BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is Bad for the Economy

REPLIES In his arguments, my opponent founds them upon an assumption that spending is bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's all about the spending. As I stated in the first round, the measure of what is "good for the economy" is whatever increases the GDP, since that is the most popular model. It turns out GDP is literally a measure of how much we are spending[1]. So thank you to my opponent for pointing out that all those police officers need to be paid; thank you to my opponent for pointing out how much we need to spend on crime; thank you to my opponent for pointing out how much the war costs. My opponent asks me to explain "how adding to the pockets of these private helps the United States economy?" The economy is simple a construct of businesses. When businesses do better the economy does better. It's not even that one causes the other, they are simply both the same thing. Regarding sickness, my opponent didn't seem to completely understand my argument because he said "I don't see how 'can't afford a baby' supports your resolution. I clearly made the case, with sources presented, that poor people are less healthy than rich people. This is why I coupled "fetal health problems" with "can't afford a baby" in my statistic of "1/5th". My assertion is thus absolutely valid. My opponent makes a good point that abortions cost money which means business. However, "$300-$500" is incredibly insignificant compared to how much the average person spends on medical costs over a lifetime which is about $316,579. [2] They can't spend that money if they're dead. Keep in mind that many of those who got aborted had health issues and were overwhelmingly poor which means their medical costs would have been even higher than the average person. On welfare, my opponent says abortions detract from people on welfare and are thus good for the economy. There is a fallacy here. First, he makes the assumption that welfare is bad for the economy. I'm not going to assume whether it is or not. Rather, I will point this out; if it is bad for the economy, as he says, then his point is mute because it's a case against welfare and not against abortion, if he is wrong and welfare is good for the economy then it actually means that this is a case in favor of abortion. I have shown how my opponent's arguments are actually arguments for me. SOURCES 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... [see expenditure approach] 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Abortion is Bad for the Economy

Though I don't live in America, I'll follow my opponents lead and focus on the US economy. REBUTTALS Abortion reduces crime. Crime is good for the economy. “Abortion has been proven to reduce crime.” This is the statement my opponent has made. I actually think this supports my position more than his. Allow me to explain: “Over 800,000 standard police officers are employed in the United States alone.” Indeed. Each one of those police officers is paid between approximately $35,000 and $60,000 a year [1]. Simple maths tells us that employing all of these police officers costs the United States government between 28 and 48 billion dollars a year. “Many prisons are owned by private corporations that make a profit off them.” Indeed, but I ask that my opponent explains how adding to the pockets of these private corporations helps the United States economy. “Prisoners are also often sold off to corporations as cheap slave labor.” This point seems to contradict my opponent’s first point about keeping police employed. Does this ‘slave labour’ not put an unskilled American out of employment? Crime costs the United States economy billions of dollars. [2] This source [3] suggests that each of the 15,000 murders [4] committed in 2009 cost the US around 10 million dollars; that’s 150 billion, just for murder. Abortion reduces sick people. Sick people are good for the economy. 'About 1/5th of those who have had abortions report in a survey that it was either due to "fetal health problems" or "can't afford a baby".' Actually your source seems to suggest that between 0.1 and 1.0% of abortions (in the “compiled estimates” table) were due to fetal health problems and I don’t see how “can’t afford a baby” supports your resolution. Perhaps I missed some vital piece of information that boasts this 1% up to 20%; otherwise your point is invalid. Not to mention the fact [5] that each Medical Abortion costs $300-$500; money that goes back into the economy. Abortion means less recruitment for the Army. War is good for the economy. Here [6] [7] we see that economists are predicting the Iraq war could end up costing more than a trillion dollars. Here [8] we see the combined Iraq and Afghanistan war costing three trillion. War is BAD for the Economy. COUNTER ARGUMENTS Welfare P1: Abortions detract from the number of Americans who will rely on welfare P2: Welfare costs the United States government $225,000 per person living in poverty. [9] C: Abortions save the United State government money. CONCLUSION The resolution is refuted. VOTE Con SOURCES [1] http://www.payscale.com... [2] http://law.jrank.org... [3] http://www.slate.com... [4] http://www.disastercenter.com... [5] http://www.medicationabortion.com... [6] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [7] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [8] http://www.timesonline.co.uk... [9] http://www.cato.org...
Abortion is Bad for the Economy

Excellent. === ARGUMENTS === 1. Abortion reduces crime. Crime is good for the economy. Abortion has been proven to reduce crime. [1,2] This is largely because the great mass of people who commit crimes are poor and the great mass of people who get abortions are poor. Makes perfect sense. Crime is an indispensable business in our Capitalist economy. If crime were to suddenly disappear tomorrow millions of people would lose their jobs. Over 800,000 standard police officers are employed in the United States alone. [3] Many prisons, used to store these criminals, are owned by private corporations that make a profit off them. [4] Prisoners are also often sold off to corporations as cheap slave labor. [5] Legalizing abortion would destroy these essential businesses! 2. Abortion reduces sick people. Sick people are good for the economy. About 1/5th of those who have had abortions report in a survey that it was either due to "fetal health problems" or "can't afford a baby". [6] If the mothers were forced to bare these one in five then there would undoubtedly be more revenue for the healthcare industry. Those with birth defects would have to be specially cared for and those who are poor are expected to have more health problems later on. [7] Healthcare makes up a huge chunk of America's GDP. [8] Abortion would get rid of a large proportion of all those sick and dieing people who make up the backbone of such a prosperous industry. Not to mention all the victims of all those aborted who would have ended up in the hospital. 3. Abortion means less recruitment for the Army. War is good for the economy. The largest pool of people Army recruiters like to pull from are the poor. [9,10] This is because they are able to pull them into recruitment so much easier with promises of a better future after the military(poor saps fall for it every time, haha). We must force poor mothers to continue producing poor children or else we will simply not be able to meet up on the quota of needed recruitments which means less death and destructive to help our economy grow. War is the single largest industry for the United States. [11] There more limbs blown off, the more homes destroyed, the more families ripped apart, the more control we exert over other societies, the better off we are going to be. That's what makes this the greatest country in the world, it's how we've always done things around here(after all, we've been in non stop war since the Korean war about 60 years ago) and I'm not about to see that all given up! What are you?--A commie?! === SOURCES === 1. http://papers.ssrn.com...; 2. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.itsabouttimebpp.com... 6. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... 7. http://www.alternativeinsight.com... 8. http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. http://www.boston.com... 10. http://news.newamericamedia.org... 11. http://upload.wikimedia.org...
The second amendment should be completely abolished

I do not think you should abolish the second amendment. There are about 11,000 gun homicides a year. However, 500,000-3000000 lives are saved through the defensive use of a firearm a year. And that's from the CDC (a government-funded source). And for the record, more than 4/5 of the gun homicides are committed by illegal firearm owners. They bought them illegally (Washington Post). Guns also protect against a tyrannical government. Abolishing the second amendment would mean sending the entire U.S. military (1.4 million people) and swatting 150,000,000 people, to take their guns. And you would not be taking the guns from people who bought them illegally because their purchases do not go into the system.
The second amendment should be completely abolished

Since 1791, the United States has had the second amendment which is a law that allows US citizens to carry guns. As a result, within the past six years, there have been over 1600 shootings in the US resulting in thousands of lost lives. Because of this I am for the resolution, The United States should abolish the Second Amendment. I would write a lot more, but I am just now realizing that I can only put 750 total characters in length which is simply not enough space to prove my full point. If you can, could you forfeit this debate and send me a challenge with the same topic with the same conditions except with 10,000 characters in maximum length.
Conservative vs Liberal(which would best benefit our nation)

I accept. I will be playing somewhat the Devil's Advocate here, and promoting the political philosophy of liberalism promoted by thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu, T.H.Green, Kant and John Stuart Millagainst the political philosophy of conservatism, as promoted by thinkers such as Burke, Disraeli, Oakeshott, Santayana and Popper.
Ignorant people winning debates based on false facts

Let me see if I can make sense of that....So, you're saying that two people -- including yourself -- are debating whether black is a color, and because you're losing, it must be a result of "ignorant people winning debates based on false facts." Do you have any proof of this? Any excerpts from the debate? You have not even linked me to the debate. May I remind you that you, sir, have the burden of proof. Simply losing a debate does not mean that your opponent was ignorant, or wrong, or using "false facts." It simply means that his or her case was better to yours in the eyes of the voters.
Cell phones should be allowed in school

I believe that students SHOULD have a cell phone for educational purposes. People say that students are irresponsible with their cell phones. HELLOOOO! Did anybody realise that phones have educational apps? Phones at school…..it has a nice ring to it! On phones you can download many apps. Some of these apps can be used for educational purposes. Words With Friends, Reading Eggs just to name a few. In the 21st Century Phones have been PROVEN to be beneficial for education. Phones have calculators, calenders and the Internet. This has just combined three devices and put them into one! You have easy access to all of those things and they also make learning more fun! Phones have been proven to increase the enthusiasm of students. Instead of writing in your workbook, you could be online playing an educational interactive game with your friends. I’m not sure about you but I think majority of people would choose to play an educational game over writing in your textbook! Now lets face it. All kids nowadays are going to be using a LOOOTTT of technology when they’re older and working. They may still be using phones or may be using a more advanced piece of technology. Using phones in school will give children experience for their jobs when their older. Isn’t the whole point of school to learn things for their future lives? In some parts of Australia, it is quite deserted, and there nay be only one or two children living in that location, or possibly none. The nearest school could be a LOOONNNNGGG way away so the student may not be able to go there. With a phone you can use it to go on the internet and learn things yourself, or you can even Skype the teacher, or she could email you work and you could complete the work, and send it back to her! An education like that is better than no education!
Chinese communism is the only way.

My opponent has failed to show how or why Chinese communism is the only way. In fact, he/she has only managed to show that Chinas acceptance of capitalism is what made China so powerful. Therefore, one can only conclude that Chinese communism is not the only way because China has become so powerful because of its acceptance of western capitalism! My opponent isn't Chinese. My opponent is probably American, and the real purpose of this debate is to purposely misrepresent the additudes of Chinese people. The Chinese people do not actually believe in destroying American capitalism.
Chinese communism is the only way.

Ummm, geee! That actually kinda created more questions than it answered, thanx!?! So You say that "real communism can't deal with other capitalist systems", so..... uhhhmmmm... what kinda communism is China? Fake communism? And that's why China is growing in power!?! I'm gonna need some time to let this all sink in! You take it from here Bro!!
Chinese communism is the only way.

Yes it is acceptable to question communism when you haven't been fully secured against capitalism. You say "Communism would only work if the whole world was united in the ideology", however you also stae that "China has grown in power, almost to rival the imperialist USA. I fail to see why the whole rest of the world needs to unite in the ideology of communism if China is growing in power. It may seem redundant to one who doesn't understand Chinese communism. Chinese communism is meant to deal with other capitalist systems, and real communism can't. This is why I say China has grown in power while other communist nations have failed. 1. Heres your own propagandistic media links which support china https://www.nytimes.com...
Chinese communism is the only way.

Wow, I never thought of it that way. Mine eyes have been opened by the glorious virtues of Chinese communism. Thank You for enlightening me. I just have one question! You say "Communism would only work if the whole world was united in the ideology", however you also stae that "China has grown in power, almost to rival the imperialist USA. I fail to see why the whole rest of the world needs to unite in the ideology of communism if China is growing in power. Seems kinda redundant. I must be blinded by my imperialist education. Please, teach me the folly of my ways!
Chinese communism is the only way.

Yes. Thank you for accepting. If my spelling is off, I am sorry. I use a dictionary for the words I have trouble with, which is few. Communism unites people under a common cause, even your western philosopher, Aristotle, (1)supported an absolute ruler, and trained Alexander The Great. Communism is the best for a dictatorship in the simple reason that it has the ideal of equality of outcome in mind, which is the best ideal. (2) Some may look around and see other communist nations failing. This is true. This is also because they do not run on the chinese system(3). The only way communism would work in its truest form is if the whole world was united in the ideology. Since it is not, we, the peoples republic of china, must resort to trading with the western powers, and this is why Chinese communism is the only way, the only way to true communism. We are communist, but do not close ourselves off. This is why we have grown in power, almost to rival the imperialist USA.(4) (1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(Aristotle) (2)http://www.debate.org... ...a majority rule yes (3)https://cs.stanford.edu... (4)https://www.bloomberg.com...
Chinese communism is the only way.

Hello. As a Chinese citizen, I am well versed in communistic tendencies and of the filthy capitalist as well. Considering these things, I wish to convince the people of Debate.org to unite in a coalition against capitalism, we must have BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG REVOLUTIONS, and BIG SUPPORT. First round is for acceptance, and no ad hominem. I know the ways of this bourgeoisie site.
The USFG should withdraw completely from a foreign country.(Debate rap!)(Analytical debate)

Sorry it took so long to post, I've been prepping for a tournament. :) Thanks for accepting! Good 1NC rap. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This debate's come down to moral obligation Like I said, women's rights are a sensation Con wants you to believe that it's okay But its not rare, this abuse happens every day Cases are not reported, that's true But the reason why is at a loss for you These women are afraid to report the violence So they continue to suffer in silence Con is arguing it's alright if it's once in a while But that argument should make you smile With relief, because rape is no joke And I'm certain this next claim will make you choke Voters, you have a moral obligation to vote for the plan To completely withdraw from Japan Stop the women's oppression, and kill the abuse You are given a vote, it's your right to choose So choose correctly, with ethics in mind Saving this women is so very kind And obligatory for you, as a human being You need to protect others of your kind and start seeing That a woman is in no way less than a man Be it in the US or in Japan. I thank you for your time to listen to my rhyme I hope we can do this again sometime. :) <3
The USFG should withdraw completely from a foreign country.(Debate rap!)(Analytical debate)

Thanks, Pro! Admittedly I've waited until the last second to do this (I've been busy) so thanks for your patience... we'll see what I can come up with before it's due date! Anyway I had asked a question in the comments section regarding whether or not this rap debate pertained to Japan specifically, because it appears that way from the argument though the resolution is non-specific. You responded to another person's comment but not to mine, which is why I postponed posting, to figure out what exactly the real topic is. Nevertheless I decided to rebut what Pro says specifically regarding the U.S.'s military presence in Japan, particularly, considering my round's almost due. Thanks for the battle debate -- I've always wanted to do something just like this :) *** Yo... Pro's interpretation is really convoluted Not well suited to the truth of how WWII concluded So relax, sit back with a snack as I walk you through it And attack the way we're portrayed in this feud, it's Too abstract for my liking - recall Japan's secluded And we took over their military, all their bases included So it's no wonder we're there, in fact they like it [1] Cuz we secure their future for them like a psychic See this sweetie tries to make it sound like we're seedy But we're needed there, see, because of our treaty Yeah it's a contract of sorts we signed after the war's end [2] Now you want us to back out, well how bout not be a poor friend? Look our main reason for staying's to ensure their safety You're portraying or navy as abhorrent and shady Saying they're taking breaks to concentrate on raping ladies But let's not take away from what most do til day ends Do some retards make mistakes? Not maybe, absolute But let's not be too hard on our troops to ignore the truth So check it - we don't do a lot there, our role's mostly protective [3] So our stay's not expensive despite what you've contested Or suggested about the going-ons, very few have been arrested And most of the time what they did wrong was not molested Instead 90 percent of problems with American soldiers Are traffic glitches - guess they can't handle them Rovers [4] And very few sexual assaults have been reported So I'm sorry Pro but your contention's not supported Your point just can't be awarded as this is a rarity Your argument's too poor to afford it, guess you need some charity Or rather some clarity on why we're doing what we're doing Cuz so far you're losing this battle I'm viewing the more I keep spewing -- REFERENCES -- [1] http://www8.cao.go.jp... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.shugiin.go.jp...
The USFG should withdraw completely from a foreign country.(Debate rap!)(Analytical debate)

Women's rights Are really tight But the Japanese Are having trouble with these If you've got eight minutes I'll tell you how it goes Sit down there and start to flow You got it? Good, stay with me Observation one is inherency The USFG is holdly on to a base it doesn't need US-Japan relations suffer because we won't recede But the problem with these bases are the servicemen They are trained to dehumanize people and then They think its ok to rape and abuse But the Japanese women have no right to choose Thus I present the following plan: The USFG should withdraw forces from Japan Observation 2 is harms; Contention one is patriarchy Thats just not alright with me The government makes it all to easy For these soldiers to be acting sleazy They aren't punished for these crimes But they really need to get with the times We live in a world of womens liberation Its quite a sensation So get with the plan and vote for pro Free these women and act like you know
Homosexual adoption

As for my summary to this debate, I would just like to say that the Con has failed to truly disprove the idea that there's no reason for homosexuals to not be able to adopt children. The Con has said things, and continues to do so in his conclusion, however, my arguments have shown how there's no reason to not allow homosexuals to adopt, and in some cases, how homosexuals could be good parents. My points are that there is no reason for homosexuals to be oppressed of their rights. Homosexuals are not criminals. Maybe some are, but not all, and you cannot oppress all people of a certain group of a right for the wrongdoings of a few members, and not oppress all from another group that also has wrongdoing members. That is unconstitutional, and worse, unfair. Also, homosexuals are probably some of the best people to tell their kids to be who they are instead of follow a crowd, a valued concept. Homosexuals choose to adopt children, which is great for the adopted children, and because they chose to be a parent, they have a better chance of being a good parent than heterosexuals who accidentally birthed a child. I apologize for being a running politician in the previous paragraph, I thank my opponent for the debate, and just as the Con did, I shall end my portion of the debate with a nerdy reference. Don't vote for my opponent, because he's a Death Eater...and a Sith Lord. And Giovanni from Team Rocket...(well actually that would be cool)...I mean he's a Rattata. Thank you.