BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

I realize that these are not used in abortion clinics, but these are back street abortions that occured when abortion was banned. It was one of the methods used for many of the ways to have a self-induced abortion. [1]My opponent is confusing things here as he is misconstrewing things. We can simply look at the Kantian ideals of potential which is something that many Pro-Lifers use when arguing for the "Right to Life." Another thing we have to look at is what occurs when the women's body rejects the newly formed object. Under my opponent's idea, the mother, who had nothing to do with it, had committed murder and would be sentenced to jail. And for what? Simply her body doing it's job and rejecting a foreign object. Also, tell me what's more Pro-Life. Forcing a mother to die during chidlbirth or an abortion? Granted that the odds are low, this still happens and you would be sentencing women to death because of this [2]. This is something that isn't very Pro-Life. My opponent hasn't really made an argument for why the fetus or even at the moment at conception if it's really alive. It isn't. He hasn't made a single argument for it outside of presenting a link and said "see proof." On top of that, he has refused to refute a great deal of my own arguments. Most abortions occur within the first few weeks, the capassity of the fetus during this time period is pratically the same as a tulip. People kill tulips all the time and is that murder? In the video I provided we can see that there is a great deal of fallacies that my opponent is spreading. We even see a picture of a 1st trimester abortion and it's not the crazy graphic pictures that all the crazies online want you to believe. We have to put the mother 1st, we can see that in doing so we could protect them and prevent a child from being unwanted and facing poverty as well as child abuse. http://www.youtube.com...It is not alive to pull a quote from the video, which I have provided, "Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester. During this time the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother. By the end of the first trimester an average fetus only one inch long. As the fetus is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. So therefore is that fetus alive in the true sense of the word? Or is it just an extension of the mother’s life? At that stage it has no sense of being, so does it warrant being treated as a human being."http://www.youtube.com...My opponent provides a link, but once again, it's not much of a creditable video as it depics bias from the Catholic Church. We all know their position on the matter. To continue, we can see that none of the 12 criteria of a living being argument that was presented was neither argued or addressed. In my opponent's other two videos, if you scroll down, you can see that they were also bias as they were funded, by once again, the Catholic Church. Sources1. Waldo L. Fielding, M.D., Tony Cenicola, ed., "Repairing the Damage, Before Roe", The New York Times (June 3, 2008).2. (http://www.economist.com...)
Abortion

Simply because people murder their children in inhumane ways, does not mean that we should make it legal for them to do so. What's wrong is wrong and should not be accepted as good. Murder being one of these things. Now, even if the constitution does not protect A "right to life", natural law does. It's what entitles us, all of us, you and I included to this "right to life" it's something each human deserves and no other man has A right to take it away... Think about it, what if you or I had been killed/aborted? would that have been just? No... Even when we are simply A zygote we are still A human being, simply at the very beginning stages... and as such each individual has A "right to life" whether the constitution protects it or not... That right is still there and since science has proven that A human being is in fact A human being from the moment of conception we as other human beings have no right to murder that human being, (which is in fact illegal). So since murder is illegal and A person is A person since the moment of conception.. murdering this unborn human is still in fact illegal. Also, you list all these seemingly "good" things that come from abortion.. but that doesn't change the fact that these are human beings.. being murdered, which is illegal. Despite the "benefits" it's still wrong and should not be accepted.
fox news is way less bias than msnbc

Thank you Travis for posting and continuing with this debate. My opponent throughout this debate has continually relied on anecdotal evidence and skirted away from hard, statistical fact, because the facts exist to prove that Fox News is, was, and shall be no less biased than its liberal counterpart, MSNBC. He has also consistently attacked the credibility of MSNBC, a statement that I have conceded as true. MSNBC IS biased. This debate does not serve to exist to rag on MSNBC. This debate is to establish to this community the bias of Fox and its unyielding destruction of fact and its powering of the Republican machine. Thank you, and may the best man win.
fox news is way less bias than msnbc

isnt it a good thing that they cover the war instead of never reporting it so your viewers dont know what is happening over there. and i never said they were un biased i said they are less biased than msnbc. you never saw on fox that the war is the republicans fault. it was a republican president but i think if we didnt go to war we would have been made as weak. msnbc was a better source for news back then. and not everybody on fox was for bush. they still have guys for obama. look at msnbc now. im talking now not back then. the reason why i should win this debate is because i proved multiple times that fox news is more news than msnbc. fox is 55 percent opinion and 45 percent news while msnbc is 85 percent opinion and 15 percent news. i proved that fox provides both sides of the story by giving names of liberals that are hosts and how bill o'reilly gives both sides of the story by bringing on a liberal and a conservative. i proved the same for hannity while ed schultz always brought on 3 liberals and 0 conservatives or he just brought on 2 liberal and 1 conservative. my opponent kept giving me old studies about how fox was more biased in the past. i provided a new study that showed that fox was more news than msnbc.
fox news is way less bias than msnbc

During the presidency of Bush, Fox was more biased in its coverage of the Iraq war, with 73% of its "news" being opinionated. http://www.washingtonpost.com... In that same article, Fox producer Dan Cooper is quoted as saying: "In the morning, everyone is told what today's key issues are and how those issues are viewed by Fox News. The entire staff understands how the organization feels about them." How is THAT unbiased? Fox may be more accurate now, but during a Republican administration it was beating its chest in favor of Bush. Fact: Fox is no less biased than MSNBC. Case closed.
fox news is way less bias than msnbc

i never did call the AG a gaffe and i dont think it was a gaffe i think obama was speaking the truth as do most people in the media, even piers morgan thinks obama wasnt out of line. the glenn beck thing i looked at that already but that is not all of his statements. they are not counting all of his statements so you cant solely rely on that. i do see that glenn beck does not always tell the truth and i didnt say that. back in 2006 msnbc was way more watchable and that was before they changed their lineup entirely. a recent study done shows msnbc was 85 percent opinion and 15 percent news. fox news was at 55 percent opinion and 45 percent news. cnn is 46 percent opinion and 54 percent news. heres the proof http://stateofthemedia.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... fox used to be way more opinionated than any of the media and i think CNN use to be the most reliable news source. but now i think theblaze is the best news source but i never get to watch it because it isnt on directv. i do admit that fox was always defending george bush but not everybody was. shepard smith was furious over bush taking two weeks to make a statement about hurricane katrina. bill o'reilly didnt always defend bush be hammared him on things to. i wouldnt know about hannity because i rarely watched him back then. i think the biggest defender of bush today is dana perino because she was the press secretery under bush. the problem i have is that MSNBC protects obama way more than fox protected bush. MSNBC is always saying that the debt is republicans fault and liberals like bob beckel say the debt doesnt matter but in the future it will matter alot more than it is now. they are always bragging up obama on how many jobs hes creating. neil cavuto says hes happy obamas creating jobs but he doesnt like the fact that obama isnt doing anything on the debt and yet msnbc fails to even realize we have a debt problem.
fox news is way less bias than msnbc

During the presidency of George Bush, Fox was just as guilty of glossing over the failings of him as MSNBC is of Obama. The AG "gaffe" isn't really a "gaffe" since Obama and the AG knew each other and it was just a joke. Politifact URL: http://www.politifact.com... "The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. " (verbatim from Wikipedia)
fox news is way less bias than msnbc

bill o'reilly may yell over the liberal guests on his show but he also yells over the conservatives when they are wrong. he was just yelling over laura ingram over the bible thumping thing. when i talk debates on fox i mean when sean hannity brings on guests to discuss the issue because hannity is a live show. bills show is pre recorded so it is edited to fit the time. i admit glenn beck is wrong in alot of his statements but where is the proof from politifact. but alot of stuff glenn beck predicted like the rioting in the middle east that went on and alot of stuff that has been in the news in the last few months he predicted back in 2010 and alot of people didnt believe him like bill o'reilly. i cant say that chuck todd is wrong on anything because i dont follow him at all. watching chris matthews lately he just said that wife beaters dont matter even after all this time saying republicans hate women. today the five agreed with obama that that AG in california is a good looking women so fox news doesnt always disagree with the president. it always seems that msnbc doesnt report anything that is the president or any democrats fault.
fox news is way less bias than msnbc

I have acknowledged the bias of MSNBC. MSNBC was undeniably terrible in their coverage (or lack thereof) of Benghazi. When you talk about "debates" on Fox, it is selective editing unless the shows are live. Bill O'Reilly ends up screaming over the liberals on his show. 65% of Glenn Beck's statements are ranked Mostly False, False, or Pants On Fire (entirely false) by Politifact.com. Chuck Todd, one of MSNBC's chief anchors, is well known for his (relative) objectivity.
fox news is way less bias than msnbc

i dont watch huckabee so i wouldnt know about him. sean hannity is a conservative but the guests he brings on are usually 1 liberal and 1 conservative so its a ballanced argument there. sometimes he brings on only a conservative or only a liberal. the same goes for bill o'reilly. the barack in a hard place segment on his show he brings on a liberal who is alan colmes and one conservative who is monica crowly. he has a segmant with a center left liberal marc lamonte hill. he has a segmant with bob beckel who is a liberal. he has a segmant with a liberal juan williams and a conservative mary kathrin ham. those are segmants where you get the liberal side and the conservative side of the story. on ed schultz show on MSNBC the ed show he had an agreement panel where he brought on 3 liberals and 0 conservative. its not called the agreement panel but i like to call it that because thats what it is. he sometimes has 2 liberals and 1 conservative. neil cavuto does a business show and usually has a liberal and a conservative on to debate the issue. what about harball with chris matthews. a show where chris talks about how republicans hate women and how republicans hate gays and how they love guns. he does that for about 25 minutes. glenn becks show was a show where he never had guests and glenn told the truth. the riots that were happening in the middle east he predicted. glenn was a conservative so you will probably say hes biased but chris matthews is a liberal so why is he not biased. glenn beck argued both sides of the story on his show. he sometimes had guests like sam webb the leader of the us communist party and he demolished him in a debate. the fact is fox has both liberals and conservatives to bring you both sides of the story. there are deninatly more conservatives on fox. msnbc has almost no conservatives on its shows so they only bring you the liberal news and how they think everything is bush and the republicans fault. they barely reported the bengazi attacts because it was hillary clinton and barack obama who screwed up there.
fox news is way less bias than msnbc

Thanks for posting this debate. Just as a disclaimer-I don't identify as liberal or conservative or have any party affiliation, so I feel I am a qualified and objective participant in this debate. Fox News and MSNBC have both been regarded as jokes in the mass media world for quite a while. Fox News boasts such "unbiased" commentators as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee, Neil Cavuto, and formerly Glenn Beck. This list alone makes the notion of Fox being less biased than MSNBC absurd. Admittedly, MSNBC is just as liberal as Fox is conservative, but neither is more or less biased than the other.
fox news is way less bias than msnbc

ANYBODY WHO HATES FOX NEWS AND LOVES MSNBC IS WELCOME TO DEBATE THIS TOPIC WITH ME. fox news is way lesss bias than MSNBC because fox always has liberals and conservatives on the show to help debate the issue. on The O'Reilly Factor bill always has a liberal and a conservative to debate the issue. for example in the barack in a hard place segmant he has monica crowley a conservative and alan colmes a liberal. i forget the segmant but he has a segmant with mary kathrine ham the conservative and juan williams the liberal. he has a segmant with only Bob beckel who is the liberal. while ed schultz seemed to always have his agreement panal with 3 liberals and 1 conservative or 2 liberals and 1 conservative. shows like the five have 4 conservatives and 1 liberal. that may sound biased but its better than 5 conservatives and 1 liberal. MSNBCs the cycle has 3 liberals and 1 slightly right leaning conservative who takes the liberal side of things alot. hardball with chris matthews is geared to gun down republicans.
Should We Ensure a Safe Production of Genetically Modified Crops

All products we consume have been warded off with all the harmful insects and bacteria that could be bad for our immune system. (Also, many people enjoy eating fruits/vegetable but that will be another debate topic). All crops have been somewhat modified either naturally or man-made. However, even a natural process can be bad for us. Of course enhancing more genetically modified crops do have their side effects. Natural crops can too if we don't modify them to make them more edible and better for our body. One cannot look into the sky and "understand" the universe, because the whole thing is quite a complicated process. We create these crops so people can enjoy them more without getting harmful bacteria or pests inside them. We do this not because we please, but we want the world to be a healthier one. Even if we don't all embrace it, we can still take actions to make sure what is done is actually worth it. We may not all believe in modifying crops, but most people do it now a days and it will most likely continue, so don't just sit around and do nothing. At least take the precautions to ensure the safety of the product you are to consume. So it can at least be of a bit beneficial As Maya Angelou once said, "If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude." Thus, if we cannot deny what the people will do, we must embrace it and change it to becomes its utmost best. We don't have to love it exactly but do something in order to make it better for you, me, and everyone else. I hope you all stand in affirmation with me.
Should We Ensure a Safe Production of Genetically Modified Crops

We cannot trust GM foods. And we defiantly do not need to ensure a safe production of genetically modified crops because who eats vegetables and fruits for fun, and enjoys it. Why can we not stick with normal food. The crops we eat today are created by nature, perfectly balanced to sustain our lives and not upset us but to nurture and nourish our bodies. By ensuring safe production we are enhancing more genetically modified crops, crops that are out of balance from nature, we dont understand nature, the universe or anything truly, so why, please tell me why should we recreate it in a way thats artificial. Ladies and gentleman, voters and commentators I ask you to look up in the sky and try to understand this universe, can something as small as your minds understand the complexity of whats above, let alone whats around, infinity, creation, imagination, all of what we do not understand, so why should we embrace these genetically modified crops that are apart of something we do not understand. I say lets forget about GMO foods in total, dont modify what we dont understand because sooner or later innocent lives will fall because of 3 capitalised letters, G M O Thank You
Should We Ensure a Safe Production of Genetically Modified Crops

We should ensure the safety of GMO foods because of the following reasons; insect resistance, larger production, and nutritious foods. Some GMO foods have been modified to resist insects/pests, making costs for farmers go higher due to the amount of crops saved and money from insect/pest repellent. A report from university California in San Diego on toxic bacteria can be added to repel insects/pests (and be safe for human use). Amounts of pesticides used are reduced so exposure to dangerous pesticides are also reduced. It is also easy to raise GM crops--since their samples have a stronger resistance ability toward pests. According to Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations some GM foods became more nutritious containing vitamins or mineral content. Not only helping humans with getting nutrients but role-play in fighting malnutrition world wide. The United Nations recommends enhancing the rice with Vitamin A to help reduce deficiency's of such nutrients world wide. Hence, why I believe you stand in affirmation with me.
X-Men Days of Future is the best movie of the summer so far!!!!

I was not done. SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!The DirectingTwo words:Gareth Edwards. That man is a director with talent. How many shots did you go "Thats awesome" in this movie? Gareth Edwards combined incredible human drama with heart pacing action sequences to make Godzilla finally great again.The ClimaxI could've said this when I talked about the action, but now is a good time. Godzilla takes a monster's throat and breathes fire down it's neck. How awesome is that? Later he chucks he head on the ground and does his classic roar. The climax was big and satisfying, it was just what I needed for a great Saturday night at the movies.When you want to see a film, you want to make sure it's a great film. X-Men was great, but Godzilla is the biggest and best movie of the summer (So far).
X-Men Days of Future is the best movie of the summer so far!!!!

Ok if you wanna talk about actors and action lets do so Actors and Actresses where do I begin we got Hugh Jackman, Hallie Berry, Jennifer Lawerence, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Peter Dinklage, and the rookies Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy. I mean we got so much talent these some of these actors and actresses are in Lord of the Ring, Game of Thrones, Hunger Games, Star Trek Next Generation, the original X-Men, and many tv shows so you might have Bryan Cranston but this movies has so many more awesome actors and actresses. The action You got Beast vs Magneto, the whole X-men vs the Sentinel in the past and future, and plus Wolverine just being complete awesome, and Quiksliver being funny. You have monster vs monster I will give you that but my movie has so much more action and better characters for the job so Xmen all the way. The only two movies I see beating this one is DAwn of the Plant of the Apes or Guardian of the Galaxy
X-Men Days of Future is the best movie of the summer so far!!!!

I will now give reasons to why Godzilla is the best movie of the summer (so far) SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The ActionThe action in Godzilla is classic monster vs monster action. Who doesn't love seeing Godzilla breath fire down a monsters neck? The action was expertly filmed with incredible visual effects.The ActingThe acting in this film is top notch, with great performences from Bryan Cranston, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Elizabeth Olsen. The acting made the film give a tone that was dark and realistic.
X-Men Days of Future is the best movie of the summer so far!!!!

How the X-men had so many plot twists and it had so much action and adventure and a great story!! This movie was just a great example of how Marvel has spread and how popular and awesome this has become!!! This Xmen was the best movie of the series by far and plus this movie was not in the middle for people. This movie more people liked this movie more then hating the movie. Also the box office did better for X men than Godzilla. Xmen had more villains and heros and technically more deaths so better movie and just more swag!!
The Movie is Better than the Book

I'd like to make a statement that movies in general are better than the book. "Better" is a loose interpretation on purpose to encourage a wide scope of things to use to prove each side's point. When I use the term "general" I mean usually. That means if you don't know the story and someone asks you "Do you want to watch the movie or read the book of ______ story?" that picking movie will be the better option. Rules: 1) Trolling equates to a definite loss. 2) First to Forfeit a round results in an automatic loss. 3) On the final round, any new arguments presented are to be ignored by the voters. Does ye accept my challenge?
Marijuana should be legalized as a spark for small business ownership

"A spark for small business ownership" is a completely wrong and not a good reason legalize marijuana. Marijuana should be legalized because there is no reason it should be illegal. If something is harmless and a personal choice it shouldn't be outlawed by the government for what has been repeatedly shown to be really bad post hoc/ad hoc reasons. Similarly "spark for small business ownership" is the "it'll make you go insane" for the other side of the question. Neither are true. It won't help small businesses and it won't make you inject heroin into your eye. ----- I freely admit that some small businesses will be helped and created but the reason for the legalization of Marijuana can't be for this purpose because it is exceedingly minor in comparison. In fact, the legalization of marijuana would drive a vast number of self-employed individuals completely out of business. And, I guarantee you that none of those microbrews make remotely close to the profits of Silver Eagle Distributors. Further, there'd probably be a few headshops and smokeshops that might do more business than before, however the bulk of money would go to the large corporations. Further, the bottom would drop out of the market causing a significant decrease in price, increase in supply, and drive street dealers out of business.