BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

For the second round of this debate I will argue against the points you made and try to explain other legitimate pro abortion ideas that you may not have considered. Firstly I assume by a medical professional you mean the doctor performing the abortion? I think you are asking too much of a doctor to risk their career and medical license in making such a decision, I also feel they aren't really qualified to and that most doctors wouldn't want to make this decision (this is what I mean by it not being practical or fair). You also stated that "Every human being brought on this earth has a chance to do what they wish with their life..." If this is the case then shouldn't a mother have the right to choose to have an abortion? If the parents genuinely feel that they can't look after a child because they aren't ready or they can't afford it, then I don't think that its ridiculous for them to want an abortion. There would be nothing crueler than bringing a child into this world that isn't wanted. Surely it would be better to terminate the pregnancy in the early stages, than let the child be born and face neglect and parents who do not want him/her. I am disregarding the point you raised that abortions have only been around for "100+ years" as a good basis for a debate about fairness or practicality, there are plenty of things that have been invented in the last 100 years which have helped the human race incredibly. Also I don't think that you can use the fact that your mother and you would not have been born as a viable argument, the issue of abortion can not be brought down to a personal level (even if you think it has affected you/your family) and that seems to be what you are doing. I would also like to bring up the point that if abortion was restricted, like you wish it to be, then parents who felt they couldn't raise a child and thought abortion was the only way, would only end up turning to illegal abortions after being turned down by the doctor. This would more than likely end up in there being a lot more deaths caused by abortion, as well as the creation of a huge black market of doctors practices. I put forward the idea that if you really have such a personal and moral problem with abortion, then the real issue you would address is teaching people about things like safe sex and ultimately avoiding unwanted pregnancy's. If you feel any points I have made in this stage of the debate are unfair, or I haven't addressed issues you brought up let me know.
Abortion

For the first point, the idea raised is that abortion shouldn't be legal for those who dont have a legitimate reason for having an abortion. The officials that dictate whether or not that individual should be granted the right to an abortion should be a medical professional. That individual would be taking all of the risk with their career and medical license on the line when dictating that decision. Simply basing an abortion on excuses such as, money, responsibility, or success in life are NOT legitimate reasons for an abortion. These are selfish justifications that dont excuse this individual from giving birth. Every human being brought on this earth has a chance to do what they wish with their life and for a person to automatically declare that their child wont have a good life and so shouldn't be brought into this Earth is an ridiculous statement. No matter how great or how small each human beings chance to succeed to in life. There's nothing "fair" or "practical" about an abortion which has only been in existence for 100+ years. It takes two to create and unless its rape there is no excuse. If my grandparents weren't Catholic and hadn't believed in Abortion then, my mother would haven't been born with her parents being 16 years old therefore neither would I. Having grandparents whom were both poor encouraged my parents to work harder than the average American and monetarily that work has certainly paid off. You are correct on your second point that I would agree with that female teenager holding the choice of whether or not she can choose to have an abortion.
Abortion

My argument in round one is a couple of simple points, as you have presented scenarios yourself where I would agree abortion is obviously the right decision (e.g. rape). In my opinion it is ultimately up to the women who is pregnant to choose whether she has an abortion or not. You say that those who wish to use abortion as a scapegoat or to avoid responsibility shouldn't be given the right to an abortion but who makes that decision? By this I mean who would decide whether the parents, in particular the mother, are choosing abortion because they don't want the responsibility. Would a doctor have to review the current state of their lives and make a decision for every person who wanted an abortion? That just doesn't seem fair or practical. One other argument I will draw attention to (which I think you would agree on) is that young teenage girls who become pregnant are more likely to die in pregnancy than women over the age of 17-18, the babies born to these younger mothers are also at greater risk. I think it is only right these girls are given the right to an abortion if they choose. I think these points suffice for round one of this debate, if you feel I have missed any key points that you made please bring them to my attention.
Abortion

Greetings fellow debater my stance on Abortion is not 100% anti-abortion but, more of a leaning stance on the issue. My argument is stated below. Abortion is one of those issues that has no straight forward solution that is applicable to ever occurrence. In either scenarios of rape or a child being brought into a world with less of a chance to succeed in life, there are no winners. Each case is unique and should not be looked upon the same in the eyes of the law. For those who wish to use abortion as a scapegoat or as a means or birth control to avoid their responsibilities I believe shouldn't be granted the right to an abortion. Coming to the conclusion that that child will indefinitely not succeed in life is a generalization that bounds no lawful or moral right to an abortion. I believe that cases that deal with rape or incest are an exception but, should be handled in a timely manner and not put off till whenever the female carrier feels that she is ready. I also toss to the side any religious argument with the fact that one religion's beliefs shouldn't be forced on to another person that may not even be affiliated with that religion.
Communism can successfully and with stability establish a nation based on its ideology

Communism has conclusively shown that it cannot actually be used to form the basis for a stable society. It's very way of life fosters the antithesis of what it strives for, creating empathetic and docile masses whilst being unable to prevent itself from falling apart due to corruption from within the ruling party. I would argue that it is in fact not possible for a nation to find any lasting governance that is based upon the base ideals that a communist society represents.
Communism can successfully and with stability establish a nation based on its ideology

1) That is the point though, the communist nation could not be formed due to the fact that the governing force was diverted from its original communist ideals into a dictatorship due to communism's inability to create it's own stable, lasting state. Communism failed to achieve it's lasting ideological goals and was, in Russia, unsuccessful due to it's inability to address the issues that occurred when one wanted to hijack the system. 2) But obviously the communist system has already failed if the moronic actions of one cause the state to collapse? Because that means that there is evidently a lack of parity between the powers held by differing members of state, going against the communist ideals. 3) Which means that all of these countries that are still being run by bureaucrats are also failing the communist ideals. By listing out ways in which all of the previously established communist countries haven't been truly communist it merely supports the idea that communism cannot be successfully established, as history has shown us. And its all well and good to say what a communist nation could or couldn't do to prevent itself from collapsing, but in the end will it actually come into effect? History suggests that it won't and hence why I stick to the contention that communism cannot successfully and with stability establish a nation based on it's ideology.
Communism can successfully and with stability establish a nation based on its ideology

1. While the country Stalin (and his kin) fostered throughout their reigns was far from an ideal Communist society (they had central figures of power, after all), they still shared many of the tenants of one, along with many of the benefits. However, as it was also a Dictatorship, it suffered the consequences as such. Communism didn't fail because someone was in central power. The central figure failed the system. 2. This is another case of a single man ruining everything. Preceding the fall of the Soviet Union, the leader of Russia created multiple reforms, which the other states found detestable and so declared independence. This issue had nothing to do with Communism, rather the moronic actions of one. 3. In a true Communist country there would be no bureaucrats, every government member would be an average citizen. The issue of corruption would be virtually non-existent, because general agreement would be necessary to create any corrupt policies, and as this body would consist of a multitude of citizens, this would be nigh-impossible. As for the Dictators, this issue can be easily resolved by a transparent government. If everything the government does is noted and publicly available, they will be infinitely accountable to the citizenry, which will make impossible the establishment of a central power. Also, I never said that a Communist society couldn't institute a term of office (by random selection, possibly). About your argument about Democracy: it's a system that is inherently flawed, as it can (and, as we've seen in history, often does) lead to Tyranny of the Majority, which happens when the majority of the voting body elects to oppress the minority in some way. With a proper Communism, there IS no majority (as all people are equal), thus this issue becomes non-existent.
Communism can successfully and with stability establish a nation based on its ideology

1) But the issue is with Stalin not living up to the communist ideals is that it means the country he has power over is no longer a communist nation. By failing to live up to the communist ideals he is showing that, at least in the case of communist Russia, that he could not create a communist nation. 2) The military spending is what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union though, the bankruptcy that resulted from the incompetent and selfish spending of the party destroying everything. In the end it turned the the country into a pseudo- democratic one, suggesting that a perceived democracy is much more stable and successful than the communist ideals before it. 3) But bureaucrats in communist countries are more likely to be corrupt and uncaring as because there are no elections or way to get rid of corrupt officials there is no system that can be used to "clean house". Dictators such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot found the communist system extremely easy to control as there were no checks to keep them true to the communist ideals. In a democracy the people can keep check of their leaders, making sure that if they are shown to be corrupt then there is an easy way in which they can be removed from office to make sure the democratic ideals are upheld, a concept that cannot be enforced in communist nation.
Communism can successfully and with stability establish a nation based on its ideology

I will address your rebuttal with one of my own:1. In a Communist society, the government is comprised of a group of citizens, who have no real benefits for taking part in government businesses. Thus, regardless of one's status, they're still equal and treated equally. Take, for example, Stalin. Yes, he was the Mouthpiece for Soviet Russia, and in many ways failed to live up to Communist ideals, but he still worked in a small room, given few, if any, privelages that weren't afforded to other citizens. 2. In the same vein, when the government is comprised of normal citizens, they're a lot less likely to spend money unwisely. Soviet Russia's Cold War spending was, in my opinion, very well spent. Why not spend large amounts of money to arm oneself under threat of war? Today, Russia remains one of the largest superpowers in the world, and you're telling me that Communism (which took them out of a dictatorship, mind you) doesn't work?3. Most current universal health-care plans instituted by governments are flimsy at best and regularly fail to meet demand. Take Fance, for example: Citizens spend approximately 15% of their wages on healthcare costs, yet over 90% purchase complimentary private insurance. Some time ago, their government instituted a policy that stipulated that hospitals had to admit a patient within four hours. Clearly, there are some problems here. These appear to be mostly due to bureaucrats' inability to create an efficient system. Not so with Communism, however. In a Communist society, the government is efficient because the citizens who take part in it are tied to the wellbeing of the country they shape, thus have great incentive to ensure that every system and service they provide is as efficient as possible.
Communism can successfully and with stability establish a nation based on its ideology

(solid, looking for a good debate m8) I'll address your points in the order they are written. 1) While the ideology of communism is indeed that people are all equal, history has conclusively shown us that it cannot actually function in this manner. While people like Mao had their own private compounds, the poor were forced to work in communes. In any communist country the party had ultimate power and exercised it in ways that were clearly done for political and personal reasons, such as when Stalin took all the food away from Ukraine that caused a mass famine, showing that there isn't a sense of equality between those in positions of power and the masses they lead 2) True, a single power that controls a country's funds is going to be more powerful economically than one that has all of its assets divided into the hands of individual corporations, however it doesn't necessarily mean that it spends it more wisely. for example towards the end of the cold war the soviet union was spending around 30% of it's GDP on weapons manufacturing, much, much higher than any other major power was at the time. 3) While the ideal that healthcare is free to all is nice and very achievable it's not a concept that requires communism in order to come to fruition, as can be seen by a multitude of social-democratic countries throughout Europe. And while it may be true that communist countries did often have relatively stable and functions healthcare systems, this was in turn hindered by the fact that the communist society did not foster growth within itself, a fact that meant many if not all communist countries were severely under equipped and outdated when it came to medicine.
Communism can successfully and with stability establish a nation based on its ideology

(Before I begin, I'd like to note that I wholly disagree with the argument I'm about to present, I simply wish to have a good debate, so I'm willing to play Devil's Advocate)In the past, Communism has failed to work. However, this was more do to the shortcomings of a few specific people than to the system itself. I propose that, it is indeed possible to create a working (though obviously not perfect, as humans aren't perfect) communist society. The evidence for my proposition lies in three points as of now:1. Communism creates equality:Under an ideal communist society (in which no dictator siezes power) everyone is equal, shares equal posessions, and each has a place within the community. This eliminates totally problems like income inequality, governments wasing money, and poverty. Also, when everyone has an equal place in society, and has equal posessions, there is no cause for jealousy, so it ceases to exist.2. Communism aids the economy:Throughout history, communism has shown a definite impact on the economies of the countries that use it. For instance, it prevents the unnecessary spending of money. In fact, Soviet Russia was completely independent from 1917 to 1981, a remarkable period of time for a massive country to be self-sufficient. Also, at one point in time (under Joseph Stalin) the Russian economy grew by 20% in under seven years. 3. A more modern issue is that in America alone, millions of people can't afford healthcare (and other services). This is a problem that will be completely abolished with the proper implementation of Communism. If such a system were to come into being, all services would suddenly become affordable, as everyone would share the same income, thus the same ability to pay for these services.To wrap up my argument, I'd again like to state that while I oppose communism, I enjoy a good debate and it's never a bad skill to argue for ideas you don't support.
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

Second round is construction only. No new arguments may be brought up in the final round. This includes new rebuttals/responses. You may only use this round to summarize, clarify, and/or restate what you have already said. This debate is in reference to Ronald Reagan, 40th president of the United States; it is also referencing the Iran-Contra Scandal in the 80s.
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

It has been a fun time :D I will summarize my view. No one who was charged was charged with treason. Hezbollah a terrorist group took hostages. Rawhide's administration sold arms to the Iran Government not Hezbollah. We were not at war with Iran and they were not enemies of the state. No one committed treason. VOTE CON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( I have more explanation points than pro. You should vote for me)
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

As this is the final round, any points that my opponent has dropped cannot be rebutted, except by cross examination with previous points. Dropped Points-Rawhide did sell arms to iran-Rawhide did give direct orders to do so-When the terrorists discovered they could trade US hostages for arms, they began to capture more and more hostages-Rawhide did purposefully cover up the scandal, and his involvement. -Iran was under an arms embargo, which Rawhide ViolatedMy opponent only seeks to make the point that because Rawhide wanted to save lives by giving Iran arms, he was justified in his actions, but as you can see, because his actions prompted more hostages to be taken, his actions didn't help at all. He fails to rebut the fact that Rawhide did indeed give arms to a country that was under an arms embargo, and getting plenty of Americans taken hostage.
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

"The problem at hand though is that Rawhide was providing aid to terrorists who were taking American hostages. These were combatants who were enemies of the state" The combatants that took american hostages were not Iranian soldiers. They were terrorist (Hezbollah). We did not provide aid to Hezbollah we provided it to the Iranian Government. I stand by my claim that what Rawhide did was not treason. From what I have read on the sources you have cited. He simply wished to save 100 hostages and establish a better relation with Iran. I see no funds to Hezbollah. With more arms the Iranians could better control their radical groups. The PRO is a member of the Green Party, They scheme in their flower covered tree-houses and must not be trusted.
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

Rebuttals"We were never officially at war with Iran. True we did provide aid to Iraq. But I do not believe this was technicality treason. "The problem at hand though is that Rawhide was providing aid to terrorists who were taking American hostages. These were combatants who were enemies of the state. "But as you can see no one that I could find was charged with treason. Simply they were charged with hiding information from the court or other things. The prosecutors who know the law better than me I am sure did not see treason as a legal option. "The largest flaw here is that new evidence has arisen to suggest that the charges made in the original court case were not accurate to the truth. That is the purpose of this debate. SummaryMy opponent creates an argument that doesn't clash with the resolution. He claims that Rawhide should not be convicted of treason because the courts did not find him guilty, or others involved guilty. This argument is invalid, as the court case was based on outdated evidence. Since the court case, loads of new evidence surrounding the scandal have arisen, and provide new light to the case, which we mut observe and evaluate. Rawhide was guilty of treason, as I have shown.
Ronald Reagan Should have Been Convicted of Treason and Impeached

During my research into this I discovered that Ronald Reagan's code name was Rawhide. For the rest of the debate i will refer to him as such because I like the code name. I hope this is not too much of a cop-out but i will be nit-picking the legal matter rather than the actual events. Treason: We were never officially at war with Iran. True we did provide aid to Iraq. But I do not believe this was technicality treason. But I am no lawyer so I understand if you wont take my word for it. However people were indited on charges (Not including Rawhide) I have a list below of what i could find: 1. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on June 16, 1992. 2. Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Adviser, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years of probation. 3. Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years probation. 4. Alan D. Fiers, Chief of the CIA's Central American Task Force, convicted of withholding evidence and sentenced to one year probation. 5. Clair George, Chief of Covert Ops-CIA, convicted on two charges of perjury 6. Oliver North, member of the National Security Council convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents 7. Duane Clarridge. An ex-CIA senior official, he was indicted in November 1991 on seven counts of perjury and false statements relating to a November 1985 shipment to Iran. 8. Richard V. Secord. Ex-major general in the Air Force who organized the Iran arms sales and Contra aid. He pleaded guilty in November 1989 to making false statements to Congress Source: Wikipedia. (Yes, I do thero research) (there were more indited but they are ether dead or boring so I dident include them) But as you can see no one that I could find was charged with treason. Simply they were charged with hiding information from the court or other things. The prosecutors who know the law better than me I am sure did not see treason as a legal option.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

I have been informed that my opponent is out of town for a while, and is essentially unable to debate; in the interest of fairness, I would ask that you disregard my opponent's involuntary forfeiture and allow her to post her answers to my questions and her rebuttal in the next round, without being penalized for it. Until then, just flow through the negative arguments to round 4, where they will be ready and waiting for my opponent's return.