BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The father of an unborn child should have a say in an abortion

"Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is often called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy. After viability, the relevant procedure is referred to as a late termination of pregnancy. Modern medicine utilizes medications and surgical procedures for induced abortion" Hello. Today I am issuing a debate challenge that the father of an unborn child should have a say in the abortion of the child. My definition is above. Rules: 1st round is for acceptance. 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds are for arguments and citing sources. No rebuttals please. 5th round is for rebuttals and final sources. I ask my opponent to not refute my rebuttal as since there will be only one round for rebuttals I cannot make a counter-rebuttal. Violations of these rules may result in the loss of conduct points. To whoever accepts my challenge I wish them luck. DDD
The father of an unborn child should have a say in an abortion

Sorry this took so long. I have had some other priorities. In many countries if a woman wants an abortion there will be an abortion even if the father wants to keep the child. Same thing goes if the father wants an abortion but the mother does not. How is this fair? The father has no rights until the second his child is born. Imagine if you're girlfriend was pregnant. You want to keep the child but your girlfriend wants an abortion. What do you do? You have no option but to accept her choice. Even the fetus has a better legal standing then you. A woman who is pregnant can get arrested for drinking and smoking while pregnant. "Women have been charged under criminal child support statutes as well as for child abuse, child neglect, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, causing the dependency of a child, child endangerment, delivery of drugs to a minor, drug possession, assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, homicide, and vehicular homicide." Huh. That is curious. A child that has not even been born yet has a better legal standing then the father. A fetus having rights is a door for men having rights over abortions. That is all for now. Thanks. DDD
Was it wrong for the McKinney, Texas police officer to use excess force to subdue the teenager girl

In response to the post from Con, I feel the policeman's action was not justified nor was it necessary to force the unarmed girl in a bathing suit, head down into the ground. My reason for that is the girl was not armed and did not appear to be resisting the officer when he had a hold of her arm. I do not see what she did that provoked the officer to use force. In my opinion, the police man was out of control, used excess force with the young girl and brandished a gun when clearly there was no need to do so. Police are here to serve and protect the people but I disagree in his actions to subdue the crowd. You claim that police have the right to use force when needed. I agree with that if it is justifiable. In this situation, as I see it, there was a crowd of teenagers, they were not breaking the law to my knowledge, and one policeman was involved in crowd control. His actions led me to believe he made poor judgement when he took his gun out and waved it around. There was no other weapons in view and another officer signaled to him to put his weapon away. He grabbed one girl's arm and yanked it about. The girl was not pulling away and was forced to lay face down on the ground as he continued to shove her face into the ground. I feel that force is justifiable if warranted. In any case, if the young girl's action was to resist the police officer, the officer had other choices he could have made to get the girl to comply. You claim that we give police the authority to use force if necessary and force could be ugly. I don't see that this situation warranted force or tactics of intimidation. Perhaps the officer wanted to display his authority and make the girl an example of his power over her or the crowd. If that's the case, then the police have no laws and the people have no rights. Clearly there was no other weapon in the crowd and the girl was not breaking the law, therefore I stand on my opinion that it was wrong for excess force used on the girl, when it clearly showed she was not physically breaking the law or resisting the officer.
Was it wrong for the McKinney, Texas police officer to use excess force to subdue the teenager girl

I disagree with the notion that the officer used excessive force in gaining compliance. Once he gave a lawful order for her to get on the ground she is required by law to comply, and if she fails to comply, the officer has the legal authority to use force. Force often times looks ugly, it isn't a pretty thing, but as a society, we've granted the police the authority to use it under certain circumstances, in this circumstance the officer's actions fell with normal police procedure. With that said, I have no doubt the officer could've handled the situation in a way that could've had better results and would've never led up to this incidence. Him coming in hot headed and using filthy language was inappropriate, but once somebody fails to obey a lawful command, and officer of the law is authorized to use force, in order to get the individual to comply, the officer did nothing wrong in his attempt to subdue the girl. Not. That the debate isn't about events leading up to officer in question applying force to get compliance, the debate is about whether, in that instance when he applied force, whether it was wrong. Good luck to pro.
Was it wrong for the McKinney, Texas police officer to use excess force to subdue the teenager girl

I feel that the police officer was out of line in the way he treated the young African-American teenage girl in the video. It was clear that the girl did not have a weapon, she was dressed in a bikini bathing suit, and appeared distressed. I could not hear the conversation well from the video, but the body language and what I saw was an example, I feel, of police using excess force to subdue the crowd. I also saw the same policeman, a Caucasian, brandish his gun and point it at some other teens in the crowd.
Was it wrong for the McKinney, Texas police officer to use excess force to subdue the teenager girl

My final note on the matter was it wrong for the McKinney Texas police officer to use excess force to subdue the teenage girl, and my counterpart, Con, claimed that I voiced my feelings instead of providing an argument. I find it amusing that Con's reason for rebuttal is that I failed to provide an argument and that people must conform to police orders according to the Supreme Court. I have to admit that perhaps my opponent did not see the entire video, so let me take a different approach so that Con can grasp the situation at hand. The police were called to a community pool party because of a report of fighting. One Caucasian officer, Eric Casebolt, arrived on the scene and began interrogating teenagers, apparently singling out African Americans. He was yelling profanities, and instead of finding out who was involved in the altercation, grabs a young African-American teenager by the arm, throws her to the ground, and proceeds to lay her face down in the ground, while kneeling on her back to prevent her from moving. She is 14 years old, unarmed, wearing a bikini bathing suit, and to my knowledge it is unknown why he singled her out. Perhaps she was not following the command to leave the premises, perhaps she was mouthing off to the officer. Officer Casebolt's behavior was not favorable to many observers, and he failed to control the crowd. In fact, he escalated the situation with his behavior towards the young girl. My argument for his behavior using excess force stems from the fact that the girl was unarmed, was not involved in the altercation that preceded the police call, and the fact that he clearly singled her out because she failed to leave, then so did a lot of teens in that crowd. I believe he chose the wrong way to get his job done, he made matters worse. Here is another important fact that you need to read: According to the Los Angeles Times, Eric Casebolt resigned from the police department on June 9, 2015. Cpl. David Eric Casebolt, who had been placed on administrative leave after the episode on Friday, remains under investigation, Chief Greg Conley said at a news conference. The corporal will keep his pension and benefits, the police chief said. "Our policies, our training, our practice doesn"t support his actions," Chief Conley said. "He came into the call out of control, and as the video shows was out of control during the incident." So Con, despite your reason for police executing laws and people must obey, police have policies and training to abide by in their profession (fact). Yes, police are human and they can make mistakes, but the fact of the matter resides that his own police chief stated that he was out of control, and with his resignation, it leaves me to conclude that it was wrong for him to use excess force on the young, unarmed girl. You might review the video again in order to see how ineffectively he performed his job. The very beginning of the video showed him doing a Samarai somersault onto the grass where the community pool area was. Perhaps you missed that part. That is my rebuttal argument.
Judicial review

I will be arguing to abolish judicial review. I have twp points on this. 1. The Founding Fathers did not intend judicial review 2. It gives the judicial branch too much power Judicial review was established in a case called Marbury v. Madison (http://teachingamericanhistory.org...) in 1803, 16 years after the Constitution was ratified in 1787 (http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov...). Nothing about judicial review was in the Constitution and the Founding Fathers would never have allowed it. But why? This brings me to my second point. It gives the judicial branch too much power. With judicial review, the supreme court has the power to strike down laws as it sees fit. The problem with this, however, is that lawmaking is the legislative branch's job as clearly defined in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 1http://www.archives.gov...). Therefore, it is not the judiciary's place to strike down laws.
Judicial review

I do not like forcing vote comments since having to give a play by play of a probably lengthy debate without getting that voted waived by whoever it is against or any moderator, or anyone at all, is actively discouraging people from voting on debates. Now let me say that judicial review is, in fact, a good and necessary thing. If a piece of legislation violates the Constitution, it can be overturned based on that. Not having judicial review is dangerous, let me explain why. No sources are needed for this, at least yet for me. For example, 1st amendment freedom of religion, 4th amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure, 7th amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. These, at least in the U.S, are human rights. Without judicial review, if any legislation saying that Christianity is the national religion, or that saying something against the government is punishable through prison. If that legislation could get the votes, then that could be passed. I think we see how dangerous this is. So judicial review is necessary for that reason alone. Because if legislation is in direct violation of the U.S constitution, then that legislation should not be able to be passed, and should be reviewed. Yes, I do agree with this, laws are subject to change over time, with progress. However, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, can we agree these are not subject to change?
students should be able to have laptops for school

This is a case of trying to do the right thing but for the wrong reason! I think that students don't want to do homework because they get too much, and it's all graded even at times when they can't possibly try their best due to the amount given. There will be some students who prefer to type than write, and they have the option to do this at home. Children don't work so they don't have to consider costs, "10 for a scientific calculator is not much for a parent and is as expensive as equipment goes. Pupils are supplied with free books, and the paper for their homework. Trees can be regrown, computers are far worse for the environment, I'm not sure why Pro brought this up, it's completely off topic. Let's focus on education. Here are my reasons why students should not have a laptop for class work: - laptops are expensive, they can easily be damaged, lost or stolen in a school environment. A pupil won't perform if he/she is upset over their laptop. - laptops will distract other pupils, typing is noisy, and pupils will look at others work, perhaps even laugh at it. - It's harder for a teacher to see who is paying attention, as everyone will be looking straight ahead. - It is important to be able to write quickly, and neatly, because laptops can't be taken into exams - It's hard to see if someone is taking notes or playing games, I'm sure there are many other reasons why laptops should not be allowed in schools, but I think 5 points is enough for this stage. I look forward to your response
students should be able to have laptops for school

Students should have a laptop to keep for school work. Here"s what I think, students don"t want to do school work (homework, classwork, essays, or a paper), so why don"t we give them the thing must teens or kids want, a laptop. Here are some of my reasons why kids should have a laptop. Kids would study, take notes and want to take them, calculator"s so kids don"t have to go out and buy an expensive one, writing essays or papers so kids would have the time to study and write or type the paper, homework and some classwork could be put on a website for teachers to put the work up and kids wouldn"t have any excuses that they don"t have time or a way to do it, plus it helps people and trees as well. I could argue that students may want to do their work and not fail a class or for the year but here"s the weaknesses facebook, live chatting, face chatting or any other social media that is not blocked. As my strong finish to argue that every student in school should have a laptop to help teens or kids keep doing their work and hand it in on time. Teens would want to do the work, pass the school year and graduate then go to college to do the thing they would want and love to do for their life.
The RFID Chip serves no valuable purpose.

Greetings to my opponent, and welcome. *All opinions shall be respected.* This device in today's Society known as the RFID Chip is apparently our new way of life in the Future. My argument on this Topic: All though it's your giving choice (For now) to obtain the device if you wish, but what purpose does this device necessarily serve? Rumor has it that the device will be a new way for the safety of Children, they couldn't make a special bracelet? They say the device holds information such as Driver's Licenses and Medical Records, and Bank Balance as well, I thought that was kept on file? This device apparently can read your thoughts to prevent Terrorist Attacks, but behind all Technology there's always a Hacker, wouldn't this be your main concern? Not only can they steal your identity or gain access to all your personal information, but now they're able to read your thoughts. I figured tracking down everyone's movement, calls, and messages was good enough but apparently this device can save one's life.
It is perfectly acceptable for 4 year-old girls to date adult men and play with them

4-year-olds are not mentally prepared for romantic relationships. They do not care for other people's emotions and most often need to learn how to make friends their own age so that they learn to rely on each other and help themselves through early childhood. Although older role models are great for children of that age, They should certainly not date them. Their brains are not developed enough to feel attraction, Love, Or sexuality. Why should they involve themselves with romance if they don't even know what it means?
It is perfectly acceptable for 4 year-old girls to date adult men and play with them

4 year-old girls are already mentally developed for a relationship and perfectly capable of dating adult men. It is within their rights to date adult men if they want to. Girls of age 4 should be encouraged to make their own choices about life and be encouraged to spend time with people they like. This sometimes includes spending time with adult men, Which can be a lot of fun and beneficial for both. What if a 4 year-old girl wants to play with a 60 year-old man, But her family disapproves and forbids such a relationship? That family is clearly toxic and bad influence on the 4 year-old girl. 4 year-old girl is perfectly capable of choosing who to play with, And as such should be given the opportunity to explore herself and others in a safe way, The way in benefits both her and the adults she is spending time with.
Should teens be tried as adults when it comes to crimes

Second your explanation has a lot of flaws, for example most kids these days do have a lot more responsibility then they did before. Most teens that do horrible crimes don't have parents that love them and take care of them. For instance school fights get so serious some time, that the guy breaking them gets extremely beat up. What if nobody stopped them, if they were so angry that might have killed the other guy. You may think that's a long shot but that is what's called attempted murder. There punishments include staying home and a few referrals. For attempted murder! If teenagers do a criminal offense how is that different then a full grown man. That's all I got for the first round, well good luck to you. And I wait in anticipation for your response thanks and good bye
Should teens be tried as adults when it comes to crimes

Im doing a debate for school and i need a little help and practice . The topic is should teens be tried as adults , and in my opinion i think they shouldn't . Because of the face that us as teens are being told that we need to stay kids as long as possible . Our parents tell us we can't do this and we can't do that because were to young . But when we do a crime then they want to treat us as adults .
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energ[CONT]

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. Format of debate: Cross-X or Policy Debate style, with cards and theory arguments and stock issues and whatnot. Here is how the round will go: 1. Intro 2P. 1AC 2C. 1NC 3P. 2AC 3C. 2NC 1NR will have to be merged with 2NC, I suppose... you'll get an advantage here 4P. 1AR 4C. 2NR 5P. 2AR 5C. 1NC Cross-x will be asked in comments after each constructive, with each participant answering at least ten questions for each constructive. and questions after that are optional. Post any further clarifications in comments.
The US should invade Mexico

"Ichie carumba, we are in Iraq to dismantle terror, not to gain land. We are stopping the gassing of innocent Iraqis, and all the other bad stuff. This would be for the gain of land, thus making it America. I repeat this would be different from the war in Iraq, this would be for the gain of land, have I made myself clear? " Yes, but there still would have to maintain order in Mexico even if we tried to colonize Mexico. As well, we rarely try to colonize areas that are dangerous, because the cost to maintain order in these areas are very high as seen through Iraq. "we eliminate the dudes with shotguns (employees) cant get to the fields and if you argue that the guys with guns are different than the guys in the field, than guys in the field would be pulled to the street to settle "business". " You fail to understand that not all people who deal drugs and grow them carry around shotguns. In fact, this is a stupid assumption because it is simply not true. This still means we would not be able to identify all the drugs and Mexico and be able to curb the problem there. Finally, as I stated earlier, we would not be able to find all the drug fields. "And for your theory of blowing up fields destroys agricultural property. Look into the past, the Maya practised "slash-and-burn agriculture" where they burned their fields before planting on them, this not only fertilized the field, but kept away the bugs. " Again, this just wastes money for no reason whatsoever. As well, there is a clear difference between slash and burn agriculture and blowing up agricultural fields. There would still be damage to the property and the land, not to mention the collateral damage that could possibly occur. "Mr Bush put the national guard in Afghanistan than took them back, Obama is sending more jar heads and army guys over. And remember each state has a national guard, use Alaska's, its to dang cold up there anyway, nothing happens. Only a small amount from each state was used in the invasion. " Yes, but you fail to notice that the state has to agree to the deployment of their own national guard. Therefore, a state would not agree to the deployment of their whole national guard. As well, the role of national guards are to respond to problems within mainland United States borders such as national disasters. Finally, it would cost a lot of money even if we decided to deploy this amount of National Guard troops. "Yes we would would suffer minor troop lose but they signed up to get shot at. UNNECESSARY SPENDING? !? !? !? Need I bring up the $800,000,000,000 thrown to the "economy" we know not were it went. " The troops signed up to protect their country, not loose their lives unnecessarily. Even though $800,000,000,000 may be unnecessary, this would add fuel to the fire. You have failed to outline any benefits from invading Mexico, while I have outlined the impracticality and numerous harms.
The US should invade Mexico

Ichie carumba, we are in Iraq to dismantle terror, not to gain land. We are stopping the gassing of innocent Iraqis, and all the other bad stuff. This would be for the gain of land, thus making it America. I repeat this would be different from the war in Iraq, this would be for the gain of land, have I made myself clear?Do they not teach logic in schools? if we eliminate the dudes with shotguns (employees) cant get to the fields and if you argue that the guys with guns are different than the guys in the field, than guys in the field would be pulled to the street to settle "business". And for your theory of blowing up fields destroys agricultural property. Look into the past, the Maya practised "slash-and-burn agriculture" where they burned their fields before planting on them, this not only fertilized the field, but kept away the bugs. Mr Bush put the national guard in Afghanistan than took them back, Obama is sending more jar heads and army guys over. And remember each state has a national guard, use Alaska's, its to dang cold up there anyway, nothing happens. Only a small amount from each state was used in the invasion. Yes we would would suffer minor troop lose but they signed up to get shot at. UNNECESSARY SPENDING?!?!?!? Need I bring up the $800,000,000,000 thrown to the "economy" we know not were it went. sorry, incomplete thought, we can protect ourselves here in America with the autos and semi autos, not the cars, the guns.