement in these miracles.3. A lot of version disagree about particular things. And even if they say that "God is the one true God" they're still just books. I mean, the Coran probably says the same thing about Allah. If it's written, doesn't mean it's true.4. You think you've witnessed a miracle. Deaf people can speak, some of them speak clearly. If you're an eye witness does not mean that you understand. Also, the fact that you state it does not mean that you're saying the truth. I can tell you that I've seen an alien. It was running in my back yard and it was green. Do you believe me? You need to back up your claims about miracles and aliens if we want people to believe. Otherwise we're just telling some stories that do not prove anything. Also I might be wrong about the alien: maybe it was a green bag drifting in the wind.
Does the Christian God exist

1. CON JUST GAVE UP!!! He just said that most of the stories in the bible can't be verified as in that there is no evidence of it but if most of of it can't be verified them the rest can be verified and if there is proof of those then it verifies the rest and that proves that the bible is a viable place of information 2. Your basis of agnosticism is that all claims can't be true but how do you know your claim is true and your argument is true how do you know 3. Yes there are many versions of the bible right now but they all say the same thing that God is the one true God 4. We can because I have witnessed a miracle myself a deaf man spoke clearly so I am an eye witness and I understand what happened
Does the Christian God exist

Wow! I was preparing some strong rebuttals, but it looks like I have to limit my arguments somehow.Pro has evoked some stories from the bible. That's it. He consideres those stories as evidence for the existence of the Christian God.1. ARGUMENT AGAINST ACCURACY: There exists no such definitive thing as THE BIBLE. What stands for THE BIBLE is in fact a number of translations and adaptations from some ancient texts. There are numerous verions of THE BIBLE in use right now. All of these are translations of previous texts which in turn were translations of older texts. With every translation, the stories have been changed either due to the ignorance of the translator of intentionally to fit some purpose. It is not certain how much from what we read now in our bibles was actually written in the initial version.2. ARGUMENT AGAINST VERIDICITY: Even if we were to find the actual original texts of the bible, there is no reason to think that the depicted stories actually happened. Maybe the writers just missunderstood the events that they were recording. If I write a book now that the illusionist David Blaine can levitate, it doesn't prove that he truly does levitate. Even if I am an eye witness, this still doesn't mean that he actually levitates, but merely that I have seen something that I cannot understand. Almost all other ancient religoius books such those about the Olympian gods have been discarded as myths.The bible is just a collection of stories. It cannot be used as evidence because most of its contents cannot be verified.
Does the Christian God exist

God had his only son Jesus and the bible says that he would preform miracles and then be rejected and put on a cross and died. Wasn't dying on a cross a form of execution in the roman times. Plus Pilate was there and wasn't he a roman governor of the Provence of Judaea. When Jesus was born a star appeared but not just any other star the brightest star that anyone had ever seen.when the wise men saw it the said that a new king was coming so they packed all their gifts and set off to Jerusalem and asked king Herod if he knew where the king baby was to be born we saw his star to the east and have come to worship him and Herod was mad but he sad to the wise men that he also wanted to worship Jesus but in secret he wanted to kill him. This is my argument I look forward to your disproving of this evedence
Does the Christian God exist

I always enjoy this kind of debates.Since the Instigator is Pro, I assume he takes the Burdain of Proof.I will show that any arguments for the existence of the Christian God are irrelevant and that there is no reason to believe this god exists. My reasoning is founded in agnosticism. If the Christian God exists, there is no evidence for it and no way to prove it.So bring on the arguments, Pro.
Bush was an idiot

You're an awesome person! Ok let's do this. :) I think Bush was an idiot because his whole presidency was Recession, War, Torture, and even more War. Bush didn't really want to be president in the first place, but so many people were behind him, that he said "Hey, what the hell, I'll just run for president." Most people recognize him for his War on terror, because after 9/11, most people say he really took charge. I beg to differ. He started TWO wars after 9/11, one on Afghanistan, (because that was where bin Laden was hiding) and one in Iraq because we assumed that they had weapons of mass destruction. Originally, Bush went to the UN, and told them that he suspected Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, (even though many people believe he just held a grudge against Iraq because he blamed them for 9/11, even though they had nothing to do with it, because Al-Qaeda is a rebel group) and they told him that they were going to be sending a couple of inspectors to look over Iraq and try to find those weapons of mass destruction, and Bush, being Bush, was like "But we're America!" And he charged right on in there. Needless to say, there were no weapons of mass destruction, and he wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, which is part of the reason why we are in SO MUCH DEBT! His administration encouraged new torture techniques, like strapping prisoners down, keeping them from breathing, and slowly forcing water into their lungs. There were also classics, such as intimidating people with dogs, slamming their heads into walls, and depriving people of sleep and darkness. Most of these torture tactics were ILLEGAL. He launched us into the Great Recession, people lost millions of jobs, and the world was just a sad place. The Great Recession wasn't helped by the fact that he put in place a BAJILLION *bajillion is not a real number, but I use it to express my anger* tax cuts, most of which favoured the wealthy, So, recap, Recession, War, Torture, and Even more war. Nice job Bush.
Bush was an idiot

I think that George W. Bush was an idiot, and a failure as a president. The first round is acceptance only. Definition of idiot:Informal. an utterly foolish or senseless person. You could also use Moron:Informal. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment. Oh, and I'm also going to be arguing that he was a warmonger, so Warmonger:war"mon"ger [wawr-muhng-ger, -mong-] Show IPA noun a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.
Bronies are harmful to society.

There are things that I want you to state. 1)Our rules and regulation 2)Make the subject clearer,There are many meanings of bronies.Is this what you mean? Brony is an Internet slang term that is used to describe a teenage or adult male fan of the TV cartoon series My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (MLP:FiM). Though initially seen as a cult phenomenon outside of the show"s traditional demographic of young girls, the Bronies have since grown into a widely recognized fandom subculture and continued to retain their presence and influence on Internet culture and its hub sites. source:http://knowyourmeme.com... Since things are complicated.I'm giving you the opportunity to start this debate,Please clarify what must be.I'm looking forward for a good debate with you. :)
Bronies are harmful to society.

My opponent didn't understand what I meant,You don't do that to me! :D No your wrong deviance exist.Actually it is what makes us discipline ourselves,we learn it from the people around us.Deviance helps us know what it is not acceptable in society.Like I said upon round 2 it can be proportioned to evil,without evil we won't know what good things are.I hope you get me :D Informal logic(explanation):You've posted this argument because some people think that bronies are deviant to society,and you want to argue because you don't accept that.People won't say that bronies are deviant if they haven't seen one as deviant.Since others are saying that they affect society,bronies are harmful to society. You said:I am arguing the fact that there is nothing wrong with bronies (The MLP:FIM loving bros ) and the argument on the side that you have chosen is that they are harmful to society, culture, what have you, in that they have done something wrong and explain why that thing is wrong. You have to prove that all bronies are doing doesn't harm society,you said it,when your sentence is translated that's the outcome because of the word "fact" and "nothing wrong.And mine is that are they harmful? My part to be done is only to prove that bronies are still affecting society in a harmful manner,that's my part as a con. I'm neutral they harm and they don't,there are some things that they help us and there are things that made them harmful. Again I've done my part because they are harmful in some ways. Hi to bronies out there.I respect all of you. Let us do what we enjoy not by adjusting ourselves to do what we don't want. let each man exercise the art he knows ~Aristophanes Again thank you for this debate Mr.Dirky
Bronies are harmful to society.

When I refer to bronies being harmful to society, I am only talking about that one deviant act. Deviance, you said, was about social norm, the social norm in America is complex and impossible to master. There is no REAL social norm, literally. No one person could be put on what is defined as social norm, if they can, what is to define it? Where is the line in the sand that separates one who is of the norm to one who is not of the norm? 70% harmless? This, I assume, is neglecting that "normal" people are the same in many ways. This debate is about how the liking of MLP:FIM affects society in a declined slope. I want to know exactly how the liking of the show would have any effect on anyone in society, as in, if you took one brony and then 5 people "of the norm" and put them in a room, how would it impact the other 5? Leaving with this, as it is the last round of the debate, in reality, anything can be deviant, as my opponent stated previously: "Deviance, in a sociological context, describes actions or behaviors that violate social norm." Also he/she stated: "Lastly,Deviance makes you know what is right." Right? So I am to believe that society at large is right? With homicide, suicide, theft, sexual assault, general assault, and endless other crimes? With endless people in hypocrisy, because they themselves, possibly unknowing, are completely deviant to the same definition that the apply to the word? Nay, sir, good day.
Flamingos are better at performing ballet than crocodiles

Flamingos are certainly far better at ballet than crocodiles. ================================================== Definitions: ballet: a classical dance form demanding grace and precision and employing formalized steps and gestures set in intricate, flowing patterns to create expression through movement. flamingo: any of several aquatic birds of the family Phoenicopteridae, having very long legs and neck, webbed feet, a bill bent downward at the tip, and pinkish to scarlet plumage. crocodile: any of several crocodilians of the genus Crocodylus, found in sluggish waters and swamps of the tropics. better: of superior quality or excellence ================================================== Argument 1: A flamingo has a build more capable of graceful movements then a reptile who mostly lays horizontally. Look at the difference: http://www.abolitionist.com... compared to http://www.krittercards.com... ================================================== Argument 2: Crocodiles weigh more than flamingo. Here are the average weights of each fourteen living species of crocodile: American Crocodile: approx. 840 lbs. male, 380 lbs. female. Some found over 2,000 lbs. Slender Snouted Crocodile: (rare species; weight has not been recorded) Orinoco Crocodile: approx. 837 lbs. male, 440 lbs. female Freshwater Crocodile: approx. 20-80 lbs. each sex Philippine Crocodile: (incredibly rare; weight not recorded) Morelet's crocodile: (unknown) Nile Crocodile: approx. 1,000-2,000 lbs., can be more New Guinea Crocodile: approx. 200 lbs. to 300 lbs. Mugger Crocodile: approx. 1,000 lbs. Estuarine Crocodile: 1,300 lbs. to 2,200 lbs. Cuban Crocodile: (not recorded) Siamese Crocodile: (not recorded) Dwarf Crocodile: approx. 40-70 lbs. False Gharial crocodile: (not recorded) Here are the weights of the six species of flamingos: Greater Flamingo: approx. 4.4-8.8 lbs. Lesser Flamingo: approx. 4.5 lbs. Chilean Flamingo: not recorded James's Flamingo: not recorded Andean Flamingo: not recorded American Flamingo: 4.9- 6.2 lbs. It is quite obvious that a flamingo weighs far less than a crocodile, therefore able to perform ballet better than a crocodile. ================================================== Argument 3: Ballet outfits often come and are well-known to be the color pink. A flamingo eats brine-shrimp which turns their pigment on their feathers a vibrant pink instead of their Mal-nourished gray color. Crocodile scales are never pink, so a flamingo suits the part more than a crocodile. ================================================== Argument 4: Long legs are good to have in ballet, because they better your balance. Flamingos have long legs but most crocodiles have stubby, short ones. A crocodile (who normally does not stand upright anyway), would not be able to keep their balance with stubs as legs. ================================================== Argument 5: Flamingos have a habit of constantly standing on one leg, an act almost always performed in ballet. ================================================== I'll put some more on later. Good luck! ~SOURCES~ www.dictionary.com www.wikipedia.com