BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be made illegal

Con makes several factual mistakes here that throw off the entire argument. First of all, the premise of your argument is false, human death is defined by the cessation of heart activity. This is why a person who is brain dead can still live. It is the heart that keeps you alive, not the brain. Fetuses develop heart activity during the first trimester. Also, i would consider the fetus alive as soon as it is conceived. After all, if you can kill isomer hung, that means it's alive. A fetus is just an early stage of human life, and I consider in cruel and unusual punishment to deny someone life because a woman doesn't want to have the baby, even though she had sex, knowing the potential outcomes. In conclusion to my second statement, I would say that a fetus is really always alive. It is not dead in any way before it "comes alive", so it must always be semi alive or active. The cells of the baby are working and developing after concieved, and again are not dead. I find it to be very wrong to punish the baby for not being developed enough.
Abortion should be made illegal

I don't have much time, so I'll just give a short rebuttal. Pro claims that a fetus is just as much a person as an adult is. However, this is easily refuted with a couple simple observations: 1. Human death is defined by the cessation of brain activity 2. Therefore, human life is defined by the presence of brain activity 3. Fetuses don't develop brain activity until long after the first trimester 4. Therefore, the fetus is not truly a living human being until long after the first trimester Conclusion: Abortions in the first trimester are not comparable to murder, and thus Pro's case fails. Apologies for the rushed argument. I'll do a more thorough job next round. But for now the resolution is negated.
Abortion should be made illegal

Oh I almost forgot to mention just in case, you don't need to cite anything unless you directly copy a quote or want to show evidence. the premise of my argument is that because murdering a person is wrong, and because a fetus is a person, abortion is wrong. There are different stages of human life that you develop through until death. It is accepted that the fetus stage is just one stage of a persons life. A 75 year old man is no more of a person than a 9 year old boy. That argument is invalid and does not work. So how is a fetus, essentially a person who isnt developed enough to live by themselves, not human enough to the point where you can kill them if the woman so chooses. It is not a woman's right to have an abortion. They can always put the child up for adoption, although I know the process of pregnancy is tough. But in my opinion, it isnt right to punish the baby for doing nothing. You are denying a person life. While it may seem like nothing to us, because we can't see the baby, it is a cruel process that involves pulling apart human parts and scraping them out of the woman. There is no humane way to perform an abortion, considering they just dump the bodies out after they're done. While a first trimester abortion is not as cruel as a third trimester, any stage is still life. It doesn't seem right to me to deem a certain stage of development "not human enough" for life. Besides, what's the difference of one week between first and second or second and third trimesters. That is why abortion is wrong to me, and should be eliminated to allow people life.
People who are suicidal should not be put into impatient facilities, or an insane asylum.

To clear things up, here is the definition of suicidal that is to be used.suÂ·iÂ·cidÂ·al/ËŒsoÍ"oiËˆsÄ«dl/Adjective: Deeply unhappy or depressed and likely to commit suicide.Relating to or likely to lead to suicide.*Also we can refer to people who have attempted suicide to be suicidal.I believe people who are suicidal should not be placed into medical institutions. I beleive there are other methods that can help someone who is suicidal. Someone who is suicidal is not always mentally ill. Often times they suffer from great depression. This is a list of my reasons why and i will then explain each one-There are other ways to help someone suicidal-Suicidal people should not be iscolated, they should be helped-Suicide watch is effective-People still can kill themselves in mental hospitals.There are other ways to help someone suicidalMedication is a method that is common and can help and also helps some. Many people who are suicidal feel alone, therapy can also be a help and counseling although some counslers will consult and request that you go into a inpatient facilitiy but many counslers help and try to talk it out. Suicidal people should not be iscolated.Those who are suicidal often feel alone as mentioned earlier. Why iscolate someone who already feels alone? Why should someone be put in a room where they cant harm themselves, wheren they question why they are being locked up and not helped. Iscolation does not help. Basically people who are suicidal and need help are put in a "jail" and made to feel helpless. Suicide watch can be just as effective.Suicide watch is a good alternative that still gives someone freedom of contiuning a daily life. Suicide watch is not just a prisoner, or patient who is at risk of hurting themself. Often times students at schools who are suffering from this behavior have to have someone follow them around and monitor all of their activity. Now you may be thinking "well they have no freedom". No they have freedom to do what they want and just have someone making sure they are ok. This can be effective and better than locking someone up.People can still kill themselves in mental hospitals.http://bjp.rcpsych.org...Here are some statistics showing death in some hospitals. This can result in the iscolation and not being able to see any of their friends who are around themPeople who are suicidal should definitely not be placed in these facilities.
People who are suicidal should not be put into impatient facilities, or an insane asylum.

Since my opponent unexpectedly forfeited his round 4, I shall proceed to make my concluding statement without giving a rebuttal. This whole debate was led around some very important questions, which are as follows:a) Can suicidal people be helped in a way other than hospitalization? b) Are people treated improperly in institutions, that is, are they needlessly isolatedc) Can suicidal people be classified as insane? There were a few other points, such as that people can still kill themselves in hospitals (pro) or that hospitals have the best available equipment (con), but those were only mentioned in but a few words and, in con's opinion, hold no great relevance as to the outcome of this debate. As for the three most important questions, I shall go one by one and explain why you, the voters, should vote con in this debate. a) Can suicidal people be helped in a way other than hospitalization? During this debate, pro argued that there are other ways, such as suicide watch, but failed to prove how it could be effective and how it could effectively replace hospitalization. On the other hand, con managed to prove that hospitalization is the first step in treatment and that, in this debate, we are talking about cases severe enough to be hospitized. The only answer from pro was a single statement that originated from pro misunderstanding the source offered by con. In the end, pro didn't prove why hospitalization shouldn't be the first step and why that is so, thus the answer to this question is no and the discussion concerning it goes to the con side. b) Are people treated improperly in institutions, that is, are they needlessly isolated? The discussion about this question was based on pro claiming isolation is too strict and needless on one side, and con claiming it is necessary on the other side. Pro argued that those people are isolated and put "in jail" to which con counters by explaining that isolation is necessary for the staff to be able to perform evaulation and monitoring, and that those people are all but "in jail" due to supervision. Pro then tries to prove how those people feel hopeless and one, while con explains how counselling is obligatory for that exact reason. While pro only argued that isolation is a bad experience, which is true, con proved why it is necessary. Pro's points about people being "in jail" were completely illogical and refuted by con, and that is why this the outcome of the discussion about this question also goes to con's side. c) Can suicidal people be classified as insane? The discuson about this question was very simple. After con claimed they indeed can according to the medical definition of insane, pro replied by citing a source which neither explained what its author meant by "crazy" or negated the definitiong provided by con. Thus, con proved that suicidal people can indeed be classified as insane and thoroughly explained why, pulling this question over to the con side as well. After this closing statement, I believe I have shown why con has managed to win this debate and I hope the voters will see things the same.
Mitt Romney News: He Is Lying His Way To The GOP Nomination

Here are some more conspiracy sites that you should ignore, if you insist on using MSNBC, CBS, CNN and Fox as your sources for truth (not to mention IckyPedia.com):http://rense.com...http://stevequayle.com...By the way, if you're calling belief in God "hate speech," you really have serious spiritual problems. And there is no way for you to rationally except the truth of the Bain Capital & conservative media collaboration.So, you might win a debate, but you will certainly lose out in life - walking around believing the mind control that you so willingly digest from the corporate media.
Mitt Romney News: He Is Lying His Way To The GOP Nomination

I looked into it, and many media broadcasting groups actually employ Sean HannityCumulus, http://lakecharles.cumulusradio.com...Clear Channel Radio,http://www.clearchannel.com...KSFO,http://blogs.sfweekly.com...and WABChttp://wabcradio.com...http://www.ksfo.com...So Sean Hannity doesn't answer to any one media outlet.... Such as CCC..... And neither do most other talk show hosts"You are trying to debate me using mainsteam information sources, but that just won't work."Yeah it does, I'm beating the hell out of you with them right now...."You don't believe in Jesus Christ, so debating for you has to do with attachments to the logic of this world."Now that first part seems a little mean.... But I do agree with that second part where I use logic for my arguments unlike you who uses hate speech. "Try God."Try pulling your thumb out of your own a** long enough to actually answer my other arguments....(List of forfeited arguments)1) Romney hasn't worked for Bain in 10 years and thus cannot exercise any actual influence over them2) Bain only bought CCC in 2008, many years after Romney was already gone3) Bain still only owns a part of CCC, not all of it4) CCC doesn't actually operate any of the talk show hosts you mentioned, they are only affiliated with other media sources that do5) All of those hosts aren't forced to say what CCC wants them to say 6) These hosts don't even endorse Romney, most of them like Gingrich7) The Univision Interview wasn't a product of CCC's manipulation, that was a story reported by many major news sources throughout the country besides CCC8) Romney could be getting support because of his stances on issues and policies, not just through some fake conspiracy you came up with9) The Conservative Media is not owned by any one corporation, and even Bain only co-owns a fraction of it. 10) None of this counts as "Lying his way to the GOP Nomination"11) Your sources are overwhelmingly biased and unreliable
Mitt Romney News: He Is Lying His Way To The GOP Nomination

Hannity: http://www.clearchannel.com...So, you're wrong. And you're wrong to live in denial about the corporate fascism that dominates the media and how that effects what you and all your liberal friends hear on the radio and see when on TV which you worship as a source of truth.You are trying to debate me using mainsteam information sources, but that just won't work.You don't believe in Jesus Christ, so debating for you has to do with attachments to the logic of this world.Try God.
Mitt Romney News: He Is Lying His Way To The GOP Nomination

1) All arguments dropped 2) " Looks like you have lost this debate not just out of sheer ignorance, but out of a lack of interest in TRUTH."Oh I am interested in the truth, I did actual research into your claim, found several fallacies in your logic, presented those fallacies to you, and you ignored them like a 4 year old....3) "Try this for an article reference: http://endoftheamericandream.com...;I checked out this article, and I must say it is rather unreliable and biased, how do I know this? These are some of the other headlines that have come from this same website... - 1 - "35 Shocking Facts That Prove That College Education Has Become A Giant Money Making Scam" - 2 - "All Hail The United States Of Germany? The Rest Of Europe Is Facing Either German Domination Or Financial Collapse" - 3 - "17 Reasons Why A Vote For Mitt Romney Is A Vote For The New World Order" - 4 - "You Won't Believe How Corrupt, Lazy And Stinking Rich Our Congress Critters Have Become" - 5 - "10 Reasons Why Lindsay Lohan Is Right About The Federal Reserve And The Price Of Food" - 6 - "12 Very Disturbing Examples Of Radical Social Engineering By The U.S. Government" - 7 - "Solid Proof That Weather Modification Projects Are Being Conducted All Over The United States" - 8 - "Fukushima Is Continually Blasting All Of Us With High Levels Of Cesium, Strontium And Plutonium And Will Slowly Kill Millions For Years To Come" - 9 - "Edible Microchips, Biometric Identity Systems And Mind Reading Computers" - 10 - "Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya" - 11 - "Will The Newly Created "Killer Bird Flu" Someday Be Used As A Bio-Terror Weapon To Reduce The Population?" - 12 - "How Globalism Has Destroyed Our Jobs, Businesses And National Wealth In 10 Easy Steps"These are the headlines that come from this website..... So I think it is safe to say this is a very biased source that the Pro is basing his entire "argument" on.....4) "And don't make me hold your hand while exposing you to the truth about mainstream media and politics."You havent shown anyone anything..... Other than your sub 40 IQ level.....5) "And I thought you knew something about the way the world runs."I thought this would be a good debate with a sensible sane person.......... So it looks like we're both disappointed.....6) All my arguments still stand....
Mitt Romney News: He Is Lying His Way To The GOP Nomination

Wow. I guess you don't understand just how the world of media works. Looks like you have lost this debate not just out of sheer ignorance, but out of a lack of interest in TRUTH.Try this for an article reference:http://endoftheamericandream.com...And don't make me hold your hand while exposing you to the truth about mainstream media and politics.And I thought you knew something about the way the world runs.
Mitt Romney News: He Is Lying His Way To The GOP Nomination

Do you call these tactics common? I think not.http://redd.it...Romney has a monster advantage over the other GOP candidates, because he still holds his connections to Bain Capital. And Bain Capital owns Clear Channel Radio, the syndication machine for Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and many other conservative talk show hosts.In Florida, Romney used his Clear Channel connections in the Spanish-speaking community to smear Newt Gingrich in a Univision interview.Control of the media's message is the way Romney is getting it done. Not even Obam had that kind of fix in 2008.The conservative media is owned by Bain Capital and Romney cronies.
The Death Penalty should be Abolished

Cost efficiency should never take precedence over things like a person's right to live or the concept of justice. That said, looking at the actual cost of the death penalty shows that it's far more expensive then just locking someone up and throwing away the key. A case that doesn't seek the death penalty will generally cost $ 740,000 to run, but a case that does seek the death penalty with generally cost $1.26 million. That's almost half a million more in costs. Moreover it cost $90,000 more to maintain a death row prisoner then a prisoner in general population. This is due to security, legal representation, et cetra and so forth. But to put it into perspective let's look at California - a state so associated with Leftism they've started coloring it blue on most maps. California reinstated the death penalty in 1978 and since then over the course of 37 years has spent $4 billion dollars or $308 million dollars per the 13 executions they've managed. This is on top of the $184 million spent on the surrounding circumstances of the death penalty. It's estimated that in another 15 years they'll have exceed $9 billion in costs for a controversial and seldom used feature of their court system. And that's without changing the system. The costs would actually rise if the system was changed to be a more fair process. Whereas on the other hand a system that only imposes maximum life incarceration comes out to 11.5 million per year. To again put that in perspective: 11.5 million a year versus 232.7 million a year (with a fair system). Considering how overburdened the criminal system is, considering the rapidly eroding safety nets in place for society's most vulnerable, and considering how criminal behavior recedes when education and community values rise... can wasting millions of dollars a year for petty vengeance really be justified? Instead of wasting millions trying to see someone killed that money could be spent helping people or improving society. On top of which it actively impedes justice - for example the Attorney General of CA devotes 15% of his/her annual budget to death penalty cases. That is 11 million dollars that could go to cold cases, prosecuting "risky" / "low profit" cases, and fighting prolonged cases against crooks with deep pockets. But instead it's spent trying to convince people that this or that person deserves to die - even if the evidence is shoddy as anything (as I mentioned previously). FINAL ARGUMENT In the end the things to be remembered are: - The Death Penalty is an active waste of millions of dollars a year. - The Death Penalty does not act as a deterrent due to being poorly implemented. - The Death Penalty has been used in the past against innocent individuals, and a posthumous apology is not justice for said individuals. - The Death Penalty is not morally sound or justified. - The Death Penalty's only use is in making certain individuals feel better and that is not nearly a good enough reason to use it. Thank you for your time.
sexting with teens

Sexting among teens has one stated problem by my opponent: potential loss of job opportunity in the future. I contend only if the recipient of such text violates social norms of privacy does that sext become visible to an employer. Meanwhile sexting is a form of expression among all people not just teenagers. You also make an assumption that the recipient of the sext will not care about that person in the long run. While a possibility that is not an argument against sexting since someone caring or not caring about the sexter in the long run has no impact on the value of sexting. As for the 'teenagers are not thinking before doing this' I contend they are. They are thinking about expressing themselves as human beings. How is sexting causing problems on a global scale?
A man should be able to relinquish all responsibility for an unborn child.

PRO wrote;"I'd just like to state for the record that my opponent has agreed that the current system is unfair."This is incorrect. I simple point what my opponent proposal meant, in hope of clarifications, which with this quote confirms my assumption. There is a reason why I put fairness in quotation at the end, to point that; the "unfairness", if currently present, would just skew to the other side, as I feel the proposal my opponent established, to be unfair for the woman. I think is clear that he believes the current system is unfair to men, of why I suggest it would be; like skewing from one side to the other.PRO wrote;"I don't deny that abortions come with risks..."This was my point (women has risks vs men no risks), which my opponent clearly agree upon. PRO wrote;"My opponent's point is that abortions have risks, where the proposed male "equivalent" would not. Is this supposed to be justification for inequity? Or is he proposing that we insert risks into the male's options, despite the fact that obstetrical risks are inherent in a pregnant woman's condition?"I'm not in support to the whole proposal my opponent has in the resolution, I'm CON to the resolution, I'm not here to try to make a proposal of my own.My opponent brought this proposal and took the role to defend such of proposal, and show the fairness of his proposal. I have yet to see him making a comparison to his proposal and the current system, and showing why the current system should be dropped and his system instated. If my opponent cannot show this, he failed the resolution.I'm not here to convince you to a new idea, the current system or fix my opponent proposal, which in this quote he gives the impression to exist, and believe I could give an idea of how to fix the hole in his argument (which he points that if I were to give such of idea, it would be a bad one). I'm just here to show that my opponent's idea does not do what he believes it does, and so far I have done my job.PRO wrote;"I've read about women who lie about being on birth control and even poke holes in condoms to purposely get pregnant, and part of the plan is to trap the father into child support if he doesn't stay, or even if he wants to stay but can't. I don't know how often this happens, and can only assume that it does at all; even if women never do this, however, they CAN. Under the current arrangement, they can do exactly as I described if they so choose. The proposed arrangement would abolish this possibility."This paragraph is a story told by my opponent. There is no source of any kind to support this story, and this story is by memory, which is even less reliable.
A man should be able to relinquish all responsibility for an unborn child.

By my opponent's arguments, I'm assuming that his idea behind the resolution is of fairness. As such, I'll be countering his argument of fairness towards his proposal. Performing an abortion is more than just relinquishing the responsibility to a child. Abortions can come with many consequences to a person's health and well-being. With the man having the right to relinquish his responsibilities as a father, the mother will have to account that into her decision of what to do with such situation, and such right to the man will reflect in her decision. So both did the deed, but the woman will carry all the downside of such of situation. In this link you can find a list of risks that a woman will be taking by aborting. http://afterabortion.org... A man who relinquishes his responsibilities of a child, has nothing to worry about. That person could even regret his action along the way, and try to become part of his offspring at a later time. There will still be chances waiting for him, to the mother, is a permanent decision. So my opponent's proposal would simply skew the "fairness" from one side to the other. ____