BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
life of infant in womb, sometimes should take priority over mother's wishes for abortion

Clarification: I am supporting the side I do not believe, so this should be interesting. Arguments: {P1} Complications at Childbirth As we all should know, there are many cases in which complications during childbirth, or a mother"s trouble having the child, could result in death. Death from childbirth is more common than one would expect. The article[1] linked shows some facts that are worth reading. The important fact for this point, however, was stated as such: " In 2013, 289 000 women died from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth. In addition, for every woman who dies in childbirth, around 20 more suffer injury, infection or disease " approximately 10 million women each year." As we can see, complications during childbirth are quite a problem. The lives of many could be mothers could be saved, if they simply aborted the child before. Now this may seem immoral, but we are risking the life of a woman who is living and has many loved one"s for the life of someone whose fate we do not know. {P2} Child"s Life In many cases, the woman who seeks an abortion is economically challenged. Thus, she would not be able to support the life of a child. Now, would a mother rather kill a child in the womb, or watch it suffer in the real world. Poor mothers would have to see their child hungry and living a life in poor conditions, simply because the mother wanted to keep the child. {P3} Other situations As many agree on, rape is a case where abortion should be allowed, especially since the child could grow up knowing that she was never intended and was the result of a crime. In those cases, would it not be better to let the child go, or rather, have the child suffer living a life of confusion, regret, and feelings of unwantedness. {P4} Regarding Adoption I understand that aborting a child is difficult for the mother. However, how much harder is it for the mother once the child was already been born? How could a mother, who feels that connection with their child, be able to give it up? There are many cases of mothers wondering how their child is like currently, after leaving it for adoption many years prior. Also, adoption also has its own problems with bad families and even poor facilities at the adoption home, another place where the child would suffer. In conclusion, in most cases, the mother knows whether she would be able to handle the child or not. Thus, she should be given the right over their life. It may be difficult for the mother, but she is only acting in the best interest of the child. [1] http://www.who.int...
life of infant in womb, sometimes should take priority over mother's wishes for abortion

the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother at least later in the pregnancy... sometiems infant's rights should trump. a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, and then, she assumed the risk of carrying the child for many months. to be clear, i'm focusing on later in pregnancy. but there and earlier, an argument could be made that earlier in the pregnancy she forfeits her right to not be pregnant by assuming that risk. much like... if you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attachedk to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated. that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. (if it's debatable, who should decide? the governmnet? why not the mother who is more proximite?) when it was morally grayer. later in the pregnancy though, it's not debatable about personhood. if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems (which might include rape, but since i'm focusing on later term pregnancy, the mother is losing her rights in that regard given she didnt abort when morally grayer), aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply.
life of infant in womb, sometimes should take priority over mother's wishes for abortion

With regards to your first paragraph, Distinction: The way you state it is too much of an exaggeration. Two seconds before birth in the womb is ridiculous, and the proposition that I said that that is okay is incorrect. The limit I believe is that the mother, if she does opt to have an abortion- a practice I do not support- should have the abortion early in the first trimester. After that, moral issues are brought into play. That is my distinction, since you wanted one. Opponent: "you are not making any limitations, so can we assume by your arguments, that you would be okay with a woman having an abortion just because she wants to, and not for any health or that type of reason.... a week before her due date?" Once again, stretching my logic. Just because I did not state the limitations does not mean that there are none. The points I gave above only supported abortion when the woman's or the child's life is in danger. By my arguments, I do not support abortions for no reasons, but if if puts someone else's life in danger, then that practice could be condoned. "if that is not what you support, then where do you draw the line, and why? and if not why are you arguing with me when i'm merely arguing that "sometimes" the fetus should be prioritized?" I already stated in the comments, which you seemed to either ignore or not understand, that the word 'sometimes' threw off the resolution, and implied that any single argument from either side would fulfill the resolution. Once again, we all know that killing a child one week before due date is immoral, and I would say that is murder. But that is because it is already fully developed. In addition, this resolution never mentioned that the mother can abort the baby whenever she wants to. That was only a point you brought up later, and claimed that I implied that. That is not true. In conclusion, a mother 'sometimes' has the right to have her wishes of an abortion supported rather than the life of the infant. Since I have shown that almost always the mother should have the choice, I have negated this resolution and supported my arguments. Thank you for this debate. - Shadow-Dragon -
life of infant in womb, sometimes should take priority over mother's wishes for abortion

you merely state that two seconds outside of the womb is insufficient to kill the child cause it no longer is attached to the mother. so what makes it okay to kill it two seconds before in the womb? you haven't given a meaningful distinction. "As long as the mother has legal right over the child once it is born, it should have the choice of whether it can handle or wants that right. If a mother or parents cannot handle a child, why force them to have it simply to satisfy the people who don't believe in abortion. I'm sure the same anti-abortion people would be happy to send their children into the army, a place where their child could die." you are not making any limitations, so can we assume by your arguments, that you would be okay with a woman having an abortion just because she wants to, and not for any health or that type of reason.... a week before her due date? if that is not what you support, then where do you draw the line, and why? and if not why are you arguing with me when i'm merely arguing that "sometimes" the fetus should be prioritized? im no say implying she shouldn't have sex. just that there are consequences if she does. i didnt even limit the abortions in earlier pregnancy, i just pointed out that her assumeption of the risk earlier on has to be considered later in pregnancy too. my point in the analogy is that the mother caused the baby to become attached to her. she was responsible for it. it was an accident, but she was still responsible. no one would say the victim in the analogy should be at the mercy of the person who caused the accident. likewise, no one should say the baby should be at the mercy of the mother, at least later in pregnancy. i don't understand why you took this debate if you don't think the mother should be able to abort a week before her due date, for fleeting reasons. cause you acknowledged in teh comments that it's hard to argue with the idea of "sometimes" the mother shouldn't have the right to do what she wants.
life of infant in womb, sometimes should take priority over mother's wishes for abortion

i already allowed for exceptions for the mother's health and rape. con arguing for it adds nothing to the debate. poor woman. i assume he's arguing about later in the pregnancy since that was my focus. is it okay to kill a baby cause you're poor two seconds out of the womb, but not two seconds before that in the womb? if we accept that it's okay to kill them right in the womb, due to poverty. why not extend it right outside? i'm poor so i choose to kill my new born so it doesn't live in poverty. what is the difference? same goes for adoption problems. if it's okay to kill right in the womb, can't we just say 'we dont want this baby to have adoption issues so we will terminate the newborn?" the only distinctions i see that you could draw are the hindrance of the mother. but, you didn't address the two 'assumption of the risk' points i pointed out. and you didnt address the analogy of someone getting attached to you cause of an accident you caused.
Nothing says american more than guns

It is exactly because of lack of gun control that the US does not speak more gun than other countries. Studies have found that countries with gun control actually have higher homocidial rates. http://www.gunfacts.info...Therefore a country with heavy gun control--leading to higher homocidial rates because the criminals use more guns than the people, and dare to hurt them, rather in America where criminals don't dare use guns because people might own them--those countries speak more of gun than America.In conclusion the American flag speaks America far more than guns. Guns are too common, even though America has loose gun policies, other countries have loose gun policies too. Not only so, the lack of gun control may be why my opponent's case defeats itself; other countries with heavier gun control might actually have more gun-related crimes. On the other hand, the American is the American flag. There is no other country that has the American flag. Truly, nothing speaks more about America than its flag. VOTE ME.
Nothing says american more than guns

If we had a different flag we wouldn't be America. Did we need guns at all? The British would have to cut us off if we kept on threatening them, even without the use of guns.Also, the resolution is "Nothing says american more than guns". But guns speak China too. They speak Britain. They outspeak any country that uses guns. If a country equally uses guns as US, then guns only speak americas equally as other countries, not any more.
Is Obama helping our country

Is Barack Hussein Obama helping our country? A simple answer yes, yes he is. Many people (Especially right of this issue) don't feel that Barack Obama has helped,is helping or is going to help the country. Truth is, Obama has done many things to help stimulate our Economy,protect us,and help the world see the United States in a positive manner. Obama is not the bad character the GOP and other organizations set him out to be,he has real intention in helping his country. Although he isn't perfect by any means and has made errors in his presidency his full intent I assure is to help this country and it's people. Whether by formulating and congress passing the historical Affordable Care Act or by ordering the death of a man responsible for 3,000 deaths,bringing back the Auto Industry. Here I will lay out my reasons on how President Barack Obama has and is helping our country. Let's begin at the very start of Obama's term,The ever so dreaded Stimulus Package [1] Time Magazine's Michael Grundwald suggest the Stimulus was a "Political Failure" but "there is voluminous evidence that the stimulus did provide real stimulus, helping to stop a terrifying free-fall, avert a second Depression, and end a brutal recession." As many Economist's also agree with Mr. Grundwald assertion.[2] According to the Moody"s website Economy.com, JPMorgan Chase, and the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus "increased GDP at least 2 percentage points, the difference between contraction and growth, and saved or created about 2.5 million jobs." The Recovery Act, Or Stimulus helped lift 7 million Americans above the poverty line.[3] The homelessness prevention provisions of the Recovery Act helped house 1.2 million Americans who might have significantly added to the nation"s homeless population otherwise. As you can see, this illustrates the point of Obama helping his country and citizens by increasing GDP creating jobs,lifting people out of poverty and by housing the homeless. President Obama has also helped in keeping a little change in our pockets by signing and approving the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 in effect extending Unemployment Insurance,assuring that those without work will have money to pay their bills, and feed their families as well as a payroll tax cut which means that the state and federal agencies will get less of your money. So,I have now given Evidence as to why President Barack Obama has made things better for our country and it's citizenry. I now wish for my opponent to present his evidence. Cited Sources: [1] [2] [3] http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org...
God

Hi. I'm my name is Nathanael and I'm 16. I believe people believe in god because they don't have another answer. In other words they follow a non-existent thing to compensate for their ignorance because they're scared of the unknown and want to make it known by any means necessary including convincing themselves there is a higher power. What I don't get is why people push this on their children. Why not teach them all ways and let them decide what they choose. I was forced into religion but now I see the truth. God is something that lacks evidence and if your philosophy is that humans are so complicated that they must have a maker then who made the maker? If he can make himself or just appear then why can't humans? This is my opening I look forward to yours.
God

Let me first just say that I am very disappointed that Nathanael chose to forfeit this round, and honestly I'm not quite sure what to say in this round, because (not to be proud) my arguments have gone almost entirely uncontested. This debate has been a complete disappointment for me, as Nathanael came into it talking a big game. If anyone thinks they could have argued Nathanael's side of the debate better than he did, please contact me. I would be interested in rearranging this debate with a more competent opponent. Nathanael, if you do visit this debate again, I hope you at least take away from this that theology is not as simple as you seem to think it is, and perhaps you do not " see the truth." And perhaps, you are really the one who is "compensat[ing] for [your] ignorance." Your last chance to properly defend yourself approaches. Good Luck.
God

Nathanael, it is true that every animal develops unique traits in order to help them survive, however the traits I pointed out about Man are unique among those because they do not exist to help Man survive. That is why it is evidence of the divine. If it were simply evolution alone, Man would not have developed traits which do not help him survive. Like I said before, the traits I described are for the purpose of higher thinking, and the appreciation of art, two things which do not help Man survive, but rather are finer, speculative aspects of our humanity. That is the god-given blessing, and that is why my point has not been rebutted. Secondly, you are correct, due to the modern scientific method, we don't really know many things for certain, we can only be sure to a certain degree that a theory is correct, but I am claiming that God is logical not through the scientific method per se, but really just through observation and logic. So, it doesn't prove anything to say that we don't know for sure that the big bang theory accurately describes the creation of the universe. The evidence suggests that it is most logical to think the universe was created by the big bang, and the big bang is evidence that it is most logical that God was involved, as I stated above, and as you failed to address. To state that more clearly, I am not arguing that it has been proven 100%, without a doubt that God exists, I am arguing that it is most logical to believe in God. I am directly contesting your thesis that: "people believe in god because they don't have another answer. In other words they follow a non-existent thing to compensate for their ignorance because they're scared of the unknown and want to make it known by any means necessary including convincing themselves there is a higher power." So far, I've given you logical reasons why God is logical, and you have failed to respond. In your response, please prove that what I have said is false, and prove that "[I'm] taking the lack of knowledge that we humans have and trying to shove your religion into it and try to make it fit." I anxiously await your well-reasoned response.
God

I'm an odd person I change my mind and thoughts about what I want to do just about every day. Since you feel strongly about what I say I'll give it a go. I think most people would agree that things evolve to better suit their environment and increase their chance of survival. Man was in a bad position at one point and the only way to get out was to think outside the box. So basically use our imagination. Many species go extinct all the time because they don't have an imagination which makes humans the dominant race. But just because humans have an edge over the rest of these creatures does not mean that it was intended by a greater power. Saber-toothed lions went extinct but many other animals survived. Does that mean that god favors some animals over others? No of course not. Some animals adapt better than others giving them an edge. Now by this logic one species would adapt better than all the others. That is why humans are dominant. It's not a god given blessing. You'd asking why nature would defy its own laws only one time? Why does nature have laws? Humans gave nature laws but that doesn't mean the laws are true. The laws are made from what we humans can gather. There is plenty we can't prove and plenty we can. The whole big bang theory is what got me thinking about the proof on both sides. Of course there is proof of the big bang like how the universe is slowing down or how there is noise of an explosion in space but there is also plenty that can't be proved. Mostly about what happened before the big bang but for the most part i think it has enough proof to be a viable option. You said that there is no other answer to the universe so their must be a god. Just because we dont have the tools to prove something does not mean that we should automatically assume some divine being created us all. So basically since we can't prove that there was anything before time there must have been god. People look at this wrong. People look at it and try to make the religion fit in the facts when instead they need to find new facts and new ideas if one doesn't fit the facts. You're taking the lack of knowledge that we humans have and trying to shove your religion into it and try to make it fit. I don't see this as a reasonable thing to do. It's like trying to put a square object into a circular hole.
Drug Commercials

Ok, my opponent has basically just conceded the resolution. The resolution states that drug commercials should be legally policed. My opponent just conceded that they are legal and has not attacked my argument on constitutional legality. As far as my opponent's argument goes, he basically uses an example of a company using ads to mislead the public. Again, drug companies can do that. The question is whether or not the company should be punished. And my opponent says that these ads are bad as a whole. In most scenarios, they're actually good because patients learn about the product and the company makes money. Again my opponent just conceded the legality argument (which is what the resolution is about) and is losing the ethics argument.
Drug Commercials

Ok, I know it's legal, but it doesn't have to be right. Just keep telling people they should convince their doctor they need this stuff. Look at Xarelto. They advertiser says you should ask your doctor, on the other station some lawyer is wanting to sue the drug company on your behalf, because of the serious side effects, including death. OK, I know it's legal. I shouldn't have started this debate, you can't fight money and big business. Hopefully people are smart enough to ignore these ads.
Drug Commercials

I accept. First of all, my opponent should define drug commercials. Who advertises? What kind of drugs are being advertised? Where are these advertisements? Nevertheless, I'll start out with some basic arguments. Policing these advertisements would be a violation of two parts of the first amendment. Firstly, Freedom of Speech. These companies are trying to promote their brand that is (and has to be) FDA approved. As long is no one is being hurt or defamed by these advertisements, it is unconstitutional to police them. Secondly, freedom of press. Many ads appear in newspapers or magazines. Again, if the drug is FDA approved and the publishing company lets the drug ad go in, it is legal. On constitutional grounds I object to my opprnent.
Drug Commercials

There must be a way to police these drug commercials. Other countries have laws prohibiting the advertising of drugs to the general public. Let these companies advertise their drugs to physicians through the internet or mailings. I am so sick of these ads. I just change the station. put the sound on mute, or better still, shut the TV off. You couldn't pay me to take this crap!! FDA doesn't care, they are in bed with these pharmaceutical companies, and the networks don't care they are making billions.
School is better then holidays

How about concentration ? After a good long holiday children are still relaxed and not ready for learning, teachers always have problems with children that don't concentrate, more than normal after a holiday ! I'm almost sure that your child (children) have seen or heard teachers saying things like "your holiday is over, snap out of it" if they are at a primary school. Do you have time for children in the holidays? Even if you do I think they will like school more because you may stay at home with them, but most of parents don't play and teach their children at home. You may think that playing with them doesn't matter but having a good relationship with them help you get your child to learn thing that you want to learn. Thank you !
School is better then holidays

Due to holidays teachers need to use a month or two to review what students learnt in the previous term or year. Which losses a lot of precious learning time! We can try very hard on a educational thing, then it's term break we don't practice as much so back at school we forget things that we need to learn again. If that happens then the student will lose confidence in their own learning and stop trying, that will lead to the student future's disaster and he or she shall not be successful!