BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

~Refutations~ ::Adoption:: In short my opponent's argument is that we should replace abortion with adoption. The link below shows a graph of children adopted or currently in care. . http://www.acf.hhs.gov... There are many children put up for adoption, and adoption certainly is an alternative to abortion, but the number of adopted children are significantly less than those who are put up for adoption. What does this mean? Adoption is not an effective alternative to abortion. To make things more interesting, let's add on the number of fetuses aborted to the current number of children up for adoption. In 1996, there were 1.37 million abortions [1]. It exceeds the number of children that are already put up for adoption. Clearly, substituting abortion with adoption is ineffective. . http://www.abortionno.org... [1] ~Arguments~ Whether the fetus can be considered human or not is debatable. I don't feel strongly about this issue either way. My arguments will be focused on why it should remain legal, as opposed to why it is "wrong, sinful, or evil" as that is subject to opinion. However, should my opponent choose to have a moral debate, I welcome the challenge. There was a period of time when abortion was illegal. "The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services. Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.1 Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion. Many women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care. " . http://www.prochoice.org... Clearly, making abortions illegal only causes more chaos. A more current event regarding the issue can be found on the link below. . http://jonathanturley.org... Simply said, keeping abortions legal is clearly more beneficial, which puts me as a PRO for abortion.
Abortion

Abortion is a cruel way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Instead of there are other ways of dealing with it such as adoption or raising the baby on your own. When people get an abortion its basically committing murder to an unborn baby. ======================================================== Abortion has been a very sensitive issue scince the drug to have it done came on the market. People for and agents try and argue it out, but in the end all it becomes is murder of a human being. You wouldn't go out and kill someone for no reason just because you don't like them, you ignore them. When people choose adoption they are giving that baby up to have a more primitive future, rather than killing it.
The New Testament (Bible) DOES NOT invalidate the violent Old Testament Laws

Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." He did accomplish their purpose. John 19:30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is accomplished." And bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit. Jesus and the woman taken in adultery " known as Pericope Adulterae (/pəG2;r=8;kəpiH0; əG2;dA2;ltəriH0;/)[1] or Pericope de Adultera " is a famous passage (pericope) from verses 7:53-8:11 of the Gospel of John. The passage describes a confrontation between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees over whether a woman, caught in an act of adultery, ought to be stoned as per the Law of Moses. Jesus shames the crowd into dispersing, and averts the execution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Jesus was confronted with the Law of Moses in this story. He rejected it and had mercy on the woman instead.
The New Testament (Bible) DOES NOT invalidate the violent Old Testament Laws

I believe that there is no good argument to show that anything in the New Testament says that the Old Testament laws do not need to be followed. 1. By definition, a true Christian believes everything in the Bible. 2. The New Testament does not invalidate the Old Testament 3. A Christian that believes the Bible must support killing of people that work on Sunday and homosexuals. 4. If a Christian disagrees, he is stating the Bible is not to be relied upon thereby denouncing the whole foundation of Christianity.
The New Testament (Bible) DOES NOT invalidate the violent Old Testament Laws

Here is Pro's first statement of this debate. "I believe that there is no good argument to show that anything in the New Testament says that the Old Testament laws do not need to be followed. " According to this first decleration, Pro is stating that the New Testament gives no indication that the Old Testament laws need not be followed. Pro admitted that Jesus, the one responsible for the New Testament and executive of Christian law, stood against the Old Testament when Pro said, and I quote, " This is true " it is completely inconsistent. Jesus didn"t say there was a new law to replace the old law; he simply showed he wasn"t going to follow the old law and was OK with others not following it either. " Pro spoke of "biases" and Islam, but none of these things are pertaining to the debate topic. In this particular debate, it is not my burden to prove whether Christianity is biased or whether Christians would accuse Islam of anything if the shoe were on the other foot. My burden of proof is simply to prove that the New Testament indicates that Christians are not under the Old Testament Laws. Pro is the Prosecutor of the Old Testament vs. The New Testament. His burden is to convict and prove the New Testament, beyond a reasonable doubt, does not allow Christians authority to let go of the Old Testament laws and that Christians are under the OT law. I am the defense attorney in this case. It is my job to show that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the New Testament does not nullify the Old Testament laws. Seeing Pro says that Jesus himself was inconsistant and challenging of Old Testament rules and laws, I feel confident that there is more than a reasonable doubt to Pro's claim.
Unknown, God, Time, Universe, Love, Everything, Alltime

I don't actually know what I am disagreeing to, but I disagree! "Does God (Majestic) not experience everything simultaneously? If not, you may leave, or whatever. Now do that, reader....lol just kidding..." First off, B'obo(God) does not "experience" everything "simultaneously" because heshe doesn't need to!Why? Because B'obo exist beyond time, thus doing anything simultaneously is pointless and against his will.Unknown, God, Time, Universe, Love, Everything, Alltime-Unknown, We don't know!B'obo,Doesn't careTime,You can't go back and redo something.Universe,The multiverse is better.Love,What is love? ...Baby don't hurt me.Everything,Is not ALL good.Alltime,Is not ALL good.
Unknown, God, Time, Universe, Love, Everything, Alltime

Looks like we got ourselves a little forfeit here ;) *wink wink* So you like to forfeit? Don't worry, I can forfeit all night round baby ;) *wink wink*Well I'd like to thank the pro for being so generous, but I would like to debate.And could you please, in coherent precise English, or some language I can read! Argue, because so far you just asked a question and not making any arguments... Except for the vague pseudo arguments that you posted in the comment section.Until next time...UGTULEA!
Revenge is a Valid Justification for Use of the A-Bombs and Carpet Bombing in WW2

1.Revenge is a subset of the greater good of the US (uncontested) Things in the greater good of the US is a good justification (conceded) Therefore by syllogism, Revenge is a good justification. 2.Revenge is a subset of natural instincts and natural actions(uncontested) Things that are natural is a good justification to some people(conceded) That YOU don't think its justified to avenge the murders or injustices committed to those close to us does not make it unjustified. The American Government, in our actions against Osama Bin Laden and Afghanistan show that the American Government thinks these actions are justified. That the large majority of Americans also supported these actions also makes these actions justified. Therefore by syllogism, Revenge is a good justification. 3. In this particular scenario, there was no neutral power. Switzerland was not going to inflict justice onto Japan. Nor was Sweden. All your arguments are moot and irrelevant because there was no neutral power that had the authority or power to deliver justice. Thus the fact that you would like a neutral power to dish out judgment is again, irrelevant. And for these reasons, I am proud to oppose.
Revenge is a Valid Justification for Use of the A-Bombs and Carpet Bombing in WW2

1. OK, so doing something for the greater good of the US may be a good justification but that is not the point of the debate but if you want to use that point, prove to me that revenge through use of the a-bombs is justified. I am not talking about whether the a-bombs were good but whether revenge is good in this case. Saving lives, bringing democracy, justice, etc. are all points which are great in a debate about the use of the a-bombs but prove to me that use of the a-bombs, for revenge's sake is justified. To kill because they killed. 2. Natural instinct and natural actions are naturally justified but do we truly want to go back to are pre-law, basic human state. Where basic tribal instincts are the center. Should murder for the sake of murder truly be allowed. Because murder without purpose (unless you include hatred/revenge as a purpose) is unjustified. We do not avenge the murders or injustices committed to those close to us because it is uncivilized and we have advanced individually and judicially to handle these situations better. Nations should not have an exception. 3. No such things as civilians? Ok, let's call them non-combatants (ignoring the fact that they would be future combatants in the war because this is not the topic of the debate). What you suggest in your arguments is that any Japanese can murder you and any American for what they would consider murder which you supported. Is that true justice? The reason justice is dished out by neutrals is because of emotional involvement and because they are neutral. In every day society the government (ideally a neutral party/jury) will deal with justice, this ensures that we do not have chaotic murders which are similar to gangsters avenging fellow gang members' deaths. This is simply unacceptable and uncivilized. If the human race is to progress as other aspects have, then nations need to accept a centralized form of law to deal with international disputes, hopefully in a neutral manner. By the way, the example you give, is with a willing participant who sent the check. If you refused I would approach the government to be the neutral judge. This is the way it should work. The Atomic bomb is more of a case of me bringing my bring brother to break your nose....and jaw or, indirectly attack you by attacking your brother. Although the non-combatants/civilians are indirectly involved it does not justify their death. It is simple support of their country and it is almost murder for their devotion to country ingrained in their mind from birth, through culture and upbringing. Such things should never be penalized with death.
Revenge is a Valid Justification for Use of the A-Bombs and Carpet Bombing in WW2

Indeed this is a debate about the justification for the use of the weapons. And as such, all my points are valid and address the topic at hand. 1. The Greater Good of the United States Actions taken for the greater good of the United States is a pretty good justification for the action. Revenge is in the greater good of the United States, as I have shown and as is not contested. Therefore Revenge is a pretty good justification for the action of A-bombs and carpet bombing. 2. Human Nature Actions that are natural are naturally justified. Again this goes uncontested. Revenge is a natural action. Again uncontested. Therefore Revenge is naturally justified, including revenge in the form of A-bombs and carpet bombing. 3. Justice First of all, there are no such things are civilians. Every Japanese citizen, just as every American citizen, through their day to day actions support the government, support the economy, and therefore support the army. And why should justice be served after the war? Revenge is as I mentioned the foundation for justice. There is no reason justice should wait. Japan, the nation, was responsible for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, and Justice cried out for retribution against Japan. The A-bomb did just that, carry out our revenge and took a piece of Japan with it. There is no reason justice should be dished out by "neutrals". It could be dished out by neutrals of course. And in certain scenarios it's better for it to be dished out by neutrals. But there is ultimately no reason justice has to be dished out by neutrals to be justice. If I broke your nose, and then sent you a check for the pain and suffering I caused, where's the neutrals that did the justice?
Revenge is a Valid Justification for Use of the A-Bombs and Carpet Bombing in WW2

I would just like to clarify that this is not a debate about the use of the weapons but the justification for the use of the weapons. So your first point is completely invalid and not addressing the topic at hand. The second point is very similar to the first and is also not adressing the topic in parts. To clarify, the appearance of revenge (or strength) and revenge are two very different things, the first is logical and the second is emotional. I believe you are arguing for the first. Your third argument about justice is very interesting and rather convincing, but there are a couple of things you have gotten wrong. First off, if a neutral party does not exist then the justice must be served after the war because of the emotional nature. Killing civilians who were not directly involved in the decision to attack the US or China should not be punished and should not be considered justice. Yes, justice is a form of revenge but since revenge is dished out by victims and justice is and should be dished out by neutrals, the dropping of the A-bombs for revenge is not justified.
Revenge is a Valid Justification for Use of the A-Bombs and Carpet Bombing in WW2

I often hear people who defend the use of the atomic weapon by listing the horrors that the Japanese committed and going on to state or imply that these acts deserve vengeance. I would like to prove that this is completely illogical and wrong. (To put it straight....It just pisses me off and I want to vent! lol) This logic is completely against the reasons the weapon was used and is a very hypocritical way of analyzing the U.S.'s actions. In your case TJ (Mind if I call you that?), you say that war causes vengeance. This implies vengeance is a valid reason for murder because it is unnecessary for cause of the nation in the war. You listed a number of tragedies and implied that if one of my family members were victims that I would want revenge. Even if that were the case that does not make it justified. Also, I will just point out that maybe 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany's invasion were all a form of revenge and I'm sure I know your opinion on these acts of war/terrorism. I am not supporting these acts but I am saying that using revenge as a justification puts them under the same category as the use of the A-Bomb and the carpet bombing of Japan (and my maybe Germany). Also, please do not say that Japan or Germany would have done the same thing because that does not make it right either. If the victim of the murderer wanted to kill his murderer does that justify the actual murder? I will say other things too and please do not stray from the topic at hand.
You choose the topic. I choose my position.

I apologize to the readers, when I saw that my opponent had forfeited I forgot to rebutt allow me to do that now.Irrespective of this I ask for courtesy points and argument points. A government recieving any trade is better then no trade. And one side is not always disadvantaged in a trade because different regions have different resources (irrespective of culture, culture does not directly effect resources). He states "it won't hurt consumers or suppliers as much" so I am confused as to what the argument there is. Finally his third argument is moot becuase if all regions shared culture they would be able to cooperate economically and produce goods that they mutually need. An open world market is good becuase if we keep it restricted we will limit growth which is bad for all parties. I haven't purchased this document so I cannot fully review it. However goods flowing to poor countries isn't bad as the majority of the world's population lives in poor countries. I not understand how more money would destroy 3rd world countries, more resources is what is needed for development.
You choose the topic. I choose my position.

I will be addressing my opponents 2nd speech here. I would like to point of that my opponent bears the Burden of the Proof.My opponent states that all cultures are equal. This is moot, as if all cultures are equal then replacing one with another has no net benefit or harm.My opponent states that culture is required for human development. This is true. However, note something in his example. His points out 2 differences that exist within the same culture. Culture does not make everybody the same. It just means everybody has the same etiqutte and values. A Vikings fan and a Packers fan are part of the same culture. Globalization wouldn't affect diversity.My opponent is wrong here. Similarity does not cause tension. Tension is created when there are differing levels of power between groups, at least one group has achieved a percieved basic standard of living above that of the othe, is constantly present when the two groups both can't support themselves, or when two groups can't forgive for and earlier rift. Lets look to the Pro's Islam and Christianity example. People are turning into extremists when there are no other options. http://www.independent.ie...Mixing similar groups isn't the problem. What we need to do to solve this is try to create understanding between the two groups and to allow the two groups to become more equal. By spreading culture between the two we can accomplish this.My opponents claim about third world countries is moot. He claims that third world countries are bound culturally. The vast majority of third world countries are in Africa.http://www.nationsonline.org...African Countries were largely established with no regards to the natives and were just lines drawn on a map. If these countries are recreated to make countries which are bound culturally and not just bound by a history of common Western oppression it could result in longer lasting peace. Globalization doesn't effect this one way or the other.
You choose the topic. I choose my position.

I managed to get this done surprisingly. Than you to Con for being patient with my arguments.RebuttalFrom an economic standpoint, globalization hurts more than it helps. Con showed that there is an expansion of economy through open trade, but I will argue that this doesn't come without consequences. Check out these graphs: The top graph refers to trading with a quota (a limit on total imports). The bottom graph shows no trade boundaries at all. The import does decrease overall economic growth, but for very good reasons. The first reason is that the government can make money off the import. On those graphs, any area represents an amount of money. The amount the government would make from the import would be the G and H quadrants from the first graph. It is absolutely necessary for the government to make money or it cannot operate. The second reason is that it won't hurt either the consumers or the suppliers as much. Even though (for economic growth) having open trade has a net benefit, it is one sided. If the good you are trading has a low world price compared to the country, then consumers will want open trade. If the good has a high price in the world, suppliers will want open trade. What happens to the other side? They are forced to sell it at the world price, or buy it at the world price. Having an import tax will help out whoever gets the losing end in open trade. The third reason is that some goods absolutely need to be produced in a country. When a country is forced to produce goods on its own, it will eventually become good at it. If America always bought guns from other countries where they are better quality and lower price, we wouldn't be able to make good guns if we went to war with them. There are many other goods deemed necessary for national defense like this. This is why we need to have trade boundaries by not letting globalization take over. Cultural globalization would want an open market world, but we can't allow this.How would open trade affect the globe? It significantly hurts developing countries. In this article you can see why: http://www.jstor.org... This is what the author says, "If this model [A model showing economic growth in developing countries] were anywhere close to being accurate, and if the world capital markets were anywhere close to being free and complete, it is clear that, in the face of the return differentials of this magnitude, investment goods would flow rapidly from the United States and other wealth countries to India and other poor countries." By this, we can see that open trade will help developed countries, but absolutely destroy 3rd world countries.That is all I have time for. Good luck to Con.Sources1. I used Google images for those pictures... I don't remember exactly what I typed in. Sorry.2. http://www.jstor.org...