BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should legal on request morally

Fellow Seeker, Im apologize because I forgot to supply one more definition which may have caused confusion in our conversation. To Murder - To kill an Innoncent Human BeingAs opposed to: To Kill - To cause a living thing to die For instance, all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. Ex. Killing an innocent human, is killing and murder. Killing a cow, is not murder but still killing. Now, to relate this to your point. No man is perfect, so it becomes difficult to say which men are innocent, and which men are not. But im sure we can all agree that some men are very obviously evil, (Ex, Hitler) and some are obiously not evil (Ex, Babies*). So addressing your main rebuttle directly, Murder is by definition immoral. Therefore the only way the killing of a fetus would not be murder and therefore not be immoral, would be if babies were not innocent, or fetuses were not babies. Babies must be innocent, because by definition they have not developed rationality yet and therefore have not developed the ability to be evil. Also, I established fetuses to be human children, that is to say "babies" in the first round. *If you disagree, and think babies are evil, Please talk to someone about that. Also, concerning your point saying that fetuses dont feel pain is incorrect. At only 20 weeks of pregnancy and even before that, the fetus is shown to react extremely to stimuli,[1] including light, sound, annd especially tactile things, such as tools often used by abortionists. In some more horrific cases, when the fetus is observed during the abortion process by means of sonogram, it can be seen trying to struggle and escape the abortionists tools.[2] So, sadly it can be affirmatively said that the fetus does indeed, feel pain. [1] Due to the concentration of nerve cells over the fetus' skin, not only does it feel pain, it feels more than an adult will ever feel. http://www.mccl.org...[2] Please research evidence of this with viewer discretion.
Abortion should legal on request morally

Morality isn't inherently unjustifiable. For example, If you could go back and kill Hitler, would you? Yes, because it meant saving many more lives and causing the suffering of many less (hence, utilitarianism). Therefore, it is not true that murder is inherently immoral. Furthermore, the only thing that makes killing wrong is that the person you kill often suffers pain, you prevent them from feeling joy later on in life, and you sadden the lives of those around them. However, when it comes to a fetus, they do not feel pain, while you still prevent them from feeling joy, you allow the mother to have kids later on whom will live happier lives, and you do not sadden the people around the fetus as the people around the fetus have not yet established a strong emotional attachment. Therefore, the abortion of a fetus is not immoral.
Abortion should legal on request morally

Definitions: Rationality - The ability to reason Potentially rational - Having the potential to exercise Rationality later in development.Actually rational - Having the ability to currently exercise Rationality.Prima Res: Fetuses are Human, and therefore the act of discarding or removing them is murder.In order the settle that fetuses are human, one must establish two things,- What makes a Human?- Is a fetus human? In regards to these things, I hold man to be an animal which is potentially or actually rational. (If you disagree with this definition please offer an alternate one in your rebuttal.) At around 2-3 years old a Human child begins to show signs of Rationality. Before this, the child has the potential to reason, and although it does not exhibit this potential it is by the given definition a Human. A fully birthed human child and a fetus are both equally potentially rational, and therefore equally human. Most people consider an infant completely human, but a fetus somehow not. I say that the deliverance of the fetus out of the womb does not in any way give it rationality, humanity, nor the right to live for it was already endowed with these things. Therefore, the killing of a fetus is the same as killing a born child, and both are murder. Because then, abortion is murder is should not under any circumstances be legal.
Abortion should legal on request morally

For my idea of morality, I will use utilitarianism. I use this because it leads to the overall most happiness in life and therefore the most enjoyment for all beings. Contention 1 - Leads to a reduction in crime In the 90's, the US saw a drop in crime [1][2]. People didn't know why this was happening as experts only believed crime rates were going to skyrocket. [1] The reason for the drop in crime is it was a generation after Roe v. Wade, therefore allowing abortions. When this happened, we saw a generation later kids that were raised in better circumstances by better prepared parents, which lead to an all around drop in crime. [1] Therefore, when we allow for on request abortions, parents are able to raise their kids in better circumstances, allowing for them to be in a higher income group, destroying the stem of crime. Contention 2 - Better lives for kids Same logic as contention 1. When parents decide to postpone having a kid, they can better provide for it. [1][3] Furthermore, allowing for abortion prevents child abuse for the same reasons [4]. Therefore, having a kid later in life allows for more happiness. Contention 3 - Better life for parents. The sad truth is that teens become pregnant, and when they become pregnant, they have to postpone their life at a vital time. When this happens, they have to leave high school and are more susceptible to divorce, meaning they are a single parent, and will often be shunned by their parents [3]. This gives the parents a tough life, something they many times can't fix. [1] - Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner [2] - . http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... [4] - . https://www.prochoice.org... [3] - . http://www.priestsforlife.org...
Abortion should legal on request morally

The basis of this debate is (as the topic says) Abortion should be legal on request and the arguments should be relating to morals. Both my opponent and I will need to provide a moral belief on which they base their argument. The order of rounds will be: 1. Detailing the rules of debate and my opponent accepting. 2. Opening argument for both sides with no attacks on the others case. 3. Open round (attacking the opponents case allowed, rebuilding a case allowed, providing new evidence allowed etc.) but NO NEW ARGUMENTS, only more evidence for the arguments provided 4. Same rules as round 3 except no new evidence, only analysis of previous evidence. 5. Summary speech, no new analysis, only referencing previous rounds and convincing the reader who won the debate.
Abortion should legal on request morally

I would like to begin my final word by thanking my opponent for a great debate. Now, concerning my opponent's claim that his three pillars still stand, I feel very repetitive addressing these again, but obviously it still is not clear. The fact that fetuses develop nerve cells very early hardly needs to be backed up, but here is my source.[1] At any point when one could identify pregnancy, the fetus can feel pain. So, therefore the first pillar has been compromised. Secondly, you offered the counter argument that abortion is better for the kids than adoption. Your statistics are correct, and they are an issue, but abortion is no way to fix them. The way these issues should be resolved is by a refining of orphanages. The percentage of orphans turning to crime can be decreased by better orphanage conditions and more opportunity for education. Saying that abortion is a valid way to decrease the amount of orphan criminals is saying those children should have never been born. This approach is definitely not the correct one. All children have the right to life[2]. With this in mind, the second pillar has been compromised. Onto the third, and final pillar. For my opponent to claim that abortion does not concern any 3rd parties is a ridiculous claim. Abortion is a raging topic across America and has "concerned" the lives of many. And with the reduce in orphan crime enforced by another means, the third pillar has similarly been compromised. At this point, I have removed all the supports for my opponent's claim: According to Utilitarianism, Abortion is not immoral. I have also established in the first and second rounds:Abortion is Murder. Now, with my moral standpoint, (as requested) being: Murder is Immoral, I have proven that Abortion is Immoral. Also, according to my opponent's standpoint: Utilitarianism, I have proven that Abortion is immoral. [1] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...[2] The Constitution of the United States of America!
Abortion should legal on request morally

My Opponent has asked me to show why he hasn't upheld my 3 pillars, and I will therefore bring in new evidence and analysis before going to my conclusion. He hasn't upheld the first one because the very piece of evidence he cites ALWAYS refers to 20 weeks exactly, and even if they were able to before 20 weeks (which he hasn't provided evidence for, but I ask him to in the final round), we could move the law of minimum weeks to earlier in the babies growth. For the second, an orphan does not live the same life as a non-orphan. They many times will have to stay in an orphanage for much of their life. Furthermore, when we look globally, 60% of girls become prostitutes and 70% of boys become criminals (http://www.orphanhopeintl.org...), showing not only another way there can be an increase in crime, but also shows the torment they're put through. Finally, if 3rd parties care about the abortion, it doesn't concern them, and their small amount of discomfort is far less than the significant drops in crime. And now my conclusion In this debate, my opponent and I have had two different ideas of morality, utilitarianism and murder being bad. However, there is no reason to accept murder to be bad other than the three reasons I stated before, all of which abortions does not fall under. Furthermore, there are many positive benefits as I showed in Round 1. Therefore, I believe that abortions on request are morally beneficial. I would also like to thank my opponent for a fantastic debate today. I'm excited to see who the voters decide won.
Big 12 is the best NCAA basketball conference.

Without clarification, I am guessing that my opponent is arguing on behalf of the Men's Basketball program of the Big 12 Conference. As such, I negate the premise that the Big 12 is the best conference. Contention 1: The tell tale of all is the number of National Championships achieved. SUBPOINT A: According to ncaa. com, the Big 12 Conference is ranked much lower than many of it's peers in relation to the number of NCAA Championships. The PAC 10 has 14 national championships, the ACC has 11, the Big 10 has 10, the SEC has 9, while the Big 12 can only boast 5. SUBPOINT B: The number of NIT Championships achieved. According to NIT. org, the Big 12 has accomplished 3 NIT titles. The ACC has more than double that number with 7, while the SEC has tripled the Big 12's total at 9. Contention 2: The next criteria I would consider is the final AP Poll dated 04 APR 2010. The Big East conference had more teams ranked in the top 25 than the Big 12. Further, according to bleacherreport. com, the Big East had a slightly higher RPI and Strength of Schedule ranking than the Big 12. Contention 3: A mere statement that a conference is the best is highly prejudicial, circumstantial, and unsubstantiated. As a Virginian, I would say that the ACC is the best conference. As a graduate of Liberty University, I could equally argue that the Big South is the best. To fully comprehend this, we would have to agree on a definition of "best". As no clear defintion was provided, we must allow for a definition somewhere within these 5 rounds or face a stalemate. I propose that best be defined by the parameters established in my first and second contentions.
Debate.org is a good educational tool to use in middle school.

Your opinion of middle school students puzzles me. As an educator of 25 years, my experience has shown me that many middle school students do take a real interest in academic subjects--especially when given the opportunity to express their views in an authentic environment like that of debate.org. One feature that is especially valuable is that it gives students time to reflect on what their opponent has expressed, and to carefully craft a response without the need to reply extemporaneously.
Buy oxycontin oc pills online overnight delivery without prescription

What is OxyContin? OxyContin is a drug and the brand name by which Oxycodone is known. When you buy OxyContin online, You take it because it is prescribed for the treatment of symptoms of moderate to severe pain. However, If you"re planning to buy OxyContin without a prescription, You must remember that the drug has its set of side effects which can affect you depending on the amount of medication you have taken and the duration for which the drug has been received. The drug can also produce a feeling of euphoric high and because of which people mainly abuse the drug. What are the side effects of OxyContin? Generally, When people buy OxyContin online, They are given the option of order OxyContin online overnight delivery or order OxyContin overnight delivery from the USA. Along with that, They are provided with a prescription if they buy the drug from an online pharmacy that can present with a prescription. The prescription not only helps them in knowing a lot about the medicine but tells how and when to start and stop the intake. However, Most people choose to buy OxyContin without a prescription and end up becoming a victim of the drug"s side effects and also of the drug"s withdrawal symptoms when they suddenly stop the intake. Some of the side effects of OxyContin abuse are:- Drowsiness Finding it challenging to operate machinery or drive while being under the influence of the drug Pinpoint pupils Constipation There are some more side effects of the drug which remain for a long-term like:- Severe constipation and persistent vomiting Spasms in muscles Slowing the rate at which the heart and the lungs deliver oxygen to the brain and other vital organ systems Why some people prefer to buy OxyContin without a prescription? We already told you that people buy OxyContin online because it is a drug prescribed for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. However, We would also like to warn you that most people prefer to buy OxyContin without a prescription instead of order OxyContin online overnight delivery or order OxyContin overnight delivery from the USA. Some of these people are those who don"t know anything about the drug and end up taking it without having the symptoms of moderate to severe pain in the first place. That is why we would recommend that one should buy OxyContin online and from an online pharmacy which can provide a prescription.
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right

Once again, stabbing is neither right nor wrong. Self defense is right and assault is wrong. It is only in this sense that context matters. Once an action (in context) is wrong, it can never be made right with the addition of another wrong. Thus two wrongs do not make a right. My opponents complicated ethical dilemmas from comic books are not examples of times where two wrongs make a right. They are examples of situations in which one harm prevents a greater harm. This is not a new ethical debate (see: http://en.wikipedia.org...). None of his examples, however show how one wrong, plus a second wrong, creates a right. The proposition should be affirmed.
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right

Two wrongs don't make a right. This phrase is commonly used to discourage revenge and retaliation, and to convey that one is just as bad as the person who first committed the wrong. However, I find this statement to not be true. For example: It is widely accepted that it is wrong to stab people. Cindy just left her store and is in the parking lot, headed to her car. En route, Cindy is stopped by a big, burly, and rather intimidating fellow. He lunges at her, and makes forceful sexual advances on her. Cindy kicks, punches and screams but being much weaker than her attacker, her attempts have little effect. So Cindy stabs the attacker with her key, so he lets go of her. He recovers quickly and comes at her again, so this time she stabs him in a far more effective area (eye, groin, etc). This gives Cindy enough time to get in the car and escape with her chastity, dignity, and quite possibly her life. Now let's put this in terms said quote. 1st wrong: Fellow attempting to rape and possibly kill Cindy. 2nd wrong: Cindy stabbing fellow. Right: Cindy avoiding rape and death. It is almost certain that just about everyone will agree that the fellow was wrong for attempting to rape Cindy, but how many people would say that it was wrong for Cindy to stab the guy? After all, is it wrong for a woman to defend herself? Is it wrong for her to protect her chastity, her dignity, and her life? It is not. There are even many more latent "rights" that result from Cindy's actions such as avoidance of depression, and emotional trauma for her and her loved ones. Or even money saved on therapy to overcome such trauma. The good (right) that resulted in her actions MADE a wrong a right.
Star Wars vs. Star Trek

No, I believe that Star Wars is not a remake of Star Trek. Star Wars is actually completely different from Star Trek. Star Wars is about a Jedi that lost his path, and went to the Dark side, and became a Sith. The fallen Jedi had a son and a daughter that was hidden from him. The son grew up, meet the fallen Jedi's master, and was trained in the ways of the force. Then, he, the fallen Jedi's son, rescued his sister from the Sith. After that, the son confronted father, and tried to help him back on the path to the light side. He managed to save his father from the Dark Side, and the father banished the Empire, and died himself.
DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR INFANT! the risks are MUCH higher than the possible benefits!

"The bottom line is that the feds have given up without a fight and settled" No, that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is whether that means anything or not. And I don't think you made any substantial connection at all. "the Autism rates are up about 10000% in just two generations- the rates are about 1000 times higher in vaccinated vs unvaccinates" Yes, but they fell ever since the mercury compound was removed. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... So this doesn't help your point that we should stop vaccinating our children. The vaccines may have been dangerous before, but they're fine now. "SIDS is UNKNOWN in unvaccinated infants, and is ALWAYS within 2 weeks of vaccinations being administered" SIDS is unknown everywhere. A British study showed that vaccinations may have helped to PREVENT SIDS though. And the chance of your kid dying from SIDS is lower than the chance of your kid dying from diseases that vaccines defend against. "there are 1000s of cases of children coming down with illness or being permanently retarded from massive vaccinations at a young age" Actually, there is no direct correlation. And even if it were so, my argument still stands. Vaccines are safe today. "my child was personally affected - she got ITP" I'm sorry, but I don't see the correlation and how you can assume that. "If youre such a medical expert (you are a LIAR just by your tag line and age) why dont you explain to me what ITP is and the causes and cures" In order for me to be a liar, I would first have to tell a lie, wouldn't I? I never said I was a medical expert Solarman. I'm just a pharmacy student with a pretty good grasp of Biochemistry. But I think this is what you meant http://en.wikipedia.org... Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura. No connection with vaccines at all. "If you cant , it proves youre just a government hack liar" No, if I can't, it just means I can't read your mind. "More government settlements to come More coverups to come More govenment lies to come DONT VACCINATE YOUR INFANTS ! you have been warned SOLARMAN" You're not a superhero. And I know who you are, you don't have to sign your name to look cool. Not that this matters, but the government doesn't make any money off vaccines. They lose money off vaccines. Why would they want to defend it? The compensation money doesn't come from deep pockets, they come from our taxes. They won't care about covering this up. There are plenty of other things the government covers up, with good purpose. Vaccine related illnesses aren't one of them. Besides, you still have yet to show that vaccines are still dangerous today. The data shows that the mercuric compound was removed, and the autism rates are dropping. I await your final response.
DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR INFANT! the risks are MUCH higher than the possible benefits!

The bottom line is that the feds have given up without a fight and settled the Autism rates are up about 10000% in just two generations- the rates are about 1000 times higher in vaccinated vs unvaccinates SIDS is UNKNOWN in unvaccinated infants, and is ALWAYS within 2 weeks of vaccinations being administered there are 1000s of cases of children coming down with illness or being permanently retarded from massive vaccinations at a young age my child was personally affected - she got ITP If youre such a medical expert (you are a LIAR just by your tag line and age) why dont you explain to me what ITP is and the causes and cures If you cant , it proves youre just a government hack liar More government settlements to come More coverups to come More govenment lies to come DONT VACCINATE YOUR INFANTS ! you have been warned SOLARMAN
DO NOT VACCINATE YOUR INFANT! the risks are MUCH higher than the possible benefits!

I repeat: There is no more thimerosal in vaccines for childhood viruses. Vaccination is a fairly simple process. I'm sure most of us understand how they work. Our immune systems recognize pathogens that it was dealt with before. Upon discovery, the proper antibodies are created and the pathogen is destroyed before any damage comes to the body. Getting sick once is still too much though. Weakened versions of the virus are injected into the bloodstream and the immune system attack it. Of course, there is no damage, but now the patient is immune to the disease and will never have to have it. Vaccination is one of the most important tools of public health. My opponent is trying to give a reason why the risks are *much* higher than the benefits. I have already eliminated his first argument. As it stands, I see no risks at all in vaccination and quite a few benefits. It is now up to my opponent to tip the scales.