BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be allowed.

1. But the doctor makes the decision to follow the pregnant woman's request and accept the offer. For example Woman: Doctor can you abort my fetus I'll pay you $300. Doctor: Sure I'll perform the abortion I just need to make sure your life is in danger first. Woman: But it's not Doctor: Well then I'm sorry miss but I can only perform an abortion if your life is in danger. And that's an example of abortion being the doctors decision and not the woman's. 2. If you believe that parents care for children better than orphanages then the parents should raise their children themselves, and so far I only heard your opinion on adoption but you failed to mention a thing about safe havens or http://espn.go.com... 3. You certainly misunderstood my point because I would never say "if the parent is unable to take care of the child due to financial reasons, it is definitely better that the child is aborted". If the child may receive monetary help but remains monetary stunted due to being sent to an orphanage then the child is better off then being abused and neglected by parents that don't want him/her and the woman is in no position to worry about her child's well being because once she gave her child up for adoption she gave up her rights to her child meaning the child's no longer her problem. Saying pro lifers show no care whatsoever for the children after they're born is a fallacy because if that were true people wouldn't adopt children, have agencies or safe havens available for children, and if your arguing that the government can do more to help children then maybe that's true and the debate would take a different turn because instead of arguing that fetuses should be aborted you should argue that the government should help children more. Also if a woman wants an abortion she has no reason to criticize pro lifers care for children because they obviously care more than she does based on the fact that they fight for this child's life when she wants the child's life over. 4. I opened the link and I know that the information on the link is true, but I was just pointing out for future reference that you shouldn't rely on Wikipedia for information. 5. I don't think you should underestimate a teen aged mothers abilities, who said she only has to be a mother? She can be a mother go to school and make a living for herself it just takes hard work, I never said it will be easy but it's certainly possible and if the mother feels it isn't than she can give her child up for adoption or leave her child at a safe haven. You failed to mention What are human characteristics, and if your answer is self consciousness then that would mean that people on anesthesia don't qualify as human beings also you failed to mention how having consciousness is what makes a human being valuable in the first place.
Abortion should be allowed.

1.The doctor is hired by the patient to work for him/her. A doctor never takes a decision. It is the patient takes the decision and the doctor merely follows it,which in this case is the pregnant woman. 2.My opponent fails to show any report where it states that therapy doesnt work on all indivisuals.Its important to note that all people are different and therapy works in different rates. Also by saying that therapy doesnt work on all patients,what point he is trying to exert is not understood. 3.It seems he has misunderstood my third point. I exerted that care taken in orphanages is NOT equal to care taken by parents.In case nobody opened the link I gave, The research suggests that children growing up in orphanages are not better or equal to children with parents in terms of physical,mental or emotional parameters. 4. Self contradictory fact/rebuttal put up by opponent. If the parent is unable to take care of the child due to financial reasons ,it is definitely better that the child is aborted. If sent to orphanage,the child may receive the monetary help but remains emotionally stunted. IT MUST BE NOTED AT THIS POINT THAT ANTI ABORTION STANCE CARES ABOUT A ZYGOTE AND A MASS OF PROPERLY UNDIFFERENTIATED CELLS BUT SHOWS NO CARE WHATSOEVER FOR THE CHILD AFTER IT IS BORN AND ACTUALLY GAINS SELF CONSCIOUSNESS AND INTELLIGENCE. 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... Clearly my opponent makes no effort to open the link a this case is a real life life incident that had taken place in Ireland and was all over the news. Still for achieving the point for credible source... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 6.Judges note that upto this point opponent agrees that the point put up by me is true IN MOST CASES. Exceptions do exist. Is the % of' exception' greater than 50% or a considerable digit? If yes, how much? Reports?? 7. Again exceptions do exist. Also there is no guarantee whatsoever that the mother WILL achieve maturity after the child is born. 8.It must be noted that my wants teenage mothers to join in absolutely unnecessary activity such as pregnancy classes at time where her sole objective should be to focus on studies and make career. Also the hardwork needed to take care of a child will definitely hamper and divert the mother's focus on education. At this point I suddenly remembered that I forgot to put a very important argument in previous rounds. Here it goes- It must be noted that around 90+ % of abortion takes place in 1st trimester that is within 12 weeks. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... Here, the activity of an unborn fetus is explained in layman language. It is clear from the activities that the fetus is nowhere near of having human like characteristics till week 12. Also it doesnt show complete human like activity till before week 20. Therefore under special needs of the mother,abortion should be allowed till week 12-13 if not 20. (Opponent is requested to rebuttal this argument in round 5 and then conclude) PS- IN ROUND 5,I WILL BE PUTTING UP ALL MY ARGUMENTS IN SHORT POINTS WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION.
Money is worthless.

My opponent brings up a good point about the barter system. However, there would be no objective method of properly comparing one thing to another, making it very difficult to do business. In addition, need for one's services is not constant. Having an intermediate is more convenient than going through multiple sources of bartering. Regardless, this point that my opponent is hanging on is in relation to whether or not money is necessary, and has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not money is worthless. My opponent has childishly decided to give up this debate, so I accept his legitimate albeit disrespectful forfeit.
Money is worthless.

Yes, I admit it is a terrible thing. Save for the fact that with money, I can now specialize in 1 field of work and reap the benefits of every other field of work using money as a medium of exchange. The value of money is in what it can be exchanged for. The fact that I am "getting rid of it" does not show that it is worthless. Gasoline has worth simply because it can be consumed as a fuel. By your logic, this destruction of gasoline means it is worthless? I think there is a flaw in my opponent's logic. Now, my opponent has dedicated his entire post to explaining why money is bad and evil, citing a multitude of conspiracy-theory-like situations as to how money will lead to the destruction of society. First of all, my opponent is merely speculating. Second of all, my opponent makes a few nice points, however, none of it whatsoever is dedicated to explaining why money is worthless. Since my opponent's post neither backed up his position nor offered a counterpoint to mine, I shall reiterate my point: Money can be exchanged for other things. Therefore, it has worth and is not, as my opponent states, worthless. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Money is worthless.

The topic is "Money is worthless" and my opponent is debating on the "pro" side, meaning, he seeks to prove that money is worthless while I seek to prove that money is not worthless. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] "Money" is a medium of exchange in the market, and "worth" is something having monetary value. By its very definition, Money has worth, equivalent to that which is printed on said item of money. I am at a loss of comprehension for the relation between what my opponent has said to the topic question, but I will say this: If I take my money, and walk over to the store, I can, indeed, exchange said money for some material goods. Such as bread or condoms. That having been said, money is indeed worth something. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Money is worthless.

Our government is on such spending spree, giving away several hundred dollars of the average American's money per month, and hitting thirteen trillion dollars since the finanncial feeding frenzy began, and giving it all to the rich to further enslave us, and adding it to the already uncountable fourteen-digit debt we already have, and crowding out private domestic capital, that we are now sitting at a poker table and someone else at the tale has thirteen trillion dollars. This is roughly two thousand dollars per person in the world. It is clearly not for buying things but for the purpose of manipulation of money itself. I don't know how much actual paper money there is (left) in the world but anyway compared to thirteen trillion dollars in one place you might just as well hand it over as well. I have only used 11% of my space but can't think of anything more to say on the subject. The new First Dog is named Bo. Americans drink an average of fifty gallons of soda pop per year, suffer most from obesity and refuse to exerise and now want the government to proveide health care. The solution to the crime problem is to make street gangs provide full medical. Happy Easter Everybody.
Metric System

First its fine. Second I use other issues to make a point that what will changing the measuring system effect the rest of the country. If you think that changing the way of measurement will help what about experiments in past? people will question their ways of conducting them claiming that they didn't use proper measurement every experiment will be questioned. Granted that other countries used their own ways of measurement what happened that also changed the course of history during that? The American Revolution revolutionized the world changing the way colonies were treated and governments changed and THEN came the metric system America was formed and grew into a superpower and every thing changed. Finally just because everyone has the same unit of measurement doesn't mean anything will get better what about World War I and World War II (with the exception of Hitler) everyone had the same measurement but still they didn't get along
Metric System

Ok, I'm sorry that I misread your previous rebuttal. You didn't say that the US was the first republic, and I apologize. The other thing I wanted to touch on is that this is a debate about the metric system, not any of the other issues you mentioned, just keep that in mind. Anyway, my primary response to yours is this: I understand that we've been using Imperial for the last 217 years now, but that should be a reason to change, not keep to the old ways. In the days of the American Revolution, many countries were using their own system of measurement, and it differed throughout the world (e.g. French inches were different from English inches). Then, the metric system was created, and it made measurement and commerce between countries easier and more universal, so much so that metric is used in almost every country in the world, but not the US. It is my belief and that of many others that a conversion to metric would connect us to the rest of the world in trade, mathematics, and science.
Metric System

1. I never said America was the first Republic I meant during the 1700's America changed the course of the world's way of government 2. Even tho you say that people wouldn't be confused that hypothetical like saying that I will become president its possible but not a certainty. your argument is that America is falling behind in measurement but what about healthcare,money,military etc. do they care about measurements? America has had its way of measuring for over 200 years why stop it now.
Metric System

I have something to say about both parts of my opponent's response. 1. You said that every one would be confused. I beg to differ, because the metric system is 10-based, with every measurement being divisible by 10. Perhaps some people would be confused at first, but once it's realized how much easier it is compared to our very arbitrary system, people would catch on. 2. America was not the first republic in the world. Also, in this instance, it's us who are lagging behind. Every other country except for two others switched when the metric system was created, and still to this day, our stubborn country has yet to see that it is a far better system of measurement.
gender roles are important

okay, now what if a woman has a masculine personality while a man has a feminine personality. Gender roles are very unreasonable and limiting. Anyone should be able to do whatever they want. And the stupid thing is you called out a lot of people on this site who want to do what they want to do. You agreeing with gender roles means you (assuming you are a boy) would probably always be at work whilst your wife tends to your child. You hardly see your child due to that.
students could date other people

The biggest problem in the world" are you joking, what did it just pip aids, world hunger and nuclear power stations to the post. It is an absolutely tiny problem and it's something human beings are always going to do. Also your test scores don't go down because your broken hearted it's simply that the people they asked and had had sex and broken up with a partner had something else in common called puberty that's why test scores dropped. So I don't think this problem is even a problem.
being evolution

That is exactly what I am saying. The lizards that got the adaptation to grow the tail back flourished, while the ones that still couldn't grow it back died. That is natural selection, but it only works if the adaptation helps the species survive and reproduce. Even if this adaptation did happen, it would still be extremely rare, because those who can regenerate their fingers will not be any better at surviving and reproducing than those who can't. Thank you to vi_spex for giving me this opportunity to debate.
being evolution

That is not how evolution works. Evolution does not simply see a need and fix it. According to Charles Darwin, evolution shapes living things so that they will be able to survive and reproduce. Simply cutting off a finger will not affect a human's ability to survive and reproduce, assuming it is treated with proper care, i.e. preventing disease etc. The reason it works with lizards is because lizards need their tail to survive. If it is ripped off, the lizard will die and will be unable to reproduce. Then the adaptation came along, and those who grew their tail back flourished, while those who didn't grow it back wouldn't survive.
Republicans would be superior to democrats given the chance.

1. Supply side economics-Of course Reagan had to increase some taxes. Not everything is black and white. Overall, Reagan had to compromise with the democrats. The democrats however, wanted to raise taxes overall and mocked Reagan"s idea that put us into such a great economic state for so long. 2.Somalia is a completely different story than America. Somalia is a less developed country with few organized career choices. This is not to mention the poor education. Try an example that is more comparable to America, please, if not, my argument stands. 3.Personally, I prefer to just bomb a country and be done with it. I was for the war, I was not for making it so long. Kill who needs killin" and leave. Overall however, he tried to defend freedom and prevent the mass killing of innocent civilians such as during 9/11. The democrats would not have done this, thus, we would be open to an attack. 4.Both are miserable hypocrites. We will leave it like that while we describe the dictators. However, the republicans do support using the seventy-five years worth of oil we have here in America. Many support looking towards alternative energy such as Hydrogen, but want us to use what we have already before looking for alternatives. 5.Republicans have an inherent belief that the military should be strong. Republicans are for cutting of items like Medicare, social security, and unemployment. In other words, they want to cut everything but the military and decrease taxes. Democrats would continue to raise taxes to pay for government assistance to a point at which no one wants a job because they can get three years of paychecks for doing nothing and if they do get one, they have to pay half in taxes. Democrats provide no incentive to work. My opponent has spoken only negatively of the republican country. He has never spoken positively of the democrat country. The debate is to prove which would be more successful. Both countries could be terrible but one could still be more effective than the other. It is my opponents BOP to prove why the democrat party is better than the republican. Thus far, I am the only one meeting my BOP.
Republicans would be superior to democrats given the chance.

"Lower taxes helping the economy has been proven through Ronald Reagan's supply side economics." Funny that you bring that up, as Regan actually negotiated with democrats and raised taxes several times, as with the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Same with George Bush Sr and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. "This, though controversial, would encourage more people to go out and get jobs, no matter how low they pay." If you really think that, move to Somalia. Since there's no government assistance there, the economy over there should be doing really well, right? "The concept of " Peace through superior firepower" comes to mind here. What country would want to attack a place that they have no chance of defeating. Republicans woudl have more military to intimidate other countries into not attacking." Wining a successful war requires fighting intelligently. Need I remind you that George Bush Jr. got us into two fruitless wars that it took Barack Obama to get us out of. Or that the last Republican presidential candidate didn't understand that we don't need a large number of ships, as our current ones are much more powerful than the ones we had in the past. [1] "Republicans would drill for oil domestically as opposed to relying on the middle east. This would provide job growth in the oil industry and will lead to a decrease in oil costs." Funny you say that, as they have a track record of being friendly with the worst sort of dictators. [2][3][4] The democrats do too- but at the same time, it is mostly democrats that are pushing for alternative energy sources. "Republicans would decrease spending while democrats would raise taxes and increase spending." Demonstrably not true overall.[5][6] Republicans have a strong track record of pumping money into military spending.[7][8] Indeed, Mitt Romney stated that he wanted to grow the military budget by another $2 Trillion.[1] [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly... [7] http://bbc.in... [8] http://bit.ly...
Republicans would be superior to democrats given the chance.

Yes, the democrats are more diverse than the republican demographically, this is an advantage for them. 1. Japan is also virtually homogeneous and very successful. The difference is that the homogeneality works better for more developed countries. All the countries con mentioned are less developed. The diversity is the only thing that con mentioned. I will now open up new issues and go into detail for them. 1. Republicans would likely have lower taxes 2. Republicans would likely have less government assistance 3. Republicans would likely have a more powerful military 4. Republicans would likely strive for more energy independence 5. Republicans would likely reduce spending I will start with this. 1. Republicans would likely have lower taxes. Lower taxes helping the economy has been proven through Ronald Reagan's supply side economics. By lowering taxes, more money would be in the hands of citizens. Citizens would spend this money. Businesses would get more money. Businesses could hire additional people with this money. Additional people would be employed and spend money. This works as a positive cycle. 2. Republicans would likely have less government assistance. This, though controversial, would encourage more people to go out and get jobs, no matter how low they pay. 3. Republicans would likely have a more powerful military. The concept of " Peace through superior firepower" comes to mind here. What country would want to attack a place that they have no chance of defeating. Republicans woudl have more military to intimidate other countries into not attacking. 4. Republicans would likely strive for energy independence. Republicans would drill for oil domestically as opposed to relying on the middle east. This would provide job growth in the oil industry and will lead to a decrease in oil costs. 5. Republicans would likely reduce spending. No one can decrease taxes yet increase spending. Republicans would decrease spending while democrats would raise taxes and increase spending. Personally, I am for the decrease in both as opposed to the increase because I would pay less taxes the republican way. Of course, there are conflicting social issues; however, there is no way of determining which opinion on the social issues is superior.
Republicans would be superior to democrats given the chance.

I accept your challenge. I'd like to thank my opponent, the audience, and Nate Silver. Demographically, the Democratic party is more diverse when it comes to ethnic groups and ideologies.[1][2][3] While my opponent may argue that his mythical country made up of Republicans would be stronger for this, I will argue that that is the opposite of the truth, and that familiarity breeds contempt, much like how most people in most circumstances are more likely to be victimized by someone they know, or how more culturally homogenous countries often have more violent internal strife (Mexico, Syria, China) than countries that are more culturally heterogeneous (US, Britain, Canada). [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly...
If u win or tie this, U can make a poem abt me and as many more poems as u like but if I win u stop

First person to get a vote wins. If no one gets a vote within ten minutes, It"s a tie. If you win or we tie, You can continue to make poems and you can make a poem about me. If I win, You can start doing normal debates. Btw, I think your a disgusting pedo who understands nothing. Also, If that previous poem you send about homosexuality was directed at me Idc what u think about me being bisexual. Byeee
Gun control

It won't work, criminals will eventually manufacture their own guns in the future if this happens and then law abiding citizens will have no chance of survival. Stats show that guns are the most effective means of defence and calling 911 will take time for the police to get there. Stats also show that gun control hasn't worked in the US and most gun violence occurs in states ruled by anti gun leaders (Northern Illinois, Florida, New York, etc.) and Switzerland, the nation where guns are supported by the government, the gun violence is one of the lowest in the world; Honduras, a country with strict gun laws has the highest crime rate in the world. Crime rates also go down without gun control, the murder rate has actually fallen 22% since 2004, when the federal assault rifle ban expired. Just because the technology goes up, doesn't mean the constitution goes away. In conclusion, it would be a big waste of the government's money to start a whole movement to take away the American people's guns and it wouldn't work because they would find a new weapon and then that weapon would need 'control' and it would be a never ending cycle.