BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God has to Allow Suffering, Problem of Suffering Refuted Indubitably

"I don't think you understand that not everyone has a perfect life." I didn't say anyone has a perfect life, as a matter of fact no one in this world has one, Perfect life will come at The 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ. "why must they suffer because of there landlord kicking them out or because their job fires them." Man did that, how is that YHWH/God's fault? "If God existed he would be an truly evil man." How? Also we aren't here to insult people, I ask you, what have you done for anyone? Did you create the universe out of nothing? No, did you allow suffering so that suffering could end? No, did you create life? No, how can you be so hypocritical. "you said something about free will. yeah people do make choices in their lives that change the outcome. But what about people whose house gets robes. It wasn't their fault that they got robed." Of course, but it's due to FREE WILL, who WILLED the robbery? Not YHWH, the men who did it choose to do it. I think you did not read the argument, read this, Scenario 1: I prevent person A from tripping, and because of that a majority of humanity dies and Person A never learns to watch their step Scenario 2, I allow someone to trip, they learn from that and because of allowing it someone else lives. Which is immoral, 1 or 2? Obvious 1, I should have allowed a person A to trip for 2 reasons, 1 to prevent this person from tripping again as this person will learn from this accident to watch his step, and 2, others get to live. YHWH(The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit) Morally allows suffering, why? shown right up there ^
God has to Allow Suffering, Problem of Suffering Refuted Indubitably

I see you are a strong believer in god and christ. I don't think you understand that not everyone has a perfect life. I have done community service at many soup kitchens. I see these people come in here who have nothing and are the nicest people. why must they suffer because of there landlord kicking them out or because their job fires them. You also said that there is glory that will come to us. That is incorrect. I said the baby dies and no her doesn't go to heaven because there is no heaven and the con-man doesn't go to hell because there is no hell. both of them will die and they will both die how they were. you can't suck up how your life is right now and say that you will go to heaven. If you do that you live your life. If God existed he would be an truly evil man. you said something about free will. yeah people do make choices in their lives that change the outcome. But what about people whose house gets robes. It wasn't their fault that they got robed. (please exuse my bad english)
Abortion should never be outlawed

You first say that we should always have that choice but then you say abortion should be outlawed. Would I murder a 10 year old child? No. Would I unhook a paralyzed man on life support? If it was his choice to come off of life support, that's a whole different topic. Someone on life support has lived a life and has had a conscious life, but an embryo or zygote in a womb has had no conscious or life experiences. So it isn't comparable. Also, you didn't say "braindead" you said paralyzed, so this person is still conscious and thinking. An embryo isn't. First of all you bring God into the debate. "God" is a religious belief that should have no bearing on the law. You can't say "Well it is God's plan" when not all of us believe in God, and even those who do don't necessarily believe abortion is murder or even against God. There are alternatives to abortion, for people who CHOOSE those alternatives. But there is also abortion for those people who choose abortion. Who are you to tell what people can or can't do with their own bodies? There are already tons of kids in foster homes, not everyone can find a "loving family". Bringing more kids into the world without parents is worse, in my opinion, than aborting them before they are even conscious. Also, referring to embryos as a "child" is false and inflammatory. I also want to point out that you haven't responded to any of my points in the first post.
Abortion should never be outlawed

Abortion, in any case for any reason, should be outlawed. I do agree that we should always have that choice, but, the thing is, we have a choice to do whatever we want. The law simply cannot force us to do anything, we have choices anyway, however, choices do have consequences. I want to ask you, would you murder a 10 year old child because it wasn't outlawed? Would you want to murder anybody for that matter? A paralyzed man hooked on life support, not able to feel a thing, would you unhook his life support because you felt like it or because it wasn't outlawed? Or would you have the attitude that, "Well, he won't feel it, so it's ok." Just because someone can't feel pain or because it isn't outlawed, is it really not the same as murdering? As God put us here for a purpose, and we each have lived or almost lived to fulfill that purpose, why not let the child do the same? If you kill it, it loses its purpose. There are alternatives to abortion, you can always give it up to a loving family after you've had the baby. Thats a choice, would you rather have the life and let it fulfill its God given purpose in an adopted family, or kill it and let it lose that?
Abortion should never be outlawed

Hello, this is my first debate. My opinion is that abortion should never be outlawed. My reasons for believing this are as follows: 1. The government should never have control over an individual's personal choices dealing with their body. If you support the idea of the government making an individual's personal decisions, then you need a good reason. If it is for religious purposes, then the government has no right to make laws based upon religion due to separation of Church and state. 2. The world is overpopulated. 3. If you force people to have children, when they can't afford it, then they will put a drain on the economy when we provide them with welfare. 4. Should we force young children, junkies, the poverty stricken to have children if they can't afford them? I personally love children, but I always want the choice to be "mine". I know people tend to have this whole idea that it is "already a life", but this isn't a good argument. The intelligence of an embryo is non existent at the first stages. Nearly 80% of women get abortions prior to the 2nd trimester, and "thoughts" or "pain" do not exist anywhere near that time. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.abortionno.org... I personally am a full time employee of a large company, but with the cost of living if I ever got pregnant I would HAVE to go on welfare. This is true of so many women in America. 5. It is just a given in cases of rape/incest. Who can, without a guilty conscience, say that you should not be allowed to have an abortion in a case of rape/incest? Why would you want to bring a life into the world, even if it isn't physically or mentally impaired, knowing that it came from an incestuous or rape case? It would cause mental and sociologically turmoil. What if you or your significant other were just revealed to be from an incest pregnancy? The psychological scars that it would cause are immense. 6. Lack of actual education could decrease abortions. Abstinence education doesn't work, and if you oppose abortions then promoting sex ed. and condom use would reduce abortions. Not making it necessary to outlaw them.
Abortion should never be outlawed

I have never advocated late term or partial-birth abortion. I always emphasized embryo, zygote, etc. I don't think that abortions should be performed past a certain time line. Except, in the rare occasion of extreme complications affecting the woman's life. As far as how the woman feels, it is her decision and as with any serious decision that someone can make in their life, they must live with those choices. Why would you give an unconscious embryo more rights than a conscious woman?
Abortion should never be outlawed

So we should just kill these babies. I could care less what people think regarding religious belief or how the baby doesn't feel anything. Have you thought about the consequences people fa emotionally after performing an abortion? It's horrible and have you seen pictures of chopped up babies, forgive the expression. Maybe this photo will change your mind. Late term abortions, partial term abortions, whatever the case, is killing life. Once life has started, the life should continue to grow. Picture removed by admin due to TOS violations
Resolved: The United States Legislative Branch should impeach President Barrack Obama from office.

My opponent has said, "All points extended. ", but I'm left with some questions. .. I am not sure what Pro would like to extend. Would it be the many charges he has made and dropped over the course of this debate? Perhaps it's the many biased and pointless citations that he also dropped round after round? Or maybe he's referring to all the unwarranted points he slipped into nearly every argument he made? The sad part is, you could extend all of this analysis, every last word, and you would still have to vote Con due to the completely unaddressed burdens analysis. All you have to do is look at points #3 (is impeachment the best course of action) and #4 (would impeachment do more harm than good). Note that I have produced the only argument that seeks to address it, and then note that Pro's only argument that could even be construed as a rebuttal - the Clinton argument - he just blatantly ADMITTED was a new argument with no relevance to the point. Voters, it doesn't matter what you believe from Pro's arguments. You can believe every word, extend every point, treat all of his unwarranted claims as high crimes, and even believe that Obama is Lucifer incarnate. It doesn't matter, because none of it proves that impeachment is the best course of action. The only party that could feasibly carry this out has a major disincentive against doing it - they know it will just strengthen Obama's position and harm their future prospects. Whether Obama is the embodiment of all evil or not makes no difference so long as there's NEGATIVE incentive to pursue impeachment. PERSONAL ATTACKS Pro said I am not "intelligent enough" to understand his points. Unfortunately, this type of rude behavior is not surprising to me. In my experience, when someone realizes that they have no evidence or logic to support their claims, they often resort to ad hominem attacks. I ask the voters to recognize this as the type of desperate attempt that it is. This concludes this debate. As stated in the rules established in round one, Pro is not allowed to make any arguments this round. He is only allowed to type "No round as agreed. " I think the choice is clear.
Resolved: The United States Legislative Branch should impeach President Barrack Obama from office.

First of all, my opponent stated that I was rebutting an argument that never existed when I talked about Clinton. I would like to say in response that I wasn't trying to rebuttal. I was creating a new argument. Obviously my opponent isn't intelligent enough to realize this. Due to the lack of time to post this debate. All points extended. Please read further into the resources that I have posted in earlier arguments.
Resolved: The United States Legislative Branch should impeach President Barrack Obama from office.

I actually did everything my opponent has said that I didn't, I just worded it differently. My opponent should have read closer. Section 1: Obama has been funding the Al- Qaeda ever since the beginning. The source I shall post at the bottom of this section has multiple links to different articles that will show my opponent and the readers proof of these activities. I shall share with the readers and my opponent one of these articles. Obama and a "co- worker" have been found working with terrorists a group of terrorists. But this is not the first time. Obama and said "co- worker" are part of the group known as Code Pink. The writer of this article says he/she has written multiple articles on this group for their apparent well known terrorist activities. Multiple democrats were pulled into an investigation interview for these activities, all but one showed due to "visa problems", though this is doubted because of his suspected terrorist activities. Al Karama, and Code Pink were declared terrorist by the National Treasury, as were most of their Yemen supporters. Barak Obama, being part of Code Pink, is obviously marked a terrorist. Though, most people should know this by now if they paid attention to his activities. . http://www.commieblaster.com... . http://www.thegatewaypundit.com... *I would like to ask my opponent to read a few of the articles in the link before he/she jumps to conclusion about my argument like my opponent has been doing this entire debate. Section 2: Obama told law enforcement, to let drunk drivers keep on driving. This is putting lives at stake, therefore he is technically committing murder, which is against the law, and in his case considered treason, the highest level of crime you can reach. Namely this takes effect on the American-Mexican border. This may seem a bit coincidental, because a Mexican who is trying to sneak into America, can just act drunk, and the police and/or border patrol can't do anything about it. Fox News has uncovered that this does pertain to illegal immigrants. . http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com...
Resolved: The United States Legislative Branch should impeach President Barrack Obama from office.

Section 1: IMPEACHMENT. Let's take a look at how a President can get impeached. .. To get impeached the President has to commit (as defined by the constitution), a "high crime or misdemeanor". To explain further, I shall use theft as an example. If the President stole something, and if the authorities managed to prove it was the President, the House of Representatives will attempt to pass at least one article of impeachment. If they manage to do this with a "simply majority" vote on it, the President will be impeached. I'm also aware that even though the President gets impeached, he can still remain in office, but if the law he broke is bad enough, he can go to court for a trial and be removed from office through the Judicial branch. Section 2: CRIMES. The following is a list of crimes Barak Obama has committed that can easily get him impeached, and why he should be impeached. *I will only be doing 10 of the 51 reasons for sake of space in the debate. If my opponent or the readers would like to look into it some more, I ask that you check out the website. 1. Obama and William Ayers, a well known terrorist, took money from Chicago's minority education funds, and attempted to convert the students into radicals. 2. Obama transferred 10s of millions of dollars to Valerie Jarrett and Tony Rezko to build low income houses. These houses were built out of what could have been the worst material they could have gotten their hands on. And this was before he was even in office. 3. Obama used illegal money, from foreign credit cards (that were turned off), which allowed people to make more illegal donations to help him in the election. 4. Obama violated our 2nd Amendment by trying to get us under the UN's small arms treaty. 5. Obama tried to give control of the Census Bureau to the Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. I believe this may have been bad because he could have learned almost everything about everyone in the country, or at least the area. 6. Obama provided under the radar amnesty to illegal immigrants by allowing the enforcing ICE laws. 7. Obama allowed USAG Holder to ignore the violations of the immigration laws. 8. Obama has neglected to defend US soil in Arizona when Mexican troops brought in drugs and illegal immigrants. This is a violation of Article iv, Section 4 of the constitution. 9. Obama illegally fired the IG Walpin for investigating Obamas buddy, Mayor Kevin Johnson for fraud with AmeriCorps. 10. Obama is in contempt of Federal Court for his illegal oil drilling moratorium in the Gulf. Section 3: CONCLUSION OF THE ROUND. All the reasons have that I have listed seem reasonable enough. He has broken multiple laws, has been affiliated with terrorists, and will probably continue to do so. If we allow him to remain in office, we may not have a country anymore, but I shall leave the readers decision left alone, I'll allow my opponent to make his arguments and rebuttals first. (The resources shall be spaced apart in the order they came in during this round of the debate), . https://answers.yahoo.com... . http://www.petition2congress.com...
Resolved: The United States Legislative Branch should impeach President Barrack Obama from office.

As Pro, my opponent should make his first argument now. Also, in order to keep the number of rounds fair, Pro shall type "No round as agreed. " in the final round. As it is my opponent who is making the positive claim, and a change in the status quo, he has the full burden of proof. As Con, I am only required to cast doubt on my opponent's claim. Again, good luck!
Mexican wall

First, I would like to point out that we do need to protect our country. Our country's safety comes first. Yet, we must acknowledge the fact that a wall will and may lead to absolute demise. I already suggested we place more officials on the border. Yet, Pro seems to overlook that concept. There are many other ideas out in the world. We need to explore and find our best option. For example, we could put a canal between us and Mexico. According to studies, that would cost less. I would like to thank my opponent for this respectful and courteous debate. I had a great time debating with you. . I fully respect your views, but my opinion has not wavered at all.
Mexican wall

in conclusion. due to the history of debate I will end my point with this; I respect my opponents opinion and the opinion of anyone who has read this debate. but I cannot end without pointing out that my opponent has yet to give a substitute to the wall we can all agree the illegal immigration problem this country has is getting out of control. my opponent seems to not realize that by building a wall on the southern border we can prevent lots of the problems we have. now my opponent is right on one thing. they are right about the illegals becoming sneaky and finding other ways in, weather its bribery or something else. but we will have to come down harder than we ever have in the past. what my opponent also continues to tell us about is the money part of the wall. and I cant help but disagree with them. they are painting a picture of a poor America because they built a wall. false. the wall will create jobs and help our economy. the people that keep the wall strong are people that may not have had a job before. and now do. all the people that build the wall will contribute to the economy. while building a structure to keep us safe. the berlin wall was built with the intent of hatred. the southern wall will be built with the intent of keeping a country safe, like the one in Jerusalem. the construction of the wall gives opportunities to people (referring to the prototypes being built) and creates a environment of competition bringing forth the best and cheapest wall. and like I said the united states will pay for the wall. we spend more than 100 billion dollars on open borders and building and keeping the wall sturdy will be less than 100 billion a year. saving us more money towards something better like education or for the vets. a great man once said "A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation." Ronald Reagan was correct because look at the troubles we are having and in the future we are just going to get worse. another great man by the name of Thomas Jefferson said "A country with no Border is not a country." these two men talked about the same problem decades apart because they knew it would be a problem for America. what I cant help but think is now we have a president that shows the quality of both Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan and we should use this administration that wants to put America first and build a wall. A wall that protects us and our kids, a wall that creates jobs, a wall saying that " we will not bow to anyone, because we are America and we will protect our citizens before anyone else" the wall is not an attack on Mexico or a race and or religion its a wall that keeps all of Americas races and religions safe from drugs and crime that crosses the border. so that we can continue to grow and mesh together. as one safe nation. so please understand I am not against Mexicans or any certain race but I am against illegal immigration so stand with me and vote yes on this debate.
Mexican wall

The wall is not an icon of strength. In fact, it appears to look as a symbol of weakness. We are America. Why do we need a wall in order to protect us from illegal immigrants arriving into our country? Also, we are not made of money. Other countries may look at our giant wall. What conclusion would they come to? Oh look, America's doing great. Let's trade with them. They propose the offer. We are still trying to get back on our feet after spending so much money. We refuse. Country gets angry. Oh look, there comes another war! That is a failure. I would also like to point out that a wall isn't going to block ALL illegal immigrants! There is something called bribery and it serves to prove as a very useful tool when people want to get something. Another point you are completely overlooking is that we are wasting a lot of money by building a wall!!! My opponent said that building a wall is cheaper than not building a wall. First of all, let's say we build a wall. It's built. There are less illegal immigrants who enter our country! Yay, that's great. Now, who's going to pay all the money that goes into maintaining such an enormous structure? We do not need the Berlin Wall happening all over again except this time in America. We are a smart country. There are many strategies and ideas we could come up with. We could if we weren't so headstrong and focused on building a wall. This collapse any room for thinking and innovative solutions. Second, who's building it? In order to build a wall, a LOT of people will be needed. Let's be honest here. People are working to build a wall. There will be injuries and harm. How much are we willing to risk to build a wall? The wall is not necessary. Sources: http://www.bbc.com... https://www.forbes.com...