BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Concludes that Abortion is Murder

Resolved: This house concludes that abortion is murder. Because PRO is making a positive claim about the conceptual interaction of two legal concepts (abortion and murder), he has the burden of proof. This is not a question of opinion, it's a debate of legal semantics. This is properly inferable because of (1) the nature of PRO's cited definition in the previous round and (2) his use of legal terminology. As such, his responsibility is to prove on a legal level, consistent with US Law, that abortion is murder. If he fails to do this, I win. If I prevent him from showing this, I win. In the interest of clarity, I want to offer some uncontroversial definitions that character space in rounds may be reserved only for argumentation: Abortion - "the termination of pregnancy by various methods, including medical surgery, before the fetus is able to sustain independent life." (1) (2) Murder - "Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. See Homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder. Some other states base their murder laws on the Model Penal Code." (3) In the common law, murder generally refers to the unlawful "killing [of] another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought....encompasses the following types of murder: (i) "Intent-to-kill murder" (ii) "Grievous-bodily-harm murder," (iii) Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodily harm." (4) Let us commence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Preliminary Sources: (1) http://definitions.uslegal.com... This is a simple definition of abortion that I use to introduce the concept. Additional sources may be later utilized to add conceptual clarity. (2) This definition includes both partial birth abortion (a), and abortion of other kinds. It is not sufficient for my opponent to argue that partial birth abortion alone is murder, because partial birth abortion is only a kind of abortion and it does not refer to the practice of abortion generally, as stated in the resolution. (2, a) Partial Birth abortion is "late-term abortion." http://definitions.uslegal.com... Partial birth abortion "is not a medical term...[but] a political one, and a highly confusing one at that, with both sides disagreeing even on how many procedures take place, at what point in pregnancy, and exactly which procedures the law actually bans." The term was "coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb. Alternately known as "dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E," it involves removing the fetus intact by dilating a pregnant woman's cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal." http://www.npr.org... (3) http://www.law.cornell.edu... (4) http://www.law.cornell.edu...
This House Concludes that Abortion is Murder

** For the purpose of screening candidates, this debate should be near impossible for you to accept. However, if you are interested in accepting, please make yourself known in the comments section. **It's no secret that the subject of abortion is my primary interest on this website. I am aware of the fact that the subject of abortion has already been debated endlessly and I have read several of the other debates on this subject - already. That said, when it comes to the "Abortion is Murder" debates I've found so far ... I've yet to find one where the arguments that I personally use to support that claim have been used. So, this debate is my attempt to present those arguments myself. Debate Structure 1. Five Rounds. Round 1 is for acceptance and opening commentsRound 2-4: Arguments and rebuttals Round 5: Final rebuttals and clarifications only. No new arguments.2. 10,000 Character Limit 3. Burden of proof (BOP) is primarily on pro but Con is encouraged to prove his/ her claims as they see fit. 4. This debate is in the Society category. Pro will argue against common perception that abortions are something less than murder. Definitions:MURDER: Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being.[1]All other definitions, terms and conclusions are open for Pro & Con to submit and then to debate according to the rules above.[1] Murder - http://www.law.cornell.edu...Suggestions on how to improve this debate will be considered. Please make your requests or suggestions in the comments section.
This House Concludes that Abortion is Murder

Many thanks to all judges who will have by now devoted a considerable amount of time to their reading of my debate with Chuz-Life. I apologize in advance for what will, without question, be a fairly repetitive final round. Although, in one sense, the fact that it will be repetitive does make it fairly easy to judge. This was a debate about abortion, as a matter of law in the United States, for the reason that my opponent made it so in the first round by defining murder by US law, in the introductory round. My opponent bore the sole burden of proof, because he was making a positive claim about what the law says -not what he'd like it to say. To win this debate, he cannot argue that because of certain ostensible semantic contradictions within the parameters of US law, we ought to consider abortion to be murder. That argument goes beyond the scope of the resolution, because this was a debate about what the law 'is' and not what he wishes the law 'were'. And yet, those were the only arguments he offered -therefore PRO cannot win today's debate. I, alternatively, had only to prevent PRO from showing that, as a matter of law, abortion was murder -and I did that by legally distinguishing abortion and murder in several ways. First, I argued that abortion does not satisfy the elements murder, either by common law or according to US code. Second, I cited supreme court precedent which legally protected women's right to seek abortions that precluded abortion's being classified as murder. Third, I cited specific clauses within US code that directly excluded abortion from being classified as murder -provisions of which PRO cited himself. Additionally, I have countered every single argument he offered. Simply put, if abortion is not unlawful, then it cannot be murder. I have amply demonstrated above how that is the case. I have shown how the principles of constitutional law even protects women's access to abortion, to such an effect that even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that fetuses are people, abortion is still both constitutionally protected, lawful and not murder -with the additional impact that such an argument negates entirely his perspective that abortion must be murder if people can be charged for two counts of murder if they kill a pregnant woman. Restated in the simplest of terms, the graphic horror of that notion notwithstanding, there is a difference between a person killing a pregnant woman and a woman who is pregnant with a non-viable fetus seeking an abortion. One is unlawful, the other is lawful and constitutionally protected because women have the right to medical privacy, as established in Casey. My opponent has ignored my arguments, grounded his arguments in egregious misunderstanding of US law on both the state and federal levels, ignored salient clauses in the very provisions of US code he's cited and in no possible way satisfied his burden of proof. As such, a CON ballot is all that is appropriate here. Peace and Love, YYW
Separation of powers

Separation of powers is beneficial when focused on power in the national government because it creates 3 independent branches of government with powers designated to each branch that can prevent the national government as a whole from abusing the rights of its people. Separation of Powers is beneficial when focused on national governments against state governments because this gives the states some immunity from anything they see as oppressive from the national government. This separation of state and national power actually prevents BOTH governments from abusing the rights of its people. People would be very happy with separation of powers both here and back in the late 1700's when is was conceptualized because in both cases they get a stronger more centralized government that can protect their rights, land, families, etc. from both state governments and the national government.
Separation of powers

The Separation of powers were designed to create a national government over the original 13 colonies to unite them into one union. To prevent such a national government from having complete control over the states though the government was separated into 3 different and independent branches so that the government could not abuse states and people against their wills. Separation of powers have allowed this country to have a strong centralized government to collect taxes, absorb the debts of the sates, etc. to create a stronger union of the states which would make them safer from foreign aggression. The anti-federalists were against the creation of a strong central government was because they feared that such a government would soon transform into the oppressive style governments in Europe. The separation of powers within the national government along with the separation of powers between the national and state governments created a compromise where the people could enjoy having a strong government. This government now had means to protect the people from foreign aggression but was not all powerful where this central government had supreme authority over the people. State power back then was so big that we weren't even a nation, we were a confederacy of states established by the Articles of Confederation where each state was its own territory/nation. This formed a very weak government though because the states lacked the ability to defend themselves from foreign aggression or even internal conflict. The Shays rebellion was a protest in the Northeast against a whiskey tax and the protest grew so large that the mob almost overthrew a state government. The separation of powers were installed into a national government to make the states in the union stronger but now lacked the ability to force its will on the people...... Separation of powers are a good thing whether you are referring to the overall power of the central government, or if referring to the rights of state governments against the rights of a national government.
Rematch Debate: God Exists

This is a rematch debate of ours, between Philocat and I. Please accept this debate. If you wish to debate something else, you can tell me, but I feel this debate shall be a great learning experience for both of us. After our intensely popular "God Exists" debate, with 215-odd comments that made it to the front page [. http://www.debate.org...], we're having the rematch. This shall, no doubt, be an amazing and interesting debate. I request that my opponent NOT accept till the 12th of May at 11:30 P. M. DDO time. Full ResolutionGod most likely exists. BoP is shared. DefinitionsGod - an omnipotent, intelligent, transcendent, immensely great, and all-seeing creator of the universe. Likely - probably; >50% chance of. Exist - have metaphysical/physical, objective reality. Rules1. A forfeit is not allowed. 2. No trolling/kritiks/deconstructional semantics. 3. All arguments must be visible in this debate. Sources may be within this debate or in an outside link. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teac

Thank you, ShadyM, I look forward to a good debate. -Please don't be an alt Definitions: K-12 teaching - Kindergarten through 12th Grade – [Citation: http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com...] Merit pay: - Basing an employee's salary on his or her performance, over a predetermined period and according to an agreed upon criteria. – [Citation: http://www.businessdictionary.com...] Con has left me the burden of stating my arguments first. I have divided them into two forms, the Benefits of universal merit pay and the benefits of Merit Pay to a K-12 Educational System. The two follow: 1) The main argument against Merit pay is "How do you assess student Achievement?" The attacks against this, is that annual tests and examinations show not the Achievement of teachers but of the Students' ability. Many Propositions exist to new assessment methods; they are listed below. --Propositions of measurable criteria.— I) Annual Yearly Progress – A system made by US department of education that assess children's results every year with standardized tests. Created by the Bush Administration in 2001 as part of the "No child left behind Act". II) Inspections like the UK's Ofsted (or Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills) inspect every 6 years that teaching is being carried out effectively and that the meet the standards of pay. Ofsted can adapt their rating system to decide on types on school salary. III) Teaching Skills Assessments, much like the TSAP for new teachers, but a test system universal to all teachers. The Mothod is done in a manner much like Normal Examinations. [TSAP site: http://www.teachingskills.org...] 2) Teachers in schools, especially public ones, suffer a very stressful job; in many Nations it retains its position as one of the 5 most stressful civil jobs. [Citation: http://news.bbc.co.uk...] ----- 3) K-12 Schools are in a lot of need for funding. Over past years K 12 schools in the US are facing increasing funding issues. Teaching standards have been in critique, over teaching strikes in last few years. Though the OCDE (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Say that the government spends $11,000 per a student on education needs K-12 still need funds. Official Government Education Site- Facts about K-12 schools: http://www.ed.gov... ::Citations:: http://www.ecs.org... Study into Teachers Stress: http://www.partnership.mmu.ac.uk... Official Government Education website: http://www.ed.gov...
Debates are useful and essential for a civilised society

1. My opponent concedes that "debate is not the only way to acquire knowledge of different people, ideas, art, or concepts." Therefore, debates are not "essential" to acquire knowledge. 2. It is possible to share different views with people through a simple conversation. It is also possible to share views with others through a heated argument. A debate is therefore not "essential" to the sharing of different views. 3. My opponent states that "debates are primarily based on opinion and not based on knowledge." If this is the case, what makes debates "essential" for a civilized society? We can exchange ideas and share opinions through everyday conversations. 4. Is debate sufficient to end slavery? Irrelevant. Is debate necessary to end slavery? No. 5. My opponent has conceded that debates are "not the only way to gain and share information." Since the function that debates play in our society can be met through other means, debates are thus not essential to society. We can replace debates with something else that does the same thing, and society would continue to function as it currently does. 6. The problem with my opponent's argument is that it confuses a sufficient condition with a necessary condition. It might be the case that debates are sufficient to gain and share knowledge, but it is not the case that debates are necessary to gain and share knowledge. Since my opponent clearly has the burden to prove that debates are not only "useful" but also "essential" to society, it is my opponent's burden to prove debates are necessary. My opponent has not met this burden.
Debates are useful and essential for a civilised society

Debating: to cite the Oxford English Dictionary; is 'a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote' but do debates serve a purpose; or are they merely stages in which contrasting opinions are presented and due to confirmation biases, people remain under their same beliefs as before; thus rendering it a futile exercise. I am arguing in favour of debates; that they are not only useful but essential for a civilised society.
Gun control results in a less violent society

I shall encourage my opponent, considering his opposing stand against gun control to provide his answer to the first 3 arguments that I have risen. Refutals: 1) Guns to be made more expensive(Not Gun Control): In order for this argument to hold either of the two following assumptions must be valid. 1-1) The rich people who are capable of paying whatever price for a weapon are automatically assumed to be non violent. 1-2) The ordinary people who must save money in order to buy a more expensive gun, somehow through the process of buying the more expensive gun, become non violent or at least less violent. I leave it to your proper respond to provide me with a reasonable explanation for either of the two above necessary assumptions. 2)" Whether guns are controlled or not, they will still be there. " Correction applied on "Wether " Though in a sense you logic is correct it suffers from a strong backlash. Under gun control, they may still be there but they will no longer be available to anyone in any situation. Without gun control a violent person with a hidden mental condition would go to a sport shop and buys the most lethal gun available without the slightest question. Under a reasonable gun control, however, if he wants to acquire the ownership of a weapon, he must first provide an acceptable reason. Most possibly this little step prevents him from acquiring an automatic. Of course sighting home defense he may succeed in receiving the first approval for a handgun. Next in order to actually be allowed to purchase a handgun he must pass a psychology test to prove the soundness of his mind, which most likely he will fail due to his mental condition. Even if he succeeds in somehow passing the test as well, what he might have gained in the end would possibly be revolver that he is ought to keep locked at home. The other scenario of course is that if he buys an illegal weapon of his desire. But now due to the presence of gun control laws he is a criminal, he has committed a crime and the law enforcement has the right of stopping the unauthorized weapon owner on the spot. Him being deprived of guns, he will not be able to put his potential violence into action and the society will remain safe.
Gun control results in a less violent society

Gun control results in a less violent society because 1) Census shows that societies with more restricted gun ownership laws are less violent. ref: http://news.nationalpost.com... 2) The exclusion of the guns from the society leads to less forceful law enforcement and therefore lower violence. 3) Under the presumption that Anger is the psychological by product of fear, by relieving the people from the fear of other people carrying guns, we shall succeed in reducing the social fear and therefore the social anger which leads to less violence.
I exist in this world as more than a consciousness.

First of all, I started the debate. Therefore, I decide who has to construct the first argument, not you. Next, you didn't provide a definition for metaphysics or epistemology, so I will. Epistemology - branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge [1] Metaphysics - branch of philosophy concerned with the ultimate nature of reality [1] Since, once again, I am the one who started this debate, I decide which one of these it is, not you. I intended for this debate to be one of metaphysics. We are not concerned with investigating origin, nature, methods, or the limits of human knowledge. We are concerned with reality. The reality of whether or not I exist in this world as more than a concious form. I have to create a reasonable doubt that I exist as no more then a conscious form in this world. You must prove that I exist in this world as more then a conscious form. I don't really need to provide an argument first because without extremely strong evidence, you can't prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that I exist in this world as more than a conscious form. I don't see how the matrix example proves anything in your favor. If anything, it destroys every argument you could make. If you argue anything in terms of the senses, your argument is instantly mute. A super advanced computer program, like that of the matrix, would be capable of tricking your mind, or consciousness, into believing that it was sensing things even though your flesh form is sitting in a tank feeding machines power in the real world. Remember, it was specified in R1 that we weren't doing conclusions.
I exist in this world as more than a consciousness.

"The first argument is yours to make." That maybe what you would prefer, but no. Pro and Con are merely issues of wording, your position is positive, hence the requirement for you to construct an argument. Either way your unwillingness to at least defend your position reasonably leaves this a 1 round debate. I'll explain more in the final round why this is important. Remember this is a debate about epistemology, not metaphysics. "I just have to leave the ability for one to doubt my existence in this world as more than a consciousness." The ability to doubt is not your R1 argument and irrelevant to the discourse in that sense. Being able to doubt is not the same as doubt that you have being reasonable - your actual argument. "You, on the other hand, must beyond all reasonable doubt that I have a physical flesh form in this world that can succumb to harm." What does the qualifier harm have to do with your R1 claim? "Suppose we live in the matrix and don't know about it." Cool. Discussion over. No reason to believe it no reason to doubt its opposite. See that was easy. It is not reasonable to doubt something with 0 proof as basis. :)
I exist in this world as more than a consciousness.

The first argument is yours to make. I just have to leave the ability for one to doubt my existence in this world as more than a consciousness. You, on the other hand, must beyond all reasonable doubt that I have a physical flesh form in this world that can succumb to harm. If you really want an argument, though, here's one. Suppose we live in the matrix and don't know about it. While there is a visible form, it's not one of flesh that can succumb to pain. It is a re-creation of my consciousness made of programs. My physical form that can succumb to real pain is in a bubble strapped to a column that provides machines with energy. Therefore, I wouldn't exist as more than a consciousness in this world.