BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men should be permitted to abandon their unborn child

My opponent begins this debate by stating that since men and women should have equal rights in some fields such as employment, voting rights, and education, they should have equal rights in every area of society. He argues that because the father may have never wanted the baby, he should not have to support it even if the mother decided to keep it. My opponent would have a point here is the mother and the father both went through the same treatment during the pregnancy of the child. A father's biological job is over at the end of the sexual act. From this point on, the baby is biologically the mother's responsibility and as so has more of a say in the matter than the father. The baby at during the pregnancy is part of the mother's body, that is why she has the right to an abortion. The father does not go through any more biological process' after initial conception. The father is in the same position as a mother who has gotten pregnant and given up the right of an abortion, has the baby, and then decided she does not want to care for the baby anymore. The father is in the same position as this woman in that neither of them have the right to an abortion, medical or legal.
Men should be permitted to abandon their unborn child

In today's world, equality between men and women is constantly being sought. Under the law, women and men enjoy virtually the same rights. However, there are loopholes. When a woman conceives, she has protection under the law to receive payment in the form of child support from the father of the child, despite the father's feelings towards the pregnancy. Women are also allowed to abort the child before it is born with zero consent from the father. I propose that men have the legal equivalent of an abortion. They should, without a doubt, be allowed to sever themselves legally and financially from the unborn fetus and the mother if they so choose. They should not be forced to pay child support for a child they never wished to have. They should not be held to follow whatever the mother chooses to do. To summarize, it is wrong to hold men accountable for a woman's decision because: The father has no say in what the woman does with her body, and so she should have no say in what he does with his money.
It is the right of individuals to organize into a Labor Union.

Hmm... we don't have much of a debate then do we! I think the issue is that this site forces you to say "oppose" or "support" on issues that are very complicated. I said "oppose" unions because of all the negative things I mentioned that color my opinion of unions. I guess this debate is over then. If you have another thing to debate feel free, but it seems to me we are both big fans of capitalism!
It is the right of individuals to organize into a Labor Union.

See, I don't disagree with you on those statements whatsoever. LOL This is a problem because it's a debate, but I guess what I mean is, let me further elaborate my angle. I agree with your statement on unions becoming too powerful. That leads to syndicalism and furthermore when the government intervenes, communism. Why do unions however have so much power? It has to do with what you said partly, alliances for with parties (usually the Democratic Party) that mutually benefit each other. Personally, this is wrong to me, because when the politicians are elected, they enact pro-Union legislation. This is where I am opposed, government intervention of unions, which hinders the free market. Additionally, it's why I oppose all this government-run education. The gov't has a virtual monopoly on education, as the overwhelming majority of students attend public schools as opposed to home-schooling and private institutions. If the gov't did not get involved in aspects that it ISN'T SUPPOSED to be involved in, unions would function as they are supposed to. They would negotiate reasonably with the contracters of schools, and establish a justifiable means that has mutual benefit for both sides, as in business. Capitalism is the only way.
It is the right of individuals to organize into a Labor Union.

I am not against unions per se. In certain industries unions are useful, but unions with excessive power are a problem. I have a particular issue with teacher's unions that make it near impossible to fire a teacher after tenure, which in itself is an insane system. What other job do you have guaranteed security after three years no matter how bad you are? Teacher's unions hurt the education system by creating a system where there is little or no incentive to really be excellent. Instead a teacher will just do the basics because they aren't going to be fired after tenure. And many teachers are let go right before tenure just because it is so hard to fire them after it. The tenure system rewards mediocrity and ensures that departments and schools will continue to be filled with poor teachers. This is terrible for kids who are taught by them. The real crux of my problem with unions is when they get arrogant and demand excessive things. Incredible union demands in the auto industry now cripple domestic companies who are forced to pay massive health care and pension costs. All of these things hurt industry. I also hate strikes. They serve little purpose other than to irritate and disrupt the lives of thousands. If a teacher's union calls a strike then the people hurt are the kids; if it's a transport worker's union like the recent ones in New York and Philly the entire area suffers. No group should have the power to do this kind of damage to an entire economy. Finally, I hate the way unions act politically. They endorse Democrats almost always and use member funds to further their agenda, which almost always means funding Democrats regardless of member's wishes. They support laws like the destruction of the secret ballot so they can bully people into unionizing. They engage in smear campaigns against non-union companies like Walmart and use their political influence to try and hurt Walmart by the force of government. In general unions are constantly diminishing in this country and they're desperate to gain new members. In conclusion my problems with unions can be boiled down to four things then - excessive demands that cripple business, strikes that hurt entire economies, extremely biased political action using member funds, and the attempt to abuse the power of government to force people to unionize and hurt companies that don't wish to organize. Unions must be put in check and the unholy Democrat-union alliance must be curtailed.
It is the right of individuals to organize into a Labor Union.

It sounds like you love freedom, yet you oppose Unions? The right to form a labor union is a basic right of any groups. You should be able to organize. There shouldn't be any special privileges legislated to the said groups, but the right to form a union is absolutely critical, especially in a free market. You should never deny any working group the right to organize and negotiate for the best set of working conditions and pay. NEVER. The fact that government gets involved with labor unions, shows the breadth of government interference in the free market and is in fact counterproductive to the fundamentally free nature of the markets and of the economy.
It is the right of individuals to organize into a Labor Union.

Indeed. I just looked at your profile though, seems you're against not only Iraq but also Afghanistan and the whole War on Terror? Perhaps this could be a subject of debate for us. Are you just against the way we are fighting this war? Or do you think it is not real or we shouldn't be fighting terrorists? I you want I'll let you choose the debate question and make the first shot. If not then I shall see you around the site.
The Christian god is merciful

Verse and chapter that talks about Jesus performing rituals? Soddom and Gorrath was destroyed because they signed and the story of the two angels who dressed up as men were going to be rape so they fled. This angered God. God is very merciful. He had mercy on David when he committed the unforgivable sin. 2 Samuel 24:14 And David said to Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man. Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; James 2:12-13 So speak and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. Psalm 86:5 For Thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive, And abundant in loving kindness to all who call upon thee.
The Christian god is merciful

I'm sorry for saying Christian God, I just didn't want to have a debate with people who have a Judaic understanding of script (No New Testament) or though I should have used another definition instead and thanks for kindly pointing out my error. I agree that the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19 and when I was stating Matthew 11:20-24, I was stating it because in those verses Jesus was discussing with his disciples to denounce the towns that didn't repent and he also stated that if he had performed miracles at Sodom and Gomorrah the towns would still be here to this day (because the people in those towns repented their sins). That is why I believe God to be unmerciful (or at least unjust) because he knew that they would repent yet he still destroyed the towns and the people (except Lot and his family).
The Christian god is merciful

First of all lets get this straight. "The Christian God"? Christianity isn't even stated in the bible. Christians believe in the Hebrew God and the only God. They believe in the only God. There is not Christian God. You stated : The god of the Christian Bible is unmerciful because he didn't spare the lives of the people living in Sodom and Gomorrah even though he knew they would repent Matthew 11:20-24. The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah is recorded in Genesis chapters 18-19. Genesis chapter 18 records the Lord and two angels coming to speak with Abraham. The Lord informed Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous." Verses 22-33 record Abraham pleading with the Lord to have mercy on Sodom and Gomorrah because Abraham's nephew, Lot, and his family lived in Sodom. They were destroyed because of their great wickedness which manifested itself (partially at least) in homosexuality which is specifically mentioned in the Bible.
Is faith in God rational

Ok. Well either way you never refuted anything i said or made any points toward your own argument. I would like to use one more example to show why we all do this. If i were to ask an atheist what happens when we die, he would say that nothing happens. Our body just decays and it is the end. I would say there is an eternal heaven or eternal hell awaiting us. But i have never met a dead guy. I have never talked to someone who has been gone for 40 years then rose out of the grave, so i cannot know that for sure. So yes, i am using faith in this claim. But so is the atheist. He has not talked to someone from the other side of the curtain, just like me. So my point is, we all use faith in some way or another. Thank you guys for reading these. If you would like to debate me at all please contact me and i would be thrilled to do so!
Is faith in God rational

I hope you will argue that because you certainly have not done so yet! But some of the comments have made some points, so i will start with missmedic. You gave the definition of rational to be, "based on or in accordance to logic." So i will appeal to logic to make my next assessment. If i were to go to another planet and on that planet i saw a note that said, "hi taylor, did you bring any spaghetti?" So lets follow logic now. Where we see information, we assume that prior to that there was a mind that put it there. The note didnt just come from the explosion of a printing press. So why not keep that logic when it comes to the intelligence of our universe? Missmedic, i hope you will watch this short message that goes a bit deeper with this subject. https://youtu.be...
Is faith in God rational

I am nit arguing whether or not the jewish God is the real deal but rather that faith in God is rational. One point i will make towards that is that faith is a necessary thing in all our lives. If you are wanting to propose to someone but are wondering what the next 20 years will be like, you could decide to be agnostic about it and wait for the data to come in. But by that time she will wother be married to someone else or you will both be dead. So faith is in our lives in several circumstances and i dont think that having faith in God is irrational
Death Penalty Economics

After further research, I have found more evidence indicating that a death penalty is much more expensive than originally asserted. While I did have some missteps and a few mistakes in my first argument, I'll clean it up here and attack my opponent's points.In fact, the cost is much greater than double, or even triple the cost of capital case costs. Instead, more than a dozen states have found it costs 10 times as much. [1] There are other examples of other states haveing similar issues. "Since 1983, taxpayers in New Jersey have paid $253 million more for death penalty trials than they would have paid for trials not seeking execution — but the Garden State has yet to execute a single convict." [2] Reality shows that often people wait on the death row longer than 178 months, as the first person in New Jersey has obviously been there for nearly 35 years. Moreover, the execution itself is expensive. "The execution of a convicted criminal can cost the state a few thousand dollars." [3] In fact, studies and reports indicate my opponent's premise is inherently false. "The death penalty still costs an average of three times more than 40 years in prison at maximum security." [4] The ACLU explains "Simply housing prisoners on death row costs California tax payers an additional $90,000 per prisoner per year, above what it would cost to house them with the general prison population, which adds up to $59 million a year. The price tag for California’s new death row is $336 million. All of those costs would be avoided if the people on death row were sentenced to die in prison and moved to the general population." [5] Numerous studies confirm this theory, especially those conducted in areas where the death penalty is currently legal. In fact, North Carolina shares the same story. "[NC] would have spent almost $11 million less each year on criminal justice activities (including appeals and imprisonment) if the death penalty had been abolished." [6]The importance of these findings, and others, are very significant. Rather than just random stat searches by my opponent and myself, these are actually studies conducted in areas of relevance, which are done professionally and particularly. Instead of getting the AVERAGE national costs of things, specific areas (wherein the death penalty is practices) are more accurate, relevant, and conclusive. This is why you prefer my side. I've cited thoroughly conducted studies that come to the same ultimate conclusion -- all things considered, the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment. Instead of deriving random, generalized sources that don't pinpoint the areas at hand, I've cited experts, clear-cut economics, and logical reasoning.Sources:[1] http://ejusa.org...[2] http://www.foxnews.com...#[3] http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu...[4] http://ejusa.org...[5] https://www.aclunc.org...[6] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Death Penalty Economics

"In fact, the average waiting time (read: where these prisons have to be kept in high security prison) between conviction and execution is 33 years on average, due to further dispute and exoneration contemplation." The average time on death row is not 33 years, the time Manuel Valle spent on death row, however, was 33 years. Instead, the average time spend on death row is 178 months (1). A prison cost of $200,000 is roughly $16,667 a month. That is $2,966,726 for all 178 months. "Remember, there is a 16.5 year waiting period on death row, on average, before criminals are executed. 33 years (time on death row) multiplied by $200k (average price per year for an inmate in high-security prison) equates to $6,600,000"If there is a 16.5 year waiting period on death row, why would the time on death row be 33 years? You are contradicting yourself. CostsThe death row prison cost is $2,966,726 (see first rebuttal). Using your $3,000,000 death row trial figure, this adds up to $5,966,726. The cost of lethal injections are $86.08 (2). So altogether, the death penalty costs about $5,966,812.08. $5,966,812.08 < $9,100,000Death penalty < Life in prisonSources(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...;(2) http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...;
Death Penalty Economics

The reasoning here is quite simple.CostsQuite simply, capital cases cost, on average, roughly $2 million more than non-capital cases. [1] (p. 541) This alone is nearly reason enough, as it is extremely expensive, moreso than non-capital cases, to get through the trials and jury with capital cases. My opponent agrees to this, but assumes his conclusion under the false pretense that punishment and execution comes directly after the conviction. This is entirely untrue. In fact, the average waiting time (read: where these prisons have to be kept in high security prison) between conviction and execution is 33 years on average, due to further dispute and exoneration contemplation. [2] Moreover, there are currently 3,002 individuals on death row, waiting. [3] Assuming my opponent's previous figures are correct, let's do some simple math to calculate the relative impact of the death penalty, economically, and compare those results with those of life in imprisonment.With my revised numbers, which are sourced as well, the death penalty costs rather $2 million more than non-capital cases. We will, just for numerical purposes, assume a non-captial case costs $1,000,000. (The impact would be the same, so the base number isn't necessarily pertinent. The disparity between costs is what is actually significant, so that's what we'll use).$1 million (base, non-captial case) + $2 million (the average disparity between court costs) = $3 millionRemember, there is a 16.5 year waiting period on death row, on average, before criminals are executed.33 years (time on death row) multiplied by $200k (average price per year for an inmate in high-security prison) equates to $6,600,000$3 million (our hypothetical cost for court cases in a capital case) + $6,600,000 (price of time in prison) = an estimate of $9,600,000$9,600,000 > $9,100,000 (not including the actual cost of the execution)Sources:[1] Sherod Thaxton, “Leveraging Death,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 103, No. 2, 2013[2] http://www.nytimes.com...[3] http://www.naacpldf.org...
Death Penalty Economics

Please ignore the 3rd rule, I apologize for my mistake. A. TrialsA death penalty trial, on average, costs about $1,000,000 more than a life in prison trial (1). The cost of trials for the death penalty depend on the state, so let's take Texas, as it has had the most people sentenced to death since 1976, 529 (2). An average death penalty case in Texas costs about $2.3 million (3), so a life in prison trile would cost about $1.3 million. B. CostsThe average life sentence imprisons the inmate for 39 years (39 years in prison until they die) (4). Only 1 year in maximum security prison can cost up to $200,000 (5). That is $7,800,00 in total! Whereas a lethal injection only costs $86.08 (6). For the death penalty, there is $2.3 million in court cases, plus $86.08 for the lethal injection fluid. So a total of $2,300,086.08. For life in prison, there is $1.3 million in court cases, plus $7.8 million in prison costs. This comes out with a total of $9,100,000. $9,100,000 is greater than $2,300,086.08. Sources(1) . http://www.forbes.com...;(2) . http://www.ncadp.org...;(3) . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...;(4) . http://fairsentencingofyouth.org...;(5) . http://www.golocalprov.com...;(6) . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...;
Death Penalty Economics

Resolution: The death penalty costs less than life in prison.Definitions:death penalty: The punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. prison: A building in which people are legally held as a punishment for a crime they have committed or while awaiting trilehttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com......Rules:-No trolling-No profanity-No arguments in the first round-No new points shall be introduced in the last round.People eligible for the death penalty would be alternatively placed in a supermax or high security prison. Con has to agree to, or give reasonable evidence against this claim.
Making money is the only aim in business sector

Although most business" main goal is by definition to make money, there are a great number of organizations that have been established to promote a lifestyle change or tech advances. It depends on the stage of the business lifecycle and the social environment around the business. There are 5 stages in a business lifecycle. In the concept & start up stage companies are aiming to stabilize, so the aim is to survive, not make money. The growth stage involves developing its product further to optimize its concept, so the aim of the business here is to research & develop its product or expansion strategies. The maturity stage is all about the money so I won"t argue with you on this one. The later stages refer to a business slowing down & they either go bankrupt or restart the cycle again. The social environment refers to social issues that might affect the business or those associated with the business. Certain needs or demands that hit close to heart that might cause someone or a business to pursue a cause like environmental issues, diseases, or any other social issue. Now let"s put these two together. Tesla"s Elon Musk built a new business with Tesla, saw it grow and mature & just like in the backward bending supply curve, he made so much money that his goal has become about tech advances and lifestyle changes. Today he is working his company SpaceX, which aim to open up space exploration, finding alternative earths etc. Things that Musk admits he may not see in his lifetime. Here, it"s not about the profit; it is about pushing limits. It will eventually go through a stage where it matures and the business profits from it; however, currently, this business is working to push technology rather than profit. This is just 1 example out of hundreds more in every sector. Medicine, construction, and even weapons companies are at various stages of their life cycles. So the claim that the business sector"s only aim is to make money is faulty generalization.
Making money is the only aim in business sector

Now a days,Corporations are hard and cold,impersonal entities precisely.They don't have feelings for others and concentrate on the growth of their empire.People who work for them do so for a very practical reason i.e SALARY and other privileges.They also hide behind them to run from social responsibilities.And,as far as i am concerned about advertisement they do not give us any knowledge.Companies buys and sell things for influence.just because they know that tends to profit via good will.They do not care for societies.Never. Profit is how company defines and recognizes each other. One might think that the company is inclined to provide contributions to society in return for personal or professional dedicated efforts.But this stoic and indifferent entity not capable for such a return.Setting different employers at different level,paying more to the one who is working more,advertising at their best bolsters my point. At last,This is very common.If they really want to do that ,If they really want to bring change in society.They could have gone to other committees like NGO to process this change but they didn't.Cause they want to earn profit and only profit.