BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
looking at someone for more than 10 seconds should be considered rape

"lol ya i think that staring at someone for more than 10 seconds is weird, and direct i eye contact for so long is also annoying, like look up down somewhere else,"Simply because Pro believes -- and, mind you, this is merely his subjective opinion, and by no means fact -- that "staring" at someone for more than 10 seconds is weird or annoying, does not make it so, nor does it justifying banning it or deeming it "rape." "like look up down somewhere else, i cannot maintain eye contact for much more than a second."Simply because Pro doesn't feel that he can maintain eye contact for a certain amount of time does NOT mean that it should be illegal or deemed rape; in fact, even if this view were universal, this would not fulfill Pro's BOP."but i think that what i said whould be illeagal because its creapy, and makes people feel unconfortable and want to hide. some people are very shy, and think that when people are looking at them, they are judging them, why would you want to do that to a person?"We don't deem things illegal simply because one perosn believes that they are "creepy" or could make people uncomfortable, or some people may be shy. If this were the case, we could make a case for banning social networking sites because some people may be too shy to friend their crush. "starring at someone for AROUND 10 seconds should be illeagal," This is not what our resolution is about, and even if it were, Pro has provided no reasoning as to why this ought to be so. "or at least some sort of assult. and in my opinion eye contact is weird for even over 5 sceonds." To add context to this, he is stating that he believes staring at someone for around 10 seconds should be considered "assault." Let's define assault: "a violent physical or verbal attack" [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]. Pro has provided no analysis as to how looking -- notice that our resolution doesn't say starring; to "stare" means to " To look directly and fixedly, often with a wide-eyed gaze" [http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] -- at someone for even any amount of time should be deemed assault, or illegal. Again, stating his subjective opinion that eye contact is "weird" does not fulfill his BOP. We don't simply say that anything that one person deems weird is worthy of being illegal. " know you r going to copy and past what i am saying, and say: my opponent cannot change what she said, but there is no judge, no jury, and we are not lawyiars, so idc what you say the rules are, i am breaking them"We do have a judge and jury. Our judges and jury are our audience and the site moderator.I'm going to consider this a concession."and next time can you send me a smiley face, i love getting them! PLEASE!!!!!" Sure, :) Conclusion My arguments continue to be dropped, and Pro has not provided adequate reasoning or evidence to substantiate his points. As a result, he has not fulfilled his BOP.
looking at someone for more than 10 seconds should be considered rape

oh so what you are saying you like the D. okay i get it now. and so you wont compalin about proof here you go: "My opponent supports I, but wants to ban D. I don't want to ban D." lol ya i think that staring at someone for more than 10 seconds is weird, and direct i eye contact for so long is also annoying, like look up down somewhere else, i cannot maintain eye contact for much more than a second. you are very funny btw. and if i did something to offend you, its okay, i understand that you are threatened by me. and btw to who ever is reading this; whats up, hey, come debate with me any time. but i think that what i said whould be illeagal because its creapy, and makes people feel unconfortable and want to hide. some people are very shy, and think that when people are looking at them, they are judging them, why would you want to do that to a person? my wording may have been a little intence so ill fix it. starring at someone for AROUND 10 seconds should be illeagal, or at least some sort of assult. and in my opinion eye contact is weird for even over 5 sceonds. i know you r going to copy and past what i am saying, and say: my opponent cannot change what she said, but there is no judge, no jury, and we are not lawyiars, so idc what you say the rules are, i am breaking them :) and next time can you send me a smiley face, i love getting them! PLEASE!!!!!
looking at someone for more than 10 seconds should be considered rape

My opponent has failed thus far to uphold his BOP, and much of his argument is utterly irrelevant -- e.g., asking me what my favorite color is. In fact, I actually find much of his argument insulting, but I am glad to see that he is amused. I will now respond to the relevant aspects of his argument. It warrants mention that my opponent is dropping my contentions and rebuttals left and right. "think its great you are supporting the eye rapists of the world, defend what you wish, be your own person!"This is an insulting strawman. Of course I do not support rapists. I am merely contesting the resolution that "looking at someone for more than 10 seconds" is rape, or that eye contact should be illegal. "which is basically what you are against, indirect conversation. which, incase you didnt get,"This is another strawman. Never once did I say that I am AGAINST indirect conversation. Let me put this differently since I have a lot of space.Indirect conversation = I Direct conversation = DMy opponent supports I, but wants to ban D. I don't want to ban D. Therefore, my opponent is defending I and his opposition to D, whereas my support is for both I and D. I don't need to oppose one to support the other. My opponent's burden of proof is in providing that D should be banned. "mwnt by technology was cell phones, computers, ipods, ipads, laptops, and all sorts of other things which have internet, which, sence you obviously didnt know, you can talk to people on them." I'll cross-reference my last argument. I do NOT oppose indirect communication. This is not my end of this resolution. I simply don't want to BAN direct conversation. ConclusionMy opponent has not thus far fulfilled his burden of proof. He needs to explain to us WHY we should ban eye contact after 10 seconds or, per his later remark, ban eye contact. If he cannot explain that to us, he cannot win this debate.
looking at someone for more than 10 seconds should be considered rape

really? you make me laugh, but anyways how are you, because you sound very stressed. btw, you have great typing skills! whats your favorite color? mine is blue! tell me, why do you like debating? because incase you didnt know you are not making a difference so chill out. i think its great you are supporting the eye rapists of the world, defend what you wish, be your own person! way to go. i am on this cite becaus i am bored, wbu? i dont like debating seriously, because its boring when beating everybody, because realy i am the best there is, but you keep trying, okay? good luck. oh and btw there is no judge so you can just refer to me as you, he seems so indirect, which is basically what you are against, indirect conversation. which, incase you didnt get, i mwnt by technology was cell phones, computers, ipods, ipads, laptops, and all sorts of other things which have internet, which, sence you obviously didnt know, you can talk to people on them. well now its your turn to talk, so i give you my permission to respond.
looking at someone for more than 10 seconds should be considered rape

So are you saying people with autism are lying, nervouse, or unsure of theirselves, because many people with autism will not look into someone's eyes. you have obviously not done your research about countries where it is considered rape to look somone in the eye. with our technology now days, it is possible to talk to someone when you are not face to face. you could also cover your eyes with a cloth when speaking to someone, if you do wish to talk face to face. also, you shouldnt take everything so littereally, about 10 seconds is what i ment. sorry about my slight miss wording. thank you for your opinion, but i just plain dont care what you think. the facts are what i am talking about, and with technology today, what i am saying is very realistic. also, try not to write so much, i am tired, and wish not to read so much, seriously, it is very annoying.
I should never lose debates as I am always right!

To my opponent, your logic can easily be shown to be wrong. Its simple really 92.4 % of the public are wrong. I mean as I am right then clearly they are wrong. http://www.addictinginfo.org...; />May I add that my sources are always are valid as I cant be wrong. This can further be demonstrated in Genesis the missing verse :Genesis 1 and a half: And between the sixth day and seventh day god made the most correct person Iamanatheist.This knowledge is shown in multiple other religious texts such as the Koran.Surah 20.2 and a quarter: We have also not sent down Iamanatheist for you to be distressed by his incredible knowledge.Final note for all voters, as you know I am always right. This means if you do not vote for me then I will make you develop contagious skin boils all over your body. Lest I have to remind you I am always right. While some would consider this a threat, its clearly the truth so can it really be a threat? You can consider it akin to paying taxes its just something you have to do.Additionally, as I am never wrong and have said its not a threat, then it cannot be.In closing, I am shocked to my core that my opponent did not concede, clearly this is the first time for my opponent to basked in my glory of correctness.I forgive my opponent and wish you well in your future debates against your equals.Oh, here is another picture of me.
I should never lose debates as I am always right!

My opponent has asserted that I am never wrong. Clearly this is my opponents first mistake as I am never wrong.This is proved by the following quotations."Iamanatheist has never been wrong" -Albert Einstein"Iamanatheist is so right that it is scary to think that he could ever be wrong, anyone that says that must be delusional and have mother issues." - Sigmund Freud"My son is always right" - Iamanatheist's mother"I am always right" - Iamanatheist"If he is wrong the world will end in a quantum cataclysm that is due to the consciousness of an atomic quark." - Deepak Chopra http://static.tumblr.com...; />Additionally, it should be noted that anyone that disagrees with me is automatically wrong as I would never entertain the idea that I could be wrong, as clearly they are wrong to begin with. This is proved by my opponent when they said "you are not always right ok". How is this even possible when even Einstein the smartest man to live besides me agrees that I am always right.My opponent will surely concede in the final round to prove my dominance.Now I the most correct person ever to live hand the debate back to my opponent.Sources:The whole InternetEvery book ever written. Yes the Odyssey was part of my life story, but do not tell anyone its a secret.
I should never lose debates as I am always right!

Hi fellow DDO members.This debate is not to be taken seriously, and is meant to poke fun at the extremely serious people on DDO. So in other words do not accept this debate if you accept a serious debate.My proposition is that I am never wrong and that anyone that votes against me is wrong. After all, I am the best debater on DDO regardless of my ELO rating or win/loss record or snarky personality.First round is for acceptance.Please note that anyone can vote on this debate, provided in their comments they say that I am the most awesome debater.
Late Term Abortion Is Justified

To answer my opponents first question; I mean in an objective sense, as you called it. If everyone did what was most beneficial to themselves as a whole of time, I think we would be better off. And to comment on your scenario of shooting people in the streets; that would almost certainly never be in self-interest. As I implied before, it's a system that best operates with the intelligence to know what your self-interest even is. And if you are incapable of doing so to a defining extent, like many are, than an extension of a moral code is indeed necessary. Such as a rule to not shoot a bunch of people in the streets. Now, some reasons for late-term abortion besides my philosophical views: In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows: 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant 6% Woman didn't know timing is important 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy 11% Other Relating to the parasite comments; whether my wording was off is of trivial importance since my presented intention still holds. The way our species has acted in taking advantage of the resources available to us, including many life-forms, has been the root cause of our great success. Also, I would like you to clear something up, like I said in the comments. Do you agree that nothing irrational should be considered moral? That morality is rationality? Since the title of the debate is "Late Term Abortion is Justifiable" it should be known what exactly is meant by justice, presumably something ensuring morality. If putting other people's feeling, which we cannot personally feel, before our own is truly moral it should be able to be backed up with logic.
Late Term Abortion Is Justified

FREEDO argues that an act is moral if it is in the perpetrator's best interest. I ask him: does he mean self interest in an objective sense or in a subjective sense? In other words, is self interest defined by the facts of the matter (50 years later you look back and see that yes, it *did* turn out better than if a different action had been chosen) or by one's inclination (the actor "looks within themselves" and decides that what they wish to do is most likely in their best interest). In the first sense, morality ceases to have any meaning, since it cannot tell us how we should act until years later, when the power of choice is gone from us. In the second sense, any action is permissible so long as the actor thinks it is in their best interest. In such a case I could walk down the street shooting every individual I see between the eyes, and if that made me happier than not doing so, no one would have a legitimate reason to tell me what I have done is wrong. Because in that case I *honestly* think I am acting in my interest. Such a morality I cannot accept. Remember, morality is concerned with the *best* way to live. I challenge you to explain how a world in which people can commit mass murder if they feel they are justified in doing so is at all desirable, let alone better than other options. That said, I would like to remind my opponent that he has yet to offer any support for the practice of late term abortion except that labor seems painful. However, the methods used in late term abortions are basically different forms of induced labor.{1}{2} Almost the exact same procedure would take place, except without the drugs used to kill the fetus. Its no added hardship. You cannot be drugged during such procedures as they need you to "push". However, you can get an epidermal so that you feel no pain. "I fail to see how you can blame the crisis on the free-market when we are not in a free-market." Unless there is a regulation on the books requiring bankers to make lots of high risk loans without protecting themselves then you sure as hell can't blame regulation for their actions in this case :P "It seems to me, that by this definition, humans are parasites. We take complete advantage of many other life forms. And guess what, I really like humans. I think it is a good thing that we have acted so much like parasites, it is how we have become so successful as a species. I think if we would embrace that side of us even more we would in fact grow even more in our success." Unless you believe the earth itself is an organism we do not fit this definition. It clearly states " An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism". While we do *consume* other organisms, we do not live off or inside a single one. By your application of the term all life is parasitic and the word ceases to have any meaning. The intent is clearly to refer to a certain class of living organisms. Unless my opponent can clear up these grave errors in his moral system (as well as his assumptions about abortion procedures) he has failed completely to make his case. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://women.webmd.com...
Late Term Abortion Is Justified

While I will provionally accept FREEDO's presentation of Egoism, I would like to remind him that any moral system that wishes to avoid being inconsistent must be universilizable. It must apply equally to all individuals. In other words, the mother, in this case, cannot posses the right to certain actions that no other individuals do, nor can she possess the right to violate the rights of others. My argument is that the mother, while she does have the right to pursuit her own happiness, does not have the right to commit murder. Wait! you say. Abortion isn't murder! And why not? Because the fetus is living off the mother. However, once the fetus is viable, that is no longer the case. She can induce labor, give birth, and go on her merry way. If she was, rather than 7 months pregnant, the mother of a 2 day old infant, would she be justified in killing it because she was tired of taking care of it? I think not. If you allow her that right then your moral system ceases to be universilizable, and ceases to be a moral system at all. And what is the difference between a newborn infant and a viable fetus? One is outside the mother and one is not. That is all. Since induced labor is no more invasive than an abortion, to argue that removing the fetus causes undue stress is disengenuous. It is no more stressful than having an abortion. As to your arguments- "1. It works as a system. A free-market functions upon this principle. Businesses supply the consumer demand for their own personal gain. In caring for themselves they contribute more to the rest of society." Clearly it doesn't work perfectly, as bankers completely FAILED to act in their interest, precipitating the current financial crisis. "2. I can feel my own satisfaction but not yours. So why should I pursue yours? Only if it benefits me somehow, which is likely to happen in a civil society. Egoism, strangely, does end up aligning with Utilitarianism most of time." Only if its universalizable. I assume from this you agree that no one can violate the rights of others in the pursuit of happiness but just neglected to say so? Otherwise Egoism resembles psychopathy more than utilitarianism :P "3. It coincides with evolution. Now, evolution itself is a whole other debate but if you do accept it, I think Egoism plays a fundamental part in evolutionary advancement. Organisms need to care for themselves before all other things to survive, which is their primary function" Read the Selfish Gene. Great book. However, just because something is found in nature doesn't mean it is desirable. For example, nature is rife with parasites. That in no way justifies parasitism of one individual on another. "4. Happiness is the only universal value. The pursuit of happiness thus becomes, in a sense, like an objective morality. Happiness is better than non-happiness and this is self-evident to you. Thus, to pursue it is rational." How can happiness be an objective morality if it is experienced purely subjectively? Furthermore, none of that has anything to do with late term abortion.
Late Term Abortion Is Justified

First off let me say that, though I'm grateful for me having been chosen, I am probably not the best person to debate it with because I don't use the same rational as most other people with my same view on this issue as me. Whether the fetus is viable, whether it is human, and whether it's the mother's property is of no concern to me. I, being an Egoist, think it is just of the mother to simply act in her self-interest. So it seems this debate will be of a different matter than my opponent suspected, more so of a debate concerning Egoism. What is meant by doing the moral thing? In my perspective, morality IS rationality. If something is irrational, it is immoral. There isn't anything to concretely confirm this, it is simply a choice. I hope my opponent will except the same definition. So why would, as I believe, consistantly acting in one's own self-interest be a rational thing to do? 1. It works as a system. A free-market functions upon this principle. Businesses supply the consumer demand for their own personal gain. In caring for themselves they contribute more to the rest of society. 2. I can feel my own satisfaction but not yours. So why should I pursue yours? Only if it benefits me somehow, which is likely to happen in a civil society. Egoism, strangely, does end up aligning with Utilitarianism most of time. 3. It coincides with evolution. Now, evolution itself is a whole other debate but if you do accept it, I think Egoism plays a fundamental part in evolutionary advancement. Organisms need to care for themselves before all other things to survive, which is their primary function. 4. Happiness is the only universal value. The pursuit of happiness thus becomes, in a sense, like an objective morality. Happiness is better than non-happiness and this is self-evident to you. Thus, to pursue it is rational. I look forward to my opponents response.
Late Term Abortion Is Justified

From his profile I see that FREEDO supports late term abortion. I do not think it is justified, except in extreme cases involving the mother's health, and would like to debate him on this topic. If its all right with him, for the purposes of this debate, I define "late term abortion" as any abortion occurring during the third trimester of pregnancy. Most arguments for abortion turn on the parasitic dependence of the fetus on the mother. However, by the 27th week, almost all fetuses are viable, and this issue ceases to be a factor. If the fetus is no longer wholly dependent on the mother (and the mother alone) the justification for abortion fails. I eagerly await the acceptance of this challenge :)
There is no such thing as a mercy killing

I did in part define mercy killing, but as this is my second time posting this debate I did so quickly. My definition: Killing someone with some kind of disability or illness, typically without permission of the patient. I would argue that for someone to kill someone in this case- even an incurable and painful disease- it requires them to hold the belief that the victim's life is less worth living do to the circumstances of the victim, which is hate not true empathy, and can only be motivated by hate.
There is no such thing as a mercy killing

First of all, my opponent did not define his/her terms, leaving me to define them. Mercy killing: the killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease, typically by the administration of large doses of painkilling drugs. Hate crime: a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. Simply put, mercy killing is motivated not by hateful motives but those of empathy. To say that mercy killing is murder is not only disrespectful to the being that committed euthanasia but to the "victim". As mercy killing is done out of pure empathy and with consent, to say that it is a hate crime is invalid.