BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The USA should be divided into several different independent nations

Round 1: ArgumentSorry for the late response, I have been slightly busy as of late. Due to the fact that I have procrastinated to the point of being just one hour left until my deadline, my argument in this round will be severely shortened. Expect an extension of my argument in the third round. My argument in this round will consist of three subdivisions, which are: D1: Political ReasonsD3: Economic ReasonsD2: Historical ReasonsHopefully this will turn into an interesting debate. D1: Political Reasons1. Who will become the world power? The major concern that would rise should the US fragment into separate nations would be who would rise to become the world super power and inevitably the world police force? The only countries powerful enough to fulfill this position would be Russia, China, and India. Given that it is unlikely that any on these nations would be likely to fulfill the burden of world controller, disaster would be likely to occur. I understand that many people are against the US intervening in international affairs, however if their is no US who will be able to stand up against the world's problems? 2. Who will become the power in the Americas?Similarly to the first point, this raises the question of how will North and South America prevent disaster without the US to guide them? Looking at the already dreadful state of Central America and the majority of South America, who will rise as the great power to prevent disaster? Canada? I should hope not. D2: Economic Reasons1. How will the new nations economy fare?Given the current state of the US, it is simply too much to ask a united US to keep it's economy afloat. However how is it at all possible for the new fragmented US from keeping its economy from tanking? D3: Historical Reasons1. History shows that country's that fragment rarely succeedThere are countless examples of how country's fail after they fragment into smaller segments. For example Germany after WWII, China during the 2nd Sino-Japanese War, even the US during the Civil War. ConclusionAgain, I apologize for the short response, but the basis of my argument is that the US should not fragment into separate nations due to the fact that there will no longer be a world superpower to keep the rest of the world in check and that the economy of the new nations within the US will suffer greatly.
A pregnant person should always have the right to abortion, regardless of circumstances.

His/her conduct was a lot better than anyone else who I have had this discussion before with and I really appreciate that. This debate forced me to think in ways that I never thought before because I have never discussed abortion without involving the moral code laid out in my religion. Consequently, this debate was very educational for me. Many thanks to PianoSandwich again and no worries on not being able to post in Round 3. Since PianoSandwich could not post in Round 3, I will limit myself to a quick summary of what I covered in the previous rounds and a closing statement. Biologically, the human life cycle begins at the moment of conception because it meets all of the definitions for living matter. The fertilized egg will react to stimuli and grow. It possesses a metabolism and it is able to transform energy. As I pointed out in C3 R1, the first things that develop from a fertilized brain are the heart, the brain, and the spinal cord. The heart and the brain are the traditional symbols of human life and they form first in the human life cycle. Therefore, a fertilized egg and a developing fetus must be classified as a living human being instead of a mass of tissue. Every human being obtains the rights granted to the human race under natural law as soon as the human life cycle starts. The rights granted under natural law are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. These rights take the following precedence: the right to life supersedes the right to liberty and the right to pursue happiness and the right to liberty supersedes the right to pursue happiness. Under this natural "legal" precedence, a woman"s right to control her own body (the right to liberty) must yield to the fetus"s right to life. Consequently, science and natural law prove that abortion is wrong morally and naturally.
A pregnant person should always have the right to abortion, regardless of circumstances.

I am arguing that a pregnant person should ALWAYS have the right to an abortion, regardless of circumstances. Many times "pro-choice" advocates will argue that abortion must remain legal to protect victims of rape, incest, etc. I believe that it is an issue of bodily autonomy (on the part of the pregnant person, not the fetus.) Regardless of the circumstances in which the fetus was conceived, whether there was consent present or not, it is up to the person carrying the fetus to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy. If you want to enter this debate, you should believe that there are at least some cases when a pregnant person should not have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
Mormons are Christian

The problem with your argument is that you do not give standards for your definition. If a Christian is someone who merely agrees that Christ is the messiah, then Mormons are Christian. But I don't think that definition is defined enough. I think that when defining a Christian, the definition ought to be historical and theological. If Mormonism is a recent development in history, it is not historically Christian. If Mormonism disagrees with just about every Christian in history in its theology of Christ, it is not Christian. Your definition is unsupported, and therefore I believe mine to be superior. "I said they didn't proclaim his divinity as often or as clearly. " Irrelevant, but I doubt it's true anyway. "Most of those differences have to do with the spiritual definition of God, not the personage we're discussing here (though you guys do think they're one and the same. )" And since we think them one and the same, and you don't, they are very relevant. "The one contrast applying to Christ is that he is the same being as God, and that has nothing to do with pretty much everything important that he did. " I disagree very much. The doctrine of the Incarnation is vitally important to Christianity. It is certainly one of the primary mysteries of the Catholic faith. I don't see how you could deem an all-knowing, all-powerful, and eternal God becoming man to be unimportant. "homosousian" I did not spell it wrong. And if I did (which I didn't) your spelling was infinitely worse. My spelling got 11,500 hits on google, a wikipedia page, and no alternate spelling. Your spelling got 2 hits on google, both from books. google. com/books? id. .. , and a prompt: "Did you mean: 'homoousian. '" "The definition of Jesus as the Christ is totally dependent on the fact that he atoned for our sins, something that is as much or more the key of the Mormon religion as much as any other. " That's demonstratively false. For instance, one of the big beefs during the Reformation was how we are saved. Christians differ on what atonement even means. "No differing of opinion on his life or being prior to that act is as pivotal or vital to Christianity. " You're claiming that WHO CHRIST IS is unimportant to CHRISTianity? Does that even make sense? ------------------------------------recap--------------------------------------- Words ought to have meaning. My opponent gives you no basis for his claim than his opinion of what Christian ought to mean. I gave you historical and theological reasons why Mormons are seperate and distinct from Christianity. The Christ I worship is one person of the Trinity. The Christ I worship is the master of creation and not a part of it. The Christ I worship can only do what He did because He was God.
Mormons are Christian

You aren't reading my argument clearly- I stated in the part you pasted that it was the protestants and Catholics, commonly accepted as Christian. The topic of this argument is that Mormons are Christian. If they have his name in the title of their church, is it not somewhat of an indication of their belief in him? And I didn't say that anyone denies him. I said they didn't proclaim his divinity as often or as clearly. Most of those differences have to do with the spiritual definition of God, not the personage we're discussing here (though you guys do think they're one and the same.) The one contrast applying to Christ is that he is the same being as God, and that has nothing to do with pretty much everything important that he did. The important things that he taught and did were not dependent on what he did, since either separate or homosousian (you spelled it wrong), he could have saved us from our sins and taught about compassion and whatnot, according to both religions. The definition of Jesus as the Christ is totally dependent on the fact that he atoned for our sins, something that is as much or more the key of the Mormon religion as much as any other. No differing of opinion on his life or being prior to that act is as pivotal or vital to Christianity. For the record, Mormons also believe in the bible, including the New Testament, the real documentation of his life. They also have added to the scriptures with the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (Further declaration of his name) which further records his acts on Earth (3 Nephi, Chapters 11-18). The fact that Mormons believe in Christ and his divine role, name their church after him and declare it led by him, believe in the Bible as documentation of his life, and continue to receive revelation from him, culminates into a truth that is impossible to call not Christian.
Mormons are Christian

"The fact that Protestants and so forth are commonly accepted as Christian does not in any way affect whether or not Mormons are." Huh? Who was considered Christian before doesn't affect who should be considered a Christian now? "His name is actually in the official name of their church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." So? I'm proposing a theological/historical definition of Christianity. What someone's official name might be does not particularly concern me. "There's one thing it has that others don't- the continual declaration that Jesus is the Christ." Well this is just blatantly wrong. I can't think of any mainstream denomination of sect that denies that Jesus is the Christ. Ok, stuff Mormons and Christianity as it was practised for 1700 years disagree on: God the Father does not have a physical body. The Trinity God is eternal and we are aeveternal God is above nature and the creator of nature God the Father and Jesus Christ are homoousian God was always divine Christ is the new Adam Original Sin's role in the Crucifixion
Mormons are Christian

The fact that Protestants and so forth are commonly accepted as Christian does not in any way affect whether or not Mormons are. Mormons believe in his divinity, life, teachings, and his status as our savior. His name is actually in the official name of their church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There's one thing it has that others don't- the continual declaration that Jesus is the Christ. I don't understand how you can say that the Christology differs- point out some actual differences and show how they affect fundamental belief and I might have something for you there.
Mormons are Christian

This is a very simple issue, or at least it is as far as I will argue it. I believe that Mormons are not Christian (the adjective, for the nitpicker commenting below) because words ought to have meaning, and saying that Mormons are Christians strips the word "Christian" of any substantial meaning. Everyone here probably agrees that Protestants and Catholics are Christian. The only thing that these two very different groups can claim to have in common is their Christology. The theology, practices, everything possible common thread diverges at some point. The only thing they have in common is their Christology, the Christology of the Nicene Creed. In every other way, the beliefs of a Christian are variable. And now we want to throw the Christology out the window. 1800 years into the history of Christianity, it is decided that we are to throw the only real unifying and omnipresent belief of the Christian religion to the dogs. We can't have this. Christian used to be a word like thunder. When a man spoke of Christendom, he was speaking of a civilization that failed often, but always SOUGHT to be a light to the world. Christianity was the light of the Dark Ages and the driving force of a continent. Now a Christian is any man who feels vaguely that it is good to help other people. He holds to the ethical teachings of Christ, and though he thinks Buddha and Muhammed were equally great men, he is to be called a Christian.
Involuntary Euthanasia should be prohibited under most conditions

I will tell you this, I am sure that Euthanasia is a thing that will be asked for, not only by the patient. I am sure that I have not heard of anyone dying from Involuntary Euthanasia. I am sure also that if that were to happen, there is nothing you can prove to show that the person did not want it, unless the killing was filmed. It would be pointless to argue over this if you didn't provided me such evidence. Though, I do see infact that if the family wanted it and the person did not and the doctor was forced to do it anyways because of the family making threats or something of that sort, it shouldn't be recognized as murder, considering that there was no way out of it.
Involuntary Euthanasia should be prohibited under most conditions

Involuntary euthanasia (also known as assisted suicide) was first introduced back in 1891 were a man named Felix Adler decided to use this initiative call for the acceptance of harmful drug to terminally ill patients who requested to die. It was later on released in the States and was used in some cases to which authorized the need because they also couldn't stand the pain. However, as it started to develop towards the years, misusing started to reenact. Cases to which extent where doctors were using the power of assisted suicide towards innocent patients who may haven't have been asked to pull the plug to which extent they have no acknowledgement about it. Involuntary euthanasia is only used for when ill patients who don't seem to be recovering in any major way for a long period of time or a patient who is in deep vain can't manage to hold the pain. Having said that, the doctors who are willing to perform the process needs the consultants consent. The problem is that the cases to this day and age refers that 64% who are suffering in some sort and receive the act are not acknowledged in any way at all. Doctors just take away their life with ought having any notices and claim that "they wouldn't have made a recovery anyway". I find this is a crime and felony to some extent and should deserve a punishment.
Foreign affairs

All right, Pro forfeits, here we go. Our ties with "forgeins" can be a problem to the U. S, for example a catastrophe like WW2, where at first we weren't involved, but when the Japanese bombed pearl harbor. We went to war, and had to start drafting people into the army, and that's a problem. The cold war, if the U. S fired at Russia, or Russia fired at the U. S, we would have a nuclear war. Nuclear bombs on our own country, that would be a problem. Its pretty clear why sometimes our ties with "forgeins" can result in problems.
Resolved: The HHS Mandate is unjust. (STRICTLY VALUE LD)

Because I stand for freedom and equality, I must affirm the resolution, Resolved: The HHS Mandate is unjust. For reasons of resolution analysis, I offer the following definitions. I define justice as equality of individuals relating to principles, doctrines, concepts, etc. And I also define the HHS Mandate as the proposed mandate which requires insurance companies to provide birth control of the woman's choice to them for free. As prescribed by the resolution, I value justice because it is the ultimate good. As the affirmative, I seek to achieve the ultimate good of justice by means of the value criterion which is the exercising of individual freedom. My reasons for affirmation on the injustice of this HHS Mandate are: A. The HHS Mandate limits religious freedom of individuals. B. The HHS Mandate provides sexual "protection" to women but not men. Contention 1. The proposed HHS Mandate limits the religious freedom of individuals. This argument stands because certain religious groups do not believe in birth control. With the HHS mandate, it will force individuals to provide something to another which they do not believe in at all. This deprives justice because the select individuals ought not be forced to purchase for something they don't believe in doing. Thus each party is not getting their do. Contention 2. The HHS Mandate provides sexual "protection" to women but not men. In the proposed legislation of the HHS Mandate, we can see that insurance companies and business owners will be forced to provide birth control to women. Although this may sound just, not only women need things which will prevent them from creating a child. Men also need things such as condoms in order to prevent accidental child birth. Because the mandate does not provide these things to everybody, but instead provides it to a select group, justice is not achieved on any level. For these reasons I urge an affirmative ballot.
Resolved: The HHS Mandate is unjust. (STRICTLY VALUE LD)

It appears that lddebate234 has forfeited the last two rounds. As I understand it the forfeiture of a debate round results in a loss of the debate for lddebate234. I would like to summarize my points which I feel have been effectively supported by my points: 1. In an insurance based system applied to a large, plural society made up of people who carry differing views and values, a mandated healthcare coverage system is just even without any sort of exemptions. Since the idea of insurance is to share the burden. 2. A mandated set of coverages across this plural group does not infringe on the people's rights of conscience since they are not required to undergo the procedures they may object to. But to allow those who need them and want them vastly improves the overall "justice" of the system 3. Finally the point about inequitable coverage can be offset by the language of the mandate which sesemingly actively covers those items such as barrier methods such as condoms. But lddebate234 must also understand that birth control and other types of this coverage also serve to protect a woman's health in ways that are not necessarily applicable to a man. For instance some birth control methods alleviate problems from endometriosis and painful menstruation. As such the HHS Mandate as established and debated here maximizes justice while not imposing an undue burden on the people whose conscience is bothered by certain procedures. I would gladly thank lddebate234 for a nice debate but I am doubtful that they are even in the room anymore and I am talking to the aether. I respectfully request that this be marked as win for me. Thank you and thank you for those who have read it this far.
Resolved: The HHS Mandate is unjust. (STRICTLY VALUE LD)

It would appear that there is little to rebutt from my side, so I would like to take this opportunity to clarify my oiginal points in contrast to lddebate234's original contentions.My main thesis is that the HHS Mandate (as generally agreed on for the purposes of this debate; ie that the HHS Mandate applies across all religious stances regardless of the possibility that there may be some religious exemptions in the actual body of the legislation).I feel that a broad mandate requiring all parties pay into a common insurance pool (or support a minimum level of coverage that includes items certain groups may find 'immoral') is a just system.My reasoning rests on the combination of factors that will maximize "justice" in our society.1. Our society is a plural society with a wide variety of beliefs and moral stands, some of which are mutually exclusive yet all are adjudicated equal before the law2. If the insurance-based healthcare system is to be relied upon then the vagaries of how an insurance system works must be factored into the system. Insurance works by pooling resources and spreading risk. If some can "opt out" then it weakens the insurance system which may, in the extreme, cause the dissolution of the insurance system an the failure of the healthcare system that is underlain by this (rendering many without access to healthcare)3. A plural society must view all the potential outcomes in a utilitarian fashion (the most good for the largest number).4. Under the HHS Mandate (or the variant we are discussing here) there is no requirement that a person themselves undergo a procedure they find morally reprehensible. As such in order to ensure the greatest number of people have access to the greatest good (healthcare in the present case) utilizing an insurance based system (pooling resources and sharing risk) then the mandated coverage must include things that not everyone will value or approve of. And no harm is done to the individuals since no one is required to undergo a procedure they object to.
We should Legalize Marijuana

A large part of my first argument will be based on the Prohibition. When America banned the use of alcohol. 1. Legalizing marijuana will help lower crime rates. 2. It's not as bad as other drugs such as alcohol. 3. The government could collect taxes off of it. But first I will take about some of the things my opponent has said. (By using the Prohibition and alcohol.) Marijuana can be harmful if you take it at a young age because it does damage your brain, but so does alcohol. Compared to other drugs marijuana is a lot safer and less harmful. There have also not been any records of people dying from the drug, or at least overdosing. http://www.livescience.com... Any thing can be abused. An example is dying because you drank to much water. (Which is possible to do). Alcohol is also dangerous on developing minds. Its even worse them marijuana much worse, and as you said there would be an age limit. http://www.medicaldaily.com... Now to state my argument. 1.America has more people in jail then any other country even more then china. The reason for this is because 50% of the people in jail are their because of drugs. That is one in every two people. Did you know that most people that go to jail end up there again because they have no choose but to go back to a life of crime. The reason for this is that no one wants to higher someone that has been to jail. Do you feel that a person should be penalized for life. Unable to get a job and force to crime only because they did weed? Many people would say that legalizing marijuana would only help gangs and increase crime rates. But this is wrong and America has the proof to back it up. During the Prohibition (when America legalized alcohol in the 1920's mostly. America saw a massive increase in crime rates and people sent to jail. It lead to an increase in violence and organized crime. It also lead to an increase in government spending. It was so bad that the government had no choose but to get rid of the Prohibition and allow for people to drink all they like. http://www.cato.org... 2. Based on studies and testing marijuana(already listed some of the site above) is far less dangerous then cigarettes and alcohol and most other drugs. If alcohol and cigarettes are legal then marijuana should be as well. Since its the least dangerous to your health out of the three. 3.If the government were to legalize drugs it would allow for new and government regulated businesses. This would allow for more jobs and taxes the government can use for other things. It would also keep a lot of people from going to jail so, the government would not have to spend nearly as much money to keep all those prisoners feed and shelters. I wanted to save this for last I also go to school right now in in 11th grade, and I know how easy it is for people to obtain drugs. Legalizing drugs would not change how accessible marijuana is for teenagers and even preteens to obtain.