BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is illogical to choose birth as the milestone for attaining rights.

Okay, his case than my case. His case: He says that birth is when one becomes a human, so that's when we must attain rights. This is oversimplifying a major issue. It leaves many questions like "Why do only humans get rights?" and "What makes a newborn infant different mentally to most mammals and birds?" One argument against this is my case, so I'll save that, but I'll give some other arguments. Alright, first, this statement limits rights to humans. It says that there is some magic quality about humans that only gives them rights. I defined rights as "privileges guaranteed to all persons" I realize now I neglected to define persons. A person is a being that is self-aware, and of at least basic intelligence. I feel this is a superior definition, as defining person simply as a human limits rights to only us. This is bad, as on the off-chance there is intelligent life forms out there that contact us, they wouldn't have rights. Also, the average gorilla has an IQ in the 70s or 80s; smarter than some mentally impaired humans. Chimpanzees and bonobos are even more intelligent than gorillas. Bottlenose dolphins are also considered very intelligent, there is evidence that they have a language that they use to communicate complex commands. All these beings are not worthy of rights under this definition. These beings are smarter than some humans, and certainly more intelligent than infants. Obivously then, humans cannot be the only persons, and they cannot be the only ones worthy of rights. Also, under my definition, most infants aren't even persons, they aren't self-aware. If you want I can provide scientific evidence showing this. Obviously then, birth cannot be the right place to give rights, as they aren't even persons yet. My Case: Alright, I will argue that the best time to give rights is at conception. I know, they certainly aren't persons then, but at conception there is a 67% that they will survive long enough to be considered humans if their growth is not inhibited by us (through an abortion or fetal abuse). This means they have as philosopher Don Marquis puts it, a "future like ours." This means as he put it "The future of a standard foetus includes a set of experiences, projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult human beings and are identical with the futures of young children." These beings have rights, so it is only logical to give rights to beings that will become those beings, as causing them to not become that future person denies that future person of its rights. I guess technically the fetus does not have rights, but it is treated as if it does, as the individual it will most likely become does have rights.
It is illogical to choose birth as the milestone for attaining rights.

I would like to begin this hopefully fascinating debate by thanking my opponent for developing the topic "It is illogical to choose birth as a milestone for attaining rights." At the consent of my opponent, I would like to further define birth as the birth of a human being so we have absolutely no confusion in this debate. To me, it is the resolution that is illogical. For everything in this world, there is a beginning and an end. And by everything I mean physical objects that we, as the human race, knew and/or know exists/existed, specifically the life of a human (I ask we keep religious ideas out of this debate, please). Why is it so illogical to assume that the term "born" should not be political, in a sense that a birthed human being obtains rights at the very instant he or she is brought forth into the world? There has to be a point at which that human was conceived, yes, but not until the fetus is born should it be officially deemed a free human being, living and operating on his or her own senses and organs, not to mention instincts as well. My point is to prove that there must be an exact moment, for the sake of political reason, in which the fetus is brought into the world, thus becoming a human, being bestowed with all the rights and privileges granted to him or her in the United States of America. I await my opponent's response.
It is illogical to choose birth as the milestone for attaining rights.

My opponent begins with a truly startling statement to me. "Okay, first, just because the Second Continental Congress holds that all men are created equal does not mean they're right. " So when I interrupt this statement, I see the following in the mind of opponent: the Constitution and Declaration of Independence MUST be useless mumbo-jumbo written down hundreds of years ago that was wrong. So then, from what we can obviously interrupt from what my opponents states, is that we actually DO NOT have ANY rights because the Founding Fathers of the United States of America were wrong with what they wrote. This is simply not true. ALL MEN are created, in a sense that if you are black, you are no less or greater than a white. If you are asian, you are no less or greater than a hispanic. If you are mentally challenged, you are no less or greater than the person with the highest IQ. We are all created equal because each one of us are entitled to Life, entitled to Liberty, and entitled to the Pursuit of Happiness on this Earth. Not one person should be denied these basic rights. But today the debate is about what constitutes when a human receives rights. I feel strongly that a fetus is what a human will be if born. This means that a fetus is not a human in a sense that a fetus would receive rights over the mother. Any human, who is born into this world, has the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness over that of a fetus. You can feel that a fetus is a human, I respect your opinion. However we must look at the resolution and decide when it is logical for a person to attain rights. It is truly logical to say that a fetus attains rights at the moment of birth, when they are born into the world and can live making their own decisions, think with their own conscience, and not be influenced by other forces. My view of this is that a human being will always have rights over a fetus, and I ask that you bear with me and see where I am coming from.
Should We Keep The Electoral College

Once again, why are you saying that third party candidates are bad. And Bernie being a serious candidate is a whole new debate, also, correct me if I am wrong, are you saying that it is good that the EC makes it harder for third party candidates. What I said is it is bad that we have a 2 party system and we do not give other parties a chance. States like California are unimportant because they are safe states. Only swing states matter in elections, for example, New Hampshire is important because it is a swing state and every point matters, but that does not mean all small states are important, do you think states like Wyoming or South Dakota receive 1 visit from either candidate, no. And as I said before, if we had the popular vote, then candidate will have to care about every state, because they know they can still get some votes out of that state. You did say Virginia was a small state, if i may quote you, "New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado," all small states, have a larger effect on voting outcomes than other states, but that is not important. Just wanted to tell you what you said. Winner take all is unfair for states. As I said, all a candidate needs is half + 1 and he gets all the electoral points, they do this in 48 states, and that is unfair. It should be a popular vote because if a candidate only gets 49% of the votes in that state, he still gets a lot of votes, and as you all have seen in elections, winning just over half in some important states have one them the election. If we do the popular vote, then the candidates won't care about swing states, they will care about voters, how it should be. People all across this nation should win candidates the election, not only the people in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. This is not a debate about who would have ran this country better, a monkey, or Al Gore, this is a debate about the electoral college. I am sorry I lead it that way but lets end it please. Though just read this and think about it, don;t respond because I don;t want to start a new debate, but think about it. http://www.alternet.org... I will like to make my final statement, the electoral college does not make it a battle over what the people like, but who the people in important states like. Candidates all ready assume who they are going to win and who they are not going to win, for example, democrats would all ready assume they are going to win California, Washington, Oregon, DC, and new England, so they cross that out of their campaign visits, and they all ready know they are not going to win Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, so they cross that out, they only care about the swing states, If we us the popular vote, they will care about every body. For example, California, safe state for democrats in the electoral college, in the popular vote, California gets republicans 4 million votes. And Texas, safe state for Republicans in the electoral college, 3 million votes for the democrats in the popular vote. Thank you 16kadams for this debate, I will like to see your response.
Should We Keep The Electoral College

First of all, your argument that 3rd part candidates can arise with popular vote, lets take the 2000 election, if we used the popular vote, than Al Gore would win, like he should have, but with the electoral college, Ralph Nader was going to be able to get to 1 state like Florida, take some of the votes from Al Gore, and have Bush win it. If you are saying that you do not think that is fair that someone with only 30% of the vote can win the election and 3rd party candidates will take advantage of that, one, out of all of them, most of them still chose that candidate, and two, what is so wrong about having 3rd party candidates? Canada has 10th our population and they have 5 parties, and Israel has 10 parties and only 8 million people. Also, with the two party system, it has made it IMPOSSIBLE for people third party candidates to get elected president. In fact, Bernie Sanders, an independent in the house for 16 years, and an independent senator for 8 years, he had to run as a democrat just to be electable. I know this does not have anything to do with the electoral college, but I just had to point out the weakness in your statement. The reason they have been visiting places like New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada is because they are swing states. As for Vermont, I do not know, maybe they are trying to turn it around, but New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada are swing states. Also, later you said, Colorado, Virginia, and New Mexico, first of all, Colorado has 8 electoral votes, and Virginia has 13, so they are not small, and second, as I said before, they are swing states. Even though some are small states, swing states can matter, like New Hampshire in 2000, just 4 electoral votes, and if Al Gore won it, he could have one the election. Yes. recounts are a pain, and they do cost a lot, but what is more important, getting the right president, or saving money on recounts. We would not know what president the people really wanted, and if you look at Bush, he the electoral college, and look what he did to this country, much more damage than a couple million dollars. I would also like to add this, it is unfair that just a couple hundred votes would mean that they would get 100% of the votes. And, if we have the popular vote, then candidates won't ignore the rest of the states, they will not only focus on the swing states, they will focus on all states, for example, though they will never win the majority in Texas, guess what, in 2012, Obama still got 3 million votes, and for republicans, though they will never win a majority in California, in 2012, Romney almost got 5 million votes, so they will not ignore any state, because they will know they can still get a lot of votes.
Hunting for topics

Did you even read what I wrote in Round 1? You broke the pretty much only rule of this debate, and didn't even offer a topic or position in your Round 1. By rules of the debate, you have already forfeited. However, as to not waste a perfectly good 4 rounds of debate, I'd like to see what an obnoxious lad like yourself has to offer. In your next Round, please present a topic, your position on it and your arguments. If we happen to disagree, we'll debate.
Two is equivalent to one.

That would work amazingly..... except for one small flaw. Who can remember back to grade school and tell me what the teacher said about dividing my 0? Oh... you can't. -.- Therefor lets look at your logic line by line. a = b (sure) a^2 = ab (aight) subtract b^2 from both sides a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2 (thats fine....) use difference of squares (a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b) (swell....) divide both sides by (a-b) oh wait..... we already defined a=b so what is this going to result in? (a-b) = 0? You can't divide by 0 therefor this step can never be done. So as an answer to your argument..... Under the laws of mathematics 2 does not equal 1. In conclusion your equation has a domain of all real numbers providing that a does not equal b.
Two is equivalent to one.

Let a = b. Then a^2 = ab. Subtract b^2 from both sides. Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2. Use difference of squares. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide both sides by (a-b). Then a+b=b. Now let a=1, then b=1. Substitute a=1 and b=1 into a+b=b. Thus 2=1.
John Brown was crazy.

Even accepting the premises that violence can be justified be a good cause, John Browns actions were so extreme as to go beyond being justifiable.In the Pottowatomie Massacre, John Brown led his followers in literally hacking to pieces five men who presumably- not definitely, but presumably- were for slavery. This is not even to say that they had slaves, just that they were for slavery. In other words, John Brown hacked to pieces five people because they had different opinions than him. And yes, their opinions were wrong, and horrible, but that doesn't make John Brown's actions right. The raid at Harper's Ferry is somewhat more justifiable. However, in it, he killed seven INNOCENT people, including a free black. And John Brown's actions did nothing to actually help the cause of ending slavery. Sure, he was a martyr to abolitionists, but they were ALREADY against slavery. And such extreme actions most likely turned people who were moderately against slavery away from abolitionism, and gave Southerners something beyond "they want to take our property" to hold against abolitionists. Harriet Beecher Stowe, another abolitionist of the time period, did much more to help end slavery by writing ncle Tom's Cabin, which helped turn thousands of people against slavery and even ensured the North won the civil war by turning the British and French people against slavery. So John Brown, who used violence, actually hurt his cause more than he helped it, while others who used peaceful methods actually helped their cause. It's the same thing as modern eco-terrorists. Yes, hurting the environment and animals is bad, but that doesn't give people the right to burn Hummers and threaten or kill the heads of big corporations. Or even if you believe that abortion is wrong, blowing up abortion clinics is not justified.
John Brown was crazy.

I'm not sure why it is you believe that John Brown was not justified in his actions, but I'm going to go ahead and say why violence can be a justified course of action particularly in the case of slavery. Brown's actions were motivated by a belief that slavery was immoral. If simply vocalizing that belief at the time was not causing any sort of social change, an individual ought to be justified in actualizing on his beliefs by acting in some way that would motivate people to deal with slavery. Brown's actions certainly did that. Brown's violence was in many ways a reaction to the events at the time. Supposedly, the reason Brown went out to Kansas was because he had heard from his son that pro-slavery supporters were becoming violent and he was motivated to both protect his family and fight for the anti-slavery cause. While Brown did make some offensive attacks, it was in response to a group of people who were corrupting the political system in the territory in order to overthrow popular sovereignty and secure another slave state. Violence was already taking place in Kansas. There does not seem to be a compelling reason why Brown ought to have not gotten involved considering his position. Brown is perhaps most known for his attack on Harper's Ferry. The purpose of the attack was to arm slaves from the region so that they could take down slavery. Why is assisting a slave rebellion an unjustified action? We praise the leaders of slave revolts that were lead by slaves or even free blacks at the time. Why is the use of violent revolt unjustified when it is lead by a white man? Last, it's kind of important to look at the reason why Brown has commonly been portrayed as a crazy killer. Any pro-slavery supporters from the time were extremely threatened by Brown because they feared that abolitionists would continue to act violently against slave-owners and this would threaten their way of life. The northerners in the government certainly knew that the south felt threatened and if they had any hope of keeping the union together they needed to publicly denounce such actions. Just because abolitionists did not support Brown for political reasons does not mean that his actions were not in fact justified.
John Brown was crazy.

You said that "anyone who supports slavery as an ideology is worthy of blame for the harms it causes." Do you really agree that everyone who supported slavery deserved to be chopped into pieces? Just because something is morally wrong does not mean that evryone who agrees with it should be killed. Remember, during John Brown's time, almost half the country believed in slavery, and many more people were on the fence about it. I am absolutely not saying that slavery is or ever has been okay. But should all those people have been killed? And if not, what makes the people that John Brown killed any dofferent? Killing people for their beliefs is wrong. Yes, slavery is wrong. But murder is wrong too. Although its a cliche, two wrongs do not make a right. And it's not so much that peaceful methods are always the only effective methods, but that any positive effects John Brown's methods may have had do not justify his actions. My argment is not that, as you put it, "violence shouldn't be so violent." What I am saying is that commiting such extreme violence against people who might have different views than you is wrong. Just because slavery is wrong doesn't mean that all the people who agreed with slavery deserved to be killed.
John Brown was crazy.

So, you seem to have two basic arguments: A) violence shouldn't be so violent and B) Peaceful methods are the only effective methods. I'll address both of these. First your violence point. I'm curious what level of violence you would believe is justified (because it seems as though if he just painlessly killed 5 slave-owners you would have been ok with it?) In the case of the Pottowatomie Massacre, Brown killed 5 men who at least we know he believed were pro-slavery supporters. You take issue with the possibility that they did not own slaves, using that as a reason not to consider them as worthy of punishment, but I'm not sure how you would consider these people innocent. If these people were active pro-slavery supporters, even if they themselves did not own slaves, they are still perpetuating an immoral system. I think there needs to be some reason (and you have not given one) for a moral distinction between people who act on their morals in different, yet equally harmful ways to be judged differently. Holding someone at fault who does not own slaves sends a very clear signal that anyone who supports slavery as an ideology is worthy of blame for the harms it causes. To understand the effectiveness of this sort of tactic, look to the Nat Turner revolt. Even though Turner's master was kind to him, he still killed him. This sent a very clear message that anyone who perpetuates slavery, even if they treat their slaves with respect, is still committing a moral wrong. As for Harper's Ferry, it's not as if most of these people were entirely innocent. Of the people injured or killed, most were townspeople who fired on Brown and his men. Even if someone innocent did happen to get killed in all of this, the deaths of innocents is something that is a necessary evil of the use of violence, and if you agree that a slave revolt is a justifiable use of violent force, then its just a harm that accrues. As for the second idea, that peaceful methods are the only ones that are effective, I'm not sure that I really agree with that. I would argue that a mixture of peaceful and violent methods is often necessary for change. Take for example the civil rights movement that took place later in history. While Martain Luther King Jr. did a lot to help the movement, groups that advocated taking any means necessary including violence such as the Black Power movement were necessary to show white supremacists that they would fight back if harmed. Violence scares people and people who are scared are forced to react. When pro-slavery advocates were already striking out violently against abolitionists (look to the murder of Lovejoy) a certain amount of action is certainly justified in response. Sure he didn't change the minds of southern slave owners, but a book was not going to do that either. What he did do, and what a book couldn't do, is violently confront people to let them know that abolitionists would force them to change if they did not change themselves.