BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should sport become compulsory

Thank you, play2win.My opponent has elected, perhaps strategically, to write 4 sentences in response to my slightly longer response. In doing so, my opponent has missed quite a few of the contentions, so everything that my opponent has not responded to is to be extended.Counter-arguments"My opponent yet again is creating an illusion of argument justification. Simply there has been no logical instance found in my opponents examples."Where does this "illusion of argument justification" occur? How has there been "no logical instance found in my opponent[']s examples?" My opponent, once again, commits the bare assertion fallacy in failing to provide evidence and/or argument for his claims [1]."My opponent was painting the picture that someone in Coma (Not alive or Active) is to be considered as "Part of the term Everybody""On the contrary, it is my opponent who has to argue that this is the case, given his first round resolution clarification: "Do you think sport should be accessible to the wider community, and should sport be compulsory for everybody ?" In light of this, the fact that my opponent is attempting to blame me, as if there is fault for arguing against a position that he/she has elected to take, is nonsensical."My opponent is suggesting that an infant who is yet to: teethe, walk, read or write, has the coordination skills to be playing sport otherwise will be imposed eviction by the federal police."Again, my opponent's position dictates that he/she argues this; it is not my mere suggestions alone that dictate my opponent argues this. The term "everybody" was used as a resolution clarifier in the first round: Do you think sport should be accessible to the wider community, and should sport be compulsory for everybody ? Please remember to extend my other, uncontested arguments, too.Reference[1] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
Humans can have morality without God.

I would like to begin by identifying why I have focused my argument religion in general and not just God. In response to your request inviting me again to "Read the title again, it says God!" I would like to draw your attention to your initial statement in round 1. You specifically stated that "Con will argue that God or a holy book teaches morality" therefore I see no reason that my choosing to expand my reasoning to holy texts and the value these religious teachings has on society is off topic in any way shape or form. Especially considering you specifically encouraged "No limitations on what to write in any round." Furthermore, you stated that "it was man that wrote the holy book that made religion's teachings, and therefore religious teachings came from man" you don't seem to take into consideration that any holy texts are Gods teachings and often interpreted as the words of God. Your argument appears heavily based around asking rhetorical questions about religion and generalised statements about parents teaching their children about morality. Religion has always influenced what we teach our children about what is right and wrong. The teachings that have been embedded into our society over countless generations to suggest that learning morality "has nothing to do with religion" is ignoring that many of the lessons that parents will convey to their children may have some connection to a religious teaching, no matter how vague. I see no reason why you cannot make a connection between someone's moral compass and their beliefs especially since the majority of what people do is motivated by what they believe to be the right thing to do. Religion still has a very strong influence over modern society, there teachings are generally well known to the majority of the population and it is impossible to argue that religious texts do not preach morality and encourage humanity to be charitable and kind. Taking this into consideration even if you do not practice a religion you presumably are aware of many religious teachings and even agree with some. Therefore, holy texts and religious teachings do play a very predominant role in conveying morality because they are so accessible and influential. Furthermore, even the very basics of religious teachings can be accepted by atheists as similar to their own believes.
Humans can have morality without God.

'A moral conscious isn't necessarily innate.' I didn't say it is, nor is this idea relevant in any way with any God. 'However, in order for that to support your conclusion, that humans can have morality without God, you would have to assume that this behavior is innate.' No, I most certainly do not have to make that assumption. Simple as it is, parents can teach the child right from wrong, not to stab people with pencils or burn animals or something. Dogs don't believe in God but yet they can still learn to love you, respect you through building a relationship and mutual love, and not act like they caught rabies. This is all done through learning from outward sources and not innate, and also that it has nothing to do with religion. 'It can be argued that the majority of complex human behaviors, such as what is and is not morally accepted by society, is learned and not necessarily an innate behavioral response.' This contradicts your previous sentence. 'Religion teachings are fundamental devices for conveying morality.' No they aren't. As the examples (and common sense) have showed, one doesn't need any teachings of any religion to have morality. One can lead a pretty righteous life without ever hearing of religion. 'I'm not suggesting that you have to believe in God in order to have a moral compass.' Me too, what a coincidence. 'As I also identify myself as an atheist however, I believe that religious teachings provide the necessary framework for learning and developing what is morally right or wrong.' Again, religion has nothing to do with anyone learning morality. Something to consider: even theists agree that the Bible or any other holy book was written by man, inspired by God; or that Prophets like Jesus or Muhammad were sent by God, giving us the first ever connection between man and God. So how did people acquire morality before that? Did everybody in the world need saving by your savior before he arrived here? And the people who were in Africa or China or wherever Jesus couldn't reach, are they doomed to a fate where they have no morality? I feel like spewing friendly fire in debating another atheist about this matter. Religion is nothing more than a spiritual support, a shoulder to lean on, to tell you you're loved in hard times. That's in no way bad, but don't start lashing out and saying everyone has to have a religion to have morality.
Humans can have morality without God.

A moral conscious isn't necessarily innate. You argue that morality is the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, and I completely agree with that definition of morality. However, in order for that to support your conclusion, that humans can have morality without God, you would have to assume that this behavior is innate. It can be argued that the majority of complex human behaviors, such as what is and is not morally accepted by society, is learnt and not necessarily an innate behavioral response. Religion teachings are fundamental devices for conveying morality. I'm not suggesting that you have to believe in God in order to have a moral compass. As I also identify myself as an atheist however, I believe that religious teachings provide the necessary framework for learning and developing what is morally right or wrong.
Humans can have morality without God.

Humans can have morality without God. Have morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Without God: Without knowing God exists (I believe he doesn't.) Pro will argue that humans can differentiate between right and wrong without God. Con will argue that God or a holy book teaches moralities otherwise unknown to man. Burden of proof is shared. No limitations on what to write in any round. ___ Well, here we are, again. Religion is just some kind of spiritual support, I'm not going to deny that, but don't ever use your holy book as a science textbook, ignorantly denying evidence and proof; and in this case, lashing out that only believers of your God have morality. Please, humans have the ability to know right from wrong without believing in any religion. Any child who grows up in an atheist society wouldn't behave like a bear or gun down everyone they see, even if they have never heard of God. This is a basic opening point. Good day.
The War on Poverty has Succeeded

The War on Poverty was declared by President Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 State of the Union address. Johnson's War on Poverty was an ambitious, bipartisan initiative to dramatically reduce poverty in the United States and to ameliorate the most deleterious material deprivations caused by poverty. With the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty last year, many conservatives denied the effectiveness of Johnson's achievements and recommended their dismantling. [1] So, I wish register a full-throated, proudly liberal defense of Johnson's programs. I believe that the facts will show that not only has the War on Poverty been effective in accomplishing its goals--it has in fact constituted one of the most successful set of policy initiatives ever undertaken by the United States.Definitions:War on Poverty: The legislative agenda laid out in the 1964 State of the Union and in the eleven goals contained in chapter 2 of the 1964 Economic Report of the President, titled 'Strategy against Poverty' [2] A list of the major legislation comprising the War on Poverty can be found at Table 1.1 here. [3] The War on Poverty also includes modifications made to the programs established by these laws by later administrations.I will not define what constitutes "success," as I generally think that gets into the substance of the debate - what does it mean to say that the War on Poverty has succeeded?Round 1 should be for acceptance, rules and definitions, no arguments.Round 2, principal argumentsRound 3, rebuttals of R2 arguments and further argumentsRound 4, rebuttals of R3 arguments and conclusions, no new argumentsComment if you want to accept the debate.[1] For example,http://www.forbes.com...http://www.washingtontimes.com...[2] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...[3] https://www.russellsage.org...
The War on Poverty has Succeeded

It's unfortunate that my opponent has not rebutted my round 3 arguments. In case you missed what I said in the comments, I missed the deadline but I also posted my arguments afterwards and they can be seen here: http://www.debate.org...I believe that I have proved that the war on poverty has led to stagnation in poverty rates, is skyrocketing in cost, and has unintentionally backfired on the very poor citizens that it was intended to help uplift. The war on poverty has led to perverse incentives where marriage, a very important catalyst in decreasing poverty, is less likely to exist in poor populations because of policies that make it more expensive to marry while on welfare.The war on poverty has created a welfare trap, where people who are given benefits find it difficult to increase their income and move up the economic ladder, as doing so may decrease the net income of their combined welfare benefits and salary. The war on poverty is a very well-intentioned fight that should be relooked at and changed to better help the poor find a way to uplift themselves from their unfortunate circumstances. It's hard to begin making these major changes when many are unwilling to admit this simple truth: The war on poverty has failed.
Individualism vs Collectivism

I see. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. I believe you give collectivism less credit than it deserves. The purposes many people find in life would not exist without it. Not sure why urls have been disabled in debate. Org, But here are sources for R2. 1. Https:// en. Wikipedia. Org/ wiki/ Hunger_in_the_United_States 2. Https:// www. Nature. Com/ articles/ nature11069 3. Https:// www. Youtube. Com/ watch? V=qdoJroKUwu0 4. Https:// en. Wikipedia. Org/ wiki/ Erin_Brockovich 5. Https:// highline. Huffingtonpost. Com/ miracleindustry/ americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/
Individualism vs Collectivism

Here we are again to talk about the flaws in humanity and the strengths people should bare. However, As usual, I make my following point in the hope that this will aid people. So then, Here is my thesis: Individualism should be preferred to collectivism because it allows the person to build themselves up and understand their strengths and weaknesses without relying on the flaws of other people, Other people who will never understand you as much of yourself. I am an introvert and come from a background where I had to grow up on my own, But I have not avoided groups for the entirety of my life. It was through trying to fit in with others that I saw the flaws in having groups. You see, No other human will ever care about you as much as you care about yourself. Your family, Though genetically related, Won"t understand every aspect of yourself, Even if you try to explain it to them. Your friends will understand enough of you to make it possible for you and them to converse, But they will always fail to take your place entirely. People simply can not understand every aspect of the person"I say this generally but there are some people who can interpret people quite deeply. With the faults in having a group, You get a chance to see how important it is to build yourself up. While a group can protect you physically, They can"t mentally. In fact, They may do great harm to your mind. The group looks out for itself, Not the members. A nation works to fix its problems not its people"s problems. Who then will help you if the group won"t? You have to fend for yourself. For every friend you gain, You must reevaluate your position in the world and check your beliefs so they are not crushed. As negative as this sounds, It"s a positive thing. People step on each other all the time. You know the group can"t protect you fully so you build up your own defenses to defend yourself. Now that you are safe because of yourself, You have a chance to explore what else about yourself has been hidden in the world behind others. Being independent allows you to open up, Even if it is to yourself. Of course, Too much individualism is a problem just as much as too much collectivism. Being distant from others allows depressions and loneliness to set in and prevents you from learning about the world around you. This is a dangerous occurrence that can rock the strongest of wills. However, When used in moderation, Individualism can bring more benefits than collectivism. Sure the group may exist because of superiority in numbers, By if you yourself are not strong, You never will be.
Abortion is a woman's right

Arguments 1. A human's body is their own property. If a homeless person were to wander off of the street and into your home and demand to stay there (using your food, oxygen, etc.) for 39 weeks, it would be within your rights to demand that he leave, even if his continued existence depended on your allowing him to stay and to use your resources. Many legal cases for trespassing have set the precedence for this. This is no different from abortion. You have the right to your own body, and as such, you have the right to decide whether to have an embryo or fetus live in it. 2. Abortion is not a matter of morality, but of public health. It is reasonable that everyone has the right to pursue health, as technological capabilities and medical knowledge permit. It is also expected that, should women be denied the right to an abortion, people will seek one out anyway, much like theives (who do not have the right to the property of others) steal regardless. The ways that women might go about performing "back-alley" abortions are dangerous and can easily lead to both the death of the fetus and the woman. An abortion in a medical setting, with sterile equipment, well-researched drugs, and an educated medical team are far safer. Because of this, it is a woman's right to have an abortion, because allowing a woman this right enables them to pursue their right to live the most healthy life possible. In summary, a woman's right to an abortion necessarily follows from other rights that are generally expected. To deny a woman an abortion would deny her those rights that are necessary for life as we live it. Rebuttal FLO Argument This argument is correct in that to abort a fetus would be to deny it a future, but it neglects to mention that, in many cases, it may also deny the mother to that same future, placing the fetus in a position that would give it a less-than-ideal life. Women seek out abortions for many reasons. Perhaps they can hardly provide for themselves and would not be able to support a child, they are not fit to be a parent because of mental health issues or substance abuse, they do not want to be a parent (and thus lack the motivation to raise a child properly), or for any other reason that would make them unable to provide the fetus with a "meaningful future". In this case, it would be wrong of the mother to carry the pregnancy to term, for the exact reason that she would be denying the fetus a "meaningful future" if she were to do that. Depending on her reasons for seeking an abortion, by forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, you would be knowingly and willfully denying her would-be child a meaningful future, and -- by your own argument -- that is not your right. Moral Justification for Abortion As described in my arguments in favor of the resolution, abortion is a woman's right because it is a necessity of rights extended to all people, such as the right to one's own body and the right to pursue the health of that body.
Abortion is a woman's right

Hello everyone, emospongebob here. I'd like to thank Andromeda_Z for her willingness to debate this topic with me and I would also like to thank any future voters who happen to vote on this debate. Firstly, I would like to offer some definitions.abortion- the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus [http://www.merriam-webster.com...].rights- legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory [http://en.wikipedia.org...].The burden of proof in this debate shall be shared.To avoid semantics and technicalities, we shall be arguing over abortion in general. This means that extreme circumstances such as rape, ectopic pregnancy, etc. will not be touched. Stipulations-Me:R1: Rules/DefinitionsR2-R3: ClashR4: Final Rebuttals/Crystallization/ConclusionMy Opponent:R1: Acceptance/ClarificationR2-R3: ClashR4: Final Rebuttals/Crystallization/ConclusionRules-1) Two forfeits results in an automatic seven point ballot in favor of the other side.2) No trolling.3) No profanity.Other than that, there is nothing else I feel I need to add, so I turn it over to my opponent.
Abortion is a woman's right

1. " In pregnancy through consensual sex (as I'm sure my opponent understands), two parents jointly commit themselves to the action of intercourse and they are aware that a zygote (and later, a fetus) will be created because of their actions. " The parents are not necessarily aware that a zygote "will" be created. In many cases, pregnancy is as accidental as it can be. If partners make use of both hormonal birth control and condoms (which, combined, make pregnancy almost impossible) or one/both partners is sterilized (which is almost perfect in preventing pregnancy), and a pregnancy results from it, they will have taken every reasonable action to negate the unwanted consequences of sex and should not be held liable for consequences that ought never to have occurred. This is akin to saying that, if someone were to choose the safest model of car available, drive carefully, and always wear a seatbelt and one day got in an accident and lose a limb, they ought to live with the lifelong complications of that missing limb (instead of obtaining a prosthetic limb) because they chose to drive a car. "If someone comes onto your property and attempts to use your resources, then your response should only be to kill them if they pose an imminent threat to your life i.e. self-defense." An abortion would be an act of self defense because carrying a fetus removes life resources from the woman. The trespasser analogy is imperfect for this exact reason. While it conveyed my general point, it has no way of illustrating the difference between sleeping on someone's couch and siphoning away the food a person eats and the air they breathe. 2. I'll drop this. I don't have enough time to write out this whole round and if I have to leave out anything, it's this. Sorry! FLO Argument My argument was not that the FLO argument was wrong because it denies a woman the right to a meaningful future. I concede that the FLO argument is correct that to deny someone a right to a meaningful life is wrong. My argument was that the FLO argument as you used it was wrong because to deny a woman an abortion would deny two people a meaningful future, while permitting that abortion would only deny one person a meaningful future (this is assuming that the fetus is not miscarried or stillborn through no fault of the mother). Maybe I should have written that more clearly, but there isn't much I can do about that now, so I apologize. Moral Justification "I showed in my FLO argument that abortion is probably generally immoral." Abortion is less immoral than denying said abortion, assuming we are only looking at the FLO argument, as I showed in my rebuttal to that argument. My moral justification for abortion was outlined in my first argument.
Should we be involved in the war in Irag!

ok first off it isnt your place to say what is valid and invalid that is for the voters to determine. However you are right Isreal is attacked because of there religous beliefs primarily, but that was the same reason we were attacked. right afterwards we responded. They could easily do suicide bombings here like they do overthere, however there is a fear of punishment here unlike there. but i think Isreal is the only country we can compair it to. Another issue for why we should be over there is that internationally America is veiwed as the police force of the world. (wether you agree or not that is a diff debate) and in my opinion we injoy our freedoms in fact we even take them for granted. but people in other countries dont have those freedoms. so shouldnt we provide them a way to establish that. clearly under sadam they werent getting that. hell people from Iraq who lost in the olympics were placed in giant paper shreders feet first by him just so they could be heard screamingr. along with dropping them in hot tar. Sadam used many forms of torture among his people. he even tested military weapons on his own people so if that was you wouldnt you want someone to step in. (this is another stand point) I do appologize i did misinturprate what you wrote with the Afgan thing. but then again places that knowingly harbor terrorist such as Iraq, Afgan, Saudi, Iran they should all be held equally responsable. History will always repeat itself unless you do something to stop it. if we would have sat back it would have happened again.