BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Is Immoral: Rape Was Considered A Minor Crime

First off in ancient and modern society marriage is a big deal. If a man raped a woman in modern society he would spend a few years in prison. If a man raped a women in ancient society he would have to spend his whole life with someone he most likely does not know. He would also have to pay a decently high price to her father 50 silver coins was a lot of money! I would put sources and expand my argument but I got two more rounds... "Sigh"
Free will is an illusion

My closing argument will be very simple. My opponent added variables to my scenario. Consider if you will that I am equally close to both shirts. Also consider that I have all of the time that I could ever need. As was stated, THERE ARE NO outside forces. Do I not have a choice? Answer for me these questions: Can you predict what I will do? Always? Since you can do neither, that must mean that I have free will. Otherwise, you would know what I would do. I rest my case.
Free will is an illusion

Alright rouge, good comeback. :) "I am at a store buying a shirt for my band concert. The shirt has to be either black or white. I hate both. My favorite color is blue. Both the black and white shirts are the same price. They are identical in everything but color. My parents don't care which one I choose. The stimuli is neutral. Can I decide for myself? Absolutely. The stimuli do not favor either shirt, and I am free to act on my own accord" Of course you can choose, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's "free will." Your mind still had to process a decision, and the ability to process a decision is dependent on your collection of knowledge. Here are some instances in which you might not seem to have any outside influence attributing to your decision, but it still does: 1) You get whichever one is closer. 2) Your running out of time and you just "grab" one (he he, you see the outside influence there was the fact that you were running out of time) Well, I can't think of a huge list of things, but still, you get the point. One last thing before I post, as a programmer I know that when your computer "seems" to process a random decision... it really isn't random (of course the ability to make a random decision is free will) . You see, the computer runs an algorithm that is respective to time, thus as the time changes so does the output. Still, even if the influence is spacetime, there is no such thing as a true random decision. :) I rest my case for now
Free will is an illusion

Hmm, interesting points. I am going to summarize my opponent's arguments, and please tell me if I am mistaken. You believe: -We are made of parts -We respond to stimuli -The environment controls us by providing stimuli -If stimuli exist, then free will does not -If there is void, there is no self-awareness, thus no will Correct? Well, let me give you an example of free will here: I am at a store buying a shirt for my band concert. The shirt has to be either black or white. I hate both. My favorite color is blue. Both the black and white shirts are the same price. They are identical in everything but color. My parents don't care which one I choose. The stimuli is neutral. Can I decide for myself? Absolutely. The stimuli do not favor either shirt, and I am free to act on my own accord. The resolution is negated.
Free will is an illusion

Alright then rouge. Thank you for creating this debate. Now, you are aware that since we are made of parts, our minds perceive information, processes it, and gives feedback. You know, reacting to stimuli. How we react is based on what we perceive through our environment. So in a strange way.... your environment has control over you moreso than you think you do of yourself. When it's all said and done and you examine quantum physics, all of your reactions are based on your environment. Now, as far as free will goes, it is the belief that we can make decisions without ANY outside force or influence. We can "act on our own." Sound's like to me that this means something should be able to make a decision without it being a mere product of their reaction to stimuli. Yet, I doubt this is possible. If free will were to exist, there mustn't be stimuli, and one could exist in absolute voidness and manage to make a decision. Now keep in mind, for their to be absolute voidness, there may be no senses (no taste, no touch, no hearing, no feeling, no sight), no way to contact anything. Though one may be conscious, I doubt one would even be self - aware, since there would be no knowledge that would serve as evidence that would allow such a being to interpret it's very existence. What I sincerely challenge my opponent to do is give instances in which free will actually came into play. I'm pretty sure I will win this debate simply because there is no proof supporting the existence of free will. :)
Abortion is Wrong

"You can sufficiently live independently...*"*I changed independantly to independentlyAlso, to simply refute 75% of your argument, you are not a biologist who has determined that the baby is alive. If you are, please do not waste time on Debate.org. Please submit your thesis to Harvard so they can declare that the baby is alive, I said earlier that all aspects of life considering the fetus cannot be proven, therefore you cannot conclude that abortion is murder.And yes, if the things I depend on to live, oxygen, food and water, if those decided that I should die- good argument you put here- decided I should die, then they decide I should die.Your development "rebuttal" actually helps my case, and you clearly did not read my entire argument if you think I said they can survive completely independently. You went to talk about how crippled people don't show less value, but who are you kidding? They cannot work as efficiently as others, they cannot perform tasks like others, so yes, their value has decreased. And you talked about hospital patients, what rights do they have? The nurses are legally obligated to save the person, or to at least try, because that is their job. A woman is not legally obligated to give life to a fetus. And no, when talking about euthanasia, we are talking about the person in pain. The woman is in pain. And if you have agreed, whether directly or by not refuting it, the baby does not show consciousness, but you think it feels pain? And you think the baby feels more pain than the mother in an abortion? To say this would be ultimately sheer insanity and I am sure you cannot even convince yourself of this.And, once again, you are trying to convince people that the fetus is alive without any concrete proof. Let's go murder this rock. Why can't you do that? Because it's not alive. Okay. Done.Thanks.
Abortion, except for in life or death cercumstances is immoral or unethical.

Thanks to my opponent for their rebuttal, but there are a few things I need clarity on.I am not sure exactly what you mean when you say about congenital birth defects "But I must say that in such drastic circumstances the mother would most likely not have the choice to have an abortion, or at least a clean abortion that would work properly, and in these circumstances they may not even have the rational to want to have an abortion." Why would the mother not have a choice? Late term abortions are done all over the world in situations like this. Additionally, please could you also please explain to me what "a clean abortion that would work properly" is. This is an extremely vague statement,and I would like some clarification on this, as most abortions that I know of are effective, especially when they are been done for things like congenital birth defects. Then you also said" in these circumstances they may not even have the rational to want to have an abortion." What does this mean? It makes no sense, I would think it means that if someone knew their child was going to die in a month of birth they would be very rational. However, I am not sure if this is the correct interpretation of this last sentence.It seems that my opponent agrees with me though on this congenital birth defect argument, which means that my opponent does agree that abortion is valid in circumstances which are not life or death. Like I said some congenital birth defects can lead to life outside the womb for a month. Even when we apply a narrower criteria of life and death circumstances for the foetus.Regarding the quality of life argument. My opponent said that "since we can not get into their mind we can not decide what they would want, as in being born or not." That's why I said in my round three argument that " The mother of this unborn child has a far greater appreciation of what life is in these circumstances. Out of respect for the unborn child they may decide to terminate the pregnancy, and should we deny them this right?" So it seems that my opponent agrees with me about this, or am I misinterpreting what he is saying.I also have to take issue with the closing statement of my opponent which said "our brains essentially adapt to survive, so they may very well enjoy life more than never having been born." While the survival instinct is inherent in animals so they can pass their genes,I am still not sure how anyone could say a slave or child prostitute is having a good life.Back over to my opponent.
Abortion, except for in life or death cercumstances is immoral or unethical.

I may not have made my argument narrow enough seeing that I pretty much agree with my opponents last argument. But I must say that in such drastic circumstances the mother would most likely not have the choice to have an abortion, or at least a clean abortion that would work properly, and in these circumstances they may not even have the rational to want to have an abortion. I would also like to say that my opponents opinion of those environments can not come into play, though many or most people would agree they would not want to live in such an environment, since we can not get into their mind we can not decide what they would want, as in being born or not. Also since they have always lived this way they may not mind so much, kind of like how as a westerner I wouldn't like to eat a dog but people in other countries eat dog all the time, people become accustom to different environments, our brains essentially adapt to survive, so they may very well enjoy life more than never having been born.
Abortion, except for in life or death cercumstances is immoral or unethical.

I agree with my opponent you did say abortion should be allowed in life or death circumstances. However in some of these cases I mentioned the baby is viable and can live for one day,one week, one month or one year and then dies due to the congenital problem.(1) In the case of HIV, they experience life, but have the burden of never been able to have children themselves or in many cases never been able to experience sexual pleasure.(2) So in this case it is not a matter of life or death, it is a matter of is this life of pain/inconvenience worth it? So in this case you say it should be the mothers choice? This means in effect you are changing your premise for abortion as stated in the debate,as like I said in some cases the baby is viable, but will live in suffering.I just want to make clear at this point that I am not advocating in anyway to take away a women's choice for abortion. If a women wants to not have an abortion and have a child that will die within a month of birth that is her choice. I think it is cruel and despicable, however that does not mean I do not afford her that right.The quality of life issue is again where my opponent and I disagree. My opponent has said in the last round and I quote: "Also again with the life quality we can not say that someone would have rather not been born at all than having been born and becoming some form of slave. At least they will have had the privilege of experiencing the so precious gift of life". Now I agree life is precious, and I love my life everyday. I also agree with my opponent that there is always hope for a better life. However would I love my life if I was forced to have sex everyday for someone else's financial gain? My answer in this situation would be no. Additionally, how often do we hear these hopes stories? Often and they are always touted by media and pro life advocates, however the truth is this is a very small minority of cases.(3, 4)This is why I think we need to think rationally about this, as poverty is something most people cannot comprehend as they have not lived in the poverty that some people live in. Everyday my opponent (I believe as he has the Internet) and I go to the bathroom and turn on the tap and get clean water. We go to the toilet and we can flush the waste away, we can turn the light in our room on when it gets dark so we can read our printed books. In poverty stricken areas, there is no bathroom, there is no clean water, there is no sewage treatment, there is no electricity, there is no printed books. So when we judge and say at least these children get to experience life, how are we defining life. The mother of this unborn child has a far greater appreciation of what life is in these circumstances. Out of respect for the unborn child they may decide to terminate the pregnancy, and should we deny them this right?Back over my opponent(1) http://www.who.int...(2) http://www.nytimes.com...(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(4) http://www.nytimes.com...
Abortion, except for in life or death cercumstances is immoral or unethical.

To begin my rebuttal I would like to point out that I did say life and death circumstances, that includes mother and child in circumstances in which it is most probable that the fetus will not make then we should leave it to the mother's decision. Also again with the life quality we can not say that someone would have rather not been born at all than having been born and becoming some form of slave. At least they will have had the privilege of experiencing the so precious gift of life, there is only one chance of life for each individual and they can never have that chance again once they are gone, and the people who are in those poverty ridden situations there is always hope that there is something better out there.
Abortion, except for in life or death cercumstances is immoral or unethical.

Thank you.I think my opponent has shown as I did in my first argument that abortion or quality of life is highly dependent on the parents. While it is easy for us to brush this aside and say it should not be a deciding factor for abortion, I don't believe it should be that easily put aside. To live in a society of perfect programs that look after unwanted children (i.e. adoption, homeless shelters, orphanage's) then we can say yes, there is no reason for abortion. However, this is based on the perfect world system which is beyond the stark realities that exist in most third world countries. (1, 2) Additionally, 80% of the people in the world live on less than 10$ a day.(3) In other words 80% of the worlds population lives in a reality beyond what most of us consider acceptable.With this knowledge of poverty, we have to also accept the fact that quality of life is not always an option for unwanted children. That is why we have child labor, child prostitution etc. (4, 5) which happens in not just third world countries, but first world countries as well. So while my opponent says who should decide what the quality of life etc is, I think most people would agree that an essential part of life is actually been able to live your life and not be enslaved.My opponent also brought up an introduction to a point I wanted to make in this debate, and that is why should we be able to decide whether or not a foetus should be born. I can think of a few illnesses that warrant abortion of a foetus like Edwards syndrome,(6) AIDS,(7) congenital heart defects,(8) etc.(9) If we do not abort these foetuses then all we are doing is giving this person/child a year or more of excruciating pain. This may make some people happy, but is it right? Is it right to make an infant suffer in pain, so we can pat ourselves on the back and say we respect life. If that is respect I want no part of it, if anything it is downright despicable behaviour.Back to my opponent.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://www.nationsonline.org...(3) http://www.globalissues.org...(4) http://www.justice.gov...(5) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...(6) http://en.wikipedia.org...(7) http://en.wikipedia.org...(8) http://en.wikipedia.org...(9) http://www.who.int...
Abortion, except for in life or death cercumstances is immoral or unethical.

Someone can argue that it is the woman's choice because it is the woman's body, but what about the fetus's body/life, I really can not see any real good reasons for aborting a potential intellectual life form. The child's quality of life is a very good point on my opponents side, yet who would decide what the level of quality of life etc. My second point is that why should we get to decide whether or not it would be better for the fetus to not have been born in the first place, why not give it he/she a fighting chance in our world. Also the parents fiscal can not play a roll in the decision because of a number of circumstances, including adoption as my opponent pointed out, or in the case of Chris Gardner, struggling with homelessness wile caring for his son, became a very wealthy man after taking an internship as a stockbroker.
Abortion, except for in life or death cercumstances is immoral or unethical.

I will gladly accept this challenge from my opponent. My opponent has stated he cannot see any real good reason for aborting a foetus accept for life or death circumstances. So I am glad he agrees on this, as after all the mother does deserve to live.My first reason why I think abortion is moral and ethical is quality of life of the child. If the parents cannot afford the child, then its quality of life can very negatively affected, and it can be argued that the child may be better of never been born. For example ,the child could get sold into prostitution (slavery) or on the other hand the child could get adopted by a loving family. Is this a choice my opponent is willing to let happen though.I hand the debate back to my opponent.
Abortion, except for in life or death cercumstances is immoral or unethical.

It seems that even with the admission by my opponent (that he should have made the argument more clear) that he does agree that abortion is valid in circumstances other than life or death. The example I gave of congenital birth defects leading to early death my opponent was willing to accept as a valid reason for abortion. While we still disagree on the quality of life issue, I think this comes down to a determination of the infants/adolescent/adults life quality which can never be pre-determined. This for me is something the mother should be able to decide as she live in the situation and chances are the babies life may mimic her own. My opponent disagrees as he says life can get better, and I also agree with him on this. However, most often than not it does not get better. (1)I took this debate up as the question formulated is in my opinion wrong and detracts from important abortion issues. While my opponent agrees he should have defined his debate better I think even titles like this can make people lose focus of the bigger picture. Abortion is valid in circumstances other than life or death of mother or foetus and I believe I have shown this in my debate. Again thank you to my opponent for a fun debate. (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion, except for in life or death cercumstances is immoral or unethical.

I guess for round five I will clear up my round four and add a closing statement. As for not having the choice or the rational to have an abortion, I was alluding to in a slave situation where the slave owner would have the say in weather or not they have an abortion, the slave owner may want them to have the child so that they have more slaves etc. and not having the rational comes from not ever being taught about abortion meaning that in such a poor country they may not have even been taught what is happening when they become pregnant, if that makes sense. I was not referring that in the case of a birth defect that where the baby dies in a week, that they wouldn't have the rational but that the people in such an impoverished nation or slave situation. As for a clean abortion that works, that would be an abortion with clean equipment that doesn't harm the mother or create any discomfort for the fetus besides killing them of course, and even in non late term abortions they don't work because of improper technics meaning the baby is born normally. When I said that our brains adapt I was alluding that we become accustom to our environment whether we are born in it or we are placed in it, I am not saying that a slave or child prostitute is a good life, but when we are making choices that effect others we have to take their feelings into account, which my opponent did, but it seems he did not take the child's feelings, whether or not we think that their feelings are wrong about it, in a sense all of the slaves and child prostitutes out there may not find their lives so bad that they would rather never have been born. As for the congenial birth defects, they may be alive for a week and die, well in that sense congenial birth defects would be a life or death circumstance, so it applies to the premise. So next time I may have to define my argument in round one to clear most things up, but basically in the simplest, I just don't think that there is not any real reason for someone to have an abortion except for in the most extreme circumstances.
Non-Evidence Driven Policy Debate - 2010/2011 Topic

The Contender (Affirmative) picks a topic created within the last 5 years by either the National Forensic League or the Cross Examination Debate Association. 2. The debate will follow Policy Debate format. 3. All arguments do NOT require evidence. The burden of evidence is completely optional and should only be used for important points or points that are not common knowledge. 4. Round 1: Setup/1AC Round 2: 1NC/2AC Round 3: 2NC-1NR/1AR Round 4: 2NR/2AR 5. The last 2 speeches for pro (Affirmative) have a 5,000 character limit. Whereas only the last speech for con (Negative) has a 5,000 character limit. The rest of the rounds can be maxed out 6. Topic, Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey. I would like to wish my competitor luck, and I look forward to the debate!
Non-Evidence Driven Policy Debate - 2010/2011 Topic

Probably the worst possible round he could have forfeited... Extend all of my arguments. Judges, keep in mind 3 things: 1) No new arguments in his next speech. 2) I should have had an opportunity to respond to arguments he may decide to make in his next speech. This is especially true with the Iran Disadvantage since I read new evidence in the block. 3) In policy debate, you are stuck with your 1AR arguments in the 2AR. He gives none, so he drops each of my off case arguments. Each of them present an independent reason to vote negative and have literally no attacks against them. Either way, thanks for what debate we did get accomplished.
abortion

Why would human life in this country be treated as anything other than equal. You say that the baby cannot vote drive or own property, this is similar to both you and I, neither of us can vote, drive or own property, yet we are both treated as equal people. In your rebuttal you say 'just because it is morally wrong to remove an egg and a sperm' the egg and sperm fuse upon conception to form 46 chromosomes and 1 cell. The cell then splits to 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 and so fourth... To abort a baby is to kill a human life, it is not as easy as removing a sperm and an egg. In conclusion, abortion is nothing more than murder. Killing the purest forms of human life is not a line in the future of this country.