BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A society's values are more important than the policy of that society's government.

Moral Value is a public liberty. Principle is a civil order and civil order is always more beneficial to society than civil moral value. This is because it describes a governed standard. A precedent is War, the act of War only occurs with the removal of principle, and it is replaced with moral value. The Value is wrong, but is addressing the justification for vengeance which is still a principle by your explanation above. Both education and War share a biased value of a separation process, driven by intelligence. Principles are motivated often outside human control and are basically displaced. The piece of metal it the fire is hot. Principle. (A person cannot keep the metal in the fire from trying equalizing in temperature) Vs. A piece of metal in the fire is hot when grabbed it can burn. Value. The principle here has more importance than the value of not getting burned. It take a great deal more energy to keep metal cool in a fire that it does not to touch the hot piece of metal in the fire. Going one step farther it is the principle of discoloration whit tells us not to touch the metal near or in the warm ashes either.
A society's values are more important than the policy of that society's government.

Thanks again for your response, John. I appreciate your thoughts here.Policies are not merely "governed moral value," any more than an engineered object is "governed design goals." At its best, the engineered object works to perform its design goals well, but sometimes the engineering is bad. Sometimes a car that is designed to be safe, in practice is still dangerous. Sometimes a car that is supposed to be reliable, turns out not to be reliable.It can be seen likewise in policy: A society might value something, and in an effort to promote what they value, institute a policy that instead detracts from it. For instance, a society could value education highly, but in order to promote that valued ideal, they could put many resources into a schooling system that uses dangerously poor teaching methods. In the name of promoting the thing they value, they could build something which, rather than increasing and improving it, actually had the effect of suppressing the love of thinking and knowledge in the students who went through it. In the name of promoting a value, a policy could actually not just not promote it, but actually be at odds with the value at hand.There is nothing wrong with having or pursuing good policy--Every society should naturally be eager to do so! But when we're looking at problems in society that appear to stem from lack of certain values... if the society doesn't have those values, that needs to be fixed first. Simply trying to enact (what would be unpopular) policy without first addressing the values, would be a near-hopeless situation.In conclusion: If we wish to participate in the best societies we can, it's wise to be aware of the difference between policy and values. When we are aligned on good values, the conversation is easy: which policy works best? But when the society in general does not share the same values, it's common to try to pursue policies without being aware of the values that must underlie them. And even in the most desperate of political turmoil, we can look at others, find allies in values (even if we are distant in policy) and work together in shared respect to spread our values to others. And even if we cannot find immediate allies, we have something to do! By influencing others toward we have a way to "move the needle" in the right direction, even if the movement is very small. And ultimately, a value change can make a huge difference, because a society's values are more important than the policy of that society's government.
A society's values are more important than the policy of that society's government.

You are welcome "Thoguth", we as people debate to understand if our idea deserves to be governed by others or ourselves. Basically do we agree or disagree with ongoing events, which idea might be better at saying what may need, heard by others, and placed in some kind of order. We always hope, dream, and think for as people we all can know what is wrong by simply seeing it. Political Policies are nothing more than governed moral value. Meaning policies when well written and Constitutional are simply much more efficient to keep regulated then any moral value. My argument is to make it easy for read to see why they should voter policy of morality. Or as you put it value. The need to explain can be summed up much faster with self-evident truth.
Change My Mind: Abortion should be legal in some or most cases.

I actually think that was all. I agree with your 4 permissible exceptions to murder, But yet again Abortion fills none of those. As I explained there is no such thing as an emergency abortion. Let"s go into the article in question which can be summed up in a single argument 1. The fetus has unique DNA, Making it a cell that is not the mother"s 2. The fetus is not controlled by the mother, Making it not the mother"s property 3. The fetus does not act randomly as a tumor, It multiplies in size with purposeful development (even if it is involuntary) 4. It"s behavior differs from every other human cell type, Making "choices" for itself. 5. The fetus is a human organism or human being Since my criteria for fetal personhood is still standing due As we have seen the heartbeat criteria fails in determining personhood Since that argument stands, The second one stands also. I await your closing statement. Have I changed your mind?
Change My Mind: Abortion should be legal in some or most cases.

Let's break this down First lets explain my prerequisites found in the article for a fetus being a living organism. (this is all found in the article as it explains it much better than I) 1. I provided the contention of DNA to prove that at the point of conception the zygote is not a cell that belongs to the mother. 2. I provided the contention of organized construction to point out that the zygote does not behave like a tumor (which is random and chaotic) or like any other ordinary human cell. I also should have said is constructing itself not preparing itself. Also, Regardless of whether or not the fetus is moving involuntarily is irrelevant. The point is it is not being controlled by the mother, It is moving by itself. I mean organized being that the fetus does not randomly develop, It goes step by step in specific order. These points are meant to prove that the fetus is a human organism or a human being. It is not another random human cell or a part of the mother. It is independent. The definition of person I provided is not one of my own invention. Person is a moral term and in philosophy that is what it means. Also, The plural in this sense is persons not people and philosophers use this term all of the time in discussing non human beings. "Yes, But what I'm arguing is that although it is somewhat time consuming, It is one of the most viable and safest options available to women, Especially considering a lack of public awareness for other methods. " No offense, But I think you are missing the point. Any emergency cannot be solved by abortion because the mother will die before she can get the surgical abortion. That is the point I was trying to make. "Let me be more specific, Once you cross the line into becoming a human you can't go back and will always be human" I assume you are referring to person-hood, But then by that logic would you regard corpses and skeletons as still persons? Conception until brain death is the only criterion that doesn't have immediate problems. Also, The line of heartbeat also limits abortions within the first 8 weeks. From what I understand at this point we both oppose second and third trimester abortions as well as late first trimester abortions. This cuts down the possibility of most cases and leaves the debate to only a few cases. "you are killing it regardless just like even though plants aren't persons killing them is killing. " "Exactly, Killing isn't equivalent to murder. . . " I never affirmed that abortion wasn't murder. That quote from me was way out of context. I said that you can argue that a fetus is a person, But regardless of your opinion abortion is still killing the fetus. I also appreciate that you gave the dictionary definition of murder. However, We cannot limit it to unlawful, Because if the United States legalized killing of human beings, Then even if you killed someone unjustified, It would not be murder. I will continue on my critique of your murder definition in my next speech
Change My Mind: Abortion should be legal in some or most cases.

"since the fetus has distinguished DNA from every other living organism" I would like to first point out that DNA is not the only prerequisite to qualify for life. You can find DNA in viruses yet they are not considered to be living beings. You can find your DNA lying around on almost everything you touch. "And behaves with an organized purposeful manner" I'm going to have to wholeheartedly disagree with you, While there is no general consensus to when babies began to voluntarily move, I've found a source disapproving of the notion that fetuses can voluntarily move. I would also like to ask if you could elaborate on the "organized" claim. "Foundations of Maternal & Pediatric Nursing" by Lois White pg. 128 "I argue that all living humans are persons, But they aren't the same term. " I can agree that all living humans are persons but I disagree with defining a person as "a being who isa member of our moral community" this is much too broad a term and more importantly, Person is usually used synonymously to human. When referring to "people" you will never hear anyone mention dogs&cats, Animals that are very much a part of our moral community. It is based on this that I can say things like Wall-E, A robot, Can not be considered a "person". "you are killing it regardless just like even though plants aren't persons killing them is killing. " Exactly, Killing isn't equivalent to murder and is generally not considered so either. Murder is the unlawful, Intentional, Premeditated killing of another human being without valid justification or with malicious aforethought. Killing (manslaughter) is to kill without malicious intent. Killing can be justified in 4 cases; Accident, Self-Preservation, Prevention of Violent Crime, And Protecting an Innocent. "What I am arguing is that any method of abortion cannot be used as an emergency treatment due to its time consuming preparation (surgical) or lack of capability (medical). " Yes, But what I'm arguing is that although it is somewhat time consuming, It is one of the most viable and safest options available to women, Especially considering a lack of public awareness for other methods. "if you need CPR, Then no one is required to help you because you have lost your person-hood. " Let me be more specific, Once you cross the line into becoming a human you can't go back and will always be human. "If a fetus is a human being that is preparing itself, How can you justify it's lack of person-hood? " Simple, The fetus while preparing itself to BECOME a functioning human being, If you somehow took a fetus out of the womb and disconnected the umbilical cord before it fully developed, The fetus would be incapable of survival and would promptly die. "Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. It would conclude "A fetus is a person"" My conclusion was that that I can only consider a fetus as a living being, Entrusted with the rights of all other human beings, Only after the first heartbeat has occurred.
Change My Mind: Abortion should be legal in some or most cases.

First, It's okay on the space limits, It will give us both a challenge. :P For your first objection to my definition, I would like to point to you to the article I placed in my opening statement. I didn't have time to sum it up, But the basis was that since the fetus has distinguished DNA from every other living organism, And behaves with an organized purposeful manner, It is a human organism or human being. I would like to point out that human is not the same term as person. I argue that all living humans are persons, But they aren't the same term. Human = a being of the species homosapiens Person = a being who is a member of our moral community So Wall-E can be considered a person even though he isn't human, For example. The article concludes that the fetus is alive. You can argue that it is not a person, But you are killing it regardless just like even though plants aren't persons killing them is killing. "This is where I firmly disagree with you, Women should always be given the right to a safe Abortion should their lives be at risk. " I am sorry about my phrasing there. I am arguing that even if the fetus dies accidentally, It is not an abortion and also if the fetus is killed during an emergency treatment, It can't be called an abortion. I agree that if the mother's life is at risk, That we should provide every method that we can to preserve her life. What I am arguing is that any method of abortion cannot be used as an emergency treatment due to its time consuming preparation (surgical) or lack of capability (medical). Any emergency treatment that is solely intended to preserve the life of the mother cannot be called an abortion, Because it involves neither medical or surgical abortion procedures. "It still isn"t an entirely foolproof method of treatment and I"m sure mistakes have happened. The only logical way to go around this would be to always allow a safe Abortion to be carried out" Abortion is not a foolproof method of treatment either (people can die from having abortions), And like I said is not an emergency procedure. ""Coma patients. . . " Let me stop you there. " I was using viability as an example of a common line opponents of mine like to draw for person-hood. I was demonstrating an example of problems that come from drawing lines of person-hood other than conception. I know that you are not making that argument, So I apologize if I attacked a straw man. Lets take the first premise of your argument. The person-hood line of heartbeat poses a huge problem. This means that if you need CPR, Then no one is required to help you because you have lost your person-hood. Second premise: If a fetus is a human being that is preparing itself, How can you justify it's lack of person-hood? It seems as though the fetus has just as much intention as any moral agent in our community. Also, Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. It would conclude "A fetus is a person" following the logic of your premises. Back to you
Change My Mind: Abortion should be legal in some or most cases.

Let the best man find the best solution. "Abortion is a medical procedure designed specifically to kill a fetus. " I would have to disagree with your definition here due to your wording, It"s common knowledge that when your heart stops beating within about 10 minutes all brain activity will cease and you will effectively be dead. Therefore if we apply that to life before birth we should only consider a fetus to be a living being after its heart has started beating which should occur during the first trimester. "I would like to hear which cases you would approve of Abortion, And which cases you would disapprove of the option of Abortion" The only things that occur during the first trimester is the neutral tube closure, The formation of the legs, Fingers, Toes, Arms, Spine, Basic organ systems, Facial features, Muscles, Vocal cords, And white blood cells, Therefore making abortion viable during the first trimester and before the heart begins to circulate blood. I do not believe that embryos are living beings, Yet. After the fetus"s heart begins to beat, However, I cannot and will not approve of Abortion afterwards as I would then consider an abortion to be the murder of an innocent baby having their future taken away from them. . https://www. Tommys. Org/pregnancy-information/im-pregnant/pregnancy-calendar/first-trimester-weeks-1-12 "I deny that Abortion can be accidental, Or is an emergency procedure. " This is where I firmly disagree with you, Women should always be given the right to a safe Abortion should their lives be at risk. It"s like you said, MOST life-threatening pregnancies are treated by inducing labor, It still isn"t an entirely foolproof method of treatment and I"m sure mistakes have happened. The only logical way to go around this would be to always allow a safe Abortion to be carried out, Funded by either the state or a private company (that"s another issue for another day). Secondly, The treatment of an ectopic pregnancy often results in the woman living and the baby either dying or being aborted to save another"s life. 1. All human beings from the tenth week of gestation (the beginning of the fetal stage where a heartbeat can be seen via ultrasound) are persons. 2. A fetus is a human being in the process of preparing itself for birth. 3. A fetus is almost a person, To the point where they should be given the same rights as any other persons. "Coma patients. . . " Let me stop you there. A coma patient, While dependent on others, In a vast majority of cases, Were previously independent or dependent on a parent/guardian. Being dependent on others is not enough to dehumanize you, If it was, The elderly and most young children wouldn"t be considered persons. An embryo is entirely dependent on its mother and will always be until birth. I will now wait for your response due to me not having the space to continue (my bad).
Change My Mind: Abortion should be legal in some or most cases.

I hope this will be an exciting, Informative, And respectful dialogue despite having opposite views; and will bring both of us closer to the truth, Whatever that may be. Now let's define our terms I affirm that Abortion is a medical procedure (surgical or medical abortions) designed specifically to kill a fetus. I deny that Abortion can be accidental, Or is an emergency procedure. The reason I deny it as an emergency or life saving procedure, Is that most life threatening pregnancies are treated by inducing labor. The treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is not a surgical abortion because it takes almost 3 days to dilate the cervix to prepare for a surgical abortion, And would be far too late to save the life of the mother. We can agree that legal can be defined as permissible by law I would like to hear which cases you would approve the option of abortion, And which cases you would disapprove the option of abortion, Before we go on further than that. Here is my first argument 1. All human beings from conception to brain death are persons 2. A fetus is a human being that is living post-conception and before brain death 3. A fetus is a person My defense for the first premise comes from the fact that you cannot draw a line of person-hood other than conception that does not also apply to humans we would all regard as persons. Lets take a common example Viability Coma patients are completely dependent on other people and machines to survive, They cannot survive on their own. Individuals with insulin pumps are not completely viable either to name a few. I cannot go into the full explanation of defending the second premise, So I will just provide a link to the article in which I got all of the information anyway. . https://lozierinstitute. Org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/ This would lead straight into my second argument 1. The unjustified killing of a person is murder 2. A fetus is a person 3. Abortion is the unjustified killing of a fetus 4. Abortion is murder We can agree that murder should be illegal due to the fact it is unethical. I do not have the space to continue my defense so I await your reply and will answer your objections as well as continue my justification of my premises as best I can. Back to you
Change My Mind: Abortion should be legal in some or most cases.

Since my arguments have remain unchallenged, I will now use my closing statement to prove the bodacity of armadillos Why Armadillos are Awesome Reasons why 1. 2 species of armadillo can roll up into a ball, Which already makes them better than people. 2. Nine banded armadillos can jump 3-4 feet in the air when startled, So they are natural acrobats. 3. The word armadillo is arguably the best word in the English dictionary, If you disagree try to say the word 3 times without smiling. 4. This baby armadillo here https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=3fs8tqTxEcM 5. Case closed
atheist are right

I'm not sure if a conclusion is necessary. Life is an excellent example of creation. For the material for life to assemble, all subatomic particles would need to assemble correctly, we would need the right molecules to for the right amino acids, to form the right protein. Don't let my simplification fool you, these steps are vey complex. right and left hand amino acids are usually created in equal amounts in experiments, they then combine with each other to form a substance which is useless to life. Even after we have a protein, there are many types of proteins. The right combination of proteins and other substances must form into a life form. There are many things that, if wrong, could instantly kill this organism. Even if the material of this organism were to form properly, which is astonishingly unlikely, something already in existence, other than a god would have to give it life. We don't even know if this is possible.
atheist are right

Your challenge was simply to prove that there is a god. Maybe that's not what you meant, but it's what you said. I'll gladly debate you against your meteor idea some other time if you give me you word that you'll take the debate seriously. Also, why start there? how about taking this debate seriously? There is reason for biblical accuracy, but even if I we to go out of the scope of this debate in mentioning that, I doubt that you'd even give it a look. You have provided nothing worth rebuttal. You made assertions without backing them up. Please take this seriously.
School

BOP BOP is on Con because he is arguing for a change in the status quo. If he does not meet his BOP, He loses. Arguments I argue that school is important because it is the only way for children to get an education. It also encourages teamwork and socialization, All of which help children to succeed in their society. There is not a country that does not have some sort of education in the world. I ask Con what alternative he would suggest for children/teens to learn besides school.
socialism will hurt the U.S. economy

This doesn't feel like a real debate. My opponent never challenged my definitions. In debate, silence is consent. Under my definition of socialism, a combination of social democracy and libertarian socialism, working people will be better off, there woud be full eployment, and the state would not become too powerfull. Judges, I woudn't be surprised if most of you agree with the Affirmation. Even if that is the case, an Affirmative ballot is woefully unwaranted when you consider the following: 1. The Affirmation never fullfilled it's burden to provide definitions. 2. The Affirmation never challenged my definitions, and in debate, this is equivalent to accepting my definitons. 3. The Affirmation's arguments ignore the very definitions which the Affirmation has accepted. 4. The Affimation never adressed my arguments. Like a broken record, the Affirmation makes the same point about taking money from working people, a point which has been rendered irrelevant by my definitions and arguments. The Affirmation never came close to fullfilling its burden. Vote for the negation.