BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

I do not consider abortion, in any regard, murder so long as it is done by a medical professional. My reason being is that life is not guaranteed until after birth; the baby, for the entirety of the nine months of fetal development, is entirely dependent on the mother for survival. If the mother were to die during the pregnancy, there is a likely chance the child will in consequence. Think of the instances where the pregnancy is killing the murder; is it murder then? Or how about an adolescent rape victim terminating the pregnancy; is it murder then? Some people argue the use of "adoption clinics" in place of abortion clinics, by which will only bring an increase to child suicide rates through this concept; people will adopt for only the money and nothing more. I know what it's like to live in a house where you are not loved and are only there for the money; it's not the quality of life that will raise productive members of society. Do not be fooled by the concept of adoption! Imagine the psychological downfalls of the adopted children, especially in the case where they are not loved by their adoptees. Why would you want to put a child through that kind of life? A life of infinite torment, abuse, and more than likely neglect? I understand that some people want to impose their religious views on this topic, which is acceptable for your family values by all means. However, if you are somebody who also supports life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as well; is it not hypocritical for you to want to ban abortion? In the concept of life, it can be argued that the fetus is alive at conception. Again, life for the baby is not guaranteed until after birth; so, realistically it is nothing more buy a physiological parasite up until birth. However, if you force people to give birth to children they do not want, you are forcing those people (especially the child and those economically unstable) to live a lesser quality of life and, thus, unable to pursue what makes them happy. You are especially robbing them of the ability to birth a child they are well prepared for, when they are too obstructed in taking care of the child they were forced to have. I also argue that the right to chose is a liberty. I am perfectly fine with people deciding to not abort for whatever reason, but by what means are you privileged enough to decide for the mothers and fathers that are not prepared to birth a child? People have the right to decide for themselves, I do not find it at all American to try to impose your own views to obstruct the freedom of others; which is exactly what Anti-Abortion movements intend to do!
Abortion

I can justify the woman's execution by the same me reasoning you would justify her killing her baby. It was done humanely. It's an argument pro death people can use to justify capital punishment. There is a purpose for your argument but it is not going to convince anyone who opposes abortion in a broader sense I wouldn't equate a human fetus, an unborn baby in many people's minds and beliefs to the lowest form of animal and plant Look I agree with you on the broader topic of abortion rights. I just don't think you used very good arguments in some places. Just curious. Did you have a bad experience with adoptions. Don't have to answer of course but you seemed to make a strong point of that.
Abortion

Greetings again, let's get to buisness. The first instance either comes from a third world country or some place with severe human rights issues. Regardless, I agree with Con with the statement that a woman shouldn't be put to death or even be punished at all for aborting a child. However, making abortion against the law would punish the rape victims by forcing them to suffer a full nine months of labor with a child she doesn't want or cannot have, and punish the child by putting them through a neglected life due to being unwanted and abused by the adoption industry. The second instance deviates the topic of this debate; this is of human abortion, not animal rights. A fetus is, again, a parasite - it is not intelligent nor is it capable of being even remotely as valuable as a developed human being. In fact, terminated fetuses can be of great use to the living; especially in stem cell research! The third instance, again assumes that abortion is murder. It is murder when a mother kills a born baby, but not when she aborts an unborn child. A fetus is not guaranteed life until after birth, it is fully dependent on the mother for survival (hence I state it is a parasite). With your logic, you also mean that the mother has murdered her child if she naturally aborts or, in some cases, suffers some form of TRAUMA to the point where the fetus dies. By what means does your argument even sound remotely logical? Why should people with sensitive emotions be able to decide what another person does to benefit her life, or prevent a major hazard?
Abortion

Pro makes three arguments for justifying abortion and denying it to be murder. 1. It is done by medical professionals. Lets say a teenage rape victim has aborted the baby that resulted. Now the abortion wasn't done by medical professionals and wasn't as humanely as those Pro supports. The woman will die for her crime. When asked to justify it we just say-- the needle is far more humane than what used to be done and the execution will be carried out by a professional staff. Of course there are lots of other reasons, better reasons why the woman shouldn't be put to death or shouldn't even be punished at all. Because it is humane-- it's a better argument for the abortion but in either case it doesn't make it right. 2.Abortion is okay because fetuses are no different than parasites. Actually this is strangely true. Pro explicitly states abortions are acceptable when done by medical professionals using humane means. The slaughter of animals is perfectly acceptable when done by medical and scientific researchers; or by butchers as long as they use humane means. Though would most people put a human fetus on the same level of a monkey, a mouse, a rat, or a cow. As for the parasites Pro was probably referencing-- those things people want to get rid of-- not every woman wants to get rid of her unborn baby 3. Abortion is okay because a parent has total control over his or her children to the age of 18. There are a number of exceptions to this including situations where the upper age limit extends to 21; and as Pro explicitly mentions-- the fetus-- the unborn baby. Which means to use Pro's logic the mother doesn't have total legal control over the unborn baby. Even if she does-- we should not a the law restricts the absolute control a parent has over a minor child-- including a prohibition on murder. Since it only covers the time after birth-- the prohibition against murder doesn't apply to the unborn. So I guess it is alright to slaughter the unborn. Something is illogical about that
Abortion

Greetings! Thank you for your reply, I look forward to debating with you! I shall stand by my argument that abortion is not murder. When it is performed by a medical professional, the abortion is done through civil means. For example, Methotrexate is prescribed to separate the fetus from the placenta within the uterus, a much less barbaric method than what the Ancient Greeks used; which ranged from having the mothers "shake themselves to abortion" via riding the horse, to carrying heavy weights. I do agree with my opponent that life is never really guaranteed, but the ability to live it is after birth. I respectfully correct my opponent by quoting the definition of "Infant" by Merriam Webster; : a child in the first period of life : a person who is not of full age A fetus and an infant are two different things. I quote the definition of "fetus" by Merriam Webster; : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth In the question of law, I bring mention that parents have full legal jurisdiction on "minors" during the first eighteen years of the born child's life. During this time, the child slowly grows to advocate for itself with his/her own developed thoughts and opinions; as we all have gone through during our early stages of life. This all occurs when the child is /outside/ the mother's body; to satirically put it, I do not find it possible for a fetus to be able to argue against its termination when it has not the developed cognitive ability to do so. Thus far, I criticize my opponents argument with the parallelism of an advocate for "parasite rights." It is what the fetus is to the mother; it takes away her nutrients, takes up space in her body... All for its own survival. No different than that of any traditional parasite that kills many human beings annually, with the exception of the high possibility (lesser in third world country) of the mother surviving the birth of the baby. What matters most, is if the mother wanted the baby or not. Again, I argue; by what means should people decide what a couple should do with their pregnancy? How exactly, is it not an obstruction to their liberty? I ask my opponent to answer these questions, and look forward to his reply. http://family-law.lawyers.com... http://americanpregnancy.org... https://www.bustle.com... http://www.cdc.gov...
Abortion

Pretty thorough opening argument by Instigator. I will assume where Instigator spoke of pregnancy killing the murder s/he met mother. Instigators primary argument is abortion isn't murder because life isn't guaranteed until after birth. My primary argument will be that is an invalid reason on which to conclude abortion is not murder. Three reasons I offer in support of this belief: 1. Pro contradicts the claim abortion is not murder by implying it might be if not performed by a medical professional 2. Life is never really guaranteed. For one the only thing guaranteed in life is death. Which is of course the end of a life. 3. Just are laws differ on when infancy ends they differ on the rights and protections given to the fetus. Infant by the way means minor.
Assisted suicide should be allowed

STANCE - Assisted suicide should be allowedPOINT 1 -it is an escape for people with no hope and it is also merciful. EXPLANATION- We all know that there are many terrible things that can happen to a person where there is no hope such as being in a vegetative state, living on life support, etc. Logically and ethically, if the person in question has lost hope, they are in pain, etc. They should be allowed to make that decision. Also because it would be allowed by the state for terminal patients, the methods of death would be painless and peaceful. POINT 2 - It releases resource burdens that otherwise would be used to keep those people alive, and helps loved ones move one. EXPLANATION- Being a terminal patient, hooked on life support, etc could become costly for both the hospital and the loved ones of the person in question. By all means, money expenses should not keep anybody from continuing to fight but when the disease in question TERMINAL it is the best choice available. It helps the family of the person in question move on in terms of debt that only serves as a reminder of the person they have lost, and it could also help the hospitals tend to people with a fighting chance. POINT 3 -At the end of the day, it's not your choice and you don't have to participate in killing a family member or even proposing the idea. At the end of the day, it's not your choice to make, if somebody is of sound state and mind (and there is recorded evidence of them wanting to go through with said plan), they should be allowed to make that decision on their own. The fact is that this is optional and not mandatory, so you can continue with things as they are, but allowing this would also allow people to have another option even if it is bittersweet. Conclusion -All in all, for all of the reasons stated above, I strongly affirm or am for assisted suicide legalization. Here is the law that I propose for people that want to go through with assisted suicide - (This is a plan that I have the choice to propose) The person in question must be an adult, and of sound mind, if not, the decision can be handed to a trusted family member or friend The case must be examined by officials to decide if there are alternatives. There needs to be 100% confirmation recorded that the person giving permission to go through with assisted suicide wants to do so. Finally, the method of death needs to be painless and peaceful, because these people have not committed a crime (Ex. Lethal Injection) Again thank you for participating, and I am eager to hear your response.
Assisted suicide should be allowed

This is a controversial topic, relax and let's have a nice debate 2. I will be arguing for the legalization of Assisted suicide 3. BIASED and UNRELIABLE sources are not allowed (philosophy, statistics, logic, and everything else is allowed. ) 4. Clearly label parts of your debate speech so your points are understandable. 5. Finally, just so we both know what we are getting into, your first post or argument would be accepting these terms and the stance that you have chosen. Thank you for your time, - Faust
Affirmative Action

To conclude I will simply reiterate the points I have already made. We do not live in a society where the playing field is level for all. This is especially true for many minorities. They still face discrimination in education and the workplace. Affirmative action is in place, not to give them a free ride, but to make the playing field somewhat level. It is not reverse discrimination, it is to get minorities to a point that they would be at if we did indeed live in a society that was colorblind. It is not about quotas or hiring under-qualified people (as that would obviously be a poor business decision), but simply to make sure there is some sort of attempt at diversifying their schools and businesses. That attempt doesn't always have to be successful, but that's all affirmative actions requires: some kind of attempt. Why is that important? Because it makes the people going the applicants aware of themselves and their own potential biases. So they can think about exactly why they have a tendency to choose Sara over Lakisha despite having identical resumes as the studies I mentioned in my argument suggest.
Affirmative Action

Before I begin my argument I would like to just say to everyone reading this debate that I am not racist or sexist. I completely agree with equal treatment to everyone. I have however seen the anti-discriminatory laws and practices seem to lead towards reverse discrimination. "Reverse discrimination is discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group or in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group." (as defined by Wikipedia) When one looks at opportunities that young teens looking to become men and women out in the world, minorities are given a greater number of said opportunities. For example in Hopwood v. Texas a group of four students sued the University of Texas Law School on grounds of racial discrimination given to minorities. Cheryl Hopwood, the instigator of the suit, argued that many minority students were admitted while she was not even though she was much higher qualified than they. The case elevated to the supreme court and they forcefully ruled in Hopwood's favor. "With the best of intentions, in order to increase the enrollment of certain favored classes of minority students, the University of Texas School of Law ("the law school") discriminates in favor of those applicants by giving substantial racial preferences in its admissions program. The beneficiaries of this system are blacks and Mexican Americans, to the detriment of whites and non-preferred minorities." That is just one of the many documented examples of institutes and organizations that have started favoring the minority for fear of being considered uncooperative in the "Affirmative Action" campaign. This sort of situation also appears time and time again in scholarships as well. There are many more scholarships available to minority students than are available to the Caucasian majority. This creates a skew that leads the minorities to gain an unfair advantage over the majority. I propose that Affirmative Action is not a reliable program and that the only fix for the race problem would be to raise a "color-blind" generation. by giving these advantages to minorities it does nothing but highlight the differences between races in a different way. http://www.cir-usa.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should the list of 103 MLB players who tested positive for steroids in 2003 be made public

Yes, their names SHOULD be made public, and they should get in trouble for it. Before they were told they wouldn't be made public, their was a rule set into place that says you aren't allowed to take place in playing in the MLB if you're on steriods. Because that rule was set into place before they were told this... they had authority to say that. This said, it should be overseen that they weren't going to be revealed. Better yet, it doesn't matter. If a policeman says, "Come here, let me scan your fingerprints. We've had many break-ins and just need more fingerprints to go into the data-base for future purposes. You're not in trouble." But then they scan you and find out your prints match up with a previous break-in and arrest you, oh well. The conclusion shouldn't be, "Oh, but you said you wouldn't tell." It should be, "Oh, well, don't take drugs." Not only are steroids against MLB rules, they're against the law. If you don't want to get in trouble, don't take steroids. Simple as that.
Should the list of 103 MLB players who tested positive for steroids in 2003 be made public

In 2003 Major League Baseball conducted a survey to see how many players took steroids if enough players did than they would start a drug testing policy. 103 players tested positive but they were told that they would not be punished and their names would not be announced publicly (2 players names were leaked Alex Rodriguez and Sammy Sosa), but now people want to hear those names. I don't think their names should be made public simply because they were told they wouldn't when they participated in the survey.
Sons of Solidarity

Lets address all the issues brought up by The Brotherhood. As societies move away from religion, with almost 40% of the world population not aligning themselves with any religion, our society is becoming more intelligent and science is driving our civilization further and further, than the almost 1900 years of stone age dominated religious society of the past. Religion is a coping skill for the weak. The Sons of Solidarity align themselves as strong independent leaders who believe in science and innovation not some man made up invisible entity that they feel obligated to worship. As for Communism, this is the worst form of political government and it has failed miserably in all countries where it dominates. People who are communists are just lying, lazy worthless, pathetic individuals who have no desire to achieve anything great in life and are just there for the free bread and vodka that communism guarantees. The Sons of Solidarity do not have room for people like that in their organization. Charter of Constitution rule 7 is in place to respect people of other cultures and religions and races. Just because the Sons of Solidarity does not necessarily align themselves with these groups, does not mean we should discriminate against them. Yes the Sons of Solidarity does not accept religious people or communists but it doesn't mean other people should not co-exist in society. Just like The Brotherhood, The Sons of Solidarity accepts other party groups and has no issues with them and welcomes their input into any conversation. Religious and Communist people will always exist and The Sons of Solidarity acknowledges these groups we just don't accept them in our group. Like any group/organization/club/party, The Sons of Solidarity clearly outlines all the groups goals, intentions and motives and clearly outlines items of concern. Like any group or person there will always be items that people do not agree with, nobody can be 100% loved and agreed with. The Sons of Solidarity is clear and concise in their goals as a group and does not tried to hide behind the fact that their members are former Nazi's or members of Ayrian Nation as is the case with The Brotherhood. The Brotherhood will try to charm you with warm welcoming comments but once you join, you will have to change your avatar to one and the same logo as all members, (in the past it was skinheads logo) You will have to follow strict racist rules and align yourself with racist comments made by their senior members. The Sons of Solidarity does not do that, we just want people of sound logical mind who want to be part of a group that is mentally superior without issues and is not a communist member, those are all the limitations to this group. I would like to see The Brotherhoods rules of conduct/constitution/rules. Why would anyone want to join The Brotherhood???
Sons of Solidarity

Thank you Mr. Fanboy. Mr. Fanboy admitted to the prejudice of Religious people in his group. "Religion of any kind is not to be encouraged or used as a method of debate. The Sons of Solidarity view religion as a form of mental weakness and consider it a form of a weak minded individual. These type individuals have no place at The Sons of Solidarity as religion does not factor into any decision or life at The Sons of Solidarity. We strive for strong intellectual minds focused on careers, future and optimistic view of life." This shows Mr. Fanboy holds a over generalization that all people who follow Religion are weak minded individual. Do you really want to join a group that doesn't even allow it's members to express different ideas, a group that shuns individuals that hold a different belief about Religion? Look at Mr.Fanboy idea towards people with Communistic ideas or even sympathetic to any Communist idea. He wants to silenced, deny the freedom of speech of these people who hold a different opinion of Mr.Fanboy. He even holds an over generalization toward Communistic people as lying, and should be eliminated? I must ask you do you wanna join a Radical Group that believes Communistic people should be eliminated for holding a different opinion? The Sons of Solidarity even breaks their own rules. "7.The Sons of Solidarity believes in life for all human beings and are against any speech encouraging genocide, murder outside of the law, turning of people into pig feed, or showing hatred to any race or religion, ie. Jewish people, Black people, Asian people or any other race or culture." Mr.Fanboy by denying religious people, showing them as weak minded individuals you have broke your own rule against showing hatred towards their Religion. The same thing can apply to people who are Communist since it is their culture, by showing they want to eliminate Communistic people they hate their culture. The hypocrisy of the group is very obvious. I urge the people to think, do you wanna join a radical group that shows prejudice against Communistic people, mentally ill, and Religious folks? Do you wanna join a group that breaks their own rules? I know I wouldn't. But there is another option. The Brotherhood will defend and respect your freedom of speech. No matter how unpopular, or how much we personally disagree with it we will respect it and defend it.