BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is Murder

In this debate, I am taking the stance of the Pro. I think that abortion should be classified as murder and should be illegal. For the first round, simply post your stance on this issue. For the second round, we'll state the facts for our arguments. For the third round, we will counter each other. Finally, in the fourth round, we will finish countering along with providing closing statements. Please plan to be on, as my previous debate on this topic was forfeited. Thank you and I look forward to our debate.
Abortion is Murder

In this round, the Con and I will counter each other's arguments. The Con stated that abortion is not murder, proceeding this statement by saying that abortions occurring on or after 21 weeks make up a low percentage of the total amount of abortions. The con then stated that the zygote that forms has "No organs, heartbeat, eyes, umbilical cord, etc.". The con is wrong in both his timeline and his reasoning here. The heart begins beating from the third to the fifth week. By the end of the third week, organs such as the liver, kidneys, and intestines begin to take shape, and by week 8, the eyes have formed. However, as I said before, it does not matter! People are able to live without a heartbeat on life support. People without a liver, kidneys, and/or intestines are also able to survive with professional help. And, quite obviously, you don't need eyes to live. My opponent then asked "Why should something without a heartbeat come before the safety of someone who is already living?" My response to this question is simple: whether or not a heartbeat exists does not define life. In fact, a man lived for over a year with no heart intact. The Con then stated, "Regardless, late-term abortions are illegal for obvious reasons, but considering the tiny percentage they cover, such a point is useless. " The point is absolutely not useless! Life matters. Just because it is a relatively small amount(still about 10,000 per year) does not make it OK. And, still, It is my contention that all abortions are equal to murder. The Con also stated that "A zygote is not a human". The definition of Human Being is "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens". The zygote, regardless of its development, is always a member of the species Homo sapiens. No other definition would be able to apply to all born humans that could not also apply to an unborn baby. I agree with the Con that the majority of people in the Pro-life movement are religious. However, this argument is invalid, as over 75% of the US population claims to be religious. The idea that these numbers should not also translate into the numbers of advocates for the Pro-life movement has absolutely no basis. Sources: https://www.babycenter.com... https://www.cbsnews.com... http://4.bp.blogspot.com... http://www.pewforum.org... With that I close my first countering period and hope to hear from the Con soon.
Abortion is Murder

My apologies to the Pro for a late-ish response, I will now begin my argument supporting facts and resources. I will address my issues again in three points, as this is the format we have been using. 1. Abortion is not murder. In fact, abortions occurring after 20 weeks are uncommon. According to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from 2012, a mere 1.3 percent of abortions took place at or after 21 weeks pregnant. Following the same study, 65.8 percent of abortions took place during the first eight weeks of pregnancy. At this point in time, the cells have yet to form into a fetus. According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, zygote is defined as "a cell formed by the union of two gametes." At this point of the pregnancy, the zygote is merely a bundle of cells, not yet developed into any sort of creature. No organs, heartbeat, eyes, umbilical cord, etc. Why should something without a heartbeat come before the safety of someone who is already living? Regardless, late-term abortions are illegal for obvious reasons, but considering the tiny percentage they cover, such a point is useless. 2. As I stated in the previous point, a zygote is not a human. Or even a fetus, at this point. I feel as though that answers itself. 3. To assume the entire Pro-Life movement is religious is, obviously, false, and I apologize to the Pro if it seemed as though I meant such. However, 62% of Republicans believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. Of that 62%, only 23% are unaffiliated with religion. That being said, yes, it is largely a religious movement. Sources: http://www.merckmanuals.com... http://reason.com... http://www.pewresearch.org... http://www.pewforum.org... With that I close my argument and hope to hear from the Pro soon.
Abortion is Murder

I will also break my argument into three points as well, these points being: 1. Abortion is murder. 2. A woman does have the right to decide what she does with her body, but the baby inside the womb is not her body. 3. The Pro-Life movement is not strictly religious and easily can be assumed solely through a scientific viewpoint. First off, abortion is murder. From the moment conception occurs, the zygote formed is a living, growing human being with full human genetic code. Most pro-choicers concede that the unborn children are actually human beings, but will deny that they are people deserving of human rights. They will proceed to list many different physical and/or mental characteristics that they claim "proves" that the human child in the womb does not deserve human rights. Some popular arguments among these are "it doesn't have a heartbeat", "it isn't sentient", and "it must be viable". While these arguments may look like intelligent facts at first, a closer look will reveal that they are nothing but propaganda. Living human beings without these requirements exist outside of the womb. People whose heart stopped can be put on life support and still live, people in comas wake up many times, and people on life support that would not be able to live without it can recover. No set time period can be placed on a child that would not also apply to a living being. Thus, if we would not kill a human being outside of the womb without these conditions, it is absolutely unacceptable to murder an unborn baby because of those reasons without it undeniably being called murder. Second, a baby is not part of the mother's body. Sure, the mother can choose what she does with her own body, but she does not have the right to choose what happens to the other life growing inside her. That is another life. It doesn't matter that it is inside her; as long as it is a living human being, she does not have the right to kill it. Finally, the Pro-life movement is not solely based on religion. While many people will join the Pro-life movement for religious reasons, there is a myriad of nonreligious people, such as athiests, that join the movement purely from scientific reasons. In fact, many Pro-life groups and organizations have been formed and founded by nonreligious people. Whether abortion is murder or not is not a religious argument, but a scientific and informed one. With this final statement, I submit my initial arguments and l hope to hear from the Con soon.
Abortion is Murder

I will be accepting the Con stance, and I will break up my argument into three main points. 1. Abortion is not murder 2. A woman has the right to decide what she does with her body. 3. The "Pro-Life" movement is strictly religious, and as stated in the Constitution, church and state are meant to be separated, thus, abortion is not a matter of the United States Government. With this I close my opening statement and hope to hear back soon from the Pro.
Death Penalty

~~The death penalty is not the only punishment. There is life in prison. It is not worth the risk of taking even one innocent life in order to put to death those that commit capital offenses.~~ first off: i would like to know the chance somebody dies from death penalty that was wrongly convicted? and the website please. Why should somebody who has killed another person be able to live in a place were they are taken care of. They get free food. a place to sleep and a place to play. they can even get paid. ~~If someone is wrongly convicted and sent to life in prison, they have the chance of parole and appeal. Death, however, has no parole. You can't bring someone that was wrongly sentenced to the death penalty back to life.~~ When somebdoy is sentenced to death. they don't die the very next day. there is time from when they are sentenced to it and to the actually death date. so there is time of appeal and or for officals to find evidence. When i said "The main reason for the jury is to have different views on a case. This way it can not be just one persons biased answer. The jury is carefully picked out of a group of people. They are background checked and everything." you siad ~~The does nothing to refute my argument. These twelve people, not matter how different they are, still hold life and death in their hands. I don't know about you, but to me the idea that twelve can decide how lives and dies seems pretty disturbing.~~ It does everything to refrute your point. it does matter how different they are so it is not biased. if it wasn't for them then it would only be one person who decides. now that seems desturbing. These people help bring justice to this crazy world we live in. When i said. "THE DEATH PEANLATY GIVES PEOPLE JUSTICE. IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME. DON'T DO THE CRIME!" You said ~~This statement is contradictory in the fact that the death penalty isn't doing time. It's DYING. Not spending life in prison as I have suggested.~~ Ok please actuall use that brain because i know you are smart. everybody knows when it is said IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME. DON'T DO THE CRIME! time just means whatever your punishment is. not actually time unless that is your punishment. please know what you are talking about before you post.
Death Penalty

"If somebody I loved was hurt or killed by another person they I would want justice for this action." The death penalty is not the only punishment. There is life in prison. It is not worth the risk of taking even one innocent life in order to put to death those that commit capital offenses. "If somebody was wrongly convicted they are given chances of parole to fix this." If someone is wrongly convicted and sent to life in prison, they have the chance of parole and appeal. Death, however, has no parole. You can't bring someone that was wrongly sentenced to the death penalty back to life. "The main reason for the jury is to have different views on a case. This way it can not be just one persons biased answer. The jury is carefully picked out of a group of people. They are background checked and everything." The does nothing to refute my argument. These twelve people, not matter how different they are, still hold life and death in their hands. I don't know about you, but to me the idea that twelve can decide how lives and dies seems pretty disturbing. "THE DEATH PEANLATY GIVES PEOPLE JUSTICE. IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME. DON'T DO THE CRIME!" This statement is contradictory in the fact that the death penalty isn't doing time. It's DYING. Not spending life in prison as I have suggested.
Death Penalty

First I would like to say that I see your side of of the argument and respect that. ~~Second, the death penalty becomes intolerable the very moment that someone is wrongly convicted. Death is, if anything, permanent. If someone is wrongly convicted and sent to life in prison its horrible, but if someone is wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, then an innocent person is MURDERED. How can this be moral?~~ You have only talked about what if they are wrongly convicted. But what if they are not wrongly convicted? What do you call justice? If somebody I loved was hurt or killed by another person they I would want justice for this action. If somebody was wrongly convicted they are given chances of parole to fix this. ~~First, the death penalty implies that a jury of twelve people is qualified to take life into their own hands. Does this mean that mob execution should also be made legal?~~ The main reason for the jury is to have different views on a case. This way it can not be just one persons biased answer. The jury is carefully picked out of a group of people. They are background checked and everything. THE DEATH PEANLATY GIVES PEOPLE JUSTICE. IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME. DON'T DO THE CRIME!
Death Penalty

Ahhh, the death penalty. The government taking someone's life because they took someone else's life. What obvious hypocrisy. I disagree with the death penalty because it is immoral. First, the death penalty implies that a jury of twelve people is qualified to take life into their own hands. Does this mean that mob execution should also be made legal? Second, the death penalty becomes intolerable the very moment that someone is wrongly convicted. Death is, if anything, permanent. If someone is wrongly convicted and sent to life in prison its horrible, but if someone is wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, then an innocent person is MURDERED. How can this be moral?
god knowingly and willfully hates children according to the bible

The God of the bible cannot knowingly and willfully hate children, because God does not exist. My opponent helps my argument by also claiming the God of the Bible is in "text only" and doesn't exist. Hate, as far as we know, is an emotion in only some living creatures. If God does not exist, He obviously cannot hate. Much of my opponent's argument is scattered, and doesn't even pertain to the motion, so I will not go further than this.NOTE: To clear one thing up, it is not my job to prove God exists. That is not the motion. In fact, my argument is that because God does not exist, He cannot knowingly and willfully hate in the way the motion describes.
god knowingly and willfully hates children according to the bible

My opponent has the burden of proof, and they have made very few, if any, arguments towards the motion. This seems to be a space for my opponent to try to offend Christians and debate about whether God exists. As I said before, God not existing means that He cannot knowingly and willfully hate children, but if we assume God does exist, the way my opponent interprets the Bible is extremely unfair. Sometimes less is more, and given that my opponent failed to overcome the burden of proof, I will simply leave you with a quote from 2 Timothy 1:2: "To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord."
god knowingly and willfully hates children according to the bible

Oh please. We both know that the god of the bible does not exists. Therefore you should have not accepted this debate. It is the mere belief in this god that causes pain - as the bible horrifically points out, suffering - especially unto children as the bible horrifically points out, terrorism - as the horrific bible clearly points out, etc etc etc. And it gives permission for man to do so. After all this christ, in which nobody can even prove has ever existed, is the most fought after character in all of human history. And god well "more people have died in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin. And he's absolutely 100% correct. Yep its all B.S. in believing in this crap that the printed totally hate and evil that the printed god represents. How can anyone when this so-called god hates children and does unspeakable horrors unto them as proved with countless verse after verse + thousands of verses after verses unto man? This printed so-called god shows that there is no belief in peace, harmony, love, care, kindness etc. Because if true, then it would have already been achieved and kept it FROM THE BEGINNING rather than all this hate and evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy in which this printed god claims in the printed bible except for hate even though those baggage emotions ARE HATE. Jealousy? What? From a supposed supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. And then this supposed god neatly dumped all of those emotions down to man so in turn man could learn to hate. Way to go from the unproved god. Way to go for those that believe in this unproved god with at least 1 billion dead all his supposed "good" name on the battlefields alone. Exodus 34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"
Im healthier each day if I run in wild park 5 times than if I walk in town for an hour

Hi, yeah but. I believe that even though walking exercises 200 or so muscles and affects the joints less. One only lives one life. And even if one wants to reach perfection in a life, one knows one cannot leave the other people who are weaker behind. What am I trying to say? I enjoy the quick fresh air in the face when running that cannot always be felt when walking. I enjoy the strides I make and the comments I get from i.e. for example a man and woman in their car saying 'that was quick was that 5 minutes in that last lap, see if you can do it again'. I enjoy being reminded of the past in the stadium with the man who taught me to run who was our tenant at our old house, all the other people who carelessly ruined their joints -ha, ha, oh well (but enjoyed healthy lives). Another thing about running is it created more endorphins for them, if all of us just walked. We'd need to have a scrap occasionally or an argument to get our endorphin rush. Ha, Ha. Maybe a little ridiculous, there maybe something else to suggest here. I would like to know, if possible. You cannot avoid the difficult problems that affect you in life. I find exercise keeps me away from to eating too much aswell. And I agree one other way to keep fit, is to use other hobbies - such as swimming (keeps the joints more happy) and sauning. To detox and sweat. Today I start a new job so I believe I will be busy converting some useful energy into 6 hours slaving in the new job I give. It is a very practical job. But I will sort of enjoy it hopefully. Thank you for posting this comment you gave and I await your reply.
Im healthier each day if I run in wild park 5 times than if I walk in town for an hour

I go regularly recently to run in Wild Park in my vicinity. I find this benefits me as the fresh air definitely considerably gives me a sense of being alive and well. I find town is less good as I need to dodge and duck and dive everywhere. And I feel this can be less effective in my exercising my body. However I do feel the exercise involved with seeing other people can be a combined effect which creates goodwill. It also helps me get away from the hustleand bustle. Running in town would be pretty hectic. I also feel that if towns were less polluted I might consider it being a valid option. However the fresh air of Wild park when jogging or running offers my lungs a better effect to my lung capacity increasing with time and the cleansed effect of my lungs rejunvenating. I can only say sometimes all naturalness in town escapes me and I do not have a good feeling of grace and oneness when in town with the all man-made stuff around me. I do however sometimes visit the see in parts of town. What do you think?
Quebec Should Form it's Own Sovreign Nation

Again, I am sorry. I didn't use the civil war comments as that was already discussed by my professor. Vote con by all means. I was merely a desperate student, as surely some can relate to being screwed over at the last minute on some project or another and having to rush. I didn't mean any offence or insult. I am sorry if I did and I assume I broke conduct on this site. You may be consoled to know that I did cite this website and your own remarks in my debate.
Quebec Should Form it's Own Sovreign Nation

Sigh...whatever My opponent says in the comments section that he intended to use this round to plagiarize my arguments and use them in a school project. Independent reason to vote con. He then promised me a good debate to make up for it - oh well. He could have at least tried to answer my somewhat preposterous Civil War argument. Extend my case. Language is not a good reason to secede. Secession would impede trade and business by requiring the use of passports when crossing into Quebec. Quebec would be worse off if paying independently for their social services, since citizens of Quebec are poorer than those in Canada proper. Lastly, unilateral secession from Canada could lead to civil war.
Quebec Should Form it's Own Sovreign Nation

Quebec is often reffered to as "A Nation within a Nation" and rightly so. The vast differences between Quebequois Culture and the rest of Canada is quite frankly staggering. According to stats Canada Statistics (2001) francophones make up approx 80% of the population with only approx. 11% making up the anglophones and approx. 9% speaking another dialect as their first language. Of all the French speaking citizens in Canada, 85% live within Quebec. This language barrier has isolated Quebec from its English speaking counterparts since the days of Wolfe and Montcalm, and even since then its own mother-country France. The people of Quebec have been isolated and undervalued and underestimated for centuries, by the English, the americans and the French and Canada. Alone within a smothering English community, Quebec is justified in its want to seperate. I eagerly await my opponents own introduction.
The Confederate States of America was a Legitimate State

1. There were enough Pro-Secession politicians to allow the South to Secede. And all of these politicians were elected by the people of the Southern States, meaning that enough Southerners were in favor of secession for it to happen. Most Southerners were in favor of slavery, and the forming of a new Southern nation which protected slavery was probably very popular in the South. Therefore, it was legitimate to the people who lived in the CSA (Confederate States of America). 2. The Union did not take action against secession. Sure, there was the Civil War. But the Civil War was not caused directly by secession. It started as a result of the Battle of Fort Sumter from April 12"14, 1861. http://en.wikipedia.org... The CSA was formed on February 4, 1861. http://en.wikipedia.org... This means the Confederate existed for slightly over 2 months before the Civil War began, and it likely would've continued to exist had the South not fired on Fort Sumter. That means that in a way, the North did not consider secession itself reason enough for war; the attack on a Union military base was. By this logic, the North unwittingly acknowledged the South's right to secede. 3. If secession is illegitimate because a nation is breaking away from another nation without the consent of the larger nation, then America's independence from Great Britain is also illegitimate, and we should all be speaking in British accents while only residing on the Eastern part of the United States. The difference here is that the North won. 4. The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." http://www.britannica.com... Seceession was not mentioned in the Constitution (as far as I know, anyway). Therefore, the right to secede was delegated to the states by the Tenth Amendment. The South's secession was indeed legitimate! 5. Human Rights Abuses does not make a state illegitimate. Nazi Germany, as horrid as it was, was a legitimate state. As was the Japanese Empire (also guilty of horrid human rights abuses). As is the United States, which has invaded various Middle Eastern governments and brought instability to the region. So, even though the South seceded because it liked slavery, this did not make it an illegitimate state. Also, there were at that time countless other nations where slavery was legal and a part of everyday life. Heck, the United Arab Emirates did not outlaw slavery until 1963! http://en.wikipedia.org... I look forward to my opponent stating his case to why the South did not have a right to secede.