BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Thank you for accepting! I look forward to debating you to see what you have to say. Anyway, here is my argument. "I don't think abortion should be abolished, because 1. What if the mother's life is in danger." Well... I addressed that in my opening argument. In fact, I said, "I am pro-life and against abortion, unless the life of the mother is at stake." "2. The mother has medical problems" Please clarify this in your next argument. Anyway, abortion can cause medical problems too, such as bleeding, infertility, etc. Also, it can cause things like depression. "3. the baby would be born paralyzed, and more." So what if the baby is paralyzed? Do you think that if somebody got into a car accident tomorrow and was paralyzed from the neck down that their life no longer matters? "I support safe, legal, and last resort." so, just because it is safe for ONE person (even that is debatable), does that mean it is okay? Oh, it's okay for someone to commit murder, because it is safe for the MURDERER. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right! If murder were legalized, would that make it okay? NO! "Al;so, don't be cruel enough to force liuttle girls or rape victims to give birth, or domestic violence victims." In a lot of these cases, their families/friends pressure them to have an abortion. Also, just because someone was raped doesn't give them the right to murder! After all, two wrongs doesn't make it right! You should be going after the rapist, not the innocent baby! You are just making the baby a second victim of the rape if you abort him/her. Also, many people who do go through with the pregnancy in these situations find healing through the baby. Also, there are many stories where they get over the rape a few years later, but don't get over the abortion, even decades later! I await your argument. (Also, I have decided you don't need to waive the fifth round.)
Abortion

I don't think abortion should be abolished, because 1. What if the mother's life is in danger, 2. The mother has medical problems, 3. the baby would be born paralyzed, and more. When two human lives are connected, there has to be some choice. I support safe, legal, and last resort. Al;so, don't be cruel enough to force liuttle girls or rape victims to give birth, or domestic violence victims.
Abortion

I am pro-life and against abortion, unless the life of the mother is at stake. If you choose to set up your debate in this round, you may (if you include all the sources and details and everything), but you must waive round five so we have equal rounds to debate. Otherwise, you could state a summary of your opinion ("I am pro-choice and I believe life starts at birth" [or something like that) and you won't have to waive that last round. If you just want to do the summary, you may state your beliefs on which abortions are okay in your opinion and when you believe life starts. Anyone may answer this debate, but please do remember to keep it civil. I await your response.
Evolution is a coherent theory with significant amounts of data to establish its veracity.

Jacoby claimed in another debate comment: "I'll just call you Con. You called the debater ignorant. He just doesn't understand. Well. based on your comments. You certainly aren't in any position to call anyone ignorant. Arrogance becomes the astute know -it -alls that use dogmatic rhetoric to insure your position. Fact is. Not one thing you stated is a fact on evolution. You]re simply parroting what you THINK you know. That is the problem with amateur debaters. Ever read Punctuated Equilibrium? Gould and his pal made a sorry attempt at revising a silly hypothesis of the evolutionary notion. Anyone worth their salt could see that the pathetic attempt to revive the FAIRYTALE was impossible. Don't be so sure about your science from those who weren't nearly as sure as their followers. I will debate anyone on the technicals of the theory and the abtracts that has perpetuated itself into a truth. Name the day, time and hour. I have Gould's book on my desk in his own words. He was frustrated with the LACK of facts! Good day." http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... -- I contend that he is wrong on these claims. * Gould did not argue against evolution, he argued varied interpretation. * Evolution has significant concrete data supporting it. * Evolution is a robust theory which explains large tracts of data. * I am not parroting what I think I know, I actually understand the theory. As it seems likely the Jacoby only registered to make that idiotic comment (it is the only thing he did) and is not going to return to defend it, I'm going to open this debate up to the floor. Does anybody care to defend his statement on any or all of the points.
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

Thanks for your response. I see that you feel that gay's should be able to adopt. Well, I doubt that they ever will be NOT be able to but personally I don't think they should be able to. Anyways, you say the Bible says that anyone who has sex before marriage will be stoned to death, this is true therefore I am against sex before marriage. Just because people have sex before marriage doesn't mean the tradition of marriage should be broken. Therefore, gay marriage should not be acceptable. Religion is not an excuse, it's [homosexuality] a very big deal to some people, so they are against it, along with me. It is NOT just about religion, it's perverted. It says love thy neighbor but it also says that homosexuals shall be put to death, do the math. I look forward to your response.
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

The real definition of Marriage is- Marriage is the social institution under which a man and a women establish there decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments religious ceremonies etc... Marriage is a holy matrimony, a bond between a man and a women by God, that's where the holy part comes in, and in the bible says man shall not live with man and women shall not live with women. "Leviticus 20:13- If man also lie with man kind as he lieth with a women both of them have committed an abomination and shall surely be put to death." Homosexuality is a perversion. Marriage is the beginning of a family. Gay's shouldn't even be allowed to adopt. Because that adopted kid was formed by a man and a women, let's not corrupt its mind to be gay.
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

Hunton711 asked me to challenge him to this debate, so I am. I look forward to debating Hunton and welcome him to this site. I would ask my opponent to use this round to clarify definitions and Burden of Proof arguments if they arise - as a result I ask him not to post an argument for the second half of this round and allow actual debating to commence in round two. I, in this debate must prove that gay marriage should always be legalized whereas my opponent must prove that it must never be legalized. Resolved: Gay Marriage should be legalized. Definitions : Gay - of, relating to, or used by homosexuals [1] Married** - A) The act of uniting in wedlock [2] B) To join as man and wife [3] Should - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [4] Legalized - to give legal validity or sanction to [5] **There are two provided definitions of marriage. The first one, A is taken from the American Heritage dictionary published in 2008 the second is from the same dictionary published in 2004. In 2005 most dictionaries were changed to accommodate the new definition. I will be operating off the new definition and assume my opponent will too seeing as it is after 2005. Sources: [1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] - American Heritage dictionary circa 2008 [3] - American Heritage dictionary circa 2004 [4] - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

Porn and gay marriage is a different idea. I don't know how else to put it. The fact that marriage is being changed and flipped around is terrible. And your statement about gay's being born that way, seems incorrect to me. It's been studied on that people that are homosexual's claim that it is contagious. Were you close to someone gay when you were young? There is no proof or evidence that homosexualoty is determined at birth. There are actually cases where man have raped little boys and that little boy turns gay when he grows older. Terrible. Canada has legalized gay marriage and this will spread to the U.S. also. Marriage is a tradition between a man and a women. And if that changes, I'll be devastated. Nothing against the gay people, just there lifestyle. I am not good at this debate thing just yet but I just wanna express me feelings whether or not I win or lose. Well, this is it.
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

I understand where you are coming from, you want rights. You should but I'm sorry but your lifestyle is just wrong. And I really love the child molesters point, it's good, :] Well, I don't think they should be able to marry either. So please don't misjudge me. There are soooo many things that I wanna speak up about. And porn, well, yes, I do. Hence the fact that I'm not 18. :But, not lesbian porn. And I know this makes me look bad and makes me look like I pick my perversions, but I don't. I'm against porn but... Well, you know. I know you want rights but just look out there and I swear you'll find a guy that will love you just as much if not more (NO offense) than your, uhm, girlfriend. Please understand where I'm coming from. I'm just against it and so are the majority of people in the U.S.
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

I thank Hunton for responding, I was getting worried there. Rebuttals : "Anyways..." You may be against sex before marriage, but you ignored the multiracial relationship point. Regardless, the face of traditional marriage is changing. It is no longer just white dresses and flower girls. Many new - age weddings don't even take place in churches. In which case there is not a valid argument, even based on the ones you've provided to keep gays from marrying. The tradition of marriages are being broken, whether you want them to or not, and they probably will continue to change allowing gays to marry would just be incorporating them into this progression. "Adoption" My opponent completely ignored my point, but whatever. "Religion is not..." It absolutely is. You have not provided a valid reason not based on religion, other than the perversion argument which I will touch on very soon. Homosexuality is a very big deal, I agree completely. It is a very big deal to me that you will be provided with rights that I may never get. Perversion... Do you watch porn? That is also perversion. Do you understand the child molesters are allowed to be married? That's perversion too. You're pointing a double -edged sword in a very dangerous direction. Why is it a perversion? Because it is not what you're used to? "Love thy neighbor" So...basically, what you're saying is, a book that preaches about how it is sin to kill should put an entire group of people to death? Oh yes, I can see it now. "Grab ye pitchforks and torches and skin and kill the homosexual bassterds" [I know that is incorrect spelling] - would that be the accurate thing to do in this situation? I don't see the need to do so now, so I might still bring up more points in the subsequent round. I look forward to Hunton711's response and the closure of this debate.
It is Likely there will be a World Government in the Near Future

There will most likely not be a world government system because all the countries would never accept. There are too many hostilities towards each other that even the mere suggestion will end a lot of lives in many different countries by means of rebellion. The world will also never become a world government system because one leader could never control that many people. Our leaders today are having trouble dealing with one country, can you imagine someone ruling the entire world? No, that would make anyone crack under stress. And there will be no way for that one leader to be able to focus on his people in different parts of the world because he could only be in one large landmass at a time. So no, I don't think there will ever be a world government.
It is Likely there will be a World Government in the Near Future

BoP is shared, I need to show why a World Government would arise, my opponent must show reasons to the opposite. Definitions: The Near Future shall be defined as within 300 years from now. Likely [1] 1. probable: probably going to happen 2. plausible: fit to be believed 3. suitable: appropriate for a particular activity or purpose Another way to put it: which is more likely, establishment of a World Government or no establishment of a World Government? And by World Government I mean a one world country, without any holdout countries. Source: [1] . http://www.bing.com...
india is much beeter than any other country

Although I will not contend that India is the worst place to live it certainly isn't the best. It has considerable corruption that it must deal with when compared to other democratic nations.[1] As standard of living it ranks 122. [2] India also ranks fairly high in poverty where 77% of the population live on less than .50 a day. [3] In the area of infant mortality India ranks 152. [4] The literacy rate ranks pretty terribly too at 105, and seems to be slipping. [5] I could continue to look up the stats, but they are pretty much as anyone would expect of an over crowded third world country. My opponent who challenged me on this debate abandoned her challenge, and did not spend a moment in supporting her resolution. The resolution does not stand, and it is quite clear that India is not better than any other country. 1. http://www.worldaudit.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.business-standard.com...
india is much beeter than any other country

I will contend that India, although a fine country in its own right, is not better than any other country. By better we will mean that it is a better place to live for the most number of people, and will be using conventional measurements of what constitutes a "better" country in which a person would live. Any other country meaning every other country, and the BOP will be on my opponent to prove that it is better than every other country for a populace to live.
Phoenix Wright is left handed.

Exactly. Ambidextrous people use one hand mostly but can also use both comfortably, which is evident in this pictures. Also for the last one, if you play the game or Google photos, you will still see him using his right hand. The only reason they made his sprite object with his left hand is because artistically it looks nicer and overall less confusing. It's a common practice and we must take in account the 3D and non-sprite versions and not claim that it was occasional. I would suspect that he will use his right hand more in newer games as the designers won't have to worry about how it would look good in sprite form.
Phoenix Wright is left handed.

I OBJECT! That may be so but since you doubt it, I present you several posters and a game cover. To say all of these are fake is absurd! Furthermore in several of these he is pointing (similar to his signature move). It may be said that left handed people use wiimotes on their right hand yet in every promotional poster? Furthermore to overlook this mistake every single time is absurd as well! For the ease of both of us, these photos are in the evidence album located on my profile: http://www.debate.org...
Phoenix Wright is left handed.

OBJECTION! Holding his mug and his paper in his left hand, while also pointing with his left hand means nothing! I will be arguing that Phoenix Wright is ambidextrous. My evidence? In a promotional poster for the Wii we see Phoenix Wright holding a Wii remote with his right hand: http://www.debate.org... Therefore we must come to the conclusion that he uses his right hand as well as his left hand, making her ambidextrous, but dominantly left!
Phoenix Wright is left handed.

OBJECTION! They must have flipped Phoenix to make him right handed, then made him face the other side. Look at this article: http://askaceattorney.tumblr.com... and tell me I am wrong. Yes, I am ambidextrous IRL, but I am dominantly left handed. If Phoenix does not even know he has told a person he's left handed then I don't know if a Phoenix Wright does exist IRL.
Abortion should be illegal

Abortion should not be illegal. Abortion is one of the things that females should have a complete control over since the process undergoes their own body. Although some may consider this "murdering/killing" the child, that is not scientifically the case. During the abortion stages which is up to 12 weeks, the "baby" does not have any functioning organs or the basic human body parts, therefore, the baby is not yet a living creature. Another point to be made, abortions are usually done by irresponsible people who can not afford a child in their stage of life. They could either be financially unprepared, in school or other priorities, they would only have 1 option which is to have the baby. I don't think that abortion should be illegal it would lead to people depressed, mentally unstable, postpartum trauma and the kids growing up in an unhealthy atmosphere.
Gun ban/Confiscation, 2nd Amendment Outdated.

I wrote a rebuttal that was nice said exactly what I wanted to say. Then my Open Office Crashed. It will not let me reinstall. I got a copy of MS Word but it will not read the the file. :( All that made me late for my round. I am not going to rewite all of it. My opponent has taken up that there should be no gun bans, and no change to the 2nd amendment is need. My opponent as dropped this argument. My opponents argument: The only thing that needs to be done is the defining of Militia making it a Military force, requiring States to stop neglecting on the topic of Militia, the requirement for the new generations to trained to use a firearm and even military equipment, if Militia is considered a US military force, and the repeals of gun restrictions on law abiding citizens, who obey the law, to carry a fire arm, at least a pistol, for self and others defense against violence and crime. There is very little difference in my argument: The only thing that needs to be done is the defining of Militia making it a Military force (Including a citizen militia or persons with a large stockpile of arms), requiring States to stop neglecting on the topic of Militia, the requirement for the new generations to trained to use a firearm and even military equipment (In a manor consistent with US military training style and requirements), if Militia is considered a US military force (Not in mine), and the repeals of gun restrictions on law abiding citizens, who obey the law, to carry a fire arm, at least a pistol, for self and others defense against violence and crime.(Have also completed military style training, are not deemed SMI, and register a willingness to be called upon by their state) (That the 2nd amendment should be reworded to reflect this.) My opponent has basically coincided to my argument and now we are in an argument of semantics.
Elective abortion should be legalized

Pro has forfeited her last round and such behaviour is guilty of a conduct violation. Unfortunately, given that I dismantled Pro's affirmative position and rebutted every criticism Pro raised to my own affirmative case against the permissibility of abortion in the last round, I have nothing left to respond to. I hope that Pro does return to finish the debate, but given the weight of evidence presented by each side thus far, I suspect Pro is facing an almost impossible task to win the argument point.
Elective abortion should be legalized

You may have misunderstood my point in listing those items. Those are just some harms that could come from killing. They aren't an all-or-none thing; lack of one does not eliminate all the other reasons. What direct harm comes from aborting a pre-cutoff point fetus? *drums fingers, whistling* None of those harms, that's for sure. How would I have felt if I'd been aborted away? The same way I'd felt if I'd been abstained away--I wouldn't. But nobody forced my parents to conceive me in order to allow me to live with a good future. I could've just been nonexistent and futureless. That was merely their choice. We all deserve reproductive rights, and if they'd been forced to have me, that would've caused more harm to them than the harm to me if I'd never existed as a sentient, feeling being. What makes certain cases of harmless killing immoral? The malicious intent. It is not a case of protecting the killed, but of punishing the killer. There's no malicious intent in abortion; nobody thinks "ew, a fetus, I hate you, you deserve to die." It is merely a matter of protecting bodily autonomy (more on that in a bit). Why doesn't "non-sentient" apply to sleeping people? Because you can still feel when you sleep, and you still don't want to die. And also you still have friends and family who can mourn. The only folks who fulfill absolutely ZERO criteria for resulting harm are pre-cutoff point fetuses and braindead people. The fetuses' parents can choose to have it aborted; the braindead vegetable's next of kin can choose to have the plug pulled. Besides, even if you can't shake that abortion is murder, it can be considered justifiable homicide out of self-defense. Bodily autonomy is the reason that rape and assault are wrong. Likewise, a fetus is taking over a person's body, sucking up their nutrients, and using their organs without their consent. The bearer has every right to remove the straining parasitic-behaving fetus. I could say more but I am TIRED right now. If I think of more I'll include it in the comment section, mmmkay?
Elective abortion should be legalized

First of all, what makes killing unethical? -You're inflicting pain. -The victim can experience mortal danger and objects to the death. -You are taking the victim away from loved ones who will mourn. Fetuses fulfill none of those criteria: -There is this thing called Electroencephalography (EEG), which records brain activity. EEG suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in fetuses probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks (a point after which abortion is rare and illegal); this study asserted that withdrawal reflexes and changes in heart rates and hormone levels in response to invasive procedures are reflexes that do not indicate fetal pain. -Likewise, there are no detectable brain waves that would translate to fear until that number of weeks (again, rare and illegal). An abortion after that point only happens under special circumstances (such as when it's killing the mother or has serious defects that will kill it), and the fetus is euthanized before a 3rd-trimester abortion, meaning it feels none of the abortion. -And of course, fetuses don't have loved ones who are going to mourn. Common sense. So really, taken in total, aborting a fetus is like choosing to swat an obnoxious fly buzzing around, or like parents choosing to pull the plug on their braindead vegetable child. No harm done. And then there's bodily autonomy. It's the most important argument because it"s bulletproof, really. Bodily autonomy is an unwritten law that says no one can use your body without your consent, which is why (most) humans automatically understand why rape is wrong and why you have to be an organ donor in life for your organs to be taken after your death. Fetuses do not have bodily autonomy because they are not autonomous. Perhaps you'll rebut this by accusing me of ableism, because many disabled people are dependent on others. But disabled people are still autonomous, because they are sentient beings and don"t live inside the body of another person and suck up their nutrients. If abortion is illegal, dead people will officially have more rights than pregnant people (because a dead person"s organs can"t be used if they aren"t an organ donor). Booyah! Looking forward to your rebuttals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.sciencedirect.com...