BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Late term abortion is worse than early abortion.

i am against all types of abortion, however, I blieve late term abortion is worse than normal abortion. In late term abortion the fetus can be born, and will most likely live. Also anybody who is capable of going through the first two trimesters, without an abortion does not need one in the third trimester. By giving the late term abortion the pain will be the same whether the child is born or murdered. If the child is unwanted adoption is always open. Even if you don't believe abortion is murder, you should believe that if at the time you get the abortion the child can be alive, that should classify as murder. Most common arguements: "If the child is adopted the child will grow uo knowing [s]he is unwanted." void, you don't have to tell the child [s]he is adopted, infants are more likely to be adopted than any other age group anyway. "If the child is kept, it will be made clear [s]he is unwanted, and that would be worse for him/her than being slaughtered as an infant." though that could be a good arguement, nobody says that the child must be kept, as i said before, adoption is the only "A" word for giving up a child, that is morally correct.
Alcohol Should be Illegal

Hello to you NateOhman. You did not establish any rules at the beginning of your first argument, so the only thing I am going to assume is that the burden of proof should be split among both of us equally.My Arguments:The Economic Argument:The economic argument for why alcohol should remain legal is quite simple. Alcoholic beverages bring in billions dollars in taxes for our government to use on other beneficiary programs. In 2014 the TTB (Alcohol and Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau) brought in 7.9 billion dollars in alcohol tax [1].Also, if alcohol were to be made completely illlegal (buying, selling, drinking, making, etc) people are still going to use alcohol. If people are sent to jail for alcohol related infractions, this would cause a massive burden on taxpayers, as it already costs on average $31,000 a to house one inmate for a year [2], we don't need any more prisoner's taking our tax dollars.To conclude, making alcohol completely negative is a double whammy for the economy, as the government will lose incoming taxes, as well will it have to spend more taxes to house the inevitable influx of new inmates.The Expiremental Argument [3]:As I'm sure you're aware, alcohol was actually made illegal in the United States from 1920 to 1933. So because history is the greatest teacher, let's see how the prohibition of alcohol went when the United States tried it.In the prohibition years, the laws preventing the manufacture, sale, and transportation were incredibly difficult to enforce, as bootleggers were careful and clever. In order to properly enforce prohibition, the United States would have to spend an incredible amount of money to do so, causing yet another financial burden on the taxpayers and government.The prohibition years also saw an incredible increase in organized crime activity, with gangsters like the notorious Al Capone making absurd amounts of money from bootlegging illegal liquor.The working and middle class citizens were under immense financial stress during the prohibition, as costs for law enforcement, jails and prisons skyrocketed (as I said they would).If we were to make alcohol illegal nowadays, history would surely repeat itself, which is why the temperance movement has died down such an incredible amount since those years of prohibition. My Counter-Arguments:Your argument is clear; alcohol should be banned because people can die from the consumption of alcohol. Every alcoholic beverage has a surgeon's general warning label on the container, as required by law. If somebody dies as a result of alcohol poisoning or other alcohol related death, it is that individuals own fault as it was his/her duty to drink responsibly. Citations:[1] - https://www.ttb.gov...[2] - http://www.cbsnews.com...[3] - http://www.history.com...For source [1], see page 14 of 113
Electronics ruin our social life

Perhaps some children spend a lot of time inside and don't get enough vitamin D - but aren't we seeing an increasing trend of mobile electronics. This problem of staying inside isn't really true, since mobile devices are the future of electronics. It is argued that mobile technology is the future of electronic devices (source: http://www.financialexpress.com...)I disagree that youngsters don't have any friends "now a day" - I'm more inclined to expect that some youngsters do have friends, and some do not - and even if it were true that the majority of youngsters did not have friends, is there any proof that electronics in essence to blame? I still think my argument is valid, that even if what you said is true, that the problem here is abuse of electronics, not the electronics themselves.Once again you have claimed that a disadvantage of electronics is not having any friends, yet there are many people in the world who enjoy friendships and use electronics - so doesn't this again come back to the problem being abuse, not electronics? Abuse ruins our social life.Children can now be glued to electronics and go outside too, with the increasing mobile technology, the electronics of the future, so I don't think that is a valid argument. Do I want to have a lack of vitamin D? No, but I think it's entirely unfair to say electronics stop you from getting vitamin D. once again it comes down to abuseMy conclusion is that electronics do not ruin your social life - it is abuse of electronics, inter alia, that ruins our social life. Devices do not trap people without people abusing the device - or creating devices made for abuse (like a torture device). It seems you are arguing that this is what electronics are - an abusive device, and saying that we are prisoners of our own device. I argue that this is not the case, and that electronics are more like a phone - you can use it to pass on an important message - you can prank call 111 - you can spend hours and hours and hours talking to your new boyfriend or girlfriend - but none of these are the problem of the phone / device / electronics - the only things to ruin our social life is ourselves
Electronics ruin our social life

Have you seen children sitting down riveted to electronics while other various children are sitting ready to interact which they are totally unaware of? Guess what I have been waiting patiently for one girl to have a conversation with me but she just ignored me that is when I felt electronics are ruining our social life like extra-terrestrial sucking up human"s minds. Electronics ruin our minds so say goodbye & enjoy socializing! To begin with, youthful children and mature adults can"t be trusted to take of their minds from electronics and socialize. This brings a misunderstanding to others thinking that you are ignoring them and that you have no interest in them. How would you feel if you were treated in this underprivileged way?Electronics ruin our minds so say goodbye & enjoy socializing! Yes, they do help us occasionally alternatively children spend too much time indoors decreasing vitamin D from their bodies. Moreover, youngsters now a day don"t have friends at all. Isn"t this an outrage? Juveniles are busy as buzz bees that they don"t interact with others which leave them out in every enjoyable activity. Some people think that electronics are fun which it is but did you ever sit down to think about all the disadvantages of electronics like not having friends. How could life be fun without company keeping friends? Electronics ruin our minds so say goodbye & enjoy socializing! Likewise, children aren't going outdoors. Parents are having a predicament to get their children to go outdoors and socialize instead of being glued to electronics. There is a lack of vitamin D due to children not going outdoors and this not a good result. Do you want to have a lack of vitamin D which is an important source? Likewise, children aren't going outdoors. Parents are having a predicament to get their children to go outdoors and socialize instead of being glued to electronics. There is a lack of vitamin D due to children not going outdoors and this not a good result. Do you want to have a lack of vitamin D which is an important source? Electronics ruin our minds so say goodbye & enjoy socializing!
Electronics ruin our social life

Have you seen children sitting down riveted to electronics while other various children are sitting ready to interact which they are totally unaware of? Guess what I have been waiting patiently for one girl to have a conversation with me but she just ignored me that is when I felt electronics are ruining our social life like extra-terrestrial sucking up human"s minds. Electronics ruin our minds so say goodbye! To begin with, youthful children and mature adults can"t be trusted to take of their minds from electronics and socialize. This brings a misunderstanding to others thinking that you are ignoring them and that you have no interest in them. How would you feel if you were treated in this underprivileged way?Electronics ruin our minds so say goodbye!
Even though it will never work, Communism is the best form of government

So what is this really about then? Communism has principles that would make it seem like a great system for all peoples. However, it is definitely not the best system because like you said, IT WILL NEVER WORK. So I am kind of confused how it is the best when it is a failure. I understand that Communism promotes the general welfare of the citizens, but thats the problem with that system. There is no incentive for citizens that have better skills to excel in this system. As we saw in the Soviet Union, corruption hits enormous peaks and it is present at the highest levels. Government run programs provided for the citizens is a good idea but that doesn't give way for there to ever be any improvements because it isn't privatized. No competition is bad for a government. In America our way of government has provided the poor welfare the same as Communism did. Yet, we have the capitalist theory that strives for success of the individual making an average joe have the chance to be a millionaire. So in no way is Communism the best form of government. Look at the Soviets, North Korea, and China. Citizens in these countries lack the fundamental rights that all of us Americans enjoy. China is finally opening its eyes and realizing that Communism is bad. They have taken a step in reducing its power by opening up to international trade. Yet, China's profits don't go to help the well being of its enormous working class because of the corruption. You have to ask yourself this question, if it is such a great system why have so many nations moved away from it? It is because when it hits its peak, it becomes oppressive to the citizens it works to protect. Communism is failure and history proves this.
Even though it will never work, Communism is the best form of government

Communism, is the basic sense, is perfect. It is utilitarian. It is efficient. This how the basic communist country would run 1. Labor Everyone works as hard as they can doing what ever they need to do to help the nation Everyone gets paid the same and everyone gets the job done 2. Social Everyone gets a fair wage, so everyone is rich. everyone can afford whatever they want. The needs of a family are supplied for free from the government. Money is only spent on wants. No where in a true communist society a person must give up any unalienable rights. They have the ability to speak out, but everyone is patriotic and no one finds a fault in the government. They lack ownership to property so there are no property disputes or taxes on property 3. Military Everyone in a communist society is nationalistic, patriotic, and willing to die for their country. A certain number of people are drafted, so there are no shortages of men. Government supplies itself with enough money to have a very suitable defensive program 4. Government A basic communist society has no real rules regarding any type of leadership
Even though it will never work, Communism is the best form of government

Actually you refuted all your own points making mine stronger. Unfortunately, you can have a hypothetical debate about whatever and still be wrong. Communism has good principles that may work but history proves it doesn't. I still say either way it is no able to work because of the things in your opening argument you claimed are good from it military....etc, will be manipulated and corrupt causing the system to crash. It blows and I think I win because its your fault you posed such a silly, hypothetical debate....lol just kidding man we will see how it turns out.
Even though it will never work, Communism is the best form of government

Look, i dont know how to respond. I proposed this debate for political philosophy. I didn't want to argue this side of communism. Let's just call it a draw and try to make sure votes stay even? Because you have yet to really refute my points and I can't possible refute yours In truth, you are right and i agree in a hypothetical world, so far i am right and havent countered draw?
Even though it will never work, Communism is the best form of government

Actually I still do not think it would be best. I know you said imagine if all the bad things about human nature didn't exist it would work, but I still feel it is a garbage system. No matter how equal a society is, as time goes on people are going to want more and people will then learn to exploit each other. Even in early civilization when it was all about getting food and surviving, these nomads learned to steal and abuse the law of the lands. It is just natural. Sure it is hypothetical but since most humans are not mindless robots and long for more than just the minimum to get by it is easy to see why Communism will not work. If the playing field was all equal and everyone had nothing and they had to work together to survive, Communism would work. But, the end result of the cooperation isn't peace and prosperity for the people, it is actually cut-throat greed and corruption for power.
logged as evidence in upcoming trial

Torture is repulsive. Even on the scaffold or in front of a firing squad, a man can meet death with dignity. The torturer sets out to strip his victim of dignity, to break him, to violate not only his body but also his soul. In England, torture was outlawed in 1660, and for most of the past 350 years, that seemed to be a final verdict. Torture had been a barbarous relic of the dark ages. Anyone who suggested that it might still have a role would have been laughed to scorn; no doubt he would also have been in favor of burning witches. If only it were still that simple. But the dark ages are not over. In the Middle East, there are fanatics who seem to despise death as much as they despise the West. Their challenge has to be confronted, and it would be fatuous to assume that this can be achieved within the constraints of the Geneva Convention. That said, the question remains. Could torture ever be justified? There are many who blindly insist that the answer must be an emphatic "No": that if we were to use torture, we would destroy any claim the West might have to moral superiority. Such arguments are an eloquent appeal to our better nature and would be irrefutable, if only the world were inhabited by angels, not by men. "Original sin" is still the best summary of the human condition. In this fallen world, we face a challenge from ruthless enemies whose malice knows no bounds. Alan Dershowitz, the American lawyer, has used the phrase "ticking bomb" to refer to a scenario which we all devoutly wish will never occur. A terrorist group is believed to be in possession of a nuclear device. Time is desperately short, but we have captured a member of the group. In such circumstances, torture would surely be justified.
logged as evidence in upcoming trial

Debate. org Alerts (alerts @Debate .org) 2:02 PM [Flag this message] Newsletters To: ********* alerts @Debate. org From: Debate.org Alerts (alert s@Debate. org) Sent:Fri 4/15/16 2:02 PM To:********* Dear *********, 'A3ONIC' has challenged you to the following debate... -------------------------------------------------- Torture http://www.debate.... org/debate/89740/ -------------------------------------------------- Go to the preceding link to accept or decline
Video Games can Change you Life for the Better

well Said, Con has made some interesting Points about Games soaking up your social time and making you not as physically fit as you could be. However I will proceed with my further argument why Games can change your life for the better. For one it should be noted, that as I stated in the beginning that were will be times people will use video games as a means to destroy their lives, lack of social activity for playing games 20 hours straight or using something they saw in a game to hurt someone, or seeing something in the game like a cool physical activity that seems doable but in reality its not and trying to mimic it and hurting yourself physically. All of these things I acknowledge. However people who use video games for the behaviors that I mentioned above it essentially has nothing to do with video games itself and more so a lack of priority setting for themself and personal mental fortitude and self discipline. Games have evolved since 10 years ago even 5 years even 2years ago. There is so many things you can do now. You can socialize with people all across the work with xbox live and the PlayStation network/Community and talk about similar interests, for people who are shy that could be a tool for them to break out of their shell. Games can bring together families couples and friends with interactive games. Also there are education games to stimulate the brain. Also there are games that can teach you the proper way to work out that works in the real world because the game was designed with personal trainers working with the programmers and game developers
Video Games can Change you Life for the Better

I will begin this round with my personal opinion - and will not use any sources of evidence from other sites until the next rounds. As a gamer myself, I have found that playing games can improve my physical and mental awareness in real life situations. For example, as a fan of the video game FIFA, I discovered that playing football against people on-line and in the one player modes has had a positive result on my abilities, techniques and functionality in real life football. I discovered the execution of my long shots, through balls and dribbling and many other areas of the real life game had improved. Also, games like Last Of Us and the Uncharted series have enabled me to watch and learn the many ways i can physically do certain things and as a result my climbing and physical activities have improved in general. However, as they can change peoples lives for the better, I have to admit, health suffers due to a lack of exercise and socialising - even for me. Although I may have improved my football game, I didn't improve my fitness, and as a result I overestimated my abilities to last long for the full real life amateur level football game. I became very tired even as the 2nd half had just started 1 minute in. As a result, I could no longer run by the 55th minute, and was substituted. So fitness suffers as a result of a lack of exercise. Sitting down and playing video games may influence you to make the right desicions in real life situations, but you are not the computer generated character - never tired and always fit as a fiddle no matter what you throw at them. Another negative is the inability to go out and socialise face to face, at clubs or bars, and to meet new people in the real world. When attached to a certain game, constructive time can go out the window and be replaced with a never ending quest to complete a certain game, and more time could be spent on academic studies instead, bettering chances of future success in careers for many gamers.
Video Games can Change you Life for the Better

My Argument is that Video Games Can change peoples lives for the better, granted, with being Self aware; this is not to say that video games have not hurt people or influenced people in a negative way. Winning should be based on Audience judgment on who had the most convincing and persuasive argument. Articles or other source based evidence is allowed but prefer to have a personal Opinion vs Personal opinion based argument on this one Argument I Contest that Video Games have been a Social Serotonin for hermits and other people who have found a lack of companionship in other aspects of life. Also fro relationships friends and family to provide a variety source of entertainment My Points Men can be attached to cars So much to the fact they will break the neck of anyone who steps 5 feet of it, an Object, that cant talk or socialize, So how much more could a video gamer be attached to live characters that can interact and tell a story and touch on the powerful human psyche of social concepts and visualization of men and women in the game in relation to their own self. Women can be attached to purses and hair extensions and again these objects do not talk or socialize with the person Buying them, so once more how much more would it be for a video gamer to get attached to a game that allows him to do things in a superficial world that he could never do in real life and see themselves personified in a character creation system NOTE in both the men and women scenarios I am not downplaying the significance of the items they buy or hold value in, because those things are a symbol of expression of themselves and can be sentimental I end Round 1 in the fact that Video games can help people who are lonely or single or even in a relationship and can provide entertainment for couples friends and family.
It is incorrect to call Muslims terrorists.

You sound like you are in a cult. You have offered no proof to your claims, you do not say where the Quran supports terrorism, so all you are doing is making nonsense claims that can be found by the drug addled buffoons in the gutter. You are making outrageous claims and you have no evidence. in"san"i"ty inG2;sanədē/ noun the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness. "he suffered from bouts of insanity" synonyms:mental illness, madness, dementia; More extreme foolishness or irrationality. plural noun: insanities "it might be pure insanity to take this loan" synonyms:folly, foolishness, madness, idiocy, stupidity, lunacy, silliness; informalcraziness "it would be insanity to take this loan"
It is incorrect to call Muslims terrorists.

However, you have said that all Muslims are terrorists. Of course, this is wrong. Very few Muslims are racists. You are acting like the KKK; you are saying that killing Muslims is good. If that is so, you are going down to their level, if on the off chance you are right. Second of all, RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS are raping people with knives, not all Muslims. You also say that opposing Islam is anti-racist, however in claiming in the past that all Muslims are terrorists and all religious people are morons, you yourself is being racist. By racist, I am not saying that Muslims are part of a race, I am saying that he is treating them as a race. Also, I am curious where in the Quran do they encourage terrorism. It sounds to me that you do not have any evidence of your claims.
Teenagers nowadays spend too much time on entertainment

Only rich and unsocial people say those kinds of words, It may sound ironic but, let's just be thankful that technology has given us a breeze in our everyday life, though some people are saying that technology is evil, but I guess that's just what hippies say. Other people are still having fun even without technology, plus there's a huge benefit for your body if you play outside, not only is it beneficial for your body and mind, but also for your social status. So i don't think that all of the teenagers today are devoting themselves to technology.