BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be made illegal

Both of your arguments are very well put. However their are two sides to every coin. 1. In an article by the Atlantic, it is shown that adopted children get diagnosed with learning and behavioral disabilities twice as often as children raised by at one or both of their biological parents. Not only do adopted children have these problems, but they tend to multiply in the individual over time instead of getting better. Then there are the horror stories about the abuse some children go through with adoptive parents. These you can find any where. Plus, not every baby gets adopted, this is one of the most terrible things that can happen to a human, basically compounding abandonment with the overwhelming feeling of being unwanted. 2. Yes, abortion regret IS real. However there are 45% of women that do not have guilt, 69% that do not regret their actions, and an overwhelming 75% that do not visit a psychiatrist for the list of problems you mentioned. My mother is a great example of this. She had an abortion before she had me. She felt guilt when she had it, but never regretted it due to the fact that she was not able to support the child financially or mentally as she was only 17. Adoption at the time was still shunned in the religious community, and she did not want to put herself, or our family through that much embarrassment. Now for some arguments of my own. As awful as abortion is, it can be a positive. 1. The world has had an overpopulation problem for quite some time now. While i do not agree with abortion, it has slowed this problem significantly. According to your estimates, just in the last 10 years alone, the world population has been reduced by 400-500 million extra mouths to feed, minds to stimulate, and jobs to provide for. Abortion is terrible, yet in this instance, a positive. 2. While there are no definitive studies on this particular subject, statistics have shown that since abortion in the USA was legalized in 1973, Crime has dropped. Many universities and government studies try to point out this argument, but nothing definitive, as how can you study something this polarizing and difficult to gather information about. Regan took alot of credit for the crime drop during his presidency when we probably should have been thanking Abortion. When you are forced to have unwanted children people can become financially taxed and emotionally disconnected to, and resentful of there kids. Both of these circumstances have been studied to death and absolutely increase violence among the underclass. Once again, a very big positive.
Abortion should be made illegal

I will restate your claim, and correct me if I am wrong about what you meant: Abortion is wrong, but stopping it would be worse for everyone involved. Let me start with two rebuttals to this idea. 1. Adoption IS an option. Infant adoption through private agencies tends to provide support for the mother, and the child would be adopted near immediately while parents seeking to adopt will wait years. Adoption provides a loving home, and a loving wish. 2. Abortion regret IS real. Within eight weeks after an abortion 55% of women experience guilt, and at least 31% had regrets. 25% within five years visit a psychiatrist for the following problems: depression, loss of self-esteem, self-destructive behavior, sleep disorders, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, chronic problems with relationships, dramatic personality changes, anxiety attacks, guilt and remorse, difficulty grieving, increased tendency toward violence, chronic crying, difficulty concentrating, flashbacks, loss of interest in previously enjoyed activities and people, and difficulty bonding with later children As you can see, with an estimated 40-50 million abortions a year around the world, abortion has caused major psychological harm on a large scale, in addition to the unyielding deaths. http://www.worldometers.info... http://www.adopt.org... https://www.colorado.edu...
Abortion should be made illegal

Abortion should be made illegal, except in the case of the mother having a 50% chance of dying or more. If you curse, you lose. Except this under these assumptions; Killing people is wrong (I won't go the wrong way on this (By technicality I mean), and if I do, I may be deducted points in conduct) Discrimination is wrong (Including ageism, sexism, racism, and ableism) Go right into your first argument, and begin by stating your view. You may argue any level of an opposing view. You do not have to agree with what you are arguing for.
ALL gays should support Gay Marriage

Rebuttals/Debate: you say "The negative impact on marriage for heterosexuals must be explored in order to show how it would impact homosexuals in the same fashion. " - You are still on the main proposal that marriage (which legal for straights, not gays) should be abolished. I thought I would point out to you that it is highly unlikely that we are going to drop marriage any time soon specially considering how accustomed the world for that matter is to marriage. Taking in to consideration that marriage isn't going to go any where soon, Gays should most definitely support gay marriage. Making gay marriage illegal flys in the face of injustice to the constitution amending equal rights. You say"Equality is very relevant to this debate because a Civil Union can provide a gay couple with the same legal rights and privileges that the straight community enjoys, which make Gay Marriage unnecessary. " Again this is only considering that marriage is absent in the situation making it equal otherwise it is still not. It sounds like you have recommended marriage simply without the title of marriage. pointless to me for separation( otherwise divorce ) and killing in the heat of emotion will surly still be around, given marriage is gone or not. taking away marriage doesn't solve a whole lot. As far as I am concerned the only way for gays to have equality (in term of marriage) would be to legalize gay marriage putting them at par with strait marriage. (this is being more realistic than abolishing marriage all together no offense) Surly gays would and should support gay marriage for equality. It is absolutely reasonable. Taking my significant points into consideration hopefully you will vote appropriately for 'Pro' "All gays should support gay marriage " Thank you for those that have read it this far and I hope you vote accordingly
ALL gays should support Gay Marriage

I'm glad you responded as quickly as you did, Mastajake, but I disagree with your arguments. The negative impact on marriage for heterosexuals must be explored in order to show how it would impact homosexuals in the same fashion. If legalizing smoking for minors, would you not explore the health concerns and effects of smoking on adults before supporting such an act? Of course you would. Everyone should quit smoking because it has proven to be hazardous to one's health. There are many reasons that gays should not support Gay Marriage and I've listed a few. "Marriage has even led many to kill their spouse in order escape." You cannot guarantee that there will be only positive aspects to gays that enter marriage, but I think most people can agree that Gay Marriage will lead to the demise of many gays, in the same way it has led to the downfall of many heterosexuals. If one of us suffers, we all suffer. It stands to reason that a lot of suffering can be avoided completely if we do away with marriage. Therefore, gays should not support Gay Marriage. Equality is very relevant to this debate because a Civil Union can provide a gay couple with the same legal rights and privileges that the straight community enjoys, which make Gay Marriage unnecessary. Health care can be shared by one partner for another. In the event of a death, a Civil Union can grant the surviving member an estate without fear that disapproving family members can contest a will and claim what was intentionally not left for them, which frequently happens. < > Civil Unions can accomplish the same thing without turning the churches actively against the gay community. There is no need for Gay Marriage or the aftermath of what it will bring. It is as simple as that. Thanks for the debate, M.
ALL gays should support Gay Marriage

Thank you for your diligent response but still differ, Debate: Your argument is based more on the premise that marriage should be abolished making your resolution and your premise two different things. Your resolution is "ALL gays should support Gay Marriage" which seems very specific. Then your premise is ‘marriage it self should be abolished', so every one including gays should not support marriage. But what this says is that not only gay but ‘straight' people should be against marriage as well. I'm sorry but this sounds like a different topic to me one that is pertaining more to marriage itself leaving it to me to be irrelevant to the actual topic. Should gays support or not support gay marriage is the real question here. Now if gays did not support gay marriage the majority of support would be gone and it probably would not become legal leaving it to this ‘Straights' have the right to marriage ‘Gays' do not have the right to marriage Meaning they are not at par and equality is not active in this issue. It is as simple as that. If gay marriage was passed then equality would be active for whether or not marriage is a right thing, they both would have the right to it putting straights and gays at par. Creating equality in force. Rebuttal: You say "Irrational possessive attachment through marriage is not what the gays need." -Who says that every one agrees with this, once again, this is a personal opinion. You speak as if every one abides by the same ethics and standards as you do. I feel my debate is sufficient I look forward to your final rebuttal and thank you ~ Mastajake
ALL gays should support Gay Marriage

We're in agreement with the definition of equality, as it is on Dictionary. com: . http://dictionary.reference.com... < > True, but marriage is a detriment to societal progress. It's just like protecting minors from being able to legally smoke cigarettes. Should I also support smoking for those under the age of eighteen years to support equality? No, of course not. This is the very same thing, in my opinion. Marriage is unhealthy for the majority of people and I do not think all gays should support such an institution. As for "robbing the equal right of all the other gays for gay marriage", my opinion is in the best interest of the gay community, as is my above-mentioned opinion regarding smoking cigarettes. I am truly for equality, but it would not be relevant to support gay marriage. Marriage should be abolished. Civil Unions can function adequately to share benefits, such as insurance coverage and whatnot, but the tainted bond of marriage is not in the best interest of the gay community, or the world for that matter. Lately commercials are dominating television targeting parents and use innocent children to push agendas. Most religious leaders in this country are not accepting of Gay Marriage and this issue unnecessarily puts gays in danger. Gay Marriage does not improve this world. Marriage, in general, is a joke. It is not improving the world for heterosexuals, so it stands to reason that gays will suffer the same humiliations, betrayals and divorce costs as straight people. Irrational possessive attachment through marriage is not what the gays need. Marriage traps people and makes many feel there is no escape. Marriage has even led many to kill their spouse in order escape. It would be wrong and dangerous for all gays to support Gay Marriage.
ALL gays should support Gay Marriage

Definitions: Equality - the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability Debate: Not all would agree with your view on marriage making your view on equality insufficient. Your premise seems to be more concerned with marriage itself rather than gay marriage. ‘Given your marriage bashing statements' To clarify, your resolution is all gays should be support gay marriage. Even say someone like you who makes claims like "I am gay" ‘but I do not support gay marriage'. That would be robbing the equal right of all the other gays for gay marriage. Gay marriage can be legalized and even someone like you, who doesn't support it at all has the free decision of choosing yourself to marry or not to marry. (This is assuming you live in America where it is a real issue in debate currently) If you are truly for equality it would be relevant to support gay marriage. Despite personal views on marriage. Unless you plan on abolishing marriage, which I think people in America have developed so deeply in to their American idealistic heads making it impossible, the equality situation is impossible unless you legalize gay marriage. I feel my debate is sufficient and look forward to my opponents rebuttal. ~Mastajake
ALL gays should support Gay Marriage

I am gay. I support equality for all, but I do not support Gay Marriage. In my country more than 50% of marriages end in divorce. It's a joke and the majority of marriages are a mockery. In other parts of the world, 'Marriage' is just another word for 'Slavery'. Marriage is a disgusting institution and should be abolished. Therefore, I do not support marriage of any kind, including Gay Marriage. To support the same nonsensical commercialism involved in weddings, the disappointing statistics of successful marriages and the archaic religious notions from millennia past is barbaric.
Individuals who are released from prison shouldn't be discriminated in getting a job.

Even if she is right about drugs and rehab (which she is probably not) what has this Proved in her case THE FACT is that even if drugs are different what about assault? what about sexual harrasment? what about threatning to kill? these things have happened before because they have traits that lead people to these things and those traits can not be changed so they will continue to do it .
Individuals who are released from prison shouldn't be discriminated in getting a job.

For the final round, I like to Rebuttal my opponents final statements and state why individuals released from prison deserve a job. To begin, my opponent brings up only one source of evidence about how drug rehabilitation does not work; with his source being a quote from the drug user herself Lindsay Lohan. First off, Lindsay Lohan is the least credible source because of her being an actor and kinda insane. Secondly, in the previous round I mentioned a statistic about how drug rehabilitation worked 85% of time time. She could have been one of the few lower percentages.Then my opponent claims that my source isn't reliable. I tried the link to see if the source was or wasn't a New York Times, and it pulled up stating that it was a New York Times. If it was or wasn't, I will resolve this issue with another source to provide how drug rehabilitation has worked. According to DrugFacts: Treatment Statistics, it gives us the percentages of those who were rehabilitated successfully, and over 50% were successful. That is a great benefit, for helping the individual heal up.To conclude the argument, my opponent makes claims but fails to really provide any evidence. He failed to attack my own case, while his case was weak and not worth it. For this reason, I urge you to vote Pro!Sources:https://www.drugabuse.gov...
Individuals who are released from prison shouldn't be discriminated in getting a job.

Since you attacked so hard i did not have evidence i have TESTIMONY from a drugie herself calling rehab a joke http://www.zimbio.com... and after research on you're source the new york times i found something really interesting on business insider claiming that you're source is not actually published by the new york times AND does fake articles the link is here http://businessinsider.com.au... this means that (a) you're source is discredited and (b) that that news is possibly fake.
Individuals who are released from prison shouldn't be discriminated in getting a job.

My oppoonent argues that individuals released from prison will always be addicted to drugs. I ask my opponent, ever heard of rehabilitation? Rehabilitation can be used for the person being released from prison, and is actually required before being relaesed; hence the reason for correctional officers. And rehabilitation does work because according to the article "Drug Rehabilitation or Revolving Door" (1) it discusses about whether it works or not. Stated in the article, rehabilitation works 85% of the time; but mainly depends on the type of drug that the individual has an addiction towards. Thats a high number, and is better than letting the prisoner not getting help and just ending up back in prison.For the rest of my opponents argument, he argued but failed to provide evidence. Because of this, it is questionable of whether or not his claim is solid enough. Any who, I'll let my opponent continue the argument.Source:1. http://www.nytimes.com...
Individuals who are released from prison shouldn't be discriminated in getting a job.

Before posting my first argument, I like to please reaffirm to keep the opening argument short, like you will see in this round; and that my opponent may Rebuttal with my argument in this round. To begin my argument, of why individuals released from prison should not be discriminated in getting a job, I like to show a statistic on the types of crimes criminals did to end up in jail. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (1), 48.4% of criminals in prison are related to drug offenses. Examples including using an illegal drug, or overdosing in drugs. That is nearly half of the prisoners in prison within the United States. My opponent may be asking "How does this apply to letting them have a job"? To answer that assumed question, I like to respond with a term known as "Recidivism". Learned within my Criminal Justice class, and from National Institute of Justice (2), recidivism is: "It refers to a person's relapse into criminal behavior, often after the person receives sanctions or undergoes intervention for a previous crime". How common is this? According to journalist Caitlin Dickson (3), she said: "404,638 state prisoners from 30 states who were released in 2005. It found that 67.8 percent of them were re-arrested within three years of their release and 76.6 percent were re-arrested within five years. Of the latter group, more than a third were re-arrested in the first six months after leaving prison, and more than half were arrested by the end of the first year". That is a lot, and those numbers are easily increasing year after year. Why do they do this? The number one reason, according to Caitlin Dickson, is because of the criminals having nothing to do in life, or can't make into this world. Why should they just be thrown back, pay for their comfort environment, when we could help them in getting a job? How? The simple answer is to get rid of a majority of jobs with "The Box" that state the individual has been convicted of a crime. With this method, higher employment, second chances, and economic increase will occur; and has been proven to work. According to the article "How Second Chances Are Helping States Reduce Their Crime Rates" (4), it states that with this event, more people got second chances and have a job and the prison populations reduced. If there are many benefits to this idea, why should it not be used? It is not being asked on big jobs, but more so simple jobs; so the criminal can get back on track from his or her life. And with that, I'll end my opening argument and can't wait for my opponent to argue. Sources:1. . https://www.bop.gov...2. . http://www.nij.gov...3. . http://www.thedailybeast.com...4. . http://nationswell.com...
Individuals who are released from prison shouldn't be discriminated in getting a job.

In this debate, me and my opponent shall debate of whether or not individuals released from prison deserve the right to recieve a job. I am on Pro, meaning that I support individuals released from prison to get a job, while Con will argue the opposite.Rules:No forfeits, unless both sides forfeit the same amount of rounds; then it is fair game.No foul language of any kind, both sides must respect each other.No Trolls please!If you use a source, post its link in a "Source Category".Any rules broken is an automatic disqualification for the individual who broke the rulesStructure:Round 1: Acceptance and any questions for clarification (Please post in the comment section). Round 2: Opening Argument (Please Keep it Short) for both Pro and Con, except Con can Rebuttal this round if they choose.Round 3: Both sides RebuttalRound 4: Pro Rebuttals and states his or her Conclusion and can Rebuttal if they choose to do so, while Con will just have to state his or her Conclusion only.Any breakage of the structure is either a penalty or automatic disqualification. Depends on how serious the breaking of the structure was. Definitions:Individual: A person of a specified kind. In this case, those who were recently released from prison)Released: To be set free. In this case, being released from prison legally.Prison: A building in which people are legally held as a punishment for crimes they have committed. Shouldn't: The form of should, except in a negative format. Being against discrimination in this case.Discriminated: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. In this case, recently released prisoners looking for a job.Job: A paid position for doing labor toward a company. In this debate, the job can be anything. Good luck to whoever accepts the debate!