BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be legal

In regards to unsafe abortions, if abortion is illegal than more unsafe abortions will occur regardless of if it's optional or not. Regardless of whose fault it is that women have unsafe abortions, more women will still die. Abortion is not a serious moral crime because it's killing a fetus not a human. If you count all the humans in the world you wouldn't count fetuses. If you don't count fetuses as humans than how are they humans? In regards to the right to not have a child, Why should the government force women to have a child? Why can't women decide if they will have a child or not? Having a child may not be the best thing to do for a woman. Women know what's best for themselves. Just because the woman is pregnant doesn't mean she should be forced to have a child. In regards to the time work and money it takes to take care of a child, If a woman doesn't have an abortion than she could either take care of the child or put it up for adoption. Most woman don't want to put their child up for adoption. Adoption doesn't happen often. If the woman doesn't have an abortion and doesn't put the child up for adoption than she will have to take care of the child for a long period of time. Taking care of a child will effect the woman's life. There are some people who don't want to have children. There's a reason why they don't want to have children. Not everyone could afford to take care of a child. Banning abortion would be controlling women's bodies, that's wrong. Abortion should be legal so that women will have the right to choose what they will do with their own body and if they will have children or not. Thank you for debating with me. You have one last chance to make arguments. Good Luck.
Abortion should be legal

My arguments are not false. They make sense. The reason that I stated each of my arguments in more than one sentence is to prove that those arguments are valid. I want to hear my opponent's arguments against the right to have an abortion. He has not stated why abortion should be illegal. My opponent believes that abortion should be illegal. If abortion is illegal than there will be a lot more protests going on. Women who are pregnant will have no choice but to give birth to a child even if they don't want to. If that child is not raised well then there will be a good chance that the child will become a criminal. There will be more unsafe abortions which will cause more women to die as I stated in the previous round. Besides, taking care of a child is a lot of work. It takes a lot of time and money to do that. There's people who can't afford to take care of a child either because they don't have enough money or they don't have enough time. Abortion should be completely legal and available for women.
Abortion should be legal

Abortion should be legal because if a woman doesn't want to have a child than she should have the right to prevent herself from having one. If the government bans abortion then they would be forcing a woman to have a child. If a pregnant woman doesn't have an abortion then she is going to have a child. So if the government takes away that right then pregnant women will have no choice but to have a child. Adoption is a option that is not used often after a woman gives birth to a child. Most women don't want to put their child up for adoption. If the government bans abortion then some women will have an unsafe abortion. More women will have an unsafe abortion if abortion is illegal. Every year approximately 78,000 women die from unsafe abortion. If abortion is legal then less unsafe abortions will occur. Abortion is a safe medical procedure. 88% of women who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth. The government should make sure that late term abortion is safe. The fetus is in the woman's body so therefore the government should not control their bodies. Banning abortion is bad for women and is anti-women's rights.
Abortion should be legal

In this round, Pro didn't say much new, so my responses will be short.II and VIII. Unsafe abortions; fetus not a humanPro says it doesn't matter whether abortions are optional or not. Women will die if they are made illegal. But I think it does matter. If a person voluntarily does something that is dangerous to their health, that is on them.I made the point that it makes no sense to make something legal just so it will be safe for peopel to do it when we're talking about doing something that's a moral crime, like burgerly. So the fact that illegal abortions are unsafe is no reason to make them legal.He responded by saying abortions are not moral crimes because "it's killing a fetus not a human." Pro is making a categorical error here. "Human" is a species, but "fetus" is a stage of development, so they are different categories, but he's treating them as if they're the same category, pretending as if being a fetus means you're not a human. I gave an argument in the last round for why fetuses are human, and Pro ignored that argument.I and V. The right to not have a child if you don't want to.Pro just repeats his argument here. The only thing new he ads is that "women know what's best for themselves." Sure, but abortion doesn't just affect women; it affects their young, too. You don't have the right to kill your young just because you think it's good for you.VII. Time, work, and moneyPro doesn't add anything to this argument, and he doesn't respond to my rebuttal. You don't have the right to kill your young just because they're inconvenient.III. Bodily sovereigntyAfter dropping this argument for two rounds, Pro brought it back up in the last round. But he doesn't offer anything new. He repeats his argument and ignores my rebuttal.ConclusionPro dropped IV, VI, and IX. And there we have it. Pro made nine arguments in this debate for why abortion should be legal, but he wasn't able to successfully defend any of them. In most cases, he just made assertions and ignored my responses.Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. Please vote.Thanks also to my opponent for finishing this debate. I've gotten a little shy about accepting debates with this many rounds because peope will sometimes drop out. I'm glad you stuck with it.
The purpose of education is development of the person

You said that the education system is trying to turn humans into robots, but how can this be true if we are still seeing till this day the development of the person through education. A person goes to school to learn and share what they know with other people, to create new inventions and help the world progress. You also said in your argument that "at school, the things we are "taught" does not help us develop because we are in fact aren"t being taught anything"no nothing." With this being said, how do back up this information because in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire also stated "Yet only through communication can human life hold meaning. The teacher"s thinking is authenticated only by the authenticity of the student"s thinking. The teacher cannot think for his students, nor can he impose his thought on them. Authentic thinking, thinking that is concerned about reality, does not take place in ivory tower isolation, but only in communication. If it is true that thought has meaning only when generated by action upon the world, the subordination of students to teachers becomes impossible" (3.7). This is basically saying that in order to learn one must think for themselves. The teacher is responsible for teaching and the student must captivate the ideas being taught and think about them in order to interpret them and share them with the world.
The purpose of education is development of the person

You stated that "The purpose of education is development of the person because when a person is taught, they can associate their knowledge with everything else". This would be true if the education system wasn't trying to turn humans into robots. Paolo Freire stated in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, "Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiqu"s and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat." At school, the things we are "taught" does not helps us develop because we in fact aren't being taught anything, we are memorizing things and because of that, we have knowledge of nothing and how can we develop if we no nothing.
The purpose of education is development of the person

The purpose of education is development of the person because when a person is taught, they can associate their knowledge with everything else. In order to have a good job or to do the simplest thing you have to have some type of education. Like stated by Hirsh regarding education, in The Decline of Literate Knowledge. "Why is literacy so important in the modern world? Some of the reasons, like the need to fill to forms or get a good job, are obvious that they needn"t be discussed. But the chief reason is broader. The complex undertakings of modern life depend on the cooperation of many people with different specialties in different places. Where communications fail, so do the undertakings" (1.4). Different people have knowledge about different things depending on what they study which makes the world better.
The purpose of education is development of the person

As stated, you quoted Freire when he said "The educated man is the adapted man, because he is better "fit" for the world. Translated into practice, this concept is well suited to the purposes of the oppressors, whose tranquility rests on how well men fit the world the oppressors have created and how little they question it". These "educated" men are only fit for the world because they have been "educated" to comply with the oppressors demands in order for the oppressors to stay on top, and the oppressed don"t question it because they have been taught one thing and that is to be quiet and follow orders. In order for education to help us develop, we must learn skills that will help us understand the world. Hirsch stated "Narrow vocational training in one state of a technology will not enable a person to read manuals that explain new developments in the same technology. In modern life we need general knowledge that enables us to deal with new ideas, events, and challenges." We need to have more knowledge about things not just one certain thing and by doing so, we will be able to develop. You stated that "Even if the "receive, memorize and repeat" method plays a role, at least the person will remember a good percent of it that will, "repeat", share their knowledge with others". When you repeat or memorize something, it does not actually mean that you know the meaning of what you are repeating.
The purpose of education is development of the person

"It follows logically from the banking notion of consciousness that the educator"s role is to regulate the way the world "enters into" the students. His task is to organize a process which already occurs spontaneously, to "fill" the students by making deposits of information which he considers to constitute true knowledge. And since men "receive" the world as passive entities, education should make them more passive still, and adapt them to the world. The educated man is the adapted man, because he is better "fit" for the world. Translated into practice, this concept is well suited to the oppressor, whose tranquility rests on how well men fit the world the oppressors have created, and how little they question it" (3.4). Here Freire is saying that through the banking teaching method, the teacher"s role is to teach students in a certain way. From learning this way, the student is more adapt to the world. And the student that is educated is the one who is best fit to live in the world. So education is the key to living. In your last argument you just stated that some of the top companies find that people now are not well educated for the job, but this doesn"t mean those are the only jobs there are. Obviously a person"s capability of learning varies, some might be good at one thing others at other things. Why are we still going to school? As a fact everyone still needs to be educated to develop what they are good at or to some extent have knowledge. Even if the "receive, memorize and repeat" method plays a role, at least the person will remember a good percent of it that will, "repeat", share their knowledge with others.
The purpose of education is development of the person

You said ""we are still seeing till this day the development of the person through education". According to Hirsch "Recently, top executives of some large U.S. companies, including CBS and Exxon, met to discuss the fact that their younger middle-level executives could no longer communicate their ideas effectively in speech or writing." This clearly shows that people are in fact not learning or developing well enough to meet the standards of top U.S. companies. Due to the fact that education is not helping people develop, they aren't able to communicate well. You also stated that "A person goes to school to learn and share what they know with other people"". How are people going to share what they know when they aren't able to communicate well because they are taught to "receive, memorize and repeat"?
Lunix distributions are safer than windows distributions.

In R2, I demonstrated how all the arguments used by Pro to support the resolution are actually arguments that negate the resolution. Pro forfeited all the following rounds, and thus did not counter my arguments. This clearly demonstrates that my arguments, in this debate, were stronger than his. For citations, Pro used Spanish language sources despite the fact that the debate was being conducted in English. Pro conducted his portion of the debate inappropriately and should be docked the conduct point. Pro isn't a native English speaker and should therefore be given a handicap for his grammar. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that he didn't use a spell checker in his rounds. Spell checkers are available on almost every computer system and one is provided by DDO itself, so there really is no excusing this. His poor spelling made his (forgivable) poor grammar that much more difficult to understand.
Lunix distributions are safer than windows distributions.

Pro seems to be arguing that, since Linux has fewer users, virus writers have less of an incentive to target Linux machines, and instead, target Windows machines. He wants to say that, even though this may make Linux more secure, it doesn't mean that it's inherently more secure. However, the resolution doesn't concern itself with the inherent security of Linux, but rather its de facto level of security, i.e., how secure Linux actually is compared to Windows. So by pointing out that virus writers are less interested in targeting Linux, Pro has inadvertently argued against the resolution. So, as Pro points out, Linux is more secure against viruses because their authors would rather target Windows. Targeting Linux, which runs on about 1% of all computers [1], would be irrational, since, by definition, the success of a virus is determined by how well it is able to propagate itself. Additionally, as Pro points out, it is a common assumption that Linux users are more technically advanced than users of other OS's. This is another reason it would be irrational to target Linux machines since they are not assumed to be vulnerable hosts. Viruses are very rarely written to target Linux hosts, and the ones that do would propagate very poorly for a want of hosts. In conclusion, a user is safer from viruses if he or she is on a Linux computer.[1] http://marketshare.hitslink.com...
Lunix distributions are safer than windows distributions.

Sorry, For not answering quic, since, i dint saw your arguments. well my argument is that Linux user have more computer nowledge, in that case they know how to protect their self from getting a virus. As well linux has less users, making this inactivity for programmers to create virus for linux. What virus programmers look for is making money from unexperienced people, and its hard to find people vulnerable to this attacks, BUT! this doesnt make linux safer than windows, in compare, if linux had same user that windows has, They would have more activity and more programmers to interes getting some cash from them. 1.Una de las vulnerabilidades de GNU/Linux es que multitud de usuarios piensan que no es vulnerable a los virus. Tom Ferris, 2.un investigador de Security Protocols en Mission Viejo, California, dijo en 2006: "En la mente de la gente, si no es Windows, es seguro, y ese no es el caso
Lunix distributions are safer than windows distributions.

First, of all- Im Francisco Daniel and this is going to be my first english debate ever, so its gonna be hard to me, because my English is no that good, Thanks :). Many people say : 1. You can't get a virus on GNU/Linux OS. 2. Linux doesnt need Antivirus Software. 3. There is not Malware for Linux 4. Big companys use Linux because its safer. And many other stupid facts. Im not saying in any way that windows is safer then Linux or Linux safer than windows, im saying that Linux can be as Dangerous as windows.
Modern Feminism (Third-Wave Feminism) Destroys Men and Their Families

With all due respect, resulting from the fault of my own, I failed to recognize an important feminist movement emerging from the Middle East. Pro's argument clearly is an opinionated one strictly on America, claiming for the majority of modern feminsts to be"overweight, ugly, and their attitudes suck," and that they persist on with their movements only to strike down men. However, he does not discuss feminist movements elsewhere.With that being said, I would like to introduce a feminist movement which I briefly included in my previous argument, the Musawah.As I said before, the Musawah are a group of Middle-Eastern movement across many countries in northeastern Africa and the Middle-East which advocate for women's rights in Islam. It started in 2009, gaining 250 members across 50 countries (S1). The movement still persists to this day. Through websites and articles, such as their official website, http://www.musawah.org..., the Musawah inform the public of their cause, spreading the word on their campaign and persuading others with their words (S2). They have appeared before large audiences, even attending rallies as far as London. Their campaign persists in redefining sexism in Islam and redefine the roles of women everywhere."Not as it’s practiced in most places now. But the mood at Musawah is optimistic. At the United Nations, Musawah’s Anwar reminded the Commission on the Status of Women that Muslim women don’t need to choose between Islam and equal rights; while 4:34 is invoked by sexists, there are many more passages calling for justice, and a sound Quranic tradition saying that all humans are equal as God’s creations. In London, Anwar asked the crowd of Muslim women a fundamental question: 'If we are equal before the eyes of God, why not before the eyes of men? (S3)”Sources: S1) http://www.islamandfeminism.org...S2) http://www.musawah.org...S3) http://time.com...;
Modern Feminism (Third-Wave Feminism) Destroys Men and Their Families

Feminism in its original structure was not a bad thing, as I have stated already. In fact, feminism as a whole was not something that should have been taken lightly. Original feminists fought for women's rights; the right to vote just as men were was a major driving force behind feminism.What happened along the way? Generation after generation of women continued the fight for equal rights. Somewhere along the line it began to be more about petty arguments and general "man-hating" and less about equal rights. Third wave feminists began hating men and wanted to change how society viewed them, instead of continuing to work for equality.Many third wave feminists are overweight, ugly, and their attitudes suck. Seems harsh? Maybe. But check out these self proclaimed third wave feminists ranting about everything from white male privilege to manspreading to men getting their "pronouns" wrong ... how rude! They're all over Facebook and YouTube. Calling names to anyone who disagrees with their morbid way of thinking. Third wave feminism is a bogus movement intended to help women and completely ignore men. Third wave feminists will tell you that their movement is for gender equality when this is just not true. They have no intention in addressing men's issues. If third wave feminists truly cared for equality, they would fight for equality, not just for women's issues. As the video link above states men have just as many (if not more in some cases) issues as women and yet feminists turn a blind eye towards it. Equality does not exist, but it isn't just women being affected by it. Men, in many cases, have it tougher than women. Something the video also mentions. Rapes in prison, death on the job, etc. These are issues that feminists who are for "equality" continue to ignore.Let's look at the word "equality." e·qual·i·ty əG2;kwälədē/ noun the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities. "an organization aiming to promote racial equality" synonyms: fairness, equal rights, equal opportunities, equity As you can see, equality is being equal with each other. Something third wave feminists don't truly fight for. They always demand that women get the same things as men, but when it comes to men getting the same things as women, they fall silent every time. That is not true equality between the sexes. That is women being afforded more opportunities than men.Affirmative action is also tied into third wave feminism. As the video states, women have an easier time getting into college than men, especially white men. Somehow, these third wavers have made it possible for women to be labelled as a minority and so make it easier for them, along with blacks, Mexicans and Asians, to be accepted into college easier than men. How is this equality? When did getting into college based on your skin color or sex be the deciding factor? That isn't equality.