BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House believes in the right to bear arms

I make the assertion that the people of the United States have the right to own and use firearms. I also clarify that I do not assert the right to military grade weapons. Now to the structure: 1. Acceptance 2. Main Argument (no rebuttal) 3. Rebuttal (no new information) 4. Conclusion/Rebuttal(Include any last information) If you accept this debate, you accept the outline. Breaking this outline or trolling in any way results in your immediate forfeiture. I hope for a good debate :)
spider man vs batman spider man wins

" spider mans cat like reflexes" Spiderman does not have cat like reflexes "bad side to spider man is that if an opponent is faster than the spider since than the spider since is useless" Batman is known in the DC universe for his intense agility. Clearly, as my opponent states, Spiderman's powers are useless against batman. "also that bug spray is his kriptonite. batman has his belt as his arsenal " Which would infer that Batman also has bug spray. (I have very few characters left, so therefore I will continue in comments. Please check before voting)
spider man vs batman spider man wins

all right lets get this straight bat man is the one who is inferior his parents were murdered in front of him as a child he left all alone with a butler and his best friend is a kid who is a orphan and gets dragged along roof tops with this so called bat man. see spider man is a spider/ human hybrid witch means that he has super human strength so what about that. and the spider since. of course its awesome because the spider since dose every thing for him but it also takes a true hero to rely on his powers. I mean come on batman just has tools like what a bat shaped ninja star a bat claw and a kid who is still in collage who is a orphan and who Carry's a stick around with him all the time batman is just a low life while spider man is superior.
spider man vs batman spider man wins

Batman vs spiderman, Batman would prevail. Due to only allowing 750 characters, I will make my introduction this round. "[Bruce Wayne] he is one of the world's smartest men and greatest fighters. " [1] It is clear that Batman is one of the most renowned and favored superheroes in the world. There are many reasons for this, which I will show in comments and later arguments. During this debate I will not only show why Batman is superior, but also why Spiderman is inferior. I will post some of my arguments in the comments. [1] . http://batman.wikia.com... [2] . http://www.killermovies.com... [In Comments]
spider man vs batman spider man wins

I say spider man wins in a battle ageist batman because of spider mans cat like reflexes and the spider since with the web shooters that can pull up to 100,000 tons. the bad side to spider man is that if an opponent is faster than the spider since than the spider since is useless also that bug spray is his kriptonite. batman has his belt as his arsenal with bat rang, bat claw and smoke pellets. weaknesses are his parents were killed in front of him when he was a child and he pays millions of dollars just to beat up bad guys in the middle of the night just to find the man who killed his parents in a dark ally way. spider mans mental weakness is that he was abandoned as a child by his parents and his uncle was killed by a loner. have fun. :-)
Abortion should be women's choice

My opponent is trying to change the resolution to "Abortion should be legal". This can not be allowed, as it was not the debate I agreed to and it certainly wasn't the topic earlier. "Abortion is not allowed in America. " False. . http://uspolitics.about.com... "I agree that guardians to make [sic] the decision for incognitive children" Let it be known that my opponent has conceded that precognitive individuals should not have final say in abortions in their own body (thus, the resolution is negated by counterexample). The debate is over.
Abortion should be women's choice

12 year-old child is a very special case.But girls who are pregnant are mostly university students.Actually a part of are still in high school.So,many parents definitely exist on university campus.Some of them can afford to raise children because they can find a part-time job somewhere.But some just feel presure.They get a lot of study work and tests.And they will also have to take care of the children and work to earn money.I agree that guardians to make the decision for incognitive children.But I still address that women should have the freedom to make decision on abortions or not.Abortion is not allowed in America.However,as I said.Most people do feel stressful.It's too mean to pay for this mistake for a whole life.And it influence the baby,too. Actually,you are not against makeing abortion be a choice.My purpose of this argumentation is to make abortion be allowed in America.So based on this,from ur words.If the guadian agree their children to have abortion,so it's allowed to have abortion.Thanks
Abortion should be women's choice

My opponent has claimed that those conditions are part of the resolution. I will accept that as an irrelevancy. The resolution is still negated on my counter-arguments. My opponent contends that an incognitive girl (not capable of distinguishing right or wrong) should always decide to get rid of the child and therefore the choice should be given to her. However, this is absurd; there are plenty of 12 year-old pro-life girls that would not do such a thing and therefore this refutation is entirely false. Even further, the child would probably not be able to weight financial costs as my opponent assumes. The guardian of the child is much mroe cognitive and capable of making the abortion decision. The guardian is also financially independent. Ethically and legally, the pregnant girl is still the property of the guardian and therefore does not have the right to make her own decisions without the warrant of the guardian My opponent also mentions a situation that is irrelevant to the negation I have mentioned. So, let's review: -12 year-olds can not make responsible decisions. -My opponent has conceded this. -Guardians can make more informed decisions than 12 year-olds. -Guardians generally have a greater cognitive ability than 12 year-olds. So: -Not all women should be able to make decisions over their own body. Thank you.
Abortion should be women's choice

The two conditions are not related to my topic.I said that women should have the choice to have abortion iff they won't be eliminated by the limits.As we all know that having abortion with pregnancy over 3 months or too many times do harm to women seriously.So definitely,I will not recommend that.All of my argumentation is based on people who don't qualify these conditions. The opponent said that the contrary case like if individuals are not cognitive enough to distinguish right and wrong,then they should most certainly not be given full liberty as to the decision of maarrige. My opinion wiil be like this.Because they can't get married,they are not cognitive.So what if the baby is born.What will the baby experience?Where's the family?It's definitely not a good situation. Because they are not cognitive enough,they should decide immediately to give the baby up.They can't afford that and they really don't have the ability to educate the baby. And think about another case,if the mother has cancer,and with pregnancy,she can't have some specific medicine,there will be a collective agreement that she should have abortion.And some sickness will even inherit to the baby.In this case,the abortion decision should depend on the woman. So,abortion should be women's choice unless not many abortion history and less than 3 months pregnancy. Thanks
Abortion should be women's choice

My opponent has negated her own resolution: By stating that women who have been pregnant over 3 months should not have the choice of having an abortion, my opponent is arguing that there are cases in which abortion should not be women's choice. Her argument has an inward contradiction. This also applies to her second condition, in that government should limit frequency. If this followed, then there are cases in which women should not have the choice of abortion. Again, this contradicts her own case. Another problem with her arguments is that they do not follow: 1. Pregnancy can be accidental. 2. Women of this age cannot distinguish between good and bad. 3. Therefore, they should be able to decide to end their own pregnancy. To the contrary, if one is arguing that such individuals are not cognitive enough to distinguish right and wrong, then they should most certainly not be given full liberty as to the decision of marriage. My opponent's case is filled with logical inconsistencies and therefore you must negate. Now, for a short NEG case. In case of precognitive pregnancy, the abortion choice should be given to the parents, who still own their pregnant daughter and will end up funding this new baby should it live (because the pregnant daughter is most likely also unemployed and/or financially dependent. So, abortion should not always be the pregnant woman's choice. Thank you.
Abortion should be women's choice

I support that abortion should just be the choice of women. First of all.There should be some limits:1.women who have been pregnant for 3 months shouldn't be allowed to have abortion. 2.the frequency to have abortion should be limited. As we all know.Sometimes pregnancy happens accidently.Many women are too young to bring up babies.Some women are still in school.They don't have enough time to work to earn money.And the most important is that they are immature and they don't know how to bring up babies and they can't distinguish from bad or good. So actually, it's not the right time to let them educate their babies.As the official report, the percentage of pregnant women in America increases 45% among unmarried women.It's definitely a large percentage. Based on this amazing data, many women choose to do abortion because of their situation.So,in my opinion,just care more about these women.And give them rights to decide their babies lives, they're not preapared.So it's not the righest time.And also give them rights to go on their own lives.On the other hand,the agreement of the abortion should be signed by the physical father and mother together.Even though babies have rights to be alive in our world, if their parents really want to give them up.We can conclude that the babies won't be as happy as other children.Abortion is not reasonable,however,we just need to address the importance of contraceptive method when people have sex. This will be more reasonable and let the women have the rights please.
Welfare Recepients Should Not Be Allowed to Vote

Hello. This debate will center around if the Right to Vote Should be extended towards those citizens who are currently receiving financial assistance from the public, also called as welfare. I will be taking the position that they should not be allowed to vote. This debate shall not be about the legitimacy of the welfare system (i.e. whether or not welfare works) or proposing improvements upon the current welfare system. This is simply discussing whether or not those citizens who are dependent upon the welfare system should be allowed to vote. This debate will consist of five rounds: 1) Opening statements. (Introduce your position) 2) First arguments. (Provide either reasoned arguments or sourced evidenced for your position) 3) Rebuttals. (Refute the opposing arguments). 4) Revised Arguments (Elaborate upon your original argument, refute the rebuttals, and/or propose solutions to problems posed by rebuttals in opposition's argument) 5) Closing Statements (Reintroduce your position and provide any elaborations upon it) Opening Statemet: Many modern States are Republics, meaning that after a predetermined number of years, the citizens of this State gather to cast their votes in order to elect the most fit candidate to assume office. Many modern States have also developed welfare systems designed to provide financial aide to those citizens who are, for whatever reasons, not providing for themselves. In order to prevent the exchange of votes for a greater income from welfare, which amounts essentially to the purchasing of votes, those citizens who are dependent upon aide from public coffers should be denied the Right to Vote for as long as they are dependent.
Welfare Recepients Should Not Be Allowed to Vote

I will conclude my arguments. Inherently their is no group more important or less important then the other this also applies with voting. Thus any perception that one is inferior and shouldn't pay tax is entirely down to that individual and is subjective. Also ruling out welfare recipients will rule out 60% of the population out of voting which would turn the country into a fascist dictatorship (shown source earlier). Assumptions are also based on authoritarian personalities which are entirely wrong as my definition showed and in reality every group right wing and left wing will equally give benefits to each group to appeal to that group so they can win the general election. Thank you for the debate.
Welfare Recepients Should Not Be Allowed to Vote

Before I conclude, I wish to clarify my meaning on authoritarian movements will often promise welfare in exchange for greater support of an expanded state. The two do not need to be linked, as a truly liberal candidate may also offer an expansion of welfare. However, in order to win more voters, authoritarians are much more likely to increase welfare. Their purposes are more nefarious, as that they typically portray themselves behaving like Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but in reality they keep a sizeable portion of the net increase of revenue for themselves and for state purposes. Now I will conclude... Welfare recipients should not be allowed to vote because doing so would allow them to take more from all the hard working people, self-sufficient people and give more to themselves. This increase in taxation ultimately is bad for everyone who pays taxes, and benefits only the ruling classes and those receiving public aide. Although not every person who is on welfare is wicked and selfish, it is certain that there are those individuals who are just that, and will vote only to that which benefits them, even if it comes at the expense of all working people. Even those who are ultimately good may be forced to vote for those individuals proposing tax hikes not out of selfishness, but out of necessity. This allows predatory politicians who wish to expand their power to pander to this demographic in order to garner support for an increase in taxes at the expense of all contributing members of society. So, I conclude by saying that legislation which prevents those dependent upon public aide from voting actually preserves democratic values and protects the popular consent of all working people. Thank you, opposition, for your insight and arguments.
Welfare Recepients Should Not Be Allowed to Vote

The purpose of welfare is to provide social support for the poorest and people have a disability to work. You're assuming many families abuse the system which they don't nor have you provided any evidence to support your claims. As I showed in my last argument a 0.8% generation of families abuse the system which is a tiny amount. Those two parts of their policies/stances don't correlate. Just because one is terrible doesn't mean the other is. Using that logic is completely illogical. I don't think you know what authoritarian means "adjective: authoritarian favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom." https://www.google.co.uk...= welfare benefits is anything but authoritarian it is helping the poorest to live and giving them support. Nor is it forcing anyone to vote for them they have the choice. You have also ignored this more then a few times but the government that increases welfare may get more votes from poorer people but less votes from more right wingers. Your logic is so flawed. You're assuming on top of assumptions on top of other assumptions. Its really quite painful to read. And thus you fail to see my point. It was never meant to be an equivalent my sole point was that parties try to appeal to different groups. Whether those groups are dependent on the state or not is irrelevant it doesn't affect my argument. A lot of prejudice here. Just because someone does not benefit to the society in the way of taxes does not mean they have no rights and should not be allowed to vote. People are born with disabilities and instead of giving them right and allowing them to vote. You're comparing them to criminals who similarly can't vote. You're seeing money as more important than people but money is not everything. Money helps pay the bills but there's much more to life than merely income and tax. Anyways as a another rebuttal. What counts as contributing to society is entirely subjective. In your view it is all about money. But that is not everyone's view nor is that an objective view just merely a perception. Some people have had many experiences with kids with mental or physical deficiencies and loved them because the kids offered unconditional love which is so hard to find in this society. So what's more important money, conditional love or something else? Its entirely subjective
Welfare Recepients Should Not Be Allowed to Vote

There's quite a lot of flaws with your argument. But for my opening one I will introduce how many people are on benefits. Up to 64% of families receive welfare benefits from the state http://www.theguardian.com... and for 30.3% of them welfare takes up half their income. This is a massive amount of the population around half of the population telling them they can't vote because of what the government is quite contradictory ruling them out goes against the very definition of democracy. Also then anyone who has any child can't vote because they're given welfare benefits to help them with the child this rules out a major portion of the country that makes our next generation comparing them to criminals and serial killers goes against the human rights convention. The second part of my argument will be that at every general election each party tries to appeal to the population. Conservatives who're the more right wing party try to appeal to the older generation and Labour party the young. Meaning that every party tries to convince some groups to vote for them. If the Conservatives try to appeal less to welfare benefits recipients and more to right wing voters then that will be part of their campaign as they will advertise for that meaning more right wing voters will vote for them but vice versa and less welfare benefits voters will vote for Conservatives. Yet Conservatives can still appeal to welfare recipients it entirely depends. So it doesn't make any logical reasoning to exclude a group because it doesn't appeal to one party. The majority of right wing voters will vote for conservatives but that doesn't mean we should ban them from voting. Its also like saying if one party advertises to raise minimum wage we should ban all of the working class from voting because more of them will vote for that party. Overall as each party tries to appeal to each group the majority of that group will vote for that party like for the welfare recipients that's what's politics is all about.
Gun control

Well, how about if you have a gun and little kids, they don't know if a gun is dangerous or not they can pick it up and shoot themselves or you just by accident. Someone comes up behind a girl trying to tell her she dropped her wallet, the girl thinks its a rapist, 'bang' an innocent man just died because a women thought it was a rapist. Because lots of women say they get sexually harassed (stares) and women sometimes make false rape accusations It doesn't reduce rape just increases the number of women shooting people, good or bad people. Guns don't reduce crime, they increase the number of injuries and deaths and the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people is wrong to try telling that to the victims of school shootings, "no it wasn't the gun that did that to your school peers it was just that man' is not good enough argument. Also, guns make it easier for people to commit suicide, they have a gun and they are depressed, they aren't thinking and 'bang' they're dead.
Gun control

Great Britain banned guns. Northern Ireland did not.Who has the higher death count? Great Britain.Bermuda banned guns, the US did not.Bermuda has a homicide rate over twice as high.(https://en.wikipedia.org...).Guns should be legal and the stats show they tend to reduce homicide rates. They also reduce rape since a woman can use a gun to protect herself from rapists. Femenists should therefore support guns if they are ideologically consistent.
Gun control

Why does American society view killing machines as a form of self-defence and protection when it clearly is not helping keep anyone safe, the amount of gun-related deaths and injuries just this year is 27,772, only 865 of those were self-defensive related (probably not self-defence though) and 1630 were related to people aged 17 and under (injuries and death) and 148 mass shootings this year alone, that is insane. Putting the value of a tool used to kill above the life of a human is retarded, If you think I made these statistics up check them on the website http://www.gunviolencearchive.org... If you want a gun you have to have a good reason (self-defense not included) such as you are military, law enforcement or agricultural purposes.
Gun control

“Well, how about if you have a gun and little kids, they don't know if a gun is dangerous or not they can pick it up and shoot themselves or you just by accident.” This is ridiculous. If you have a gun, you keep it on yourself at all times to prevent kids from taking it. “Someone comes up behind a girl trying to tell her she dropped her wallet, the girl thinks its a rapist, 'bang' an innocent man just died because a woman thought it was a rapist.” If a woman think a guy is going to rape her, she could tell him to back away, with the gun pointed at him and this could steer the guy to not rape her. “It doesn't reduce rape just increases the number of women shooting people, good or bad people.” No. It would allow more women to protect themselves from genuine rapists. People who have no interest in raping her would back away at gunpoint(this even applies to unarmed rapists). No one gets raped, and no one gets shot. “they increase the number of injuries and deaths and the argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people is wrong to try telling that to the victims of school shootings” Saying that we should ban guns because they kill people is like saying we should ban hands because they punch people. It’s not the hand that punches, it’s the person that punches. It’s not the gun that kills someone, it’s the person that does it. “Also, guns make it easier for people to commit suicide,” I don’t care if most people commit suicide because it’s their life, their choice. Nonetheless, just because you have a gun on you does not mean you will commit suicide. I have a totin chip, which means I’m allowed to carry a knife. I have felt pretty bad sometimes. Did I kill myself? No. Sad people with guns don’t kill themselves because no one kills themselves deliberately without considering it and even some suicials don’t kill themselves. If you eliminate guns, then they will find a more painful way to kill themselves, like choking for 10 minutes.