BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government should not regulate abortion

Your position is " The government should not regulate abortion". Then you posted "On the account that does best by the critic of abortion's own standards, the fetus acquires the right to life that you and I have when it begins to have conscious desires.Development of a fetus does not allow this until a certain kind of electrical activity begins in its cerebral cortex, 25-32 weeks after fertilization." If we assume that your statement is correct then you have defeated your own position. If a child does acquire the right to life at 25-32 weeks as you have stated then the government is totally obligated to regulate abortion at this point because as you stated it has acquired the right to life that you and I have.
The government should not regulate abortion

I understand that this is a complex issue and to fully evaluate it, you must take into account much more than can be argued in a few rounds on an internet blog but I would like to point out that I do not take a moral stance on this issue, I am pro choice, not pro-abortion. I will focus my position on some of the major points: First is the question of whether or not aborted fetuses are at a point of development when it can be considered a life. On the account that does best by the critic of abortion's own standards, the fetus acquires the right to life that you and I have when it begins to have conscious desires.Development of a fetus does not allow this until a certain kind of electrical activity begins in its cerebral cortex, 25-32 weeks after fertilization. If all of this is correct, then the vast majority of abortions take place well before the point at which the fetus acquires a right to life. This does not in itself demonstrate that such abortions are morally permissible, but it does show that the rights-based argument against abortion fails to show that they are impermissible. If you do think that a fetus has the right to life, I would also like to point out that regulating abortions does not mean you decrease the number of abortions that take place. You can evaluate this issue from a supply and demand paradigm. While making them illegal could deter some women from seeking abortions it does not address the fundamental causes of abortion- social pressures (the reason that there is a demand for abortions now). Thus, regulating abortions only takes away part of the supply, but none of the demand. The alternative to women seeking safe, legal abortions is for women to engage in back alley abortions with button hooks, or women throwing themselves down stairs.. This is a proven impact of making abortions illegal- On President Bush's first day in office he reinstated the global gag rule which suppressed all aid foreign aid that went to NGOs that engaged in abortion activity. The result was hundreds of thousands of deaths of deaths of women and children who sought the illegal methods described above. (this statistic is for Sub Saharan Africa alone)If women in the US want an abortion they will find a method for doing so. If you want to make this debate about morality, it seems that we should do everything in our power to no let women suffer the same fate. Finally is the issue of women's rights. As I stated above I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. A woman should be in control of her reproductive rights. The same explanation you will use for justifying restricting abortion rights could easily be used to infringe upon all of our personal decisions. The constitution protects such civil rights violations and is the reason why the government has not regulated abortion activity.
There is at least one contradiction in the Bible and this proves it cannot be the word of God

Thank you for responding. Con says that Psalm 18:30 ("As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him") was written before the time of the Bible, and could not be referring to the Bible. I accept this, and apologize for my ignorance on the matter. However, I reject his argument that "The Lord"s word" refers to Jesus or a servant of God. Since, according to Con, Psalms was written about 1000 BC, it could not be referring, to Jesus, as he did not yet exist. Also, looking at the full context, it is clear that it is not referring to a person: 25 "To the faithful you show yourself faithful, to the blameless you show yourself blameless, 26 to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the devious you show yourself shrewd. 27 You save the humble but bring low those whose eyes are haughty. 28 You, Lord, keep my lamp burning; my God turns my darkness into light. 29 With your help I can advance against a troop[a]; with my God I can scale a wall. 30 As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord"s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. 31 For who is God besides the Lord? And who is the Rock except our God? 32 It is God who arms me with strength and keeps my way secure. 33 He makes my feet like the feet of a deer; he causes me to stand on the heights." 34 He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze. 35 You make your saving help my shield, and your right hand sustains me; your help has made me great. 36 You provide a broad path for my feet, so that my ankles do not give way. (Psalms 18: 25 -36) As can be seen from the full context, someone (I tried finding out who, but I couldn"t) is speaking directly about God. Nowhere did I find any verse before 18:25 or after 18:36 that even suggested that "The Lord"s word" is a person. Now, when it says in Psalms that "The Lord"s word" and his way are perfect, it just does not make sense that the Bible would then not be perfect. God does not stop being perfect. But if you still reject this, then here is another verse, from the Old Testament: "As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him." (2 Samuel 22:31) It uses the same exact language as Psalms 18: 25-36. Again, it does not make sense that, God would stop being perfect when the New Testament was being written. Pro the makes the mistake of linking to a list of proposed contradictions as though they could not be resolved. I never said that none of those Contradictions could be resolved, I just thought you would want to see my source. I conclude by rebutting Con"s last statement. Would God, whose way is perfect, and whose word is flawless, and to who anything is possible (Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26) really speak "through a medium full of error and contradictions" and allow the Bible, the guide for all of mankind, to be changed and corrupted by "scribal error"? Your last point just does not make sense to me.
There is at least one contradiction in the Bible and this proves it cannot be the word of God

First I will prove that having even a single contradiction would mean the Bible cannot be the true word of God, because God is perfect. According to the Bible, God and his word (the Bible) are perfect: "As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. " (Psalms 18:30) (. http://biblehub.com...) So, if there is even one contradiction in the Bible, that would mean it could not be the word of God, because according to the Bible itself, God is perfect, as is the Bible. A contradiction would mean God made a mistake, which is not possible because the Bible says he is perfect. Finding even one contradiction in the Bible would mean it could not be the word of God. So, having established that having even one contradiction would mean the Bible cannot be the word of God, here are the contradictions: 1. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time? These are the names of David's mightiest warriors. The first was Jashobeam the Hacmonite, who was leader of the Three--the three mightiest warriors among David's men. He once used his spear to kill 800 enemy warriors in a single battle. (2 Samuel 23:8) Here is the record of David's mightiest warriors: The first was Jashobeam the Hacmonite, who was leader of the Three--the mightiest warriors among David's men. He once used his spear to kill 300 enemy warriors in a single battle. ( 1 Chronicles 11:11) 2. When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture? And David took from him 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers. And David hamstrung all the chariot horses but left enough for 100 chariots. (2 Samuel 8:4) And David took from him 1,000 chariots, 7,000 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers. And David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left enough for 100 chariots. (1 Chronicles 18:4) 3. How many stalls for horses did Solomon have? Solomon also had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen. (1 Kings 4:26) And Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 9:25) 4. How many singers accompanied the assembly? besides their 7,337 male and female slaves; and they also had 200 male and female singers. (Ezra 2:65) besides their 7,337 male and female slaves; and they also had 245 male and female singers. (Nehemiah 7:67) 5. Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey? These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff--no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. (Mark 6:8) He told them: "Take nothing for the journey--no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt. (Luke 9:3) Here is the full list of 101 Bible Contradictions if you want to look at them: . http://www.answering-christianity.com...
There is at least one contradiction in the Bible and this proves it cannot be the word of God

I would like for this to be a serious debate, so please no trolling. Thank you. In this debate I will be clear about the Burden of Proof: 1. 1st round is acceptance only 2. I will prove that having even one contradiction means that the Bible cannot be the true word of God 3. I will then list the Contradictions (in that same round) 4. You will then respond
Cats are better than dogs

I countered your arguments but for convenience's sake i will provide some of my own 1)dogs may lack a cat's intelligence but what they lack in intelligence thei make up for in loyalty, usefulness(drug dogs, dogs for blind people, dogs for people suffering from PTSD) and playfulness 2)when it comes to cooperation with humans dogs are extremely more intelligent than cats. 3)even stray dogs inherently love humans. the only other emotion a stray dog will ever show to a human(provided that it is not rabid) is fear and only if the dog was abused in the past 4)lastly dogs will actually give a damn about you unlike cats who only care about you feeding them or not . raising a dog is like raising a baby while raising a cat is like raising a dictator
Cats are better than dogs

the only reason a dog would ever attack a human is if it is trained to do so or if it, or its puppies are in danger. cats dont try to kill people solely because they can't. Explain the training process. They can roam free because they are superconfident in their abilities(which quite often dissapoint them) while dogs feel dependant(sorry if i spelt it wrong) to their master. again cats dont get agressive to humans so much because they cant, not because they dont want to. they have to be on leash to contain them, since dogs are very playful animals. sorry for the delay, i had a job
Cats are better than dogs

Have you ever heard of a cat killing a human being? Didnt think so. 33 people are killed by dogs each year, people killed by cats each is 0, dogs are a danger to society, cats are a blessing. I've trained my cat to kill exactly 5 critters every month and bring them to my doorstep which he always does, I don't want a dog bringing a kid to my doorstep. Dogs can be vicious, cats, not so much Cats can roam free, otherwise knows as off-collar animals. Dogs have to be on a leash in places like parks or any public place. I await my opponents arguments.
Cats are better than dogs

I would like to start off by stating my reasons why cats are better than dogs. 1. Cats are fluffier, and dont attack as much as dogs do. 2. I think we can all agree that kittens are cuter than puppies, even though they are both cute. 3. Dogs poop on lawns, but cats dig a hole not only for their craps, but for when they have to pee as well. 4. Cats are much smarter than dogs, dogs chase anything they can but cats stalk their pray. Good luck
Gay marriage is a sin

We all know that it is against God's will for two people of the same gender to get married, it says clear in the holy book the Bible that God wants people of different gender to get married and build a family. I personally do not understand why it should be legal for gay people since it is a sin just to be gay, they should be taught from a very young age that it is NOT okay to be gay or have gay preferences of any kind, children should know that they will end up in hell with eternal pain and suffering if they choose to go against God's will and wish. Gay marriage should be illegal.
Gay marriage is a sin

So you admit to cherry picking the prefect word of god. That's pretty funny. Look I don't have any arguments because You didn't respond to mine. So I'll just add one more thing. Imagine same sex marriages where normal In this society and marriage between different genders was controversial like gay marriage is now. Imagine you meet a girl you really like you date for a year and you love her she's prefect for you and you want to spend the rest of you're life with her. You want to get married but you can't and you shunned by people who don't let you marry this women because of some random unproven belief they have and want to force on you. Would you like that? Or would you say. Hay I love this women and want to marry her and it's wrong for you to stop me because you disapprove of it. That's what's happening to same sex couples. How can you not support people marrying who they love?
suicide is not a cowardly act.

people can be bullied or go through loss or things that last for years. so people want to get it over with and just end it from there. suicide is not a cowardly act. after my father died and i was harassed at school and my mother told me i was some awful things i attempted suicide. people who want to die don't think about if there going to be considered a coward or not btw, its all about how they feel. suicide is something that takes a lot of things piled up to take ur own life, suicide is the "i'm giving up" but that doesn't mean ur a coward it just means i don't want to be alive anymore. btw i am sorry for the no capital letters and the horrible grammar but this is how i type sorry :/
suicide is not a cowardly act.

Expanding on that 'depressed or hurt' statement, It all depends on how depressed or hurt the person is (give me an example of what causes you're referring to?) And do you not think a person is a lot braver to attempt to fix the problem that's causing these suicidal motives? As oppose to just 'quitting'? In some circumstances, no, they are not cowards, they just don't want to suffer any more, which is why I feel it is a persons right as to whether or not they want to live. But too often is the case that the reasons are no more different than problems millions of people are also going through also.
suicide is not a cowardly act.

I think in very extreme circumstances where the life you live can no longer be called YOUR life (for example, human trafficking or any form of physical suffering) then I agree it is hard to make an argument that they should indeed prolong their life and the suffering further. But if the decision is from everyday human stress then I will have to disagree and say it is rather cowardly. I see suicide as the ultimate 'I give up', regardless of what is causing this. Much of the time it resolves down to an issue that if the person really wanted to, they could do something about and attempt to bounce back. I just feel suicide goes against the very instincts that make us the most dominant species on Earth.
Prevention Of Corruption

Corruption is very bad for democracy as it can lead to the capture of the state by special interests. it is economically disastrous as it gives those in power the incentive and ability to continually create new laws and regulations which they can then exploit in order to extract bribes. corruption at any level or intent should be unacceptable, for momentary benefits we lose a bigger world. it hollows out any sect or community it inflicts. its propogation should be vehemently condemned and those who second this menace be brought to book.
trying to spread aetheism/discourage theism is immoral

Here's what I think. Morals are subject to opinion. Even when you back it up with logic, something that you consider to be moral is really just a matter of opinion, a case of do unto others as you would have them to unto you. And while I still believe that it's wrong to promote atheism, I can see no way to back it up in a powerfully logical way, without it seeming like an opinion. Perhaps my ideals are effected by the passion I saw and felt myself as a theist. Either way, the more logical consensus is, ironically, that it is not immoral to spread atheism. In other words, I concede.
trying to spread aetheism/discourage theism is immoral

He concedes that it is to the benefit of a society to embrace atheism. His reservation is that he thinks theism serves the happiness of the individual in a society that is not yet converted to atheism. He has not established that this is true. Regardless, the short term does not overcome the greatest long term good, which will benefit countless generations not just the next few. It is indisputably to the benefit of societies that are not mainly religious (like many in Europe) to embrace atheism. Therefore it is not immoral to promote atheism, and the resolution is defeated. I agree with my opponent that the goal should be to encourage atheism completely, and not just to a handful of people. Since we have space, I will address my opponent's concerns about admitting there is no God. He rightly feels that living without purpose is a terrible burden to carry. I fully agree that one should have goals in life. Whether it is to learn all you can learn about the universe, or an aspect of humanity, or to raise a family, or to be the best you can be in a chosen career, or to help others, deciding on goals when you are young and working towards them invariably leads to a happier life. An active personal sense of purpose is more rewarding than the passive belief that the universe has a purpose, in which grand play you have only a brief walk on role. There is liberation in being able to determine one's own worldview and to develop one's own ethics. You are free of the tyranny of obedience to what amounts to the power of other human beings. Yes, there is great responsibility in living in a world without God, but if he doesn't exist you were easing that burden with psychological tricks and social bonding. As an atheist, you can still use psychology to help yourself. You can join groups with similar interests, and have just as full a social life as you had when you were active in the church. Also, there is great secular philosophy and literature to read, and films that explore life in a world where there may be no God. Another thing to do is to talk to ex-theists and see how they coped with losing their faith. For many it is a positive experience. I think it takes integrity to accept your opponent's arguments, and I thank natoast for that.
trying to spread aetheism/discourage theism is immoral

After considering what you have to say I have come to this conclusion: it is more beneficial to an individual to embrace religion, while it is more beneficial to a society if it embraces atheism. I still feel that religion servers a better purpose in the individuals life. If you where to compare the personal implications of atheism and theism, if one of the two really where to be true, theism would be highly preferable. Now I understand your reasoning behind the unlikelihood of religion being true, and agree with you. But if one could choose whether theism or atheism where true, they would undoubtedly choose theism, for reasons I stated in the 'patronization' argument, It's just so much more rewarding. Now the only argument that I can see that you have brought up against personal happiness of a theistic person is the argument that they wouldn't like to be patronized in that way. Even this doesn't deal with the actual satisfaction of the person, but it does deal with their potential satisfaction. I've explained how this is more of an argument of 'treat others as you would be treated', so I'll explain a little more thoroughly why I would prefer to be allowed to assume that theism is true. I feel that a life lived without a 'point' is a terrible burden to carry. If we assume that there is no punishment or reward, no anything that comes after life, then it diminishes the relative purpose and fullness of life. Now, this is still more of an opinion, and I believe that opinion is the only logic behind this reasoning. As I said earlier, I have read your argument and decided it would in fact be better for a society as a whole if it where to embrace atheism. The possible moral uplifting that would accompany religion would not outweigh the prejudice, moral conservatism, and technological inhibition that comes from a religion centered society. That being said, I still stand by my original statement. Becuase unless you have the intention of converting an entire society to atheism, a person crusading for atheism will only achieve converting individuals to atheism. They will be bringing about the negative changes that come with individual atheism without the positive results of a nation devouted to atheism. In a practical, everyday sense, spreading atheism to a handful of people would not serve the greater good of humanity.