BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THW ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy

Pro asserts that the majority of abortions come from unprotected sex, but has not provided a source for this. As I recall, the majority of abortions come from contraceptive failure- people used condoms, the pill etc. but the condom broke or the pill didn't work. "I already won in that sense of every abortion at or after 8 weeks"I think a case could be made in many cases after 8 weeks, too, but I see no need to pursue such a case- as the wording of the motion is that we should ban ALL abortions, I'm happy to concede after 8 weeks. However, the motion still fails, as before 8 weeks, the foetus is not capable of suffering in any meaningful way- how can you justify giving something which is not conscious and is unable to suffer in any way "rights" that even superecede the rights of a live, conscious, woman?"It"s a quite universal thought that fetuses deserve to be protected such can be seen in the unborn victim"s violence act passed by congress in 2004"This is an appeal to concensus and to authority. See sources 3 and 4. Why does a non-conscious entity deserve to be protected? Pro has not justified this other than through fallacious appeals."Male ejaculation is not fertilized. Even if you were to leave it alone, nothing would develop from it."A sperm requires a specific set of circumstances to become a living human, but then so does a foetus- it has to remain inside a uterus and to be provided with nutrients and a bunch of other conditions. The foetus is no more capable of developing into a living human vy itself than the sperm is- both require a female body to turn them into a living human. An early foetus is still no more worthy of moral consideration than a sperm cell is, and Pro's implied assertion that it can develop into a human by itself is both false and irrelevant. Having a unique genetic code is also irrelevant- if one of my skin cells mutates, it has a unique genetic code- does that mean I'm obligated to remove its nucleus, place it inside an enucleated egg cell and have it develop into a human, too?The crux of the argument so far seems to come down to this: We agree that before 8 weeks, a foetus is not capable of suffering in any meaningful way, and is not conscious. Pro asserts that the foetus has a right to life, but has not substantiaated this convincingly- instead using bandwagon and authority fallacies, and irrelevant observations about genetics.Sources:[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
THW ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy

Before I move onto my own arguments, a few pieces of rebuttals: 1.) Suffering of Fetuses. We both agree on the fact that ~8 weeks the fetus is capable of feeling pain, I already won in that sense of every abortion at or after 8 weeks (Almost 12 million of them). As I talked about previously, many women have repeated abortions (almost all of them from unprotected intercourse). Thus, on side proposition, I believe its illogical to set up such a culture of which fetuses can be disposed. Hence, I believe this culture should not remain. 2.) Right to life Con says fetuses don"t have protection, no rights what so ever. 2 sub pieces of rebuttal a.) It"s a quite universal thought that fetuses deserve to be protected such can be seen in the unborn victim"s violence act passed by congress in 2004(Link in previous argument [2]). These fundamentalist beliefs of fetus exists- the question is: To what extent? Hence, propositions claim of that fetus deserve to protection doesn"t stand a. ii) Pro backs up his claim with the explanation of male ejaculation. However, allow me to clarify the differences between that and a foetus. Fetuses have unique identities. They"ve already developed a unique DNA and genetic code like to other, and will grow to no other. In fact, it"s growing. Male ejaculation is not fertilized. Even if you were to leave it alone, nothing would develop from it. 3.) Health I stated in my first argument that women potentially can have huge side effects from abortions. Con just responds by the fact that they"re a lot of other things that are harmful but are allowed. The difference here is that drinking alcohol does harm to you own health. However, abortion does that too, and furthermore Terminates another being. I agree with you that being unhealthy doesn"t mean illegal, however, being unhealthy to yourself while putting at stake the livelihood of a Fetus should be illegal. My opponent also goes on to talking about rape victims. Yes, I agree, rape is bad. However, in the Pro world, I find it much more humane to persecute rape with higher punishments, not by terminating a being. Even if I take him at his best in that Women will "get depression" from carrying a baby. This is a time for weighing. In our world, we believe human life is more important than depression. Depression is curable, there"s plenty of rehab that"s free being offered. However, there"s no therapy for the termination of human life. Now onto my argument. 1.) Accepting responsibility I"ve already talked about rape victims, now onto the huge majority of people that do abortions: from unprotected intercourse. Look, by doing intercourse, even with protection measures, people should be aware there"s still a risk of pregnancy and should be responsible for such. I already weighed and proved to you the fundamentalist right of life for these babies. Hence, the baby should NOT be punished its life for a mistake by the adults.
THW ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy

On foetuses suffering:According to source 1, 80.1% of abortions performed in the USA in 2013 were at or before 8 weeks after conception*. Assuming Pro's stat of 8 weeks is valid (and frankly I'm not qualified to say whether it is or not) then 80% of abortions occur when the foetus does not have a central nervous sytem of any kind, and therefore is not conscious, and therefore is incapable of suffering in any meaningful way. At this point I'd like to emphasise the wording of the motion- to ban abortion at ALL stages of pregnancy. I'd agree with Pro that some abortions ought not to be performed, but for me, the cutoff is when the foetus is capable of suffering. There are cases- indeed, 80% of actual abortion cases- where the foetus cannot be said to suffer. Those cases should certainly remain legal.On the right to life:It is undeniable that before 8 weeks after fertilisation, the foetus cannot be said to be conscious or sentient. How can a non-sentient entity be considered to have any rights at all? Pro postulates that because the foetus has the potential to become a human life, it has the "right" to do so. Consider that for a moment. If we were to take that claim to its logical progression, we'd have to observe that sperm and egg cells are also capable of becoming a living human. Inded, the technology exists to turn normal human cells into a living being, too. Does a male ejaculation constitute genocide, as it kills millions of potential human lives? Clearly, the "right to life" for all potential lives is a nonsense idea.On the health of the mother:Pro's "studies" are severely questionable- what were their p-values? Has the work been repeatedly verified by other researchers?Even if we accept Pro's studies (and we ought not to), there are a number of things which correlate to a higher chance of depression and cancers- drinking alcohol being a prime example. Should we ban alcohol? The reason we shouldn't is that an adult can do what they like with their own body, even if it may affect them negatively. We cannot reasonably ban abortion for this reason unless we also ban alcohol, smoking, and fast food. But we recognise that something being unhealthy doesn't mean it should be illegal.We should also consider the health effects of someone *NOT* having an abortion. If someone was raped, for example, carrying it through full-term can be a severely psychologically harmful experience. Pregnancies also correlate with a risk of cancers, due to forcing the body to rapidly to accomodate the foetus. Carrying a foetus to full term also carries with it a risk of postpartum depression (see source 2).In other words, all of the health risks pro metions can also come from carrying a foetus to full term, too. Asterisks:*(NB: the statistics on source 1 are listed in terms of weeks after gestation, not fertilization. As explained in their caption, N weeks after gestation is N-2 weeks after fertilization). Sources:[1]: http://www.abort73.com...[2]: http://www.webmd.com...
THW ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy

Abortion is murder. The un-resistible killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if the being is just a foetus. With that, I bring you 2 arguments in round 2: 1: Unborn babies have a fundamentalist right to human life. As soon as the baby is fertilized. A new being is made, with a genetic identify like to no other. A pulse, and a body. The fact is that, there have been over 59 million abortions since the Roe v Wade case in the US alone. That means, more than 59 million innocent foetuses with unique identifies have been denied a right to life (1). Furthermore, what makes abortion fundamentality wrong is that these foetuses are innocent. And cannot resist their brutal killings. Thus, abortion is fundamentally wrong. As it denies human life of an innocent being. According to the unborn victims of violence act of 2004 (2). Quote "thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section". I already emphasized the fact that abortion is the killing of a child. Thus, it is both unmoral and unlawful to deny human life. This brings me to my extension: Fetuses DO feel pain during abortion. According to Maureen Condic, PhD of neurobiology and anatomy, assistant professor at the University of Utah states: ""most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex," is developed by eight weeks gestation, and adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester."" So yes, fetus DO feel pain. So therefore, abortion IS the unmoral murder of an innocent human being. 2: Abortions may also lead to problems in the mother According to a study called "Included abortion and risk of subsequent marriage" (3). It was conducted on thousands of women, and the results conclude as: ~15% of ~15% of attributed to prior history of abortion. Hence, many women have repeated abortions on multiple miscarriages. So what does Abortion potentially do to the health of the mother? According to a 2014 Chinese study and a 2014 study of women"s with abortions on the international journal of epidemiology (4) , both studies found a strong link between abortion and breast cancer. It concluded "is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer" Furthermore, abortions may also cause philological problems for the mother. According to a 2008 study published in the Scandinavian Journal of public health stated that "young women to undergo " abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression. So essentially, abortions also put a permanent torn on the mother. A trend of which breast cancer is more common, and mental health is at risk, sometimes even turning suicidal (5). Thus, I"ve proved to you in this round that a.) fetuses deserve a right to life b.) Abortions can cause later problems for the mother. For all the above reasons, I beg to propose. 1: http://www.nrlc.org... 2: https://www.congress.gov... 3: https://academic.oup.com... 4: http://www.indianjcancer.com... 5: http://www.rachelsvineyard.org...
THW ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy

I accept, and will argue against the motion that "THW: ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy". Some terms I feel it may later prove useful to define:Suffering: physical or psychological discomfort to a conscious entity. Central nervous system: a group of organs, mainly the brain and spinal cord, which are made primarily of neutrones. Consciousness: the ability to percieve one's own existence through the central nervous sysem, or, in principle, some other sensory sytsem. I can't think of any more terms which will likely need defining, but if I do, I'll define such terms in my later speeches.
Gay Marriage

I would like to start by saying it should be legal because the FIRST amendment clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. We founded this country on the separation of church and state. Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should. It states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " By denying gays the right to wed, we are violating the first amendment to the constitution. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://topics.law.cornell.edu...
Gay Marriage

I apologize to the readers for the lack of any serious debate between my opponent and I. My opponent has not simply forgotten to debate or not seen the notification; no, he has NEGLECTED this debate. See the other debate he was engaged in at the same time as this one here. http://www.debate.org... Seeing as my opponent has made the conscious decision not to debate, I will take the liberty to do the following: 1) Extend all of my previous arguments with the exception of the argument about animals not committing homosexual acts in nature. Everything else will remain considered in the round. Thus, my impacts/arguments flow over to round 3. 2) Drop all of my opponent's arguments (or my opponent's [one] argument). It was refuted in the first round and he left it undefended. Thus, he has no ground going into the next round. 3) Add one further refutation from my side. Here we go... My opponents advocacy for gay marriage is an advocacy for a marriage per the terms of a sexual perversion. He wants them to have the same right to marry as heterosexuals, but the problem is that there are other perversions that are also not given the right to marry by their own will. For example; pedophiles, polygamists, polyandrists, and pederastrists. I find my opponent compelled to defend ALL sexual perversions in which some irregular form of marriage would be desired, because all of them surely would want the right to marry freely, and all of them are sexual perversions just as is homosexuality. So, in conclusion, you have only offense coming off of my case to consider in this debate and all the offense off of my opponents case has been negated by his non-response to my attack. I urge a con ballot. Thank you, readers/voters, for your time.
Vietnam is a Communist Country

Doi Moi ReformsMy opponent claims Vietnam has more of a socialist-oriented economy, however, Vietnam is still heavily in debt because of state-owned companies and banks going bankrupt. This proves they are still communist because the majority of their business' and banks are state-owned. Many people are still unhappy from their failed communist economy and are turning mutinous.Free Market IndexMy opponent claims that Vietnam is not "repressed" but extremely unfree. This proves that communism is still in Vietnam, because if they were socialist-oriented, they would have way more freedom than they have now. As I mentioned in my second contention, they are still oppressed with state-police officers roaming Vietnam. My opponent claims that even Wikipedia knows that it's economy is socialist-oriented, but Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source as claimed by many proffesors. If Vietnam was truly socialist-oriented, why is their economy bankrupt from state-owned banks and business'.Vietnam's Communist GovernemtCon says that the Communist party does not rule Vietnam. This isn't true since the Communist Party is in full control of Vietnam and in fact holds a political monopoly. We can obviously see, that the Communist Party is in full control of Vietnam and has 92% of the seats.People are still oppressedAs I stated in my refutations, armed policemen roam Vietnam and uphold communist ways. These policemen stand in front of portraits of Ho Chi Minh, which shows they respect the countrie's communist ideals and government. Surely they are still communist if they censor people in the media, uphold communist ideals, and honour communist presidents.Conclusion:My opponent claims that because of their economy being slightly more free than 40 years ago, they are socialist-oriented. Canada has Universal Healthcare which is a socialist ideal, so do we automatically assume that Canada is a socialist country. No, we don't, there are many aspects of communism and Pro has only proved that their economy is slighly more free than 40 years ago. Great, but Vietnam's government holds a monopoly and is still in full control of Vietnam's government.Sources:http://www.globalpost.com...http://yaleglobal.yale.edu...
Vietnam is a Communist Country

Before I state my contentions, I will first clash with my most worthy opponent.Doi Moi ReformsMy opponent claims the Doi Moi reforms helped bring economic growth to Vietnam. This may be true, but this occured because they were on a brink of economic collapse and wanted to save their economy and decided to make it more "open."This change makes them a bit more capitilistic, however, they are still a communist country. If a country still has a single party communist government who cannot be replaced, they are not capitilist but communist.Free Market IndexMy opponent claims that Vietnam should not be classified as a "repressed" country but a "mostly unfree" country. If this is the case, they are still a "mostly unfree" communist country that has an ounce of capitilism only to save their economy.Con thinks Vietnam is just a more socialist-oriented country, but they still have a single-state communist government which proves pro wrong. Con thinks Vietnam is "mostly unfree" but what that means is that it it is still communist, but is slightly weaker than 40 years ago.1.Vietnam still has a Communist GovernmentVietnam has a one party communist state that rules the country. It's pretty obvious that you can't disagree that Vietnam is communist when their federal government is still communist. Despite pursuing economic reform, the ruling Communist Party shows little willingness to give up its monopoly on political power. Economically, the government still controls a good chunk of State production, just not as much as 40 years ago Vietnam. The government still suppresses political dissent and religious freedom, so we can see it is very much communist.2. People are still oppressedPeople can still not express political dissent in Vietnam. Vietnamese citizens are still not able to protest against the communist government. My dad, as a Vietnamese citizen 40 years ago, said that if you continuously protested against the Communist govermemt, you would be jailed or executed. Times may have changed since then, but citizens cannot express political dissent. Vietnamese citizens still have very little freedom, which proves they are still communist.My Question: If Vietnam has a communist government, how can you claim they are not a communist country? Sources:http://www.globalasia.org...http://www.bbc.co.uk...My dad( as a former Vietnamese citizen)
Vietnam is a Communist Country

My ArgumentsI. Doi Moi ReformsThe Doi Moi Reforms occured to help bring economic growth to Vietnam. These reforms allowed private industry to be established along with state-operated industries. This is called a Socialist-oriented economy. As explained here:"The Doi Moi economic reforms were initiated by the Communist Party of Vietnam in 1986 during the 6th National Congress of the party. These reforms allowed for private ownership of small enterprises alongside state-run and collectively-owned enterprises. Additionally, these reforms also introduced a greater role for market forces for coordinating economic activity between enterprises and government agencies." [1]Because of these reforms, Vietnam is no longer a communist country because it does not have totalitarian control over all industries. II. Free Market IndexThe Heritage Foundation, as we know, has its free market index. If Vietnam was truly a totalitarian communist country where a single party controls all the industry, then we are expecting it to be in the "Repressed" category. However, Vietnam is not, its in the "Mostly Unfree" category. Its overall score is 51.0 and the world rank is 140. When we look at Vietnam, we see a mostly unfree economy, not a repressed one. Taxes is not high, the top rate is 35% and the corporate rate is 25%. Limited government gives Vietnam a 72.4 and a 75.6.For regulatory efficiency, the Vietnamese government has allowed an increase in the private sector. Because of this rise in business freedom, Vietnam is not communist. According the index on Vietnam's market:"The financial sector continues to expand, with capital markets evolving. Directed lending by state-owned commercial banks has been scaled back in recent years." [2]As we can see here, Vietnam is not repressed, its just mostly unfree and is therefore not a communist country, but is a socialist-oriented one.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.heritage.org...
Vietnam is a Communist Country

As Pro, I will provide evidence on how Vietnam is still a communist country, while Con must provide evidence on how it has a different political structure. But before I begin, I must define communism so my opponent and I are "on the same page. "I will define communism as a totalitarian system of government in which a single party controls state-owned means of production. This definition comes from the Merriam Webster dictionary, and is valid for this debate. If Con has any objections, he must do so in the comments section. I hope for an excellent debate! Sources:. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
In world of warcraft if there was an all out battle Alliance v.s. Horde the Alliance would win

First i want to say i will not be listing my sources because i will not be using any. Only what Nobbel87 taught me on youtube and also in my brain. DO NOT VOTE UNLESS YOU PLAY WORLD OF WARCRAFT. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Argument: First off the alliance won a lot of battles over the horde even when they had death nights in their midst. The alliance was the creator of light and paladins. Creator name Uther. We also have Jania who kicked but in every single expansion. While we have our war leader you have lost yours, Thrall. And Vul-gin is your new war leader. He is completely new to this and has failed in war many times trying to stop Garrosh. Also your troops are still in shock I hear from the horrible leader Garrosh Hellscream. We have more great leaders that you who can really fight. Also most of the panderians (the new race are joining the Alliance. Even though i favor Horde and play as Horde I am going for the Alliance and it seems so is blizzard. I hand it over to you.
In world of warcraft if there was an all out battle Alliance v.s. Horde the Alliance would win

First off I like to say that this is a highly controversial topic that is not specific enough for a real debate. It depends completely on variables such as, the server ratios (horde to alliance), PvP guilds, general player skill levels and MANY other variables (even strategical advantages). If you want to start this debate please be a bit more specific and I will be happy to debate! May the better debater win!