BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

I'm definitely not saying an unborn child holds zero moral value. But again, We are weighing the life of a bundle of cells versus the life of a woman. I still stand by my argument that protecting the life of the woman is more important than protecting the life of the unborn child. By "vegetables", I believe you are referring to handicapped individuals, To which I respond that a wide range of them actually do survive physically on their own. They may require aid, Or even some scientific technology, But its entirely different from a fetus, Who has not developed its mind or body sufficiently to be referred to as a full "person. " Again, As I stated above, There are certainly "oopsie" abortions (which I personally am not a fan of) but there are plenty of other reasons for why a woman would want an abortion. Contraceptives don't always work. Sometimes women undergo intercourse when they think they aren't going to get pregnant. And of course, The influence of drugs and alcohol (especially for teen partiers) also severely limit a woman's ability to make rational choices. Unless you're proposing we ban sex entirely, There are going to be these types of instances. Yes, Women can't not control miscarriages, Which is why abortions may be required if the miscarriage is not fully expelled. The other arguments I listed are minorities, True (though rape statistics are heavily skewed- many women don't report rape out of humiliation or embarrasment) but they do happen. And I definitely don't think banning abortions will hurt the adoption process. There are plenty of children in need of adopted parents right now- the supply is currently far greater than the demand. I'd like to see your response to the arguments on mental health in foster care children and people under the poverty line, As well as the high possibility of an increase in unsafe, Illegal abortions as a response to the banning of abortion entirely. I look forward to your response, As usual.
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

A unborn baby is a human being by the government. Does it hold no moral intrinsic value? Vegetables can not survive on their own. Do we have the right to kill them? I do not think whether it can survive outside the womb or not should be the criteria to kill it or not. The woman knows the consequences of her actions. Just because it is a "mistake, " does not mean she gets a pass. Same goes with anything. Just because you make a mistake does not mean you don' have any consequences that come with it. Woman can not control miscarriages. Rape is a very small minority used for a big argument. There are plenty of people who can not conceive and want to adopt a child so badly.
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

Thank you for your argument. Once again, This potential to become a person is certainly a peculiar argument. Every sperm in the male body has the potential to grow into a human life, So why should we let them die? Both sperm and a fetus are incapable of surviving outside of the body; while the fetus is inarguably more complex and "human-like, " the're highl similar entities. I'm not saying that the fetus holds zero moral significance- of course they do. But as I said before, While a fetus is alive, It is not a person, As opposed to the woman bearing the child, Who is a person. Weighing the moral significance of the fetus and the woman, The woman obviously takes precendence. You brought up the phrase "If the baby had a say" in your argument, Wich I find interesting for two reasons. 1) again, Notice the word "if". These babies have no aspirations or even anything remotely reminiscent to thoughts of their own; we are enforcing our own thoughts onto the baby. Do the aspirations of others count more than the aspirations and morals of a woman holding the baby? If somebody commits 17 murders in the United States, For instance, And is sentenced to death, It's not as if France (a country without the death penalty) can simpl argue "no, You can't do that" because it interferes with their moral principles. 2) what makes you think the baby would want to live? Studies have shown up to 80% of children in foster care suffer from significant mental issues, As opposed to about 18% of people overall. Is that a life you'd be willing to live? Some might argue yes, But the fact that we're forcing women in already-precarious situations to force others into a precarious one is despicable to me. Lastly, Saying its the women's fault for having sex as an argument for why abortions should be banned is about as far from the truth as you can get. There are plenty of circumstances that result in the need for an abortion. What about rape? What about incest? What about contraceptional failure? What about miscarriages in which not all products are expelled? What about an instance where a child has a disorder that would severely impact his life or that of the mother? What about people in low-income areas that lack easy access to contraception? What about teens who don't know better? There are many reasons why abortions would be required, And we ought to weigh this over the argument that "we must save as much life as possible. "
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

Now on to your points. . . The Life of a Fetus I argue that the fetus is alive before it is introduced to this world. It has a heartbeat, A brain, And yes, Is scientifically alive. Even if you argue it has not reached our state of personhood, It has the potential to over time. Criminals that are on death-row have been brought there by due justice. Cells that you mention are not "human", Then you could say all bacterial cells are human. How would you feel if someone decided to kill you before you were born? If the baby had a say, I'm sure he would want to live. I definitely would. The Lives of Women It is the women's fault they are bringing in a child by having sex. Why should we force babies to die? Women should either raise the child, Accepting the consequences of their choices, Or give it for adoption, Because then the child can live. It may cause problems for the women, But that is the reality of their decision. Trauma can happen with aborting a child, As well. I could not go very in depth because of school-work, So sorry, But I will try to go more in depth next round. Thank you for reading.
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

Ah, Yes, I see. Contention I: The Life of a FetusSo this argument is going to inexplicably boil down to whether or not the fetus is considered "alive" or not. As many medical professionals have stated (and I concur with this train of thought), The baby is alive when it is capable of surviving outside of the womb unassisted. That usually is about 28 weeks into the pregnancy, Though it may occur even as early as 24 weeks, With proper care. As such, I oppose that any abortion before the time of around 4 months should be legal, As the stage of development does not make sufficient human life. This developing child may be alive in a purely scientific sense only, But it in no way has reached the state of personhood that all of us have reached. At this point, I'd just like to quickly shout out- by no means do I take this topic lightly at all. It is a very difficult one for me to argue, In fact. But there is a key difference between taking "human life" and taking "unidentified life". Also, The "right to live" is a very broad term. Do convicted inmates on death row have "the right to live? " Do people who are sitting on deathbed and desperately wish to move on have "the right to live? " Does sperm have the "right to live? " Should masturbation be made illegal? Technically, That's millions to even billions of entities that have the right to live killed then and there. As you can see, This is a very difficult topic. But my proposition for legalizing abortion also stems into the lives of other people, Including the woman. Contention II: The Lives of WomenAs I've stated above, Until the baby has the ability to survive outside of the womb, It can't be clarified as a "person" under the 14th amendment. Who does it belong to, Then? The woman who has sheltered it for how many months. Why, Then, Should we disregard their input on the matter, Especially when it is an early abortion? Why should we force women to bring a child into this cruel, Cruel world when they may be incapable of raising a child? Many believe that adoption is the universal solution to abortion. People don't understand the trauma that can bring. Having a child is the single most dangerous many women will ever experience. Imagine making a mistake as a teenager, Having to give a child, And then adopt it off. That's looking to be ostracized, Socially rejected, And miserable. Not only is there social life ruined, Their whole education is set off-kilter. And even the child will be leaped from home to home, Experience significant abandonment issues and statistically may never find a good home (especially if they're a minority child). Of course, I would never say abortion is a good option for any pregnancy termination you want. But it's necessary at some times, And it should be allowed. Thank you for reading this, And I eagerly await your response.
I'm Pro Life: Change my Mind

I believe abortion is murder and killing innocent babies. The baby has the right to life, As expressed in the Declaration of Independence. NOTE: You do not have to change my mind to win the debate. Voters choose the winner on a 7 point system, And who they think made the best arguments, Regardless of whether my mind was changed or not. NOTE: DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE OFFLINE FREQUENTLY. I WANT COMMITTED DEBATERS ONLY. NO FORFEITS.
Obama is a Socialist

Income InequalityIncome inequality has increased substantially, at a higher rate than it did under Bush. That's not very socialist.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Union MembershipUnion membership has fallen to its lowest since before 1860. Unions are the cornerstone of a socialist society, and the decline in union membership is symptomatic of a decline in workers' representation, and therefore socialism.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Public Sector JobsJobs in the public sector have decreased across the board, the one exception being firefighters. In total, 269,811 public sector jobs were lost between 2009 and 2011. A strong public sector is a hallmark of socialism, and public sector employment has declined under Obama.http://www.hamiltonproject.org...Private Sector JobsConversely, the private sector has increased in size. In October 2013, there was a net increase of 205,000 private sector jobs in the face of a declining public sector. A prominent private sector is a main feature of a capitalist economy, and is antithetical to a socialist one.http://www.usatoday.com...Automobile Industry Bailouts, 2008-10When Obama transferred $80bn to the private sector to bail out General Motors and Chrysler in 2008, he did so on a low-interest loan. The money from the bailout could have been diverted to not laying off over a quarter of a million public sector jobs (Incidentally, the number of employees of GM and Chrysler is roughly equivalent to the number of public sector jobs lost beteen 2009 and 2011, indicating a willful decision to prioritise the private sector over the public sector); or to public works projects to create more public sector jobs, but no. Obama bowed to his corporate masters, and abandoned the public sector in favour of the private sector. Alternatively, he could have been a socialist, as you seem to believe he is, and nationalised GM and Chrysler, a la British Leyland, or at least put a bill forward to take the firms into public ownership.Predictably, the bailout money was not used to save the jobs. Both companies cut their manpower by 25%, and General Motors invested $1bn in the Brazilian market. Obama and the Government knew this would happen, yet they still went along with it. That was not very socialist of them, and as a result, hundreds of thousands of people have suffered the pangs of unemployment because Obama betrayed them.Obama's policies are a direct continuation of the Bushes, Clinton and Reagan, and are therefore completely antithetical to socialism.
Obama is a Socialist

What is the difference? you did not even explain the difference. You committed a falacy of circular reasoning. Obviously, what he is doing is a form of socialism, thus he is more of a socialist than a capitalist. You stated, "The government buying health insurance for people is not socialism. Socialism woud be nationalising the hospitals and eliminating the insurance companies." where is the evidence? To some extend, it would. You do not understand what socialism is. I am not saying he is bad, but he is a socialist based on his policies.
Obama is a Socialist

There'a a difference between implementing policies that benefit the masses and being anticapitalist and socialism. Obama is not anticapitalist and he does not want to benefit the masses at the expense of the rich. He wants to benefit the Democrat-supporting rich at the expense of the Republican-supporting rich. Obamacare is not socialism, but is more a huge stimulus package to the insurance companies. The government buying health insurance for people is not socialism. Socialism woud be nationalising the hospitals and eliminating the insurance companies.
Obama is a Socialist

I am taking the position that Obama is not a socialist. Socialism (OED Definition) - A theory or policy of social organisation which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc. , by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all. I often find it rather disparaging when people say that Obama is a socialist. It is partly an operation by the right to discredit Obama in post-McCarthyist America, but more importantly, it hinders socialism. The American Left fall for the notion that Obama is a socialist, therefore they should vote for him, while his corporate backers see through the post-Clintonian facade of there being no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. If I was to compare Obama to any other politician in terms of policies and agenda, it would be David Cameron. Contrary to what Nigel Farage, the British equivalent of Sarah Palin, says, David Cameron is not a socialist. There is a shared BOP starting in R2, meaning that con has to prove Obama is not a socialist, and pro has to prove that Obama is a socialist.
Homework

Not much to say... I can't rebut anything... Funny thing... I just got done with some homework about 5 hours ago. Not only did I have time to go to my Church band practice, youth group, and Church itself. I even got to watch the NFL for several hours. So, the fact that there is no time is definitely not an argument, It's about time management. So I guess, you could say that HW helps with time management. Wow, what a boring round of debate... Hope the next round is actually interesting (unlike homework)
Homework

Home work is an effective way to reinforce what has been taught in the classroom. According to what is known as "the Learning Pyramid" Lectures only give a child a 5% retention rate on what has been taught, demonstrations give a 30% rate. What is known as "Practice by Doing" has a 75% retention rate on what has been taught. It also helps parents keep track of what their child is learning... If a child were to not bring homework home, the parent would have no paper evidence of to what the child is doing in class as well as if the child were actually learning. Homework is also a way for teachers to check for understanding, tests are not effective because some people are "bad test takers." While my opponent brings up an interesting argument on staying fit and healthy, however with 12 hours in a day and 6 being spent on school there is a large amount of daylight for children to enjoy nature, as well as the fact that compared to other countries 6 hours a day for 5 days a week is pretty low... Some places have 6 days of school or even more. While homework is a time consuming venture, there is plenty of time for exercise in a 24 hour day, 12 hour sunlight period... So in conclusion, Homework is an effective way to reinforce what has been taught as well as a method of communication between parent and school. It is also a way for a teacher to check for understanding. Sources: http://thepeakperformancecenter.com... http://wonderopolis.org...
Homework

As a crystallization of my first argument homework is not only a way to reinforce teaching, it is also a way to check for understanding... An indirect form of communication and even a chance at family bonding through communication between parent and child. With 12 hours of sunlight in a day there is well enough time for a child to get excersise as well as experience nature... The reason why you should vote for my side is because my opponent offered no real argument that could be considered valid nor, did they offer any evidence. Their argument was refuted and mine wasn't Plain and simple. The Con side should win this debate.
Is Naruto Uzumaki Stronger than Sasuke Uchiha, as of Naruto Shippuden, Episode 362.

Although sasuke maybe able to control the nine tails and uss Susanoo to hold down the nine tails, this does not prove the point that Susake is stronger than Naruto. Although in a head on fight Susake maybe able to beat Naruto, this doesn't prove that he is stronger. It could almost be said the Susake is a conter to naruto as he is able to stop naruto, from using the nine tails, and uses lighting style which is a counter to narutos wind style. This doesn't mean the Sasuke is stronger. In the points that i stated earlier, Naruto possess the power of the tailed beast bomb, of which maybe able to be stop by sasuke or even Mardara. This doesn't mean that the tail beast bomb can't be used on almost any oponent. Also when naruto is in bijuu mode he has the ablity to create a small tailed beast bomb in his hand as if it is a rasengan. Besides physical and mental strength naruto has the abilty to communicate with Kurama and the other tail beast and there jinjuriki. This offers naruto a lot of oppitunity to talk to other people and creatures and they are able to assist him and give him advice on what to do and how to win the fight. Naruto also has the unmatchable will to fight for his comrades which has keep him alive in many fights. Naruto is stronger than Susake!
Is Naruto Uzumaki Stronger than Sasuke Uchiha, as of Naruto Shippuden, Episode 362.

R1:"Although Sasuke maybe strong i do believe that Naruto is strong, Firstly Naruto is the jinjuriki of Kurama (The nine tails fox), which gives him huge amounts of chakra which he has available to use, not to mention that fact that he already has larger amount of chakra than the normal person."We know that the Sharingan can control kurama, as shown throughout the series, Sasuke has shown skills with the Sharingan and he is one of the two people who have the EMS, Madara is the first, Sasuke is the second, and Madara is shown to control the Nine-Tails, since Sasuke has the same type of eyes(EMS), we assume he can, even Obito with a MS controlled the Nine-Tails, so it is no big deal, for Sasuke."Naruto, being the student of Jiraiya. The toad sage he has obtained the rasengan, which he has developed into the rasenshuriken. This is able to be thrown at great speeds that can be deadly to anyone that is encounters. In the fight with kakuzu, naruto finishs the fight with the rasenshuriken which turns out to be fatial."I will admit that the Rasenshuriken is strong, but it is no match for the Susano'o. as Sasuke can create a shield of black flames, which can easily block the Rasenshuriken, also Sasuke has shown great speed by getting 4.5 out of 5 in stats[1]While Naruto has shown 3.5 out of 5. [2]"Naruto has also developed the planetary rasengan which he uses on one of the revived Tsuchikage (Second Tsuchikage) in the fourth great ninja war. As stated naruto has developed many jutsu's from this one incomplete move.Being the jinjuriki of Kurama naruto has the ablity to use bijuu Mode, which enables his charka to take on the form of Kurama the 9 tails. In doing so natruto is able to use the tailed beast bomb. This jutsu is the most powerful jutsu in the anime serious, in terms of destruction. This damage way out ways Sasuke's jutsu know as "Kirin", or summoning lighting"The tailed beast bomb requires time to make, since it is just a bomb formed out of pure chakra, Sasuke can use his Susano'o to subdue Naruto's Kurama, as shown from Madara's wooden dragon: Kurama can be controlled by the Susano'o as shown here: We know that Kurama can be held down by Sasuke easily, and interuppt the TBB.[1]http://naruto.wikia.com...;[2]http://naruto.wikia.com...;
Is Naruto Uzumaki Stronger than Sasuke Uchiha, as of Naruto Shippuden, Episode 362.

Although Sasuke maybe strong i do believe that Naruto is strong, Firstly Naruto is the jinjuriki of Kurama (The nine tails fox), which gives him huge amounts of chakra which he has available to use, not to mention that fact that he already has larger amount of chakra than the normal person.Naruto also has the ability to gather Nature chakra and activate sage mode which give him more chakra, speed and physical strength. Naruto, being the student of Jiraiya. The toad sage he has obtained the rasengan, which he has developed into the rasenshuriken. This is able to be thrown at great speeds that can be deadly to anyone that is encounters. In the fight with kakuzu, naruto finishs the fight with the rasenshuriken which turns out to be fatial. Naruto has also developed the planetary rasengan which he uses on one of the revived Tsuchikage (Second Tsuchikage) in the fourth great ninja war. As stated naruto has developed many jutsu's from this one incomplete move.Being the jinjuriki of Kurama naruto has the ablity to use bijuu Mode, which enables his charka to take on the form of Kurama the 9 tails. In doing so natruto is able to use the tailed beast bomb. This jutsu is the most powerful jutsu in the anime serious, in terms of destruction. This damage way out ways Sasuke's jutsu know as "Kirin", or summoning lighting In bijuu Mode naruto has the ability to move at speeds that surpasses the Raikage. This is shown in both episode 362, and in pervious episodes. In both episodes he moves at speeds that are insupassable by any living being (Minato could be considered faster).Naruto Uzumaki is stronger than Sasuke Uchiha
Is Naruto Uzumaki Stronger than Sasuke Uchiha, as of Naruto Shippuden, Episode 362.

I will be arguing for Sasuke Uchiha in this debate and will show that he is stronger than Naruto, as of episode 362.While Naruto is strong, I believe Sasuke is stronger.Sasuke has the EMS: That means he can use the MS eternally(until he dies), now keeping that in mind, let us look at his abilities:Blaze Release(Inferno style): Which makes Sasuke able to control the unquenchable black flames of Amaterasu, fashioning them into various weapons and defences.Susano'o: It is the ability granted by the MS, which causes the user to summon a huge humanoid, in Sasuke's case, he uses the crossbow, with the Blaze release he can use any kind of weapon he wants made out of the Amaterasu. Amaterasu: Amaterasu is the highest level Fire Release technique,[1] only Sasuke had the ability to control the flames, as non has acquired this ability. -Amaterasu can hurt Tailed beasts as shown from Sasuke's fight vs Killer B- His visual prowess: he has shown great abilites at detecting the opponents attacks, and dodging most of them, and shown to be a great swordman, even vs opponents such as Killer B Genjutsu: Sasuke shown great genjetsu when he fought Killer B, as he used Tsukiyomi, he won the game.This Video shows him trapped in the Tsukiyomi http://www.youtube.com...And also his fight against Danzo, It backfired: Danzo is putting his remaining strength into a chakra blade. Sasuke yelled out: "How many Uchiha did you kill to get that right arm?" Danzo replied: "It was Itachi who enabled me to get it." They both charged. It seems that Danzo's Shisui's eye has recovered and Sasuke won't be of much use with this injury. Little does he know Sasuke placed Danzo under Genjutsu in the last attack. I will show alot more in the next round, thanks for making this debate!