BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion

Put simply, Con has not addressed maternal death. I will show you: After pushing away the offered definition, Con proposed that life starts at conception. Because he offered that "abortion should be illegal," he has to handle ectopic pregnancies as a termination of this very dangerous medical condition would be outlawed under Con's absolute law. Con does not offer a medical exception. Abortion is illegal, period. Because abortion is illegal, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy will have to carry to term. The 9% death rate is low because the pregnancies are terminated. Under Con's law, the death rate will sky rocket. Under Con's law any woman who would need an abortion due to a potentially high risk pregnancy will simply be out of luck. All he can say at this point is, "let them die." I made an effort to allow Con to avoid this troublesome position, but he elected to take it anyway. He has no other choice but to defend this cruelty as he backed himself into a corner with the life at conception position. When I write that he has not addressed this point, I am asking him to follow his law to its logical conclusion. He won't do this because it is as cruel as it sounds. Instead of addressing this major point, the biggest in this debate, he changes the subject. Now we will talk more about statistics as this is the closest Con has come to addressing maternal death – presenting rates and numbers. Ectopic Pregnancy: Con presents some numbers to say the death rate of ectopic pregnancy is low. I don't care if it was lower. Please follow through and say, "Only 360,000 will die, let them. Abortion should still be illegal." This point is your logical conclusion. Now, the death rate of 9% is a product of termination. The risk of carrying an ectopic pregnancy to term is astronomical: "Although there have been a few reported cases of women giving birth by cesarean section to live infants that were located outside the uterus, this is extremely rare. The chance of carrying an ectopic pregnancy to full term is so remote, and the risk to the woman so great, that it can never be recommended." http://www.medicinenet.com... You won't allow these procedures, as such; the numbers you presented are not relevant. All the numbers in the world do not fix this matter for you. Elective Abortion: Your law bans ALL abortions, elective or otherwise, so these numbers are, again, irrelevant. Roe v. Wade: And? What does this have to do with maternal death rates and the rise of such rates under your law? This is off topic. Con allowed me to take a very safe position in this debate. I need not worry about elective abortions as I am only concerned about medical necessity. Going into our conclusions, Con should be honest and say, outright, that he knows mothers will die because his law will not allow them to make a choice based on medical necessity. I don't see how he has any other choice.
Abortion

A counter argument to your maternal death rates due to complications during pregnancy is that there are also complications during the abortion procedure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... The article states on a world wide scale about 42 million woman choose abortion while nearly half of them are unsafe and woman could potentially die and some woman can have serious health complications after the fact of the abortion. Also in this article: http://www.hli.org... The article mentions: About 6 chances in 100,000 for childbirth and about 3 chances in 100,000 for abortion. To put these probabilities into perspective, a woman's chances of dying in childbirth are equal to those of being killed in a car accident. There are a numerous of risks for both cases so either perspective the both of us put it in whether pro choice or pro life there are risks either way. http://www.car-accidents.com... To clear up the car accident statistic in relation to the deaths. "At this point I cannot consider Mr. Allot's reference to the report credible." This statement was in your argument about the post-abortion depression. Since Mr. Allot's study link was not provided you cannot believe this to be correct but, in the article you provided from the New England Journal it clearly states,"The law also requires that doctors give pregnant women a description of medical and "statistically significant" risks of abortion, among which it includes depression and other psychological distress, suicide, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and death." Which since you did provide this article and read through and saw that there were psychological dangers due to abortion my argument stands credible. Furthermore a fetus is born in the moment of conception http://the-dp-is-good-always.blogspot.com... As number 1 states the basic elementary definition of life begins during fertilization. Once the sperm reaches the egg the baby has life to it and killing the baby will be against our morals. Also it is a helpless baby and obviously has no say in anything we need to protect the babies rights of life and provide for him/her In the same article I would like to point out number 4 where after 20 weeks the fetus can actually feel the pain according to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology A major reason why women are getting abortions is because of there age many girls today are getting pregnant at 15-19 years old which is relatively young. A way for these girls to not get in trouble is ending the pregnancy which is a way to save them selves but not thinking about there child and there responsibility. http://abortion.procon.org... Page 3 of 24 states it under the age and adolescence tab. Also another point I'll address is that when a woman does get an abortion she is also likely to get a second abortion. http://www.priestsforlife.org... 26.2% of women who aborted had experienced one previous abortion; 11.2% had two previous abortions, and 7.5% had three or more previous abortions. Why haven't these woman learned there lesson before? If these woman have to go through three abortions than they are cruel.
Abortion

I thank Con for his response, and after a review of his 2nd round, I see no compelling reason to justify the illegality of abortion considering the issue of maternal death. Con opens with a justification for the illegality of abortion by citing post abortion depression. As support, Con links an article from the American Spectator by an author who champions pro life positions. Mr. Allot has many articles supporting his anti abortion stance in a variety of conservative news publicans. I would love to see the study he references, but he does not provide a source. Some anti abortion sites list the report in the same vague terms as Mr. Allot, but they do not link it or give me any information so I can examine it myself. These sites seem to be echo chambers. At this point I cannot consider Mr. Allot's reference to the report credible. In addition, the New England Journal of Medicine contends that much of the information concerning post abortion depression is not supported by scientific research. http://www.nejm.org... And will serve to disrupt the doctor/patient relationship. Even if Con and Mr. Allot can show that abortion may result in post abortion depression, neither addresses the situation that is the basis for my position – maternal death. I need only show one case where an abortion is less risky than a full term pregnancy. I can. Just this year peer reviewed research as shown that abortion is much less risky than childbirth. Here is the Reuters article. http://www.reuters.com... And you can see the journal is linked at the bottom so you can at least read the abstract or check out the issue at the library. http://journals.lww.com... In light of peer reviewed research, I submit that an abortion, in general, is much safer than childbirth in some cases; therefore, Pro's contention concerning post abortion depression is not supported. Con's contentions concerning maternal death rates: Con agrees that complications occur during pregnancy and supports equal access to healthcare – we can agree here but he does wish to note that women referenced in the Amnesty article want to have a baby. I cannot see this distinction, nor do I find it relevant so I see no need to discuss it until Con can show why it is important Adoption: Adoption may be a valid option for some women, but doesn't address the issue at hand (maternal death). Adoption may be a better choice for some mothers, but in light of the current situation concerning the mortality rate in childbirth; it certainly isn't the best choice for everyone. Please remember, Con, that your resolution is absolute and no woman will have a choice when it comes to her own reproductive health. At this point, Con has not adequately dealt with the problem presented by maternal death.
Abortion

My example about the postpartum depression has correlation between a pregnant woman and a woman who choses the path to terminate her pregnancy. Which is a condition called Post Abortion Depression which is similar to Post dramatic stress disorder. . http://spectator.org... In that article it explains what I was trying to explain and provides examples about studies such as the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse conducted. My point is the woman that do for what ever reason, they want to get an abortion does not only effect the baby as the article stated. Women suffer from sever mental disorders after this procedure which leads to a higher suicidal rate for the woman. Now instead of aborting this innocent fetus we have ended the mothers life too. I will digress a little, we can't leave out the father's in this situation and from my own perception this man who had a baby by accident has lost his child and the mother of the baby. So this also effects the father too and could possibly lead him to depression. Following your point about the article you posted, about the maternal death rates from amnesty. org. I understand that there are cases were the women have certain complications. From my interpretation of the article it seems like these women want these babies. The article states that "Minorities, those living in poverty, Native American and immigrant women [. .. ] are particularly affected. " These women were not financially stable since article clearly states poverty and they should not have tried to bring a baby in this world if they could not provide for the kid. Speaking about pregnancy complication it is difficult for a couple to hear the news that there is a chance the mother will be ill if she goes through with the pregnancy. In your article the Larry Cox says, "Mothers die not because the United States can't provide good care, but because it lacks the political will to make sure good care is available to all women," Women should be provided with equal health care so hopefully abortion rates will decrease. Basically, a woman who has complications can chose to take the risk and the risk is more rewarding because there can be a chance that the new life will survive and that is better than killing him/her off. My next point is to expand on adoption as opposed to abortion. Women who have no complications with there babies and are healthy but are not ready to have a baby yet because it may not be the time they have the choice of giving the baby up for adoption. . http://www.livestrong.com... Mistakes happen in life but as the article states the birth mother can provide her baby with a loving home and with a family who is financially stable. I and I am sure that others agree that enduring the pain for 9 months of pregnancy is more rewarding than terminating your child.
Superheros shouldn't have to abide to the same laws as normal people

Chairperson, Adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen, My name is Gehirn0, and today I will be opposing the motion that superheroes must not abide by the laws of a regular citizen, I hope you enjoy and I thank you in advance for listening. Laws, although the multitude are not fond of them, these rules and regulations are here in society today to protect the average bystander from criminals , unjust happenings, etc. Imagine superpowers as an extention of the average human capabilities, much like , say, a person with savant syndrome, an impressive memory. If we alter laws according to individuals abilities, the world would be chaotic. If those with higher IQs were allowed to perform illegal activities, there would be more crime than that of which if this motion weren't passed. Superheroes need to be a symbol for the people, a person they can strive to become, allowing heroes to bypass these laws is simply unjust and would cause cataclysmic effects on society.
Superheros shouldn't have to abide to the same laws as normal people

Superheros should absolutely have privileges that normal humans do not. These people are superheros, let me reiterate that, super HEROES when I think of a superhero i think of the avengers who saved New York and possibly the world from destruction, or the justice league who saved the world from damnation, of cores you have people who claim to be heroes like cat woman, she fights for what she thinks is right, I do not believe she is a super HERO as her actions are not morally sound so I think superheroes can lead to nothing but benefits.
Do you think aboriginal people should have their land back

Aboriginals shouldn't get their land back. Not only are they composed of such a miniscule population, that the act would be pointless, but I, as well as any North American whose ancestors have immigrated here in the last 500 years, have as much of a claim to the land that they do. I was born here, raised here and will most likely die here. So did my parents, so did my grandparents, and so did their grandparents. We are as much native as the American Aboriginal claim they are. They can have their culture, they can have their reserves, they can have funds from the government and tax exemptions too if they so feel entitled to have these previleges. They do not, however, have any more of a right to the lands than we do.
The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist

Resolution and what this debate is aboutPro says "This shows that the real issue at hand is the existence of objective morality and how it is existent even if God doesn't exist. "I think I should clarify something, the resolution doesn't state that objective morality exists, it states that God is a necessary precondition IF objective morality exists. Pro doesn't have to commit themselves that objective morality actually exists, they can if they want too, but its not necessary in order to affirm the resolution. I do realize I didn't have the If in their so maybe that was bad on my part, but what I was trying to do was not tie Pros hands by forcing them to commit that objective morality actually exists. In hindsight maybe it would of been better if I worded the resolution something like "Objective morality can only exist if God exists" maybe that's easier to understand ? Precondition = A condition that must exist or be established before something can occur or be considered; a prerequisite. [1]For example if the resolution was "the existence of bread is necessary to make a sandwich"This doesn't mean that sandwich exists, just that IF the sandwich exists then a necessary pre-condition would be the existence of bread. Like wise the resolution "The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist" doesn't mean that objective morality exists, just that IF objective morality exists, then God exists. Thus I disagree with your statement of intent " I will not be debating that "God's existence necessitates objective morality""Hopefully this clarifies the resolution, I would remind Pro that you are well. .. .. .. .. .Pro, meaning you are to provide argument in support of the resolution. Sources [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist

I truly believe in what my argument will be and I always enjoy it when others try and refute my beliefs, as it forces me to think about my beliefs even harder. I will abide by my opponent's request for no semantics, cheap shots, or foul play, so long as he does as well. RESOLUTION My opponent presented his introductory argument/statement in a very specific way. He next to last statement was "Until proven otherwise, it is possible that objective morality can exist, even if God does not exist. " This shows that the real issue at hand is the existence of objective morality and how it is existent even if God doesn't exist. To better debate the argument at hand, I will not be debating that "God's existence necessitates objective morality", but that "objective morality isn't a standard that applies to this universe" (with a guiding assumption that God isn't real. ) This seems completely fair and will better let us debate the issue at hand. Should my opponent wish the topic to be oriented a different way he should say so in his next round, and I will do my best to follow that orientation. However, I strongly believe that this is the issue that my opponent wishes to debate. ARGUMENT My argument is not a particulary large one, and one that hopefully will seem rather intuitive. Although I'm not going to play semantics, it is necessary to define some terms in order to see my argument as clearly as possible. My opponent has defined objective morality that exists independently of human belief. (Ie, killing is wrong no matter what. ) My opponent noticeably doesn't define morality itself, however. So what is morality? Merriam-Webster defines a moral as something that is "of or relating to principles of right and wrong". This definition reveals that morality is based off of principles regarding human behavior. When my opponent says that objective morality can exist independent of humans, he is saying that principles inherently exist regarding human behavior that is independent of humans themselves. This is counter-intuitive, as it takes humans' existence in order for their to be principles regarding them. So clearly objective morality cannot exist without the existence of humans. Here is the point where my opponent would say that objective morality requires human existence. If that is so, then objective morality is only instituted when humans are, since there are possible worlds in which no humans exist. And if that is so, then something had to institute the principles independent of humans, and if objective morality is idependent of humans it would take some other type of sentient being in order for this moral code to even be instituted. Since no other sentient life has been found besides humans, they play no role in any logical argument, including this one. So my opponent claims that there exist principles of human nature independent of humans themselves. This I have shown to be impossible, and as of now, the argument is in my favor, and I avidly await my opponent's response.
The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist

ResolutionThe existence of God is necessary for objective morality to existBurden of ProofPro will affirm the resolutionCon will oppose the resolutionDebate details4 Rounds8,000 Character limit72 Hours to respond1 Month voting periodNO VIDEO LINKS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBLEMS ?If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EXPECTATIONSIt is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Round 4Round 4 is the last round, no new arguments are to be made in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DEFINITIONSDefinition of God = Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first moverNecessary = Something that is a required condition for something else to be the case---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Opening Statement & What this debate is about Objective morality means a morality that exists independtly of personal belief, that is to say things are right and wrong regardless if any person believes in them or not. For example if it is the case that rape is objectively wrong, then even if everyone believed rape was ok, it would still be wrong, because the moral rightness or wrongness is not dependent on what a person believes is right or wrong.Some have argued that the existence of God is logically necessary for objective morality to exist, that is to say if God does not exist then objective morality does not exist. But what reason is there to justify that the existence of objective morality is dependent on the existence of God ? Why can't objective morality exist absent God ?Until proven other wise, it is possible that objective morality can exist, even if God does not exist.I look forward to Pros reply
The existence of God is necessary for objective morality to exist

DefinitionsPro says"I wasn't attempting to prove anything with this alone; I was simply adopting a definition that would be easier for both sides to work with. Your definition of God fit the Christian God's bill and your capitalization of 'god' implied the Christian god, so I'm using the Christian god as the "God" referenced in the resolution. "I remind Pro that God was defined as "Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover"Moral Objectivism vs Moral AbsolutesPro says My opponent, in his opening speech, states that an example of objective morality would be some sort of moral law that is always wrong or right in any situation. These commandments are exactly that, and claim some are wrong in every situation. "I didn't, don't confuse moral absolutes with moral objectivism. Closing ArgumentsI am going to argue that Pro has not provide sufficient warrant to affirm the resolution. Here are the options regarding the existence of objective morality and the existence of God.1) God exists, objective morality exists2) God exists, objective does not exist3) God does not exist, objective morality does not exist4) God does not exist, objective morality does existAs Pro says " it's not my responsibility to prove that God is real, but to prove that IF he was real THEN that is the ONLY way objective morality can exist"In order to do that, Pro had to show that option 4 was an IMPOSSIBILTY. As I alluded too before, I could concede options 1,2,3 for the purpose of this debate. Pro has not shown that option 4 is an impossibility, thus its possible that objective morality does exist, even if God does not exist. As long as it even possible that objective morality can exist absent God, the resolution has not being affirmed. Pro says "My opponent is right here, that alone doesn't prove that God is necessary for objective morality. However, I've shown in round 2 under "ARGUMENT""Well lets look at Pros round 2 argument. Pro says "The resolution's wording says that there must be a God in order for objective morality to exist. In other words, IF there is a God, then objective morality exists and IF there isn't a God, then objective morality doesn't exist"I went over this in the previous round. Pro presents 2 options either. .. .. .. ..1) God exists, and thus objective morality exists2) God does not exist and thus objective morality does not existBut there is a third option. .. .. .. ..3) God does not exist and objective morality does exist. Once again, I can concede options 1 and 2, but option 3 is still on the table. Once again, as long as this option is still on the table, the resolution can't be justified. Vote Con. I thank Pro for participating in this debate. In hindsight, I wish I had made the resolution simpler, as there was too much argument on what exactly the resolution was saying and not saying.