BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The Unwind solution is a better solution to abortion than a Modest Purposial.

Contention 1: Torture is not defined by Pain. If we observe Con's definition of torture we can see it as the physical suffering, but since the Oxygen solution is pumped into the body it kills all pain receptors and there is thus no pain nor feeling. You are still alive as well as you are alive, but in a devided state. You are still alive and do not suffer any pain, thus you are not being tortured. The add is on Page 19 of UnWholly and unforunately does not say who the add is by, so until there is evidence proving that it was done by the Proactive Agency then the argument stands. My opponent drops my argument about tithes so I extend that argument across the board. Contention 2: There will be a New Teen Uprising. Another major thing here that my opponent fails to tell you is that Connor, the Akron AWOL, is against this kind of violence. He doesn't believe in launches such violent attacks (Shusterman, UnWholly, page 29). Since he is the biggest AWOL figure he commands this type of authority. The second is Lev who also agrees with Connor, so my opponent's argument is invalid. Contention 3: Storking=/= Unwinding. My opponent is mistaken as I have given the titles of two pieces of work. The Unwind and A Modest Purposial. I'll extend this argument across the board. My opponent states that the government will lose out on Revenue, but the book is in the United States while the law that my opponent brought up in link three is that of a Canadian law and thus is invalid as it has no effect on the story. (http://en.wikipedia.org...(novel)) Contention 4: Parts Pirates I have shown in my last round that they already exist and such a thing is illegal, so this argument has no uniqueness and thus invalid. Secondly, in UnWholly, Prop 58 is purposed and it tells of legalizing adult voluntary unwinding in where the families make this profit to provide for their family and this decreases the Parts Pirates. Contention 5: Unwinding leads to political unrest. My opponent has dropped this argument, so I extend this argument across the board. Contention 6: Financial Problems My opponent has dropped this argument, so I extend it across the board. Contention 7: Food Problems not an issue. My opponent has dropped this argument as this argument is an attack on A Modest Purposial and this argument being droped is key in this debate. I extend this argument across the board.
Resolved: The Unwind solution is a better solution to abortion than a Modest Purposial.

Contention 1: Torture is not defined by Pain My opponent believes that the lack of pain means that unwinding is not torture. However this is not the case, according to discovery.com, water torture is a form of torture even though there is no pain. [1] Pain defined as physical suffering or distress as defined by dictionary.com [2]. Additionally my opponent failed to notice that in round one I posted physiological torture. Pro gave an example of an ad that stated the Unwinding is like an adventure. However we must take into account whether this ad is done by the Proactive Agency, and thus this argument is void. Contention 2: There will be a New "Teen uprising" Unwinding was the "quick" solution to the Teen Uprising; however this will not discourage teens to rebel. Near the end of Unwholly, Hayden shouted "To the new Teen Uprising!" as he was being carted away and the fact that many AWOLs wanted more scenarios like the explosion of Happy Jack shows that kids shows that there is still the urge to rebel in teens. The Teen Uprising was the result of the second civil war (The Heartland War), and the Unwind Solution was the result of the Teen Uprising Contention 3: Stroking =/= Unwinding My opponent believe that there will be no financial problems from Stroking, however the victims of Stroking suffers from the burden of raising the child, and the government suffers from the lack of tax dollars from the parents due to their extra child. [3] The title also states the Unwind solution is a better solution to abortion than a Modest Proposal. There was no mention of stroking, and thus I consider this contention to be void. Contention 4: There will be more Part Pirates My opponent"s sources states that there are already "Parts Pirates" and thus my opponent concludes that my arguments hold no water. However Unwinding will bring an increase in the number of victims, my opponent"s sources states that only Ukraine undertakes this act, however the Unwind solution would bring this into both North America and into an illegal light. Sources: [1]http://www.discovery.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]http://www.settlement.org... [4]http://unwind.wikia.com...
Resolved: The Unwind solution is a better solution to abortion than a Modest Purposial.

This debate shall be about these two pieces of satire. The Unwind series by Neal Shusterman and A Modest Purposial by Johnathan Swift. Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Pro while Con will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Pro will make contentions and rebuttles, while Con Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Pro and Con makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Pro makes rebuttles and conclusion, Con will states, "No round as argeed upon." If Con says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling
Debate Topic: Calvinism

Calvinism - The belief that suggests that there is Hell and there is Heaven, and that our life actions determine our fate.Rules:Same as before. 1. No plagiarism. I did before. My friend abruptly caught me and scolded me. He had a book checked out at the Library just that day, dedicated to politics. He flipped through the pages wildly. I was reading a book. A seal pup felt sharks were still prowling around the sea. He nudged me. He retorted, "According to this, if you copy someone else's work without their consent, claiming it as your own, you would be infringing copyright!" He cared. Fear dissented, as I've done so a lot. This will result in a loss of a conduct point and argument points.2. No trolling. This will result in a loss of a conduct point.3. Opponent can first subsequently present their arguments. Don't have to.
Gangs

Some will argue that gangs are detrimental to society and that it serves no purpose, but for those who do join are usually youths who was brought up with no family values; so in term they find a gang and seek what they've been missing for a majority of their life. For some a gang provides income and I for one would probably join a gang for that purpose alone. Society has to understand that lower income areas suffer and with minimal help for government agencies they are sometimes forced to look for other means of income and joining a gang is usually the first place most people wouldl think of before moving on to other things. So in short Gangs provide more than what the naked eye may see, however society only shows how detrimental a street gang is; but in reality from my experience its really not.
Gangs

Gangs are detrimental to the emotional cognitive development of the committed individual because they are simply adapting to the views and bias of a certain population which prevents one from developing a wholistic view on social order, drugs, violence,freedom of choice, professional success, friendship, and love. The desire to participate within such an institution summons the demonstration of initiation at an extended cost. Such costs can be anything from violent crime, to religious sacrifices, fasting, and financial contributions which can condition one to become emotionless.
Ecoterrorisum is jusifable

I accpet this debate, it seems very interesting and fair. In general, I agree with the definitions and terms, however I would ask that my opponent offer a criteria for "justifiable". In this case, I will be arguing that "Justifiable" in terms of ecoterrorism means that ecoterrorism is justifiable if and only if it acheives the ends which ecoterrorists seek (which would be long term environmental change uniquely stemming from the acts themselves). If you have a counter criteria, you may offer it and we can debate it and so on. Good luck to my opponent.
Ecoterrorisum is jusifable

I call for a debate as to whether eco-terrorism is justified. I will define "eco terrorism" as unlawful destruction or dispossession of others property to protect the environment. Examples include arson and destruction of unmanned machinery/buildings. Examples also include the theft of animals used in testing laboratories. Actions that result in the death or injury to human beings are not to be debated as it is widely accepted within the environmental movement that violence against any living thing is morally wrong. To explain why I am not including it - while this is eco terrorism it is widely held to be an unjustifiable form of eco terrorism, it would be wrong to suppose from this that all forms are or are not justifable. I look forward to hearing my opponent"s views and giving my own on this topic. A quick example - consider me baking a cake (as im a terrible baker it is going to taste rather bad), if an alien with no experience of earth or cakes was to taste it the alien may that ALL cakes are disgusting. In simple form: P1 Bruces cakes tastes bad C All cakes taste bad. This is a logical fallacy as it jumps to a conclusion from having analysed one sample. I hope this has clarified the debate and you not confused anyone more! If you still have questions message me! I hope my opponent finds this definition agreeable and I wish them a polite and thoughtful debate.
The wage Gap is bull crap (Males get payed more than girls)

Happy to think with you today, Your wording is slightly vague so it is mildly possible that you agree with me, But I checked your profile and you seem to be a dem soc/communist so I am fairly certain we are on opposing sides here. The wage gap is justified. Its existence in some form, Not in totality. My general points will be as follows:1. Female healthcare costs more than male healthcare. As employers are currently expected to pay for some portion of their employee's healthcare, This fact cannot be overlooked. Businesses have a responsibility to maximize profits. I would personally agree that employers shouldn't have part in healthcare, But this is where we are. We are debating what the wage gap currently IS not what it could be. 2. Females don't fight for raises as much as males. Females tend to be more agreeable. The more agreeable and the less competitive one is, The less one tends to be seen as a leader, Promoted or given raises. 3. The lines of work Males choose tend to be more risky, Or have a physical component. With the freedom to choose one's path, Inequalities will occur. Females tend to choose easier career paths, Or paths we currently don't pay as much in. Males will tend to work harder jobs, Riskier jobs, Et cetera. Females tend to prioritize family, Males tend to prioritize career paths. To conclude my brief synopsis of my position, If females and males get paid the same for the same work, I. E. If female and male teachers at the same experience, Qualifications, Et cetera get paid the same amount, There is no 'wage gap' between the two. However, If a disproportionate number of females choose to be teachers and nurses rather than lawyers or engineers, Of course the female subset of the population will be getting paid less than the male subset of the population. The fact that females currently cost employers more in healthcare and are physically unable to do the same quality job as men in many fields (female soldier versus male soldier) justifies a wage gap of some sort. Comparing male engineers to female nurses and saying there is an inherently unfair gender wage gap is an inherently poor comparison. In a perfect society we could eliminate much of this, But is your perfect society one in which females and males could not choose their own professions? May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Heroin should be made legal

My opponent has argued that the only reason that I wish for Heroin to be legal is that I must be a user. First and foremost, even if I was a Heroin user, this is within itself not a valid point, as advocating for legislative change that benefits oneself is neither immoral nor inherently based on bad logic. One would hardly consider this a valid form of argument against a taxpayer who lobbies to lower taxes. My opponent also makes the argument that Heroin kills people all the time. I acknowledge this point as semi-valid, as I have explained in my previous argument. Street Heroin does in fact cause many people to die, in the same sense that bathtub brewed alcohol caused many unnecessary deaths during prohibition. The distinction I make between Heroin and alcohol is that Heroin addiction does not inherently lead to physical or mental harm. Legalization would cause a dramatic decline in Heroin related deaths, as people will participate in a less risky form of use while using a safer form of the drug, while also discouraging the tendency of polydrug use often employed in order to augment the effect of week and impure Heroin. I will happily respond to any further argument m opponent wishes to present.
Heroin should be made legal

My opponent claims that nothing good can come from Heroin use. This statement is false, as Heroin (and most every drug within the opiate family) has been used medicinally for as long as we have known of their existence. Opiates have been used to treat illnesses ranging from basic maladies such diarrhea to even treating or replacing more dangerous addictions such as alcoholism. Opiates are also well documented in their ability to suppress coughing and other destructive illnesses. "there are reasons, in the physical effects of addiction and alcoholic intoxication, to believe that . . . narcotic addiction would be less disruptive than alcoholism." --Dr. O'Donnell, a Kentucky physician discussing opiate addiction. "More than any other unstable group," Dr. Kolb wrote, "drunkards are likely to be benefited in their social relations by becoming addicts. When they give up alcohol and start using opium [i.e. morphine or other opiates], they are able to secure the effect for which they are striving without becoming drunk or violent." --Dr. Lawrence Kolb, Assistant Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service. "Maimed and shattered survivors from a hundred battlefields, diseased and disabled soldiers released from hostile prisons, anguished and hopeless wives and mothers, made so by the slaughter of those who were dearest to them, have found, many of them, temporary relief from their sufferings in opium." --Dr. Horatio Day, describing the usage of opiates as tranquilizers among civil war veterans. "Last century the pain that led to addiction was often physical; today it is mainly psychic. Most of today's addicted persons have discovered, in other words, that opiates relieve their anxieties, tensions, feelings of inadequacy, and other emotional conditions they cannot bring themselves to cope with in a normal way." --United States Public Health Service, 1963. http://www.nytimes.com... http://druglibrary.org... I would also like to point out that despite the fact that the illegality of Heroin is maintained due to it's perceived effects (emphasis on perceived), it was not made illegal solely due to it's alleged health effects. Opiate prohibition has strong roots within the racist Anti-Chinese movement. "If the Chinaman cannot get along without his 'dope,' we can get along without him." --The Committee on the Acquirement of the Drug Habit of the American Pharmaceutical Association http://www.drugpolicy.org...
are sports players paid to much

They may provide entertainment, but that's not the most important thing in the world. For example a teacher who's someone responsible for the future gets paid what they need just to survive. Researchers who are responsible for almost any development in technology (including those that enable you to watch your entertainment with the best quality possible) are also paid very little money nowadays and they spend their whole life studying, something most people hate. Playing sports may require training your whole life, but training your body it's not the only hard thing to do. They're not responsible for the future at all, eventually their achievements in the sports world won't lead to any revolutionary way we live. Character limit disables my full argument, but anyways there are people who's more important that a sport player and should be pay way more. They could use a little bit of that money to found research or public education.
are sports players paid to much

I think that sports players deserve to be paid a lot. Most sports players have been practicing their whole life and have worked very hard to get to this point. Also sports players usually give a lot of money away to charity and other things like that. Sports players provide entertainment for the whole world. Most people really enjoy watching sports and it really encourages them. Also they need to provide for their family and they are away from their family a lot. Over all sports players defiantly deserve to get paid a lot.
are sports players paid to much

Do you think that people that design technology have to get up early in the morning and pour in their blood seat and tears just to put a few pieces of junk together? You need to deserve to be paid a lot. I strongly agree that people should be paid equivalent to how hard they have worked. Do you think that technology engineers wake up and do sit ups and push themselves to get better and better? Also people that design tech wouldn't be paid nearly as much if they didn't have a reason to have a tv. For most people the channels they watch the most are the sports channels. I think that the people that are technology engineers should be thankful to have a reason to make tv's. Also I bet that when the technology workers get home they plop on the couch and watch some type of sport. Sports are so big that you often see the president at an important sports game like the super bowl. Do you ever see the president watching engineers designing technology?
Sexual education is essential for primary school students and will help them in life.

I'm just going to go through this self contradictory argument line by line. How would they find out? Well, duh, maybe their older peers, who already know. If we never teach anyone about sex, ban pornography etc. our race will die out. If people are informed of sex and if the government attempts to make it "safe", Isn't that what sex education is already about? children will feel less need to restrain their hormones. Ok I have 2 problems with this. 1. No sources or any research of any kind provided for this claim, so the voters and I have no reason to believe it. 2. Um, are we actually suggesting that hormones will just magically go away if we don't tell them about sex? Besides, if someone gets pregnant, there's always abortion. You clearly have no idea how drastic an intervention an abortion is. Are you seriously suggesting that instead of a cheap and effective condom, which is A PIECE OF RUBBER, we go through expensive abortions. No thank you. Condoms have been proven to be effective [1]. You might read that study, and say "But that is a study of HIV transmission". Well, it is, but HIV is remarkably 'good' for testing purposes, as it test the effectiveness of condoms as a barrier. Finally, there was no definition of the terms last round, so please do it in the next or I will. [1]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
We should have a civil war

Thanks to my opponent for the debate. I'll just go through her points one by one. 1. Note. this is a civil war in America we are talking about. It would tear us apart because our country would be split into 2 or more factions, each one determined to destroy the other. And you say that wouldn't tear us apart? Hm.... 2 incredibly powerful groups going at each other. Each one armed with the leading technology... Nukes, concept weapons, you name it, we can use it. And you claim we would get closer together. Yes, maybe we would, IF the war had a victor. However, this kind of war will not. We would systematically destroy ourselves. The reason other wars have not done such a thing is because we haven't had a civil war in about 100 years. In that 100 years, technology has advanced to the point where we would destroy ourselves. Back them, armies still lined up in a battle formation and just attacked each other head on. Air force was non-existent. Nukes were not invented. Machine guns were not heard of. All they had were cannons that shot at about one round every 5 minutes. Our tanks today can shoot about 20 rounds every 5 minutes, not to mention the armour and the machine guns. 2. So because our economy is bad, we should destroy ourselves and start over??? Why should we destroy ourselves so that we don't have to pay China? 3. How is war going to make an economy better? Look at world war one after WWI, we had the Great Depression. Not to mention that we weren't even fighting ourselves. 4. No you haven't. Ok, so my opponent has made arguments that actually pertain to the debate, but in the last round. You can't do that. That would go against the rules of debate. You can't make new arguments in your last round. Extend all my arguments. She hasn't even made a single attack on them. Thanks for the debate. No time to do an elaborate finish, but simply put, my opponent hasn't shown that we should have a civil war. It was her job to do so. I have shown we sho
We should have a civil war

Wow thats really an insult. 1 Ok war could not possibly tear us apart. Why would it? All other wars have not done such a thing. If anything brought fighting countries closer. If we have enogh confidince i our leaders we will trust them with our lives. 2 we DO have reason to. Why not? over here oconomy is terrible. WE are in debt to China. Our lives are at risk if we don't pay China. Trust me my friend. WE DO have reason to. This world is no walk in the park. 3 If you haven't noticed: OUR ECONOMEY IF ALREADY A HUGE MESS!!!!!!! WAR COULD MAKE THIS BETTER. how? well, we loss money all the time because of inports/exports. War could save some of that money by sending out soldiers. I mean, we would save money and have to work harder because we don't have China or some other country give us stuff. Nw we would actully have to work for it. Which of course is less money anyway.WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!! 4 I think i proved my point quite logically. So the fight is still on. Have fun on your trip!