BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Technology brings more good than harm

Just going to do a quick line by line. " Without technology, mankind would still be considered as animals trapped on a planet, unarmed and unfit to fight for survival and unable to complete even the simplest tasks. Therefore, technology brings more good than harm." There is literally 200,000 years of human existence and survival happened just fine before anything you'd consider technology even existed. Humans can survive on very little as evidenced by are ancestors doing it for at least 180,000 years. "Even though mankind uses technology for some disadvantages, technology must and can be used to surpass all conflicts between one another, maintain peace throughout the globe, as the essential tool for survival, help all living creatures in the state of evolution, and teaches us the true meaning of hope" On the contrary. Technology has made conflict easier. We can send planes across the globe to kill enemies we wouldn't even have if it weren't for us being so interconnected because of technology. When you consider that because the world is so connected diseases like Ebola can spread across the globe faster and easier, meaning a plague could more easily destroy the worl, we have enough nukes where if we were to go to war with another nuclear powered country we could end all life on Earth. Technology isn't our savior. It is in fact enslaving us like my last round showed and may even be the thing that wipes humanity of the face of the Earth. "inescapable in our lives and has proved essential to mankind. Therefore, it is conclusive that humans and animals needs technology" That's irrelevant to the resolution. The question posed is "does it do more harm than Good", which it most certainly does not "Is it essential for survival", which is debatable. "Your first point ,which stated global warming was caused by technology, is in fact a probability, not conclusive. Even if technology caused the occurrence of global warming, global warming can be overcome by technology I gave evidence to support that conclusion and you've merely asserted it's not true instead of addressing my arguments. My arguments stand and I extend them. "One day, our societies will replace everything that pollutes to things that doesn't, from cars that runs by petrol to cars that runs by solar energy, from burning fossils to generating wing energy and many other." speculation, nothing to support these beliefs. This is just a bare assertion at it's finest. The trend is more pollution and global warming and I see no evidence of those trends stopping. Even so, without technology to start with global warming wouldn't be a problem. I gave evidence for how autonomy was destroyed under my section entitled "harm to humans". I've shown billions of animals tortured and bad drinking water. The best pro does is show how these things can be mitigated with technology but these things are harmful no matter what
Technology brings more good than harm

Thank you for your participation in this debate. As I have mentioned earlier, I have stated that technology is crucial to the survival of all living creatures. Technology is inescapable in our lives and has proved essential to mankind. Therefore, it is conclusive that humans and animals needs technology. Next, I will point out the faults in your points. Your first point ,which stated global warming was caused by technology, is in fact a probability, not conclusive. Even if technology caused the occurrence of global warming, global warming can be overcome by technology. How so? Well, technology has changed when it began entering the new era of clean and sufficient energy. As we all know, scientists of today have invented solar panels and wind turbines, that supplies us clean energies, which doesn't pollutes. One day, our societies will replace everything that pollutes to things that doesn't, from cars that runs by petrol to cars that runs by solar energy, from burning fossils to generating wing energy and many other. Besides that, you stated that many people does not have access to safe drinking water, but do you know that's a company in Switzerland invented a water filter, called the LifeStraw. It is an excellent example that technology can overcome any problems and make it better. http://en.wikipedia.org... Other than that, it is normal for humans to have farm animals as they are food to us. As your point, you said that animals were treated badly. However, little did you know, there are also animal sanctuaries and forest reserves to protect them in their natural habitats. For example, http://woodstocksanctuary.org.... When technology gets better, our civilizations stays in a stable position resulting mankind to be capable of compassion. That way, we get to do more than just survive, we'll be able to help others in survival, and maybe more. Moreover, technology will never control us as technology is a part of us ever since the dawn of mankind. We earn our living with technology as our stepping stone for success and use technology to maintain peace and order. Without technology, there will be chaos and our society will never be suitable for our future generations to grow in. Lastly, there are no evidence referring that the loss of the human autonomy was actually caused by the superior rise of technology. In fact, there are no relation between these two things. The information you gave merely explain the definition of autonomy, not how these two things relate. In conclusion, technology can and will bring us more good than harm, and bring us hope rather than chaos.
Technology brings more good than harm

Harms caused by technology- Damages to the environment. A. Technology is the main factor behind global warming. We know that global warming is man made and a result of the industrial-technological revolution is because of the amount of low isotope carbon-14 found in the atmosphere. Something that mainly comes from burning fossil fuels. . http://ossfoundation.us... B. More then 14,000 people die from drinking polluted water every day [1]. Nearly half a billion people do not have access to safe drinking water [2]. I've only mentioned the human element so far. This pollution is also causing extremely harmful affects on underwater ecosystems as well. The sources of this harmful phenomenon is mostly human caused and as a result of technology. If you look at the sources of water pollution in the cited article you will come to the same conclusion [3]. [1] . http://environment.about.com... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Harm of the industrial-technological society on Animals. Factory farming has reduced animals to mere cogs in the machine. Animals are out in cages that are extremely crowded . They live their whole lives barely able to move. [1] They are on many occasions force fed in a way that causes extreme damage and pain [2]. They are debeaked [3]. This is just a short list of the abuse these animals take to feed the industrial-technological system. [1] . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] . http://m.humanesociety.org... [3] . http://www.mercyforanimals.org... Harmful affects to humans It's not just animals who are reduced to mere cogs in the technological society. Humans have almost lost all autonomy. We have been reduced to wage slave [1]. Are movement is extremely controlled. We must walk on the side walk follow green lights, stop at red ones. [1] . http://www.whywork.org... Psychological affects on humans. Humans have a great need for the feeling of autonomy [1]. People have fought and died for their right to have autonomy. Often when people are suffering depression they claim to feel like they have no control over the direction of their life. Autonomy is an innate human desire that isn't going away despite the fact the more the technological beast grows the more us humans lose our autonomy. [1] . http://m.psychologytoday.com... CONCLUSION Technology is destroying the environment and our freedom.
Technology brings more good than harm

Technology, is used around the globe, from the invention of wheels to the futuristic Google glasses. To indicate whether technology does more harm or more good, I will list out points on why technology does more good than harm. First of all, technology can bring us one step forward towards a much better future. Technology is created ever since the existence of mankind during the prehistoric times to ease mankind in completing any difficult tasks and to expand the horizon of the impossible. Most importantly, technology is used in many ways, such as to bring mankind into deep space, discover new resources, create new cures for various diseases, and many more. Without technology, mankind would still be considered as animals trapped on a planet, unarmed and unfit to fight for survival and unable to complete even the simplest tasks. Therefore, technology brings more good than harm. Other than that, technology is needed for survival. Mammals, such as West African chimpanzees and Brazilian capuchin monkeys, uses technology in the form of stone hammers and anvils to crack nuts for food. Besides that, beavers make dams and bees make honeycombs. These are examples of the importance of technology. Without technology, survival is a challenge for both mankind and animals. Therefore, technology is essential for survival. Even though mankind uses technology for some disadvantages, technology must and can be used to surpass all conflicts between one another, maintain peace throughout the globe, as the essential tool for survival, help all living creatures in the state of evolution, and teaches us the true meaning of hope...
should abortion be legal at all

"If potential life was that important then we would all be horrible people for not having sex constantly because we would be denying the life and potential of all the unused sperm and eggs."Except a sperm or an egg by itself only has the potential to give potential. Sperm and eggs are only as useful as a lung cell or a skin cell by themselves. It's only when these cells are applied that it gives birth (literally, sometimes) to something much greater.My opponent also fails to mention how not wasting our sex cells, "would clearly not be to our benefit". I assume she means in something like overpopulation. Considering her main goal is, as she says in my third point, "saving real lives," overpopulation is clearly not on her mind. After all, only 6% of abortions are for the health of the mother (1)- such a thing would negate that notion of killing unborn children to keep us in population check, so to speak."One of the main problems with outlawing abortion is the use of unsafe 'back alley' abortions."It goes without saying that back alley anything is hazardous to one's health. There are people who get back alley drugs. Odds are that some of these drugs are dangerous. Should we just legalize every drug just to stop people from selling/buying it in secret? Of course not. Just because something's done illegally does not mean that we should just make everything legal so that the crime/death rate goes down. Just like with drugs, people know the consequences of having a back alley abortion. I'd like to think nobody gets an abortion from somebody who's doing it in secret because what they're doing is illegal. Obviously, this is not the case. Such acts are not safe, people have the knowledge it isn't safe, and yet continue to do it anyway, just as they would with drugs or smoking. "Since legalizing abortions would reduce deaths, I am actually saving real lives, unlike my opponent."What do you mean "real lives"? As my opponent said herself in Round 2, "The fetus is in fact is a life. That point cannot be argued or disputed." The fact that you're using blurred lines in definitions to benefit whatever your particular argument is is essentially doublespeak. My opponent made some valid points on the side of pro-choice (or at least pro-life with the exception of rape and health of the mother). But much of her argument hinges on those that face complications of those who are pregnant- We musn't forget that just like having a child or an STD, death is one of the adverse side effects for those who become pregnant. This sound harsh, but we should face this fact like we would with drugs or smoking or drinking or even fast food. My opponent cited a source that said, "In the developing world, having a baby will be the riskiest thing a woman will do." We should treat it as such.1. http://www.birthmotherministries.org...
should abortion be legal at all

". Any human fetus, on the other hand, has about a 100% chance of growing to become a human being like you or I." My opponent's argument is that we are extinguishing the unborn child's potential. This is true, but is not a reason to outlaw abortion. If potential life was that important then we would all be horrible people for not having sex constantly because we would be denying the life and potential of all the unused sperm and eggs. Since this would clearly not be to our benefit, the importance of potential must not be very big. One of the main problems with outlawing abortion is the use of unsafe "back alley" abortions. "Unsafe abortion is believed to result in approximately 69,000 deaths and millions of injuries annually. The legal status of abortion is believed to play a major role in the frequency of unsafe abortion. For example, the 1996 legalization of abortion in South Africa had an immediate positive impact on the frequency of abortion-related complications, with abortion-related deaths dropping by more than 90%. Groups such as the World Health Organization have advocated a public-health approach to addressing unsafe abortion, emphasizing the legalization of abortion, the training of medical personnel, and ensuring access to reproductive-health services." [1]. Since legalizing abortions would reduce deaths, I am actually saving real lives, unlike my opponent. I beleive a woman has a right to her body and to dictate what goes on with it, and that it is inevitably the choice of the mother in order to decide whether she wants to have the baby or not. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
should abortion be legal at all

"Of all pregnancies anywhere, 15 percent will have a potentially fatal complication. In the developing world, having a baby will be the riskiest thing a woman will do. "You remember in high school during sex ed, where the teacher would go through a list of things that can go wrong from having sex? Having a baby, getting STD's, etc.? Death should be chalked up right next to those. Pregnancy can be potentially dangerous, and it's safe to assume that most people know this. The same goes for cigarette smoking and drinking and eating fast food- we are all well aware of the risks involved, and we take those into account. Perhaps this sounds callous, but it's true."Is a fetus really a human life?"I predicted that this point would come up sooner or later. The simplest way to answer this entire question is to show the fact that the murder of a pregnant woman is two counts of homicide. If a pregnant woman is killed in a car accident, it is considered two counts of manslaughter. This is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act at work. (1) If a murderer killed his pregnant wife and provided more than enough evidence that she and she alone was going to have an abortion, would the judge and jury simply nod their heads and say, "Well, if she was going to abort the child anyways..."? No, of course not. This would be comparable to saying, "They were going to kill themselves anyways." The murderer would still face the same two counts of murder- one for the mother, one for the child inside of her."If ending a life were considered murder, we could be put on trial for stepping on an insect."This would be a comparable example if the insect had the potential to grow into a being like you or I. This is practically impossible. Any human fetus, on the other hand, has about a 100% chance of growing to become a human being like you or I. If you could show me such positive evidence that an insect had the potential to become a rational, emotional, thoughtful and intelligent human being, you can bet I wouldn't step on it. "While a fetus may be a life, it does not start to develop characters that humans share until around 20-24 weeks."The amount of days or weeks at which an unborn baby can feel this, that or the other is irrelevant. Sometimes, a person in a deep coma cannot feel pain. When taken off their tubes and life support, they too can die. Should we treat this person as we would a fetus? Of course not (although sometimes we do); that would be barbaric. We should treat them as human beings, again with potential to become fully functioning ones again. Writing them off on something as simple as whether or not they can feel pain or survive by themselves is not a good measure of human status.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
should abortion be legal at all

Foster care is often very awful for the children. Abuse is ery common. http://m.ktvu.com... http://www.kvue.com... http://www.azfamily.com... And what about Abortion in cases where it could danger a mother"s life What happens in a situation where the mother could die from the pregnancy? If abortion is banned, the most obvious answer is that she will die. Whether this will or will not occur a majority of time is erroneous, but claiming that abortion should be outlawed all together would give no choice to the mother in this situation if it did actually happen. These are just a few facts on how many pregnancies can be fatal. "Globally, an estimated 287,000 maternal deaths occurred in 2010" "Of all pregnancies anywhere, 15 percent will have a potentially fatal complication. In the developing world, having a baby will be the riskiest thing a woman will do. " Is a fetus really a human life? The fetus is in fact is a life. That point cannot be argued or disputed. The next logical question one may ask is whether or not it is a human life. So how do we define what makes us human. I would argue for the fact that the fetus would have to exhibit pain, feelings, emotion, and conscious. It must have some type of senses. If ending a life were considered murder, we could be put on trial for stepping on an insect. An insect is a life, and almost anything we can imagine is in fact living. This is in fact almost impossible to show and prove at what stage it develops these qualities, which is why it is such a controversial issue. This varies from state to state and is also a huge reason that late term abortion is banned. One of many studies shows this. "Anand argues that because fetuses can respond to stress or other stimuli at 20 weeks, abortion after that point causes them "severe and excruciating pain." The bulk of the scientific literature on the subject, however, finds that the brain connections needed to feel pain are not in place until at least 24 weeks, which is also the earliest possible time a fetus becomes viable outside the womb. Anand's testimony has been used to justify state and federal laws banning abortions after 20 weeks; those efforts have passed in nine states since 2010." "Dr. Kanwaljeet "Sunny" Anand, a University of Tennessee professor of pediatrics, anesthesiology, and neurobiology who has promoted the idea that 20 weeks post-conception is the point when a fetus begins to feel pain. None of this evidence follows or aligns with almost any other scientific research done on this subject" While a fetus may be a life, it does not start to develop characters that humans share until around 20-24 weeks. In fact, 88% of all abortions in the United States are obtained within the first 12-13 weeks. http://www.prochoice.org... http://www.aafp.org...... sltoday.com http://thelawdictionary.org......; http://www.princeton.edu......
should abortion be legal at all

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic.It goes without saying that rape is an absolutely horrible thing. It would be unfortunate if, on top of this rape, a pregnancy were to occur. But that does not, by any means, demean the life of the child inside the woman. Hypothetically, if you found that you were the result of a rape gone wrong, would you wish you never existed? Perhaps, for the sake of your own mother, but it does not mean your life is worth less, or nothing at all. Just because you were an "accident" does not mean that you can't be of worth on this planet. Your life's value does not drop to zero based solely on the fact that you were not intended. Considering that your life is merely an extension of the one inside your mother's womb, doesn't your life still have that same worth?In worst case scenarios, the option of adoption is always there as well. A mother, if she cannot bear the reminder of her rape, can still give her child to an orphanage, where many eager parents would love the opportunity.
Psychological Egoism

Thanks for accepting YYW. The reasoning behind saying 'Psychological Egoism is true' is very simple. Obviously, actions that appear outwardly selfish fall under Psychological Egoism. Actions that do not appear outwardly selfish, such as giving money to a charity, helping a friend prepare to give a speech, or spending time doing volunteer work around your community, are less obviously connected to Psychological Egoism. Yet, we can trace selfish motive if look deep enough. You might give money or do volunteer work around your community, because you get a good feeling from doing something that you've been taught is good, and you know that if you didn't act in the way you were, you would feel guilty for omitting to help. You would help your friend prepare for a speech because you would feel uncomfortable if he bombed his speech, so you do your best to avoid that happening, so you can avoid feeling uncomfortable. The same general concept can be applied to instances where there are things you don't feel like doing, but, conversely, you don't want to suffer the consequences of not doing that thing even more. For example, running. I'm a Cross Country runner, and on days where there is not practice, I don't always want to run, but I do, because I want to suffer the consequences of not running (i.e. feeling like crap at the next practice) even less than I want to suffer through a run. At the end of it all, everything is traced back to either making ourselves feel good, or feel bad. This is only natural, as we are conscious, thinking creatures. I could go on ranting, provide new examples and showing how they swing in my favor, but frankly that would be unnecessary, and a waste of everyone's time. I have shown the general principle behind Psychological Egoism, and shown how it applies even when it seems we are doing something unselfish. I assume the majority of the typing I do in this debate will be in the effort to refute the examples my opponent will bring forth that attempt to show a situation where Psychological Egoism is false. Thanks for reading.
Psychological Egoism

I want to clarify for PRO and Judges what CON's burden actually is in this debate. The resolution is: "Psychological egoism is the thesis that we are always deep down motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest." PRO's burden is to affirm, while CON's burden is to negate. That means that PRO must show that people are always motivated only out of self interest, while CON must show that people are NOT always motivated only by self interest. CON does not need to show that a person, or people, act with purely altruistic motives, though if that is the case, it would sufficiently negate the resolution. I accept.
Psychological Egoism

Definition:"Psychological egoism is the thesis that we are always deep down motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest." I will be defending this thesis, and my opponent's objective should be to show that there are instances where a person acts with with purely altruistic motives. First Round will be for Acceptance. Any questions, please ask in the comments before accepting. Any confusion that arises that could've been avoided with a simple question will be your fault, and the voters should show that.