BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Well, The main reason why the anti-abortion exists is that of Christain Civilization in America. The great thing about Capitalism is that it is the easiest system in the world to lift yourself out of poverty. In India you are born in the rich, You are set forever. In America, Three or four generations later and all the wealth could be gone. This is an economic problem. Poverty rates are decreasing. living is better than being killed and sold as body parts by Planned Parenthood. Ok, The kid might not live in the greatest environment. But Again, This is an economic and social problem. Last Arguments A peer-reviewed study published in the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health found that "Young adult women who undergo. . . Abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression. " A peer-reviewed study published in BMC Medicine found that women who underwent an abortion had "significantly higher" anxiety scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale up to five years after the pregnancy termination. A peer-reviewed study published by the Southern Medical Journal of more than 173, 000 American women found that women who aborted were 154% more likely to commit suicide than women who carried to term. A study published in the British Medical Journal reported that the mean annual suicide rate amongst women who had an abortion was 34. 7 per 100, 000, Compared with a mean rate of 11. 3 per 100, 000 in the general population of women. A Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology study of men whose partners had abortions found that 51. 6% of the men reported regret, 45. 2% felt sadness, And 25. 8% experienced depression. In the United States, Black women are 3. 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, According to the Guttmacher Institute. In New York City in 2015, More black babies were aborted (23, 720) than had live births (23, 116). I look forward to the response. It has been a good debate.
Abortion

I will state my arguments by all the factor that may occur and impacted to abortion. First of all, We talk about abortion in all part of the world, Which is develop and big countries. You may take an example from the US and its law of facing abortion. Yes you right that the baby is considered as human being and has it own right to be born to the world, Sounds like the law has a strong guarantee to save the baby. But in fact, More than 1 million abortion cases be done each year in the US, The same as the armies that died during the war. America is a liberal country that have it society to think freely, The case of being free to think leads the lgbt case the same as abortion. That's my baby, "it's my right to give him live or not" stuff like that. No one will detect the abortion case since the method of doing abortion is easy. If you said that there'll maybe adoption, Childcare and so on. Let's see the fact in the develop country. They even have less money to pay for education, Unemployee, Infrastructure, Debt and so on. This situation leads the childcare to bring that baby become a labour that has no labour right at all, Plus they are still in young age. In the worst scene they maybe sent to other place to be a prostitute worker, What kind of horrible future the kids will get. I won't even imagine. One case I read in asian country, There's a childcare that do the violance with the kids, Even a baby that just born is died because the babysitter hit him like an animal, And then the police discover that the childcare is do violence to most of the children that live there. The kid that live in this kind of circumstances will grow up with mental problem At the end of the day do or not do abortion is just a same thing. But let's think in a long term of time, What the kid will be, We give them right to be born but we let them face the world alone. No one will love them, Since the people so much egoist, Since the technology grow rapidly and many problems occur.
Abortion

Lives are at stake. You can't excuse a culture where people grow up like bums and then kill. In the case of the less than 1% of abortions with rape. Again there is adoption, Childcare, And more. Abortion is murder. Why are punishing the baby? We put rapists in jail. There are better alternatives than killing. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, Even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder, " states that under federal law, Anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished. . . For intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. " The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens. " At least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws. Upon fertilization, A human individual is created with a unique genetic identity that remains unchanged throughout his or her life. This individual has a fundamental right to life, Which must be protected. Jerome Lejeune, The French geneticist who discovered the chromosome abnormality that causes Down syndrome, Stated that "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. . . The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, It is plain experimental evidence. " Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Explains that the "most primitive response to pain, The spinal reflex, " is developed by eight weeks gestation, And adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. " i look forward to your repsonse
Abortion

First I want to make it clear, We have to see both of internal and external effect of abortion, So I say Of course religion and culture effected to the mother as the society. Environment shape the character of the society. If the baby's mom live in bad environment like kind of society that do not know what's the basic rule in society, Less educated people, No religion, Kind of society that live only for food. Of course they'll develop in a bad personality. Free sex, No marriage, The mom that grow in this kind of society will never think that abortion is illegal right. This case often we see in develop country, Abortion is a common thing to do. And if you say that law isn't that important in this case, Then maybe you should know that your support to stop abortion has no guarantee because law is the basic rule to do something. Like in netherland the law said that it's legal to do abortion with several terms to follow and in Indonesia it's forbid to do abortion. So law is affected to abortion also. But, Unfortunately you said that it's something that you won't to debate about, Then I'll leave it. Type of abortion. Yes we agree that the baby is innocent, But we have to see from all side point of view. The first case, What if the baby was occur in a criminal event like rape, It will break the woman's mentally and never want the baby from that violence. If they let the mom to continue the pregnancy then maybe the baby will born and unwanted thing will be happen like the mom will throw him out, Do the kid violence, And grow as a people that get no love, This kind of society is at risk to begrown up as criminal at the end of the day. Second, The abortion may be done if the pregnancy is risky for the mom then they may do the abortion. That's my point so far
Abortion

First of all, We have to see in which case abortion is be done by the actor. Sometimes we have to considered the situation between the baby' s mom also the baby himself. Even though, That may be whatever the situation is it is immoral action to kill that baby right. What I wanted to state here is that first we have to see where's the location of abortion, Because different location different law right and also different religion and different culture right. I think first you have to make clear this case.
The USA has a Right to Purge

Before I begin my argument, here is the defintion of purgePurge: is the removal of people who are considered undesirable by those in power from a government, from another organization, from their team owners, or from society as a whole.My case:I. No one deserves to be removed from society, solely based on government, society, or orgnization likings. If the person has commited a crime, then they derserve to have a justified punshment, not removed society.Ok, so m opponent brings up how liberating Atheists, or negletful boyfriends should be removed from society. First of all, unless they have commited any crime, there is no reason to remove from society, because in their point of view things are different. I will go deeper into that for rebuttals. Since this is a lawful case, the different punishments. The biggest one is a death penelty, and that is in rare cases. Notice how these descions are made by court, based on the said crime. No one deserves to be removed from society because of if there is a liberting atheist or negleltful boyfreind.http://criminal.lawyers.com...II. No need for a purgeIf there is a crime in action we have police or some types of officials, then we have a orginized court to take matters. My opponent is ignoring all of this, and believes this is all faulty and we all need a purge. During a purge there are many other possibilites if a society is removing people,innocent can get harmed. We have 707 prisinors per 100,000 population. USA has one of the highet incaraction rates, so that tells that police or other orgizations are effective. http://en.wikipedia.org...Rebuttals"The Purge is a nessissary way to prevent the country from liberating atheists to create a complete social collapse regarding child sexual affairs, neglectful boyfriends, and an overpowering tyranism"My opponent has gven a blind assumption with no evidence. Some of which have no legal harm. "The USA has not yet been safe enough, do to adulterous facts, to reserve such a sanctity [to which I mean: it would collapse]. But now that we are at war" We are at war? With whom? If we are at war with other countries, how will the purge solve this? USA has one of the highest incarceration rates, and how are we not safe? My opponent gives no evidence for his blind assumption.
The USA has a Right to Purge

There is no need to further defend myself. The Purge is viable, necessary, purposeful and respectable. The citizens of America are treasonous, supporting, defending and empowering the Drug Trade, by funding them which promotes their abduction sex trade, economic collapse agenda, and gun violence. Woman empowering men who support via funding this trade and behavior are not only being abused and neglected, but they are enviously corrupting the next generation out of spite, arrogance and negligence. The American States need a Purge to purify their population and take a census of arm, munitions, potential American threats, sustainable currently illegal behaviors, to oddit the criminally embezzled money which collapsed the government, to save captives and rape victims, to purge the underground sex slave trade, to remove internal threats, and establish a new foundation of peace to move forward with the poverty in Mexico and south America.
The USA has a Right to Purge

The Purge is a nessissary way to prevent the country from liberating atheists to create a complete social collapse regarding child sexual affairs, neglectful boyfriends, and an overpowering tyranism of proud gentlemen who are wasting all t heir money, space and time. Those who have been neglecting social ambitions for personal gratification of ssexial purposes, to which we empower men who are completely unentitled to any of the worth they are carrying to seduce you; As one would not have sex with a bum: perverts factual exist and are empowered by the liberating of sexual intentions and homosexual acts { such as advocating anal and oral sex is now legal to all age grounds predominantly. surely you are aware perverts arrive of the social implications. ] They are ensuring eh safety of a world where they can implement safe work revisions to allow the culture to grow ungoverned by federal facts. The USA has not yet been safe enough, do to adulterous facts, to reserve such a sanctity [to which I mean: it would collapse]. But now that we are at war, we can muster the strength to remove the internal conflicts which destroy our Countries reformed tact. To aid the general populous and all those that partake of it. Factually we have not being following eh rules of a prosperous culture. Instead we give in to sex, drugs and money as though we lost an appreciation for life when we failed elementary school. Because the miss-use of American wealth is treason to humanity, our Country and our countries pride. For low wages save individuals at a far. Indeed a Purge is necessary. That does not mean I am in complete accordance with the limited potential barriers of a Governing Party obstruction injustice. However I am not following the events unfolding. I have complete faith in the purpose of them. To remove the threat to societies collapse. By permitting this social establishment to go on promoting and advocating drug life they neglect the rape society underground they are supporting, while wasting away doing things that are not enhancing adoringly, (as in not sexually, nor slothenly, or intoxicatingly). In this way America has collapse and we are preserving our rights by not enlisting the heretics into our voting pool. The criminally insane, non lovers of all humanity in their sacred being, are not eligible voters.
Stalin was the most influential leader of the 20th century.

pochti ne uchil, cnachala pocmotrel filmy(watch) na ruskom, potom odin ruskaya devushka izuchal alfawit i rody(jenski, mujskoy) potom s praktika ya izuchal kak goworit po ruski, ne uchil na kursy ii na shkola. i istoriya russiya i cccr mne interesno, komunizm mne nenrawitse ya antikommunist. etot prichin dlya izuchat ruski. is russian your native language?
Stalin was the most influential leader of the 20th century.

izvini, u menya vremya ne byl. ya Arthur, moy ruski slaby no hvatit dlya besede Tavarishi Stalin. u menya byl ochen mnogo dela a seycxhas ya vhodil na internet. I hope I spoke right :)) I was so busy, sorry for forfeiting. my russian maybe preintermediate, I have studied history of soviets and practiced russian with russians, ukraines and beluruses, I have travelled with russians and lived with them too.
We should live by Biblical Morality

The argument of "kritik" is irrelevant when the position of pro and con is non-existent. This tactic is used when there are more than 2 sides, for example, when there is the British Parliamentary 4-way debate, in which 2 teams argue the same point, and 2 argue to contend that point, but only one team "wins". Because there is only two of us, and a pro/con argument, then only one side can win. The kritik inherently argues against the man, which is a fallacy in this standard. On top of which, a kritik argues impact and implications, where the winner of this tactic is one whose practical position is rather than observation and confliction. I see you are attempting to criticise the framework implications, however, the critical point is that you should be criticising my alternative, and say all alternatives have no weight. If, as you said "the claim the Pro must make is oxymoronic", then it justifies my position further. Also, the position you are taking is known as a disadvantage, not a kritik, from my experience, but I shall continue using the word kritik in case I am mistaken. But simply, your argument is a turn, for it coincides with my framework without flaw, and strengthens it. However, I feel you are arguing from a semantic disadvantage, yes? Therefore, I simply need to prove that biblical morality is an option. Therefore, I need to prove morality is relative. If morality is relative, then not also does using an absolute (in the definition of non-relative) morality make the Con position weaker, then the idea that any other option is flawed is non-existent. The opponent has forced my hand into an interesting topic -- metaethics. If I can prove that, ethically, morals are relative, then my argument stands, and the kritik of the question is nulled. Also, if I can provide contradiction in John L Perkins, to the point that the 7 notions can conflict, then the argument of the opposition is also null. Imagine the scenario of a serial killer. He has confessed, has no mental degradation, and is to be sentenced. How should we sentence him? Non-malificence dictates that we do not harm him, yet justice dictates we must punish him equally to those he has killed. This also contradicts the utility of the situation; you are decreasing the benefit:harm ratio. How do we decide which takes precendence? It comes down to a relative issue. You can say that it depends on the situation (subjective) or that it makes no difference (objective), but if I disagree, then the situation is relative. Also, the judges should view the appropriateness of constructing a linear degradation. Also, the unfair position of newer judges without understanding of a degradation will cause harm unto their voting pattern, and that the justification behind the application of the kritik/linear disadvantage should be made clearer. As I am not putting forth this argument, then I cannot be required to justify its use. As a side note, I applaud you for attempting this form of debating, and it is refreshing to hear a disadvantage.
We should live by Biblical Morality

My opponent is right when he says that my case doesn't go agaisnt anything that he's said. That's because I'm not trying to go against his position. The method of addressing the resolution at hand that I am using is probably something my opponent is not familiar with, especially if he is not with the National Forensic League debate teams. What I am trying to argue here is that the resolution that he has provided cannot be debated because the terminology within the resolution is oxymoronic, and it places a burden on my position to uphold a concept that does not exist, as I have explained in my case, which he has not argued against. At this point, you can definately extend all of his points across the flow because it only substantiates the case I'm running. For those who are confused as to the type of argument that I am running, I am running a kritik (not misspelled. This is how it is spelled in the context of debate), which is a completely valid method to run in a debate, whether they be formal ones or less formal ones like the ones of this site. I can go against a common ideology or stanpoint, including the standpoint of the resolution itself, as I have done. My opponent has not argued the main point of my case, so you can place my case over his.
We should live by Biblical Morality

Before continuing in this debate, however, I feel that a couple of key terms from this resolution must be made:Biblical: of, relating to, or being in accord with the Bible. Morality: conformity to ideals of right human conduct The definition of "morality" extends to a conglomeration of theories on such correct conduct, as defined by Professor John L. Perkins: Non-malificence Do not harm yourself or other people Beneficence Help yourself and other people Autonomy Allow rational individuals to make free and informed choices Justice Treat people fairly: treat equals equally, unequals unequally Utility Maximize the ratio of benefits to harms for all people Fidelity Keep your promises and agreements Honesty Do not lie, defraud, deceive or mislead Privacy Respect personal privacy and confidentiality From these definitions, we can make the following observations fo the debate:Observation One: The resolution is very narrow and specific enough for the burden of the PRO to be that it has to argue that we should live with Biblical morality. Therefore, the burden of the PRO is to prove that we should live with Biblical morality. Observation Two: Because the Bible makes clear contradictions with what it considered to be moral in general, it cannot be considered moral at all. Therefore, "Biblical morality" is an inherent oxymoron and cannot exist. Observation Three: Morality must encompass all of those theories of what is moral according to John Perkins. With these observations and arguments, it is clear that the PRO does not have anything that it can argue because the resolution itself has an inherent oxymoron, as I will prove in my case. The Bible is among one of the most immoral texts in the history of mankind, and with this condition, the resolution inherently makes a query of analysis on a subject that only one side of the debate can make. Therefore, this resolution cannot be debated in any way because the PRO does not have any way of making such an argumentation under this resolution. Now, to my argument:Contention One: The Bible promotes harm of people. The Bible is notorious for the promotion of harm to people, and this inherently violates the codes of conduct for what encompasses morality. Therefore, there is no way that the Bible could be considered moral. Sub 1a: Promotion of Harm Against Homosexuals. Leviticus 20:23Sub 1b: Promotion of Harm Against People of Other ReligionsDeuteronomy 13:13-19; Deuteronomy 13:7-12; Romans 1:24-32Sub 1c: Promotion of Harm Against People who Work on SabbathExodu 31:12-15Contention Two: The Bible does not allow for justice. Because the Bible openly discriminates against other groups of people, it is also considered to be unjust. This clear by the Biblical statements I've made before.
ROUND TWO:lf Jesus Was White! He wouldn't Have Been Crucified

So there you have it, folks. Whitesworstnightmare loses so bad its incredible! You didn't think you'd see such a loss before 2015 rolled around, by mightbenihilism did it! To summarize: We both agree Jesus was black. My opponent says he was crucified because he was black. I say he was crucified for sedition. My opponent offered no proof of his assertion. Just a lot of rhetoric. I presented conclusive proof: Romans killed eachother, and they were white. Therefore, Jesus being black did not need to be the cause. Besides, the Bible doesn't say he was killed because he was black, but it does mention sedition as the cause. Look it up! I'm tried of doing all the footwork for you. My opponent says I played kissy-poo,b ut he is the one playing kissy-poo with Suadia Arabia. Why is that I ask? No answer given. He has documentaries and beautiful music plus pet videos making clear my case, but still he does not address the FACTS! He is like a little kitten meowing at the moon, or like a tiny fish in the deep blue sea. He cannot attack my logic so he has to attack me, personally, with his ad hominems and his fallacies. The truth won this round, witesworstnoodledoodle. Not me. I have truth on my side! White pug, attorney at law!