BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion...briefly

First off, thank you :) If my parents hadn't wanted me I would not want to live this life..I would feel a burden to their happiness. I feel that the parents not being properly prepared emotionally, at least, for a child would hinder a 'happy, full life', and that proper preparation and certainty would improve the quality of said life whether relatively okay in the first place; not perfect. Maybe my wording was unclear, but I assumed people would take 'considering an abortion' to be a deeper, more long term thing than nerves. I also assumed that the situation has come to the point that it's too late for contraception, or i would definitely recommend that, obviously! A foetus may be living but it's as close to the root problem as possible
Abortion...briefly

Whoa...750 characters. Should have noticed that. I'll keep this brief. I pose a question to the audience. If your parents hadn't wanted you, would you still want to have been born? Of course; just because you are the product of unfortunate circumstances doesn't mean you can't lead a happy, full life. It is absurd to suggest that if abortion is even being considered it should be done. What if the women is just suffering nerves and would actually bring up the child well? What you haven't considered is that if an abortion is taking, place, life has already been created. You aren't preventing life, you are destroying it. You are talking about contraception, not abortion. A foetus is most definitely alive.
Public Formum Debate is better than Policy debate

Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points in the debate. If there is a need for clarity, it should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting the debate. I repeat, Con should only post the phrase 'I Accept. ' in his first round. I will add clarifications as necessary. Sorry Ben, but if you had just waited until the next round to point out my embarrassing mistake, you would have had an easy win. But since you broke the rules the debate is over. I don't know how I could have made it any clearer to just post the phrase 'I Accept. '.
Public Formum Debate is better than Policy debate

= Full Resolution = Public Forum debate has a greater potential academic benefit to students than Policy debate. = Disambiguation = This debate will be about the academic benefits of these two debate formats. Pro will be arguing that PF has greater potential to help students learn, while Con will be arguing that Policy debate has greater potential to help students learn. = First round = This round is acceptance and clarity only. If you the as the contender decide to accept this debate, you may only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in the your first round. Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points in the debate. If there is a need for clarity, it should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting the debate. I repeat, Con should only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in his first round. I will add clarifications as necessary. = Rules = 1. No framework arguments. This is includes definition (semantic) debates, arguments about the rules of debate in general and arguments concerning an opponent's interpretation of the resolution. Keep the arguments directly related to the resolution. 2. Keep debate jargon to a minimum. If the jargon can be understood in the context of an argument then it's acceptable, but don't use debate lingo in place of explaining an argument. 3. The BOP is shared between the Pro and the Con. Con may not simply refute Pro's arguments, he or she must provide their own arguments as well. = Definitions = Public Forum Debate // PF // PFD: '...a style of debate practiced in National Forensic League, National Catholic Forensic League competitions, and many other State and Major leagues across the United States.' http://en.wikipedia.org... Policy Debate // CX: a form of debate competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Flat Tax

I would like to mention that comparing Russia to America in terms of corruption is a quite flawed interpretation. Russia was the Soviet Union for nearly seventy years. This country is still suffering from the aftermath that the scourge, communism, had wrought upon them. They aren't even sure if the elections are legitimate, so of course Putin wouldn't follow the tax code in his undemocratic country. Also, if you would have checked my sources, you would have seen that filing taxes wouldn't be a problem with the flat tax, as only two forms would be necessary. Firms like H&R Block would no longer have a customer base, so they would go out of business. It is true that the government could do our taxes for us, but seeing how the IRS cannot make calculations correct 1/4 of the time, it is plain to see that having the government do our taxes for us is not the wisest course of action. A simple, citizen-filed system would be the best choice And I don't appreciate your attempt to strawman my argument. I don't believe that people will stop working merely because of wealth redistribution. I believe that people want to make the most amount of money relative to how much work they do. Since more welfare benefits are available for those who EARN less money , it essentially kills motivation to attain money through work. Also, when people realize that they will be taxed significantly for doing something such as creating a new and innovative product, the promise of keeping much less of that money kills economic drive. Instead, people need to keep more of what they earn I do agree that there is much government corruption, but it would be much more difficult to create loopholes in a flat tax system. When we have a complicated tax codes that confuse the public, it gives MORE power to this corrupt government and its bureaucrats. Progressive taxes are much more mutable. For example, in 1988, there were two tax brackets, but by 2013, there were seven. They increasingly multiply, something that would be impossible to achieve in a flat tax. Finally, your last point is unreasonable and just overall wrong. It is incredibly un-based to believe that tax rates have a direct impact on pacification of "stupid people" who are "the majority of the public" according to you. There is no correlation present. Also, there is no basis to your cynical view of American citizens, as you essentially described them as oafs. Fixing our tax code to a more fair and simplistic system is more likely to prevent chaos and governmental failure than having an unfair and unjust progressive tax. America will fail as a government the second we avoid passing productive legislation in order to appease leftist radicals and those who you consider "stupid". We must not adhere to the demands of the loud and violent minority, which are these SJWs. A flat tax is fair, simple, and it will save the government and citizens money. For these reasons, we must reform our tax code to abolish the progressive tax.
Abortion Should Be Banned in America

True, the freedoms granted to us in the constitution are many. However, nowhere in the constitution is any provision made for any abortion. While there are indeed certain clauses that seemingly would allow them in principle, I see no place where it is stated, mainly because it was never an issue in the time of the founding of the US. Furthermore, My opponent has generalized those who will receive an abortion as those “who are either not ready or too poor to support a child.” While this summarizes some of those who will receive an abortion, this certainly cannot be true of all or even a majority of those who will receive an abortion. Then, my opponent uses an appeal to pity and asks the question “Would you like to be unwanted? Dirt poor? Malnourished?” As if the choice to ban abortion will lead to a bunch of poor malnourished children lying in the streets with cardboard signs saying “feed me” My opponent then states that if we ban abortion, the immediate result is children dying and suffering in this world. While this may be true for some cases, this is by no means a general rule. It also is a slippery slope, that if we do this one thing, this exact thing will happen to everyone, therefore, the first thing should not happen. While I did feel pity for those who my opponent described, I have found little logical basis for deciding that outlawing abortion would be wrong. Thanks! : )
Abortion Should Be Banned in America

Abortion should not be abolished. My first stance is that Americans have constitutional freedom, and the freedom to make a choice on whether to keep an (unborn) child or not is up to the woman. Do we have other forms of birth control? Yes. I could list them for you right now but that would waste valuable time. What we also have here is people who are either not ready or too poor to support a child. Would you like to be unwanted? Dirt poor? Malnourished? I sure wouldn't want to be, and I'm lucky not to. But, if abortion is abolished in America, we will have kids who grow up in the said unfortunate ways. Thank you for reading my argument.
The Legislative Branch should have the power to override a president's veto

I misstated what I meant to say in the beginning of the second round. As it stands now, the ability to override a presidential veto is a power of the House and the Senate. Yes, history has shown that overrides are not common and may remain so, but we must understand that politics are changing and becoming more polarized. The idea that one party will take control of Congress and thus the government is more and more likely. The whole political system gives no reason why one part should compromise with the other. With this override available, the president can be rendered powerless to stop any bad bills from passing which was the case with President Johnson(Not Jackson, no big deal). The veto power of the president is necessary to maintain the balance of government. Congress has so many more checks over the president, and losing this one check of overriding vetoes does not cause any major shifts. I greatly enjoyed this debate. The pro side did a great job.
The Legislative Branch should have the power to override a president's veto

Your argument has many inaccurate facts in it. First of all, the House of Representatives does not have veto power. Instead, it can override the president's veto.Second, to override the president's veto, Congress must have a supermajority, not a majority.That said, on to my rebuttal.1. Your checks and balances argument: As I said earlier, Congress must have a supermajority to override the president's veto. Considering that, generally, Congress is 50% democrats and 50% republicans, so it is very difficult to actually achieve a Congressional override. Here's some historical evidence: Out of the 1884 regular presidential vetoes, only 104, or 7.1%, have been overriden by the Legislative Branch. (https://www.google.com...)This statistic shows that the checks and balances system will not be overturned with keeping the Congressional override power.2. You "there will be enormous gridlock" argument: Andrew Jackson is the exception, not the rule. Generally, Congress is 50% democrats and 50% republicans. Occasionally, a large event happens (like the American Civil War) and the balance is overturned, but generally the balance stays the same.I await my opponent's response.
The Legislative Branch should have the power to override a president's veto

I am in support of getting rid of the veto power of the Senate. The reasons are based in that this government is based on checks and balances. All branches make sure the others do not get too powerful. What can the president do to check Congress: veto...that is it. What can the Congress do to check to president: they approve EVERYTHING. Cabinet positions, court judges, war or police actions, treaties, and trade agreements. The president lacks a lot of power and Congress can block ANYTHING if they don't like it. Or should I say if the majority party does not like the president. Such as it was with president Andrew Johnson. He tried time and time again to deal with reconstruction of the South after the Civil War. He was a democrat. The only one left really in politics(democrats were the South). Everything else in the government was controlled by the Republican party and anything that had Andrew Johnson's support was going to be blocked. Most of his his vetoes were overturned, delaying action to reconstruct the house. We need to take parties into consideration now more than ever. The two parties never agree just because they do not like the other side. We saw this in the Iran Nuclear deal and now with the Supreme Court nomination. It doesn't matter who or what it is, the majority party will try to stop the president from doing anything if he is of the other party. The override would only cause more gridlock than we already have. With one party too powerful, any bill can be passed with this override...good or bad. We really need to consider that times have changed and we need to evaluate the powers of government.
The Legislative Branch should have the power to override a president's veto

There are two main reasons that the legislative branch should have the power to override the president's veto are as follows:1. It would help stabilize the country if the president has problems. When I say this, I mean that if the Legislative Branch sends a bill to the president, and the bill is a bill that would be very good for our country, then if the president vetoes it because he is bribed, corrupt, or ignorant, the Legislative Branch will watch powerlessly as the bill floats powerlessly into the abyss. If the Legislative Branch has the power to override veto, then the bill, if it is good with all of the House and the Senate, will be passed, and the country will hopefully be a better place.2. It would only be used in emergencies. Consider this: out of the 1884 regular presidential vetoes, only 104, or 7.1%, have been overriden by the Legislative Branch. This means that the Legislative Branch will not abuse this power to override random vetoes the president would give to bad bills.Good luck Con, and take care!
Video games are bad for children.

Let's have a cup of tea and listen to us. Video games are bad for children because for exemple some of them inspire violence even though they're often the most loved by children. In fact a lot of this games include guns, dying in a cruel way and kill people. In fact they're extremely brutal. Also they create addiction and children can't stay away from them for long. If they don't play, they can feel really upset and unquiet and maybe their mood can change very fast. In addiction, stay in front of a screen for long can damage your sight and you waste a lot of time that you could use doing other activies, also outside in order not to miss the world around you.
Rap Battle

You can't crush me when I'm steppin on you they call me stompy I'm chompy cause I be pickin at your brain like a zombie I'm always on the top unless your mother is on me, you still call her mommy well she calls me daddy and you're about to too, whats that smell? It's your stank rhymes dude I'm about to end your career, your death is near, I only need one hand to steer I can play you like a flute, like a gun I can shoot, choking on the noose is all you can do I'm chasing you down you can't evade me, not even these chains can delay me. I'll cram shattered glass down your throat, but before that you'll choke, this crowd is stoked Indecisively you're going to be bleeding and seeing me claiming victory Try to cross me again and I'll destroy you again, now you made me mad cause I have to clean out these blood stains I can barley retain this anger in my brain cause I'm gonna win this game and bring you to shame I dare you to challenge me one more time, I'm the face of the dime the clouds in the sky I'm the one they rely on. Alright I'm done, now I'm gone. Come find me if you want to get crushed once more by one of my songs
Rap Battle

You're threatening and reckoning with forces you don't understand I can crush you and Drake in the palm of my hand I spit it sick until you're spitting sick with common cold The idle threats and the rap slang are getting old Sit down, I'm about to stomp you, you're ego's about to topple I'm about to hush the awful talking from this Talking Waffle I set standards you can't see from your position Because I'm at the top, kicking down the opposition I'm testing you, preventing you from resting, It's the best thing When I'm besting you. I'm Crushing you, so you can call me Wesley I'll knock you out of the park, buckle in and keep your mouth shut I'll back up, unless you think you haven't had enough
Rap Battle

Bro, I ain't scared of you, Drake will feel sorry for you after what I'm about to do I could win this battle out of the saddle. You have any money? I like to dabble Place your bet I'll only be a sec, put one bullet in the gun it's Russian Roulette You'll be begging for mercy after I break your legs, make you beg, I could shotgun this entire keg Once upon a time, you thought you could stop me, you did it despicably, I'm the best around I ain't lyin' You're too cliche, this mic is on fire it's burning in a haze, There is fire in my eyes, now I think you might have realized that all this time I was a rap prophecy in disguise. I'm gonna milk this cow for all it's worth til there's nothin but dirt comin outta these teats, I drop mad beats can't you see? That everybody is cheering for me! Now bleed!
Rap Battle

Your best bet to conquest over this contest is forfeiture My words put the best to rest. I"ll call the morgue if you"re Serious about confronting me, no doubt you"ll get pounded The sound of my astounding words, they"ll leave you dumbfounded It"s set, I"m in effect, you"re ineffective, quit wishin" Call me Steven Hill in your impossible mission I"m kicking opposition to the dirt My fist raised, start running, or you"re gonna' get hurt
It is rational to believe in a god

I understand that there are many theists out there who do believe in a God... and I understand that many of them are at least superficially convinced by such arguments as the cosmological argument. I'd ask, in the spirit of fairness, though, that you judge this debate on whether my opponent shows any truly rational reasons to believe in a god. I mean, my opponent's [1] and [2] arguments could as easily be applied to Mohammed, I would think... so I have good reason to doubt that these arguments really convince anybody... if they do, then there's inconsistency in application of the criteria which is, of course, irrationality. Argument [3] was just factually wrong. It was a brilliant example of how people accept and believe what they want to accept and believe without due examination of the evidence, though... perfect irrational thinking in action! Argument [4], from design, is logically self-defeating. Argument [5], the cosmological argument, has many flaws... I mean, if we are to accept that something could exist outside the universe and then accept that as the explanation for the universe, why could we not have any other thing (personal god, impersonal god, random fluctuation, etc)... indeed, if there is anything outside of causality and time in this universe, surely the easier explanation to believe is random fluctuations in a semi-ordered state, not some super-entity with a mind all their own... surely *that* requires more explanation again... at the very least, one must conclude that the cosmological argument is not convincing. I await any justification for the belief in any god being rational... i.e. in line with the available evidence or logical deduction. So far, I think that I've shown all of the evidence and logical deduction of my opponent to be wanting.
It is rational to believe in a god

There is a sufficient amount of evidence to justify the belief of a God in the following. To start off, there are the eye witness accounts in the New Testament of the Bible giving quite detailed information of Jesus from many different people giving a similar view on the matter. There is also many accounts and also a decent amount of eye witness accounts of Jesus outside the bible. For example, a roman officer called, Marcus Velleius Paterculus, made an eyewitness account of one of Jesus"s miracles. The account said that Jesus healed a stillborn child by picking the baby up and uttered a prayer in Aramaic to the heavens, which the Roman Officer describes to be "immensus", which means incomprehensible. Next, there is also evidence if you deeply look at the world around us. It is very complex and isn't something that could have come about by chance, by just a mere roll of a dice. Yes, it is possible for let"s say and artist to come up with an amazing idea by just randomly experimenting, but that idea alone is not going to be very complex and appealing, it is normally just a vague idea of what they want to do, then they carefully design and mold this idea into something complex and appealing. Since saying the universe came by chance is like saying that a watch on the floor just appeared there just suddenly. You wouldn't usually think that, you would think that someone carefully engineered the watch to make it tell the time, people only think that the world came by chance because of how weak and pathetic humans are compared to what a God would be. We can"t comprehend what God would be. Since human"s aren't that powerful, but as we evolve further and further, we may all begin to realize that God isn't actually that power and God is quite reasonably powerful, but we are not at that stage yet, and we can"t prove it, but it is still reasonable. It is still rational to believe in a God. Another argument against the idea of the universe coming about by chance (just to not waste rounds), is that, for there to be something to come by chance, there has to be something there to create a possibility of something happening. If there was nothing there in the beginning, then the dice wouldn't have been rolled. It"s like saying that a dice can roll on its own, without there being anything being related to that dice. How would the dice be rolled? How would the dice even be made in the first place? There are many more arguments for why it is rational to believe in God, but I will save them for the other rounds. Thank you.
It is rational to believe in a god

I'm going to offer what I think is the best argument to show that there is no evidence of God: Theists are not shouting about it. Seriously, does anybody here think that if there were any actual evidence in support of a god the theists would be quiet about it? No, it would change the World... investigating that evidence would be the most important intellectual pursuit that Man could engage in. Have no doubt on this point: there is no evidence of any god. All we have is a collection of logically fallacious arguments that are used to post-rationalise... and all of those fail for the simple reason that they boil down to this: Standard form of deistic/theistic rationalization:: But how do you explain X? Answer A: something simple, scientific and testable Answer B: something complex, supernatural and untestable All we need do is substitute X for anything that theists think might not have a compelling answer already... whatever is at the very edge of human knowledge... wherever there are gaps... this is the God of the Gaps http://en.wikipedia.org...... We can put "the origin of the universe", "the origin of life" or "the complexity of life" into X and arrive at, roughly, the Cosmological Argument, the Watchmaker Argument and Creationism. None of these are rational, and each of these asks us to accept a complex, supernatural answer with no supporting evidence. We'd be better to answer "don't know" to any of these questions (although the third is clearly answered by natural selection) than to jump to such rash conclusions. How could it ever be rational to answer any question with "something supernatural and fantastically complex for which there is no evidence"? For now, I rest my case.