BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion as a Conflict of Rights

Forgive my somewhat judgmental attitude, but just because we do not think of the effects of our action does in no way absolve us of our duty to deal with those effects. The police do not let you off of a DUI because you failed to consider the consequences when you got in the car. While I'm sure sometimes the mother and father are in a terrible situation with the child, these facts do not in any way affect the duties of the parents or the rights of the child. To voters, I'd like to request that you vote on argument and not your own beliefs in this case. I realize that abortion is a sticky subject and that there are plenty of objections to my case (although I dont think they have been presented here). My original argument for parental duties has not been negated yet, and thus I do not feel the need to waste your time by making my last turn a long one. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Merry Christmas
Abortion as a Conflict of Rights

well i understand that if both parents knowingly have sex and the woman gets pregnant you think that they should not be able to get an abortion. but the truth is that people make decisions sometimes without thinking of the consequences. people f**k, they get pregnant, they realize that they can't afford to keep it, they have to either get an abortion or struggle to keep their baby from starving. it happens all the time. people have to make these decisions all the time... the law shouldn't tell a woman that she doesn't have the right to her own body, and if it did there would be a lot of pissed off women out there... that's the last thing we need lol
Abortion as a Conflict of Rights

I'm not suggesting by any means that the life of the person having the child would not be altered drastically for the worse, for the record. I dont believe i ever claimed that in my argument. secondly, there may be other reasons why abortion should be legal, such as the elimination of criminal incodents with women seeking unorthodox means of removing the fetus. However, I am dealing with the issue from a RIGHTS BASIS, as I stated in the first round. Thus, from my perspective, while it may be harmful to the overall standard of living of the mother, I do not believe that changes the fact that by having consensual sex, a mother (and a father ina different way) owe the fetus rights to services, namely her body and his support. Whether or not the world is a "better place" has nothing to do with my argument; that would a utilitarian argument, which i said would not apply to a rights based argument at all.
Abortion as a Conflict of Rights

Yeah it is too bad that people sometimes have to get an abortion, but for every single case, it would be a lot worse if they had to keep it. No person in their right mind would get an abortion unless they absolutely need it. one of my best friends got unexpectedly pregnant semi-recently and had to make the toughest decision of her life...whether or not to kill her baby. she got the abortion, and because of it, she stayed in school, and is currently passing all her classes as a Junior in high school. There is absolutely no way that she could do this if she had kept the baby. The point is that abortion is definitely not a good thing, but some people need it. And it making it illegal would suck...flat out.
Abortion as a Conflict of Rights

Before I begin my argument, I'd like to say that I'm approaching the topic from a rights-based perspective. Thus, if your system of ethics is Utilitarian or Virtue Based, then the issue would be null. This is only for those who believe in rights and their place in legal and political systems. Next, I'd like to say that the following argument rests on the principle that the agents involved are RATIONAL, FREE agents. Thus, they are of age and capable of making decisions independently. I UNDERSTAND that this is a contentious issue and it is impossible to tell 'when someone is rational or independent', but seeing as this is a rights issue i would request that the challenger and reader cut me some slack. Finally, I'd like to say that I try to be as open about these things as possible. While this is a debate, I'm mostly after the truth, not winning an argument per se. Thus, no hostility is needed. Ok, a common argument for pro-life goes like this: 1. all fetuses are persons (or future persons) 2. every person has a right to life 3. we cannot kill fetuses I think this argument is incomplete; however, with a slight change, it will do the job. The problem was brought up by a philosopher named Judith Thomson. She claims that just because something has a right to life does not mean WE HAVE TO KEEP IT ALIVE. For example, she asks us to envision ourselves in a situation where we wake up in bed attached to a world famous violinist. The violinist needs to use your kidney to survive for nine months, at which time you could remove yourself from the violinist. Would you ethically have to do it? No. Of course not. It would be nice for you to save this man, but its not really your issue. Thomson claims removing yourself from the violinist is the same as having an abortion. I believe she is wrong because the analogy doesn't fit. We INITIATE THE ACT which puts the fetus in the position of need, unlike the violinist, and thus we are responsible for not killing it. So... 1. Every fetus is a potential person 2. Every person has a right to life 3. We cannot kill fetuses which we knowingly place in a position of vulnerability. Thus, abortion is wrong in cases not connected to rape, where the mother and father knowingly commit sexual intercourse. perhaps ive commited some egregious error; i am no proffesional debater or philosopher, but that is the argument which i think respects the rights of all parties involved.
Greed is justified

Thanks to Pro for his opening arguments. I will argue that greed creates several disadvantages for both the one who is possessed by it, and others. C1. Decision-making disadYou are dominating blackjack in an LA casino. Having won $25,000, you have by far exceeded your expectations. But you're greedy, and want more. So rather than walk away with 25 grand, you throw $15,000 worth of chips on the table. The dealer gives you two tens, an amazing hand. Everyone else looks disgruntled with theirs. Encouraged, you go all-in, wanting that $50,000 Corvette. The cards are turned over, and it turns out that one of your opponents was bluffing, and flips over an ace and Jack, a straight 21. You lose everything, and don't even have enough money to afford the latest hooker.While this example is a bit extreme, it shows how greed can lead to poor decision making which is costly.C2. Crime disadThe vast majority of thefts can all be directly or indirectly attributed to excessive desire for objects. Because thieves want that extra $10,000 but aren't willing to work for it, their greed causes them to steal it from the nearest Walgreens. MSN references ten CEO's all being jailed for various fraud and larceny charges because apparently, having a multi-million dollar paycheck wasn't enough for them (1). C3. Happiness disadEveryone wants more. But those with greed have excessive desire. They live in a constant state of always wanting more and more, and won't be truly happy with the state of affairs until they get it. But because human nature dictates that we always want more, those with greed will never be happy with their lives because their lust for more goods prevents them from appreciating what they have at the time. C4. Hoarding disadHoarding is essentially a mental disorder where people excessively collect everyday objects. They will have entire houses full of meaningless items, but will still want more. It is detrimental to the family considering how the house becomes a junkyard and is embarrassing to any relative if discovered. Looking at the definition of greed, "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for...possessions, hoarding fits the bill.C5. Resource disadAfrica's mining resources have been continually drained by greedy foreigners looking for an extra buck (2). This is having a negative impact on the domestic economy and is a major political issue as well. Plus, excessive desire for fish, when we have plenty of other food options available, is leading to overfishing of marine resources. And our massive lust for oil is leading to environmental pollution.From these 5 contentions you should see that greed is indeed undesirable and unjustified.I'll refute pro's case next round given the rules.1. http://money.ca.msn.com...2. http://www.theatlantic.com...
Greed is justified

Greed today in the world is discouraged, but it is still commen. We are all taught that we should be satisfied with what we all have, but this is simply absurd. My next contentions will prove why. C1: Greed is apart of our nature. Every person from the time they are born wants stuff whether its food or attention or money it doesn't matter, the fact is if we teach that greed is bad then we teach people to not be themselves. C2: Greed leads to accomplishment. Greed along with envy is a driving force that leads to people making their lives better. If a person has little then and they have greed, then they are going to do their best to get more. This will make the person become more successful. C3: Greed is the driving force of our economy. If we did not have greed we would all be poor right now because we would all be happy with a tent and a horse, and thus greed is what makes our country (the U. S. A. ) strong.
Greed is justified

I would like to debate this and I do not care who accepts. Greed -excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.[1]The first round will be for acceptance.The second round will be for oppening statements and contentions.The third round will be for rebuttles.The fourth round will be for rebuttles and closing statements. PLEASE NO NEW CONTENTIONS IN THE FINAL ROUND.I wish my opponent luck.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School

2. If there is a police officer then there is no reason to have tasers or guns. 3. If you have two tasers you can use them every 2 seconds. 4. if there is a police officer bad people are less likely to attempt to do something bad. 5. My school has one police officer and there has never been a real lockdown since he was hired. (23 years!) and that is not counting the police officer before him. 6. There has not been enough violence in schools to even need tasers. 7. You dont have to have a REAL gun, a cap gun (a fake gun that makes the exact same sound as a real gun) would work just fine. If we get desperate enough we could use pellet guns, they hurt the person a lot, but not enough to make it all the way under the skin. One shot at a mans crotch and they can be stunned for an hour! But there is no reason to use a REAL gun. 8. I looked all over the internet and i could not find anything about anyone who is immune to high power tasers. 9. What if a bad guy pretended to be a substitute teacher with a gun and got away with it? 10. The bad guys would know that the teacher would not actually shoot someone in front of little kids, nobody would go to a school like that! 11. I dont know about you but if a police officer or even a teacher came up to me with a taser after i did something bad, I would run until my feet bled, and then keep on running! My point is, there is absolutely no reason to have a REAL gun. Not reasons why its safe, but why schools should have real guns. BOOM. 4 solutions that are NOT having real guns at school. Beat that!
Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School

You don't need to find the key to the cabinet if it is a key code lock like i said. You should have read that sentence more carefully. You also state you have a few reasons but say 1 reason. Pulling off a taser may be faster but many people train themselves to not be affected by tasers. Tasers also take awhile to recharge and you can miss with it. You can also miss with a gun but you still would have more bullets while with a taser it has to recoil back to you which means waiting. With a gun you simply re-cock it.
Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School

Teachers will have the guns locked up i don't think the kids will be able to steal the gun and use it. ESPECIALLY when the gun is not loaded when it is locked up. The can be anywhere else like the teachers coat, or there bags or there locked drawers. They cant take a gun if they don't know the key code to the cabinet. You say there should not be killings at schools. Gun's aren't going to shoot on their own. Also its not like the teachers are going to shoot the students. Its for like lock downs, where a actual person who is considered a threat comes into the school and attacks. The gun also does not need to be used for shooting it can be used as intimidation against the threat. Intimidating the threat makes it put its weapons down if it has one. Also if you are distracting the threat with a gun it helps officials get to your location and while the gun is being a distraction the kids can attack the threat from behind and pin it to the ground. Go Kindergarten Kids you just Pinned Down the Bad Guys. :)
Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School

I think that they should bring tasers that must only be able to charge if the teacher enters a code or uses a key or something. A gun can be taken by a student if left for only a second and students would be capable of using it. A gun can KILL people. A taser can STUN people. There should not be killings at schools. We dont even need tasers! We just need ONE police officer with guns AND tasers and your fine! If that is not enough protection we can give the teachers devices that can page the police officer silently. Then the police officer(s) can come to where they are at. We could also have multiple police officers if that is not enough. Boom.
Should kids have jobs

Imagine. You are a 11 year old, and you just got hired for a part time summer job, stacking shelves or packing groceries. Then, your friends walk in. You try everything to impress them, you show them your shiny badge and apron with your name. But what impresses them the most? Your employees discount. And, how you can leave the shop without going through the scanner. They instantly ask for 'free' stuff. That's why Tweens shouldn't have jobs. Now, let's break the topic down. Should.Kids: a young, immature being. Have: own, belong. Job: an paid task, activity or chore. Should young immature beings own a paid task, activity or chore. No. Kids love to impress. And, now is the perfect time. Jimmy wanted a pair of pink slippers? Well, my boss isn't looking. Happy birthday jimmy. Simple as that. They are left responsible (and yet they aren't responsible. Quite ironic) for goods, or a task. Do you trust these children? So why should anyone else? You said before about only giving the good a job. Well, young children are quite sensitive. If you refuse them because of a couple of bad grades,or maybe a little cat fight, the will be devastated!!!
Should kids have jobs

Hello!!!!!!!! This looks like a good debate!!!! Kids Should NOT have jobs, because they should focus on studies, that way they can get better full time jobs as an adult. A part time job distracts from studies. Kids are sitting behind the counter at KFC, not studying for a more successful high paying job. It may give you money, but it also takes money away in the long run. Kids are getting payed minimum wage for a job when they should be studying hard and getting good grades that way they can get a high paying job. Or, a full time job that gives you a slight bit more than minimum wage
Should kids have jobs

Only one more round to go!! (What you do if you don't have info,you just summarise your arguments, I won't rebut!) Children should not have jobs, because there would be less jobs available to adults, who are paying for a family!!!! Here's the visual again! 😂 So, you are an adult. And you apply for a part time job at, say, Target. Your competition is a couple of teens more worried about texting, a middle aged, sweet woman that's lived her whole life on the dole, and a spoilt little twelve year old, who just wants some money to wave around to control her friends with. Now, would they give it to the teen? No!! The twelve year old would be on a VERY minimum wage of $8 dollars an hour, and that would cost less. So bam!! Teens without cars. Another person on the dole that the tax payers have to afford. And, you are also going broke. You have a child, whinging, with bones sticking out because they gave a job to a 'twelvie' who just wanted I own money. Not spend it. Do I need to say more? For the next round, I'm also just going to summarise, so don't worry too much!!!)
Art is essential to life.

"Art is essential to life becouse we almost can not imagine the world without art." Can you provide evidence to support this claim."Art makes the world the real world." This claim is absolutely ridiculous."Besides, every native person is known with its arts that comes from their own ancestors such as painting is most striking example."The ability for art to convey the lifestyle of our ancestors does not make it essential."pictures that is painted by painters openly shows the life of our ancestors or also through the painting we can relax as we are listening the music or even more." This does not make art essential to life."so, anyway the art is essential life of our world."You have given no evidence to support this.
Jesus is homoousios with the Father before creation

I'm not going to bother with the side-points because I already won this debate. My main concern is my opponent's attempt to refute my trump-card, the immutability argument. "The scriptures per se refutes my opponent's Preincarnate Jesus and Immutability Argument:In Philippians 2:6 -7, Paul said that the Pre-incarnate Jesus is existing ( Greek: huparchon) in form of God and afterwards chose to empty himself , having taken upon( Greek: labon)the form of a human slave via becoming in the likeness of men. The text is clear, Jesus always exists in God's form and then he took upon himself the form of a human slave. As we can all see and read, Jesus did not cease to exists in God's form but on the contrary, he take to himself (to take is to add in never to give out) to himself the form of a human slave. "Basically, Jesus' form changed into God form + human form. This is undergoing a change in form, which contradicts the immutability trait. Which means that my argument was not refuted at all. P1- Immutable means unchangeable through time, always in a static state, unalterable. [Point of agreement & well-cited definition]P2- Immutability is one of God's traits. [Point of agreement]P3- Preincarnate Jesus incarnated. [Point of agreement]P4- Incarnation requires a change of form/ It is impossible to incarnate without any changes. [Even if that meant your God form would have human form added to it]Conclusion: Preincarnate Jesus was not immutable nor shared that trait with God. To win this debate, my opponent has to prove that having another form united with yours doesn't require any alteration or process of change in an entity/being/god as a whole.
Jesus is homoousios with the Father before creation

Thanks for accepting my challenge. I will point out 7 "titles/appellations" ascribed to Jesus as the Word in his pre-human state: 1) Effulgence- Heb 1:3 The Son is the "radiance" while the Father is the "light"(1 Jn 1:5). Just as the Sun is coeval and consubstantial with its radiance so is the Father and the Son. 2) Exact Imprint- Heb 1:3 The Son is existing as the exact imprint ( Greek: hupostaseos) of the Father's very being i.e. nature and personhood ( Greek: hupostaseos). Again, the Son is the "exact copy" of the Father's being ( it's a noun not a verb!) 3)Wisdom-Prov 8:22-30, 1 Cor 1:24 The Wisdom in the Old testament is revealed to be a real person in the New Testament. The Father doesn't need experiential knowledge to make sensible decisions in every situation because he has his own Son as his own Wisdom per se. 4) Power- 1 Cor 1:24 The Father doesn't need ability to do everything because he has his own Son to do everything and just as it is written, all things were created through the Son. 5) Image- Col 1:15 Contextually, the "Son of his Love"(v.13), is the invisible image of the invisible God i.e. the Father and because this eikon clause stands in apposition with the next clause, it inevitably denotes that the Son of his love is not a created image of him but an uncreated Image of the Father within the immanent Trinity because he was first-born of the Father, the one in,through and for whom all things were created as opposed to us humans who were created in the image of the Trinity* ( Genesis 1:26-27). *Image of the God i.e. the Trinity( theos-without the definite article). The Son is the image of "the God, the invisible"(theos with def. article,only used of Christ in the scriptures -Col 1:15). 6) Son- Romans 8:3 The Sonship of the Word stems from his being the "only offspring" of the Father.A classic analogy is this, a human parent has a human offspring. The Son of God is God in nature because his daddy is God himself. " calling God his own Father making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). 7) Only-offspring- John 1:14,18,3:16,18,1Jn 4:9 Contextually, John 1:1-3 affirms that the Word was with God before creation and this Word has the nature of this God. Actually, the Johannine Word ( Greek: Logos) is the "only offspring" who is God in nature (monogenes theos) as opposed to us humans who are human "offspring" of God( John 1:18,Acts 17:29). All of these titles/appellations proves two stance of scripture regarding Christology: 1) The Word is distinct person with the Father. 2) The Word is consubstantial with the Father.
Jesus is homoousios with the Father before creation

homoousios means "of same nature" Nature means "totality of qualities/traits in a person" In God, this is omniscience, eternality, immutability, to name a few. I , the Pro, shall prove from the Scriptures that Jesus, as the Son,in his preincarnate state is existing as equal with the Father in nature. Con, on the other hand, shall prove from the scriptures that Jesus, as the Son,in his preincarnate state is existing not as equal with Father in nature. * This debate already presupposes that Jesus has a preexistence as the Son.