BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Abortion Only Acceptable Under Extreme Circumstances (For Example Severe Birth Defects)

Con Is Putting Words In My Mouth. To Summarize My Opening Argument A Fetus's Right To Life Is Absolute Except In Cases Where The Fetus Is Likely To Die Anyway, The Mother's Life Is In Danger Or In Cases Of Rape. A Fetus's Right To Live Triumphs A Woman's Right To Be In Control Of Her Body Because It Is Partially Her Fault That She Is Pregnant. This Is Not True In Cases Of Rape As It Is Not Her Fault That She Is Pregnant And She Can Do What She Wishes. Con Argues That The Mothers Choice Is More Important Than The Fetus's Life Because The Fetus Can Live Independently. So Should People On Life Support Be Regarded As Sub-Human? No, Because They Are Still People. They Same Should Be True For A Fetus. Con Says That Denying Abortion ( Even When The Child Is Put Up For Adoption) Is Forcing A Process That She Might Not Want On Her. It Shouldn't Matter What She Wants, She And The Father Signed Up To Be Biological Parents When They Had Unprotected Sex ( I Say This Biological Because They Don't Necessarily Have To Keep The Baby). Yes They Consequences Of Pregnancy Fall Only On Women Because That's How Human Anatomy Works, Making That Argument Makes No Sense. The Truth Is The End Result Of Pregnancy And Therefor The Only Result That Matter Is That A Man And A Woman Have A Child That Shares Their DNA.
Is Abortion Only Acceptable Under Extreme Circumstances (For Example Severe Birth Defects)

Since Pro tells us abortion is okay in some situations, it means the fetus' right to life is not absolute. The mother's right to bodily autonomy is greater than the fetus' right to life, because the mother can live autonomously on her own and a fetus cannot. A fetus relies on another person to live, and we cannot make demands of another person's body through force. That is why slavery and forced labor and sex are not legal. Yes, contraception can help prevent pregnancy but it is not absolute. A woman's choice overrides the effects her choice will have on others, because most choices people make affect others and yet we are still free to make them. Adoption still forces a woman to be pregnant for almost 10 months which is enough time to throw her life off course. It still controls her body against her will and forces a process upon her that she might not want. Sex is a mutual decision but the consequence of pregnancy falls only upon the woman, which is why the choice falls upon her as well.
Guns are not the problem

Your sources must be horrible because only 15,450 people die from ladders in the US and more than 30,000 die from guns. If you want an example to prove my point, Australia banned guns completely and what ended up happening is homicide rates went down by 59%, suicides went down by 65% and the amount of home invasions did not increase either, which is one fear of the NRA and other people and gun owners have. The people even liked the law and its effects, making the public support for them 90% as an approval rating. Guns do have a correlation with shootings, suicides and homicides, banning guns does solve the problem, thanks to evidence from Australia, and one more thing, every time a gun is used in self defense, there are 11 completed or attempted suicides, 7 criminal assaults or homicides by them, and 4 in an unintentional shooting that kills and injures someone. Guns are the problem. Unless you are blind, you can see that. You mentioned earlier that you have a daughter. A woman's chance of being murdered in a domestic dispute increases by 500% with guns around. Medical costs in the United States cost $2.3 billion and costing taxpayers $1.1 billion for guns. There is also $1.4 billion spent on Medicaid and medical care from taxpayers It isn't just effecting the whole population, it's wasting taxpayer money on things that could be gone. In most states, a background check is not needed, making the whole population, including drug dealers, rapists, murderers, many criminals, human traffickers, and more the ability to carry a gun. There is no need to protect ourselves from guns either, as there is no real threat from other nations that even gives us the right to own them. They don't protect the people, waste tax money that could be spent on other benevolent things, lead to higher homicide and suicide rates and getting rid of them solves the problem. I really don't know why we have not made the change sooner if we could stop this much bad from going on in the United States. If we want to aspire to be the greatest nation in the world, why not join the others. In Germany, to get a gun you have to be 25 and pass a psychiatric test, both are not required here. Another country, France, requires no criminal record, a test of mental health, physical health, and most of those we don't require them. There have been a lot of mass shootings from 1982 to 2012, and none of them were stopped by a gun. Guns do not solve problems, only make them worse, kill people, waste money, cause higher crime rates, allow women to be shot more, black men are 14 times more likely to die from guns, waste time, waste government funding, take too much time in political debates and overall are horrible. There is a lot of evidence that banning guns will solve the problems that our nation faces today. I'm glad I debated Coveny because he makes good arguments and is very respectable and unlike most, his views are backed up with claims. Good Debate. Make sure to vote for the winner! URL of Sources: http://heedinggodscall.org... https://www.cdc.gov... http://gun-control.procon.org... http://www.slate.com... http://www.cnn.com...
Guns are not the problem

You keep using one example from a couple of sources. One example does not prove your whole point. There are many other cases where people do die from guns. If you are denying that guns can actually kill people, there is a problem. Which do you think is more likely, a man killing someone with a gun or poison? And which do you think is more accessible? Which is the higher percentage of people dying, guns or liver cancer? Guns can kill people. It's simple. Get out of the bubble. It makes no sense that introducing the ability to kill people actually drops homicide rates. That's like saying if you give a psychopath a gun, he is actually less likely to commit homicide, because that makes total sense. Your evidence to back up your claims make no sense and don't even follow simple logic. Which do you think is more likely, more people dying from guns, or more people dying from falling off roller coasters. It makes simple sense. Giving a killer a knife or a gun increases the chance of homicide, NOT lowers it. By the way, your evidence is from one situation and is a true out liar in the actual data. Look again. You tell me, which one makes more sense? If I give a kid a candy bar, it's actually lower his chances to eat it, or if I give a kid a candy bar, it'll raise the chances of him eating the candy bar. Listen to logic. Can guns kill people? And if you say no, why does pulling a trigger kill someone? Why are their so many deaths from guns? Why shouldn't we keep them out of the hands of people who we don't know their intentions? Why should we give guns without a background check? To defend the people? There is barely any threat from other nations and war. To hunt? They might just be saying that so they can do whatever they want with the gun. To you, which is more important, a hunting trip, or a life?
Guns are not the problem

The answer to your question is yes they do have an impact on deaths per year. A positive one. There are less deaths, and violent crime because we have guns. (as shown by the CDC, FBI, and England) Now let me respond with a question back to you. Do vehicles have an impact on the amount of deaths a year? Because they kill 33,736 people a year, or 93 people every day. https://www.cdc.gov... Now to Injuries, it’s not double, it’s in the millions. So cars are of a problem than guns? No you don’t think that do you, but they are the LEADING cause of injury in the US. https://www.cdc.gov... I always find it weird when people use suicides to try and prove that guns are bad. Like somehow if guns didn’t exist everyone would be too stupid to know how to kill themselves. Or do a google search on how to kill yourself without using a gun. If a person wants to die, they will kill themselves unless they get help, removing access to guns does nothing but change the method, the only real cure to suicide has nothing to do with guns, so guns are a moot point. As far as children are concerned, I’ve seen irresponsible parents my whole life. Some of them have guns, so of them don’t. http://whatstheharm.net... Now you quote “25 times more homicides in our country compared to other developed nations”. The only way you get that number is to cherry pick the data, and using the best data on the subject you can find. Look at a few different sources that cover other countries and you’ll see we are really. (spoiler alert it's not any where near 25 times any of the other countries, and it's better than other "developed countries" like Brazil, Russia, and various countries in Africa) http://data.worldbank.org... https://www.unodc.org... Guns aren’t even in the top ten killers in the us. Heart disease currently holds the title but it flip flops with cancer. Do you even know what nephritis is? Because it kills four times as many people as homicides. https://www.cdc.gov... I hope the statistics will change your mind. As more guns enter the country the homicide rates, rape rates, and robbery rates all decline. As clearly indicated from the CDC and FBI. I could argue that gun ownership rates are not correct for the US or other nations. There are many problems with the way they calculate it, but I will say that like puppy’s owners rarely get just one, and all they do is take the total number and divide it by the population. Another issue is countries were military, police, etc get to keep guns in the house. These don’t count however because they don’t “own” the gun so it doesn’t county.
Guns are not the problem

You answer this one question, do guns have an impact on the amount of deaths a year? The answer is yes. On average, 93 Americans die of guns everyday. There are also on average 12,000 gun homicides in the United States and for every one person killed with a gun in the world, there are two that are also injured because of guns. Guns also lead to more suicides as 62% of the suicides in the United States use guns. Our children are also affected as seven children and teens are shot everyday here in the United States with guns. In one year, 17,383 American children and teens will die by shooting, homicide, suicide and other ways with guns. Also, 50 women are shot by their partners and all of this accounts 25 times more homicides in our country compared to other developed nations. For every one person killed by a gun in Canada, the second highest homicide rate in developed countries, 7.22 people die here in the United States. Look at the data. More people die from guns than stomach cancer and serious liver cancer combined. You may also say that Americans need guns for protection, but only about 3.4% of shootings have claims that guns were used in self defense. With the United States having one of the highest gun ownership rates (as 238 million guns are owned by Americans) and they lead to higher suicides, homicides, more women being killed, more children being killed, one of the worst rates of shootings and people using guns in the wrong way, I hope that these statistics will change your mind. By the way, look at the broader picture, not just three statistics that say that guns are not the problem. Look again. Why would we have one of the highest gun murder rates and the highest gun owner ship rates? It clearly correlates. There is no other evidence that you can bring to the table that shows that America's gun ownership rates and homicide rates clearly are caused by each other. If America wants to be a world power, let's show them some class. NOT with guns. You may prove me wrong, but math does not lie. URL of Sources: https://everytownresearch.org... http://globalnews.ca... http://heedinggodscall.org... http://www.bradycampaign.org... http://www.gunviolencearchive.org... http://www.cbsnews.com...
Guns are not the problem

Did you miss the part where 2.6 million people die every year, and the best you have is 117 thousand from an article in 2008 (almost 10 years ago), that’s a fifth, oh wait you included anyone shot, not just the people who died? Let’s look at people who actually die this year to guns. CDC has it at 33,599. https://www.cdc.gov... So 33,599 divided by 2.6 million is 1.29 percent of the people who died. But then that number isn’t really fair either because it covers self-defense, and suicide. If we look at just homicides the CDC says 10,945. https://www.cdc.gov... So 10,945 divided by 2.6 million is 0.42 percent of the people who died. It’s no longer even a full percentage point. Now let’s get into the fun facts about gun sales and violent crime rates. From 2004 to 2014 (the most recent the FBI has posted) they dropped, while gun sales increased. https://ucr.fbi.gov... https://www.fbi.gov... I’ll put it in a handy chart for you with the numbers at the bottom. http://i.imgur.com... Wanna know what happen to robbery and rape as more guns hit the streets? You guessed… it dropped. Here is another handy chart on that. http://i.imgur.com... Personally, I’m going to take the word of the CDC and the FBI’s most current number over your article that quotes sources from 1995. (that’s over 20 years ago) Also it should be noted this is the center for disease control and the FBI, the likelihood of bias is low. Now lets say we go the route you want to go, and we ban guns like England. Do you want to know what England is doing now? They are running a campaign to get rid of knives. I’m not even making this up. “Save a life, surrender your knife” is the slogan. http://countercurrentnews.com... It's all because England and Wales had 574 homicides in 2015. http://www.bbc.com... There are roughly 3 million people who live in England and Wales. https://www.google.com... So, let’s do some math. The US has 320 million people, but just to make the math easy I’m going to say we only have 300 million. (makes for better numbers for you, and you really need the help) That means nice round 100 times as many people in the US than in England and Wales. So 574 X 100 = 57,400 homicides if we compare apples to apples. The link above from the CDC for homicides listed the US as 15,809. That means in comparison the country which has banned guns (England and Wales) has roughly four times as many homicides as the country that just keeps increasing gun sales. (the US) So I will say again… guns are NOT the problem.
Guns are not the problem

I do respect your opinion, but, I find it hard to believe that guns are not the problem since 117,000 Americans are shot every year. Also, the probability of committing homicide with a gun in the house increases by 90% and the chances of being killed by homicide with a gun in the house goes up by 40% to 170%. Most states also don't even require background checks to allow someone to get a gun. When there are many shootings in the news and in our cities and guns in the house are clearly linked to more shootings and homicides, I find it hard to believe that guns are not the issue. You might argue that guns can also be used for hunting and other recreational purposes, but when someone is in danger because of a gun, should we really allow anyone to get a gun? This law was also passed when Americans had to protect themselves from war (the Revolutionary War against the United Kingdom) and was meant only for war and if a soldier was putting you in danger. Now, people don't even need guns because there are no enemies close to us that we have to worry about invading us and having soldiers right at our front step. Guns are not needed, clearly linked to more homicides and shootings, and are the problem. When the chances are increased of being killed by homicide by 40% to 170%, saying that guns are not the problem is wrong. There aren't even background checks needed in most states? Can we really just give a gun to terrorists and wrongdoers? URL of Sources: http://smartgunlaws.org... http://www.governing.com... https://www.nraila.org...
The Debate

The years in which the first Nobel peace prize was awarded is irrelevant. Hitler put in great efforts to stop the world war (as my contentions demonstrate). This is sufficient to meet the qualities that need to be met to win the prize. I've already addressed this issue. Hitler was against Jews but it is often exaggerated. People are bound to die in wars. It is not unlikely that deaths will occur. Did my opponent not read my contentions? They dismiss all of them saying excluding one. Hitler married a Jew [1]! Hitler allowed Jews to fight for him [2]. He didn't like them but that doesn't mean that all of their deaths were intentional. Furthermore, Hitler did not order every single individual death. He had advizers and other commanders that made some decisions for him. The BOP is on Pro and they have not produced a good enough argument. [1] http://bit.ly...;[2] http://bit.ly...;
The Debate

The Nobel Prize is given to- [1] According to his will, Alfred Nobel's enormous fortune was to be used to establish prizes to award those who had done their best to benefit mankind in the fields of physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and peace. The first Nobel Prizes were awarded in 1901, five years after Nobel's death.Hitler did not in any way make this world a better place.In fact, he committed a massive genocide of Jews and caused the death of money. He did not help humanity reach new heights or imporve in any possible way. [2] Born in Austria in 1889, Adolf Hitler rose to power in German politics as leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, also known as the Nazi Party. Hitler was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and served as dictator from 1934 to 1945. His policies precipitated World War II and the Holocaust. Hitler committed suicide with Evan Braun in bunker.My opponents only contention that many actually considered Hitler to be good.But really? Is that why GB fought with him? Is that why millions of people died in order to stop his actions.The genocide of Jews...Clearly, after all these, you can not say that he was good. If he did not help the world develop, he clearly does not deserve the nobel peace prize. Vote pro[1] http://www.nobelprize.org...[2] http://www.biography.com...
are gender roles sexy

have you ever seen naked and afraid, if so you would know how practical gender roles are. rebellion, now name some famous pieces of counter culture that was around in the 50s that were against gender roles. if i had a country i wouldn't force them to follow their gender , but socially ingrain it within them. no society wouldn't turn to s*it in my country because i believe roles stabilise society's into not having ugly big reds shouting and being rude and interpretive to men, now lets say it was 50s america would that happen,f*ck no .It empowers both genders to not tear each over apart and also we have been in gender roles since cavemen and that has worked because both genders were limited to what thier good for thats what i mean gender roles get the best out of people and their ability's.
are gender roles sexy

Gender roles are outdated and ridiculous. It is outrageous to say that gender roles benefit our society, when in actuality, they are nothing more than barriers for freedom among the population. The fact that they are "empowering" is a load of crap. If anything, gender roles are confining. Telling boys and girls what they can or cannot do based on gender only can lead to anxiety, depression, and even suicide. Those who may do better with the other gender's traditional roles may think they are wrong, and some our globe's most talented will feel useless. Gender roles, if fully enforced, would wreak havoc on society. Whenever people are forced to do something impractical, violence and rebellion follows. Everything comes to a screeching halt. How do you expect to tell people they were not born to do their life's work? Can you tell a stay-at-home dad and a working mom that their family is invalid? Times have changed, get used to it.
are gender roles sexy

I think gender roles benefit both men and women on the ground that they are empowering, and help keep societys stable and cool thats the obvious bit. Somehow bitches get offended when i tell them this truthful statement ,as expected they cant outargue me on this one. So can any of you bitches and hos prove me wrong with a compelling arguement if not go suck a dick, you will not defeat me wiht your delusions. no luck for you.
Questions for Christians

Hello, Please confirm these terms: (So far all 3 opponents contradicted them) -I believe in God -I am a Christian -I think everything the bible says is true -I believe in heaven and hell -I believe heaven is reached through salvation (meaning only believing Christians go to heaven and all believing Christians go to heaven) -I believe Christianity is moral. Now to the questions: 1) Is Anne Frank in hell? 2) How about other kids? If a Muslim boy dies at age 3, does he go to hell? 3) According to Christianity, hell is for non-Christians, and is supposed to be a very evil place, to make people suffer. It doesn't matter what they did. It doesn't matter what they believed, it doesn't matter who they really were. It's just like Hitler's death and concentration camps. Do you think it's moral to believe in a Nazi God ? 4) Do you have non-Christian friends or loved ones? If no, why? If yes, how can you believe in a religion that tells you these are evil people who will be going to hell? 5) Are earthquakes, tornadoes, accidents etc. are caused by God? And if yes, why are there earthquakes, tornadoes and accidents? 6) If God has a master plan, why bother praying? 7) If god told you to kill your son/daughter/mother, would you do it? 8) If god told you to kill me, would you do it? 9) If someone would have hurt you, would you hurt him or his newborn child? Because God, according to the bible, punished David's newborn son, because David slept with his mother while married to another man. (some claim he even raped her). 10) What is your #1 reason you believe in the Christian God? Good Luck!
Questions for Christians

After seeing the first two debates that user Atheist 73 has had regarding this topic, I was disgusted. Both users who debated her offered little to no real answers to her questions, and one was only a Christian because he figured it was "better than Buddhism". I issue this challenge so that I may provide real answers, from a person who has truly accepted Christ as his lord and savior and has done extensive research on Christian Apologetics and tough theology questions. Round 1 is for my challenge, and my opponents questions. Round 2 is for my answers to said questions, and my opponents rebuttals to the answers. Round 3 is for rebuttals. Round 4 is for conclusions.
Casey Anothony should be able to live her life like any normal person after her trial concluded.

You have provided no evidence that Casey Anthony can prove in a court room that she has been a victim of harassment. The free press or any individual can ask her questions even if it makes her uncomfortable provided that there is no law broken. As I have stated, it is my hope that everyone she comes into contact with her continues to ask her the questions. I seriously doubt that Casey Anthony would be able to prove harassment against any of the thousands of people that I hope continues to ask her questions. People should ask these questions. Dontee Stallworth was driven drunk and killed someone. His sentence does not fit the crime in my opinion, however no mysteries remain to me. If you or other people have unanswered questions regarding that incident, then you have the right to ask him those questions in the public domain. He has no inherit right to be left alone and neither does Casey Anthony.