BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
when both mother and baby can be saved when mom's life is at risk... abortion should not be allowed

it's just not true that the child can't live without the mother. there are points from viability and after that the baby can survive without the mother. that's the whole meaning of 'viability'. i'm not sure why con continues debating after i pointed out what he missed in the debate. perhaps i could have made it more clear, but in any case, this debate is pretty much over. 'If the baby was at a point where it could survive, then the mother wouldn't have to worry about adverse health conditions relating to pregnancy would exist, because they would have appeared much earlier in the pregnancy' there are many cases where abortions happen after viability. these are called late term abortions. it's insulting to anyone who reads this's intelligence that i'd have to look that up and cite it. you say ectopic pregnancies involve 'healthy' babies. maybe if you play with the words. and semantics. i've shown that healthy means able to survive without the mother. that you even make that argument is ridiculous.
when both mother and baby can be saved when mom's life is at risk... abortion should not be allowed

If a mother's life can be saved because the fetus is draining her of too many nutrients, inducing labor or removing the fetus would also cause the fetus to die just as in abortion, so you have contradictory points there. If a mother can be saved by removing the baby from the womb (abortion) it is the mother's choice. Just because you are offended at the mother getting an abortion or you don't agree with her getting an abortion, doesn't mean you can outlaw it or that you are right. There is no way to safely remove a fetus when it is still growing and developing, because if there was, and trust me on this, no one would ever get an abortion again, unless they were raped. if the mother's life is threatened with something like and ectopic pregnancy, abortion is the only way for the mother to be saved. As long as the fetus is relying on the mother for nutrients to grow and develop for birth, the fetus cannot be removed safely from the protection of the mother's body without dying, so there is no way for this to happen. You also cannot tell people, at least from a socioeconomic standpoint, what they can and can't do (i.e. gay marriage, abortion, etc.), because it is against basic human rights. The fetus is not a child yet, abortion is not killing a child, because the child is self-reliant in respect to absorbing nutrients necessary for growth and development , while the fetus is not. As long as the fetus is reliant on the mother for absorbing the nutrients from food and removing the waste from the fetus' body, it is the mother's choice what to do with that fetus. If the mother's health is at risk, then the fetus' is automatically at risk too, because it relies on the mother for everything.
when both mother and baby can be saved when mom's life is at risk... abortion should not be allowed

if both mother and baby can be saved when mom's life is at risk... abortion should not be allowed in cases where mother's life is at risk, but the healthy baby can be safely removed instead of aborted... and thus both mother and child saaved, this should be required. abortion should not be an option. after six months or so, abortion in the US is restricted to only cases involving health of the mother. (to be sure, this includes much abuse for 'mental health' etc) if even a healthy baby MUST be aborted to save the mother, msot including me would agree it's the right thing to do. to be sure, however.... healthy babies are too often aborted in the name of saving the mother, when labor could be induced or teh baby somehow otherwise simply removed, instead of abortion the mother shouldn't have the option to abort a healthy baby when it can jsut be removed.
The San Antonio Spurs are the Most Successful Franchise in NBA History

The Spurs are not the best franchise ever if you are talking about all of nba history. While the Lakers have been bad for the past two years and I also hate the Lakers personally, they are the best franchise ever. I don't think the spurs had Jerry West, Kareem, Magic, and Kobe all in one franchise. And the team has won so many championships that I lost count how many they won. The Lakers are the best franchise ever.
The San Antonio Spurs are the Most Successful Franchise in NBA History

The San Antonio Spurs are the most successful franchise in NBA history for a number of reasons and I believe I can prove it with cold hard facts. I don't think anyone can make a strong enough case for any other team in the NBA, past and present. A strong front office and a dedicated coaching staff with dedicated players, past and present. No franchise in NBA history has accomplished more than the San Antonio Spurs have in their entire history.
The San Antonio Spurs are the Most Successful Franchise in NBA History

On NBA.com it lists the best teams in nba . The lakers have two teams on that list. The spurs have zero. You want to talk about winning? The still have the longest winning streak in nba history. If the spurs were better then the lakers they would have a longer winning streak then the lakers. While the lakers have had multiple dynasties, the spurs have only had one. You cannot face the facts more talent= more championships which the lakers have had more of and the spurs have less of. In conclusion the lakers are worlds better then the spurs in tradition, talent, and overall winning. The lakers are the best franchise ever.
The San Antonio Spurs are the Most Successful Franchise in NBA History

"Let's go over the championships you won, your first title was against AN 8 SEED your next two titles were against teams with average players and your last title was won because the only good player on the cavs was lebron." The Spurs' first championship was against an eighth seed? So what? That eighth seed beat the number one seed, Miami Heat who had Alonzo Mourning. It isn't as off the Knicks sat around and had their thumbs up their butts. They were a very good eighth seeded team. "The lakers have actually beaten good teams in the finals. They have beaten dr. j and the sixers, the detroit bad boys, Allen inverson sixers, the kg celtics, and of course, the Larry bird celtics." And I'm guessing when the Spurs beat the Pistons in the Finals in seven games, the Pistons weren't a good team? Talk about the bad boys. They were one of the toughest defenses in the league and definitely the most physical. And Lebron being the only good player on the Cavs team is wrong. They had David Wesley, Lebron James, Donyell Marshal, Larry Hughes, Eric Snow... a lot of good players and role players. And the Spurs are not only successful on the court, but in the front office as well. The Spurs have the best recruiting management in the league and have had the best for a long time. Picking up great foreign players from all over the world. The Lakers rely on throwing money at Super Stars to get them to play for them. The Lakers are the New York Yankees of the NBA, just throwing money at super stars and enticing them with a large city full of glitz. The Spurs have a very small market and still keep good, quality role players. Since 1989 the Spurs have always been a title contender. The Lakers haven't been a title contender since e early 2000's and only a few years at that. And before then haven't been title contenders since the 80's. The only time the Spurs haven't been contenders was in the late 80's. And let's not even talk about pre 1970's. Being a contender or champion in the 40's, 50's, and 60's didn't mean much when there were only 10-18 teams contending. The Spurs are the most successful team in the NBA.
The San Antonio Spurs are the Most Successful Franchise in NBA History

Why are you talking about the 02-03 season? Most of those players were in there final seasons? If your going to bash the Lakers on that season then I can bash you about last season when the spurs signed Tracy McGrady. Let's go over the championships you won, your first title was against AN 8 SEED your next two titles were against teams with average players and your last title was won because the only good player on the cavs was lebron. David Stern also did not like the lakers ether, because he blocked the Chris Paul trade FOR NO REASON AT ALL. The lakers have actually beaten good teams in the finals. They have beaten dr. j and the sixers, the detroit bad boys, Allen inverson sixers, the kg celtics, and of course, the Larry bird celtics. The Lakers are the most successful team in nba history.
The San Antonio Spurs are the Most Successful Franchise in NBA History

My opponent would like everyone to believe the Lakers are the most successful franchise of all time. Ignoring the fact that if it weren't for many major super stars playing for them throughout their history they would not have won the titles that they did. While the Spurs have had only a handful of superstars and have managed to win four championships and made the playoffs 34 out of 38 possible times since 1976. Since the 1989-1990 NBA season the Spurs have only missed the playoffs once. And since the 1997-1998 NBA season they have not missed the playoffs once, winning 4 championships and making it to the Western Conference Finals 9 times. All this by using one superstar (Tim Duncan) and a couple All Stars (Tony Parker and Many Ginobili). David Robinson helped win two of the first four before retiring. Any other team would have folded after their super star left. The Spurs continue to win even after they get old. Their players stick with the team and so does their coach. The only other team to keep the same coach longer than the Spurs is Utah and they never won a single Championship. The Lakers have won many Championships, yes, but using many super stars to accomplish this feat. The Spurs use a few super stars and dozens of role players. The Spurs have an NBA record 15 consecutive seasons winning 50 or more games, which includes the lockout shortened season which had only 66 games. The best the Lakers could do was 12 straight. The Spurs have made the playoffs 17 consecutive times, while the best the Lakers could do was 16 consecutive seasons. The Lakers have been successful with a huge fan base, while the Spurs have been very successful with a small fan base. Not to mention ex Commissioner David Stern made it his goal to hate the Spurs with every fiber in his bones. My opponent would like to have you believe that the more super stars a team has had the more successful they are. I guess that worked well in the 2002-2003 season with Karl Malone, Shaquille O'Neal, Gary Payton and Kobe Bryant. (Sarcasim) The Spurs have used very few super stars, while the Lakers have used dozens. No flashy egotistic players have kept the Spurs winning, while the Lakers have used many super stars; Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Earvin Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Shaquille O'Neal, James Worthy. The Spurs use role players for most of their playoff runs. So, it isn't difficult to argue that the San Antonio Spurs are the most successful team in the NBA, all time. WWW.wikipedia.org WWW.basketball-reference.com
Randomness is more likely even though standard logic leads us to fate/determinism. [Shared BOP]

I will begin my round with what my opponent ended his with. I quote, "What is there's a bi fat blubbery monster that you are inside right now? What if it exists as something we never have comprehended before by laws of physics, chemistry and biology and is undetectable by any of our five senses yet exists as a form of reality that we are yet to ever comprehend? Just a thought. "My opponent is spot-on here. It is just a thought, and nothing more without evidence. As is his entire theory of randomness. He says it makes sense that he can't prove the laws of phsyics have changed, or will change, because any evidence of the change would have changed as well. Despite this, I hope my opponent forgives me if I still don't believe in this theory, because there is no evidence. Take, for an example we've all probably heard, the invisible monster in the garage. A man tells his friend there is an invisible, silent monster in his garage. His friend suggests pouring flour on the ground so the monster's footprints would appear in it, as that would certainly prove it is real. But to this, the man says the monster passes through all material things, like a ghost. You can't see it, touch it, smell it, or hear it. So it stands to reason the man would not be able to prove it exists. But does the man's inability to prove an unprovable thing make that unprovable thing more iikely to actually exist, then? Of course not. It simply makes the man a fool for claiming this unprovable thing exists in the first place. Forgive me if I keep this round short, but there is nothing left to say. My opponent has not once offered any serious warrant to his theory nor has he refutted my own: If all factors of a phenomona are understood, then the result of that phenomona can be predicted.
Randomness is more likely even though standard logic leads us to fate/determinism. [Shared BOP]

Thank you for your response, Madman. May I just say, firstly, that I sincerely apologize if my calling your argumentation "cute" offended you in any way. In fact, it is the opposite. I love cute things. Kittens, penguins, your extreme skepticism to everything in the universe.Anyway, my opponent has offered two objections to my case (specifically my example of the brick):1) It may not fall at the rate I mentioned (9.81 m/s^2) due to a number of possible variables, inluding air resistence or the location of this brick (maybe it's on the moon, which has a much weaker graviational pull).2) It may not "fall", since the concepts of "falling" and "up" and "down" and "brick" are entirely subjective and maybe it's all just an illusision or something.Needless to say, if the brick did fall at a slower rate due to being on the moon, then that too would be entirely predictable as long as you knew the exact mass of the moon. I think my opponent got too caught up on the exact number I mentioned (which is understandable considering I probably repeated one too many times) and failed to see the point: the end result of you or I letting go of a brick is entirely predictable so long as you know all of the physical factors involved. There is nothing random about it.As for the second objection, I think my opponent has become far too intimite with semantics to properly indulge the example. Maybe "up" is "down", and "down" is "up". Maybe "bricks" can fly without "wings", because what is a "brick" and a "wing" outside of our subjective interpretations? Well, nothing at all. That's the point of words: to clearly communicate so others can understand you. "Down" is the direction toward the ground. "Bricks" are units of ceramic material used in construction. If you are talking about some object that can fly through the air at will, then you are not talking about a brick. A brick will fall when dropped.In the last round, I asked my opponent to prove his theory of randomness, to prove that the laws of physics can indeed randomly change. To this, he merely said my request was "obnoxious" and refused to provide any evidence. I quote, "However how can I prove this if it has changed? I cannot prove what it was before because al the evidence has randomly changed too!"Then, "In summary, only randomness can be truly accepted as a more likely theory." I do not see how my opponent can so happily go from "My theory is impossible to prove" to "My theory should be accepted as the most likely theory" without anything in between. Once again, unless my opponent provides us with sufficient evidence to believe in this theory of his, we shouldn't. And thus far, he hasn't.
Keynesian economics is valid

I am not sure if your really not understanding my arguments or your attempting to avoid key points while shoveling the blame off. Either way I will reiterate. (1) The 30's and 70's where not relevant to the reference. These recessions where not dark ages in which progress stopped and so I restate it that the last 2 centuries has seen nearly unhindered growth in the economy. (2) Stimulus is a Simulation of growth... Perhaps you don't understand what I am getting at. How does a Market economy get out of recession? - It grows. How does it grow? New industries, new markets... new resources to exploit. If Growth Stagnates, recession follows. Stimulus is a way of simulating growth via artificial market forces. (3) The age of growth is done... the market system is obsolete.... Done, ka-put... That's the point... That is why for all of the Huge of Resources government attempted to mobilize in the last 6 years... we are still in a Jobless recovery, still with the problems that created the crisis unresolved. (4) Resource consumption, not needed for growth? ... Because we can build houses, make food, build businesses and so on with numbers on paper. If all you care about is the number on a piece of paper than yes... GDP can grow with out consumption and what you will get is a bloated financial sector and an over priced stock market. This argument is utterly absurd and you tried to make argument by self referencing... that is irritating. (5) "Hey hey hey. I don't want another world war. But this kind of stimulus - massive spending in industry - can help."You missed the point.(6) Let me address "IV - Monetary policy" all at once. I assume this objection is the classical "fiat money will ruin us all. And those federal reserve b*st*rds too." It is much easier to argue with a straw man than the real mccoy.
Global Warming exists and mankind is responsible for it.

I'll agree that I don't know about conspiracy theories as much as you do. But you still haven't refuted the fact that humans do emit a lot of CO2 and that they can do something to lower it. "If the atmosphere wasn't warmed, the Earth would be too cold to live on, and we wouldn't be here. " We lived here through more than one Ice Age!!! The earth has never been this hot and lands will start to disappear very soon. "Your "14 year oldnesas" is showing my friend." Use personal attacks all you want. They work in debates like these, people listen to opinions that "sound good" even though are not backed up by evidence. So go ahead. But the inconvenient truth is that it won't make you right, and humans ARE causing Global Warming and we'll just need New York City to disappear for you Ron Paul junkies to realize we need to stop!
Global Warming exists and mankind is responsible for it.

Your "14 year oldnesas" is showing my friend. I do not need to prove anything, nor do I have anythign to prove. The whole point of a debate is that the people who watch (in our case read) get to decide who is right, it is up to you to disprove me and it is up to the readers who they want to believe. No back to the topic. Since you didn't add to anything, I will just simply continue. Of the two gases in the atmosphere that do most of the warming, carbon dioxide, as noted, is secondary. Water is responsible for roughly 80 percent to 85 percent of the absorption and re-radiation, and carbon dioxide is responsible for (most of) the balance of 15 percent to 20 percent. The radiation, by the way, isn't "trapped." It is coming and going: It's known as Radiative Exchange (governed by what is known as the Schuster-Schwartzchild or S-S Integral Equation of Radiative Transfer). But, next, when it comes to atmospheric heating, we need the heat anyway. If the atmosphere wasn't warmed, the Earth would be too cold to live on, and we wouldn't be here. What has the correlation between rising temperature and rising carbon dioxide got to do with anything? In fact, quite a lot. First, it is real. Second, if we reverse the drivers as suggested, we then see that it is most probably the rising temperature that is driving up the carbon dioxide, not the other way around. The quantity of carbon dioxide that water — in the sea or lakes or rivers and so on — can absorb will drop as the temperature rises. You can run the numbers using the Absorption Equilibrium Constant for carbon dioxide in water (this is standard physical chemistry). And if the water can't hold it, it goes into the atmosphere, and there you have a possible, or most probable, answer to most, or all, that is going on with the current rise in carbon dioxide. These numbers have been around for decades. In the last million years, the world has been subject to a temperature cycle with a 100,000-year period (the Arctic Ocean Model again), and we are currently in the final rise of the latest interglacial period.
Global Warming exists and mankind is responsible for it.

First of all, let me say that your arguments are based on theories that can't be proved. "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change nature's rate of carbon supply to the atmosphere (carried as carbon dioxide) and back out again is about 150 gigatons per year. About 60 gigatons per year come from and go back to vegetation, and 90 gigatons per year are from and to the sea."--------------------------------> Find me the evidence STRAIGHT FROM THE I.P.C.C. and not from some youtube video please. Second of all, even if what you claim is true, that nature produces more CO2 than mankind, that does not disprove the fact that mankind still emits several gigatons into the atmosphere and they can do something to reduce that amount.
Global Warming exists and mankind is responsible for it.

I am still waiting for science to find the truth about global warming but for the sake of debate, I will take you on. Man's addition to the carbon-dioxide flux in the atmosphere, by fossil-fuel combustion, is essentially irrelevant. Of the two main reasons, the first is that nature does a far bigger job in the carbon-dioxide supply rate, and the second is that carbon dioxide is secondary to water as a so-called greenhouse gas. So shouldn't we first try to control water? And behind that again is the alternative warming concept, most generally known as the Arctic Ocean Model, which is considered by many to be the real driver for the temperature oscillations and has been for the last million years or so. So, is the carbon dioxide driving the temperature, as so many people seem to believe? Or, is the temperature driving the carbon dioxide? If it's the latter, then what's the problem with carbondioxide emissions? According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change nature's rate of carbon supply to the atmosphere (carried as carbon dioxide) and back out again is about 150 gigatons per year. About 60 gigatons per year come from and go back to vegetation, and 90 gigatons per year are from and to the sea. And from man? That's about 5 or 6 or possibly 7 gigatons per year, which is about the size of the noise in the nature data and is essentially trivial by comparison.
Global Warming exists and mankind is responsible for it.

I hope there are takers, I've seen some members that do not believe in the global warming theory so I'd like to make it clear. 1)Global Warming exists. If you are not ok with that statement please say so. 2)Humans are the ones responsible for it. There is plenty of evidence that shows humans emit large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. There hasn't been so much greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sine 650,000 years ago. 3) Many find it natural that the earth will cool back down like it has before. However, the earth has never been so hot! Evidence shows many factors that are making it even hotter and nothing shows it will get colder