BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The USA should be a confederation.

I will now rebut my opponents case. Rebuttal to Argument 1 Your main argument here seems to be that the states need to deunoinize in the face of a common enemy. This rather awkward concept is not rather realivent, because ISIS is not any threat to the U. S. Don't get me wrong, ISIS is serious, but not serious enough to require a change in government. This isn't the British, or the Nazis, or even the Vietnamese. This is a desert rebellion 9,000 miles away. Nothing the government has to consider a confederacy for. Also the biggest issue in your case is, again, you never give a reason why a confederacy would be beneficial to the U. S. Just because it worked for the Iroquios, and it worked for the Swiss, doesn't mean it will be beneficial to us. Feudal government worked well for mideval Japan and England, but that is not cause for a governmental shift. Your "they'll just have to get used to it" attitude is unessesary as the benefits of a confederacy have yet to be states. Rebuttal to Argument 2 The issue at hand is if a state could overrule the government in this change to a confederacy. If the State has more sovereignty, has more power than the actual national government. As long as that is a yes that will happen, has long as that's possible, the national government is illegitimate by its own incompetency. Rebuttal to Argument 3 We can't justify a change in government because the states will have slightly more breathing room. There is no real reason to change into a confederacy. Increased state rights, addresses of issues facing states, corruptionese are issues solvable under a federal system, a confederacy is an unneeded remedy to these problems. Its clunky and hard to work with, impossible to make the states do anything for the good of the country. A confederacy is not the answer for our issues. For these reasons and more, I stand in the firmest negation of the concept of the US becoming a confederacy. Thank you to everyone, TheBlueWizard
LEGALIZED ABORTION

how can anyone say today with the medical capabilities we have today that with pics and stuff we can take that abortion should be legal. -The BABY inside of that womb should atleast be givin a fair chance at life -it is completely unethical -the baby never did anything to hurt anyone -there is a long waiting list to adobt a baby so instead of aborting give it a chance and adobt it -women after abortion often have mental prob. -think about it as if your parents would have said that we werent ready for you so lets have an abortion. and you wouldnt be debating me right now -we are killing the worlds pos. next leader -parents faults why should baby pay
religion is non sense, science is religion

Pro said: "how do you know you are right about anything if you only have beliefs?"How do you know that "religion is non sense, science is religion" if you don't believe in anything? Saying that I am false because I believe in something is basically like trying to say you are right when you don't believe in anything. You don't have to believe in the something for it to be true, and you don't have to believe in the truth for the truth to be true. How do you know anything if you don't believe in what you know, as you apparantly have no beliefs?Religion isn't non-sense, as one can follow the principles of their own beliefs to help succeed and benifeit them in life (Well, they can also use it to destroy their life, but...pfft) I hope that we can all agree that I have won this debate, as Pro has failed to provide anything besides statements about everything but the debate topic.
religion is non sense, science is religion

Pro says: "again i am talking about religion"Really? I could've never guessed! Pro says: "i dont have beliefs"Then why are you in this debate if you don't believe in anything!? Do you not even believe in your own point? What?Pro says: "can be life is not life, because can be life can also not be life"If anyone can translate this for me, I would be gracious, because I have no clue what he's trying to prove. Pro says: "when i am alone, the true size of the human population is one"Pro, that's relative to your perspective, you're not accounting for everyone elses perspective in the same period of time as you. The universe doesn't revolve or flow around you. You're not the only variable. Pro says: "memories dosnt make sense, reason is non sense" Another statement, another invalid arguement. If a memory does not make any sense, then you either had forgotten about it or it is false. I remember playing chess yesterday, as that is what i did....that's not non-sense, that's recolition of a past event. Also....why am I refuting these statements? They have nothing to do with the debate!Pro says: "science is a religion because it relys on confirmation from machines, and i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it" You don't need machines for science! Machines don't believe in anything! In fact, they only preform a specific task, and that's it! They have no feelings, no emotions, no belief! You need a belief in order to create a relgion, not a process. Science isn't a belief as it is a process! You don't have to imagine it? What does that mean??Pro said: "do you think your senses are machines?" My senses are what my brain uses to interpret the surrounding enviorment. My ears are machines, but noise isn't. My tongue is a machine, but taste isn't. My hands are machines, but touching isn't. A computer runs scientific data to make a graph, but science isn't a machine! You can't worship science, you can't pray to it."Here is the fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the two: science searches for mechanisms and the answer to "how" the universe functions, with no appeal to higher purpose, without assuming the existence of such purpose. Religion seeks meaning and the answer to "why" the world is as we know it, based on the unquestioned assumption that such meaning and purpose exist. The two worldviews could not more incompatible." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)
religion is non sense, science is religion

again i am talking about religion i dont have beliefs how do you know they are not lying about believing you possibility is 2, reality is 1 can be life is not life, because can be life can also not be life when i am alone, the true size of the human population is one memories dosnt make sense, reason is non sense science is a religion because it relys on confirmation from machines, and i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it do you think your senses are machines?
religion is non sense, science is religion

im talking about religion, religion is non sense you dont know the text on your screen? :) religion=to rely on, while self is one belief is non sense, how do you prove to some one that you believe in them? im talking to the point where they know you are not lying religion=theism+atheism=belief+disbelief=love+hate do i make sense if i talk about love? its possible, but possibilities are false, and absolutes are true, its true that possibilites are false, as possibility has 2 sides, positive and negative for it to exist belief is doubt equations are either true or false, not about truth, past is impossible if you dont know wheather i just took a hard drug or not, is it then true that it is a fact? fact=knowledge=truth science is a religion because it relys on confirmation from machines, science is the religion of mechanical technology the speedometer in my car is only so accurate, i still need my senses to drive or to know the speedometer broke on the way home
religion is non sense, science is religion

Pro provides no arguments that even relate to the debate topic. In fact, Pro's arguments make little sense! Pro said : "religion=to rely on"'This statement isn't based off of any known texts, or sources, and Con simply makes up rational to help better his argument. The more I look at this statement, the more obscure and off topic it seems. Pro said: "i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it"Again, how does this prove that religion is nonsense, or that science is religion? In fact, the whole sentence doesn't make any sense,at least to me anyway...Pro said: "truth can only be in the past, claims about past events beyond my memory of it goes to future, as i can at best imagine and believe in it" This statement is false, as many things do not have to rely on the past to be truthful. In fact, something doesn't even need to have happend for it to be truthful! Truth has nothing to do with time. If I said that the number of possible games of chess that could be played is greater than the number of atoms in the observable universe, that js a true statement, as the number of possible chess games is greater than 64^64, and the number of possible atoms is 4×1081.Pro said: its a fact that i just took a hard drug, i am just lying about taking a hard drug"Again! this statement doesn't have anything to do with the arguement, along with the rest of them! if you claim to be lying, then why did you openly admit to it? You literally refute your own statement at the begining of this sentence, and you claim to lie. You have provided no evidence to support your claims this round, instead opting to keep your arguement in closed, bubbled off sections that make little sense. Well, that's over with....Time to prove that Science is indeed not a religion. Religion is an organized set of beliefs about the universe and our life that is set in place to help better explain why things happen. On the other hand, Science is the process of finding out more about our universe by testing, experiments, and trials! Religion is something to believe in, and science is something we use to find out what we should believe in! There is little coralation between the two, dispite popular belief....http://www.skeptical-science.com...Oh, and for Prohttp://www.wikihow.com...
Women shouldn't be in super hero

Men can treat women horrendously, being sexist and aiming to rape and or murder younger girls. It shows that men are more idiotic than women. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... also proves that men attack verbally and physically, women more often than women attacking women. You say that women are 'a waist of life'. I prove this appallingly impossible. Women are amazing. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq4zYuuCrG4 In the past, women have been rejected and discriminated all because of their sex. Women should certainly be super heroes, and in the movies, children can now inspire to people they can actually be. Unlike Hulk or Spider-Man women can actually become or be similar to female super heroes. Elsa (for example), all the little girls and some boys I know love Elsa. They dress up and sing like her, all forming a good role of that women can also save themselves or others. Men don't always have to be the saviour of everything. Men can share the glory if it is possible? In addition, women can also be super heroes because it builds strong characteristics, hope and can inspire others; just as much as men. Men and women can both be inspirational, but only if they get the chance to.
Women shouldn't be in super hero

I men to spell introduction. Lol, oops. Yolo. Men are superior to women. Much stronger, thicker better and best. Better best, never let it rest, until your good is better and your better is your best. Men are the bestest of the best of the boss. They are not women. Women are pathetic. What are they good for? Men area boss Women are not boss Men are the best, can't you tell. Whe do the fighting and the killing, he murders and the raping. That is all men. Men will rule the world one day. One day. Women aren't used for anything besides multiplying our society. Can't you tell,l women are bad? Can't you. Omg dv obvious. They are only in cartoons becauseese no one can get tho to their normal expectationsv. . Overall, women are bad in com past to men.men are. Boss. Males are poss. Can't yout te,,. Omg. It is obvious. Vote for me if you agree. Momen are pathetic and a waist of life... Omg. Omg. Omfg. Omfg. Realise fac tic.
It is morally permissible to abort an embryo prior to complex development

I'll sum up your points and do my debating. 1) Killing an embryo is wrong because of its potential to become a human being, and ceasing that potential is just as immoral as waiting for the potential to take root and ceasing it then (killing a grown person). 2) Simply because the embryo (from what [Pro] said) is unable to feel pain yet, it is alright to ruthlessly murder it? 3) With my Pro's logic, aborting a fetus is just as bad as subduing an adult, given that they are unconscious. Argument: 1) My opponent mentioned Aristotle and potential to become something, and ceasing that potential is actively equivalent to killing a fully developed person. This seems that it will be the apex of this argument- ceasing potential. I see a problem with this, though: where did this potential start? what did it come from? If ceasing the potential is wrong at the embryonic stage, then I believe that it would be equally wrong (which in my debate argues that the abhorrence is naught) to not always continue to use potential, i.e. having children constantly as soon as one is able to. If I could have ten children, but only have three, am I committing an immoral act by not growing the other seven? They are still there, just in two bodies at the moment. Explain that, please, because, if one concedes ceasing this potential by abortion, then one can take the concept in all directions aimlessly without direction, and ironically destroying the whole theory of morals. If one tries to organize this potential dilemma, they are faced with a problem: who determines potential? I'll go back to the earlier example: If I could only afford three children, and I have ten, am I destroying theirpotential because I can't support them? As one can see, allowing this undefinable and infinately extrapolatable term "potential" in to the works of what morality is is undermining. The system to go by is actuality: you are not destroying what will be, only what is. 2) Once one abandons potential, he or she realizes that the embryo is no different than millions of other organisms that we kill daily. 3) Actuality still takes precedence here. Killing an unconscious man is destroying his actuality and abilities as a human, ones that an embryo doesn't and never did have.
It is morally permissible to abort an embryo prior to complex development

Hi, I am also new on this site, so apologies for any ignorance on my part. Personally, I think you are wrong. Abortion should be wrong, full-stop. While we are on the topic of ethics, I'd like to draw your attention to Aristotle. Aristotle defined what a thing was in terms of its potential. And Aristotle, a highly respected philosopher by the way, would then subsequently say that an embryo has the potential to become a human being, and therefore it is wrong to kill it. Whether the embryo is in that stage or not does not change the issue whatsoever. Simply because the embryo (from what you said) is unable to feel pain yet, it is alright to ruthlessly murder it?! In that notion, it almost sounds like it is alright to kill a person - regarding that you give them painkillers first of course. And what about sanctity of life?
It is morally permissible to abort an embryo prior to complex development

This is my first debate on the website. I thought that this topic would be a nice one to start, because, while I have spoken about this with some in my personal life (those who have no desire to argue about such topics), I have yet to see a well formulated contradictory argument. There are 3 rounds, and the debate will last a maximum of eight days, once accepted. "It is morally permissible to abort an embryo prior to complex development" Definitions: "morally permissible"- in terms of morality, more specifically murder, there is no reason why aborting the embryo should be regarded as "killing", and therefore make it morally wrong "abort"- smite the little sucker "complex development"- when the organism has a consciousness and thought, i.e. can feel pain Correct me if I'm wrong, other debaters (in which case I will reset the parameters in a new debate), but would this mean that Con has the burden of proof? I'm not going to say vote abortion because "why not?", but I feel as if all that I must do is dismantle Con's arguments for why it's not morally permissible. Any other tips would be nice, thanks; I'm not going to pretend as if I am an adept.
Bryan Mullins's The Roast Game: Trump should order his Air Force to bomb and burn The Vatican

First off, you're assuming that the family will say "the children". Not all Christian families will say that, and each individual member may have a different answer. Second, you assume Christian families do that, but you have yet to back it up. Their reaction is not proof, they could be shocked for a number of reasons, as in, they maybe be shocked that you think something so incorrect. Even so, most families will just look at you weirdly or laugh, and say no. At the end of the day, you have no proof; you have not fulfilled your BoP.
Bryan Mullins's The Roast Game: Trump should order his Air Force to bomb and burn The Vatican

The Roast Game is pretty simple " First ask any family member "what is special about a holiday roast? " The family member would have the tendency to guess assumptively "Ham" "Turkey" "Beef" You say "no" to the family member Then you ask them "who or what do you think is special? " The family member says "I believe that children are special" You respond "So, you eat children for a Christmas roast? " The family member would freak out at you because he knew that the family ate children and he is surprised that you knew it too. The whole point of the game is to get your point across, which is the idea that the family eats children as their Christmas roast, and you interview and prove your common knowing and realizing of the idea or tradition that families have. If they freak out, they already admitted it. The pope and all the Christians there do the same thing.
The US Government Should Legalize & Encourage Rape

I do plan on providing a legit argument on this. Definitions: Legalize: Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. Encourage: Give support and advice to (someone) so that they will do or continue to do something. Rape: Forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will R1: Pro introduces the topic/Con starts off the debate to show why rape should remain illegal. R2: Pro introduces his case of why rape should be legal/Con rebuts Pro's case & concludes R3: Pro rebuts Con's case & concludes/Con Waives this Round BOP is shared. No semantics or kritiks. Sources may be put outside the debate. Violation of any of these rules mean you lose by default. Voters must be objective.
The US Government Should Legalize & Encourage Rape

Intro: Looking over my opponent's BOP, it becomes obvious that his only point for legalizing rape was, If population increases, then GDP increases. This is obviously false, because association does not imply causation. This, is not even including all the economic factors of rape such as decline in productivity, abortions, cost of death during rape, cost of rehabilitation, trauma, decrease in children's productivity, etc etc etc... Sexual violence survivors experience reduced income in adulthood as a result of victimization in adolescence, with a lifetime income loss estimated at $241,600 (1) Sexual abuse interferes with women's ability to work. Fifty percent of sexual violence victims had to quit or were forced to leave their jobs in the year following their assaults due to the severity of their reactions (1) In 2008, violence and abuse constituted up to 37.5% of total health care costs, or up to $750 billion (1) If rape were to be legalized, so the rape related violence will increase. Which is why I included that in the first round. The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5% per rape among victims of reproductive age, 50% underwent abortion (2) So, there will not even be that major of a population increase due legalization of rape and it is certainly not an economic advantage when you include all the factors. My opponent has yet to show actual causation. P1-Depends on what KINDS of benefits. Blowing up the world may have benefits, but it is arguable that it outweighs the good P4-"Including the benefits of having a child" This might as well be subjective data pulled out of big foot's butt. My opponent has yet to show how FORCED sex has benefits. P2-3-Rape does not promote someone's general welfare due to decline in productivity, abortions, cost of abortions, etc etc Conclusion: My opponent showed absolutely NO causation between increase of population DUE TO RAPE, and the economic advantage. I have shown the economic disadvantages.
The US Government Should Legalize & Encourage Rape

Really violent rape (including rape resulting in death) and child rape would still be illegal due to current laws. However, rape would still be legal; same way there is a restriction on drinking (which is legal), which makes it illegal for children If rape is legal, the population will naturally increase. High populations bring economic benefits. The benefits derived from this are a huge work force which can lead to a really large GDP. In fact, China, which isn't even a developed economy is now said to have a higher real GDP than the US. Many factors played a role in the growth of the 80s, but one growth factor that cannot be denied is that a the largest age groups were in their late teens and early 20s at the beginning of the decade, meaning there would be a huge boost in the work force Even more so, with the schools having more and more students, students will have to work harder to stand out which may lead to more innovation or more competition for high marks, which also helps lead to a strong economy. All this would help American economic dominance stay strong. Plus, less money would be spent on court trials, prisons, etcP1-It is legal to be forced into something, if it has benefitsP2-Rape is sexP3-Rape is forcedP4-Sex has benefits (including the benefit of haivng a child in a women's case, which usually brings unlimited amounts of happiness and become the most important thing to a mother).C-Rape should be legalP2-3 are undisputed, as is 4 (cited). So what about P1? Take Social Security for example. The Supreme Court decided that it should remain legal, because it promoted general welfare. So if that means someone can be forced into something if it of benefit, and rape does as it brings benefits from sex. Even if it is a net negative (in SS many people don't even break even). Some never even get to receive it (e.g. die early or leave the country). Sex always has some benefits. Plus, if a girl gets a baby it will often bring the most important thing into their life.