BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

"Why does Viability make you human? It doesn't what makes you human is your human DNA which you have at the moment of conception." - you state. Well why is it wrong to to get rid of this DNA, but getting rid of sperm (Human DNA) is wrong? If the potential for life lies in DNA then everyone who ejaculates is aborting a human. Being in the middle is the right state of mind. People who are completely for abortions are one extreme and people against it are another. With knowledge is where we empower the people. So where you state there is a wrong. Wrong is simply a feeling supported by ethical guidelines determined by the society you live in. If the person aborting the child is ok with their decision and is not causing harm, emotionally or physically to someone, then stated simply it is right.
Same Sex Marriage

I dont understand what you mean by illegal but I will assume you would like it to be deemed illegal. First, I'd like to hear your argument on how it is ethically wrong to marry the same sex. Your understanding of ethics make be skewed. The argument of procreation is the only argument I have really heard. My first statement to you would be that the current carrying capacity for earth is near its threshold. Therefore, we are not in need of procreation but rather the opposite. We need to slow our rate of population growth. Second, procreation does not need to be handled by every human. Obviously, that would cause an uproar in society. A friend of mine is sterile and cannot reproduce, so , in your terms, this person would be a failure because of his ability to procreate.
pitbull ban

Malaki Mildward, 7-years old, was viciously killed by two 8 or 9-month old pit bull-mixes while playing in his yard. There were two adult pit bulls, a male and female, also living at the home, but were inside during the attack. The adult female, Road, had delivered a litter during the previous summer; the two fatally attacking dogs were from that litter. Malaki's stepfather, Jeremiah Hicks, was in the home when the attack occurred. The boy's mother and two other children were away. When several family members, including a 10-year old boy, returned to the home, they saw Malaki's body in the yard. The dogs had horribly attacked the boy and stripped away most of his clothes. Road had bitten the 10-year old boy four months earlier. His mother reported the biting incident to the sheriff's office and the Iowa Department of Human Services, but DHS classified the bite report as unfounded and no follow through occurred. Road and her two fatally attacking offspring were euthanized; Hicks kept the male pit bull. There are way to many incidents like the one above with pit bulls. To many dead kids, to many disfigured kids, to many elderly people attacked, to many people hurt by these dogs. 2 people are severely injured every 12 hours by a pit bull in the USA. https://www.youtube.com...... http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com.........
pitbull ban

Since pit bulls are attacking and severely injuring 2 people in the USA every 12 hours, people who are not emotionally attached too the breed see it as common sense that we protect children, people, and other animals and pets. The data showing that pit bulls are responsible for more severe attacks and kills than all other breeds combined is meaningful and frightening. Common sense should tell us, with out the help of attack stats, that dogs bred too bring down 2,000 lb bulls and too fight and kill other dogs are dangerous. We know that pit bulls are dangerous! The fact they are killing children all over the USA confirms their danger! http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com......
pitbull ban

Um, other dogs can kill children too, you know. Like um... A mastiff. It can apply 400lbs more than any pit bull. And, the media just says that they attack out of nowhere, when in actuality, if you don't know the warning signs of an attack, that's your fault. The dog said, "Screw off you I'll attack you." And it did what it said it would. It attacked. And even if pit bulls magically disappeared, do you HONESTLY think that dog attacks wouldn't exist? Oh god I hope not. Because abusive owners and dogfighters would target another breed. The only way to solve it is to ban all dogs. All of them. And about the ban. In a ton of cities, peoples dogs were taken away, and the owners were given 48hrs to leave or their innocent dogs would be killed. Out of around... 16,000 pit bulls taken, 8,000 of them died. In some shelters, if a pit bull is brought in, they kill it. Even puppies. They are MURDERING innocent BABY ANIMALS! How does that feel? Terrible? That you're supporting the slaughter of puppies? How would you like it if you weren't even given a chance to prove that you're not a monster, you're just killed. What if you were framed for murder? They wouldn't just kill you on the spot! They need evidence. I respect your opinion I just don't understand it because other dogs are capable if not more capable of killing people.
Should immigrants be transported and not aloud into the country because they steal jobs and families

We cannot possibly find employment for every one of them age 16 and up and this means the welfare rolls will swell exponentially. Already in this country, over the past five years, we"ve seen unprecedented increases in people/families on food stamps (SNAP program) now approaching 50 million; 10 million + now on disability and a stunning 92 million Americans are NOT working at all. Who in their right mind actually believes we can absorb tens of thousands of aliens without collapsing an already fragile economy? Oh, and in case you didn"t know, Mr. Obama and company have been actively advertising Americas "freebies" throughout Mexico and even Central America. We have $17 trillion in "official" debts, $100 trillion in unfunded obligations and the only reason your stock portfolio is worth a warm bucket of spit is because of Fed pumping. If you think adding thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people to the already stressed welfare system won"t hurt YOU, you"re beyond stupid.Crime is an obvious side effect of allowing God-only-knows-who to waltz right through the back door. If you arrived home one day to find a total stranger living in your house, eating your food, sleeping in your bed and rifling through your belongings, you"d call the cops and you"d expect them to run the squatters out muy rapidamente. But yet we seem to have no issue (at least Washington does not) with allowing the free-flow of completely undocumented individuals, at least some of whom will have a criminal history. Take for example the flow of members of the violent MS-13 gang. Many of them are Central Americans and they have a penchant for being merciless, violent and deadly. Deadly DWI accidents, rape, murder and various other crimes are attributed to illegals not even affiliated with gang activity. America"s police have their hands full as it is and now, your so-called leaders in DC want to do everything they can to compound these issues, all in the name of elections. And let"s not forget, terrorists have in fact used the southern border to gain entry into our country. How many? Thousands of suspect individuals have been caught. And it"s certain many more have not. So while you are sitting there worrying about other peoples feelings over other peoples well being, it is inevitably destroying the u.s.
Should immigrants be transported and not aloud into the country because they steal jobs and families

I really don't like how you are dissing all immigrants. I am positive that not all immigrants are that way. I think if the whole world thought the way you do America would not be the way it is today. Who helped build our railroads? Immigrants. Who brought many innovative ideas and infrastructure to America? Immigrants. Immigrants do not, contrary to popular belief, push people out of their jobs. In fact they tend to fill positions on the low and high ends of the skill spectrum a position that Americans cannot or will not fill. Immigrants are also not a drain on government finances. The NAS study found that the typical immigrant and their children will pay about $80,000 more in taxes during their lifetimes than they collect in government services. Though true that low-skilled immigrants and refugees tend to use welfare more than the typical "native" household, but the 1996 Welfare Reform Act made it much more difficult for newcomers to collect welfare. As a result, immigrant use of welfare has declined in recent years along with overall welfare rolls. http://www.cato.org...
Should immigrants be transported and not aloud into the country because they steal jobs and families

I can feel you feel strongly on the issue, however I will have to ask you to stop adding rash comments in your debate. Anyways, Your first argument, if you want to call it that, is that immigrants are rolling in the governments benefits such as SNAP, disability, and welfare. Therefore I am going to argue the opposite. First of all I'm going to get down and dirty and feed you the facts with a spoon. You say, "Who in their right mind actually believes that we can absorb tens of thousands of aliens without collapsing an already fragile environment?" Well I say the government makes it easy since USA is making money on these immigrants. They need a place to live, they need food, they need clothes, they need transport, schooling. Not to mention that a 2012 report the Partnership for a New American Economy says, "Over the last 15 years, while native-born Americans have become less likely to start a business, immigrants have steadily picked up the slack. Immigrants are now more than twice as likely as the native-born to start a business and were responsible for more than one in every four (28%) U.S. businesses founded in 2011, significantly outpacing their share of the population(12.9%)" You should know that immigrant owned businesses in the U.S. generate more than $775 billion in sales and pay more than $126 billion in payroll each year! Immigrants aren't taking jobs from millions of Americans- the're giving jobs to millions, and doing business with millions more. One of your next rash statements, basically saying the same thing, "If you think adding thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people to the already stressed welfare system won"t hurt YOU, you"re beyond stupid." It won't hurt me and it won't hurt you, for welfare does not help anyone get ahead in life. Besides what they are making on welfare they lose on taxes. also immigrants help our tourism industry when family and friends go to visit, spending money in our economy and helping us receive the $2 trillion global travel and tourism industries. http://www.washingtontimes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://reason.com... http://www.nbcnews.com... I will debate more on this when your statements show some validity.
Creationism(pro) vs. Evolution(con)

Acceptance of Challenge: As I assume you have read my remark, see my true colors. I offer you the right to disprove my claims as 'the evolutionist". If you decline, as it may be unfair for a Theist to represent the (Con). I will offer theology, philosophy, science, history, and personal remarks. All in favor of the Con. please thought, first read my comments bellow in ascending order.
Creationism(pro) vs. Evolution(con)

I find your claims and stipulations easily disregarded. order may not come from Chaos, but Chaos as an entity does not dictate order does not exist within it. The Greeks called God Chaos, because in all his complexity he was unimaginable, unfathomable, unpredictable at times. To state evolution is impossible because order cannot come from Chaos, is simply redeemed by indicating order was part of the chaos. But that alone is not satisfactory: The creation of life is not of a chaotic or orderly credential. moving along to the previous edges along the rims to your Hammer of Faith. The Big bang theory, though disprovable, via creation. is still has potential, and is not impossible. As God said, the possible is impossible, so you cannot make such a claim. two particles that are in collision forever is the true theory, not on a path for each-other. For the space between them is endlessly shrinking, and the spaces apart endlessly growing. If something should come from nothing, it simply came from nothing and needs not explanation. For as an atheists says, how did God do this/ where did this come from? = it is not a significant portion of faith to have the answer. > they are satisfied without it. To say God is all knowing, is not a debate contribution. unless it was: in which case you can stipulate, even God can choose to forget. People saying carbon dating can prove the bible wrong, is another non evolution statement, but. Because it cannot, seeing as people can eat the dinosaurs an cook the bones and/or burry them, we cannot use such a method. Peoples opinions do not play into the existence of either creationism or evolution. What a person must say however, is that that which is no longer present, can lead to skepticism. The complexity of earth does not disprove evolution. For if science proves that the world did not come from a an era of meteors forming a molten earth, then we can stipulate, the perfection of earths existence came all at once, and the animals would be well suited. The earth hangs in balance, and does not deviate. This does not support nor conflict with evolution, But although it indicates creationism, one who is a skeptic and extremely adept at philosophies can debate it does not support it, until he is in self denial. Ur not debating evolution, you're debating atheism. I respect that. but this is a debate. Rebuttal. Evolution: which I do not believe in. can easily be stipulated to have occurred, despite unique animals like giraffes, hippos, rhino's, moose, whales, lions etc... because simply that the human race was contacted by God, does not indicate that this was not after he delighted in a prolonged series of evolutionary events.
Creationism(pro) vs. Evolution(con)

Another thought to think about is that the Big Bang theory is impossible. If two particles were on course for each other for infinity, they would never collide. If it was an in infinite time before they collided, they never would have collided in the first place. Evolution is also impossible because there is a law of physics that says it is so. It is known as the law of thermodynamics. It says that, "Order cannot come from chaos." A law of physics would have to be defied for the Big Bang theory to happen. What if I told a tornado went through a junk yard, and when the tornado was over a shiny, red Lamborghini appeared. You would say I was crazy or out of my mind, but that is exactly what you want me to believe. There are many verses in the bible that can prove that God is an all knowing God. It says that the earth is round, that the earth hangs on nothing, and that everything is made up of atoms. This was written 5,000 years before any of this was confirm by scientists. Some people say that carbon dating can prove the bible wrong. It says in the book of Genesis that the population went from 2, to the entire earth being populated. That could have taken thousands, if not millions of years. We also have to think about is how earth is incredibly complex. We have seasons. We have plants that need C02 and we have humans that need oxygen. We are the perfect distance from the sun. One mile closer and earth would be too hot, and if it were a mile away earth would be a life less rock. I hope you take these thoughts into consideration.
Tomboys are better than regular women

I know you never said it, but intentional or not your argument seemed to imply it. "Most relationships have problems because the guys and girls are almost the opposite." Opposite in interests perhaps, but according to a study conducted by the University of Iowa in 2005, similarity in personality was more important than similarities in attitude, religion, and values in forming a happy marriage (1). Once more, whether or not a girl likes a guy is based on PERSONALITY, not whether or not she is a "tomboy" or "regular". You can still watch a football game with a "regular" girl, if she likes you she'll try to be interested in it even if she isn't. If you don't see the point in defining "regular" women, why bother arguing that tomboys are better than them? Perhaps some do, but again, not all. Once more, I direct you to the study I referenced earlier which states that in general similarity in personality was more important than similarities in attitude, religion, and values in forming a happy marriage/relationship among those surveyed. While you may personally disagree with these findings, the survey proves that they rule true for most. In conclusion, my opponent has not proven that Tomboys are superior than regular women. I believe I have successfully shown that they are equal and whether you prefer them or not comes down to personality. Thanks to those who have read this debate and especially to my opponent for giving me the chance to practice my debate skills with him. (1) http://www.livescience.com...
Tomboys are better than regular women

I never said Tomboys can only have platonic friendships. I said they can have a healthy relationship. Most relationships have problems because the guys and girls are almost the opposite, while Tomboys are called tomboys for a reason. They're a girlfriend who you can watch a football game with, they're a girlfriend who you can hang out at the bar with.based on personal experience, my "definitions" of tomboy and regular are:Tomboy - a girl who will prefer doing stuff mostly attributed to stuff bros do.Regular woman - Women who regular.Yeah I don't see the point in defining regular women. But that's what I would define tomboys as. And as for the whole "You're generalizing personality traits" Well, I'm doing that because tomboys seem to have a nack for having certain traits.If I'm coming off as a sexist, I'm not trying to. Im just saying I think that having a girlfriend who has a lifestyle similar to mine is probably healthier than two people with polar opposite lifestyles trying to live together. I'm fine with having regular woman as just friends, because they can be very good friends. But if I want a long-term relationship with a woman, I would prefer someone who I have a lot in common with.
Tomboys are better than regular women

All your arguments are based off of generalizations. While there may be some truth to these generalizations, there is also inaccuracy. It is impossible to assign personality traits to any single group of people and be totally accurate. "It is way easier for a guy to chat with a Tomboy" this again falls to personal preferences. Some guys could be intimidated by the tomboy's less traditionally feminine qualities. Perhaps the "guy" in question does not like sports, or cars? Suppose the "Tomboy" does not? It all comes down to the personality of people that determines if they have a connection. For the "easier to connect to" argument, see above, because it all comes down to personality once again. Your argument suggests that only Tomboys can have platonic friendships with guys, which is also false. "Tomboys are like having a cool chick friend, but they're way cooler about it." So no matter how "cool" a regular girl could be, a Tomboy would be inherently better? "I prefer tomboys because they're like having an awesome friend who you can play mortal kombat with, but with tits." I'm sure "regular" girls are also capable of playing mortal kombat or and being awesome friends. It's a bit late for it, but you should provide your personal definitions of "tomboy" and "regular".
Tomboys are better than regular women

Alright, I'll admit I generalized a bit. But it has some merit. I used mostly generalizations to back up my arguments, but basically, Tomboys just have so much going for them. Yes, I know not all regular women go for athletic guys, and I also now not all tomboys go for nice guys. But it is way easier for a guy to chat with a Tomboy than a normal girl. Tomboys like guy stuff, and are women which is something guys like. They're less needy too. I mentioned in my first argument that I will save relationship stuff for later, and it's later now. Tomboys are way less girly, which I know is kind of obvious, but it makes them easier to connect to. Tomboys are like the chick in high school you were friends with, but then you became friends too much so she friendzoned you. Tomboys are like having a cool chick friend, but only they're way cooler about it. I'm not saying I have a problem with regular women, I'm just saying I prefer tomboys because they're like having an awesome friend who you can play mortal kombat with, but with tits.
Tomboys are better than regular women

My objective in this debate is not to prove that tomboys are worse than "regular" women, but rather equal to them. My opponent claims that normal women are "Judgmental and kind of hypocritical." This is an unfair generalization that has no scientific merit. My opponent also asserts that "all they care about is looks." This is also an unfair generalization, and one disprovable as in a Men"s Health survey of more than 1,000 American women ages 21 to 54, 77 percent of women ranked a sense of humor as their number one must-have in a man (1). My opponent's final accusation towards "regular" women is that they absolutely never give nerdy guys a chance. This is simply not true, as I know first hand. I am what many would classify as a "nerdy" guy and am currently in a relationship with a "regular" girl. This disproves my opponent's assertion that girls "NEVER" give so called nerdy guys even a chance. My opponent's main argument against "regular" girls is full of false and negative stereotypes that suggests that he has some sort of personal grudge against them. My opponent's description of "tomboy" women is also full of generalization of personal characteristics. Perhaps my opponent could use more specific language and provide his personal definition of "tomboy" "regular" and "nerdy" in order to better communicate his point. 1) http://news.menshealth.com...
Tomboys are better than regular women

I'll start off with why Tomboys are better to begin with. I won't go into relationship stuff yet. Normal women are judgmental, and kind of hypocritical. They only go for athletic guys and never, I mean, NEVER give nerdy guys the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because all they care about is looks. Before you feminists start claiming that it works both ways, you probably see it that way because your only resource is douchey guys who also only care about looks. Tomboy women are different though. They won't judge you, they won't friendzone you. Tomboys are usually much more relatable. The only problem some guys might have with them is that they hate douchey guys.
should torture be used against terrorists

In regards to the topic of whether or not torture should be used on terrorists, many believe that torture should not be used on terrorists. I believe that terrorists should not be tortured. This claim is justified by the fact that despite what they have done terrorists are still people, and torture is in violation of the 8th amendment. This supports my position because torture is unconstitutional thus meaning that it is a bad thing to do something. Inevitably we must agree that torture no matter who it is used on is an evil and unconstitutional punishment.