BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parental license should take effect

Sorry for my absence . Had schedule problems. Child abuse laws are intended against child abuse period. Either from strangers or from their parents. It was just to point out that parenthood is and should be limited. But advocacy groups are usually getting contacted by parents that want and wiling to go over the information of being a supportive parent. Parental license as I quoted "The parents would be pushed to research the topic and study in order to get a license". I agree that supporting children is the bigger problem rather than giving birth. That is why we need to focus on raising rather than bringing more mouths to feed. As you said the biggest child abuse is neglect which makes more sense if the average birth rate is high. Because the more children there are the harder it's to be there for everyone. Law can fight child abuse, and just because it can't ensure that every child will not go through child abuse, doesn't mean It can't still decrease the chances of children getting through child abuse. Many poverty problems or children and illiteracy is being affected greatly by the adults in the environment and parents are a major role in what will be the environment. Parent's from of a low economy give more birth in comparison to parents from higher economy: http://upload.wikimedia.org... http://upload.wikimedia.org...
Parental license should take effect

First of all, Child abuse laws (https://en.wikipedia.org...) are not intended for parents. Based on the wikipedia link about it, we observe that most predominant form of child abuse is neglect. If you observe the reasons for neglect of a child, they are fundamental ones. Unable to secure proper food, clothing, shelter i.e. the basic necessities for child is a problem of poverty/illiteracy and not the lack of parental care per se (http://www.ascd.org...). Secondly, if the argument is to have a parental license to fight against child abuse, it is not a workable solution in that the law cannot ensure that child abuse won't take place or will get reduced. Child abuse prevention laws are by themselves necessary and sufficient to prevent it. So the argument that, parental license should be a law so as to prevent child abuse is not a valid one in my opinion. In your own words, parental license would be about requiring prospective parents to study the process of child development and be able to understand and willingly accept conformance with the practices raising a child well and good. I agree. But then, you are talking about education as a means of solving the problem. It is true that educating prospective parents about what they are going to face is certainly the most effective way of solving the problem. Education must be directed towards making well-off parents understand and really appreciate about parenthood. For poorer parents, it must provide a means of earning their livelihood and thus indirectly making sure that the actual root cause of child abuse - poverty and illiteracy - are eradicated. In his book, "What the dog saw and other adventures", Malcolm Gladwell presented an interesting point of increasing death rates of woman in US due to breast cancer. Summarily, he also presents a study of a tribe where young woman get pregnant more than 3-5 times in their adult life and have longer menstrual ages and how such process, directly or indirectly, acted in some way to prevent the breast cancer or maintain good-health. I am neither saying that frequent child-births is way to healthiness for woman nor am I advocating for it. I am just trying to point out that child-births is not a problem - raising them is. Ideal world or otherwise, the real way of averting diabolic problems like child abuse is education and not law. The law by itself is impotent unless we choose to follow it.
Parental license should take effect

We already have laws about child abuse that affect what is right and wrong about parenting.https://en.wikipedia.org...So parenthood is not as free as you might think (for good reason).The fact that giving birth to offspring is a natural way that humans were able to continue their species.However this mechanism can't be productive today as it was back than.The reason for that is : Humans already have enough in their population and have a greater economy system. thus we have less birth rate because we can allow it.Parental license will merely just push parents to work to study in order to understand children before unintentionally abusing them (neglect, physical, emotional). Educated and stable women usually have less birth rate than poorer women.http://youtu.be...Parental license will limit for more educated women to be able to give birth to offspring. Most of the unhealthy births can come out of having extreme broken genes, or abuse during pregnancy either from the mother or the environment.Through history unhealthy babies would be dead and many times with the mother at birth.That's why it was naturally productive, you have less mouths to feed. and only the fit survived.That was also the natural and dark process when you think about it.Thank god we don't live in those times anymore.If parental license will be checked before or in the early stages of pregnancy.The parents would be pushed to research the topic and study in order to get the license and be able to give birth to better offspring. In a perfect world people will be able and willing to give resourceful offspring without being pushed towards such a goal.However we don't live in such a world, and just because a parent want to take care of a child doesn't mean he can or should.
Parental license should take effect

Installing a law or a rule in the system to ensure that child abuse does not take place may well act as a short-term fix but is bound to cause further problems or side-affects. Let's focus a little on the crux of the problem. Our civilization, for the lack of a better word, operated mostly under law. Law is a binding on our behavior. For instance, consider the act of murder. As far as I know, the act of killing is universally considered as an offence is punished. The real question is: Do we hesitate from killing anyone because there is a law that punishes those who do? or Do we hesitate from killing anyone because it is a "wrong" thing to do? I agree that, in certain cases, the definition of right and wrong might differ. But it is not true in case of parental care. The most important biological functionality of any living being is reproduction. To ensure that its species or generation continues in good health and take all the necessary and sufficient care for the same. Reproduction and parental care are in fact, the characteristics of living things. Being the most advance of all living organisms, humans have the most well-developed mechanism in-place to protect their offspring and in my opinion, this act of "sacrifice of comforts" and care-taking is primarily responsible for the emotional connection of a parent with child. This is a natural process. So, instituting a law for the purpose of ensuring proper conducts of parents is not a solution to the problem of raising healthy and resourceful children. The solution is to build awareness about parenting and help inculcate proper child-care in parents. Parents should not care because they would have to; they should care because they would want to. We should not be creating law for fundamental characteristics of living things.
Parental license should take effect

Children by most societies. are being prioritized when it comes to protection. when children are being brought to day cares parents want to know the reputation of the place. when you adopt a child you are being checked if you are qualified in having the child. And when a child is being abused most people in the right mind will have the great urge to help the child. Biological parents when bringing offspring affect the child during the pregnancy phase, thus can be abused and be disordered in one away or another. either by taking drugs or smoking or drinking... etc'. Usually when trying to find suitable people for certain activities or jobs like: driving, gun and business ownership... etc' you need to have a license for that. If we were to make a parental license how many children could grow up to become productive adults?
abortion

First off I would like to say that, even though we have differing views, I must admit that you argued in a very admiral way and brought up some great points. I would like to start off with where you said babies don't have brains. The fact is that brains, spinal cords, heart, and other organs start development at the third week after conception. This is compared to the 23 week period allowed for legal abortions. The Spino-thelamatic pathway, the feature which allows pain is developed as early as week 20. Scientists and doctors have reported seeing infants retract and flinch at the touch of sharp objects during pre-birth surgeries. If not the aspect that the baby has a brain should support my case then the fact that the baby can feel pain should. This then leads me to my next point that involves when you justified abortion because of the baby not having personhood and not being developed. If this were the case, then why is killing infants under three years of age illegal. Infants that young after all haven't developed logic or full use of their brains yet. Or how about handicapped people. Many special needs people are the same way. If this is the logic behind abortion, then why is killing them illegal. If anything, killing the unborn can be considered worse because of the potential behind the infant and the lack thereof with a special needs individual. I am in no way saying either is more right or wrong but just making the case that both are inherently wrong. My next argument involves your comment on making masturbation illegal. The difference there is that masturbation happens before the conception of a child. (Looking at it religiously, both are very wrong but I am looking to keep this strictly non-religious based). I would now like to end this debate by saying that just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. This may be an extreme example but Hitler ' extermination of the Jews was legal. Just because it was legal didn't make it right. Or how about the legality of slavery in the 1800's and prior. Slavery was definately wrong but in every way legal back then. What I am saying is that just because the majority says it or someone in power says it, doesn't make it right.
abortion

The problem with this is it's being justified when it's an obviously wrong thing. You can ask almost anybody if murdering a random person on the side of the road is right or wrong. That person has done nothing wrong. Just a random person minding their own business. That can be compared to the innocent child. Never done anything wrong, yet not able to ever experience the joys of life because someone may feel they're not ready to take care of that child. People keep trying to justify an obviously evil thing. What abortion is is murder. Nothing less. People can argue all they want about bettering the mother or the baby, but what it comes down to is that abortion is the murdering an unborn fetus. I would like to also point out a fallacy that you stated. You pointed out that most abortions are for rape victims. This is not the case at all. I would like to inform you that as little as 1% of abortions are rape related. The number is even less than that (> 5%) because included in that is incest victims as well. The top three reasons for having abortions would be can't afford the baby (21% of abortions), unready for responsibility (21%), and the mother is concerned with how the baby will change her life. It's a fact that most abortions are because the mother does not want the baby. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... You also argued quite a bit about how the well being of the mother is rarely taken into consent. I would like to inform you also of that fact that after having an abortion, many times mothers become depressed and face relationship problems. In some cases PTSD has been reported along with elevated alcohol and drug abuse. The event of having an abortion almost always puts more of an emotional burden on the mother than they would have had if the baby was born.
abortion

Freedom seemed to be a focus point during your argument. That's exactly what is not being given to the baby. America is, yes, one of the few places in the world with freedom. But it needs to be for everyone or no one. Your comparison between abortion and taking a family member off of life support are two very different instances. In one instance, you have a child child that could "possibly" grow up with disease or having to deal with the fact that only one or no parent is there. In the other, you have someone who's the equivalent of a vegetable that has no chance of ever being more than that. You weigh your options between keeping someone unconsciously alive that has no hope or taking them off life support. What I really want to emphasize is the word "possibly". It is never determined for sure that any of the things you have said may happen. Becoming a criminal, hating life because of feeling neglected due to lack of parents, or being disease ridden are all possibilities but the chances of those things happening are minute. You seem to be using rape pregnancy as a sort of building ground for your whole argument. I don't blame you saying as this is the strongest aspect of any abortion debate. I do want to ask how you would defend the case of a "teenage pregnancy, bust in the condom" sort of scenario. A teenager who unintentionally becomes impregnated and gets an abortion because she's "not ready." I'm curious as to how would defend this type of scenario as opposed to the stereotypical rape victim argument.
abortion

Sure, the baby is not given no such choice in the matter, you're right, BUT IT CANNOT MAKE THAT CHOICE EITHER. See how that counter logic works? Also, you mentioned the baby growing up having no parents, being disabled with god knows what is better than living? That's an opinion, but I'm sure if you talk to just about anyone with a deadly disease, anyone like a quad, or someone who can't function, they will will tell you that they rather be dead than to go through what they do. I know this cause I've spoken to many online, and they are miserable, and the way they express themselves also shows that they are without even needing to say a single word. So to me, it would seem the majority would rather be non existent. Sure you might see some on the news media on TV saying how they are glad to be alive and progressing, but that's on TV. You brought up the governments and stuff and are restricting this abortion debate to USA laws, and that's alright, I will argue this to. That's a double edged sword. Last I checked, I'm in the USA, last I checked, we got something most other countries don't and you know what that is? It's a single word, I'm sure you might know by now, it's called "freedom". The freedom to do such things and face consciences. Why should we take a step back as a country? What's next? Are we going to stone them? An abortion can somewhat be compared to lets say a family member dying on life support and suffering terribly. You know they are going to die or pull through perhaps, but they can't make the decision themselves to end the life support themselves. The expenses are rising, the decision is up to you to decide. So using what you know, you must look at things from the outside. Can they live? Will they be the same as before? Would they want to live with not being the same? Oh but so many questions. With an abortion, there is several factors as I've listed that could potentially be wrong with the baby. Formalities, diseases, life with no parents, or one parent and so much more, a life maybe full of crime bringing horrors onto others, would the baby themselves want to live like that? Even thugs often regret being the way that they are and wished they could have changed and rather be dead. The ultimate decision is up to the parent to decide. It seems the parent is the 2nd least likely taken into accountant when deciding to be abortion. It's always pro life, or pro choice and arguments from both sides, the parent is left out in the dark with no consideration about their well being AT ALL, more so than the baby in fact which is sad. Yeah, the parent has the choice to make sure, but no one is concerned for them.
abortion

I'll start back with the rape case. Why should the one person least involved be punished. It's still a human being that is given no such choice in the matter or life or death. The three inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property here are not being protected as promised by the us government. Existence is always more favored than non-existence. A baby who let's say does have a disease upon birth or has to face the burden of growing up without a mother or father is always better off than a person never even given a chance in the first place. As for the financial situations that may cause one to get an abortion, adoptive services are always available for these types of reasons. There is always an alternative than killing the baby.
abortion

In the wise words of George Carlin. "Why is it that people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't even want to fawk in the first place?" Well, regardless if the fetus is a human at any rate, abortion should be considered, and be choice. This really doesn't need much explaining if one is t to use their head a little. Example, the issue on raped victims and abortion in this case is an easy knock out victory. Why should a female who's been raped at lets say age 15, or age 16 (any age) rather have to carry the burden of having a unwanted baby from a total stranger. A baby that will grow up not having a father, a baby that could potentially have natural born diseases and health problems, especially considering most of these attackers DO HAVE diseases which often is the case? Why should a baby be born to suffer a life time before death? To feel such emotion, to live with that knowing every holiday that goes by, a father figure won't be there for him. I find it injustice more so on the female who's been raped if she weren't allowed an abortion. It's a fact that most young pregnancies in general are a negative for several reasons, one being the mother usually can't support the baby with funds, again, a big negative, therefore having to put the baby up for adoption. So in rape cases, it's almost safe to say, the baby would be A: Born with disabilities B: Have no parents and be put in an adoption center C: Having a struggling mother who won't be able to set out and accomplish her goals and be held back by limitations. Now, take that into consideration, everyone wants to protect the baby, all but wait, he will be born with no parents, and with disabilities assuming, and also after born, no one then at that point gives a damn, especially once he becomes an adult. Also did I mention most of these children end up being on the wrong side of the law? Most end up doing crimes. Now, as for the occasional mothers who willingly want babies, and decide to abort, or mothers who have unprotected sex, and get preggo, and need to abortion, then well, that's a different matter, but again, it's a choice, and needs to stay that way, even if it's stupid. This is just going to be the central point of my argument. I will list off more once replied back to.
abortion

Abortion involves a mother taking the life of an unborn, defenseless child. Many argue that rape pregnancies pose a situation in which abortion can and/ or should be considered. What I don't understand is why the person least involved in the matter at all (the baby) is being punished most severely. That makes no sense. Another common argument is that the unborn fetus is not yet living at the time of abortion. Abortions can be done up to 24 weeks into the pregnancy. A baby's heart starts beating 18 days into conception. How is it that a beating heart is not a sign of life.
The societal wisdom of Socialism is undeniable.

To be honest, I think you've made my argument for me. I can point to the gilded age, to the squalor of the factories, the burned bodies in Bangladesh, the suicides in China, and no matter what I say, you'll just endorse the people responsible. You've said greed is good, Jesus is bad, equality is immoral, and that the rich can do whatever they want with the poor. Really I don't have to say anything else. You've come across as a caricature, like the Monopoly Man came to life in front of everyone. You've just proved me right, very vividly. Further, you've also done a fantastic deed for me. You've effectively announced that one cannot be a Capitalist and a Christian, and I hope some of the billions of Christians will pay attention to that.
Without Normative Behavior, There can be no Tolerance

A dog bites me. It is a bad dog. I tolerate it regardless and pet it and calm it down and teach it not to bite people. This tolerance exists regardless of normative behaviour, As you've qualified normative behavior as "an expansive moral evaluation of human behaviors", Dogs aren't human and you have no condition that the behaviour needs to be human to qualify as bad so as long as it doesn't come from normative reasoning (in this case an inbuilt physiological response to pain) I can label a dog's actions bad from sources other than normative behaviour.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

I'm confused by the format of your questions. Next time can you write an understandable paragraph like you do in english class instead of all the extra stuff? I will try. I believe any person that passes a background check should be allowed to own a gun. If guns are banned, There is no way to protect against a tyrannical government and self-defense. Guns should be legal because they save many more lives than take them, And gun bans have proven not effective in reducing murder rates.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Alright, I could hit hard with the data, The brutal arguments and all of that but I'll decide if I unleash my true power in Round 2 since there's a full 5 rounds here. I will play along with the angle of this debate and see if I can genuinely open Pro's mind. Pro tell me what your utopia is:1) A society where nearly no one needs a gun. 2) A society where everyone has a gun because they need them. Tell me why.
Please ignor this debate.

I accept.I will be debating why I should not ignore this debate. First of all, lets set some boudaries-- here are definitions that will pertain to this debate.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.Ignore: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pro is taking the side of this arguement, that of their opinion I should not acknowledge this discussion, which I have already negated by accepting.I have negated Pro's opening arguement, and I look forward to see how they can respond.
I will not debate

Again, your entire opening consists mainly of frills. If you want to talk about my costume role playing, we can easily discuss it in person, or through a blog that is related to it. DDO is meant for debates, which you have sent to me IN A POST. A post is just a term to describe your online statement. I would also like to point out that our posts will be judged at the end - another componet to debates! Hmm, more frills! Also, the first sentence in the second paragraph indicates you're on a particular side of an argument. When you defend your side to an opponent, a debate is taking place. A debate will still exist despite someone being uninterested in it. So, you're in a debate not by choice...sorry! Your last paragraph is unnecessary to mention; they're all independent points. When th