BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

You've imposed this false notion of anarchy. You're implying that without authority (military and police with guns to make everyone behave) that there will be disorder on earth. That is exactly false. The earth and all life on it finds it's balance and homeostasis when everyone tends to their own business. It becomes disordered when one set of men decide to play God and impose their will on the entirety of mankind because they think they have superior moral reasoning and know what is best for all living and non-living on earth. By trying to force order you actually create catastrophe. We have seen this over and over with war after war. We are free, and yes, that does mean that you can do whatever you want on your own piece of the earthy rock. Just because you had the misfortune of being born human doesn't mean that suddenly your entire existence and every action has to meet the approval of a set group of humans that have appointed themselves authority over you and gotten a large amount of people to agree to letting them play God. What we can agree on is that, even in the freest society, we do not allow one set of people to go around randomly killing others. We all use self-defense. That is just self-preservation. Anyone who has decided to not defend themselves is no longer alive to be a factor in the discussion. Or won't be for long. What we are discussing here isn't the random murders of other peoples. We are discussing the decision of parents to decide the fate of their own bloodline and determining which of their offspring is well-suited for life and worth the continued investment. These children are not yet considered "free persons". The constitution grants citizens "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Citizens in the constitution implies adult of voting age who owns property. Yes the definition has been ruined since it's creation, and now children have optional social security numbers where they are actually able to be counted as a positive in the gross domestic product due to their use as medical research subjects. However, for those who still opt out of signing their children up for a financial contract with the government via the use of social security numbers and social services, and for those who do own and live on their own property and whose children haven't been entered into a financial agreement with the government they are not yet citizens and have no more right to life than does the cattle, the chickens, and the hogs that you ate today. To interfere with the natural life decisions of free people is the real anarchy as it creates all disorder on earth.
Abortion

Your initial argument was that the government should not should not step in when it comes to religious beliefs. Abortion is not a religious belief though. Which religion believes in killing babies? Which religion are they discriminating? The government needs to step into religion when human lives are at stake. And yes, when Muslims are genitally mutilating women, the government needs to step in and do something about it. If I formed a religion that believes in killing people for sport (on my private property), should the government stand back and watch it happen because it is my religious belief, or should they step in and stop it. The answer should be step in and stop it. I did not present communist propaganda, I presented logic. Stating that killing people is wrong is not communist propaganda. Being free does not mean anarchy. Sure America is free, does that mean we should have the freedom to go around killing people because we are free? We need to have laws to protect its citizens. Without laws, we now have anarchy, which by your arguments, I think you are in favor of. You did not prove anything either. All you stated was basically that we should be able to kill people because it is our religious right. It does not work that way. Babies are people too and need to be protected by the government from being killed, regardless of religion. https://www.princeton.edu... http://naapc.org... https://www.liveaction.org... https://www.acpeds.org...
Abortion

This is not a religious issue, this is a moral issue. You compared telling people not to have abortions to slavery because they are telling them what to do with their private property, but slavery was the exact same thing, but opposite. Slavery existed in the United States for about a hundred year and during that time, other states who were against slavery could not abolish slavery because that would be telling them what to do with their property, but that did not make slavery morally justified. It is the same thing if a parent is abusing their children; the government needs to step in and do something- they should not stand back because it is taking place on their private property. The right to life supersedes the right to privacy. It is the government's job to protect these rights, which is why the government needs to step in to protect the baby's right to life. Regardless of your religion- whether you are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or do not belong to any organized religion- killing babies should not be socially, nor morally acceptable. It is not a religious belief that life begins at conception, it is a scientific belief. By saying the land of the free, does that not include babies? Are babies not free and subject to murder?
Abortion

I would like to make the point that America is the "land of the free". We are free people, not slaves. That is why we can practice whatever religion that we want to. And we likewise are not forced into adhering to the ideals of the Abrahamic religions. The catch? We have to practice the controversial parts of our religions ON OUR OWN LAND rather than bringing it to the public space. At least this was the original compromise to keep the peace. Over time, Europe has found a new way to enslave us because the could not beat us in an arms fight. We obviously won that fight many years ago when we kicked the red coats back to England. Their new strategy, communism under the guise of socialism. What has happened is that they have ever so slowly entrapped us into a socialist society that we didn't even realize what was happening... like a toad in a slow boiling pot. So what once was considered being a part of society being only when you left your own land to go to public space, now means something completely different. Now it means accepting the will of society on your own property. The Abrahamic religions have become so mighty that their will is imposed on everyone, even on private property. They decided that they would imprison or kill (death penalty) anyone who didn't live by their moral code. It went far beyond policing their own property to know policing your morality on your own property and policing what you do with your own property. For many religions, the sacrifice of their own children is a crucial aspect. The Abrahamic religions has forbidden you to practice this religion even on your own property. This is a violation of your most fundamental rights as a person and as the sole guardian of your offspring. To be able to practice your religion as a free person is empowering. So to be hindered from practicing your religion is un-empowering. Likewise, the power to determine your own blood line is stated in it's premise - empowering! So if you have a deformed child or it doesn't develop right, you should be in your POWER to decide after some time that the child is not worth the investment. Life is cruel and ugly, but that's how we survive. Survival isn't always pretty. Look what you've done to make dinner tonight... slaughtered an innocent beast. But that's alright in your Abrahamic religion so it hasn't been made illegal for all people despite their different religion. Looking around the world, many religious practices make your stomach churn... the animal slaughter in the Hindu religion, circumcision in Judaism, female genital mutilation in Islam, etc etc. This is no different, ugly but none of your business if it's not happening on your property. You cannot deny another person their rights to practice their religion, and is not the use & care of your body/soul and it's health care not the most fundamental aspect of religion?
Why debate.org can be a scam because their are fraud voters, voting for their friends.

Well, you have to tell who those frauds are. This happens a lot in websites, and I hope that those frauds are told to stop. I agree with you thought that ABNYU is the best debater on this site. His arguments are very impressive. Abney317 is also a very good debater, but I think dorky is in one of these frauds
Why debate.org can be a scam because their are fraud voters, voting for their friends.

I know a clan of people and i have read debates where people who havent proved a strong point come out victorius because of fraud voters. In the sports topic people are voting for who they like better in sports, and in politics people who disagree with the topic not the way they presented it and proved points vote fraud. I could go on forever but i wont, I just wont to congratulate who i think the best debater abnyu proves some of the hardest points and so does abney
There Is Too Much Pressure on Girls and Women to Be Beautiful and to Have Perfect Bodies

In today's sedentary society, overweight and obesity affect nearly 2/3 of the American population (CDC). While girls ought never to be encouraged to do harmful things to themselves, a thinner and more healthy models on television will promote girls (and boys) to pursue a healthier lifestyle. A girl or a boy who is unhealthily overweight is not a good thing, and pushing them to become healthier is objectively best for them. Society ought to pressure individuals to be healthy, and an unhealthy lifestyle and condition is not something that should be ignored. Whilst many models on T.V. are themselves, unhealthily skinny, this extreme is still necessary to pull girls and boys alike into a safer medium. Parents ought to teach their daughters and sons to pursue a healthy lifestyle, and teach them that vomiting their food is not the answer, but removing societal pressures to be healthy and "beautiful," is not a solution or answer. 1) Today's society is sedentary and overweight and obesity are a "big" problem. 2) Not pressuring children, girls and boys alike, to be healthier and "beautiful," is saving their feelings, but not their health. 3) A society that pressures everyone to be of healthy proportions, and deems this "beautiful," will promote healthy living and it will be better for the general populous. Thank you for this, it is my first debate on here so forgive me for any mistakes I make rules wise :)
There Is Too Much Pressure on Girls and Women to Be Beautiful and to Have Perfect Bodies

Many girls and women are under constant pressure to have perfect appearances. The fashion industry, magazines, social media, tabloids, television, beauty advertisements, and many others influence the mental images of girls and women on what they should look like. In turn, many girls and women develop low self-esteem, negative body image, mental disorders such as depression, and eating disorders. This leads to risky behaviors such as vomiting after meals in attempt to lose weight. Consequences of negative body image include negative affects to health, well-being, and prevents them from living a quality life. 50% of teens are self conscious about their bodies (NOW.org), and 97% of women have at least one negative thought about their body every day (Body Image) because of the above contributing factors.
One should flim flam the zim zam, and under no circumstances must one wim wam the bim bam.

Risin' up, back on the streetDid my time, took my chancesWent the distance now I'm back on my feetJust a man and his will to surviveSo many times it happens too fastYou trade your passion for gloryDon't lose your grip on the dreams of the pastYou must fight just to keep them aliveIt's the eye of the tiger, it's the thrill of the fightRisin' up to the challenge of our rivalAnd the last known survivor stalks his prey in the nightAnd he's watchin' us all with the eye of the tigerFace to face, out in the heatHangin' tough, stayin' hungryThey stack the odds, still we take to the streetFor the kill with the skill to surviveIt's the eye of the tiger, it's the thrill of the fightRisin' up to the challenge of our rival And the last known survivor stalks his prey in the nightAnd he's watchin' us all with the eye of the tigerRisin' up, straight to the topHad the guts, got the gloryWent the distance now I'm not gonna stopJust a man and his will to surviveIt's the eye of the tiger, it's the thrill of the fightRisin' up to the challenge of our rivalAnd the last known survivor stalks his prey in the nightAnd he's watchin' us all with the eye of the tigerThe eye of the tigerThe eye of the tigerThe eye of the tigerThe eye of the tiger
One should flim flam the zim zam, and under no circumstances must one wim wam the bim bam.

Having seen my opponent's argument, I cannot help but feel slightly swayed by his position, but I must make one thing clear. Even though this has been an intense and heated debate, I would ask that you please take back what you said of my mother. I know that these debates may get out of hand, but I must ask for, the sake of the debate, that we remain focused here. Leaving this topic behind, I will now begin my response. Here, in this part of the debate, I believe it is customary for the instigator to launch ad hominem attacks without any penalty. In addition, I believe that the contender must continue to use proper logic and follow traditional debate rules unflinchingly. The very nature of my opponent's arguments seem to demonstrate his ignorance of anything logical or slightly reasonable. Like the yin an d yang of traditional East African philosophy, for every sane man, there is an equal and opposite utter fool. Even though I have never seen my opponent's genitalia, I can say with the utmost confidence that he has a very small wang.
One should flim flam the zim zam, and under no circumstances must one wim wam the bim bam.

I apologize for the use of profanity, but as the great Chim cham once said: "Passion in life is marked by uncontrollable rage and the frequent use of expletives. "To address my opponent's concern about jim jams, I would like to remind everyone about the 1947 General Agreement on Tim Tams (GATT) that specifically states in Article 7.2:"The treatment of jim jams is only of concern when zim zams are flim flammed. Should this not be the case, The welfare of jim jams is guaranteed by nim nams, and is therefore in no danger. "My opponent also expresses concern for pim pams (because as we know, wim wamming bim bams can cause cancer in pim pams, also known as him ham). He fails to recall that the activation of cancerous cells (feeling him hamming) in pim pams is only triggered by flim flamming zim zams, which my argument does not advocate. As for the state of vim vam that my opponent may be feeling, it may be the gim gams he ate for dinner last night. I suggest taking two FlimFlams® with his next meal. As a point of history, it is interesting to note that there has been no established link between not flim flamming zim zams and the rise of Nazi Germany. In fact, an article published by the Yim Yam Institute for Nazi Studies (YYINS) earlier this year has cast serious doubt on the purported chain of causality that led to Hitler's rise to power. As for my knowledge on the subject, I would like to inform my opponent and any readers that I graduated Rim Ram Laude from the University Sim Sam with a LLB (Lim Lam Bachelor) and a minor in zim zam studies. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
One should flim flam the zim zam, and under no circumstances must one wim wam the bim bam.

The argument that you have presented is a compelling one, but I would request that my opponent refrain from using any more profanities in this debate. Onto my main point: If, say, one were to bim bam any wim wams, in what state does this leave the jim jams? Clearly my opponent did not think of this when thinking about the intricacies of this debate. By effectively abandoning the jim jams, and flat out refusing to flim flam the zim zams, this leaves the jim jams at the mercy of the tim tams. Additionally, bim bamming the wim wams leads to the pim pams feeling him hammed, and we are stuck in a state of perpetual vim vam that not even Bill Cosby himself could rectify. Most importantly, however, we must take a hard look at history and see that if the zim zams were not flim flammed, Hitler (may he rest in peace) would have remained in power to this day, and this debate would have taken place in the German language. Clearly my opponent has chosen to take part in a debate that is beyond his knowledge.
You cannot truthfully answer yes to the question, "Are you asleep?"

I shall negate the resolution, "You cannot truthfully answer yes to the question, "Are you asleep? "". In my opponent's opening round, he does not commence argumentation. He merely makes an assertion that "it is, by logical standards, that one cannot truthfully, answer yes to the question: "Are you asleep? "". My opponent then clarifies that when he refers to sleep, he means "something in the nature of REM sleep. " Very well; I shall begin my argumentation. I shall start my arguments by clarifying the activity of sleep talking. "The medical term for this activity is "somniloquy. " It occurs when you talk out-loud during sleep. A listener may or may not be able to understand what you are saying. Sleep talking can occur by itself. " "Sleep talking may occur in any stage of NREM sleep or REM sleep. " Since sleep talking may occur in any stage of REM sleep (which my opponent specifies with "asleep"), it is possible for one to state the word, "yes. " Now, let me take you on a journey into one of my brother's sleeping routines. He brushes his teeth, takes his contacts out, and jumps in bed. After getting settled in, he falls asleep; into REM sleep. I come over to him and can tell he's in REM sleep by his rapid eye movement. He begins talking in his sleep. After talking about useless things that happened during his day, my brother pauses in his sleep talking. I then ask him the question, "Are you asleep? " At this moment, my brother starts to speak again and the first word that he exclaims is "yes. " He is in REM sleep, which by my opponent's clarification, means that he is asleep. My brother truthfully answered the question (since my opponent did not define "truthfully," it shall be defined as "habitually" for the debate) because he constantly stated the word "yes" during his sleep. The resolution is negated. Also, I want to let the readers know that since my opponent is making a general claim, his reference to "you" does not only refer to me. It refers to a general audience of various people. For simplicity, it is assumed that my brother is an average, regular, person, which he is. Even if the readers do not buy my story, that does not mean I have lost. My opponent has yet to provide support for his side. How does my opponent know that someone cannot truthfully answer yes to the question, "Are you asleep? "? My story alone proves my side. I await my opponent's argumentation. Source: 1) . http://www.sleepeducation.com...
Divorce should be harder to make

Divorce should be harder to make for the following reasons: 1) Referring to Panse (2010) divorce influence badly not only on the couple, but on their children, parents, friends, work, hobbies and other specters of life. It is a huge emotional stress, which could be very harmful. But people think only about themselves. They think, that they sigh the document and it's over, but actually it isn't so. If divorce is harder to make, people will try to avoid some conflicts and find solutions of the problems, not just split up. 2) People will learn to chose their partner carefully. Nowadays the early marriage is practiced well. People don't think about life after marriage. They wear 'pink glasses'. The daily routine, living together, different problems doesn't matter for them. And why should it matter? Because nowadays divorce is easy to make. 3) Divorces is one of the reasons of the decreasing of the demographic rate. According to the article by some psychologists, the number of splitted up couples decrease the number of birth rate, because the most number of people won't have more children in their future life. It is very harmful for such countries as Russia, where there is a lack of birth rate.
Are the laws of the Old Testament still binding? Yes. Thus jesus is false, christianity is false

Alrighty my dude, why don't we first calm down, okay? You don't need to go off on me, this is a debate, not an argument. Secondly, I very clearly stated that yes, those verses existed, but hey, the laws of the Old Testament are not necessarily the word of God. Humans do not know the true word of God, because we are incapable of understanding that immense knowledge, which is why the Bible does not reveal everything. The Old Testament was written by /man/, meaning that /man/ could easily have altered the word of God, or even added to it or removed parts of it, in order to fit his agenda. Again, the word of Jesus /clearly/ states that there's a lot of scripture in the Old Testament that's just plain /wrong/, I listed the verses out for you above. I am not Christian, either, so please do not assume that I am. I am, in fact, a Muslim, therefore I do not necessarily even believe in the Bible as a holy/sacred text, I believe that it is one of the first attempts of man to write down what Allah had told him, but that it was failed because humans are not perfect and are incapable of grasping such immense knowledge. Now that that's out of the way, I would appreciate if you would refrain from insulting my intelligence. I am participating in this debate because I would like to get the perspective of someone else, not because I am here to be attacked. The "rock solid evidence" that you speak of has been altered and changed more times than you can imagine. Don't believe me? Then explain why there are over 200 different English translations of the Bible alone? And explain why different denominations use different chapters of the Bible? For example, the Catholic Bible contains the chapters Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, whereas the Protestant Bible does not. Furthermore, explain to me why in the original, untranslated Biblical texts in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, both include genderless language rather than specifically gendered language such as "He", "His", "Him", etc, but in the translated Biblical texts, there is gendered language? You cannot explain these things without pointing out the flaws of humanity, therefore it is both irrational and irresponsible, not to mention uneducated, to presume that there was no human interference when writing down the Old Testament of the Bible.
Are the laws of the Old Testament still binding? Yes. Thus jesus is false, christianity is false

Oh I get it, so you like every single christian, out there who pretends that they are christian (in which there is no such a thing - watch this video http://www.youtube.com... - Why Does Every Intelligent christian disobey jesus?) you make up your own rules to suit you and only you. DID YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE VERSES POSED FROM RD 1 WHICH SHOWS THAT GOD"S PERFECT WORD IS EXACTLY THAT, THUS CANNOT BE CHANGED under the "Yes, they are binding forever" section? Obviously not. "The laws are not an everlasting covenant," OH YES THEY MOST CERTAINLY ARE. OK I"m not even going to continue with this debate until you have a look at the verses from RD1 IN WHICH YOU CLEARLY DID NOT DO, and then YOU can go from there in which you have no outs, none. I do not have the time nor the patience for those that absolutely refuse to look at rock solid evidence that completely turns their world upside down and is a true slap to your face. Sheesh. Too bad if you don"t like it. Deal with it.