BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In regards to non-medical abortions, fraternal consent should be required at the national level.

Let us continue. === As for my opponent's sole argument, I agree that the fetus belongs just as much to the father as it does to the mother. However, a few things must be kept in mind. First, a person - not a fetus - has rights. === I am not arguing for the rights of the fetus. I am arguing for the rights of the father. Last time I checked, a father is a person, and according to my opponent a person has rights. === Second, a fetus is not an entity of it's own -- it is part of the mother's body, and remains that way until child birth. As such, the mother's body does not belong to the father, and therefore the father has no jurisdiction over what the mother subjects her body to. === So if I had YOUR dog in MY house I could do whatever you like with it? I think you would probably not agree with that statement. Similarly, both the mother and father are equally the parents of this child, and therefore, have EQUAL rights when it comes to determining the interests of the child. Simply because the fetus resides in the mother's body doesn't giver her any more rights over the fetus, because a fetus is not a part of the mother's body. The fetus is not a simple appendage of the mother. A fetus a unique set of 46 chromosomes, 23 of which are the fathers! As equal parents of the child, they have equal rights over it. === Pro says, "To not allow a father to have a say in the abortion of his child would be a violation of his legal rights. " However, to force a woman to utilize her body in certain ways against her will is a violation of HER legal rights. === The mother agreed to share all reproductive rights with the father when the two had consented sex. Both the mother and father understood that the consequences of sex include the possibility of pregnancy. It takes two to be pregnant! Once a pregnancy occurs, the mother cannot push the father out of the decision making process. That would mean that the father had no rights over his fetus! I answered all of my opponents arguments by challenging her challenges of mine. Looks like a good debate, I give it back over to theLwerd.
In regards to non-medical abortions, fraternal consent should be required at the national level.

I accept Pro's definitions. As for my opponent's sole argument, I agree that the fetus belongs just as much to the father as it does to the mother. However, a few things must be kept in mind. First, a person - not a fetus - has rights. Therefore the mother's rights trump the non-existent rights of the fetus. Second, a fetus is not an entity of it's own -- it is part of the mother's body, and remains that way until child birth. As such, the mother's body does not belong to the father, and therefore the father has no jurisdiction over what the mother subjects her body to. Pro says, "To not allow a father to have a say in the abortion of his child would be a violation of his legal rights." However, to force a woman to utilize her body in certain ways against her will is a violation of HER legal rights. My stance as Con so far rests simply on the logic that as a fetus, no rights exist for the unborn child. Therefore this is a debate about property rights between two individuals: the mother and the father. The father has no right to the mother's body (slavery has long been abolished) and the woman has every right to her own body. Thus, it's pretty obvious that the resolution does not stand.
In regards to non-medical abortions, fraternal consent should be required at the national level.

Resolution: In regards to non-medical abortion, a contract should have to be signed by the mother and father of the fetus stating that they both consent to the abortion. A mother cannot have an abortion without fraternal consent. === Definitions === Non-medical abortion-Also known as a social abortion, an abortion not undertaken for the fact that if the mother carries and births this child, she is in severe danger of dying. Fraternal Consent-Consent by the father of the fetus Father-The provider of the sperm that fertilized the female egg. Mother- The provider of the egg that was fertilized by the sperm. === Arguments === 1) The fetus belongs to the mother just as much as it does the father. The father is just as much as a parent to the child as the mother. To kill the fetus without the father's consent would be to kill the father's child without his permission. To not allow a father to have a say in the abortion of his child would be a violation of his legal rights.
Conservatives are dying out.

Bill Clinton wasn't a liberal? But John McCain is? You are so far out of touch with reality that I don't even know what to do with this round. As with many conservatives, debating things with actual substance is often found to be pointless. You are going to believe what you want to believe, and in this case I actually think you have the uncanny ability to "decide" what you believe. You want conservatism to be on the rise, therefore you believe it is. It's actually scary. I mean what if there were an administration that came to power and worked the same way as your mind does? Oh wait, nevermind. I didn't mean for this debate to be based around whether or not conservatism was good or bad, I simply meant for it to be a real debate about whether or not conservatism is losing it's place at the table of politics. I believe it is. Conservative ideas are being more regularly rejected by society, and to me it's just a part of evolution (which you may or may not believe in). The things I pointed out in the 2nd round of this debate are things I have found to be true, as the majority of Americans have.
Conservatives are dying out.

HA! You are correct. I really can say that Clinton was never a Liberal, since he was a Moderate Conservative. Uhhhh Evangelist leaders arent just Conservs. Wow and since when were the Kennedy Bros Liberals? Where do you get this fact that Conervatives are on the decline? You certasinly don't see that in every day life, and if you saw it on T.V. that certainly would not be a reliable source since,well, we already went over that. And ,no, I do not have a favorite network because i do no watch the television. It is such a waste of brain cells, although i do play videogames ever once in a while. This is the thing the news wants you to see. That the Liberals are perfect little angels ,and this and that, its always the conservatives....blah blah blah. The press has been going hardcore on how Mitt Romney is a Mormonite yet the VERY LIBERAL senate maj. leader ,Harry Reed, is a Mormoite himself....hmmm that's odd. No the Conservative voice is not fading.......anymore, it is on the rise
Conservatives are dying out.

Okay so number 1. you are in favor of people who are dying out because of their political views? Harsh (joking). Anyways, listening to the mainstream media. HHMMMMM can you tell me exactly who is the mainstream media? Liberals. Can you tell me where most people are influenced ,unfortunatley, in this country? The Television. Yes at a young age, statistcally more people are liberal, but once as you get older ,and wiser, the trend tends to lean towards more conservative. Now supposedly i have heard that anybody whose parents were baby boomers, their children will be the most Conservative age since.......(whenever the last one was) because of our parent's hardcore Liberalism. This is hard to predict by the inconsistent trend our country has headed over the past half century. Did you know that our country has never elected ,not once, a Liberal President? There was a time when powerful Liberals lost a hand in the struggle for power in this country, hell there was a more than a few times where Isolationists and Independents were in control. Just like wingnut said,no one likes McCain.I don't know how were stuck in the mud but whatever.Oh go Duke!
Conservatives are dying out.

Following the mainstream news and current events closely, I have begun to notice over the past five years that true conservatives are a dying breed. I am in favor of this. It is only logical to think that as the world progresses and evolves, that more of society begins to think with an open-mind and becomes more intelligent and tolerant, thus becoming more liberal. Powerful conservatives are losing their grip on political influence, this is more evident now more than ever in the Republican primaries. Moderate John McCain, who is a conservative, is being attacked by the right-wingers for not being conservative enough when he is clearly "stuck in the mud" just like the rest of the Republican Party.
Kony 2012

The first source the Pro has cited is not even 8 hours old, cites no outside information, and is very biased and opinionated, the author quoted a random tweet about what he thinks people campaigning to get rid of Kony should do."Why the f--- do we care about whats happening in Uganda!!!! Go get some damn jobs you bums!!!!Im not making that up its on the actual blog....http://www.ugo.com...So as far as I know the author thinks this is another hippie movement and hes just using its popularity to sh*t all over it rather than provide any actual facts....."Also from reports from Uganda paint a less flattering picture of Invisible Children as well. For one thing, the Lord’s Resistance Army isn’t even active in the country anymore.[2] Kony probably isn’t there either."The video actually shows they are not in Uganda....... look on the Kony 2012 video posted above from 14:58 to 15:22http://www.youtube.com..."And as the LRA began to move to other countries...... Jacob, and other Ugandans came to the US to speak on behalf on behalf of all people suffering, because of Kony. Even though Uganda was relatively safe....."Picture 1, LRA territory in Red. Picture 2, LRA terriroty in Red now operating out of Uganda and in other countries. ( Sorry for the fuzziness :P )So any misconceptions that Uganda is where he is hiding in is not the fault of the Kony 2012 video, it is the fault of other media sources screwing up.... Not of this allegedly biased charityBesides that the Con has completely dropped all other arguments about why this campaign shouldnt be supported, how there are other charities to donate to to fight this cause, how this charity sponsoring Kony 2012 is very legit, how the US is still only a little involved (100 troops), how the US is there only as advisers, and why the US should scrap very cheap humanitarian aid missions to help their budget when other options are available....
Kony 2012

Thank you for your rebuttal imabench.Though granted that I lack the time and am currently leaving to vacation, I can no longer spend time on this debate.Have a wonderful week, a little more research shows what IC's true intentions seem to be ~ "just about all of the charity called Invisible Children programs are ludicrously colonialist and vertical - the classic narrative of the White savior coming into the jungle to lift the natives out of their squalor. Many Ugandans who have been interviewed about the organization consider them to be jokes, more interested in their own publicity than in actually accomplishing something meaningful for the people of Uganda." [1]Also from reports from Uganda paint a less flattering picture of Invisible Children as well. For one thing, the Lord’s Resistance Army isn’t even active in the country anymore.[2] Kony probably isn’t there either. So while it’s all well and good to fund development projects there, tying them into this macho manhunt is sort of counter-productive. "Misinterpretations of media content may lead some people to believe that the LRA is currently active in Uganda," said the government in Kampala.[2]Figured I would throw that in there. My opening was subject was somewhat flawed as I was against people praising this campaign and sending in funds to help bump an old mission back into existence.Good luck in further debates, I lack time at this point and vacation awaits. Thank you for you time. Sources:http://www.ugo.com... http://www.google.com...
Kony 2012

"The charity is flawed, the fact that IC keeps 75% of the proceeds shows how much they actually send toward the African issues they support."40% goes to Central African programs, the other 60% go to other worthy causes, primarily to promote awareness, as seen in the picture below and the link it came from http://s3.amazonaws.com...So its a legit charity, if that doesnt do it for you still, this isnt the only charity open to fighting the war against child soldiers, so if youre against Kony 2012 only because you think (falsely) that Kony 2012 is a bad charity, browse around there are several other legit charities available to fight Kony...." yet many people are attempting to start a petition to the government to send soldiers to Uganda"This campaign is to rally the public to get Congress to still keep the 100 soldiers they sent over there to stay. NOWHERE in the video does it advocate for all out US intervention it is only a campaign to get support for the US to continue its already limited intervention in the area. Also keep in mind that the troops over there arent even there to fight, they are only advisers there to help other troops from African countries coordinate to try to take down Kony. "15 trillion dollars in debt is quite a deep hole for a country to be in, allocating our resources elsewhere will put an even larger dent in our debt."God I hate this hypocrisy, everyone always says we shouldnt intervene overseas because of our debt and that to bring balance to the budget instead of cutting defense or subsidies or programs we dont need or close loop holes in tax codes we should be cutting our involvement in completely justified humanitarian missions. Should we have not intervened in Haiti because of our debt because it would cost too much?Should we not have fixed New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina because it would cost too much?Should we not have given aid to Japan because that would cost us money? Should we not even consider giving food supplies to impoverished countries to stave off a famine because it would cost us money? Heres my point, yeah we have a debt problem, but dont throw a humanitarian aid mission that cost maybe a couple million dollars a year under the bus when we have a hundred trillion dollar defense budget, billions allocated for oil subsidies, two wars that should have ended a long time ago that cost us a combined 1.3 trillion to fund, and a massive healthcare system that could be reformed to easily put a huge dent in our national debt more than axing a humanitarian aid mission. For the record, it doesnt cost the government that much to fund a mission to help bring down a warlord, in fact most of the funding comes right from charities. Kony 2012.
Kony 2012

Let me begin by posting the reasoning behind my side. For starters, Invisible Children, the charity has been and still is being sued for improper usage of their NPO license. The charity is flawed, the fact that IC keeps 75% of the proceeds shows how much they actually send toward the African issues they support. A scrap, a measley segment, 25%. Yet most of it ends up in the hands of their government. In addition to the corrupt charity, the U.S economy is in the gutter. This campaign is meant for raising awareness, yet many people are attempting to start a petition to the government to send soldiers to Uganda. This issue has been raging on since 1986, yet all of the sudden becoming popular. One problem that people are aware of is our economical state. 15 trillion dollars in debt is quite a deep hole for a country to be in, allocating our resources elsewhere will put an even larger dent in our debt. How can our nation expect to continue this role of "police man of the world" if our economy collapses. We should focus on our own issues before dealing with other countries.
What is the hardest video game boss ever created? (not including arcade game bosses.)

Vast data Page---https://www.fimfiction.net... Here is this guy's post. He was playing no more heros two #1578449 " 58w, 1d ago " " " Raptor Dementia Ravenmane Subatomic Seal The title says it all. Who do I pick? Well, here we go. The most annoying boss fight of all time with unpredictable attack patterns, annoying lines, the strange feeling of not being satisfied after killing him and a VERY difficult final boss overall; JASPER. BATT. JR. I hate this little twerp so much. He has everything I said above, (obviously) and MORE. Oh yeah, and unpredictable one hit kills. He ruined a large amount of No More Heroes 2 for me, my life, my self esteem, my perception of reality, my sanity, and just about everything that lies in between. I would rather drink greenish-red anal excretions from a cup made of pig crap. Sorry for any language on this message. But there is no game on earth that is more annoying than final fantacy.
What is the hardest video game boss ever created? (not including arcade game bosses.)

Now we all know of games that we get stuck on the bosses. But may i recall one of the game series that has the most and hardest bosses ever. Guy you know i am talking about: Final Fantacy You get stuck in this game all the time. If you haven't played it be mentally prepared. But final fantacy is hard enough as it is but then there are the superbosses. And the hardest is Kefka from Final Fantacy VI.
What is the hardest video game boss ever created? (not including arcade game bosses.)

It is the chicken in the Legend of Zelda game series! If you can beat that chicken, Dark Souls would be like playing a hacked Mario game for you! My grandma can juggle flaming penguins, while experiencing a voltage of 10,000 ZV, while reciting the Ancient Chinese alphabet (which has over 9000 letters) in her sleep, but she still can't beat that chicken.
God exists

Atheists say that no one can prove God exists, and they're right. But I say no one can disprove God's existence. But in order to have this debate we need to look at the available evidence, and that's what we're going to do. Most atheists believe in something called the big bang theory. This is the belief that everything in this universe exploded into existence. They believe that it is the result of everything. If it is the cause of everything, there had to once be nothing. And well, in our lives we never really see something pop out from nothing. But atheists want to make a small exception to this rule, that is, the universe and everything in it. But the thing is without a God in the equation, you are asked to believe a lot. You have to believe that even if there was an explosion, everything that you are studying in science right now came from probability, which is a lot to come from an explosion. How can you look at the billions of species, millions of galaxies and say that is just appeared from probability. Does the universe and everything in it just randomly appear? Which takes more faith to believe: Someone created something out of nothing? Or no one created something out of nothing?
The Republican party can win if if goes back to the reason for it's original success

Very true about us being the public. It's a good age that we're in now, but at the same time, a bad one. This generation at least is becoming a bit smarter when it comes to politics, but at the same time, at least my peers have no clue what's. There are a select few that truly know what's best for the country, but there is strength in numbers. Many of my schoolmates that are going to be of voting age when 08 rolls around don't really know what they want in a president, and like my conformist trend idea, only want to go with what the media force feeds down there throats. I love your idea, but because the media controls so many opinions, I can't see it happening, or at least, getting the support it needs.
The Republican party can win if if goes back to the reason for it's original success

"A situation we could capitalize on." That's a good point. The Media lies about Iraq have made President Bush and by extension his party very unpopular. However, when I look at history, I think that's something we can overcome, IF we have the right candidate. I'm not against Mike Huckabee, but I would rather see Fred Thompson as the next President, but if the Dems pick Obama, the chances of any Republican win are, as you say, dim. However, there's a chance Hillary can cajole, bribe, and threaten her way into the nomination. If she does, she'll lose. Period. Conformist trend. Interesting idea. However, I think that in an election the candidate matters more than the party. Huckabee and Thompson have a rural charm, appropriately, whereas Obama comes off as young and hip. I think THAT will be the deciding factor: do Americans want Charming, Suave, and Conservative, or Young, Hip, and Progressive? I can't agree with you that the public is uneducated. We are the public.
The Republican party can win if if goes back to the reason for it's original success

If there were a situation we could capitalize on, it would be possible, but right now, with an undereducated public, nothing can really save us. There are trends in who the public supports, and right now, it's the "Conformist Trend." With the Bush era nearly over, the people may not want to risk seeing another failure (in there eyes, of course) It will take some time, and if Obama gets elected, at least the public can take a look at what a real politician resembles, but the Republicans won't be able to do that on their own until the liberal era is over.
The Republican party can win if if goes back to the reason for it's original success

The Republican party was formed to end Slavery. It evolved to become the party of small government, low taxes, and general protection of liberty. Liberals can dispute that, but this is what THE mascot of the Conservative movement, Ronald Reagan, stood for. Now, however, the Gipper has passed on, and after four years of Bush Sr., eight years of the Clinton scourge, and eight more years of Bush Jr., America is growing sick of Politics-as-usual. I think that's why Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have skyrocketed in the polls in recent weeks. They are non-establishmentarian candidates with folksy appeal. However, I think we'd be heading down the wrong path if we elected either of them. My core argument is this: The Republicans need to cease being the party of "Expand the Government" to the Democrats' "SUPERSIZE the Government." We need to return to Reaganistic, REDUCE-the-Bureaucracy, politics. If we do, we can win.
The Republican party can win if if goes back to the reason for it's original success

(I won't be old enough either, but most of my class will, lol) Yeah, the thing though with News and stuff, is that even inadvertently, someone will see it. Whereas, if the X-Factor for republicans is going to be the internet, that would require a lot of advertising online, and might be too much of a hassle. There aren't a lot of people that I know that continually research political stuff online, they just get updates from the twisted news channels, and occasionally, SNL (which will continue to be liberal until a democrat embarrasses themselves as much as singular republicans have done the past few years) It'll really come down to just how far out there this idea is. Obama is going to be the big card for the Dems, and there's no one really like him on the Republican side. If he's elected a new, "connect with the people" trend will start, but that might also eliminate opportunities for Republicans to make themselves look good. Plus, since he'll follow Bush, the people will have a bit of leeway when it comes to recognizing a mistake. (I personally am fine with Bush, but, we've all seen his approval ratings)